Slashdot Mirror
FCC Sued to Allow Cell Phone Jammers
stevew writes "A small company in Florida is trying to take on the FCC in an attempt to make their Cell phone jamming product legal. Their main argument seems to be that the Communications act of 1934 conflicts with the HomeLand Security Act — so the Communications act has to go." From the article: "Local and state law enforcement agencies, which would be the first responders to a terrorist attack here at home, are prohibited by law from obtaining such gear. 'It just doesn't make much sense that the FBI can use this equipment, but that the local and state governments, which the Homeland Security Act has acknowledged as being an important part of combating terrorism, cannot,' said Howard Melamed, chief executive of CellAntenna. 'We give local police guns and other equipment to protect the public, but we can't trust them with cellular-jamming equipment? It doesn't make sense.'"
in soviet russia, cell phones jam you!
Please?
What would be the possible point of giving them cellular jamming equipment? It would serve almost no useful purpose at all. Do people seriously believe there will be a time where it will be useful? That terrorists will launch some form of attack that isn't a 1 2 hit, like a ground assault or something? People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that this kind of thing is ridiculous and retarded.
To the best of my knowledge there is no constitutional requirement that Congress behave rationally.
Therefore it is totally constitutional for one law to explicitly forbid the best method of achieving an objective cited in a later law. They need to talk to Congress, not the courts.
A nextel cell phone jammer would be a god send. Finally, peace and quiet restored at last.
*BEEP* *BEEP**BEEP**BEEP* *BEEP**BEEP* *BEEP**BEEP* *BEEP**BEEP* *BEEP*
They would affect all cell users including emergency responders adversely. Couldn't a capability be built into the network instead to reject all calls except those from phones with certain ID numbers? It should only be used if there's a suspicion that someone's about to trigger a bomb by phone or some similar type of situation, of course.
-b.
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
He has a valid point - the law is hypocrital.
The Feds should ALSO be banned from using cell phone jammers.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Please just put them in movie theaters. That's what EVERYBODY wants. Change the law already.
(I have some sympathy for those of you who must carry pagers to stay in contact with work. You're going to have to sacrifice movies... I'm sorry.)
--
RumorsDaily
"In order to effectively and safely execute a raid on a house, you need the element of surprise."
.dot..dot.. ...
'My cell phone isn't working, it was just fine.. I wonder if something's wrong....'
!111!!!1
'oh sh*t!!'
FTFA: "Equipment made by companies such as CellAntenna that can jam or block cellular signals is used by the U.S. military in Iraq to help protect convoys traveling through known trouble spots."
Great. The US is not Iraq, and frankly, it seems the police can't be trusted with tasers. I am sure we give the military in Iraq, and federal agents, access to all sorts of other stuff I really don't want my local deputy, Jimmy-joe-bob, getting his paws on.
Frankly, this is just more FUD bullshit security theater. Cellphone jammers won't help the police one bit, and will only add to the potential for abuse/misuse by the police. This lawsuit is nothing but a ploy from a company that wants to join the halliburton gravy train. GSM can be jammed somewhat as far as I know, but my understanding (correct me if you know and I am wrong) is that CMDA/WCDMA have much more immunity to jamming. CDMA phones aren't very prevalent in Iraq, but they are here. Furthermore, this only works if you know where (within a small radius) an explosive device [that was to be detonated by cellphone] is/willbe.. so really all it encourages is either wasteful spending on useless devices, or spending on devices that will be permanently setup in "high risk" place.. which will only serve to 1: encourage the 'terrorists' to figure a way around cellphone jamming, 2: erode our rights further.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Has anyone else dreamed of buying one of those overseas cell phone jammers that looks like a Nokia phone, and using it against the gangster types that ruin the movies at the theater? (You know, the constant push-to-talk sounds, the rings, and the displays that hinder your vision.
Then I think of the risk to one's health and the risk of deactivating someone's cell phone who might need it for an emergency and I take pause; What if a parent were in the movie theater and didn't receive a call that their child was sick? What if a doctor missed an important call? What if the FCC beats you over the head with your illegal piece of equipment?
