Slashdot Mirror


Cell Phone Jammers: Coming To An Event Near You?

DarwinDan writes "The L.A. Daily News has an article about Cell phone jamming to prevent terrorists from detonating bombs remotely. Jamming technology is already being used "to protect President Bush." An interesting quote from the article: "Public safety is more important than public convenience.""

42 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. That's great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a small price to pay to guard one of our greatest treasures... G.W. Bush!

  2. "Convenience" versus safety by JessLeah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A wise man once said "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."...

    Of course, it's only arguable that cell phone usage is an "essential liberty", but then again you can argue just about anything on the Internet ;)

    1. Re:"Convenience" versus safety by DaHat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a good thing that I've got my cell phone handy to call 911 with in case I see possible terrorist activity! Oh wait...

    2. Re:"Convenience" versus safety by jimicus · · Score: 3, Insightful
      A wise man once said "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."...

      Somewhat appropriate, then, that they GET neither liberty nor safety in 95% of cases.

      They lose the liberty to use their cellphone.

      They don't get safety because anyone who really wants to blow something up isn't going to be deterred by something as small as a cell phone jammer.

    3. Re:"Convenience" versus safety by Graftweed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well yes, I think you're stretching it just a wee bit by saying that cell phone usage is an essential liberty ;)

      Imho the real danger lies when someone takes small steps that eventually DO lead to a loss of liberty. If you can't make a big jump, then do a lot of small ones that you can rationalize individually.

      A >> B >> C >> D

      A to B is perfectly logical, likewise B to C and C to D, but if you step back and look at A and then D you're probably not going to like what you see.

    4. Re:"Convenience" versus safety by in7ane · · Score: 3, Funny

      "public safety IS public convenience" Surely it would serve both by not having GWB at an event in the first place?

    5. Re:"Convenience" versus safety by avalys · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're at an event important enough to warrant one of these devices, I doubt the authorities are depending on citizens' 911 calls to tell them about emergencies. The police have this nifty gadget called a radio...

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    6. Re:"Convenience" versus safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      [i]The police have this nifty gadget called a radio...[/i]

      Good thing the terrorists can't get those, or they could remote detonate bombs even with their cellphones jammed!

    7. Re:"Convenience" versus safety by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just yell out "BOMB!!!!!". Someone will notify the police the old fashioned way of screaming.

    8. Re:"Convenience" versus safety by 3Suns · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is in the precedent it sets. Once the public gets used to cellphone "dead zones", people will start using jammers in other areas for other reasons. How about at a movie theatre or concert? A fancy restaurant?

      Another jamming cellphones doesn't just cause a problem by preventing citizens from dialing 911. Many public safety personnell, like detectives, part-time police, and firefighters are on call for duty via their cellphones or pagers. What happens if they can't be contacted in an emergency?

      --

      -3Suns

      ~~~~
      The Revolution will be Slashdotted
    9. Re:"Convenience" versus safety by surprise_audit · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The police have this nifty gadget called a radio..
      Which raises an interesting point - is this a broad spectrum jammer, or just cellphones?? You can get:

      1) low power walkie-talkies in Walmart for a few bucks. Range is maybe 100 yards, which would be enough.
      2) radio control for model aircraft. Range is 1/2 mile or more and it would be really easy to make a servo operate a switch.
      3) it really isn't very difficult to make a spark-gap transmitter, with a wide-spectrum frequency range.

      Any of those would be sufficient to remotely trigger an explosive device. And over at Scitoys.com there's a very simple design for a laser communicator made from a laser pointer and a solar cell...

  3. What about 911? by MKalus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't THAT safety as well?

    Besides, if someone wants to detonate a bomb they will find a way, and if they have to press the button themselves.

    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  4. What about the other frequencies? by tvh2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So sell phones are only a few frequencies out of the million that could be used to transmit "trigger" signals to bombs. What's to stop a terrorist from using some cheap VHF handheld to denonate their bomb? If they transmit the code over airport security frequencies or whatever, you can almost garuntee those won't be blocked.