What if gangsters realized that even text messaging silently in a dark theater is disturbing as it broadcasts light all over the theater? If so, I doubt they'd care.
Let's hope someone brings a cell phone jammer to the theater tonight. I would like to be able to enjoy a movie...
It seems they are referring to Scrambling not Jamming. Scrambling as in, you can't intercept and hear the audio.
I paid for my cellphone so I get to use it when I want. Personal cell phone jammers should never be allowed. Only movie theaters and the like should be allowed to use these, nobody else. And even then, I really, really, REALLY don't like the idea. Why can't one person in a theater of 400 get up and go ask a manager to kick somebody out? He won't kick them out? There's 25 other people around whoever is talking that are also very pissed off. I'm sure 25*$8 is a lot of money to a movie theater, they might think twice if a few other people go up and voice their opinion too.
Cell phones haven't been much of a problem in the theaters I've been too (in Atlanta, where you would expect this to be an issue), certainly not enough of one to warrant use of a cell phone jammer.
They just have to redesign the lid of their product so that a spoon can fit but not a cell phone.
My brother is a teacher and several of his friends are teachers. He would love to jam cell phones for his classroom.
I'm sure what is topping the Police Christmas Wish List this year is a cell phone CAMERA jamming device. Cell phones themselves are likely of little concern, but those damn cameras are causing nothing but trouble.
Finkployd
It doesn't make sense.'"
If it doesn't make sense, you MUST acquit! I rest my case..
Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
...about how saying that the Homeland Security act is "acknowledged as being an important part of combating terrorism". I think it's an otherwise valid argument (although the bit about the long-established act having to be removed for a brand-new one is slightly disconcerting), but that line put me off.
Also, (since I'm too lazy to Google it) what else does the Communications Act cover, and how good of an idea is it to "have it go"?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
It seems they are referring to Scrambling not Jamming. Scrambling as in, you can't intercept and hear the audio.
No, they're talking about jamming. Not just the audio, but the control signals.
The issue is that terrorists have used the ringer/vibrator on cellphones as an easy way to build a radio remote trigger for bombs. They can plant the bomb, key in the bomb's phone number, watch until the target is next to the bomb, and hit "send". BANG!
A jammer on a convoy creates a bubble around it within which the cell control signals won't ring the bomb's cellphone. The convoy rolls past the bomb, the bomber hits send, and he gets the recorded voice that says the bomb's cellphone is not available, so please leave a message.
(I bet some of the messages are a bit spicy. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Feel the power that they've got.
/And after that, let's replace their guns with tactical nuclear weapons!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
One of the theaters I visit now has one. You turn on a cell phone in the building and are lucky to get one bar. In one of the showing rooms you won't get any bars. Go outside and it will probably got back up to 4 or 5.
I've always wanted a cell phone zapper for when I'm driving, to kill the signal of those idiots driving while blathering away in 3 packed lanes, with lane switchers run amok. Small wonder there are so many accidents on that stretch of road. By the time a driver on a phone has realised the brake lights of the car ahead of them are on it's too late.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
By his line of thought, backdoor programs should be in every OS, so TERRERISTS can't hide their actions. OMG! Think of all the child Porn People We could catch! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Don't tell me you are siding with the Child Porn People!
PGP (and its ilk) should have a Master Government Key to keep TERRERISTS from hiding data!
We shouldn't allow libraries to exist. After all TERRORISTAS can learn how to make bombs at one!
Footwear!! Lets make all footwear illegal! TERRORISTS all had footwear. Everyone should have thin sandals with small straps. If it was good enough for JESUS it will be good enough for everyone!!!!
I hope cell jammers become legal and are made mandatory in all new cars and a mandatory retrofit in all old cars and must be active whenever the ignition is. We would see a huge decrease in the number of car accidents. It's worth it, period.
A regulated short-range device that sends a "block non-emergency calls" signal.
This device would be legal on private property and some government property.
Then a cell phone call for 911 (and other registered emergency numbers). The cell phone would detect block signal, relay "in a blocked zone" to the tower...network. Then the call would only be connected if emergency number.