  5. I can picture it now... by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Oh my! That looks like a bomb! I'd better call 911...wait, why isn't my phone working?!"
    ...Followed by an explosion a few minutes later.

  6. bob marley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're jammin', jammin',
    And I hope you like jammin', too.

  7. Rediculous by Noose+For+A+Neck · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I hope their doing broadband jamming - it's not as if cellphones are the only means for wireless communication.

    Other than that, this is just yet another textbook example of the Bush Administration stomping all over the constitutional rights of its citizenry (but he hasn't really been very supportive of free speech from the get-go anyhow, so you shouldn't be surprised.) When are people going to get pissed off enough at this outrageous behavior and finally vote him out of office? He still seems to be ahead in the polls. Get it together, Americans!

    --

    Software piracy is victimless theft.

  8. really safer? by ejaw5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Public safety is more important than public convenience"

    I'll bet many of the survivors of Sept. 11 2001 made it through because of cell phone communications.

    Okay, so lets say you DO run some frequency jammers...and some terrorist decide to use another means of communication to carry out their plans. Now you have a large number of people with no communication outside the affected area. Police/Medics will have a longer time of arriving to the scene. It will take longer to locate injured persons.

    --

    $cat /dev/random > Sig
    1. Re:really safer? by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      An explosion at a Glasgow factory last week caused the building to collapse, and some of the people trapped inside managed to contact the emergency services by cell phone, making them easier to locate. There hasn't been any suggestion that terrorists caused the explosion, but if a jammer had been in place and had survived the explosion, more people may have died.

    2. Re:really safer? by Ironica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll bet many of the survivors of Sept. 11 2001 made it through because of cell phone communications.

      In fact, we know that cell phone communications probably saved quite a number of lives on September 11, 2001. The folks on the fourth plane found out what was going on via their cell phones, and that's what made them decide to overwhelm the hijackers and crash in an empty field instead of whatever the intended target was.

      Frankly, it's hard to kill someone with a cell phone. It's a lot easier to save someone with it. So taking away the ability for EVERYONE to use them in most cases will cause more harm than good.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  9. Public safety of whom? by gorbachev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This sort of thing does very little to protect the people at large, while inconveniencing them quite a lot.

    The politician on the podium, however, has no use for a cellphone, so s/he won't be inconvenienced at all, while his/her safety is increased.

    Once again it's public policy taking care of their own. Seems to be a hallmark of this administration.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  10. How terrorists will respond to this by DrXym · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Change code from:

    IF kaboomSignal THEN
    blowup
    ENDIF

    To:

    IF NOT dontKaboomSignal THEN
    blowup
    ENDIF

  11. Ah the illusion of safety. by kidlinux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok. Cell phones are jammed. What about the hogillion other frequencies that could be used to trigger the detonator? What about a timed detonator.

    And don't forget the terrorists favourite method - suicide bombing.

    I think cell phones are just the most convenient method. They'll find another way in a hurry, you can be sure about that.

    --
    -kidlinux.
  12. Another act in "security theater" by mariox19 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm no radio expert, but isn't it still possible that you could simply use some other kind of transmission, rather than cell phones? Say, ham radio, police frequencies, citizen band, or whatever?

    Blocking cell phones seems to me to be what's called "security theater." It's all show to make people think they're safe, and (more especially) that the government is "hard at work ensuring the nation's security." (Blah, blah, blah.)

    This is good theater, too, because it is something that affects almost everybody at an event, so they're sure not to miss noticing the "hard work." Why, it'll be the talk of the town!

    At most, this is 10% security, 90% public relations.

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    1. Re:Another act in "security theater" by The+FooMiester · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agreed. "Security theater" indeed. This is because there isn't much the government can do to stop terrorism. The "War on Terror" is fuzzier than the "War on Drugs", because terrorism is more dynamic a concept.

      And yes, creating a radio controlled detonator is pretty easy.

      If they're doing cellphone jamming, it'll actually make detonators more reliable on other frequencies. There won't be that RF burst when a call is taken and the mic on the phone is opened. Which means less premature explosions.

      --
      The previous has been a secret message to my comrades.
  13. yeah, and does this jammer by way2trivial · · Score: 3, Interesting
    block pager frequencies?

    walkie talker freqs (49 mhz)

    block fm radios?

    block am radios?

    block ham radio?
    block light?

    unless it's a faraday field in a box, part of the EM spectrum will get through... boom

    to paraphrase lelo, bada boom..

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  14. LOL! by John+Seminal · · Score: 4, Funny
    "The military has airplanes that can fly over and block an entire city. A lot of hospitals use them to prevent cell phones from triggering someone's defibrillator."

    And exactly what number is that? I had an old math teacher in highschool... err... nevermind.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  15. Safety is about mitigating risk by csoto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which of these is a far more likely risk factor?

    1) Terrorists using cell phones to detonate bombs (which can be done with a simple mechanical timer far more easily)
    2) Fire, heart attack, drowning, etc. wherein using a cell phone to dial 911 could save lives?

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  16. Public Convenience? by mdwh2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's all very well trying to make it look a balance between public safety and public convenience, but I can't help feeling that if you or I did this sort of thing, we wouldn't be charged with being a nuisance to "public convenience", but quite probably under some terrorism law?

    It's very debateable whether the possible loss of life due to disruption to emergency services and the general terror and panic caused to the public is less than the possible lives saved (which requires both that there is a terrorist attack going to happen, and that they are reliant on mobile phones).

    Of course, everyone bending over backwards to ensure Bush's safety is nothing new. When he visits the UK, it costs the British taxpayer $8.5 million for security (meanwhile, UK visitors to the US can look forward to such fun as photographing and fingerprinting, but that's another story).

  17. Re:Jamming in the city by Nurseman · · Score: 4, Informative
    A lot of hospitals use them to prevent cell phones from triggering someone's defibrillator. A lot of devices in hospitals are frequency-controlled."

    Sorry, I've been working in hospitals for 25 years and never seen this happen. Just not possible. Defibrillators are NOT controlled by radio waves. I guess some very sensative telemetry montitors can be interfered with, but I have never seen this happen either. I think this is a little FUD by hospitals, because cell phones are annoying to people trying to recover.

    --
    Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
  18. free speach by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Funny

    was designed to apply to political speach. You have the right to speak out against the government. You do not have the "right" to public obsentity, profanity, any of the myriad of things "artists" claime are "speach." Using a cellphone is not "speach," although it's "speaking." Where the hell do you have the right to a telephone, anyway? Maybe the 9th amendment. But that's a stretch. Cell phones piss me off. seriously. Personally, I think they should be so prohibitly expensive that only doctors and drug dealers can afford them. The drug dealers could easily be culled out. Then only people who actually have emergencies would be able to interupt the public serenity.

    and just to cover godwin's law and make sure no one replies:Nazi Himler Hitler SS Bush Cheney Eva Bruan is hot.

    1. Re:free speach by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An actual emergency made worse by cell phone jamming:

      Citizen 1: "Hello, hello?". "Dammit, I can't get through on this thing."

      Citizen 2: "Better just assume its a normal hijacking then.

      As they slip back in their seats, Citizen 1: "Okay, we'll cooperate fully. We don't want anyone to get hurt."

      The terrorist smirks. Some time later, Flight 93 slams into the White House.

      The above scenario is obviously fictitious. The passengers of Flight 93 did not have their cell phones jammed. They did find out about the other planes hitting the WTC, and they did choose to sacrifice themselves to save lives.

      But as cell phones have already proven their usefulness in saving lives during a terrorist attack, it is ridiculous to be jamming them now.