Or, I guess some "Do-not-cell" database which relied on GPS.
But "jamming" seems to be the wrong approach.
Well, they gave you a few examples in the article, viz.:
(1) To let states jam cell-phone communications in state prisons, so that prisoners can't make unmonitored calls to the outside. Here is an NPR story on the surprising number of cell phones smuggled into prisons and their sometimes unfortunate uses. From the article:
In several criminal cases, inmates have used cell phones to run gangs operating outside of prison, to put hits out on people, to organize drug-smuggling operations and, in one case, trade gold bullion on international markets.
Er...speaking as a citizen juror, I don't much care about cons trading gold bullion from inside the pen, ha ha, but the idea that putting away a drug gang kingpin won't affect his ability to run his gang at all is a bit...disturbing.
(2) To let police jam cell phones during a raid, so that, for example, any lookouts posted won't be able to communicate back to headquarters and tip off the targest of the raid. This is elementary warfighting: you certainly jam the enemy's communications during an operation if you can, because surprise reduces casualties all around. I hope you agree that significant criminal enterprises qualify as an 'enemy' against whom we'd like the police to take action. (That is, I hope you don't think the police shouldn't be able to conduct effective raids at all. Whether they should conduct them more carefully, or only with greater justification is, of course, an unrelated separate question.)
The business about blocking bombs is a bit of a bogus red herring, agreed, but if you read the article you'll see it was the journalist that raised this point, and not the people who make the jamming equipment. They only talked about the use of the equipment in police raids and so forth. It was the (typically, sensation-seeking) newsman who decided to write about cell phones and bombs.
On the other hand, the point of the 1934 Communications Act is not as silly as the jamming equipment maker suggests: clearly the Commerce Act gives Congress the power to regulate radio communication, as very little is more interstate than radio. Furthermore, it makes sense (or at least made sense in 1934) to prohibit every state and dinky locality from making its own separate (and probably conflicting) rules about who can jam radio signals, and when and how. It would lead to a cacaphony, a completely unworkeable patchwork of regulation of the radio spectrum. (For similar reasons, the use of international-range radio is subject to several important international treaties.)
However, those were the days when "radio" typically only meant HF, long radio waves that could at least go a few hundred miles, if not several thousand. I doubt there was much thought given to the modern situation, where we have millions of low-powered radios (e.g. cell phones) operating at very high frequencies, with ranges of a mile or two at most, and networks of repeaters to help the signal get around. So there are, indeed, good arguments that this is a situation not anticipated by Congress in 1934, and some kind of review of the Communications Act makes sense. Maybe state and local jurisdictions should be allowed to deploy jamming equipment the way they see fit, if it's only going to have any effect within the jurisdiction. It's hard, after all, to see why Pittsburgh's City Council shouldn't be able to make the rules for jamming cell phones within the city limits -- and the Feds should.
Presumably this cell-jammer maker hopes to prod Congress into revisiting the Communications Act by this suit, which otherwise seems hopeless on the merits. (There's no way the Act can be unconstitutional merely because the Homeland Security Act can be interpreted as contradicting it. Courts are required to read legislation in such a way as to minimize conflicts. Hence if it's at all possible to read the Homeland Security Act in such a way that it doesn't conflict with the Communications Act -- and I'm sure it is -- then that's the way the Courts have to interpret it.)
While I agree that people who talk on their cell phone in a movie theater deserver to die in a painful, gruesome, stabbed-to-death-with-your-cell-phone's-antenna kinda way, cell phone jamming would bring too much liability to the owner of the theater, library, etc.
What if there was a device that would simply notify the management automatically that there was a transmission of sufficient power to be a conversation or text message coming from auditorium three, and he could then send one of his employees to investigate and boot the offending jackass. That way, in the event of an emergency, the projector could be shut down, the lights brought on, and the auditorium evacuated so the paramedics don't have to climb over the rubberneckers. In the event that it's just Joe Jackoff calling his honey, he could be quietly booted with no refund.
I think that would work a lot better, and save the whole "Doctor on call" situation from occurring.
A good cell phone jammer should not be transmitting a garbage signal to compete with the legitimate coverage. It should be an intelligent base station encouraging the cellphones to register. It would then provide a much stronger signal than the more distant real base stations, which would then be disregarded by the mobiles.
The most significant FCC objection to cellphone jammers is a safety issue related to the inability to make emergency calls. A good cellphone jammer would be connected to a phone line, and would allow the phones to make 9-1-1 emergency calls (one at a time).
And yes, I would very much like to install such a device at my church and a few other places.
Maybe. But what you are describing is the reaction of a determined and intelligent enemy, and usually folks with that much determination and intelligence can make a living more easily by legal means.
After all, it's far less risky -- but takes more intelligence -- to get rich running sneaky sleazy (but quite legal) land-development schemes than to get (briefly) rich by running crack-smuggling rings.
That it's impossible to stop all crime is a truism, something perfectly true but devoid of useful meaning. The point of law-enforcenment is to make crime annoying and expensive enough that you drive intelligent and imaginative people out of the business, and the only ones left are the more easily caught and generally less dangerous boneheads.
Ah. Well, I paid for my stereo, so I should be able to crank it up at 3 AM, right? And I paid for a large bright laser, so I should be able to point it at, say, your eyes when you're driving down the freeway at 75 MPH, right?
It's been said that my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose. I suggest there are analgous arguments to be made vis-a-vis cell-phone (and cell-phone-jammer) use. No rights are absolute.
The key words that come up very often whenever the topic of cell phone jammers is raised are "theaters", "schools", "hospitals", etc. I hate some idiot's phone next to me ringing as much as anyone, but there is a pretty serious problem beyond the obvious "doctors and emergency staff have to be reachable" argument (in this case you can say "carry a pager", but pagers can be just as loud and annoying or quiet and discreet as cell phones ringing.)
Specifically, many of the larger outbursts of civil disobedience in the 1990s were organized by individuals with cell phones. The most recent specific example that comes to mind is the series of anti-Syrian rallies in Lebanon last year. In smaller countries without much competition, it's still comparatively easy for the police to just shut down providers, as the government of Nepal has done. However, in a country like the US it's just bound to be a frickin nightmare for local law enforcement to impose a blanket shutdown on cell phone communications.
It's one of those things, like gun ownership or implementation of a national ID card where the usual response is "but what do you have to fear? You are paranoid." However, I am worried about any more by my government to reduce my ability to organize, assemble and protest.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
... it's not a Cellphone Jammer, it's a Terrorist Communication Disruptor!
How could you possibly vote against that?!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
"We give local police guns and other equipment to protect the public, but we can't trust them with cellular-jamming equipment? It doesn't make sense."
Thats an excellent point! We should take their guns away.
Suppose my daughter is in a car accident. Needs help, tries to use her cell phone. Just because some capitalist socio-path wants to make a dollar disabling cell phones, she dies because she happens to be a victim.
Then, I'll sue the high-holy pants off this company, and go to jail after killing him in the court room and anyone else there on his behalf.
Install an emergency only phone in the back with red lighting around it, and play a clip before the movie explaining that your cell signal is being blocked for the length of the movie, and if there is an emergency, the phone in the back of the theater can be used to contact the management of the building, and the manager calls 911? It prevents kids picking up the phone and forcing the police to come out to every false alarm, and the manager is always there as long as a screen is going, they're the last ones to leave so they can lock up.
I think that makes perfect sense.
And to the people who are complaining about not being able to be reached, well, get a beeper and tell the babysitter what theater you will be at, and which screen it's showing, so they can call the theater to have the manager get you. Or even do something like what Applebee's does, and give out little 500' range pagers to people who ask for one, so you can be buzzed if a call comes in for you?
Both of those solutions allow ME to enjoy my movie, and I'd be willing to pay a little extra for a promise of NO CELL PHONES IN THEATER.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I don't know if it would work, but you can legally buy cell phone repeaters for your place of business, home where ever... Couldn't one use one of these to jam/scramble signals just through the signal to noise ratio.. One thing about the one's in Iraq, my father said he only knew when they were playing with it because his wireless mouse quit working! Your cellphone jammer broke my mouse!