      Regarding the issue of telephone rights:
      1) The government, using my tax money, set up the 911 service so I could get the help of police, fire, etc. if I really need it. Use of this service requires a telephone. As often 911 calls deal with the safety of the community (bank robbery, finding trapped people in a disaster, terrorism), jamming them endangers the community.

      2) Cell service is paid for. Under the Fifth Amendment (Bill of Rights), I require compensation if the government disrupts it.

      Movie (December 1998): "The great devil will come from the sky!"
      Video Subtitle (Summer 1999): "The King of Terror is coming!"
      American Version (May 2003): "The King of Terror!"
      Moll, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks" / "Rebirth of Mothra 3"

  19. Another pointless technical solution by warm+sushi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is somewhat like banning cars from an area. Sure, cars are a convenient way to move people, but hey, it could also be used as a delivery mechanism for an explosive!

    Hasn't anyone in America clued up to the idea that 99% of the impact of Terrorism is exploiting FUD? In allowing the freaky controlling elements of society to make life impossible for the rest of the sane people, don't you lose so much more?

    And don't give me that "if we can save just one life" crap. If that's the case then ban cigarettes, alcohol and McDonalds. Hell, ban religion and guns while you're at it.

    For goodness sake! Stop letting the terrorists run your lives for you! They're winning! Wake up!

  20. Just how far will this go? by John+Seminal · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "The FCC rules are clear," said Travis Larson, spokesman for the international Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. "Jamming is illegal, but whether there is an exception made for law enforcement is a decision the FCC will have to make."

    While I think most people will agree that jammers are okay to stop terrorists from blowing things up, I don't like the idea of all police having access to this. It seems to be the slippery slope. There is a valid function for this, but then it gets extended and extended. I say leave it to the air force, if there is a need they can fly a plane over the area and block everything. Then afterwards they will have to explain. Don't give it to the police, where 1000's of departments and chiefs of police might decide for themselves when and how to use it. Plus, everyone has heard stories of bad apples in police departments. The last thing they need is a method to shut down communications.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  21. Re:Jamming in the city by mike449 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A jamming device is much more likely to interfere with the hospital equipment than a cell phone. By definition, jamming requires more power than communication, and it has to be spread over wider frequency range.

  22. a more important use by painehope · · Score: 3, Funny

    the hell with the president...I say we start putting these things in SUVs and Lexuses ( Lexi? ).

    No more soccer moms meandering all over the road, screaming at their kids and yapping on their cellphones!

    --
    PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
  23. Re:What about 711? by kunudo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they knew what they were doing, they'd just get a java-enabled cellphone, and if it wasn't called within some time gap, and the signal suddenly dropped to 0 because it was being jammed, the phone would detonate the bomb based on that. Jamming is just one more hoop they have to hop through to set off the bomb.

  24. Re:Not really practical by wfberg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not that there aren't hundreds of other ways around this useless technology, but your suggestion would just cause the bomb to blow up as soon as the terrorist carried it into the protected area, most likely having no effect on the intended target (who would be at the center of the area, not at its edges).

    Bombs are usually planted in advance. This has several benefits for the bomb-planters, among those being not getting arrested and not getting blown up.

    Still, a good old timer does the job as well.

    Using some sort of over-the-air detonation can have benefits as well though; for example, say terrorists plant a bomb in some police cars. Upon seeing one of the compromised police cars (they are usually numbered right on the roof) close to the target, they detonate.

    They could even just use the police frequencies, since those are unlikely to be blocked, especially when there is a large police presence. Remember, they're terrorists, if they feel like using off-limits frequencies, they can. (If you want to call 911, you're stuck with licensed frequencies).

    --
    SCO employee? Check out the bounty
  25. Re:At the movies by mikis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's what I was thinking, that jamming cell phones in theatres and restaurants would be a good idea. But, remember what happened recently in Russia, when Chechen terrorists took hostages in Moscow theatre.