Build yourself a copy of the radio that was on the Titanic. With careful construction, you too can have a spark-gap transmitter that will block all communication on all frequencies, well into UHF and probably prevent Bluetooth and WiFi as well.
No, there isn't a good way to shape the field such that it doesn't interfere with your neighbors. However, it will likely have no effect on cable TV while wiping out DirecTV and Dish Network. The cable company will be your friend. They might even pay you to run such a device.
Essentially all you need is a rectifier, a coil, an antenna and something to break the circuit. An old Ford distributor using the points would work and then you wouldn't have to key it by hand. Old-style spark-gap transmitters were completely free of tubes, transistors or integrated circuits so they are also immune to EMP effects.
Just think of it as your own experimental ultra-wide broadband transmitter.
There should be cell jammers at cash registers. People have no business starting a purchase and then suspending it while there are several people behind them in line. When I run a register and my customer answers a cell I suspend their transaction and let the next person go check out and I don't let that cell toting sociopath resume the transaction until the entire line is through. There is no excuse to answer phones at the register, you can turn the things off for the one or two minutes it takes for your purchase, but because you don't, cashiers should be able to enforce the rule.
You can build a personal cell phone jammer. Just don't get caught using it.
or something.
The FBI can use cellular-jamming equipment?
If that's the case then the answer to Howard Melamed's question as to why the FBI can use jammers but state and local governments can't is clear: Don't allow the FBI to use cellular-jamming equipment.
"'It just doesn't make much sense that the FBI can use this equipment, but that the local and state governments, which the Homeland Security Act has acknowledged as being an important part of combating terrorism, cannot,' said Howard Melamed, chief executive of CellAntenna. 'We give local police guns and other equipment to protect the public, but we can't trust them with cellular-jamming equipment? It doesn't make sense.'"
The right thing to do would be to demand a refund (you seem to have skipped that step), and take them to small claims court if they refuse..... but you wouldn't do that, because that would require you to loose money for a principle. Well you know what? Some people are willing to loose money for a principle, which is why there still exist a few places where credit cards are not accepted.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Does this mean cell jammers are legal now, becuase if the answer is yes, let the fun begin!
Such equipment is available for the general public, here in Kuwait.
But the majority of the general public has no use for it. It's mostly deployed in mosques to prevent phones from ringing during prayer.
Why is it banned from public use in the US?!
Mod points are a dangerous tool. Abuse them wisely.
Copper mesh walls are where it's at!!! I worked for a defense contractor that did RF engineering IN a small city. Some of it was even rated top secret. The key to doing that work was the labs with copper mesh behind the wallboards... the ceiling... the doors had mesh seals... but worked. I'd suppose those rooms probably get zilch for cell reception too... wonder why? They were working with military stuff, so it didn't have to be FCC compliant. I'm sure they have RF blocking paint that's a whole lot cheaper than copper mesh. If theaters would start putting that up it would make quick work of their problems. To make it efficient there would really need to build the theater with cell blocking in mind.. but it's just like sound or light blocking. Not much harder if you're building it in. Then you wouldn't need jammers.
Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City!
With a capital "T"
That rhymes with "C"
And that stands for Cellular,
That stands for Cellular.
We've surely got trouble!
Right here in River City,
Right here!
Gotta figger out a way
To keep those signals away!
Trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble...
I don't like the idea even more than I hate it when someones cell phone rings and
someone yaks loudly on it. For one thing,` cell phones aren't just phones anymore, most
modern handsets these days have built in web browsers, among other things. If I went to
a restaurant, or a movie theater, and maybe I wanted to do a little web browsing (key tones OFF of course) right before the movie begins or the waiter brings the meal, I should be able to. Plus, what if there is an emergency, and people need to call out to 911? Another thing that worries me, is establishments using this device without shielding to keep the jamming signal (for active jammers) from going outside the premesis and interfering with phonesaround the building.
All that said, the cheapest, lowest tech, but best solution would be to put up a sign saying "NO TALKING ON CELL PHONES OR ELECTRONIC NOISE", and if some boob ignores this, have someone spirit him/her out of there right away.
One thing that bothers me, is when I am listening to an FM radio station while on the
streets, I hear that "eeeeeeeeeeee" caused by the security scanners/RFID readers they have
at the exits. This signal can be heard at least 20' from the entrances of the
stores I am passing. Infact, this signal is so strong, that I could hear it fairly loud in a pair of headphones that weren't even connected to anything while passing through one of these gates (I did a little experiment to see just how strong the signal is, and lo and behold). I wonder how much havoc these things are causing on other parts of the spectrum besides the commercial FM band.
I paid for my jammer so I should get to use it when I want. Personal cell phones should never be allowed in a movie theater. Only on-call surgeons and the like should be allowed to use them, nobody else. And even then, I really, really, REALLY don't like the idea. Why can't one person in a theater of 400 simply skip the movie that night if they absolutely cannot be out of contact? They can't just go another time? There's 25 other times to go see that movie in a week (at least) and they're all going to be the same movie. I'm sure two hours is a lot of time to an on-call surgeon; they might think twice before they spend it at a movie theater.
Missing cell phone calls has never been a problem with any of the emergency doctors or federal special agents I know (in Washington DC, where you would expect this to be an issue). It's certainly not enough of an issue to warrant a ban on the use of cell phone jammer on private property.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
If a movie theater owner can get one to use, then basically ANYONE get can one. Which means that if I live in an apartment building, and I don't like my neighbor yacking on the phone at night, or may I'm just an a-hole, then I can jam everyone within a 100 foot radius or more. It would take a VERY carefully crafted law to make such usage illegal and that still wouldn't stop it from happening if jamming equipment were so readily available...
There are so many *other* ways of solving the movie theater problem that don't use jammers. There is no fundamental difference between a cell phone user in a theater and a noisy, disruptive person in the theater. So deal with both in the same way...
... what FLAVOR of jam they want to use. I mean, if it's strawberry, that would be just fine, as would raspberry... any other flavor, however, I would like to be consulted on before its use...
You can close your eyes to reality but not to memories.
For movie theathres it may will actually be better to tempest-proof the salon. (OK, not military grade, but good enough to shut down most phones.)
For prisons and other areas where a control over the calls has to be issued a local phone service that takes precedence over other operators should do the trick. Just re-direct all calls except emergency calls to an answering service that just informs the user about limited service in the current area. Anyone that REALLY has to call out should go through a gateway service where the calls are monitored.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Tht's exactly what infuriates me in many, many recent decisions regarding "law" or rather "rules enforcement": Instead of searching the a**holes and get rid of them, rely on some mean that prevents them from acting, NO MATTER HOW MANY INNOCENT BYSTANDERS ARE HURT IN THE PROCESS.
I would prefer seeing the dickhead asked to leave, even if the disturbance is greater. Because NEXT TIME, he simply will not be there, and some others will avoid calling so they are not asked to leave too. And I keep he right to choose, when my phone vibrates, wether I leave the room to answer or let the call go to my inbox.
One of those Europeans...
So many companies create products that claim to do X yet they do Y and Z
...that has a "side effect" that typically renders cell signals useless. Then put a disclaimer up that "Cel signals may not work on the premises" and include it with the product.. then PRESTO slap on your fcc warnings if u need them and make millions .
These guys are going about this the wrong way.
Sell their product as a "Mouse and Rat Ridder", could call it... RatWire
Wtvr - so many ppl are whiner crybabies about what they deserve... you don't deserve anything, you rather enjoy the privilege of everything you have, including wireless.
This has been challenged before in US Federal court mainly the Federal .gov was sued over broadcasting licenses and even requiring Hams to obtain a license from the government back in the 1920's. If the local police need a jammer call the FBI and they will be out in a hour.
The problem is that cell phone jammers can very easily jam the 700-1200 MHz communication equipment used by police so they will have a SWAT team at a location with no communication when a cop that isn't an engineer flips the cell phone jammer switch that isn't properly programmed and calibrated. The FBI has engineers with spectrum analyzers to prevent the accidental jamming of other communications.