    In that situation, you might call (or SMS) for help, tell how many of them are, where they are, what weapons do they have... Unless your mobile was jammed.

  26. Also used for silencing theatres and such by rastakid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read a while ago about this technique also being used to switch off mobile phones in places like theatres, cinema's and churches. So, it has yet another 'feature' for the public.
    I don't want to be interrupted by a ringtone while watching Van Helsing, but I think switching my Nokia to 'silence' enables this far enough, I don't need help from others silencing my cellphone.

  27. Bereft of Reason by ThisIsFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously inspired by Hollywood. So what if they decide to use the frequency that the Secret Service uses to communicate? I guess we better block that too. What if they broadcast a codeword on a talk radio show, and a bomb-laden terrorist is listening on a portable AM radio. Better block that band too. So, to cover all the possible frequencies, it'd have to be one heck of a powerful broadband jammer. I guess that's going to interfere with adjacent police and rescue frequencies because of intermod.

    Look folks, Al Qaeda didn't use cellphone-triggered remote bombs, tunnels under schools, IRC, or even orbiting brain-lasers, or whatever stupid possibility has been dreamed of by the Department of Paranoia. They used box-cutters. I'm fairly certain that whatever choice they make next is going to be a surprise. It's not going to be something that the US Gov't expects, so let's stop trying to list the millions of possible ways and monitor the thousands of possible targets.

    I really wish the hype and paranoia would stop. I used to listen to ("conservative") radio host Monica Crowley, until one night she bleated like a sheep stuck in a fence for an hour about how "we should do everything possible" in regard to airport security. I mean, come on Monica, that's something a 7th grader would say. There's a balance between cost and safety, and nobody in her right mind would suggest spending an unlimited amount of public funds just to make sure we can catch someone who has a box-cutter, because there's a one in a billion chance he might want to also fly an airliner into a building.

    Likewise we have El Rushbo, trumpeting that the fact we haven't had an Al Qaeda attack on US soil for one and a half years is proof positive that Bush's strategy is working. As much as I'd like to believe that, the fact is that it costs Al Qaeda money and takes lots of time to plan an act on US soil. The second WTC attack happened almost 8 years after the first. The attacks aren't likely going to stop as long as we're involved in the Mid-East (as long as we back Israel and pull the strings for the Saudi monarchy).

    So once again, it's not a choice with absolutes. Either we continue our current policy and some of us get killed every ten years or so, or we trade some other lives for our own, and watch the slaughter of the Jews, the Kurds, or some other religious minority that is sufficiently westernized to perhaps believe in freedom, interest on money, rights for women, or perhaps not stoning people to death for breaking society's rules. Or, we pick something inbetween, and successive presidents jump to either side of the fence (like the case now). One thing I can be sure of is that some US citizens are going to have a shot at stopping the next attack, just like the last one. So maybe this time we won't behave like subservient little hoplophobic sheep, and someone will fight back with deadly force to spare the lives of others.

    --
    Fred

    "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
    -RMS
  28. No RF Needed by faqmaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The cell phones used in the Madrid bobmings were used for their timers. That's why they found one undetonated bomb, the clock read PM instead of AM. None of the bombs were detonated via recieving a call.

    --
    Are you...Are you some kind of genius?
    No, ma'am, I'm just a regular Slashdot reader.
  29. Rather tha Jamming: by R.Caley · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I read, I think in New Scientist, a proposal that rather than jam the wavelengths, the correct thing to do is set up a local cell which is strong enough to make all the cellphopnes in the area bind to it.

    Eg in a theatre, the cell could act as a normal relay outside performance times, but suddenly become a black hole when the performance starts. (obviously it has to pretend still to be working, or the phones will just use another cell)

    Such a system could allow emergency calls while blocking anything else.

    --
    _O_
    .|<
    The named which can be named is not the true named