"Suppose my daughter is in a car accident. Needs help, tries to use her cell phone. Just because some capitalist socio-path wants to make a dollar disabling cell phones, she dies because she happens to be a victim?"
Suppose this was 30 years ago, what would be the difference? A) no cell phones - outcome the same. B) Response time + dropped call- outcome the same. c) Charge on cell phone insufficient - outcome the same.
The point about cell phones being used to trigger bombs, valid point. The ability to use cell phones as timing devices, valid point. The ability to help coordinate gangs of protesters or give advance warning to criminals, valid point.
The argument about disturbing the peace in theaters, valid point. So where do we go from here?
I think that the world survived quite well before cell phones were everywhere. This modern piece of technology has
been both a curse and blessing. We need rational laws and built-in technology to control the use of cellular technology.
I, for one, woulld love to see integrated into all electronically controlled cars, that the engine shuts off when a cell
phone is activate with in an automobile, with a grace period to allow the driver to pull off the road safely, then the car would be inactive for 30 minutes. Doctors and emergency personnel need not be talking on the phone either when driving.
Then again, I think driving while putting on make-up and eating or reading, should be outlawed also. What a Nazi I am.
Umm, hello McFly? A ban on use. Not on possession. Obviously a private company can't tell me what I can and can not have on my person.
Er... sure they can. Every heard of camera bans in casinos and nightclubs?
A private entity can ban you from doing pretty much anything while on their property. You do not have an implicit right to be there... it's their property. If you don't agree to their terms of being on that property, they are legally justified to force you to leave the property. If you refuse, they are within their rights to call the police and have you forceably removed or arrested for trespassing.
That said, there is no reason a movie theater could not jam cell phones inside the theater, so long as there are prominent signs that such jamming will be taking place. If you go in there, the honous is totally on you .You know there are no cell phones in there. If you have a heart attack, that's your problem.
And by magic the same people who refuse to turn of the ringing of their mobile phones are going to be first to upgrade to PolitePhones(tm)?
FRA: STFU GTFO
There's no "right" to cellphone communication. If someone disrupts the signal, you'd have to prove it's them, interfering with a regulated part of the radio spectrum. The dispute is then between them and the FCC, and has nothing to do with your rights.
That's why you don't own a movie theater. You're probably one of those nice guys who would allow hypoglycemics to bring their own candy.
That being said, if you ever do manage to acquire a movie theater, drop me a line so I can come and see a movie in peace.
By the way, I don't have a cell phone plan. I have an answering machine.
It is sad. I don't go to the movies as much as I used to, and I'm a movie buff. I can count on a good experience if I go to one of the independent "art house" theaters, but sometimes I want to see a movie that only plays in mainstream theaters. That just doesn't happen very much lately. I probably only go to regular movies 2 or 3 times a year now, down from at least 25 a while ago. Maybe movies aren't as good to me as they used to be, maybe there are other options now, it might be the cost, but a lot of it is that people are much ruder and better armed to annoy than they used to be in theaters.
I don't go through life looking for problems, quite the opposite. This one gets to me because I care about movies so much.
Your final comment is distressingly fatalist. Do you just accept it whenever you aren't happy with the way things are? I'm sure there are things about this world you aren't happy about. Do you simply stop doing whatever it was that exposed you to those things? I prefer to do what I can to make things better. Most of life's irritations roll off my back, but the occasional conversation, complaint, slashdot rant, etc. still gets made.
Man, you really need that seminar!
But more importantly, I'm having a hard time imagining why you would want to be a bottleneck in case your son's medical condition flares up. My babysitter talk always includes, "If anything happens, call 911. The address and phone number here are on this refrigerator magnet."
You remind me a bit of my tenants when I explain the maintenance voicemail hotline. Many people ask, "What do I do if I need to get ahold of you if, say, the house is on fire?" My answer: "I don't have a firetruck, so don't waste time calling me. Get yourself out of the house to safety and then call 911."
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock