Slashdot Mirror


Bush Causes Cell Phone Ban

An anonymous reader writes "When President George Bush visits Sydney, Australia for the APEC Summit in September, all cell phone calls within the radius of a football field will be suppressed. The president's motorcade will be shadowed by a helicopter equipped with signal-jamming equipment. Terrorists have used mobile phones to detonate remote-controlled bombs in Iraq and elsewhere in the world." There are other ways to detonate explosives remotely. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

588 comments

  1. Should read... by Magada · · Score: 5, Funny

    Title should read "Al-Qaeda scare causes widespread FUD in US and Aussie govts".

    --
    Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    1. Re:Should read... by theStorminMormon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the response is FUD from the security officials. It's not stupid to leak plans like this. It saves actually having to put jamming equipment on the helicopter.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    2. Re:Should read... by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not likely to be a terrorist soon, but don't these people know what REDUNDANT control's are?

      That said, I have no doubts that said helicopter will also take out 802.11 signals because only a really dumb team would jam only mobile signals. As far as I am concerned the only reason these plans have been "leaked" is because people would otherwise be calling their Telco going "WTF MY PHONE DROPPED OUT".

      So yeah, ten points for a great idea, but try and think like a terrorist, and then how would you defend against that. I'm happy enough to bash the administration as much as the next guy (personally I think Howard [aussie PM] is a dick, but better than the alternatives), but sometimes we need to step back from the abuse and look at what we're really talking about...

      My $0.02 AU

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    3. Re:Should read... by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 3, Funny

      Either that or "Yippee! Slashdot Editors Find Yet Another Lame Excuse to Bash Bush Administration"...from the 'Anything-we-can-get-our-hands-on' department. Having Borderline Personality Disorder is a prerequisite to being a /. editor. Apparently you didn't get the memo.
    4. Re:Should read... by joedoc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe even something a little more...errr...honest:

      Australian Security Bans Cell Phones For Bush Visit

      I also have to question why this is even worthy of space on this site, especially since the linked story reminds us that this has been done before:

      The technology was first used by the US president when Bush attended the APEC summit in Pusan, South Korea, in 2005.

      Someone search the /. archives and see if there was a story about this back then.

      By the way, this is probably a lot more routine than people realize. In October 2004, the President was making campaign stops around Florida in the days leading up to the election. He made an appearance at Alltel Stadium in Jacksonville on a Saturday afternoon. At one point, Air Force One overflew the stadium on the way to Jacksonville International Airport. A few moments later, Secret Service and other security people began to appear on the field and near the tunnels. At one point, I took out my phone and tried to make a call, but had no signal.

      This was in an open-air NFL stadium, surrounded by cell towers, on the edge of the downtown of a fairly large city. I also know that my service is always available, since I have Jaguars season tickets and have been in that building over 110 times since 1995. And my cell phone always worked, especially when the folks at my job called in the middle of a game to complain about server or internet outages.

      Time to let this go, lefties.

      --
      Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
      The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
    5. Re:Should read... by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1, Funny

      Pffft... Australian. I'm flat out getting my grammar correct, let alone finding the right position to put one of these... apostrophe things in the right spot...

      We are, after all, children of convicts ;)

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    6. Re:Should read... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So yeah, ten points for a great idea, but try and think like a terrorist, and then how would you defend against that.

      That should be obvious: Trigger the bomb by the jamming signal. As soon as the mobile phone doesn't find a network any more, the bomb is triggered. Additional call triggering can be used in case there just happens to be no jamming (in which case calling the phone would obviously work).
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Should read... by xENoLocO · · Score: 4, Funny

      Remember. The terrorists are not winning.

      *jedi hand movement*

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    8. Re:Should read... by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course. Then it goes off long before Bush is actually in range.

      Silly Secret Service, don't you know suicide bombers are for kids? When they realize they can't do it remotely, someone will "martyr" themselves to get the job done. That's the insidiousness of Islamic fascists.

      That said, doing something is better than doing nothing. A lot of the complaints here seem to be along the lines of "why lock my car door when someone can steal my stereo by breaking the window anyway?"

      It just means you'll be limiting your opponents to only very serious players instead of wannabes.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:Should read... by Dimentox · · Score: 0, Troll

      What gets me is liberal people bash bush when he is more liberal than some democrats. On the note of the jaming... Wht would you jam the signals? I mean common.. The thing i have learned about people is if they are going to do something there is hardly a way to stop them if they are really intent on it.

      --
      string sig = llGetSig("dimentox"); llSay(0,sig);
    10. Re:Should read... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      So yeah, ten points for a great idea, but try and think like a terrorist, and then how would you defend against that.

      <obligatory>

      “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” — George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., 5 August 2004

      </obligatory>
      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    11. Re:Should read... by H3g3m0n · · Score: 1

      Kinda stupid to announced it, any terrorists will just change to a different detonation method.

      --
      cat /dev/urandom > .sig
    12. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yea, because being of the opposite political mentality is the only reason to bash someone!11!

      Maybe, just maybe, the concept of being retarded is beyond partisan lines? Or how about the fact that there is at least one liberal who is more conservative then bush (and I'll assume you're going by the "bigger govt = liberal" view, since bush certainly seems to want a bigger govt but I can't think of any other way he is liberal) doesn't mean bush is liberal? Or, I don't know... maybe not every person who identifies themselves as "liberal" has identical views?

      Look, it doesn't take a genius to see that Bush isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. He just happens to be rich enough to hire someone to run a good smear campaign.

    13. Re:Should read... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      otherwise be calling their Telco going "WTF MY PHONE DROPPED OUT".

      You've got some impressive Austrailians.

    14. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it strange that you had no signal when cell phone jammers don't magically block energy from reaching your handset - they leave you with a bunch of bars, but no way to sync with the tower. Perhaps someone turned off the amps to the antennas at the stadium - I'm sure that there are many other options we'll never know about.

    15. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the title should read "Al-Qaeda scare causes widespread cowardice in US and Aussie govts".

      -mcgrew

    16. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and I doubt the jamming works on all frequencies. If someone was determined enough to do it they'd wait with a sniper rifle on the grassy knoll.

    17. Re:Should read... by BakaHoushi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're assuming liberals (true liberals, anyway) think democrats are liberal. Not even close. Is there even a single liberal who's been elected in the last 30 years? Heck, has there been a true CONSERVATIVE either?

      In my humble opinion, no. We've only had Opportunists. Both parties favor large cash donations from large groups.

      Doing the right thing, at this point, will require saying unpopular things, making unpopular decisions, acting out of principle, and self-sacrifice. Honestly, I don't expect that from anyone in Washington.

      And on one other note, some people may bash Bush not because he's a Republican, but because he's a HORRIBLE president. Not to mention the only one. Being in the spotlight tends to draw attention from all sides.

      (And yes, his being a "horrible" president is an opinion, but I base that opinion based on the facts that he started an unnecessary war, LIED intentionally to start that war, gave people awards for messing up that war, has refered to the Constitution as "just a piece of paper," demonstrated ineptitude to lead under emergencies [See: Initial reaction to 9/11, Katrina], unwillingness to try new methods, or even just give up old ones when they don't work, or even ADMIT that his methods don't work [HOW many times have we heard "we're making progress" in Iraq?], and, intentional or not, the utter genocide of innocent English words. And yes, in nearly every instance listed, he is not FULLY to blame, but he certainly shares credit.)

    18. Re:Should read... by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      What gets me is liHe's for bigger goverberal people bash bush when he is more liberal than some democrats.

      Bush is a neocon, not a conservative. Neocons find their roots in the Democratic party of the 1970's... A conservative would be for smaller government. Bush is not.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    19. Re:Should read... by Pc_Madness · · Score: 1

      Since when are we the terrorism capital of the world? Road side bombs..ha

    20. Re:Should read... by ralphclintellis · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to Australian news sources, there is NO plan to black out cell phones during the president's visit.

    21. Re:Should read... by djasbestos · · Score: 2

      Sooooo, how do I call the authorities when I see two guys setting up an 84mm AT rocket launcher in a window along the parade route while in this jamming zone? Running out and screaming "danger!" would probably net me a chest full of 9mm JHP...I'd prefer the phone.

      And when you require more security than the Pope, you know you've got problems...

    22. Re:Should read... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Yes down here we have landline telephones as well as mobiles. I hear you Americans might be getting the former next year if you're lucky.

    23. Re:Should read... by olyar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heck, has there been a true CONSERVATIVE either? Reagan.
      --
      Custom, hands-free Linux installs. Instalinux
    24. Re:Should read... by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      Simple. Run in to the nearest crowded theater (I recommend an afternoon showing of Spiderman 3. Shpuld still be packed) and scream "FIRE!"

      The incoming stampede of lawyers ready to persecute/defend you and bloggers ready to turn your case into an international incident will most likely trample said terrorists (as well as anyone else in the area, including the President). A win/win situation. ...Well, okay, maybe just a win for you... except for the lawsuits...

      So, okay, the lawyers win. But that's nothing new.

    25. Re:Should read... by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      "I also have to question why this is even worthy of space on this site"

      Well I'd say it's probably because of the first (uncollapsed) response, which showed that this was a horrible security idea. They didn't post the news here to tell us about it as much as to get our response and views.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    26. Re:Should read... by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Er, by first uncollapsed response, I of course meant the summary of the article. The technology behind blocking the signal makes you just as big a target as if you had let people track you by cellphones.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    27. Re:Should read... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Doing the right thing, at this point, will require saying unpopular things, making unpopular decisions, acting out of principle, and self-sacrifice. Honestly, I don't expect that from anyone in Washington. Nor do I expect that voters are smart enough to vote for somebody who was willing to make those decisions. "I'm going to raise your taxes, eliminate the special project funding in your district, and increase the retirement age" isn't the snappiest campaign slogan.

      Generally, voters get the government they deserve.
    28. Re:Should read... by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if your story is true, which I somehow doubt (as another poster pointed out, signal jammers don't cause you to not have the signal at all), it's something else that bothers me more deeply.

      See, it's YOUR preseident. As far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever you wish to help keep him alive: turn off the cell-phone network completely, jam all radio signals imaginable, turn off the GPS, glue everybodies eyelids together, so that nobody can aim a sniper at him - I don't care. AS LONG AS YOU DO IT IN YOUR OWN BACKYARD. Sorry for shouting, but I'm somehow afraid otherwise you won't get it.

      Traveling to OTHER countries and terrorizing OTHER people - who never elected Mr. Bush, moreover who very probably don't give a flying fuck about him - by forcing the local authorities to turn off the cell phone network respectively block the traffic along the route he is supposed to take, is what bothers me! He's not the first president of the USA to travel abroad, you know, but for reasons of overblown security measures interfering with other people's lives in very unpleasant ways, he's most probably the least wellcome one.

      I just hope no locals will have to pay for this little trip of his with their lives because of not being able to dial an emergency number when neccessary.

    29. Re:Should read... by Y-Crate · · Score: 1

      Heck, has there been a true CONSERVATIVE either? Reagan. Yeah, the dramatic rise in the national debt under Reagan certainly makes me think of him as a true conservative.
    30. Re:Should read... by j.bellone · · Score: 0

      Its Bush. Do we really want to alert the authorities if such is happening?

      --
      I'm f#$king magic!
    31. Re:Should read... by Nimey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what his worshippers believe, anyway.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    32. Re:Should read... by PPGMD · · Score: 1
      Traveling to OTHER countries and terrorizing OTHER people

      Security of foreign dignitaries is a joint venture between local security and the official's security task force. If the PM of Australia comes over to the US, the DPS works with his security task force to put together a security plan for his visit. Just like the USSS works with local security to do the same for Bush's visit to Australia.

      Yes it may inconvenience you a bit, but your country is still firmly in control of the security measures. Remember the government serves for the good of all people*.

      * The meaning of all people varies, depending on the country that include a group as small as the royal family.

    33. Re:Should read... by trianglman · · Score: 1

      I do have to agree that doing something is often better than doing nothing, but how many attacks on the President or any Australian official have been attempted by remote control bombs like this? I know that this may be how some IEDs in Iraq are triggered, but most home-made bombs these terrorists are using are manually controlled (suicide bombers are the most common example) or are done with low band radio waves that wouldn't be blocked by this unless all electronics will be blocked. This doesn't remove the low hanging fruit, at best it will remove the mid-hanging fruit leaving the rest as it was. When there are better, less disruptive ways to secure something, do that. This would be, in IT terms, like finding a way to block 0-day attacks, but leaving the system unpatched against script-kiddie worms.

      --
      Clones are people two.
    34. Re:Should read... by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Silly Secret Service, don't you know suicide bombers are for kids? When they realize they can't do it remotely, someone will "martyr" themselves to get the job done. That's the insidiousness of Islamic fascists.
      That's probably why anyone not on an approved list is kept far, far away from Bush's presence.
    35. Re:Should read... by nasch · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting that heads of state should never travel to other countries? Or that they should employ no intrusive security measures when they're there? Because the latter would amount to the former, and it's not just Bush either. If the head of any prominent nation had to drive through traffic jams and walk through crowded plazas where anybody with an ax to grind could take him out, they just wouldn't do it. You really don't need to make this about Bush, because I was walking in Chicago once and asked the cops why they were stopping all the traffic on Lake Shore Drive. It was because the ambassador from some South American country was coming through. And you think the President of the United States is going to have fewer security measures than that?

    36. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Was he a true conservative when he gave weapons to Iran?

      Was he a true conservative when he stood by as Saddam gassed the Kurds in March of '88?

      Stop the hero worship. He was an actor and a prop.

    37. Re:Should read... by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Having Borderline Personality Disorder [aapel.org] is a prerequisite to being a /. editor. Apparently you didn't get the memo.

      I got BPD, but I didn't get the memo...where do I apply for the job?

      --
      the significance of a signature is insignificant
    38. Re:Should read... by Dread+Pirate+Skippy · · Score: 1

      I would argue that, contrary to popular belief, Bush is in fact a Decepticon.

    39. Re:Should read... by BakaHoushi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's hard to say who deserves who. Bad politicians make the people worse (destroy public education, for example), and bad people create bad politicians (by voting them in). It's a chicken and egg kind of thing, except the chicken ends up friend and the egg becomes an omelet.

      Hopefully, by which I mean "Never gonna happen, but," a good politician could do those things a better way. For example, one of the biggest problems with taxation is the sheer amount of money wasted on... collecting taxes. The way money is given to areas based on size and not need... if these issues could be addressed, millions upon millions upon millions could be saved and turned into revenue without raising taxes a dime. ...Buuuut, where's the profit to be found in that? Profit for the politician, I mean. Better solutions to problems are sometimes obvious, and even cheaper to the public, but again, no money to be made there. (For example, as the movie Super Size Me pointed out in one scene, school lunches are often sponsored by corporations like Hershey's, and Pepsi. The food these companies give leaves very little in the way of actual nutrition. But other programs that involve freshly prepared, locally grown foods cost the same and take the same time to prepare. Except... you guessed it. The people in charge of these programs aren't getting anything for the effort.)

      It's a poor example, but I think my point stands.

    40. Re:Should read... by Agripa · · Score: 3, Informative

      This depends on exactly what your signal strength meter is measuring.

      For FM receivers, quieting and not RF signal strength is normally measured which is roughly analogous to demodulated signal to noise level or bit error rate. Using a non coherent jamming signal will lower any measured signal strength. You might notice that tuning an FM receiver to an empty channel returns large amounts of demodulated noise and an indication of zero signal strength.

      For AM and SSB receivers, signal strength is taken from either the automatic gain control or directly from the signal level. A jamming signal will directly show up in the signal strength indicator just like it would with a spectrum analyser.

      Cell phones of course using complex modulation encompassing both FM and AM could read signal strength in any number of ways. If I were designing a jamming system, I would rely on using a denial of service through the base stations with or without cooperation first, jamming the control frequencies second, and jamming the data channels third.

    41. Re:Should read... by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Whatever happened to leaving one's ego at the door? Is it just not possible to have a technical discussion any more without someone taking it personally?

      Time to let this go, lefties.

      WTFIU with pejorative labels applied to those who simply ask questions?

      Yes, I presume that "lefties" is meant as an insult.

      Sure. Okay. The title of the discussion about the article is "Bush Causes Cell Phone Ban." Surely everyone knows that George W. Bush most certainly did not say, "...and make sure them cell phones are turned off."

      It's the government that deserves the insults--specifically the appointed fools who jump to conclusions like "Let's jam the mobile phone frequencies, that'll absolve us of any responsibility in case... you know" and then allow these paltry tactics to be leaked to the media. And it's not just the inconvenience of jamming signals or turning off towers. It's the foolish attempts to foil terrorism that are easily shown not to have any deterrent effect. As someone has already pointed out, the Australian government--whose "conservative" candidate is pulling out more and more terrorFUD stops lately--is the entity responsible.

      Maybe a better title would have been "Fear Over Bush Visit Causes Cell Phone Ban".

      Maybe even something a little more...errr...honest:

      You mean "Time to stop asking questions and just cooperate," then.

      "What do you want me to do, Thiokol? Launch in April?? ~another guy who didn't want any more questions asked.
      --
      "Press to test."
      (click)
      "Release to detonate."
    42. Re:Should read... by radtea · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That said, doing something is better than doing nothing. A lot of the complaints here seem to be along the lines of "why lock my car door when someone can steal my stereo by breaking the window anyway?"

      There are at least two legitimate concerns:

      1) Various fairly obvious terrorist responses to these counter-measures will greatly increase the danger to bystanders without materially reducing the risk to the President.

      2) There is some suspicion that this has more to do with making it harder for legitimate democratic protesters to co-ordinate their actions than it does with preventing terrorism.

      Whether either of those things is sufficient to trump the needs of presidential security is a matter for debate, unlike the nearly-zero-cost behaviour of locking your car doors to protect your stereo. There is a point where people are going to say, "Enough! We've had it with all the intrusions into our daily lives in the name of counter-terrorist activity. I come from a society that has always valued liberty over security, and this is more than I am willing to give up."

      While the particular policy of jamming cell phones is relatively minor, it is symbolic of many other more significant intrusions.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    43. Re:Should read... by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 1

      In the city where I live, we rather frequently have visits of heads of various states - some more, some less important ones. Of course there are security measures in place during such visits. However NONE of them even remotely reached the paranoid security levels experienced during the recent visit of Mr. Bush - including some visits of the previous President of the USA.

      As far as I'm concerned, heads of other states are wellcome, I can live with security measures associated with their visits. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, can choose either to stay home, or to reduce the security measures to what other presidents concern to be "good enough".

      If he does neither, as I suppose he will, then, at least, we should be awarded the right to mock about that. :-)

    44. Re:Should read... by joedoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, since you brought it up, and since some Aussie down below go so offended he questioned my veracity about what happened, let me clarify.

      I don't know if I had any bars or not. All I know is that when I punched in the number and hit the button to dial, I got nothing. For the sake of my friend down below, I'll make it clearer:

      I couldn't make a cell phone call. I don't know why. I don't know if the signal was jammed or the amps were shut off or if T-Mobile just has lousy signal service in that stadium. I couldn't make a call.

      Frankly, the reason why I couldn't make a call never really occurred to me until I saw the original story entry, which reminded me of the event. Jeez, it was well over two years ago.

      What's interesting (and unrelated to Mr. Bush) is that a fellow season-ticket holder once told me he couldn't make a call on his cell during football games at this facility. The odd thing was that his cell provider was Alltel, which had its name on the stadium (until now, anyway...their naming deal with the Jaguars is over). He claimed it was done intentionally, but he never could explain why.

      Maybe the NFL didn't want Alltel customers using their cell phones to blow up the visitor's bench or something.

      --
      Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
      The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
    45. Re:Should read... by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 1

      It's not the security per se that I'm mocking about. It's the overblown paranoid levels of the security requested by Mr. Bush and the Secret Service.

    46. Re:Should read... by jotok · · Score: 1

      I'm curious--do you suppose if the President's motorcade was attacked by a cell-phone detonated bomb, that you would be among those saying "Well, GEEZ, we've known about this for years! Are they so stupid that they didn't consider it?!"

      I want you to consider that they might have sources of information that you cannot find on /. or google, and that this might influence their decision to cover the visit with jammers. Just consider it. Thanks.

    47. Re:Should read... by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trigger the bomb to explode not on the *presence* of a jamming signal, but on the *weakening of the running average* of the signal strength (i.e., when the chopper is moving away from you). Sure, there are countermeasures to that, but you'd need to know that they're needed.

      Other options would include pressure + presence of jamming signal, noise + presence of jamming signal, motion detector tripped + presence of jamming signal, IR sensor tripped + presence of jamming signal, etc. The jamming signal could simply "arm" the bomb, while a different trigger detonates it.

      Another thing: sure, this will prevent (weak) cell phone signals from being recognized, but so? As if people couldn't get their hands on any other kind of radio transmitter or receiver with a lot more power and a narrower band.

      --
      The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
    48. Re:Should read... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Well the thing is there arn't any real "liberal people". People have different issues that they care about and vote on and pay attention to. Bush may agree with "Liberal people" on some things, but its often on the issues that the people who are bashing him don't vote on.

      I agree, he is no conservative, but, the whole liberal/conservative thing ceased to have real meaning a long time ago.

      I mean, if you want to apply the actual meanings of terms and logic associated with them to an issue like say abortion... Roe V Wade was a very conservative decision in its logic. The pro-life movement are a bunch of radicals trying to assert new meaning and new reasons that simply were not the reason the laws were originally passed in the first place. The essential crux of the issue was that the court realised that the law, as passed, came about to regulate circumstances that were no longer the case, the law had outlived its usefulness. The "moral argument" was never why the law was passed in the first place, it was a new radical addition.

      Hell, William F Buckley came out in favor of gays in the military. Yet, who is calling him a liberal?

      Me? My stances tend to be pro Civil rights (which I include abortion as part of), Pro universal health care (partially because it really is cheaper and more efficient), anti gun control, pro states rights (where they don't conflict with civil rights), pro real corrections programs (its about rehabilitation not retribution).... generally in that order.

      Thats only a partial list, but its issues based... Bush's immigration stance? I mostly am ok with but...its not an issue I vote on. Going to war for oil profits against our national interest? Not ok with that...and I care a lot more about that than his stance on immigration.

      Admittedly, I am far more of a "liberal" than most "liberals" but... I still am anti gun control

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    49. Re:Should read... by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We are, after all, children of convicts ;)

      And missionaries. Oh, and capitalists who sailed halfway around the world to make a fortune exploiting your country's natives, taking its natural resources, and killing off your local species one by one.

      You know, you Aussies and us Americans have a lot of history in common ;)

      --
      The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
    50. Re:Should read... by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      It was.... .... a joke.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    51. Re:Should read... by Dimentox · · Score: 1

      I agree

      --
      string sig = llGetSig("dimentox"); llSay(0,sig);
    52. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm...

      I guess ZERO terrorist attacks since 9/11 on American soil doesn't count, huh?

    53. Re:Should read... by nasch · · Score: 1
      It seems to me that the problem is your leaders are not willing to say to Bush (well, to the third-level functionary who actually makes such phone calls) that no, we are not willing to inconvenience our citizens to this degree in order to satisfy your security requirements. I assume this is both because they pretty much don't care about their citizens except as voters, and because it's geopolitically disadvantageous to snub the POTUS. His Bushness has every right to make whatever security requirements he wants, and if Howard doesn't like it he has every right to uninvite him. You may consider whether you yourself would be better off in a country that has the goodwill of countries such as the US, or in one where you can use your cell phone all the time. I don't think the answer to that question is obvious. On the other hand, it's purely academic since we all know the likes of Bush will go pretty much wherever they want and do what they like.

      And please mock about anything you like. We're trying too, but there's so much to make fun of these days any help is appreciated.

    54. Re:Should read... by guaigean · · Score: 1
      I am not arguing with most of your post, as it is opinion, and you can't easily argue opinion. However, the portion where you say:

      ...has refered to the Constitution as "just a piece of paper,"... is factually incorrect. This has been long discounted for a huge lack of evidence or any witnesses of note. This was entirely based on a story written on Capitol Hill Blue, a notoriously fact free source of information.

      Please do your research before making bold claims. One factual error leads others to question your entire line of reasoning.
      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    55. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's been zero because it's been completely unnecessary. We're doing what the terrorists want and more so. We'll not see another single terrorist incident until we elect a government with the balls to do something about terror, and the willingness to not let foreign policy be dictated by Osama Bin Laden.

    56. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I believe there have also been ZERO tiger attacks on American soil since 9/11.

      Idiot.

    57. Re:Should read... by MoxFulder · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that the Secret Service, local police, and air traffic will obviously be communicating somehow. Police frequencies are well-known and unlikely to be jammed... why wouldn't terrorists just make their remote control detonators listen on those frequencies?

      Seems like "security theater" to me...

    58. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now all the "terrorists" need to do is threaten them that they've wired a bomb so that it goes off if they don't phone it to stop at such and such a time, and we have ourselves a nice catch 22.

    59. Re:Should read... by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
      "This has been long discounted for a huge lack of evidence or any witnesses of note. This was entirely based on a story written on Capitol Hill Blue, a notoriously fact free source of information."

      Baloney. Wayne Madsen reported it long ago and his sources were White House staffers disgusted with Bush. Of course they will not come forward publically as it would be career suicide. Madsen is a former intelligence community employee with an excellent no-bs website. Maybe you need to get better directives from Karl before you try to bluff. And wipe the brown off your nose, it's disgusting.

    60. Re:Should read... by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Bad politicians make the people worse (destroy public education, for example)

      The teachers' unions have done a fine job with destroying public eduction in some areas - they probably didn't even need the politicians to help.

      school lunches are often sponsored by corporations like Hershey's, and Pepsi. The food these companies give leaves very little in the way of actual nutrition. But other programs that involve freshly prepared, locally grown foods cost the same and take the same time to prepare. Except... you guessed it.

      As I didn't see Super Size Me, I don't know the circumstances or accuracy of the situation described.

      However, consider the plight of a school administrator given the choice of procuring supplies from a large supplier who is well insured, has sophisticated testing labs, can deliver a reliably consistent product and meet delivery commitments reliably vs. a local supplier with limited insurance, limited ability to test their product, vulnerability to local supply and weather conditions, and possibly just weak financial condition. The large supplier probably makes a lot more sense.

      Imagine, for example, that a bunch of kids get sick, and a few die, and it's just SUSPECTED that it was a problem with the food in the school cafeteria. The large supplier will likely expend the resources to disprove (therefore protecting the decision maker) that they were not responsible or, if it turns out they were responsible, their insurance will kick in and be the "deep pockets" in the subsequent lawsuits (again protecting the decision maker). The small supplier, on the other hand, is likely to be unable to respond anywhere nearly as aggressively (and, if they tried, the cost of doing so even though it WASN'T their product that caused the problem, could bankrupt them) - which leaves the school district much more vulnerable. If the district gets sued for a situation such as I describe, a jury is likely to be a lot more sympathetic to the administrator/school district who chooses to buy products from known suppliers that supply millions of people with food every day and has hundreds of products on the local supermarkets' shelves than to one that chooses to buy from "Fred's Organic Farm Products" who grows products on his farm between the river and the smelly pig farm everyone hates. (Esp. when it turns out that Fred is a second cousin to a school board member who approved the contract with Fred - even though this relationship really had nothing to do with the decision).

      It may suck, but the litigious, risk adverse, society in which we live encourages the "safe" decision in cases like this. It's like the saying from 30 years ago: "No one ever lost their job by buying IBM".

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    61. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Hope we keep it that way, Anything to avoid another 9/11 (or worse), our country might not survive that.

      Economic collapse to the point all stores and gas stations are empty, and people are doing hand-to-hand combat in the streets for food.

    62. Re:Should read... by abb3w · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That said, I have no doubts that said helicopter will also take out 802.11 signals because only a really dumb team would jam only mobile signals.

      On the other hand, there's a lot of spectrum, and if you are planning an assassination, local rules about "assigned frequencies" and "allowable broadcast power" really aren't a concern for the bad guys. An pro-am radio transmitter, tone generator, and a high-powered parabolic antenna (an old satellite dish?) shouldn't add more than $5k (at worst) to the cost of the plot. Finding a location to transmit from shouldn't be too hard; bypassing a home's mains feed to get you 100A at 220V takes a qualified electrician to do without killing yourself, but that's not an excessively hard-to-get skill set. The transmitter won't last long when overpowered by that much, but it's doesn't need to. Voila, any transistor radio now can serve as the detonator (as may the filings in your teeth). To add insult to injury, use a cell phone to remotely activate the radio transmitter.

      I suspect the point is not to make it impossible for the terrorists (it's not practical), but merely to make sure it isn't easy — the old "low hanging fruit" approach. The fanatic mindset isn't generally very good at creative thinking, so if the can defenders prevent old ideas from working, they force the fanatics to continue working from a weakness rather than their strengths.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    63. Re:Should read... by whimmel · · Score: 1

      If they are flying a helicopter anyway then why is Bush traveling by motorcade?

      --
      Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    64. Re:Should read... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      If I decided to kill Bush this way, I would then implement a bomb trigger that would be armed by a wireless connection 4 minutes before the jamming started and then it would detonate 15 seconds after detecting that the network is out.

    65. Re:Should read... by hummassa · · Score: 1

      Yeah and I doubt the jamming works on all frequencies. If someone was determined enough to do it they'd wait with a sniper rifle on the grassy knoll. Yeah, or... I don't know, ... make your bomb activated by the proximity of a cell phone jammer???

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    66. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      11n? Why?

      If I were a terrorist designing a remote control detonator, I wouldn't be messing around with anything so complicated. No, I would be using a bog-standard radio controled car. 40-80MHz controls, well below the jamming threshold. Easy to obtain. Easy to rig up. Just press the button, and the car-guts set off the bomb.

      Its range isn't as good as a cell phone of course, but the higher-powered gear from radio aircraft should be sufficient to link an observer to the bomb from quite a distance.

    67. Re:Should read... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      I sometimes wonder if our country should survive another 9/11. Something's gone terribly wrong in the last 10-12 years in this country and it's not getting better. Maybe we need to become something entirely different to uphold what we originally considered sacred. Obviously we're not doing that now.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    68. Re:Should read... by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

      Of course I'm sure the Secret Service is aware of something called Defense in Depth. It's not like this is the only thing they do to protect the President. This is just one layer in the onion. Would you be so quick to accuse them of being silly if it was a Democrat President? Of course not, you'd expect them to try and consider all the angles.

      Believe it or not, the Secret Service has some very smart people in their employ who might just know a tad bit more about Security then you. After al the have to guard something a little more important then your porn collection you hide in your mom's basement.

    69. Re:Should read... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's just that when you get 50,000 people with 20,000 phones in a small space the stadium infrastructure just can't handle it. If the phone company doesn't bring in portable cells to take on the extra load quite a few people are going to have service issues.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    70. Re:Should read... by cashman73 · · Score: 1
      Traveling to OTHER countries and terrorizing OTHER people

      Apparently, slashdotters already forgot about YOUR Queen's visit to America two weeks ago,... granted, she may not have blocked cell phones from working, but she did fark up traffic real bad in just about every city she visited.

    71. Re:Should read... by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't worry about it. After all, it's probably a couple of Secret Service guys setting up the rockets. Come on people, do you really think the Secret service doesn't use multiple strategies to secure a motorcade? Do you guys think they don't have those windows either secured or monitored long before the rpesident passes through there? They learned alot from the JFL murder. Hell they even come in before hand and weld the man hole covers down.

      I'm not saying that it's impossible to mount an attack, but its not like the secret service doesn't have people whose only job is to sit in a room and try and think of ways to harm the president just so they can figure out ways to stop it.

      Are you so naive to believe that a bunch of computer monkeys talking on the internet are SOOOOO much smarter then anyone the government could possibly hire.

    72. Re:Should read... by yurnotsoeviltwin · · Score: 1

      I think we agree, I think forcing their hand to only suicide bombers isn't a small thing. It's a lot harder to hide an entire person than it is to hide a bit of C4, so provided they've blocked all radio bands (I don't see why they wouldn't) this should make the secret service's job a lot easier.

    73. Re:Should read... by VWJedi · · Score: 1

      They learned alot from the JFL murder.

      Who is JFL?

    74. Re:Should read... by VWJedi · · Score: 1

      If the head of any prominent nation had to drive through traffic jams and walk through crowded plazas where anybody with an ax to grind could take him out, they just wouldn't do it.

      Well, if their security isn't good enough to stop someone wielding a dull ax, they probably should stay home.

    75. Re:Should read... by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

      You don't know JFL? Holy cow man! Where you been? Everyone knows JFL!
      Seriously though, the sheer lack of critical thinking skills on Slashdot caused my blood pressure to rise to precarious levels, cutting of circulation to my fingers, which went sloppy all over the keyboard in my last post. For that I am truly sorry.

    76. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radical Islam is not fascism. The economic and corporatist elements are pretty much totally absent, and nationalism comes second to religious identity.

      Short version: don't use "fascist" as a label for "person I don't like".

    77. Re:Should read... by sakasune · · Score: 1

      I want you to consider that they might have sources of information that you cannot find on /. or google

      Yeah, they could've used http://en.wikipedia.org/

      --
      "You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it," I said. "I'm prepared to call that cowardice."
    78. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's the insidiousness of Islamic fascists."

      I'm always amused at how well people have been duped by this obvious propaganda line. Saying "Islamic fascists" only shows that you don't have a clue what the word "fascist" means.

      You should try using an encyclopedia or dictionary before using unfamiliar words. In fact, people who are most accurately characterized as fascists in this current farcical struggle are the people who pretend they're "anti-terrorists." They generally promote authoritarian ideals, favoring centralized control, corporate-government cooperation, and militarism. That is what "fascism" means, and its insidiousness is most apparent in your own promotion of it.

    79. Re:Should read... by VWJedi · · Score: 1

      I suspected as much... but I thought you might be talking about this guy.

    80. Re:Should read... by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

      Huh? How does the fact that it's been done before not make it news if it's not been news before? Even if it has been news before, maybe the submitter/editor/author just maybe felt that it was important to bring to people's attention? You know, just because you might have had the chance to witness something, doesn't mean that everyone else has.

    81. Re:Should read... by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 1

      First of all, she is not my queen.

      Second of all - fucked up traffic, but cell phones OK. Sounds like some "normal" security precautions. No emptied hotels, no helicopters jamming local communication infrastructure. So, what's you point?

      Look, I don't approve of any "head of the state" interferring with bussiness of normal people (i.e. the ones paying for his or her life) due to some security measures. As the matters are, I'll have to put up with it, that's the way the world works. However, I am NOT ready to put up with too aggressive/intrusive measures being taken under the cover of "security". What's next? Secret Service storming my flat and keeping my wife, kids and myself on the floor, face down, handcuffs on, for the entire day, because we live in the street where his majesty Mr. Bush might want to drive through?

      That politicians are holding themselves for more important than they actually are is not surprising. That so many ordinary people seem to be so happy to swallow their elected officials shit and to even view it as normal, that is frightening.

    82. Re:Should read... by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would have "uninvited" him, but nobody asks me! :-)

    83. Re:Should read... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually I would bet that the helicopters are not going to jam cell signals. Why jam them when you can just shut down the towers?
      What signals they will jam is an interesting question.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    84. Re:Should read... by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      --Are you so naive to believe that a bunch of computer monkeys talking on the internet are SOOOOO much smarter then anyone the government could possibly hire.--

      No, I look at the policies and decisions that come down from 'on high', and b.t.w. where do you think we get the recruits for our "best and brightest" when it comes to computers? Perhaps not from /. itself, but OFF THE INTERNET! Who'd have thunk?

      You seem to have forgotten that even though they work for the government, they're still fallible humans.

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    85. Re:Should read... by BakaHoushi · · Score: 2, Funny

      I never said the politicians were the sole blame for ruining public education. There's far too many to choose from (Creationists trying to turn science class into a Bible fight, teacher's unions, "Zero Tolerance" policies that punish the bullied, etc.) But politicians sure don't alleviate the problem at all. I guess this is part of the problem.

      Now, for an ironic twist, an analogy of how society is NOT a car! Our modern society is NOT like a car. When a car breaks down, you can check to make sure each part is doing its... well, part. In the end, many parts may need replacing, but even if the whole engine breaks, the frame and the wheels are still usable. But in society, when problems arise, fixing and replacing parts is not viable, because no piece is broken, but rather a series of parts creates the problem. One can't find the source of the problem, and that makes it all that much more difficult to fix.

      It's enough to drive you mad. I know it's working on me. I'm only 20 and I'm already planning for my first nervous breakdown.

      And part of my point is I don't think these "safe" decisions are "safe" in the long term.
      The "safe" decision to buy food from Pepsi prevents a lawsuit tomorrow, but it ruins the digestive tracts of kids over time, or, at least, can interfere with the abilities of children to function in classrooms (high sugar and carbs and low vitamins can make for some irritable kids. Think about how irritable some people get with excess caffeine.).

      But of course, that's not the only source of the problem. Weight problems in America are also caused by many, many sources (including, of course, parents. But good luck improving our current batch.).

      Basically, there IS no "safe" decision. The doctor today who pays outrageous fees for malpractice insurance is saved from a lawsuit next month, but a raise in prices causes more outrage, and makes more people likely to sue next year when their expensive surgery isn't perfect.

      Hmmm... but I have noticed in every example I've given so far, a lot of the blame DOES go towards "fear of being sued." Maybe if we could do something about people suing over every little problem in life... hold on a sec... Uhhh... I just got a phone call. I'm being sued by the Bar Association for endangering their jobs. Damn.

    86. Re:Should read... by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      --Would you be so quick to accuse them of being silly if it was a Democrat President?--

      Yes. Yes I would, but thank you for asking a question with an already prepared answer. For the record, I'm more Democrat than Republican...actually I don't think any of them have their heads screwed on straight and more than likely BOTH PARTIES are pretty much owned by the corporations. The personal attacks on every story about bush or ANYTHING political is just amazing on here.
      I consider it proof that they have already accomplished their goal : making sure that the intelligent people have something petty to fight over so they never work together. Ever read the story of the Tower of Babel?

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    87. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't use the term "islamic fascist".
      Fascism is an invention of Mussolini in the 20th century.
      It is nothing to do with Islam which is from 7th century.
      Use the term terrorist instead, if this is what you mean.
      "Islamofascism" is newspeak bullshit.

    88. Re:Should read... by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      --Good. Hope we keep it that way, Anything to avoid another 9/11 (or worse), our country might not survive that.

      Economic collapse to the point all stores and gas stations are empty, and people are doing hand-to-hand combat in the streets for food.--

      You bought those $2000 "Preparedness Kits" they sold with the food and water in 1999 didn't you?

      also, careful when you use the word "Anything". Sorry, I for one do not think stripping away freedom of speech and other civil rights or turning this country into what it has become is a fair trade. Sure there's been no terrorist attacks. All they had to do is stir up a bit of trouble in the US, they *knew* Bush and other people would do the rest for them.

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    89. Re:Should read... by theolein · · Score: 1



      So what is the difference between their stereotype and your stereotype? Did it ever occur to you that a large portion of this world, most of whom are white American liberals, cannot stand your president either?

    90. Re:Should read... by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1
    91. Re:Should read... by rebelcan · · Score: 1

      Or what happens when something bad happens, like ( highly unlikely, I know ) someone dies because they didn't receive proper medical attention because someone had to run and find a working phone instead of using their cell phone?

      --
      God is dead -- Nietzsche
      Nietzsche is dead -- God
      Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
    92. Re:Should read... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "2) There is some suspicion that this has more to do with making it harder for legitimate democratic protesters to co-ordinate their actions than it does with preventing terrorism."

      Well, are they blocking CB, or FRS or GMRS radios?? If not...the protesters could easily use those to communicate.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    93. Re:Should read... by djasbestos · · Score: 1

      The same government that brought you FEMA, run by Pony Commander Michael Brown!!!! George "I predicted everything that would happen except I didn't say anything til now" Tenet!!!!! Alberto "I don't recall" Gonzales!!!! Great Communicator 2.0 Donald Rumsfeld!!! Fucking geniuses!

    94. Re:Should read... by Johnny5000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's not the first president of the USA to travel abroad, you know, but for reasons of overblown security measures interfering with other people's lives in very unpleasant ways, he's most probably the least wellcome one.

      I think he's probably the least welcome US president because he's generally acknowledged around the world to be a complete knob. I doubt the extra security precautions have much to do with it.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    95. Re:Should read... by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 1

      Well, Paris Hilton is also not much worse than he is, but she is generally not viewed as "not wellcome". :-)

      No, really. Whether he's a complete knob or not is a question of a perspective and personal oppinion. Whether his travel security measures are overblown or not is easily verified by simply comparing it to what it looks like when other "heads of the state" travel.

    96. Re:Should read... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      especially when the folks at my job called in the middle of a game to complain about server or internet outages.

      I wonder what would happen if somebody sued the Federal Gov't because they had a heart attack or some such and couldn't call for help because Bush was in town?

      Motorcades, helicopters, suppression of legitimate protest (free speech "zones"), disruption of communications networks, blah, blah, blah. When did the President of the United States become a Monarch exactly? How much money does it cost for him to merely travel two miles to the State of the Union?

      There has to be a happy medium between this level of praetorian guard bullshit and the Presidents of old where just about anybody could come into the White House and meet with them.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    97. Re:Should read... by Professor+Fate · · Score: 1

      This kind of thing is always an annoyance to locals.

      When Pope John Paul visited my city, they closed the airport and all the roads he would take for several hours. When President Bill Clinton was doing his "trolley stop" campaign, they had secret service on every high building and overpass, and they stopped a lot of traffic.

      If you don't like the person, any disruption of your daily routine gonna be infruriating. The article only mentions losing a football field worth of coverage. Unless he's driving by your house, you probably won't even notice anything.

      I'm sure your Government there was involved in the security planning. I'm also sure that this is only one small facet of the overall security.

      I can understand if you just don't want the guy to visit in any case. :)

      --
      Push the button, Max!
    98. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "by forcing the local authorities to turn off the cell phone network respectively block the traffic along the route he is supposed to take, is what bothers me!"

      Uhmm it's the span of a football field, not the Tour de France. If your that close then you shouldn't be that worried about cellphone reception anyways...

    99. Re:Should read... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Trigger the bomb to explode not on the *presence* of a jamming signal, but on the *weakening of the running average* of the signal strength (i.e., when the chopper is moving away from you).

      Which means the Black Hats now can't simply attach a bomb to a cellphone. Instead they have to perform a substantial hardware and software hack - and not only hope it works when used in the field, but hope their algorithm is clever enough to analyze the signal detonate the bomb when the President is near it - rather than already well past. Their job has now become significantly more difficult - their friction (to use the technical term) has gone up. Increasing the friction is a Good Thing.
       
      Side comment: I love the typical Slashdot arrogance here, the automagic assumption that random amateurs somehow know more than the professionals.
    100. Re:Should read... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Silly Secret Service, don't you know suicide bombers are for kids? When they realize they can't do it remotely, someone will "martyr" themselves to get the job done. That's the insidiousness of Islamic fascists.

      Certainly the Secret Service knows this - this is why they are doing it. They have almost zero chance of detecting a remotely detonated explosive - while they have a much larger chance (but not a certainty) of catching a martyr.
       
       

      That said, doing something is better than doing nothing. A lot of the complaints here seem to be along the lines of "why lock my car door when someone can steal my stereo by breaking the window anyway?" It just means you'll be limiting your opponents to only very serious players instead of wannabes.

      And actually - that's a Good Thing, as it narrows the potential field of opponents significantly. Any security professional, if asked, would choose "decreasing the bad guys chances some small amount" instantly over "leave the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition". They know damm well they can't stop everyone, everywhere - but that they can stop most of them most places, and make life more difficult for the rest.
    101. Re:Should read... by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Wow. Bill O'Reilly posts on Slashdot?

    102. Re:Should read... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Which means the Black Hats now can't simply attach a bomb to a cellphone. Instead they have to perform a substantial hardware and software hack - and not only hope it works when used in the field, but hope their algorithm is clever enough to analyze the signal detonate the bomb when the President is near it - rather than already well past.

      That would assume that the goal of the attack is to actually kill or harm the President himself.

      This is not what terrorism is about.

      Setting off a bomb in proximity (spatial or temporal) to the presidential event would be enough.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    103. Re:Should read... by Riverman5 · · Score: 1

      The problem with you liberals is you can't be reasoned with. It's anything but a fact that he LIED intentionally, as you put it. Even if you believe it, even if it LOOKS like he lied, that is no fact. Those chemical munitions still haven't been accounted for, but who cares, right? We're well beyond that now.

      Yes you may have just been throwing the word FACT around, but none the less, your BELIEF is unjustified, and it shouldn't take a stupid thing like that (not finding WMDs) to invalidate this war. Like I said, we're well beyond that now.

      You liberals will go down in history as ignorant, arrogant and misguided. While the middle east steers itself toward annihilation, you want to pull up the drawbridge of American foreign policy, as Tony Blair so eloquently put it.

    104. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHA well said! Comparing tiger attacks to terrorist attacks makes no rational sense. Get a clue, genius.

    105. Re:Should read... by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      If I was a terrorist and I had to work around RF jamming, one possibility would be to use IR sensors and IR lasers/diodes. Not quite off-the-shelf like cell phones but it would be unscramblable by anything short of an EMP. The detector itself would be a wired remote to the actual detonator so the payload would not have to lie in plain sight. Add a small microcontroller and you get the ability to remotely program detonation delays so you can dispose of the triggering device before the fireworks start.

      The major shortcoming would be the limited triggering range and suitable transmitter locations due to the LoS requirement.

      Ultrasonic and spread-spectrum triggers would be more complex but definitely doable with DSP or FPGA+DAC... but the bomb would require somewhat large batteries since they would most likely have to be set several days ahead of the target's arrival.

    106. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but your country is still firmly in control of the security measures No. The US Secret Service does not allow locals to get in the way of their operations to keep POTUSA safe. They will override the Australians during APEC.
    107. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there's two words that make the FUD regarding the current president's security unnecessary:

      Dick Cheney

    108. Re:Should read... by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      Judging by the fact that you were modded insightful, I'd suggest that noone caught said joke.

      Still, we've got 30+ posts on the best way to trigger a bomb near a president, so I'm sure that something good has come from it ;)

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    109. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they've got blood on their hands. Hmm... I guess they never cared in the first place.

    110. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same could be said for the current administration, if you ignore all of the negative things they have done.

    111. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, has there been a true CONSERVATIVE either?
      Reagan.

      BWAHAHAHAHA

    112. Re:Should read... by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_Memo

      Really, that's all I have to say to that. And if that isn't enough, okay, he was WILLING to lie to start a war, if he couldn't find justification. Okay? That doesn't really change anything. It still makes him just as wrong. And for the record, WMDs or no WMDs, it was wrong. We know of plenty of other countries with WMDs. We know of plenty of other countries committing massive amounts of genocide. So why Iraq? Why a secular country that was practically benign in comparison to places like Darfur and, heck, pick any country in Africa by this point. Iraq was far from a perfectly safe place to live, but it's certainly a much, much worse place now, has put the world in MORE danger, AND now instead of a secular government of one dictator, they're electing theological extremists to be the new dictators.

      And before you call me ignorant and arrogant, take a look in the mirror. You're throwing around ad hominem attacks and automatically grouping me in with a political affiliation of your choosing. Maybe I'm NOT a liberal. Hmmm? I know people who are so-called conservatives who have nothing good to say of Bush. So stop the insults, stop the accusations, and stop giving people false choices (Honestly, the drawbridge thing is as bad as "fight them there or fight them here." It's not like we have only two options.)

    113. Re:Should read... by StrahdVZ · · Score: 1

      (personally I think Howard [aussie PM] is a dick, but better than the alternatives) Offtopic but I feel like discussing this anyway. I felt the same way until I heard Swan (opposition treasurer) and Gillard (opposition employment) and even Rudd talk.... watch ABC a while and listen to their interviews etc, its kindof amazing... I can't believe labor has finally put people in that come across has having brains in their heads!

      Federal Labor leaders and ministers haven't had brains for as long as I have been voting, and probably even longer. I voted against labor in NSW state out of anger for poor management but I think I'm (finally) gonna go the other way federal.
    114. Re:Should read... by ian-live · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be $0.00 AU if you're paying cash?

      --
      Born, to clone
    115. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 'DemocratIC', you dittohead tool. So sorry about, you know, the way the Republicans are going. It must be hard for you. I understand your need to lash out.

    116. Re:Should read... by tashammer · · Score: 0

      dicks are useful, Howard certainly isn't.

      Gee, but think, not being able to use your mobile phone. Oh dear, it will be like, umm, how many years ago? Very few and we managed then. Duh.

      Anyway, the security is a good thing because it stops the general populace from coming into contact with plutocrats, warmongers, dictators and other nasty germs, so it's good for our health!

    117. Re:Should read... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Doesn't even need to be complex. You can get IR-activated alarms on ebay and the like.

      --
      The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
    118. Re:Should read... by Meski · · Score: 1

      I don't see extreme measures like this being taken for the Dalai Lama[1]. (exiled head of state of Tibet) Go on, argue that he doesn't have enemies and I'll point to China. Do I really care that mobile phones are being jammed? Not really. Publicising it ahead of time was stupid though, just means the hypothetical attack will use another method. [1] Who is visiting Oz sometime soon.

    119. Re:Should read... by moldor · · Score: 1

      Or what happens when something bad happens, like ( highly unlikely, I know ) someone dies because they didn't receive proper medical attention because someone had to run and find a working phone instead of using their cell phone? This has been an ongoing dedate in Australia for years. Restaraunts and movie theatres want to be able to use jammers for the comfort / convenience of their patrons. "Oh, but I'm a Doctor - I need my pager / cellphone to be accessable at all times"... So, go to another theatre ! The Telcos are screaming about the Bush visit - their argument goes something like "We paid for the EXCLUSIVE rights to that frequency spectrum and we will NOT ALLOW anyone to jam it" - i.e. you have no right to control what electronic signal enters your home. That;s the argument a former employer of mine used years ago to get scanners legalised in Australia - the signal goes through my house, so I have the right to listen to it.

      Peace....

      moldor.the.flatulent

    120. Re:Should read... by rebelcan · · Score: 1

      I wonder if that argument would work for stealing satellite....

      "The signal gets beamed at my house, I have the right to do what I want with it."

      --
      God is dead -- Nietzsche
      Nietzsche is dead -- God
      Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
    121. Re:Should read... by Magada · · Score: 1

      It does work. If you can crack it, it's yours. No such thing as stealing satellite - enforcement is impossible.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    122. Re:Should read... by SillySlashdotName · · Score: 1

      Not quite off-the-shelf like cell phones

      Not sure what specific hardware you are refering to, but I can get IR TV remote controls at Walmart, Sears, Radio Shack,...

      Garage door remote controls don't work on the same radio frequencies as cell phones. Just saying...

      Radio Shack sells 'walkie-talkies' with a range of half a mile - and not on cell phone frequencies.

      Not to mention all the on-line sources for long/longer distance "signal/no signal" communication devices.

      --
      Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
    123. Re:Should read... by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      Most IR remote controls do not have IR receivers... and even if they do, they are there only to record IR patterns from other remote controls and this function is disabled unless the user triggers a key programming event. They most likely have no signal suitable for reliable remote triggering.

      Network signal meters are also not really suitable as remote triggers since you get no control over the trigger mechanism. The whole point of the cell-phone, pager or any remote-controlled approach is to simply wire the speaker/vibrator/whatever to the trigger circuit and call the phone/pager/whatever to trigger. Network (non-)detection would be more like a backup self-destruct trigger in case the signal gets unexpectedly jammed.

      Using alternative RF bands will work if the deployed jamming is targeted at specific service frequencies... but if the jamming device is a high-power Tesla coil or better broadband noise sources, the reliability of dumb RF triggers (accidental or failed triggering) would be substantially undermined.

      Unregistered prepaid cell phones were convenient off-the-shelf addressable remote triggers. New procurement requirements mean terrorists will have to seek similarly convenient and reliable replacements from other sources - but they certainly could fall back to less reliable previous remote trigger schemes in the meantime like tuned high-Q LC oscillators.

    124. Re:Should read... by nasch · · Score: 1

      First, pointing out one major world figure without major security measures doesn't indicate that the rest of them don't need security or shouldn't have it. Second, even if it did prove that, it doesn't have any bearing on whether the other leaders will have such security measures, which is really what I was talking about. Maybe Bush needs 100 people and black helicopters guarding him and maybe he doesn't, but the fact is that's what he has. Finally, I doubt the Secret Service is so stupid that they didn't realize publicizing this technique would tip off any potential attackers. And it seems to me it would be useful to publicize a few of the methods they're using that would stop very simple attacks. That way maybe some of the crazies who might think about a cheap and unsophisticated attack would realize it wouldn't work and not try it. Perhaps their entire goal in this is to make sure that the attack is done some other way - some way that's more expensive and difficult to do, and therefore available to fewer potential attackers.

    125. Re:Should read... by caol.kailash · · Score: 1

      Yeah well that's hegemony for ya. Gotta love it.

    126. Re:Should read... by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      What gets me is liberal people bash bush when he is more liberal than some democrats.

      What gets me is when people lump Democrats in with liberals. It's true that most Democrats tend to be progressive -- which is different from being "liberal" -- but George W. Bush is neither, period, end of story. That kind of generalization would be similar to saying that Republicans shoot each other in the face with shotguns, lie constantly while arranging to have innocents murdered by the thousands, kick the poor in the teeth after stealing the food from their babies mouths, give higher priority to the jobs of foreigners than the jobs of citizens, would sell off all our natural resources just to enrich themselves, would ignore the most wanted terrorist in the world until he hijacked two commercial airliners and used them as missiles to kill as many people as possible, etc. I have friends and family who are Republicans, and I love and them and respect their opinions, even if I don't agree with all of them, and not one of those generalizations fits them. Those generalizations only apply to George Bush and his staff.

      And about "Bush Bashing": it's not bashing if it's true. As Harry S. Truman so famously said, "They think I'm giving them hell. I'm not giving them hell, I'm just telling the truth on them and they think it's hell." Well, when you hear someone "bashing" Bush, it's not bashing. You're just hearing an unpleasant truth, and you think it's bashing because you voted for him.

      Try this out: http://views.tgrigsby.com.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    127. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame us, we didn't elect him either. He did not win the US election, his cronies manipulated the results. Who knows why people permitted him to step into power since he was not elected.

  2. Uhm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you wanted to put a bomb... then you will make it detonate when it receives the jamming signal...... DUH!

    1. Re:Uhm.. by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unless your talking about a really big fing bomb (which these terrorist generally don't use and if they had wouldn't need cellphones etc to use) the blast range is a few feet at best. Meaning it will receive the jamming long before there is anything interesting to blow up.

    2. Re:Uhm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that it blows up half a football field away?

    3. Re:Uhm.. by ray-auch · · Score: 1, Funny

      So place the trigger phone half a football field ahead, and run some cable (or use wireless on a different frequency) to the bomb.

      Only difficulty now is how big is a "football field" - is that american football, aussie rules, soccer, imperial or metric...

    4. Re:Uhm.. by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Unless your talking about a really big fing bomb (which these terrorist generally don't use and if they had wouldn't need cellphones etc to use) the blast range is a few feet at best. Meaning it will receive the jamming long before there is anything interesting to blow up.

      Imagine a terrorist got a Javelin launcher, and a nice spot to shoot from (which for the Javelin is just about anywhere). A Javelin follows its target electronically, so the terrorist can move immediately after launching the missile, before it hits the target, and the missile itself strikes top down and can blow up a whole tank.

      What I'm trying to get at, you can't stop anyone who wants to kill Bush, so maybe he should just give up and resign from the job.

      Now, don't even try to find logical fallacies in my construction up there, I don't like that.

    5. Re:Uhm.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Hopefully there is no bridge between detinations.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Uhm.. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Not to mention in a massive crowd all you need to do is fire a shot at the guy and then duck down in 'fear' and throw the gun to the side some where and you've just killed the guy and look completely innocent other than you maybe kind of look Arabic if you're even that colour.

      People forget the simple method is best. It takes the least planning, least chance of being caught and has the best chance of death.

      --
      I like muppets.
    7. Re:Uhm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your ideas intriguing and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. (/. rim-shot) Wait, I already do!

    8. Re:Uhm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, if you're going to do that, why not go a few inches further and then call the damned trigger?

    9. Re:Uhm.. by PieSquared · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "What I'm trying to get at, you can't stop anyone who wants to kill Bush, so maybe he should just give up and resign from the job."

      Wrong. You can't stop *everyone* who wants to kill bush, assuming infinite. It is child's play to stop one person - look for the guy with the big missile launcher and arrest him before he can get a lock. Stopping anyone is easy. Stopping everyone is the challenge.

      Oh, and so far the secret service has a pretty good record. One presidential death since they have been guarding presidents, and two failed attempts that got as far as shooting. Not to mention the countless other attempts they have nipped in the bud. And for our current president they seem to be doing a good job, seeing as most of the world hates bush and yet he lives on.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    10. Re:Uhm.. by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Of all the presidents to successfully defend...

      Come on Secret Service, throw us a frickin' bone here!

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    11. Re:Uhm.. by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Bush has one of the best security measures against assassination ever:

      Vice President Dick Cheney.

    12. Re:Uhm.. by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Except for that whole metal detector thing, and the general security around the President 24 hours a day. This isn't 1981 anymore, and it's much harder to get close enough to the President while carrying a gun than it used to be. Simple, yes. Effective, not likely. Points for thinking like a real assassin, though. This whole "terrorist" thing is just a big pile of shit.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    13. Re:Uhm.. by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Seriously, why would anyone wanting to harm US interests ever want to assassinate Bush? He's the biggest threat to US interests in a long time. He's doing everything perfectly to turn the world against us and bring the "enemy" more cannon fodder for their armies. He's a terrorist's wet dream. He's easily manipulated, power-happy, and has something to prove, to himself, to his father, to the world. What more can you ask as a hate-monger?

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    14. Re:Uhm.. by asninn · · Score: 1

      And for our current president they seem to be doing a good job, seeing as most of the world hates bush and yet he lives on.

      Here's a hint: not everyone who hates the guy wants to personally kill him. Many people would celebrate if he died, and many would gladly piss on his grave given the opportunity, but that's a far cry from actually killing him yourself.

      --
      butter the donkey
    15. Re:Uhm.. by cbacba · · Score: 1

      Terrorists have been known to use shaped charges in small bombs to assasinate individuals. They've also been known to pack delivery trucks full of explosives much more potent than tim mcveigh's efforts - not that he wasn't a terrorist.

      The disclosure is interesting in that it's yet another tip-off from the media to the terrorists - the same sort of thing that cause us to lose track of bin laden when he stopped using his sat. phone.

  3. Sure its not exclusive by gravesb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am sure that this isn't the only countermeasure that they are taking. Its good to publish this one, though, so people know in advance their cell phones won't work. The other counter measures probably don't affect personal electronic devices in the same manner.

    --
    http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Sure its not exclusive by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      It's also good to know if you are a terrorist that you should switch frequencies...you know...turn the knob to the left or right just a little.


      Also, let's hope that nobody has any emergencies while they wait for Bush to pass by...

    2. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was going to say - why not use an AM radio to control the trigger? With a decent antenna and a few watts of power you could trigger the bomb from literally hundreds of miles away. The mobile phone jammers are going to be so far out of the passband they won't make a difference.

    3. Re:Sure its not exclusive by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well I shouldn't imagine there will be many people lining the route waving to him and throwing garlands of flowers ( apart from maybe members of the government waiting to lick his boots ) so it will just be the normal people going about there jobs which this will interfere with.

      I don't see why he should need all this security though, even if the worst does happen and someone blows him sky high it's not like he's even remotely irreplacable and someone else can take over his job a couple of hours later without anything disasterous occuring.

      You could say this would be a major coup for whatever terrorist organisation pulls it off but it wouldn't be if you didn't let it and just shrugged your shoulders "So, you killed the president. So what ? Someone else is doing his job now". This is beside the fact that were I terrorist looking for some good publicity for myself to help my recruitment drive killing Bush is probably the last thing I'd do considering all the good things he's done for me already.

    4. Re:Sure its not exclusive by stuntpope · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm mostly ignorant of the subject, but I believe cell phones are used as detonators by calling the phone, which then detonates the explosion. How would an AM radio be used for detonation purposes? If it's switched on, it's constantly getting signals. How would it know which signal was the instruction to spark the explosive?

    5. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't look too good. I've never seen so many discussions how bombs should be implimented for ANY leader of ANY country.

    6. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Informative

      the crudest method is to trigger when some threshhold is reached, and the detonator is just a powerful transmitter. a better, but somewhat more complex method would be to detect a particular tone over x time, such as 120hz for 1 second.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    7. Re:Sure its not exclusive by mustafap · · Score: 1

      Because a small, simple mcirocontroller connected to it is listening for a coded signal. RC aeroplanes use this technique. Any electronics enthusiast could build such a device.

      Maybe I shouldn't have said that :o)

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    8. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i forgot to mention, the tone method is how many R/C cars were controlled back in the 90's. haven't had one since i was a kid so i don't know what they use nowadays.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    9. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In other news, terrists switching to walkie-talkies.

      I vote that, for his own protection, Bush be locked up in a bunker until January 20, 2009 (I think Cheney already pretty much does that of his own volition to start with). Seriously, pretty much nobody outside the US wants the guy around, and if he has to meet people, they can go to him or he can get Halliburton a cost-plus deal for a bitchin' videoconference setup.

    10. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Story goes, this blind kid they called Cap'n Crunch used to be able to steal R/C cars just by whistling. Don't know if it's true of course.

    11. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You fail to realize that the "someone else" would be Cheney. I think Americans are more afraid for Bush's life right now than Bush himself could possibly be.

    12. Re:Sure its not exclusive by VJ42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could say this would be a major coup for whatever terrorist organisation pulls it off but it wouldn't be if you didn't let it and just shrugged your shoulders "So, you killed the president. So what ? Someone else is doing his job now". Bingo, you got it in one, that's exactly what our respnse should be to all terrorist attacks; over here we learned quickly that the best response to the IRA was to carry on about our bussiness, but just to remain a little more vigilant. Unfortuneately in the post 11/9/2001 world, our leaders seem to have forgotten that lesson, and instead are placing ever more draconaian and stupid "security meausures" in place to protect us from a vague threat that's extremely unlikely to affect 99% of the population even if the worst occoured. This is all the more puzzling as the provos (and now the dissidents) made Al Quiada look like amaturs.
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    13. Re:Sure its not exclusive by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am sure that this isn't the only countermeasure that they are taking. Its good to publish this one, though, so people know in advance their cell phones won't work. The other counter measures probably don't affect personal electronic devices in the same manner.

      Well, most of the big terrorist acts in the late years involved people who bombed themselves together with the bomb.

      To kill Bush, you'll find enough people ready to die for the chance to do it. If you don't care for your life, there are hundreds of ways to sneak a bomb in close enough radius to kill one man. Actually, it may not even need a whole bomb to begin with.

      I hope they have brain activity jamming device (it's safe for Bush).

    14. Re:Sure its not exclusive by fj3k · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not that we want to blow the guy up; but give a nerd a problem...

      --
      Two men claimed to have walked into a bar. Only one had the bruises to prove it.
    15. Re:Sure its not exclusive by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      I dunno if your better method is really better. If the trigger is driven by the strength of the signal, jamming is likely not to work: all you need is a triggering signal which is at least the sum of the trigger sensitivity and the maximum jamming signal power, to take into account the worst case and terribly unlikely scenario that the jamming equipment broadcast a signal in counter phase when the bomb has to be triggered. Of course you need to discover what the jamming signal power is.

      Besides, terrorist could have got the President, if they wanted it, instead of killing innocent people in the WTC. They didn't, concentrating on irrelevant targets for the sake of the show, so now they made their life difficult and their opponents can portrait themselves as defenders of democracy and freedom: either terrorists are fools or running false flag operations, in both cases they are no real threats to the powerful. Only to us.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    16. Re:Sure its not exclusive by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree, this puzzles me too. I remember when the IRA were in full swing, every so often we'd see a bombing or something on the news, there were posters in swimming baths warning you about bombs and there was a lack of rubbish bins in stations and that was it. I don't remember us needing half the special measures we seem to require now despite the fact on their record alone the IRA were far far more of a threat to the UK than Al-Quaeda are or likely will ever be.

    17. Re:Sure its not exclusive by kcbrown · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortuneately in the post 11/9/2001 world, our leaders seem to have forgotten that lesson, and instead are placing ever more draconaian and stupid "security meausures" in place to protect us from a vague threat that's extremely unlikely to affect 99% of the population even if the worst occoured. This is all the more puzzling as the provos (and now the dissidents) made Al Quiada look like amaturs.

      Why is it puzzling? They're not implementing all those draconian measures to protect you, they're doing it to secure and exercise their power.

      The bottom line is that governments are now figuring out that they can basically do whatever the hell they want and there isn't a damned thing the population at large can do to stop them as long as they control the military and the law enforcement agencies. And they do.

      To them, terrorists are both a nuisance and an opportunity. But they are most definitely not a threat.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    18. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      tone is less likely to be triggered accidentally. all it takes is someone nearby shorting a car battery or some electrical device nearby failing.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    19. Re:Sure its not exclusive by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Unfortuneately in the post 11/9/2001 world, our leaders seem to have forgotten that lesson...

      They haven't forgotten it; it's in their interest to ignore it.

    20. Re:Sure its not exclusive by beady · · Score: 1

      Add a jaunty tune to that idea, and you might have something like this
      http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/NoFX/The-Man-I-Ki lled.html

    21. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      The security is there to protect the office, not the man.

      That said, I find it telling that this particular office always seems to need so much protection. I live in Cambridge, UK. We were visited last week by Jalal Talabani, the President of Iraq: he was guest speaker at the university debating society. Obviously this is someone high profile, and in personal danger because of his office. Now, I was driven right past the building in question around the time he was there, in a taxi, and you could get a pretty good feel for the level of security: unusually high numbers of police in the surrounding area, a few probably-not-quite-standard-issue black cars parked up nearby, etc.

      This is significantly more than we usually get when, say, Prince Charles or the Queen visits. However, next to the motorcade and such that you see every time Bush goes anywhere, it was almost nothing. And like I said, we drove right through the area. They did close a couple of short stretches of road, but I'm guessing that was just to ensure that his cars could leave immediately when he was done; they didn't close off the whole area with some blanket ban. I wasn't on my mobile at the time, but there were no stories of disruption to service. If the President of a nation torn apart by war and probably subject to several assassination attempts every month only needs this much protection, you have to wonder what it is about the US President that needs so much more.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    22. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      "You cannot stop the lone gunman willing to exchange his life for the target's"

    23. Re:Sure its not exclusive by mikael · · Score: 1

      Some terrorist groups were believed to do that - use a series of coded frequency tones to detonate a bomb by remote control. The counter-measure was to have army vehicles generate random combinations of similar tones, with the hopeful intent of detonating the bomb before any vehicle went near it (even better if the terrorist still happened to be beside it at the time).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    24. Re:Sure its not exclusive by brundlfly · · Score: 1

      Heh. Negative on the afraid thingy. Since Congress is proving to be too spineless to impeach, a car bomb may be the free world's only hope. Imagine, that big brave "Texan" afraid to go to Australia. Ain't karma a son of a gun.

    25. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      You fail to realize that the "someone else" would be Cheney.


      So then Cheney would be in charge... just like now?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    26. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm mostly ignorant of the subject, ... ... but for some reason, that didn't prevent you from posting.

      There are lots of ways to trigger an event - a phone call is but one of many.
    27. Re:Sure its not exclusive by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself, I'm taking that day off work.....

    28. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you say "sensationalist news coverage"? How about "Americanisation of the UK"? I swear, I'm gonna emmigrate if this continues.

      Can anyone suggest countries with less of a nanny-state? China perhaps...

    29. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      placing ever more draconaian and stupid "security meausures" in place to protect us

      Want to know a little secret? Nearly every revocation of civil rights, every misinterpretation of the constitution, every power grab we've seen over the past few years -- all have been tried before. The difference is that now government is big enough, in terms of both revenue and power over the people, to pull those power grabs off. The patriot act is one example. That power grab was planned (even attempted) for years before they finally pulled it off.

      Don't fall into the trap of thinking they do these things to protect us, or that they're forced to by popular opinion, or that they're simply making honest mistake after honest mistake. There's a reason why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people, and it's not because making the business of government bigger is unprofitable for those in the business of government. Every year we are subject to more laws than the year before, and as the years pass, the notion that "the people" are somehow responsible for this -- their own oppression -- is becoming more and more absurd.

      If you will observe, the US government now represents the most expensive, most powerful government and world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries around the world) that has ever existed. With all that government -- all that revenue and power with which they can accomplish wonderful things for the collective -- shouldn't we be living in utopia by now?

    30. Re:Sure its not exclusive by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Or even simpler, off-the-shelf FM radio control equipment as is used in model planes/boats/cars/helicopters. Do those morons really think that remote detonated bombs have only been around as long as cellphones?

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    31. Re:Sure its not exclusive by gravesb · · Score: 1

      Except to be a suicide bomber, you need to get close enough to detonate the bomb, and the size of a man portable bomb that isn't immediately obvious is rather small. I'm sure there will be plenty of physical security, as well as a broad spectrum of frequency blocking devices. They merely announced one small portion of security because it was important for the public to know about it.

      --
      http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    32. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Bush should stay at home instead of inconveniencing others with bullshit security.

    33. Re:Sure its not exclusive by stuntpope · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that "some reason" would be an inquiry of slashdotters so I could get some discussion and maybe some learning. All you contributed was snark.

    34. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the post 11/9/2001 world

      Wait... what happened on November 9th? :P

    35. Re:Sure its not exclusive by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      Thats not true.. I couldn't care less. am I afraid for bush's security? Nope. am I afraid of my own security with bush in office? you better f'n believe I am.

    36. Re:Sure its not exclusive by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      shouldn't we be living in utopia by now?

      Why should we be living in utopia? We aren't the ones with the power. Ever seen a Congressman's house? Someone is living in utopia. Just not most of us.

    37. Re:Sure its not exclusive by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      I don't see why he should need all this security though, even if the worst does happen and someone blows him sky high it's not like he's even remotely irreplacable and someone else can take over his job a couple of hours later without anything disasterous occuring. And that someone who comes to power would be obligated to bomb whatever country is suspected of having a hand in the attack.
      Protecting the President is about stopping a potential war, not just keeping the President safe.
    38. Re:Sure its not exclusive by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Besides, terrorist could have got the President, if they wanted it, instead of killing innocent people in the WTC. Don't forget the plane that tried to hit the Pentagon (legitimate military target) and the plane that crashed before it could hit any targets (I'm not sure if we know what the target was--I'd heard the White House or the Capitol Dome).
    39. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      If you don't care for your life, there are hundreds of ways to sneak a bomb in close enough radius to kill one man.

      I've seen a dozen comments like this in this article and they all seem to miss or ignore the fact that a lot more goes into protecting a US president than a helicopter hovering nearby. Do you have ANY idea what the Secret Service goes through for any planned trip of the president? Advance teams to scout any potential ambush points along any routes. Snipers all over the rooftops. Buildings are cleared and secured. A small army of agents that travel along with the motorcade whose job is basically to die for the president. Not to mention the fact that you can be pretty damn sure that the limo itself is seriously armor-plated. There may be hundreds of ways to sneak a bomb in close enough to kill one man, but in this case, getting the specific one man you're aiming for is pretty damn hard.

      When he gets out of the car, you can be pretty sure that everybody allowed within any significant radius of him is very thoroughly searched. Not to mention that the people within a small radius of politicians are usually lackeys they can count on to clap at whatever they say rather than the general public anyway.

      All of this is for domestic security. Though I have no proof, I seriously doubt security on international trips is any less stringent; it's probably more, and the helicopter overhead--while I think it's fairly useless and redundant--is a fair indication of that. Maybe if he were going to Iran or something like that it would be harder to get cooperation from the local authorities to do that sort of thing (which is probably one major reason he wouldn't go), but Australia shouldn't be any issue.

      You're right that it is difficult to protect somebody against a person willing to die to get them, but the Secret Service is pretty good at their jobs.

    40. Re:Sure its not exclusive by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      A plane hit the pentagon.

      But, on the exterior wall. Some people even questioned the feasibility of the maneuver by a pilot of little experience with such aircrafts. I won't go into it, just give anybody a flight simulator and tell them to do the terrorist and hit the pentagon, they will stay higher and drop towards the inner buildings. So, again, those terrorist were either fools or false flag.

      About the other flight: what were the chances of succeed once they hit two towers and the pentagon not to be shot down when going towards capitol hill? Is this strategy? using surprise to hit the lower profile targets and keep the big one for later when alarm is raised? Please.

      Remember that osama and friends fought the friggin' red army in afghanistan! they know a little about military strategy. Only, they seem to have forgotten it all, together with the importance of propaganda. So, again, those terrorist are either fools or false flag. Fools can be tricked to fight against the wrong enemy, false flag know what they are doing.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    41. Re:Sure its not exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I saw Bush's motorcade when he was in Minneapolis a while back, judging by the number of antennas pointing in all directions from the large black SUV that drove in front of him I suspect they were jamming more than just cell phones. The other SUV with armed SWAT-looking guys hanging out the windows probably could have taken care of the rest. I seem to recall there were several identical limos too... perhaps there was more than one VIP or perhaps one was a decoy.

      By the way, Pervez Musharraf was saved by US-provided cell-phone jammers a while back: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_17_ 26/ai_n6032235

  4. isn't it interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    isn't it interesting that the US president is obviously so welcome in one of the US' closest allies?

  5. What if they put a 20 seconds timer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if they put a 20 seconds timer?

    1. Re:What if they put a 20 seconds timer? by nokilli · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bush can't count that high.

      --
      Censored by Technorati

  6. what type by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would that be an 'Aussie Rules' football field, or an American football field.. or a British football field ?? It's these sort of oversights that cause accidents !

    1. Re:what type by deniable · · Score: 1

      Well, Aussie Rules is played on an oval, so two radii, and they don't have a fixed size. If it's the others I'd like to know the radius of a rectangle.

  7. Just curious by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the legality of using signal-jamming equipment? I mean for non-presidents. Obviously, whatever the president does is always legal.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:Just curious by badfish99 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Obviously, whatever the president does is always legal.

      The propaganda has had its effect on you, then. But some of us are still resisting it.

    2. Re:Just curious by CaptainPatent · · Score: 1

      It isn't legal at all in the US or Australia (check the legality section of this wiki article

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    3. Re:Just curious by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you're resisting the sarcasm in that comment...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:Just curious by allscan · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget that the Executive Branch (i.e. President) is supposed to enforce the laws. Just because there is a law saying they are illegal doesn't mean they are going to enforce laws on themselves. Plus, most laws are written so they exempt government agencies/branches especially for matters of national security (I don't really like that term, but I haven't found a better one).

    5. Re:Just curious by CaptainPatent · · Score: 1

      Actually the original post was wondering if this was illigal for a normal person so I really didn't forget anything.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    6. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > Obviously, whatever the president does is always legal.

      Um.. no. The president can violate laws as well. Otherwise, he would be an 'emperor', which is what he thinks he is anyway.

    7. Re:Just curious by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      They got the permission from Coward. I just wonder what was the sequence: did he give permission before kissing the ass or after?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    8. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow! thanks for being such a crusader. now the question is will you get your head out of your ass long enough to not just elect another politician with the same mindset but under a different party's banner? my guess: probably not.

    9. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe all kinds of scrambling is illegal unless it only covers your private property.

    10. Re:Just curious by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

      The sarcasm police called. You're under arrest.

    11. Re:Just curious by HungSoLow · · Score: 1

      In Canada it's 5 year jail / $250,000 fine.

    12. Re:Just curious by Mathness · · Score: 1

      Obviously, whatever the president does is always legal. Richard Nixon, is that you?
      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
    13. Re:Just curious by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      national security (I don't really like that term, but I haven't found a better one)

      I use the term "governmental security". Feel free to adopt it if you like it and ignore it if you don't. :)

    14. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nixon was careful, by comparison.

    15. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the legality of using signal-jamming equipment? I mean for non-presidents. Obviously, whatever the president does is always legal.

      What's the legality of posessing machine guns and assault weapons? I mean, for non-police. Obviously, whatever the police do is always legal.

  8. Nothing screams low key approach... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nothing screams low key approach like a helicopter blaring above.

    Wasn't Bush given a mobile phone after 9/11?

    How would they inform him if a problem occurs?

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Nothing screams low key approach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess? Encrypted two-way radio. Want even more fun? I'd bet that frequency hopping will be a part of their loadset.

    2. Re:Nothing screams low key approach... by kalirion · · Score: 3, Funny

      No need to inform him in "real time", there's at least a 7 minute buffer.

    3. Re:Nothing screams low key approach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close enough - most US government semi-classified communications take place using a UHF frequency trunking system that can't be easily monitored or decrypted, but doesn't use heavy encryption since most messages sent are time-sensitive and by the time the messages were decrypted the content would no longer be useful. If you're more than a little interested, you can investigate The EDACS ProVoice System http://www.macom-wireless.com/products/pve/prodDet ail.asp?id=10 to see the most commonly used military trunking system used by the US Gov't - they also use a non-encrypted open-air Motorola trunking system operating in the 406-420Mhz range.

      I'm sure the Secret Service has many other extremely highly classified high security channels they use on presidential motorcade and event details, but the systems I mentioned would more likely be used for all of the support and handling activities that require the equivalent of a telephone service - and you can pretty much be guaranteed the "black helicopters" won't be jamming those frequencies.

    4. Re:Nothing screams low key approach... by spun · · Score: 1

      I thought that in case of emergency, Bush would be notified by his pet goat? Or did I read that story incorrectly?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:Nothing screams low key approach... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      1) It's called selective jamming.
      2) Why would he need to be on the phone for that 5 minutes?
      3) I'm guessing the President had a mobile before 9/11.
      4) The President is simply told "Mr. President get down" (if he's given that much information) until the Secret Service believe he is safe from harm. Then they will inform him of the situation. Their job is to protect his life, not keep him informed.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  9. tell all by spamking · · Score: 1

    Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

    That's what we do best here in the US.

  10. Helicopter by MECC · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will people be able to hear anything he says in the open with a helicopter overhead?

    Oh wait that's right - it won't matter.

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
    1. Re:Helicopter by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      As an American, I would add that it's probably best that he's NOT heard. William Jennings Bryan he's not.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Helicopter by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you are around US military helicopters much you quickly discover that our newer stuff is fairly stealthy.

      Most of the heavy troop transports still sound like they do in movies about Vietnam, but the light ones and most of the attack helicopters are very quiet once they get up to speed. Presumably the one assigned to Bush will be flying high enough to keep the rotor wash from mussing his hair so I doubt the crowd will hear it at all.

      It really is spooky to look over your shoulder and see an attack helicopter floating a couple hundred yards away when you had to idea it was even there.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    3. Re:Helicopter by jgardner100 · · Score: 1

      Actually, as a Sydney resident I'm looking forward to hearing him speak, I need a good laugh these days (John Howard's gotten a bit repetitive.)

    4. Re:Helicopter by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Informative

      What newer stuff? UH-60 Black Hawk and AH-64 Apache have been around since the early '80s. The Black Hawk is quieter than a Huey thanks to the four-blade main rotor and the Apache a little more so with the 55/125 offset tail rotor blades, but nothing in the Army inventory is really that new.
      The most quiet helo in the US Army inventory would probably be the A/MH-6, but that's only in the SOAR TO&E.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    5. Re:Helicopter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get your hearing checked. I live a few blocks from the Washington Channel, which all of the choppers to the Pentagon or White House fly up, as well as whatever patrols they do. Trust me, they're not that quiet.

    6. Re:Helicopter by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      It really is spooky to look over your shoulder and see an attack helicopter floating a couple hundred yards away when you had to idea it was even there.

      Especially when you aren't anywhere near a war zone or military base, and it happens repeatedly as you're leaving work or headed to the movies. What do you want from me, Mysterious Apache Pilot?!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Helicopter by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      It's Blue Thunder! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086671/plotsummary

      Obviously you're a car thief or some other sort of two-bit criminal.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  11. Helicopter? by carpe_noctem · · Score: 3, Funny

    The president's motorcade will be shadowed by a helicopter equipped with signal-jamming equipment.

    I'm just hoping it's not black, for the sake of the tinfoil-hat crowd...

    --
    "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    1. Re:Helicopter? by camusflage · · Score: 1

      I'm just hoping it's not black, for the sake of the tinfoil-hat crowd...

      Only the mind control ray helicopters are black. Sheesh, I thought everyone knew this already!

      --
      The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
    2. Re:Helicopter? by kurtis25 · · Score: 2, Funny

      A bright pink helicopter would be fun maybe tie-dye. Then everyone would try calling their friends and saying I'm looking at a bright pink helicopter but their phones won't work because the pink helicopter would be jamming their singles.

  12. Terrorists why not... by Jonny0stars · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Just shoot him

    1. Re:Terrorists why not... by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      Because #2 in the Executive Branch is terrifying.

    2. Re:Terrorists why not... by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Far MORE terrifying is Cheney dying in office due to heart failure and Speaker of the House Nancy "Lugosi" taking over. *shudder*

      So yeah, I'm VERY VERY glad that they are taking every possible precaution to keep Bush alive. If your teenager can't text her "bff jill" for a few minutes too bad. Just think of it as a "Presidential discount" on your cell phone bill.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    3. Re:Terrorists why not... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the only way Pelosi would get a promotion to the executive branch is if the president and vice president both die at the same time. If Cheney dies in office, Bush would replace him (my guess would be with Gonzales).

    4. Re:Terrorists why not... by spun · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what people have against Nancy Pelosi. Most of the world would consider her a centrist. What exactly has she done that you don't like?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:Terrorists why not... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      If your teenager can't text her "bff jill" for a few minutes too bad. Yeah, same to elderly people having heart attacks. They can just wait until the president moves on like everyone else.
    6. Re:Terrorists why not... by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "If Cheney dies in office, Bush would replace him"

      That'd be a neat trick considering the fact that for Cheney to be in office, Bush would either have to be dead or so severely incapacitated that he was unable to function as president (yes, I know a lot of people think he fits that definition already!). Is there an official federal medium, or would Congress hold a seance with an Ouija board to find out who Bush wanted to replace Cheney with?

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    7. Re:Terrorists why not... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Cheney is already in office. Specifically, the office of Vice President of the United States. The term "in office" is used rather frequently to refer to elected officials other than the president.

    8. Re:Terrorists why not... by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      Read the GP post for the definition that poster used or "office", i.e. why people would be anxious to keep Bush alive, hence his fear of Pelosi becoming acting president. It is for this reason the the reply to it was utterly stupid, and thoroughly deserved to be highlighted as such.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    9. Re:Terrorists why not... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Okay, so "Cheney dies in office" was referring to after Bush was already gone. I can see how it you would read that way. That still wouldn't make Pelosi president, unless Cheney died so soon after Bush that he didn't have time to select a new vice president. My point was to clarify that a president dying doesn't give everyone in the line of succession a promotion, i.e. the Speaker of the House does not become vice president.

    10. Re:Terrorists why not... by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "My point was to clarify that a president dying doesn't give everyone in the line of succession a promotion, i.e. the Speaker of the House does not become vice president"

      It appears that the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 says the chain of succession is President->Vice President->Speaker (with a whole bunch of others who in their turn succeed them), so the original poster was right in saying that Pelosi would become Acting President if Cheney died after succeeding Bush.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    11. Re:Terrorists why not... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Again, the original poster would only be correct if Cheney died before a new vice president was selected, which I would guess wouldn't take more than a week or two. Wikipedia explains it quite clearly, including how it was applied during the Nixon administration.

    12. Re:Terrorists why not... by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Again, the original poster would only be correct if Cheney died before a new vice president was selected"

      It isn't a case of "again", because you originally denied that this could occur, so you aren't reiterating anything.

      "Wikipedia explains it quite clearly"

      I don't care what Wikipedia says about anything. It is the product of a Beowulf cluster of idiots, and is only useful for finding lists of references which aren't other Wikipedia articles or somebody's blog.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    13. Re:Terrorists why not... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that you don't understand how succession works in the executive branch. If Wikipedia isn't an authoritative enough source on something like the text of constitutional amendments, would you accept Cornell University?

    14. Re:Terrorists why not... by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "I'm sorry that you don't understand how succession works in the executive branch"

      You seem to be a very confused individual. I have yet to see a single source cited by you that in any way contradicts what the original poster or I have written, i.e that the Speaker is next in line after the VP, and therefore could become president on the event of his death.

      "If Wikipedia isn't an authoritative enough source"

      Texts that can be edited at any time by people with an agenda isn't an authoritative source on anything. A large number of articles in Wikipedia have been conclusively shown to be utter rubbish, so it cannot therefore be trusted on anything.

      "would you accept Cornell University?"

      Indeed I would,, especially as it doesn't contradict anything I've written. Note phrases such as "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office _upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress_". What happens if one or both houses repeatedly reject the nominations, and the President (i.e. the prior Vice President) dies before he can nominate someone they'd accept? This isn't exactly unlikely considering how the current Democrat-controlled Congress would react to the sort of person that Cheney would be likely to nominate. This would mean that the chain of succession comes into play, and the Speaker (Pelosi) becomes President, and then gets to nominate a VP, who the Democrat-controlled Congress would vote to accept in a heartbeat.

      Whichever way you try and slice, dice, or liquefy it, the fact of the matter is that Cheney's health isn't in good, and he's even less popular with both the Democrats and the public than Bush. If he ever became President because of Bush's death, they'd make his life as difficult as they possibly could because they'd reckon they had a public mandate to do so, which means that he'd be under a hell of a lot more stress, thus magnifying the likelihood of him either dying or becoming too incapacitated to continue (the mere thought that Democrat delaying tactics could result in Pelosi becoming President might well be enough to kill him outright!).

      NB: republics whose heads of state are part of the party political framework can have notable problems with succession when there's as much bad blood between parties as is currently the case in the US. A lot of Democrats seem to have a venomous hatred for Bush, and utterly detest Cheney, so the probability of them doing everything (legitimately) possible to get rid of him in the event that Bush was unable to continue in office is I think pretty high.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    15. Re:Terrorists why not... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1
      This is what the original post was:

      Far MORE terrifying is Cheney dying in office due to heart failure and Speaker of the House Nancy "Lugosi" taking over. *shudder*
      When I first read that, I read it as Cheney dying in the office of vice president. Maybe that was an incorrect reading, and it meant Cheney dying in office after Bush was already gone. If Bush is gone and Cheney is president, the only way that Pelosi would become president is if Cheney dies before a new vice president is selected. Maybe that's what the original post meant, but it wasn't at all clear on that point. While the original post may not be technically "wrong", it is certainly lacking some important details.
    16. Re:Terrorists why not... by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "When I first read that, I read it as Cheney dying in the office of vice president."

      I can see how it could easily be interpreted in that way.

      "Maybe that was an incorrect reading, and it meant Cheney dying in office after Bush was already gone."

      This is the way I read it, i.e. Bush dies, becomes incapacitated, gets impeached, or is otherwise unable to continue as President, so Cheney takes over, and then himself becomes unable to fulfil the duties of the office before Congress has accepted his nomination for VP.

      "Maybe that's what the original post meant, but it wasn't at all clear on that point. While the original post may not be technically "wrong", it is certainly lacking some important details."

      Well, to be fair, the original poster was simply pointing out a (to him rather horrific) possible implication of Cheney's notably fragile health in a fairly humorous way (hence the Nancy Logosi bit). I don't think he intended to provoke a serious discussion of the related US constitutional issues, and neither did I intend such with my reply.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  13. I've wondered about this... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With the terrorists probably not using the most advanced triggering mechanisms, couldn't the jamming itself cause a bomb to go off? Anybody who understands how it all works, please comment.

    1. Re:I've wondered about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we had to give up on the cellphone-triggered-bomb because it might... oh wait

    2. Re:I've wondered about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They usually hook up the ringer on a phone to a detonation wire. So unless the jamming causes phones to ring, which it wouldn't, it won't cause the bombs to go off.

    3. Re:I've wondered about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It will blow up at a random time instead of the worst possible time which makes it possibly 10x less lethal.

    4. Re:I've wondered about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no expert, but I really don't see how it can possibly be complicated to wire something to trigger based on the absence of a signal rather than a signal. You could even keep the mobile phone method.. simply make a call to the device, leave it off the hook, and set it to go off when the call is terminated.

      Or, you could use the jamming itself as the trigger. I imagine the type of signal they'll need to kick out to jam that wide an area pumps tons of crap into the waveband, just set your gadget to wait for high-intebnsity EM garbage instead of a call.

    5. Re:I've wondered about this... by trawg · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the health implications are of something that is broadcasting a signal strong enough to block all mobile phone calls in that sort of radius? I'm sure the most likely explanation is that it's no different from all the other electromagnetic stuff that's sloshing through the air but it seems that this might be a little more powerful?

    6. Re:I've wondered about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually the army uses something called the Warlock system which broadcast a signal ahead of a convoy to cause any IED's (radio trigger ones anyway) to explode well in front of the convoy. If the jamming were to cause an explosion, then it would be 100 yards in front of the motorcade. That'd have be quite the explosive to kill the president 100 yards out. It might just be me, but someone might notice the 10 daisy chained 155mm artillery rounds or the small nuke or whatever it would take to damage the motorcade on its secure route 100 yards out. Maybe if you put the trigger 100 yards out and the actual IED where the motorcade is supposed to be, then maybe. But it'd still have to be quite the explosive in a really small package.

    7. Re:I've wondered about this... by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand how it all works, but I imagine if the jamming sets off a bomb, it won't time it accurately enough to take out the intended target.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:I've wondered about this... by ookabooka · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming its based on when the phone rings, if you jam the signal I doubt the phone will "ring" and will instead desync from the tower and search for a signal. Unable to cut through the noise and synchronize with a tower, it will stay in this state until the jamming is done. I can understand where you're confusion comes from, if you pump out random data you may actually pump out the "activate" string. However, I think this is more like preventing the cellphone from handshaking with the tower. Though theoretically it would be possible for the random data to perfectly emulate the tower (CRC and ECC and everything) though I don't think thats likely at all.

      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    9. Re:I've wondered about this... by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Informative

      They typically wire the detonator in place of the vibrator motor in the phone. The motor is (relatively) large, the leads are fairly easy to access, the power source is continuous DC (unlike speakers, which is an analog signal), and it almost certainly is provided the most amperage of any other component in the phone. They then set the phone on vibrate, attach the explosives, and call the phone when they want it to detonate.

      Obviously the digital communication required to uniquely address the ESN of the phone, do the proper handshaking, and inform the phone that there is an incoming call is quite complex. The odds of a jamming signal being mistaken for the exact trunk-side communication required to indicate a call is infinitesimally small.

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    10. Re:I've wondered about this... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      But if it goes off when it first gets jammed, then it will explode harmlessly (to the President) 100 meters away. If they try to time it, then they'd have to know how long it will take between the onset of the jamming signal and the arrival of the president. They'd also have to account for a number of potential jamming sweeps prior to the "real thing". If they are into dumb luck like that, they might as well just set a timer and hope that they get lucky.

      Since it's a politician that they are trying to blow up, they could always use a bullshit detector.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:I've wondered about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a technical site, the number of morons is amazing. 20 seconds with google will tell you that A) the detonators are wired to the motor that makes the phone vibrate and that B) CDMA type schemes are most vulnerable to tone jamming. For the guy who cried that it might resonate his cells or whatever, the power levels required to jam a cellphone are incredibly low ... less hten 6dB over the signal. This is not cosmic, this is not a super secret government conspiracy, it's SOP for most national leaders.

    12. Re:I've wondered about this... by iainl · · Score: 1

      It's a good job no phone has a timed alarm that operates in vibrate mode.

      What? Oh? Oh dear.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    13. Re:I've wondered about this... by hankwang · · Score: 2, Informative

      They typically wire the detonator in place of the vibrator motor in the phone.

      Typically? Where did you get the stats? :)

      My phone provider sends me an SMS every now and then, and I get about one call a month by somebody who mistyped someone else's phone number. I wouldn't want to risk that while assembling or placing a bomb. The couple of cheap phones that I've owned don't have an option to switch the vibrator off for everything except calls from certain known phone numbers.

    14. Re:I've wondered about this... by radtea · · Score: 1

      They then set the phone on vibrate, attach the explosives, and call the phone when they want it to detonate.

      This is relatively trivial to work around. It goes like this (and it took me all of three minutes to think of it, so unless I'm some kind of super-genius I'm not giving anything away):

      1) Plant multiple bombs spaced out along the route--say three or four bombs on a single block. This increases the chance of discovery and the cost of the operation. However, see below regarding what your goal is.

      2) Wire the detonators as you so helpfully described--I was not aware of any of that information, although I'm guessing it's all probably a Google away. Now, change the wiring to a setup such that when the phone starts ringing the trigger is "set", and when the phone stops ringing a timer is started. When the timer runs out the bomb explodes. This involves some elementary electronics that you probably know how to do. Hopefully the morons who believe in an invisible old man in the sky do not, although being religious is unfortunately no bar to being technological capable.

      3) Give each of your bombs a different time delay.

      Result: as the presidential motorcade approaches the mined area you dial the numbers and set the triggers. When the blackout zone covers the area a minute or so later the phones stop ringing and the timers start running. Assume the motorcade is moving at 30 MPH, and the rest is simple arithmetic.

      The odds of killing the president with this method are low, but in reality they aren't that great to begin with. You have to ask yourself what the losers who do this kind of thing are after: publicity and disruption and fear. This will generate all of those, and if the president happens to die in the process they will no-doubt consider it a bonus. But just getting a bomb to go off on the same block as the president would probably be considered some kind of victory.

      So what the plan to block cell-phones does is reduce the risk to the president from almost zero to really very close to zero, while at the same time increasing the risk to bystanders enormously.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    15. Re:I've wondered about this... by kent_eh · · Score: 1
      Maybe less lethal, but will still cause chaos and panic, which is pretty much a win for the terrorists.
      The only way the terrorists don't win is :

      1) all terrorists are quietly killed (simultaneously, without collateral damage for best effect)
      or
      2) no matter what the terrorists do, everyone fails to panic, and continues on with their day as if they had just been bitten by a slightly annoying insect.

      Discuss.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    16. Re:I've wondered about this... by chuckymonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, having dealt with the systems in question I'll explain a little how it works. Basically they hook one cell phone to the bomb via electronic leads soldered to the ringer or vibrating component of the phone which trip some mechanism inside to cause the bomb to go off. They are not usually set to the frequency since then any cell phone could set it off potentially. So they set it up to be keyed to a specific phone number in other words which gives them control of when the explosion will occur. The jamming system just blankets out the entire range of freqs and the call can't get through to the right number that way. So no it won't set off the bomb, pretty much it will never go off because once the opportunity has passed they won't want to set it off anymore. Now some of the others that replied with something to the effect of them wanting it to go off and cause a media event take off the tinfoil hat for a second and consider what I wrote since I have seen the Army Warlock system in action and can attest to its effectiveness in not letting the bomb go off at all.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    17. Re:I've wondered about this... by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More information can be found here. Of course, if they had some idea of when the event was going to happen, they could also schedule an alarm for the latest time they want the device to detonate. So they detonate manually if possible, and it falls back on the alarm if the signal is blocked. The article I referenced discusses many factors, such as timers, jamming, the lithium ion battery itself being part of the ignition source, and why law enforcement doesn't have access to jamming equipment (including the FCC sections prohibiting jamming).

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    18. Re:I've wondered about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't you just use the alarm feature to detonate it? Not that it would matter unless you knew the percise time the target would be over the device.

    19. Re:I've wondered about this... by azrider · · Score: 1

      You gotta love it. Stone age solutions to modern problems. Turn OFF the cell towers as needed. No jamming, no muss, no fuss. Unless the jamming equipment is really wide spectrum (DC to Light as we say in Ham Radio), this handles the problem nicely.

      --
      And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
      John 8:32(King James Version)
    20. Re:I've wondered about this... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that option 1 is even more impossible than it sounds initially.

      A "terrorist" is, most of the time, a normal person with a family, a job, friends. .Sometimes they communicate with others in a cell, sometimes those "others" are no more than a small handful of people. If a large number of ostensibly normal Afghan (or Iraqi, or Pakistani, or Syrian) people suddenly disappear off the face of the earth, people will start talking. Congratulations, you've just produced a most efficient terrorist recruiting tool. (Incidentally, despite what others on /. seem to think, we in the UK did trample over quite a few rights in our attempts to solve the Irish problem. See here. Apparently it was the best recruiting tool the IRA had ever had).

      This leaves option 2. Now, we all talk about "ignoring them" - has any government anywhere ever tried this? I certainly can't think of one. At the very least, anyone who can be tracked down for carrying out bombings is certainly going to find themselves on the wrong end of the law. However, the strong political desire to capture and bring someone to justice has led to grevious miscarriages of justice in an attempt to punish the perpetrators. See the cases of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four in the UK.

    21. Re:I've wondered about this... by David_W · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't want to risk that while assembling or placing a bomb.

      I would imagine they assemble and place the bomb with the battery removed and/or the phone turned off. The only window of risk would be after it is placed and they've turned it on but haven't yet gotten out of range. I imagine the kind of people placing these devices would consider that an acceptable risk.

    22. Re:I've wondered about this... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      It is non-ionizing radiation... so it won't cause cancer. Probably, the giant thermonuclear fireball that usually hangs in the sky is more of a threat to your health.

    23. Re:I've wondered about this... by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that option 1 is even more impossible than it sounds initially. This leaves option 2. Now, we all talk about "ignoring them" - has any government anywhere ever tried this?
      Note that I never said my two options were realistic.
      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    24. Re:I've wondered about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the seventies, when Palestine terrorism rose, there was no focus on the terrorists and what they did. But that probably was more because the world stood behind Israel (without considering the Palestinian standpoint at all and without any criticism on the expansionist and oppressing Israel politics).

    25. Re:I've wondered about this... by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      Solution is to ban cell phones from having a vibrating motor.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    26. Re:I've wondered about this... by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 1

      My phone provider sends me an SMS every now and then, and I get about one call a month by somebody who mistyped someone else's phone number. I wouldn't want to risk that while assembling or placing a bomb. The couple of cheap phones that I've owned don't have an option to switch the vibrator off for everything except calls from certain known phone numbers.

      there is a difference between a timer, a trigger (sometimes called a switch), and a detonator. you can install and test a timer or trigger (the things that tell the detonator to detonate) completely independent of the explosive.

      when you are testing a trigger, you plug the leads into an electronic device of some sort instead of the detonator, usually a light or a beeper of some kind. pretty much all triggers and timers work by completing a circuit of some sort between a power source and the detonator. when the circuit is complete the light lights up or the beeper goes beep. you don't connect the trigger to the detonator until the second to the last step.

      the detonator is normally a very small explosive (like a primer or a blasting cap) so that a mishap might be painful, but not life threatening to anyone but the handler. you don't want to connect the detonator to the explosive until the very last step.

      all a timer does is wait for the proper time to activate the trigger that completes the circuit. cellphones (and previously, pagers) are mostly used as timers (with their alarm functions) not as remote detonators.

      pretty much the only way to jam a timer is to somehow freeze time. that is a technology that i am very interested in.

      --
      sarcasm:
      -noun
      1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    27. Re:I've wondered about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why couldn't they just create a trigger that works with a laser instead? Doesn't seem like it would be too difficult for someone with a little electronics experience. Pry off some road reflectors, embed a laser activated switch in them, stand a a half mile away with some powerful binoculars and a laser pointer, wait for the president's limo to reach the point over a buried IED and paint the switch with the laser. You could use multiple reflectors per IED in case any are obscured at the moment the limo passes over the bomb. It would require some planning and electronics know-how but it wouldn't be all that difficult in theory.

      Placing the IED close enough to the limo would be the hardest part by far.

    28. Re:I've wondered about this... by Darlantan · · Score: 1

      You have half of the right idea.
      I've heard of an assassination that used a bomb in a satchel on a bicycle placed beside the road. The satchel was wired up so that it was armed remotely (I want to say by radio), and detonated locally by way of a laser trip. I forget if the laser was in the same package, or placed apart from the bomb, but the idea went like this: Bomb is armed remotely. Laser trip system activates. Front of car breaks beam, and either A) (if in the satchel) waits a certain time to allow the car's passenger section to be directly in front of the bomb, then detonates, or B) (if the laser was placed seperately) triggers the bomb instantly when the beam is broken, and the bomb blows up right beside the passenger compartment.

      The bomb was a smaller charge, but was a shaped charge. The result was that the passenger section of the car was hit by a very large chunk of metal which utterly demolished it. I'm pretty sure the target was killed instantly. The car looked like it had been hit by an anti-tank weapon (which is what the bomb was, effectively).

      The assassin had the advantage of not having to be physically close to the bomb, and being able to hit his target with precision. All he needed to know was how far the passenger compartment was from the front of the car, which car it was, and the route the car was taking.

      Use the same idea, but arm it remotely via another laser, as you mentioned. After all, turning something on in the few seconds of "dead space" between two cars is a lot easier than getting the precise timing down.

      Not that I am making any suggestions, or think that it's a good idea. I'm just pointing out that a little ingenuity can defeat pretty much any system.

      --
      Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
    29. Re:I've wondered about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably don't want to rely on operators working for a commercial telephone company. It would require lots of planning and scheduling, and even then it can all be blown by a software bug or a sleeping operator. And who knows what private paging services might be operating in the area...
      Jamming from a helicopter is something they have in their own hands.

    30. Re:I've wondered about this... by Radon360 · · Score: 1

      Would it be too low-tech to think that they could simply put an arming switch inline with the motor output and the detonator? Throw the switch when you're ready to walk away from it.

    31. Re:I've wondered about this... by Kirth+Gersen · · Score: 1

      They then set the phone on vibrate, attach the explosives, and call the phone when they want it to detonate

      Don't forget to set the phone so that it only vibrates when *you* call it. Otherwise the secret police can just ring every phone they detect in the area, and it goes off prematurely. Man I hate it when that happens.
  14. Cellphone bomb FUD news by packetmon · · Score: 1, Informative

    Triggering Bombs by Remote Key Entry Devices

    I regularly read articles about terrorists using cell phones to trigger bombs. The Thai government seems to be particularly worried about this; two years ago I blogged about a particularly bizarre movie-plot threat along these lines. And last year I blogged about the cell phone network being restricted after the Mumbai terrorist bombings.

    Source

    1. Re:Cellphone bomb FUD news by strider44 · · Score: 1

      On Schneier's blog today on this topic there was one smart commenter with an interesting idea. What the terrorists should do is still rig a phone up to a bomb that detonates a second after phone signal is lost. This way you can plant a bomb and you know you only need to blow up an area the size of a football field!

      Isn't it wonderful that the terrorists have time to prepare now with so much warning? This is a movie plot threat straight out of James Bond. Security theatre at best.

    2. Re:Cellphone bomb FUD news by errxn · · Score: 3, Funny

      What the terrorists should do is still rig a phone up to a bomb that detonates a second after phone signal is lost. They'd better hope they're not using Sprint.
      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    3. Re:Cellphone bomb FUD news by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      On Schneier's blog today on this topic there was one smart commenter with an interesting idea. What the terrorists should do is still rig a phone up to a bomb that detonates a second after phone signal is lost. This way you can plant a bomb and you know you only need to blow up an area the size of a football field!

      Isn't it wonderful that the terrorists have time to prepare now with so much warning? This is a movie plot threat straight out of James Bond. Security theatre at best. It is conceivable that someone might be able to conceal a bomb along the motorcade route big enough to blow up Bush's limo as it passes by. A bomb big enough to blow it up while a football field length away should easily be detected by security when they pre-sweep the area along the route.
    4. Re:Cellphone bomb FUD news by compro01 · · Score: 1

      well, why not set the thing to blow up, say, 20 seconds, or however long it takes the motorcade to move 100m (or however far in front of it they jam), after loss of signal?

      though actually blowing up that limo is not exactly a trivial task. the thing is practically a tank with leather upholstery.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  15. Credible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are other ways to detonate explosives remotely. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

    Assuming, of course, it's true. Which is hardly certain--the Bush administration is certainly not above putting out misinformation...

    And clearly there's some advantage gained by getting hypothetical bad guys to rule out a potentially easy way to do things.

  16. But seriously by Magada · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Security theater at its very best, folks... Only there may be an ulterior motive here. The Seattle WTO riots were co-ordinated via cellphone. Someone has taken the lesson to heart. Oh well, it's back to walkie-talkies for the concerned activists.

    --
    Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    1. Re:But seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubtful. Assuming the article is accurate, a 100 yard/meter radius is hardly sufficient to keep a crowd from organizing effectively.

      Now, taking the entire cell infrastructure offline WOULD do that, but that's hardly similar.

    2. Re:But seriously by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, many people felt the restrictions imposed when he visited London, particularly those which kept the public away from him were driven more by the desire to keep anti-war/anti US policy protesters out of sight than any real security concerns. God forbid the propaganda machine be exposed to a divergent public opinion.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    3. Re:But seriously by Magada · · Score: 1

      Walk a city block in Sidney. How long is it? If you can keep rioters from organizing effectively inside a circle which covers one major road intersection in every direction from your motorcade, you win, without causing too much disruption. How are they supposed to re-deploy to follow you if spotters can't report the direction you're taking?

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    4. Re:But seriously by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Seattle WTO riots were co-ordinated via cellphone. Someone has taken the lesson to heart. Oh well, it's back to walkie-talkies for the concerned activists.

      Don't take the propaganda bait by lumping in legitmate activists with those who destroy property and incite riots.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    5. Re:But seriously by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't take the propaganda bait by lumping in legitimate activists with agents provocateurs sent by the government.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    6. Re:But seriously by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The theory may or may not be true, but do you really think that Bush would be swayed by seeing a bunch of crunchy anti-globalists flipping him off? That's quite naive. Therapeutic for the protesters, no doubt, but quite useless as a tool to change policy.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:But seriously by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      It probably is true and you are correct that it will not directly affect policy change. It is however extrememly damaging for Bush to be seen in camera shot with mass protests by demonstrators from their staunchest ally. After all his pronouncements about how right he is Bush can't surely be wrong can he? How long before said pictures are all over Al Jazeera? Thats sure to go down a treat with all the 'terrorists'. As I said before Bush is a propaganda merchant, anything which conflicts with that propaganda is bad him.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    8. Re:But seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't take the propaganda bait...

      Oh wait, never mind. You swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

    9. Re:But seriously by rhakka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, the WTO was a huge riot.

      I'll tell you what. You tell me how much damage you would expect a 50,000 person RIOT to do in downtown seattle. Personally, I'm pretty sure if 50,000 people RIOTED, seattle would have been left a smoking ruin.

      Then compare that to any accounts of real damage done. Pay attention to any pictures you find, make sure they aren't of the same few stores actually.

      I think, if you aren't a fool, you'll realize that for a 50,000 protest, very, very little damage was done. The police freaked out, sure, but the protestors were very restrained. A handful of anarchists shouldn't discredit the entire protest, and wouldn't, if the media weren't strangely refusing to delve into the reasons for the protest in the first place and instead choosing to get all excited about a few starbucks windows.

    10. Re:But seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** legitimate activists ***

      Sorta like Greenpeace eh?

      Shoot rioters. Teach them lessons.

    11. Re:But seriously by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      That might have been true 20 or 30 years ago, but not today. Today there is pretty much a group of people who protest as a recreation activity slash lifestyle choice. Those same people who are protesting Bush were protesting Clinton, protest global trade meetings, protest the world bank, and will protest any world leader except Hugo Chavez. It is like the boy who cried wolf, protests are the natural and expected state of things and no longer represent any real spontanious popular movement.

    12. Re:But seriously by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "and will protest any world leader except Hugo Chavez"

      Be fair, please -- they wouldn't protest against Castro either.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    13. Re:But seriously by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      The Seattle WTO riots were co-ordinated via cellphone.

      The Seattle "riots" were co-ordinated by police radio.

    14. Re:But seriously by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Be fair, please -- they wouldn't protest against Castro either. But, to be fair, *SOMEONE* would protest Chavez and Castro (just not the typical anti-globalization protestors)... which just proves my point that protests and outrage are now the norm, not the exception... and therefore are irrelevant.
    15. Re:But seriously by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      yes, I would consider greenpeace to be legitimate activists.

      I would also consider them to be fuckwits, but that's not neither here nor there

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    16. Re:But seriously by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      Some points:
      1) The fact that my reply wasn't particularly serious appears to have gone over your head. Perhaps I should have realised that I was replying to an American, and therefore ensured that each word was delimited by an emoticon to make things clear.

      2) A country where people feel free to protest peacefully about things that most others regard as trivial is one where people still have at least some freedoms. However, if protests themselves become irrelevant irrespective of how many people are involved, then citizens should start being afraid, because the name for a system where politicians do whatever they want irrespective of whether the public likes it or not is "a dictatorship". Allowing people to vote for their dictators once in a while doesn't change the fact that they are dictators.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    17. Re:But seriously by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      1) The fact that my reply wasn't particularly serious appears to have gone over your head. Perhaps I should have realised that I was replying to an American, and therefore ensured that each word was delimited by an emoticon to make things clear. Wow... what an asshole! Talk about reading things into a comment in order to justify some wierd hateful stereotype you have. Are all Europeans as arrogant and bigoted as you?

      A country where people feel free to protest peacefully about things that most others regard as trivial is one where people still have at least some freedoms. However, if protests themselves become irrelevant irrespective of how many people are involved, then citizens should start being afraid, because the name for a system where politicians do whatever they want irrespective of whether the public likes it or not is "a dictatorship". Allowing people to vote for their dictators once in a while doesn't change the fact that they are dictators. No, citizens should be afraid when protests are no longer legal... but they should not be afraid if protests are no longer relevant. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to be taken seriously, it simply means you have the right to free expression. If you abuse the credulity of the people, at some point they are going to stop taken you seriously. Like "the boy who cried wolf". Protestors have played themselves out - People have been desensitized to protest as a means of expression.

      Not only that, but protesting is a crude form of expression. It doesn't educate people about an issue, it doesn't often change minds about an issue... and many times, it is designed to intimidate with the implicit threat of violence rather than be a form of expression (Many of the current batch of protests, such as the anti-WTO protests, are organized to actually disrupt the meetings, as opposed to simply show disaproval to the people at the meeting).

      Also, a large protest doesn't mean that a plurality of people are behind something. Some friends of mine have no trouble getting 20,000 kids to come out to their convention for their underground band every year... if an underground band who gets little radio play and isn't on MTV or anything can get 20,000 kids modivated to travel to someplace for a weekend for $150 a head admission (not including travel costs and accomidation), then the 50,000 or so angry protestors at an "anti-globalization" rally don't nessicarilly represent a plurality of the population because they come out for free. In modern times, with cheap publishing, telephones, TV, radio, and especially the Internet, it isn't hard to get a few thousand people for just about any reason together. I am sure you could get together a giant protest of people who believe they have been abducted by aliens if you want, but that doesn't mean they represent the mainstream of thought.

      Finally, at a protest, you can't control who is going to come and "support" your position. For example, not too long ago there was an anti-Iraq war protest where a handful of protestors decided that vandilizing the nearby synagogue and beating up a few Jewish people was the perfect way to show their dissatisfaction with U.S. foreign policy. The only detail I really remember about the protest from the news report, is that some of the protestors were racist assholes. The actions of a few people managed to co-opt the entire protest in my mind, such that the only thing I can remember about that protest is something extremly negative. Even if they only represented a tiny minority of the protestors, a few idiots are going to inevitably do or say something stupid, and thus are going to alienate people to their cause. The idiots are always going to get way more attention and media coverage than the normal respectable people because their actions are more sensationalistic. Since the person organizing the protest can't keep any other group of people who have their own twisted agendas from showing up and taking part, chances are your protest message is going to alienate people, not win them over.
    18. Re:But seriously by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "what an asshole!"

      It's a deep personal flaw that I've been working to overcome for many years, but to no avail. I just have to take life one day at a time.

      "Are all Europeans as arrogant and bigoted as you"

      I'd say 90% of us are at least as arrogant as me. However, bigots have a negative opinion without any factual basis for it, whereas my negative opinion is based on Fox News, which is carried internationally by cable and satellite networks. It would thus be more correct to describe my attitude as one of increasingly astonished prejudice, because the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and some of the radio talk show hosts that they have as guests (plus of course Anne Coulter) ably demonstrate that we Europeans still have much to learn about the art of arrogant bigotry.

      "No, citizens should be afraid when protests are no longer legal... but they should not be afraid if protests are no longer relevant."

      They should be afraid if big ones are no longer relevant to their government, because besides voting (which, with the US Electoral College system, is only a guideline for the people that actually decide who becomes president of your country), it's the only legal form of showing dissatisfaction that's open to most citizens.

      "If you abuse the credulity of the people, at some point they are going to stop taken you seriously"

      You seem to be labouring under the assumption that protests are aimed at other people, when they are actually aimed at whoever is responsible for what's being protested against. This is why they are protected by law in free societies.

      "People have been desensitized to protest as a means of expression."

      If this is true, then why did Al Jabush (sorry, Fox News) spend such large amounts of air time trying to discredit the people behind last year's anti-war protests? If people were as desensitised as you claim, then surely the best tactic would simply have been to ignore them.

      "Not only that, but protesting is a crude form of expression. It doesn't educate people about an issue, it doesn't often change minds about an issue"

      Protests aren't aimed at passers by who have no power to change anything, so they don't try to educate anyone. This is the reason that they carry placards instead of stacks of books or DVDs, and chant slogans rather than reciting complex manifestos. When such people wish to communicate with the public, the tend to choose the much less difficult to organise system of handing out leaflets in busy streets.

      "many times, it is designed to intimidate with the implicit threat of violence rather than be a form of expression (Many of the current batch of protests, such as the anti-WTO protests, are organized to actually disrupt the meetings, as opposed to simply show disaproval to the people at the meeting)."

      The sorts of protests that are protected by law in free societies are defined as _peaceful_ assemblies. Violent assemblies are known as riots, and many countries have specially trained police groups known as "riot police" to deal with them. The reason we have different words for "protest", "demonstration", and "riot" is because they aren't the same things, and therefore tend to be treated very differently by the laws of most countries (i.e. protests and demonstrations are allowed in free societies, government-mandated demonstrations are compulsory in non-free ones, whereas riots are illegal in both).

      "Also, a large protest doesn't mean that a plurality of people are behind something. Some friends of mine have no trouble getting 20,000 kids to come out to their convention for their underground band every year... if an underground band who gets little radio play and isn't on MTV or anything can get 20,000 kids modivated to travel to someplace for a weekend for $150 a head admission (not including travel costs and accomidation), then the 50,000 or so angry protestors at an "anti-globalization" rally don't nessicarilly represent a plurality of the population because they come out for free."

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    19. Re:But seriously by Magada · · Score: 1

      Do excuse me for my improper choice of words. Please substitute "riot" with "peaceful demostration where a couple stores got trashed and a couple police and members of the general public got their heads bashed in, while the peaceful protesters were being peacefully rounded up by means of truncheons, riot shields and mustard gas."

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    20. Re:But seriously by rhakka · · Score: 1

      That's entirely correct except for the "peacefully rounded up" part. with very little searching, you'll be able to find lots of footage of very peaceful, in fact stationary, sitting and chanting protestors being attacked with "truncheons, riot shields and mustard gas".

      But of course, you haven't bothered. Here you go.

    21. Re:But seriously by Magada · · Score: 1

      "Rounding up" does not mean what you apparently think it does.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    22. Re:But seriously by rhakka · · Score: 1

      that's funny, I would have said "peacefully" does not mean what you apparently think it does.

    23. Re:But seriously by Magada · · Score: 1

      Yes, you do seem impervious to irony.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    24. Re:But seriously by rhakka · · Score: 1

      apparently I wasn't paying enough attention. apologies.

    25. Re:But seriously by Magada · · Score: 1

      Politeness is a rare commodity in this day and age, yet you seem to posess so much of it... Accepted, of course.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  17. Golly gee by Psx29 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that's great and all but I was under the impression most serious terrorists didn't really care if they die or maybe even intent on blowing themselves up anyway.

    1. Re:Golly gee by sane? · · Score: 1

      Jamming remote control bomb detention, because the typical attackers aren't known to detonate the bomb by hand...

      You've got to say Idiocracy is more a documentary than a work of fiction. The reality is, if any smart attacker wanted to off Bush, they could handle it easily. However, any smart attacker knows their biggest supporter is Bush himself. Why attack the person that helps you year after year and acts as your greatest recruitment poster? He might get replaced by someone with a clue (OK, not likely, but the risk is there).

      Bush and Islamic extremists are a symbiotic pairing. He could wander around any part of the middle east and be safe. The biggest danger to Bush is Bush himself.

    2. Re:Golly gee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression most serious terrorists didn't really care if they die

      But what about the casual terrorists?

    3. Re:Golly gee by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You still can protect against the vast majority of people who DON'T want to die themselves. The suicide bomber grabs the headlines, but I'd bet that the majority of American casualties in Iraq are inflicted by good ol' fashioned guerrilla fighters who want to live to inflict another casualty. Even if you are willing to die for your cause, it doesn't mean you WANT to die for your cause... that would be one less person fighting for the cause!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Golly gee by Kazrael · · Score: 1

      There are more people that hate bush than just terrorists...

      --
      Development notes at http://devscribbles.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Golly gee by compro01 · · Score: 1

      yes, but a bomb big enough to blow up that limo wouldn't exactly be man-portable and would certainly be difficult to conceal.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:Golly gee by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Well since is the 9th time I've read this comment in this discussion, let me point out that the POTUS always travels with heavy GROUND security whose primary objective is to watch the crowd for people trying to get near the president to do harm directly, be it with a gun, a bomb, or a gun that turns into a bomb.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  18. Also, With Plants ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article forgot to mention that the president's mere presence causes plants to wilt and die within a football field's length of the president.

    Incidentally, this is the same buffer area that animals naturally keep from Bush. His pets are robots.

    1. Re:Also, With Plants ... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Funny

      The article forgot to mention that the president's mere presence causes plants to wilt and die within a football field's length of the president.

      You're thinking of Cheney...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Also, With Plants ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article forgot to mention that the president's mere presence causes plants to wilt and die within a football field's length of the president.

      You're thinking of Cheney...
      That's funny, I don't recall Cheney's stance on the Kyoto Treaty ... I do, unfortunately, recall Bush's attitude towards it.
    3. Re:Also, With Plants ... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      I do, unfortunately, recall Bush's attitude towards it. Then you can recall the puppetmaster's attitude.
    4. Re:Also, With Plants ... by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      sad thing is, carl rove could spin this into a positive thing!

    5. Re:Also, With Plants ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude did you see that movie lately about the makings of Cheney too? That was hardcore at the end when he learned Padme died and ripped that metal room apart with his mind. Hardcore.

  19. A more useful application by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Put this technology into cinemas.

    1. Re:A more useful application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No way. Then theaters will have to pay millions upgrading audio systems to drown out the helicopters.

      I say we just punch the fuckers.

    2. Re:A more useful application by StoatBringer · · Score: 1

      Come on now, I really think that a helicopter in the cinema would be more annoying than the phones it blocks.

      --
      Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
    3. Re:A more useful application by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Even if those were in place during the screening of Spiderman 3 I went to, It would have done nothing for:

      - The couple who squeezed past us 5-6 times throughout the course of the movie.
      - The people with the toddler in the front row shouting "Daddy" over and over.
      - The teens running around the theater like it was their living room.
      - The kid who puked during the last scene, but I'll give him a free pass if it was due to the film itself.

      Where are the jammers for this stuff?

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    4. Re:A more useful application by Moby+Cock · · Score: 1

      In the old days we had analog ushers to jam such things. Sadly, in the digital age, they are no longer deployed. One of the reasons I never go to the movies any more.

  20. What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First he causes Hurricane Katrina, now this?! THE HUMANITY!

  21. Speaking of more than one way... by rjamestaylor · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are other ways to detonate explosives remotely. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.
    What makes you think this is the only countermeasures they are employing? Perhaps they just want to get the word out about why a helicopter is tailing the President and why people's cell phones seem to be losing signal in his powerful presence. That is, maybe they want to explain the obvious stuff in advance.
    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    1. Re:Speaking of more than one way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...why people's cell phones seem to be losing signal in his powerful presence.

      Surprised, he didn't ask the presidential prayer committee to pray against a cellphone attack, so he can pass the outage off as a miracle.

  22. Sounds pretty mild by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They practically wanted to take over London when he visited. US agents were to be armed and given ridiculous powers (the we can shoot who we want and are not to be held accountable was particularly amusing). The usual visiting dignatary events were ignored and large portions of the city were closed to the public if Bush was anywhere near.

    The heavy handed approach is a really good way to make a very poor impression with the citizens of nation you are visiting.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Sounds pretty mild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta love it. I have lived here all my life, abided by all the important laws (well, I have a string of speeding fines... thanks to the Vic Govt). Pay my taxes, support Australian companies and do the right thing. But the next thing is, I am being alienated out of my own country.

      Personally, why spend all this excess cash on someone. Why treat a country's citizens who as a majority do the right thing as second class.

    2. Re:Sounds pretty mild by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is because we Brits are so under the US thumb - sorry, enjoy a special relationship - that they can get away with it whereas no-one tells an Ausie what to do!

      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    3. Re:Sounds pretty mild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The heavy handed approach is a really good way to make a very poor impression with the citizens of nation you are visiting.
      That's ok, I doubt he's about to start worrying about the impression he's making now.

      Oh, did you think these visits were for the benefit of the visited? Haha! They're so he can come back home and fill the news with stories about how he was welcomed by the fur'ners with open arms and open wallets, and how they joined with him in pledges to fight the evil turr'ists, and how they agree that every civil liberty he takes from us really wasn't that important anyway, and in fact he can have some of theirs as well, and how everyone loves us really. You Aussies get as outraged at us and our thief-in-chief as you want, 99% of our people will never hear word one about it.
    4. Re:Sounds pretty mild by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly, why should ordinary people have these hassles foisted on them because someone else thinks they are special and requires ridiculous levels of security. If he wants to talk to anyone in Australia he can either use the phone or turn up like anyone else without the need for huge motorcades, helicopters and the like.

      I don't know how he travels about in the US but I'm sure that Sydney isn't inherently any more dangerous than Washington ( how many terrorist attacks have there been in Australia ? ) so if you ask me all these ridiculous measures are more to do with him emphasising his own importance and the fact places he visits are willing to accede to his demands.

    5. Re:Sounds pretty mild by Cow+Jones · · Score: 3, Interesting

      US agents were to be armed and given ridiculous powers [..] large portions of the city were closed to the public

      The same thing happened when he visited Vienna (Austria), my home town. Vienna is one of the safest cities in the world, but that day we heard the sound of helicopters non-stop, and there was a general uneasiness in the air, probably caused by the many radio and TV announcements. The US Secret Service took over the city, the airport, etc, and the local police were told to aid them and follow their lead. Parts of our public transport system were cut off, people had to carry a permit to enter the inner city, and I couldn't even go visit my parents. To top it off, for a few hours the central area was totally off limits to practically everybody, because his wife wanted to go shopping. Very poor impression if you ask me.

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    6. Re:Sounds pretty mild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see Bush on a diplomatic visit to SPARTAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    7. Re:Sounds pretty mild by dcam · · Score: 1

      how many terrorist attacks have there been in Australia ?


      one.

      You have no idea of the level of preparation. I have a friend who works for the fire brigade here (who handles chemical spills, biological warfare stuff etc) and that amount of people these visits require and the amount of stuff they bring is unbelievable.
      --
      meh
    8. Re:Sounds pretty mild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's happening in Sydney, too. It's officially a public holiday in the city zone on the Monday. Three major city stations (out of 6 - give us some credit, it's a small rail network). Anyone wanting to enter the "high security zone" will potentially be interrogated by police on the perimeter as to the purpose of their visit, and potentially denied entry.

      Yeah, not endearing to the local people. Especially since it really should be held in the capital, Canberra.

    9. Re:Sounds pretty mild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things were similar when he visited Germany (not sure anymore which town it was, but it doesn't matter) - the entire inner city was sealed, and people who hadn't left their apartments by 7am or so were forced to stay inside for the entire day. In fact, you weren't even allowed to go near the windows; if you did, the police would come knocking at your door and politely ask you to stay away (and they'd leave a cop there to keep an eye on you, just in case). And I'm sure that if you had refused, they would've become less polite, too, rather than just walking away and saying "oh well, we tried".

      How can things like this happen in any free, democratic country? Might does not make right, and the government and the police cannot bend laws just because they want to, no matter whether it's because they're assholes or whether they genuinely believe it's necessary. It simply isn't the kind of society we live in - or so you'd think.

      In reality, it seems that we are only free as long as we don't stand in the government's way.

  23. Dude, you are in Australia by antifoidulus · · Score: 0

    Why not avail yourself to the local explosive-sniffing koalas and ass kicking kangaroo bodyguards? No need for anything fancy.

    1. Re:Dude, you are in Australia by unfunk · · Score: 0
      Warning: This is off-topic, but amusing...

      Koalas consume only Eucalyptus leaves. When there is a bushfire, Animal Rescue people are instructed not to rescue burned Koalas because they have a tendency to explode from all the Eucalyptus Oil in their systems...

  24. Other Methods? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Presumably the question about other methods of detonating a hypothetical device is with regards to how effective jamming the mobile net would be, so I would say it is effective in removing one potential threat, however if the mobile net is down I would assume that there are still a plethora of options, although none probably quite as attractive. You could use a different radio frequency, manual detonation (popular at the moment), infra red (needs line of sight), land line phone + cable (so its not wireless), an old fashioned timer or you could have a combination of them. I guess for a real treat you could set it to detonate once the source of the jamming is close to your device...

    So does it eliminate the risk? no, does it reduce it and get rid of a really attractive method of remote detonation? Probably. You just have to weigh the safety of one man against the disruption that will be caused, (in a smallish area) to many.

    Cant think why but I got the urge to post anonymously

  25. 911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Help, i need the police! The presidents motorcade is approaching and I can see a sni.. hello? hello?!

    1. Re:911 by lazybeam · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's 000 in Australia :P

      --
      --
      no sig for you. come back one year.
    2. Re:911 by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      This got modded up as funny, but it's a legitimate point. Wouldn't this prevent emergency phone calls? I assume it won't affect whatever frequencies emergency and police communications are on, but what about if us citizens need to report something?

    3. Re:911 by east+coast · · Score: 1

      By the time you see the "sni..." it's already too late.

      In all seriousness, a phonecall isn't going to make it to the right people in an acceptable amount of time to stop anything.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    4. Re:911 by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't matter anyway, Here in Australia dialling 911 will get you a "this number is not connected, please try again" from the phone company.
       

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on. Who's going to make that call for Bush?

  26. He Also Kills Puppies and Kittens by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    Welcome to Slashdot.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  27. Typhoid Mary has nothing on GWB. by Brissie_lad · · Score: 1

    I can tell you this - GWB can bloody keep the hell away from where I live if his presence means I can't use my mobile, what if it's an emergency call and his block means the difference between life and death?

    (Disclaimer) I live in Brisbane, not Sydney, however I used to live in Sydney - then I saw the error of my ways and moved north to the land of bent coppers and cane toads.

    --
    Slackware - because apt is for the lazy.
    1. Re:Typhoid Mary has nothing on GWB. by cliffski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      thats a good point. who is responsible if a missed phone call means an accident victim doesnt make it?
      I think we would be better off in the US president just stays in the USA where he is safe and people love him.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    2. Re:Typhoid Mary has nothing on GWB. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I think we would be better off in the US president just stays in the USA where he is safe and people love him.
      Does "USA" refer to someplace other than the United States of America, and I just didn't know?
  28. If you're that hated then stay home George by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Seriously if can't move around outside a bubble like that then maybe you should think seriously of staying home. John Howard is one of your biggest friends. It's not like you're going to a Muslim Lesbian rally in Afghanistan or anything.

  29. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    You'd just need one traffic accident with someone unable to summon help because their phone was jammed...

    1. Re:Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen by maxume · · Score: 1

      The jamming zone is rather small, and it is going to be teeming with the sorts of people that you would summon for help in the event of a traffic accident. Being unable to find a cop will not be a problem.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      A traffic accident? If their security is as tight as it sounds like it'll be, the only traffic in the area affected by this will be the president's motorcade.

      Though I would worry about other emergencies.

  30. Scene: Sydney Australia by rlp · · Score: 1

    The following occurs between 02:00 and 02:01 UT

    (Presidential motorcade passing by)
    Secret Service Agent: (Opens cell phone) "Hello, get me Jack Bauer. ... Hello ... HELLO"

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  31. Hang on... by itsdapead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a helicopter equipped with signal-jamming equipment

    So much for mobile phone radio frequencies interfering with saftey-critical avionics! I guess milirtary helicopters don't have the most vulneable equipment (namely the credit card readers in seatback phones).

    In other news: President stung to death by bees driven into a frenzy by mobile phone radiation... (Yes, yes I know the mobile phones affect bees thing has been debuinked).

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    1. Re:Hang on... by khallow · · Score: 1

      In other news: President stung to death by bees driven into a frenzy by mobile phone radiation... (Yes, yes I know the mobile phones affect bees thing has been debuinked).

      The good news is that this hasn't been shown for Sydney bees who no doubt are of a more sensitive and irratible nature.
    2. Re:Hang on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news: President stung to death by bees driven into a frenzy by mobile phone radiation...

      If only, old chap... if only.

  32. I for one welcome our... by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new presidential cell-phone jamming overlord. Actually, I just wish he'd go away, and not come back. And I want a refund on my taxes. Make that two of 'em.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  33. r u kiddin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh! Riiiight, and when everyone got pissed making up emergencies that were not prevented because of unexpected phone outage, I'm sure NOBODY would blame bush for that.

  34. Iraq by ChiefArcher · · Score: 1

    Doesn't make sense... In Iraq, they installed cellphone jammers on the HUMV's... and it worked for about a month..
    Now the bombs look for the LACK of cell phone signals to go off.

    This is stupid.

  35. Why not a UAV? by jpellino · · Score: 1

    You need helicopter- horsepower to carry something that has to over-ERP 3 watt cell signals for a few hundred yards?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:Why not a UAV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the signal jamming equipment that they're worried about... the .50 cal and the rocket pods are where you need the horsepower.

  36. Not the smartest thing? by Keyslapper · · Score: 1

    There are other ways to detonate explosives remotely. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

    Well, this is George W. Bush we're talking about ...

  37. I wonder.. by nullfork · · Score: 1

    Wonder if they'll publish the SAR rating of the jamming equipment?

    I'm sure they would in America to stop all the lawsuits..

  38. There's a couple of things from this by Centurix · · Score: 1

    1. Develop bomb which detonates when it loses the signal
    2. I want him and his entourage to wait outside my local cinema for about 2 hours while I watch a film.

    --
    Task Mangler
  39. I love the spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If there was a visit by our speaker of the house, the headline would read, "Cell Phone's blocked due to Speak of the House's visit". But it's popular to say that Bush is responsible. Not that the "visit of a President or other political figure" is responsible. When it's an unpopular leader, we make the leader responsible not the requirement for security.

  40. i don't get it ... by guysmilee · · Score: 1

    so why not just set things to trigger when a signal is cut then?

    1. Re:i don't get it ... by Radon360 · · Score: 1

      Because activating it with loss of signal as the activation criteria is inaccurate, at best. How soon prior to the arrival of whatever target is coming along will the signal be cut? What if the the motorcade is preceeded by a second helicopter to cut the signal momentarily and detonate such a device minutes before the motorcade comes through, rendering it useless against its target (and regrettibly killing/injuring bystanders in the process).

      Using loss of signal as a trigger is the equivalent of trying to shoot clay pigeons blindfolded when someone nearby simply yells "shoot!"

  41. bah, let Bush do what he wants by weighn · · Score: 1

    I live in Sydney and I can see how the subj could appear trollish, but we've been given a one-off public holiday for this. I don't care what the fuck Bush or Howard or any of their cohorts do for just those 4 days. Howard has abolished the "Land of the Long Weekend" so lets make this a send off. As an added pinko idealistic nostalgia dream - how about us mere consu^H^H^H^H^H pions make it the start of an annual boycott from dronedom?

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    1. Re:bah, let Bush do what he wants by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Howard has abolished the "Land of the Long Weekend"

      ??

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:bah, let Bush do what he wants by weighn · · Score: 1

      Howard has abolished the "Land of the Long Weekend"

      ??

      The government called its anti-employee IR reforms "WorkChoices".
      A lot of Australians who can remember such things as a 5 day week, taking the kids to sport on saturday and a family bbq on sunday refer to it as "SerfChoices".

      for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorkChoices

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  42. Does it matter..... by chrism238 · · Score: 2, Informative

    That this article solidly refuses the claim? (of course, you have to believe another politician from the Coalition of the Killing).

  43. Too easy to turn around on them.... by Churla · · Score: 1

    1. Build bomb
    2. Attach a mobile phone running windows mobile
    3. Attach triggering to a process which polls a website, if it can't reach the website it sets the timer to go off in 30 seconds.
    4. Jamming devices blocks cel signal..
    5. 30 second countdown to detonation activates, giving enough time for the motorcade to get closer.

    And letting people know about this ahead of time is the worst part... I'm not a huge fan of security through obscurity, but there's a difference between being obscure and telegraphing your methods.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
    1. Re:Too easy to turn around on them.... by moxley · · Score: 1

      ...Shit usng windows mobile the bombers are more likely to blow themselves up or have the bomb go off a day late.

      A treo with palm is what all the trendy geek terrorists are using these days....

    2. Re:Too easy to turn around on them.... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Considering the aussies refused flights at night-time even during 2000 olympics, am surprised they agreed to this monstrous fuckin security.

      I hope aussies turn out in large numbers at the airport to welcome this moron and then show their bare, brown asses to him when his motorcade passes by.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    3. Re:Too easy to turn around on them.... by Radon360 · · Score: 1

      Step 4a. Helicopter makes first pass over motorcade route, jamming signal to trip such devices, then returns to the start to follow motorcade to jam any other devices not programmed to do step 5.

    4. Re:Too easy to turn around on them.... by tuxicle · · Score: 1

      Oh good, that way they'll ban Windows Mobile!

  44. The symbolism is gorgeous by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To have Bush covered in a cone of reduced civil liberties is perhaps the most honest herald to ever signal a leader's presence.

    His "legacy" practically writes itself.

    1. Re:The symbolism is gorgeous by hey · · Score: 1

      Nice comment!
      No need to write a bunch of books about him... its right there.

    2. Re:The symbolism is gorgeous by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      Because this is, of course, limited to when Bush shows up, so it's a ringing indictment of his presidency.

      The complete shutdown of 10 blocks worth of streets and buildings in downtown Milwaukee when Clinton came through, complete with SS men aiming MP5s at my car when I took the wrong (unmarked as off-limits) side street was, however, a testament to how much he cherished my rights as an American and a human being.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    3. Re:The symbolism is gorgeous by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      The complete shutdown of 10 blocks worth of streets and buildings in downtown Milwaukee when Clinton came through,

      I didn't say that Bush is the only person protected in such an onerous way. Just that it's a fitting symbol of his presidency. So for Clinton, for example, it the onerous protection was still there, but it wasn't a fitting symbol of the rest of his presidency.

  45. Until you need to call 911 by kt0157 · · Score: 1

    Nice one. Yes, let that poor bastard with a heart attack not be able to make a 911 call.

    In most countries this kind of jamming is illegal. For good reason.

    1. Re:Until you need to call 911 by dharbee · · Score: 1

      Because the theater won't have a phone...

    2. Re:Until you need to call 911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should a legal requirement that a health check is done before entering the theater. There problem solved. Move in the helicopters.

  46. If it happned by Nitack · · Score: 1

    If the terrorists succeeded in killing Bush we would have an interesting series of events. First most of the world, including the US would be happy (look at his approval ratings) Then, we would realize that Chaney is our new President, and the entire world would cringe...

    1. Re:If it happned by maztuhblastah · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the neo-cons would likely use the assasination of GW as a reason to plunge the country into facism (the country probably wouldn't object much, given what a bunch of pansies they were after 9/11).

  47. Famous quote by scottennis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There really isn't any need for bloodshed
    Just do it with a little more finesse
    If you can slip a tablet into someone's coffee
    Then it avoids an awful lot of mess


    I guess the point of terrorism is to make a really big bang, not just commit "murder by numbers".

    1. Re:Famous quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I guess the point of terrorism is to make a really big bang, not just commit "murder by numbers".

      You people just don't get it, do you?

      Terrorism has been redefined. It now means anything the Bush crowd says it means.

    2. Re:Famous quote by brundlfly · · Score: 1

      Don't forget another part of that song, maybe even more relevant:

      But you can reach the top of your profession
      If you become the leader of the land
      For murder is the sport of the elected
      And you dont need to lift a finger of your hand


  48. Are you stupid, OP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *** There are other ways to detonate explosives remotely. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance. ***

    If you think this will be the only thing they jam...

    of course, an actual wire and a plunger/physical switch is always a possibility...but c'mon, OP....are you really THAT dense?

  49. "Movie plot" security by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a perfect example of what Bruce Schneier calls "movie plot security" - looks good to have black helicopters flying around but doesn't really achieve much.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=movie+plot+security

    PS: Yes, the Madrid bombers used cell phones to detonate the bombs, but they didn't do it by calling the 'phone. They used the alarm clock function.

    PPS: How till this prevent suicide bombers, etc.?

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:"Movie plot" security by JonathanR · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know what everyone is banging on about. Everyone here knows that if you go Bush the mobile coverage is piss poor, no matter how good the propaganda from Telstra.

    2. Re:"Movie plot" security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be great if we could get reporters to dub this "The Bush Hole".

    3. Re:"Movie plot" security by antibryce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They used the alarm clock function.

      But they were hitting a stationary target. In order to get the timing right to hit a moving motorcade they would have to be the luckiest people in the world. Much easier to have someone sitting a block or two away and watching for when the president's car is next to the trashcan or car or whatever they planted the bomb in.

    4. Re:"Movie plot" security by CKW · · Score: 1

      > PS: Yes, the Madrid bombers used cell phones to detonate the bombs, but they didn't do it by calling the 'phone. They used the alarm clock function.

      Hee hee - then maybe another suggested course of action would be for the teco to ring EVERY cellphone along the route before the motorcade leaves the airport!

    5. Re:"Movie plot" security by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 5, Funny

      "PPS: How till this prevent suicide bombers, etc.?"

      Homicide bombers, please.
      When you dont use the Bush-approved propaganda buzzwords, the terrorists win.
      And God kills kittens. Thousands of kittens each time.
      Think of the kittens.

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    6. Re:"Movie plot" security by dcam · · Score: 1

      It is worth noting that cell phones have been used in assassination attempts. See for example this.

      I think this is actually not a terrible bad idea. A bit heavy handed. If you want to get a remote triggering device up fast a mobile phone makes a pretty easy option.

      --
      meh
    7. Re:"Movie plot" security by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      And now the terrorists have been given an almost automated trigger: detonate after the signal is lost.

      Or, if the "jamming" might just be counter-intelligence propaganda and not actually true, use it as a back-up detonation just in case.

      Or use a different mechanism entirely.

      All this idea does is piss off lots of regular people on their mobile phones as Bush goes past. Would've thought that would be a bad idea...

  50. Jammed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Secret Service 1: Sir. The radar, sir. It appears to be ... Jammed!
    Bush: Jammed. ... Raspberry.
    Bush: There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry.
    Bush: KERRY...

  51. incorrect... by unfunk · · Score: 1
    At least, according to the ABC News Website
    From TFA:

    Prime Minister John Howard says people will not be prevented from using their mobile phones during this September's APEC summit in Sydney. While revealing plans to close three city-circle train stations, Mr Howard was asked to respond to reports that mobile calls would be blocked while US President George W Bush's motorcade drives through the CBD. The move was reportedly designed to prevent terrorists from using mobile signals to detonate bombs.
    But Mr Howard says standard phone coverage will be available during the visit. "People are not prevented from using their mobile phones," he said. "I'm not going to get into the specifics of security matters. I think any suggestion that normal communication won't continue to apply would not be appropriate."
  52. Deterrent by n3tcat · · Score: 1

    It was published in advance as a deterrent. Signal supression is not 100% effective, but because it's in the future, they can say right now that they will suppress all of it. This will trick the bad guys into thinking that it is pointless to attempt a signal detonation, and therefore more visible means of detonation will be attempted, making it easier to watch out for.

    Not everyone working for the administration is stupid.

  53. meanwhile by loafula · · Score: 1

    an innocent Aussie has to die because nobody could call 911 during his cardiac arrest. fuck you george bush.

    --
    FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    1. Re:meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      911 is an american thing. In australia we call 000 :)

    2. Re:meanwhile by dlhm · · Score: 1

      You've got to be kidding? I guess Land Lines and pay phones don't exist in your world?

      --
      Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
    3. Re:meanwhile by compro01 · · Score: 1

      did they rip out all the payphones?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re:meanwhile by loafula · · Score: 1

      i dont know about you, but i wont be wasting one of my nickels (AU) on a dying Aussie

      --
      FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    5. Re:meanwhile by loafula · · Score: 1

      im talking about the dying Aussie in the street, amongst the throngs outside to see the Great Hero. naturally, there would be lines at the pay phones.

      --
      FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    6. Re:meanwhile by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      That's because in Australia he should have dialed 000 instead of 911

      --
      You never catch me alive
  54. Not enough by Garabito · · Score: 1

    This doesn't even prevent all kinds of cell phone based detonations, only those that are remote controlled. For instance, in the 2004 Madrid bombing, cell phones were used as detonators, by using their alarm clock functionality and not by callig them from the distance.

    1. Re:Not enough by jimicus · · Score: 1

      If you're not going to rely on the remote-controllable aspect you get from cellphones, why bother using a phone at all?

      The Provisional IRA proved on a number of occasions that a simple timing device is perfectly adequate.

  55. Just wondering... by treval · · Score: 1

    Will the US mobile jamming equipment work in Australia? We use a different system to the US. Or is it a simple broadband electronic white-noise generator?

    --
    Your attitude is infectious...
  56. American or Australian? by eck011219 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is that an American football field or an Australian Rules football field?

    Seriously, though, can't we just use yards or meters? I don't know about other countries, but here in the U.S. we spend more mental energy envisioning big rotating or end-to-end football fields around or next to things.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:American or Australian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I thought you used Libraries of Congress in the U.S.

    2. Re:American or Australian? by brundlfly · · Score: 1

      Football field: It's the only ex-jock-armchair-quarterback conceivable distance measurement between yard and mile, the thought of envisioning 350yds gives some people headaches.

    3. Re:American or Australian? by smithmc · · Score: 1

        Is that an American football field or an Australian Rules football field?

      Seriously, though, can't we just use yards or meters? I don't know about other countries, but here in the U.S. we spend more mental energy envisioning big rotating or end-to-end football fields around or next to things.


      C'mon now, this is Slashdot. Everyone together: How maybe Libraries of Congress is that?!?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    4. Re:American or Australian? by davidbofinger · · Score: 1

      Is that an American football field or an Australian Rules football field?

      If it's in Sydney, probably neither. It's a common misconception that Australian Rules is the Australian football code. In fact it's dominant in only about half the country by population, with its main centre in Melbourne. Sydney cares more for Rugby, specifically Rugby League.

  57. You still have time... by jjeffries · · Score: 1

    to build a cell phone-jammer-jammer! Get to work!

    Be forewarned though, they may have thought of this and could have cell phone-jammer-jammer-jammers available.

  58. Schneier's Comments by trawg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bruce Schneier has already commented on this and the effectiveness of such a measure. He's written about things like this before - it's interesting, once you start thinking about security related issues (especially if you read his blog, I guess :), you read an article like this and go "well, gee, I guess now The Evil Terrorists know this one particular method won't work, they can just cross it off their project plan for this particular event and focus on other more effective measures".

    Also, hopefully noone has an actual emergency while this thing is going past. I'd hate for someone to have a heart attack or be trying to call in a fire or something and not be able to use their cell phone. Or dial for the police in case they see suspicious people near the motorcade. You know, like people with beards.

    1. Re:Schneier's Comments by dlhm · · Score: 1

      Maybe if someone has a emergency they could use a pay phone?, Maybe they coudl grab one of the many cops standing around and ask them to use his radio to get emergency services.

      --
      Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
    2. Re:Schneier's Comments by tobyvoss · · Score: 1

      grab a cop and be shot on the spot, no questions asked.

    3. Re:Schneier's Comments by tobyvoss · · Score: 1

      and don't forget that trigger-happy bush crowd will order the local officially armed guys around, making them equally hysterical.
      i wonder if wearing a beard or tits would make a difference, though...

    4. Re:Schneier's Comments by dlhm · · Score: 1

      Your response doesn't really warrant a reply, except to say, absolute idiocy on your part.

      --
      Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
    5. Re:Schneier's Comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce Schneier has already commented on this and the effectiveness of such a measure.

      Bruce Schneier writing on [some areas of] security is like the mythical million monkeys pounding on a typewriter - wait long enough and he'll be right and they'll produce Macbeth. Neither has happened yet. Bruce is a whiz on most forms of cyber-security, and a lot of people who know very little about security think that means he's a whiz on the rest of what is really a pretty large field. He isn't, in fact he's quite often embarrassingly wrong.
       
      You want to know why he's not often contradicted in public? Because it's very useful to have people in the dark about how security works - it's even more useful sometimes to have them actively mislead into looking in the wrong place. (Which is another thing Bruce is wrong about - security via obscurity, used correctly, works. Security professionals know this. Security pundits and amateurs - don't.) Especially when they (the uninformed and the amateurs) believe that by eagerly parroting the misleading information they are demonstrating how informed they [mistakenly] believe themselves to be.
    6. Re:Schneier's Comments by cranos · · Score: 1

      Umm no, these aren't American or Victorian police.

    7. Re:Schneier's Comments by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

      Or dial for the police in case they see suspicious people near the motorcade. You know, like people with beards.

      Good god, man! Unix administrators?!?!?? Call in the Airstrike!!!
  59. wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by _.-+thimk!+-._ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hear this suggested periodically, and it's, simply put, a very poor idea, that's not been thought through at all.

    There are a lot of us who DO really have to have cellphones and pagers active 24x7, who are also smart and polite enough to put them on vibrate only, and to leave the theater if we need to respond. And, no, I'm not just talking geeks. That includes members of the medical and law enforcement professions, as well, where receiving an unexpected page or call really may be critical, and yes (not trying to be melodramatic), might just save someone's life.

    Stop thinking technology is the answer to what is a SOCIAL problem. Grow a spine, and hold people responsible for their actions and their effect upon others around them, rather than trying to hide behind a bad technological band aid.

    The answer is NOT to restrict the use of technology for those who use it properly, but to throw the asshats who are disruptive out of the theater, regardless of whether or not they happen to have a phone, or a pager.

    (God forbid that anyone should actually have any personal responsibility, or actually have to confront someone obnoxious.)

    </rant>

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled pithy remarks about the idiocy of using this technology to attempt to protect a man so (deservedly) loathed that they think something like this might actually be necessary. I, of course, refer to the continuing dissemination of FUD, not the jamming, per se.

    1. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Those people who think they realy need it 24x7 must be irreplacable people.

      Cementaries are full of them.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Grow a spine, and hold people responsible for their actions and their effect upon others around them, rather than trying to hide behind a bad technological band aid."

      So, what, legalize murder? That's about all that'll help. Social problem, eh? What're you going to do? Whine at the asshat who's left his cellphone on cacophony mode whilst in the theatre? Do you enjoy being laughed at?

      I've an idea; how about doctors and such rent movies? Stop trying to solve a technological problem with a social band-aid.

    3. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I hear this suggested periodically, and it's, simply put, a very poor idea, that's not been thought through at all.

      It's been thought out sufficiently. If you can't be out of touch for 2 hours, then don't go to the theater. Period. Doctor on call? Too bad. Want to be available for the babysitter to call in an emergency? Do what everyone else did before, give a neighbor's phone number and 911 for them to call and get the message when the movie is over, or just stay home.

      Stop thinking technology is the answer to what is a SOCIAL problem.

      Why object to a technical solution to a social problem? There is no responsible use of a cellular phone or pager in a movie theater. The light is visible. The vibrate function is audible to your neighbors. Since the only responsible use is to turn it off, not just silent, but off, then enforcing that with technology should be encouraged.

      throw the asshats who are disruptive out of the theater,

      That's just plain stupid. That disrupts the movie much more than the phone call. Really, you want people to com in and out during the movie policing for phone usage and throwing them out? Or are you calling for patrons to get up in the middle of the movie to complain about their fellow patrons? And then what, a confrontation in the middle of the movie, disrupting it for everyone in order to take care of it? That's much more disruptive than the call. A much better solution is to prevent such things where possible, even if it involves technology. Yes, technology can be an effective solution to social problems.

    4. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      That's just plain stupid. That disrupts the movie much more than the phone call.

      How long have you worked in a movie theater? I did it for five years during high school/college. I threw out TONS of asshats. Yes, it disrupts the movie. So does letting them stay in, being asshats. Not to mention that many, many more people get embarassed rather than combative when confronted by an usher. Many times they'd see the flashlight heading toward them and get up and leave on their own rather than suffer me pulling them out. Your position may sound reasonable, but it doesn't fly for me. Your conjecture is contradicted by my personal experience. It might not convince you, since it wasn't your experience. If that's the case, I'd invite you to go get a job in a movie theater, and see for yourself.

      There is responsible use of cellphones in movie theaters. People get up all the time, and walk out to the lobby to answer their vibrating phones. They cause no more disruption than people getting up to use the restroom or buy some crap from the concession stand. Get over yourself and stop imposing penalties on responsible people for the actions of a few irresponsible ones. Why is it that people are always so quick to place limits on OTHER PEOPLE'S behaviour? Nonsmokers of course have no problem with restrictions on smokers. They don't care because they don't smoke. You don't have a job requiring a pager, so of course you're willing to limit the behaviour of those who do. People who don't drive generally don't mind restrictions on drivers. I bet you'd not be so fond of a law REQUIRING you to use a cellphone during a movie.

    5. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      "A few bad eggs ruin it for the rest of us"... welcome to america! I say they put this into EVERY SINGLE theatre..

    6. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of us who DO really have to have cellphones and pagers active 24x7

      Then those people should not go to a theatre, vibration or not. Hire someone to cover you when you want to have a personal life, and turn the fscking thing off. For your own good. Being alert 24x7 wondering if something might blow up is no way to live.
    7. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by _.-+thimk!+-._ · · Score: 1

      Ah.

      Another believer in the 'lowest common denominator' theory of life, where the worst solution somehow is magically supposed to become the best solution, and where failing to address the underlying problem is somehow supposed to be better than finding a real solution.

      This would just be expensive, and wouldn't solve anything. The disruptive people would just find a new and different way to be loud, thoughtless, obnoxious, and annoying. Meanwhile you actually present new problems.

      If you want a "welcome to America" moment, how long do you figure it would be before some theater that installed this system would be sued because someone had a heart attack, and the people they were with couldn't call 911 because their phone was being jammed? Not even in the theater necessarily, but just walking past? They might have a reasonable case, too.

    8. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, I'd invite you to go get a job in a movie theater, and see for yourself.

      I've had one. By my experience, you are wrong.

    9. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      In what way? Perhaps we can figure out some of the variables. I'd imagine location has a lot to do with it. Also, I'm a rather large man. Maybe that had something to do with my success rate. I know it had a lot to do with why I was chosen to be the bouncer.

    10. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      attempt to protect a man so (deservedly) loathed that they think something like this might actually be necessary.

      I can't say I'd be sorry if Bush was dead. (That's not a threat, for any Secret Service listening -- I do not intend to kill him, but if it did happen, I wouldn't shed any tears.)

      But, let's be honest, here: No matter who it is, if they're famous enough, there's probably someone who wants to kill them for some irrational reason. Consider Gandhi -- pretty much universally loved and respected, even by his (former) enemies, and then someone just randomly shoots him.

      And in the case of Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, I'm glad we have tech like this. If they had lived another day, I really don't care who's inconvenienced by their fucking cell phone not working.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    11. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earth to thimk: we can hear your cellphone vibrating. It's almost as loud as the ringer.

    12. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the village of sarcasm. Population: Not you. ;)

    13. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by _.-+thimk!+-._ · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      'Just visiting', indeed, it seems.

      Somewhere along the way, I missed the <sarcasm> signpost when entering. :D

    14. Re:wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      Heh heh, sall good :)

  60. You may be thinking of Bill Frist by roystgnr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who, in his autobiography, admitted to lying to animal shelters so that he could adopt their cats, take them home, vivisect and kill them.

    Of course, it's also possible that you're not thinking at all, that you're trying to use "Slashdot thinks Republican leaders would kill kittens" as some sort of slur against Slashdot, because you didn't know that until a few months ago Senate Republicans were in fact led by a man who killed kittens. For future irony, I suggest accusing the anti-Bush crowd of thinking that Bush would illegally wiretap our phones without search warrants or that Cheney would shoot a guy in the face.

  61. Inflamatory Title? by weinrich · · Score: 1

    Can we mod-down article titles? "Ban" is completely inaccurate. Reading the title you immediately envision Secret Service guys barging through the crowds, confiscating cell phones from people. When did /. become a sensationalist news source? Have they been receiving advertising dollars from the National Inquirer?

    --
    Error: .sig not found, using /etc/passwd instead
    1. Re:Inflamatory Title? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "When did /. become a sensationalist news source? " /. hasn't changed, you have. Good job.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  62. They have won! by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 3, Funny

    When I can't talk on my phone while drinking a cup of coffee, and reading the paper, and watching TV, while driving to work in my SUV... the terrorists have won.

  63. So America Wizened up... by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

    So America has finally wizened and have sent Bush to a penal colony. Good on ya, Mates!

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  64. Yes, that's the idea... by gillbates · · Score: 1

    Because they want the bomb to go off as the President approaches, when the cameras are trained on him - not afterward. The idea is that it would blow up close enough for him and the world to see on TV, yet far enough away that it doesn't pose any significant risk to the President. That way, they get the best of both worlds - protection for the President, and another bargaining chip for escalating the "War on Terror".

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  65. Cunning plan by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Design bomb which triggers a few secs after a call is broken. You know the president will be less than 50yds away.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  66. The what? by dema · · Score: 1

    ...all cell phone calls within the [b]radius of a football field[/b] will be suppressed.

    Seriously, wtf?

  67. Also happened when Bush visit Indonesia by Amitz+Sekali · · Score: 1

    Cell services near his path of travel was turned off for about 6 hours.

    --
    If you delay pleasure infinitely, the pleasure will be infinite. (YM)
  68. Everyone seems to be focused on the wrong thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What really counts is that, even in a friendly country, the American president is so hated aound the world that this is necessary.

  69. fingers crossed by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
    Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

    Sshhh!!

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  70. What about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about a bomb that only detonates when its attached cell phone signal is jammed? You could scatter them around the city and leave, as soon as his helicoptget gets close ..

  71. Ray Liotta & Black Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goodfellas comes to mind.

  72. "Smart" is not the right word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

    The Bush Administration has been actively working to secure its position in history as the Champion Of the Anti-Smart. This action is consistent with their goal.

  73. most radio detonators have range limitations by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    a cell phone is going to have the best range of any improvised detonator, so it makes sense to eliminate that possibility first. Other sorts of transmitters, like taken out of cheap R/C toys are simply not going to have the range.

    it is possible to modify a simple AM radio to receive CB signals with a modification of its antenna coil. then maybe attach a DTMF decoder on it to use as a key for your bomb. but again, this is beyond the level of sophistication your typical terrorist (or so it seems). but the evidence of such a transmitter setup (especially if you hooked it up to equipment to dramatically improve its range) is quite incriminating.

    An ordinary wrist watch is a simple way to set it off remotely. but if you're looking to assassinate a particular person you would want it to go off when it was near your bomb. and a watch is not going to cut it.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  74. *bush* casues? by nurb432 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No, *security concerns* caused it.

    Bush just happens to be president at the moment.

    Geesh.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:*bush* casues? by elpapacito · · Score: 1

      That's correct, but what kind of security concern ? Bush or not Bush, will this jammer block phone calls to emergency service, maybe endangering the lives of citizens ? That's a security concern too and if any alleged prez security endangers citizens, terrorists have won.

    2. Re:*bush* casues? by shish · · Score: 1

      But who led the country into a state of constant paranoia? Who took terrorism (which kills fewer people per year than starvation does per day), and made it the #1 most feared thing ever?

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  75. Tarrarists use cell phones? by guruevi · · Score: 1

    I think that's an incredible waste of money and way too easy to track back (where and who bought it etc.). I think a better idea is to go with a remote control (they are incredibly cheap) and if you know cell phone or other jammers are going to be used, tune in on the frequency the jammer is going to be used with an LC-circuit and wait for a very powerful signal to come along. Costs you maybe $3...

    Am I going to be arrested now?

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  76. My appologies by NotalllawyersdoIP · · Score: 1

    to the people of Sydney from a US citizen. You can help your American cousins out -in a small way- by complaining bitterly about your government's acquiescence to Bush's security demands. The man views himself as more or less an absolute monarch. He is a real danger to us and the rest of the world.

    1. Re:My appologies by cranos · · Score: 1

      We've been complaining for the last ten years, doesn't mean a damn thing.

  77. Backwards by electronerdz · · Score: 1

    What if it works backwards? When it can't make a call, it triggers?

    --
    Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
  78. If 24 has taught me anything by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    it's that the terrorist will use his cell phone, attach an encryption device, make a phone call to a BBS, punch in some codes in the cell and take over the entire CIA/NSA/ security system, and use the security system to direct a satellite to throw a missile off course that will hit the target with lots of innocent lives (children) taken as a result.

  79. uhm by Real_Reddox · · Score: 1

    Can't the jammer's signals set off the explosives too?

    --
    I spent five minutes stealing cool sigs and all I got was this.
  80. This is probably pretty effective by Njovich · · Score: 1

    Many attacks are done with cell-phones. In general, they use either the alarm or call.

    In the madrid train bombing they used the alarm clock and didn't call (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Train_Bombing control f mobile). In London the theory is that they used the alarm clock and didn't call (although I'm not sure, there was no unexploded phone there AFAIK).

    However, with a train, you can be fairly certain about the time you want the phone to explode. With a president, you don't really know at what time he will be at a specific location. You probably don't have access to the stage, so you want to hit him somewhere on his way or near the crowd. With an alarm this is very hard, with some remote device it is a lot easier.

    It is of course possible to use another remote detonator, but since recent western world attacks have been done with mobile phones, it's pretty sensible to just jam the signal.

    (and yes, they could still use some other method, but at least they have cut out some obvious ones with this method)

  81. Wow, this guy is a pants pisser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never seen anyone more terrified of... well, everything... like conservatives.

    Is there anything a conservative ISN'T terrified of? Certainly not that I've seen.

  82. Careless? by Thaelon · · Score: 1

    It's going to suck for them if the helicopter's jamming sets off a bomb.

    --

    Question everything

  83. Pry it from my cold dead fingers by gc8005 · · Score: 1

    If we ban cell phones only terrorists will have cell phones. Join the National Cell Phone Association (NCPA) today!

  84. Response to motorcade by incorporalis · · Score: 1
    The best thing that the people could do is not to show up.

    That's right, no protests, no applause.

    Silence.

    --
    I'm a code monkey
  85. Think like Richard Reed instead by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Remember the shoe bomber? That's really more of the intelligence level of the guys we're dealing with here. Not quite as bright as the average slashdotter.

    I play a lot of RPG games and war simulations, and I'm a BSEE. I know I could come up with better inside of five minutes.

    As for the cell phone jamming, my thinking is this. The jammer is not in the helicopter. The helicopter is an obvious target to draw anyone out. Someone who wished to attack W at this time would read the article and think, "Aha! The jammer is in the helicopter. Shoot down the copter, then dial in the bomb. Simple!"

    Odds are, the jammer will be in the convoy and not the copter. The copter will be there as a decoy. Someone hits the copter, you know bad things are afoot and it's time to leave.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  86. Is jamming safe? by CyZooNiC · · Score: 0

    I don't see the point in the jamming if we are fighting suicide terrorists. And couldn't the jamming inadvertently set off a device?

  87. Nice to be popular, eh by toby · · Score: 1

    With domestic approval in 20s and 30s, exactly how popular does he think he is outside?

    Even in puppet states like Australia: The government may fawn all over him, but the public does not.

    --
    you had me at #!
  88. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing... by objekt · · Score: 1

    "Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance."

    Yeah, they might as well announce it on the front page of /.

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  89. Is there any way to do this without getting flak? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    If they tell in advance that your mobiles won't work near the prez, you get "is this a good idea to let potential attackers know?". If you don't, you get a "what if an emergency happened and you couldn't call?".

    I'm all FOR informing people about this. Because I deem the potential threat of a medical emergency that can't be responded to higher than the threat that someone kills a muppet.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  90. Perhaps it is by 3ryon · · Score: 1

    There are other ways to detonate explosives remotely. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

    It depends on what your objectives are.

  91. RPG by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

    Helicopter, you say? So they'll need both an RPG and an IED.

    Or a .50 BMG and an IED.

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    1. Re:RPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, you beat me to it. I was going to include something about the economics involved too, such as how a $500-on-the-black-market RPG-7 could take out a multi-million dollar helicopter and its on-board jamming equipment, then a liberal sprinkling of Iraqi-standard IED's could handle the rest.

      Alternately, you could just wire the antenna of the cell phone to a larger directional antenna to cut out the area-of-effect jamming - it only needs to be strong enough to let it ring.

  92. Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not all up on signal jamming, but surely with some sort of directional antenna this could be overcome? Sure you would have to use wireless networking gear as personal cell phone transmitters don't seem to be that common!

    If you wanted to get complicated, get your bomb to measure the intensity of the jamming signal and detonate when it starts to drop (meaning the helicopter has just passed overhead).

    Or, they could just do the standard and tell some young man that he will be greatly rewarded in the after life if kills himself for the cause. Religion is dangerous, seriously, I'm going to aim this one at Christians (hey, your the biggest target ok!) if i handed you a copy of the bible when your age 25 and you had NEVER heard of it in your life and i told you all about it and that it was all true, you would think i was crazy... wouldn't you? (Hence why it is beaten into children when they are young and gullible).

  93. Will Emperor Bush be allowed to bring a minigun? by llandeiloBoy · · Score: 1

    They tried to fit one when he visited the UK. But for once we refused. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,690 3,1086397,00.html

  94. Do it the other way around by Roadmaster · · Score: 1

    Let's rig the detonator so it holds off until it *loses* cellular signal before detonating the bomb. That way it's even easier, explosives can be planted well in advance and by the time the motorcade passes near them, the perpetrator is well on his way back home.

  95. Ooohh... by teflaime · · Score: 1

    Time for some "prior restraint of trade" lawsuits...:D

  96. 3-Year Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've been surpressing cell phone transmissions at least since the RNC convention in NYC in 2k4.

  97. Good call, but the tech needs some modification by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    Except the technology needs a little modification: blow up a bomb when ANY call is received.

  98. What about a normal, analog phone? by quilombodigital · · Score: 1

    Well, the first problem is that if the bomb is already near the president, why not use a normal, analog phone, like all that old 007 movies?
    Hum... and what about the good and old cigar technique?
    Hum... a trigger that is activated by sound?
    Hum... maybe a laser line crossed by a leg? All you need is a five dollars laser pen and a 1 dollar sensor, cheaper than a cell phone...
    Hum... what about opening a door with a small switch? or placing a virus on the ventilating system! If it is near enough this can be done! heheh...

    Oh man... its too easy to kill the president. ;-)

  99. Maybe not terrorists but... by fortiguy · · Score: 1

    normal people who work along that path, say bike couriers will need to know about the outage. Some people depend on cellphones for their jobs, so this is important to them. I guess terrorists might say that terror is their job, but thats hard to convince me on... (wheres the $$?) So protect and help lots of average people but warn the terrorists to start working on another type of detonator ... hmm... I'd say that they are doing it the right way.

    --
    You want what? by when? Sorry we haven't finished the time travel project yet... that's next week.
  100. Moron Detector by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    They should have kept quite about that. Any would-be assassins are now fitting their bombs with Moron-Detectors instead.

  101. The "Lost" Approach by stonetony · · Score: 1

    Just shoot the explosives.

  102. What about lead calls on terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if someone sees a suicide bomber walking down the street? How are they suppose to alert the police if they are blocking all cell signals?

    This is stupid. This American security. They should of asked the Israelis on this one. But then again I don't think the Australian police is prepared enough to be able to respond within 12 seconds like the Israeli police.

    - Ex-Australian. About to start training in the IDF.

  103. France to allow blocking (2004) by Aehgts · · Score: 1


    This type of argument is old.

    Here's an article from theregister from october 2004.
    summary: France allows mobile phone jaming in cinemas as long as you can still dial emergency numbers.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/12/french_mob ile_blockers/

    --
    "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein
  104. Flame bait... yawn... by lag00natic · · Score: 2
    Flame bait.

    Just another opportunity to Bush-Bash.

    If they didn't announce this, then people would flame the admin for being secretive.
    When they do announce it, they are flamed for being paranoid and infringing our rights and crap like that.

    I disapprove of some of the Bush admin policies as much as the next person, but the Bush flaming gets old.

    Why are we not discussing the type of jamming technologies used by the government and which frequencies they may/may-not be jamming?

  105. Wow.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the new rule for slashdot should be that before anything is posted on the main page, the submitter must first contact joedoc to see if he knows about it. It is only considered actual 'news' and thus post-worthy if joedoc does not know about it. Screw everyone else.

  106. Where Can I Get This Equipment? by morari · · Score: 1

    Because I'd love to carry it around in a backpack or something and never see morons at the store blabbing on their cellphones again. That would be great!

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  107. I thought the pres WROTE the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The police ENFORCED the law
    The Judiciary APPLY the law

    So, since El Presitente wrote the law saying "thou shalt not zap your neighbours mobile", the police should arrest El Presidente and the judiciary should find El Presidente guilty.

    Unless El Presidente quickly enacts a new law saying "unless I do it" as an addendum.

    Sheesh, I'm not even USian...

    1. Re:I thought the pres WROTE the law by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      Legislative branch writes laws Executive branch enforces laws Judiciary branch applies laws The police, president and army are all parts of the executive branch.

  108. it's call unconditional love by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    you brit bush-lovers!

  109. The one they would have loved to print by gd23ka · · Score: 3, Funny

    "When President George Bush visits Sydney, Australia for the APEC Summit in September, all dissent within the radius of a 5km of the visiting dignitary will be suppressed with immediate lethal force. During the days of the visit, curfew will begin one hour earlier and last one hour longer.

    Kids! Parents! Let's give Mr. Bush a cheery welcome to Australia! Additional chocolate rations have been approved for minors under the age of 16 wishing to cheer President Bush, these will be available after each event. Adults will receive $10 for each cheering event, please contact your police department for further details."

    1. Re:The one they would have loved to print by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      BBC reported "collapse" of WTC7 when it was still standing minutes too early. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lylHrpLOpzg

      WTC7 was demolished because it had been rendered structurtally unsound. Sorry, thanks for playing.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:The one they would have loved to print by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      WTC7 must then have become structurally unsound months before 911 because it takes
      the work of weeks to plan the detonations, set the charges and wire the building.
      Stuff like that doesn't all happen during a sunny afternoon.

      You lose. Press c to repeat mistake. Press f to return to Fox News.
      Press b to IM Bill O'Reilly.

    3. Re:The one they would have loved to print by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a bit easier when all the surrounding buildings are damaged anyway and WTC7 is in imminent risk of collapse. It's not that hard to knock a building down. The hard part is not damaging other buildings when you do it.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  110. As a lefty, let me say this: by spun · · Score: 1

    It's not an issue, it's an interesting technical news story. A helicopter flying overhead jamming cell phones? Neat! I could give a fuck that it's for that douchebag, Bush. It's a dumb move, dumber since they've said what they're doing, and it won't protect the man from anything. But it's still a helicopter flying overhead jamming cell phones, which is still an interesting story for nerds of any political stripe.

    It's just a CYA move by his security team. Cellphones have been used to trigger bombs? We'll jam cellphones, then. Nobody wants to be the guy who gets the president blown up because they didn't cover something obvious. That's kind of a career ending move.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:As a lefty, let me say this: by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      I wish they would loan that helicopter to my state for a while. Almost every time I see a car drifting in its lane or a person merging without looking the driver has a cellphone jammed to their ear.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    2. Re:As a lefty, let me say this: by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      When, oh when, will terrorists start using heavily clothed hot women to trigger bombs? Then we'd have to strip all hot women within 1mile of President Bush. For security reasons, of course.

    3. Re:As a lefty, let me say this: by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      A-friggin'-MEN man. It's even better when the car is a black and white marked POLICE CRUISER. (That shit happens a LOT where I'm at, and it bugs the hell out of me because they say they "already have laws that cover distractions while driving" so they won't pass a headset law like they have in Hawaii for example.)

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
  111. Attention getter! by Lethyos · · Score: 1

    This guy is just a fucking popularity magnet.

    --
    Why bother.
  112. Screw the president's safety. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Abraham Lincoln went to the front lines during the Civil War and had to be told to duck by his generals so that he wouldn't be shot.

    If the president of the United States were killed, it would surely be sad and somewhat disruptive-- but not that big a deal. We've got a whole lineup of replacements on deck.

    The absurd measures taken to protect the president only make sense if you think of the president as more than "some guy"-- as some sort of emperor or demigod. Which is precisely the impression those absurd measures are intended to convey.

  113. What about a fuse and a match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt this helicopter can defeat a low-tech triggering device...

  114. Ah! Finally! by WheelDweller · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...a reason to hate Bush!

    Don'tcha get tired of this? Ignore it all ya like, but there have been dozens of real, dangerous terrorist attacks thwarted locally. Get over it; there are bigger problems than a Republican in the White House.

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  115. "the smartest thing" by TopSpin · · Score: 1

    Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance. Of course, if the Secret Service just went ahead and jammed phones without giving notice good old TruthDot would not have found it necessary to entertain articles about the facism of Bush taking over communication networks in foreign countries. Nah, that wouldn't happen.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  116. there are ways to get him by elmartinos · · Score: 1

    This does not help against my most favourite weapon, the water balloon. Unseen by metal detectors, blast radius 1m, approximate range 2-10m. Can surpass fences and walls through clever use of gravitational effects. Very effective as a drop weapon as it explodes on impact. Transforms kinetic energy into splash damage. Unfortunately, anybody that uses it will most likely be killed by a paranoid American.

  117. Give him The Boot by redshirt1111 · · Score: 1

    Remember! Disparaging The Boot is a Bootable offense.

  118. I hope.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheney wears a tin foil suit. His pacemaker might get disrupted also.

  119. use the jammer to set off the bomb by johnrpenner · · Score: 1

    great -- now the terrorists have a perfect way to detect his arrival.
    just use the jammer to trigger the bomb (offset by a couple minutes,
    to ensure he's entered well within range) -- duh.

  120. dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't detonation on detection of the signal jammers or dropping of an in progress call be the obvious way around this?
    I guess this would be slightly more difficult to modify a cell phone to do as there is no phone ringing action in these cases.

    I am not a terrorist.

  121. That's the idea by thanksforthecrabs · · Score: 1

    I used to work in the media and cover presidential events. The Secret Service makes it well known they are there and doing their job. They want to be seen and let you know you're being watched. Cells can be used to remotely trigger devices and also offer recon.

  122. No guff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

    It depends on whose side you are really on. Most of these media companies hate Republicans so much, that they are actively willing to turn over the US government to al Queda. Just watch their happy excitement every time they can increment their "dead US soldier" count.

    Due to their blind hatred, it is extremely rare that to see them report anything positive about the US military under Bush. Schools opened, electricity connected, hospitals built, all are ignored. One soldier gets accused of spitting on the sidewalk, and you get continuous 24 hour TV coverage, full front page articles for the next 10 weeks, interviews with the parents, made-for-TV movies, T-shirts, flavored condems, how it impacts global warming, etc. Something more serious, and it gets worse.

    Show me anything that shows that the media is on the side of the US. Just pick up any newspaper, and it reads like an al Queda propaganda pamphlet.

  123. You think it would matter? by phorm · · Score: 1

    And who would you alert? Do you have a hotline number to the secret service?

    I doubt that calling 9-1-1 would get you anywhere before shit hit the fan. By the time you've indicated you want to talk to the cops, then giving your personal details, sat on hold, and waiting to be connected through the presidential aircraft would be a smoking ruin, or the bad-guys would already be full of bullets.

    1. Re:You think it would matter? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Funny
      I doubt that calling 9-1-1 would get you anywhere before shit hit the fan.

      Yes. Since the emergency number in Australia is 000.

  124. Chicken farmers are checking their fax machines by tetranz · · Score: 1

    Quote from: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1299dela.htm when Bill Clinton came to New Zealand for APEC.

    The desire to make this a profitable and publicity-rich event was not fulfilled, even in the beginning. The technology of U.S. secret service agents, who arrived to monitor the event and protect the President, was somewhat fallible. A week before the President arrived, Saji Phillips, a chicken farmer from South Auckland, found his fax machine loaded with messages from the U.S. APEC Support Office. They informed him about security arrangements, such as the installation of White House communications equipment at Auckland airport and the code name and security number of a military officer. Phillips rang the Support Office and told them about the error, but still received messages for many days, finally going to the press to try to get some relief from faxes that weren't about chickens.

  125. please please please please.... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    There are other ways to detonate explosives remotely. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance. We can only hope...
    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  126. US Units of Measure... by ElboRuum · · Score: 1

    US measure has always been popular because we relate to it.

    A foot... was actually the measurement of someone's foot.
    A cup... was actually the measurement of the amount of liquid that fit in a cup.
    A teaspoon, a tablespoon...
    A bushel, a barrel... well you get the idea.

    A gallon just sounds like a lot... Pour a gallon of anything over anyone's head and they'll probably have to change clothes.
    A mile just sounds real far... Is 37C real hot? Dunno, but I'm pretty sure 98.6F is.

    But the usage of football field as a measurement...

    I'd like to blame that on Chuck Bednarik. I don't know why. I'm almost positive he had nothing to do with it.

    1. Re:US Units of Measure... by eck011219 · · Score: 1

      Sure, I understand all of that. But I think we've all let ourselves lose (or never develop) the ability to read a simple figure and understand it. A football field works great for a distance of 100 yards, but how about 78 yards? Now you're mentally approximating three-fourths of a football field and transferring that back to whatever you're looking at -- seems like a lot of extra processor cycles to me. Worse yet, how about 127 yards? Now you're laying football fields end to end just so you can truncate them -- lordy. If we have a better understanding of what a yard is, we can just see things for what they are without the overlays. I bet Tiger Woods doesn't view a par-3 over water as two and one-eighth football fields.

      But perhaps I've shot myself in the foot -- he probably sees it as a five iron (even farther from reality than the football fields).

      Anyhow, the football field thing reminds me of the whole mnemonic craze a few years ago. "Memorize this twelve-letter acronym so you'll remember your boss's birthday." People's minds work different ways, I know, and some word people would find it easier to do that than remember the date. Which gets me on to rote learning vs. this interpretive stuff that's happening in schools now, but that makes me sound old and cranky beyond my years and is too far off topic for this story. But I just wonder if the relational teaching thing is going too far and starting to handicap us a bit.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  127. But Islamic terrorism isn't the IRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was never any danger of the IRA ever releasing nerve gas or setting off a nuke in London, because the IRA is a political movement based on gaining a real-world political goal. And the IRA doesn't view non-Irish as sub-human and deserving only of death.

    Islamic terrorism is not a political movement - it's a religious movement where non-Muslims are considered sub-humans who deserve death if they don't submit (which is literally what "Islam" means in Arabic - submission. I bet you didn't know that...). And they are more than willing to use whatever means they have to deliver that death - to anyone who doesn't submit. Please learn the terms dhimmi and jizya.

    Hell, Islamic fundamentalists are even willing to openly state their willingness to wipe entire sovereign nations off the face of the Earth, killing millions along the way. And that's not some fringe nut-jobs either - that comes from more than one actual leader. But hey, they're only infidels, right?

    Got the balls to look at the real face of Islamic fundamentalism? Google "Samir Kuntar" and see what he did. But that four-year-old was only an infidel, right?

    That's not the m.o. of the IRA, buddy.

    1. Re:But Islamic terrorism isn't the IRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      errr "Samir Kuntar" ? He killed two people, a man and his baby girl. I am sure I can find a random lowlife nut job in the IRA who killed two people too or am i missing something?

      I mean among the thousands of people killed in the israeli/palestinnian wars that's the worst you could find to show off the "Real face of Islamic fundamentalism" two people killed by the same man?

      Fine, whatever, that's not the point of my reply, here is the real kicker, he is not even a Muslim! I bet you didn't even know that.
      Isn't it lovely asking people to google stuff without trying it yourself first ;-)

      Google tells me he is a Druze, and that Druze religion originally split from muslims -like christians split from jews- and today druze religion does not allow the followers to intermarry with Muslims, Jews, or Christians.
      It also tells me that the israeli Druze serve in the Israeli army without causing any problems.

      What a stupid example you picked to show us "Islamic fundamentalism".

    2. Re:But Islamic terrorism isn't the IRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, by the time I finished reading the first paragraph of your comment, I was already thinking "I bet he mentions dhimmi before he's finished". Yay, I win.

      I think you're guilty of trivialising the IRA; over thirty years they killed nearly 2000 people and injured nearly 20000 people, as well as causing billions of pounds-worth of damage. The Bishopgate bomb alone caused damage estimated at £1billion. Nearly 300 IRA members were killed during that time.

      When you consider that these deaths were as a result of a disagreement over the governance of 1.6 million people living in a small territory of 5000 square miles, the violence attributable to the world's 1.4 billion muslims looks pretty small-scale in comparison.

    3. Re:But Islamic terrorism isn't the IRA by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't live in the UK and have no experience at all of what the IRA were up to and how they operated, had the IRA had nerve gas or nukes there is little doubt in my mind they'd have been just as likely to use them as any Islamist group.

      The IRA were more than happy to kill civilians, basically on the grounds they were English. I live in Birmingham and we all still remember the Birmingham pub bombings here so please don't try to tell me that the IRA are not a terrorist organisation or that they didn't pose more of a threat to me than the Islamic terrorists do.

      Someone above has already posted some stats about the IRAs activities but please feel free to google for more information yourself.

  128. jamming doctors by NNland · · Score: 1

    Some movie theaters have considered shielding theaters from any/all cell phone signals (not actively jamming, just lining them with shielding). If I remember correctly, it had questionable legality because doctors who are on call typically pack cell phones or pagers. If jamming phones (in the case of on-call doctors) is questionably legal in a movie theater, I can't imagine it *not* being of questionable legality to do the same in a stadium.

    If there was a hospital nearby, and it was affected by the jamming, I can't see how that *wouldn't* be illegal, regardless of the above.

  129. Not surprised by festers · · Score: 1

    I guess when you've managed to piss off a large potion of the world, you need to take drastic measures like this.

    --


    -------
    "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
  130. They wanted to... by The+Real+Nem · · Score: 1

    I do wonder whatever became of this

  131. Home of the brave by Bovineck · · Score: 1

    Bush? Isn't that guy from the home of the brave and land of the free? Sounds like we need an advertising campaign to change the tag.

  132. wannabes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it doesn't quite fit right here. I wouldn't call people trying to kill a president wannabes anyway. With or without cellphones.

  133. Use lazer light as a trigger by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Just use a pulse lazer as a trigger, you an instal a lazer on any roof far enough from the road, aim it at the detonator photoresistor...

  134. Bush gave me aids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He also raped my mother, and killed my father. QQ

  135. What kind of football field? by eaddict · · Score: 1

    a US Football field is 360 feet. A soccer field is 90-120 meters. And there are many more 'football' field definitions! There is a lot of room for error here! Details!

    --
    "If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
    1. Re:What kind of football field? by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      Has to be an Aussie Rules size field, usually oval to circular from 450 feet (137 m) to 500 feet (150 m)in diameter.

      --
      You never catch me alive
  136. These idiots told them about it in advance! by smitth1276 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

    Yeah, don't these incompetent morons know that that's the New York Times' job!

  137. In terms of other methods by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    The other methods are more easily detectable, with air-sampling robots and explosives-sniffing dogs.

    The standard method uses timer cord to set off charges, but an ingenious person could set up a solar-powered device triggered by a remote laser if they thought about it for three minutes and invested $100 for scope, industrial magnifying square, and photovoltaic linker for the cap.

    But, hey, what do I know, I only used to be a combat field engineer.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  138. Reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of when Bush spoke at Fort Hood, Texas. We were just home from Iraq for 2 days and had to stand in the heat for hours to hear this guy speak. Soldiers were literally jumping the fence that surrounded the field and secret service and MPs were trying to keep people to stay. I wish I had my camera.

  139. phone based detonater by icandodat · · Score: 1

    I built a land line phone based trigger for project in college. Are they going to block prevent all phones from being used? how about garage door openers, car door openers, lasers etc.. Hell I'm not even that smart and I can think of 1/2 a dozen ways to get around that. Why don't they just put his ass in a bullet proof golf cart? It was good enough for the pope.

  140. Already widely known by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    At a local bookstore, I saw what I call an "aviation fan" magazine: boatloads of photos and trivia. It mentioned the EA-6B jammer plane was being used in Iraq to defeat IEDs, as opposed to the usual roles. The difference is a helo can tag along with a motorcade more easily than a fixed-wing aircraft.

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  141. phone based detonater by icandodat · · Score: 1

    I built a land line phone based trigger for project in college. Are they going to block all phones from being used? how about garage door openers, car door openers, lasers etc.. Hell I'm not even that smart and I can think of 1/2 a dozen ways to get around that. Why don't they just put his ass in a bullet proof golf cart? It was good enough for the pope.

  142. putting by _.-+thimk!+-._ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Being oncall 24x7 isn't a matter of hubris. It's often a dictate of a specific job.

    And, yes, sometimes, those people are very hard to replace. Do you think there's a neuro-surgeon, or a member of a rapid response hostage rescue team on every corner, perhaps? Being on-call doesn't mean not having a life. It means finding a balance between life and specific job responsibilities.

    The point is that the suggestion to jam phones is trying to solve the wrong problem. Cell phones and pagers are NOT the problem -- rude, thoughtless PEOPLE are the problem.

    By trying to solve the wrong problem, you only make it harder for reasonable people to actually try to maintain that balance. The rude, thoughtless people, however, are still going to be disruptive, even if they don't have a working cell phone.

  143. Computation Deferred. by ElboRuum · · Score: 1

    The only thing you need to teach a human being is that age old, seldom used technique called "critical thinking". This type of thinking is "teach a man to fish" where those you mentioned are closer to "give a man a fish". Once critical thought is mastered, a person can learn without BEING taught.

    And it really isn't that hard.

  144. Are they going to jam VHF? by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

    Are they going to jam VHF? You know,the radios that all the emergency responders like police, fire and ambulance use to communicate. Any half decent radio tech can add a dtmf decoder package to a hand-held vhf radio and make a jim-dandy remote detonator. A wee little vhf walkie talkie can easily range 5 miles even in the city. Hit the push-to-talk, key in *123 to arm and #456 to detonate.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  145. Hmm... real life is more and more like a game... by digital+photo · · Score: 1

    So...

    • Jammers are present. They are in the helicopter, in each car, on secret service members in the crowds, and most likely planted in various cars along the route, disguised as "normal" cars
    • The roads will have been checked/scanned ahead of time and monitored from the time of scan until the time after the motorcade has passed by.
    • There will be spotters in key locations to check for people who are going to take pot shots.
    • The cars are armoured

    If someone is serious about causing problems, their options would really be limited. A device that needs to be triggered, can be setup to be triggered by the passing by of a certain metal mass ala megnetic ocean mines. Heavy armored cars meet such criteria as a potential trigger.

    Standard gas attacks will work on the crowds, so even if the primary target isn't vulnerable, soft targets around him/her will be, causing a diversion.

    A well placed charge to collapse a building in front of, behind, or onto the motorcade will be workable, despite signal jamming, as trigger can be done via wires, IR, WIFI, CB+TONE, landline phone call, etc.

    The fact is... given enough time, enough mental second guessing, ANYTHING is possible. You do the best you can to guard against known dangers and prepare against them. You can't prepare for what you don't know about or have knowledge/understanding of. The US Govt has a good understanding of tech and tactics used, so I'm pretty sure their defenses will be enough to repel any attack. Nice PR/Marketing, though, with the "heli with a jammer". Since multiple cell towers cover a region, the amount of energy required to block out a football field sized area would be quite enormous. I'm sure such a helicopter can be rigged for this, but would it be practical? :/

  146. Ban cell phones and don't tell anyone???? by MMInterface · · Score: 1

    This is in response to the last statement that the plans shouldn't be revealed because it would inform the terrorists. You can't just ban cell phones in a large area and not tell anyone. If Bush is there then there will be other people with security interests that rely on cell phones. If any other politicians are around they need to make arangements for other forms of communication etc. The media will need to act accordingly as well. In any event its probably a waste of time anyways.

  147. I doubt it's for the enemies... by localman · · Score: 1

    Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

    It's not for the enemies. Let's face it: reasonably smart people who want to cause destruction usually can, and there's not that much we'll ever be able to do about it. I doubt anyone involved in the cell phone jamming plan thinks it would seriously hinder an attack. My guess is that it's just marketing: keep showing outward signs that we're "smart and prepared". Most people will feel more secure reading this, so mission accomplished.

    Cheers.

  148. It's not for Bush's sake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's for the cops to be able to beat commie's like you up, without having someone filming the event with a phone...

  149. Honestly by MahariBalzitch · · Score: 1

    It should be "Yippee! Slashdot Editors Find Yet Another Excuse to Bash Lame Bush Administration"...from the 'because-it's-too-fucking-easy' department.

  150. easy way to bypass this security measure by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    Explode when signal dies :) You don't even have to have personnel to be present.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  151. GSM or CDMA? by FeatherBoa · · Score: 1

    The Americans can be trusted to bring equipment that jams 1900 and 850 Mhz CDMA, leaving the GSM 1800 and 900 bandwidth working perfectly.

    And yes, I know Telstra runs a CDMA network somewhere in the outback, but this is Sydney we're talking about.

  152. Shoot the copter, it'll fall on him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's always an easier way...

    Not that anyone really wants to kill Bush. Posthumous trials are much less satisfying.

  153. American Imperialists by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 1

    Seen through the looking glass: Silly Americans, don't you know stealth bombers are for kids? When they realize they can't do it remotely, the marines will "medal of honor" themselves to get the job done. That's the insidiousness of the American Imperialists. Seriously, I expect to see lazy terms like 'Islamic Fascists' on Fark.com, not on Slashdot. The fact that an American President cannot feel safe in the country of one of his most staunchest ally is telling isn't it? Soldiers fighting for a cause and who believe in it will frequently sacrifice their own life to get the job done. Does that makes them 'Fascists'? And don't get me started on civillian casualties or 'collateral damage'.

  154. Couldn't they just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rig their bombs to go off when the cell phone connection drops?

  155. i have seen that by hjf · · Score: 1

    When Bush visited Argentina last year, I saw this black truck with huge black antennas. When the Air Force One was landing, some channels had only a video feed, and the journalists on site were speaking through cell phones. When bush was about to get off the plane, all cell phones were disconnected at once, on all channels. Live TV is so cool :)

  156. Islamic fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using that term only shows that you have no idea what either of those terms means. I have yet to see someone martyr themselves for Haliburton. However that's a good step up from "commie pinko" and just about as useful.

  157. Doh! by Java+Ape · · Score: 1

    OK, so now the bad guys just have to wire an embedded roadside bomb that detonates when it STOPS receiving an otherwise uninterruped signal in the cell-phone frequency range. I'll bet most of us could wire that in under two cups of coffee.

  158. Most hated man on the planet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should just keep him holed up on his ranch in Texas. You know, do our part to "make the world a better place" and all that.

    Oh well, I'm *sure* no terrorist in the world is as smart as the US Secret Service.

  159. Changing topics from theaters back to theatrics by _.-+thimk!+-._ · · Score: 1

    And in the case of Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, I'm glad we have tech like this. If they had lived another day, I really don't care who's inconvenienced by their fucking cell phone not working. Not to belabour your point about Ghandi or King, who were indeed both great men, but this technology would not have saved either of them. (They were both killed by gunmen.)

    As another savvy commenter has already pointed out, there are instances where this sort of jamming could set off roadside bombs, rather than prevent them from being set off (which would only change who was harmed, rather than prevent harm.) And, just as in any arms race, there are now instances where garage door openers are being used as trigger devices, which this type of jamming would have no effect upon.

    This is not about whether Muffy gets her 3 pm phone call from her boyfriend Biff. This is about announcing a tactic specifically intended to promote Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. It's not about protecting the man. If they were really interested in protecting him, they wouldn't announce they were going to be jamming cell signals, they'd just do it, rather than give advance warning that a different trigger method might have more efficacy, and then, if you heard anything about it at all, it would be some story on the news about a temporary glitch in the phone networks or maybe even a cell tower virus that was identified and stopped.

    It's straight out of Orwell, with 1984 being used as a 'how to' guide to heard the general population into doing what they're told, instead of stopping to think about how rapidly their rights are being stripped away.

    Last time I checked, Australia wasn't exactly a boiling cauldron of amorphous, violent, insurgent activity attempting to repel a foreign invasion. Nor was it characterized as a hotbed of Al'Quaida activity, with enemies at every turn.

    Again, this isn't about the technology. This is entirely about perception management.
    1. Re:Changing topics from theaters back to theatrics by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      This is about announcing a tactic specifically intended to promote Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

      To what end?

      It's not about protecting the man. If they were really interested in protecting him, they wouldn't announce they were going to be jamming cell signals, they'd just do it, rather than give advance warning that a different trigger method might have more efficacy

      True, it does seem kind of a stupid move now. Yet it does not have absolutely no merit. For instance, it may seem kind of stupid to tell people that you're putting them through a metal detector, and subjecting their luggage to an x-ray scan, since after all, a potential hijacker could simply resort to glass knives strapped to his body, or guns made to not look at all like guns when subjected to xrays.

      Also, I would think that a fucking helecoptor tailing the president would tend to give it away...

      and then, if you heard anything about it at all, it would be some story on the news about a temporary glitch in the phone networks or maybe even a cell tower virus that was identified and stopped.

      Or also someone else who died as a result of a 911 call not going through. (Or 000 in Australia.) I don't give a damn about someone being inconvenienced, but you do want to let the good guys know ahead of time that they're going to have to find another way to get emergency help.

      Last time I checked, Australia wasn't exactly a boiling cauldron of amorphous, violent, insurgent activity attempting to repel a foreign invasion. Nor was it characterized as a hotbed of Al'Quaida activity, with enemies at every turn.

      True enough. But if you're wrong, and they let down security, and the president gets killed?

      I mean, ordinarily, I'm a give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death type. But really, it's just cell phones. Big fucking deal.

      Anyway, I think you missed my point:

      Not to belabour your point about Ghandi or King, who were indeed both great men, but this technology would not have saved either of them. (They were both killed by gunmen.)

      I think it's Gandhi (and there's a significant difference in Sanskrit, not sure about Hindi). But the point was not about this particular technology per se, but the fact that being loved won't save you either. This technology, and things like it, are not needed because Bush is so hated, they're needed because Bush is the POTUS.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  160. In other news... by Romwell · · Score: 1

    ..the stock of alarm clock manufacturers just went up.

  161. The Attraction of Suicide Bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another quote:

    The difference between a murder-suicide and a martyr? News coverage.

    Those that want to kill people to terrorise populations don't want a nice quiet poisoning. They want martyrdom. Fame doesn't pay the bills when you're a terrorist, connections do - and if the only connections you have are those you see as "above" you, and outside your influence, martyrdom is all the more attractive. They want the biggest bang for their buck. And when the buck they are spending is their last to spend (their own body), they want an awfully effective bang.

    Don't forget, terrorists don't see themselves as evil, they see themselves as passionate defenders of their way of life. They see themselves as dying to protect their way of life (or take revenge for its destruction) in much the same way as soldiers risk their lives to protect their country. We see them as wrong, as evil, but that doesn't change the facts behind their motivation.

    If you were passionate about your way of life, and you saw that some foreign nation was attempting to change it, and that there was nothing you could do except try and kick mud in their face by demonstrating the lengths to which those who follow your cause will go to take revenge? You'd probably be thinking like a terrorist in a heartbeat.

  162. When life hands you lemons, make lemonade by jemenake · · Score: 1

    The president's motorcade will be shadowed by a helicopter equipped with signal-jamming equipment. Terrorists have used mobile phones to detonate remote-controlled bombs in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.
    No problemo. Just make a device that detonates when the cell phone loses reception. Saves you the cell minutes from having to call and detonate (although I guess you could demand a refund from the cell provider for the dropped call).
  163. Use the jamming signals by lonemonk · · Score: 1

    Just make the bombs go off due to the jamming signal instead.

  164. WTC7 first it collapsed and then it was pulled...? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    It's impossible to bring a building like WTC7 down just like that without damaging neighboring buildings.
    The people who do that kind of work are highly paid professionals and they take weeks to months of planning
    and preparing. The neighboring buildings next to WTC7 were left intact.

    Btw the interesting thing is that now we're discussing how they "pulled" WTC7 when only a couple of weeks
    people like you would scoff at the "wild conspiracy theory" that WTC7 was "pulled". I'm sure most people
    will take note of that.

    Here follow these links and read up on the subject.

    http://www.wtc7.net/
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

  165. Not new... by Bartlet · · Score: 1

    I happen to live near a private airport on the west coast used by jet setters, dignitaries, and the military. What I've noticed is that none of the civilian traffic comes near my house though every time a dignitary (or military jet) comes to town, my house is right under the flight path. When a dignitary is nearby, not only does my cell phone stop working but so does the low and upper ends of FM radio (where my NPR stations sit). Were it not for the fact that this generally seems to happen when the helicopters fly over I would just chalk it up as a brief fluke as opposed to a planned service outage. What would be really interesting is to know how broad the spectrum jamming is. Does it effect IR or UV as well as these specific radio bands?

  166. Re:Should read...kids...wait, goats...that's it! by PB8 · · Score: 1

    1) Attach bombs to herd of hungry goats.
    2) Spray passing limo with something smelly goats love.
    3) Release herd of goats with 5 second delay!
    4) Record video for worldwide distribution.
    5) Call it "The Herd Shot Wounds the Whirled!"

  167. You are right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are other ways to detonate explosives remotely. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

    You are right. So if their goal is to actually stop some kind of attack its useless. However, if the goal is merely to spread fear of an attack its exactly perfect.

    Ron Paul for President

  168. Re:WTC7 first it collapsed and then it was pulled. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    Wild conspiracy theories? This was on the news on 9/11. Don't you remember?

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  169. Re:WTC7 first it collapsed and then it was pulled. by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Your sig "What I tell you 10,000 times is true." says it all.

    The intentional demolition of WTC7 was still a wild-ass conspiracy theory just a couple of weeks
    ago, the official story being that structural damage to WTC7 from the collapse of the towers
    led to the collapse of WTC7. I invite everyone to visit the sites I mentioned before and make
    up their own minds. As far as you are concerned Evil Crumb I have had page spanning discussions
    with people like you before and they're not worth the effort. So this is my last post in this thread.
    You can engage me in another thread but try to make it a little more interesting and worthwhile
    next time.

  170. In Washington, DC this is common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everytime the President's motorcade or Marine 1 passes by, but during major protests, during large events, and during the occasional and seemingly innoccuous helicopter escorted motorcade, cell phoen signals get jammed here in Washington.

    Welcome to the empire.

  171. STANDING ORDER to blessed martyr-saint: . . . by Xojo · · Score: 0, Troll
    . . . push the button when the helicopter is directly over the device.

    The president's motorcade will be shadowed by a helicopter equipped with signal-jamming equipment.
    --
    Regards, -- Chris Johansen
  172. Random body searches too. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Yes I heard that on the news a couple of days ago, personally I think it's bullshit since it's not hard to work out that blocking RF is a standard SS practice for Bush & co's motorcades.

    It's also interesting to note the fact that people in certain city blocks will be subject to RANDOM BODY searches doesn't engender outrage from our mass media.

    Canberra is our capital and the meeting should have been held there. That way even if the terrorists drop a nuke on the city nobody will really care.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  173. Stay Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is disgusting, we had enough caos when Chenney came a number of months ago, if George is too worried about people blowing him up, maybe he should stay home in his big white house.

  174. Why hasnt anyone yet? by Lacrymology · · Score: 1

    Why? Why is that guy (bush) alive? I'm not saying that I wish he was dead, which I do, but I consider kind of off topic, but why, if terrorists are SO dangerous haven't he been taken out in his trips to, say, Latin America?

    I mean, you don't even need a bomber.. a not-even-that-well-placed sniper could take him out any day, and it'd be much harder to detect and stop than a bomber, if he was willing to die for it.

    or a suicide bomber, since that's the topic.. Islamic people aren't afraid of dying for their god or whatever..

    This proves they're smarter than they (not Islamic "them" but American "them") think.. they are afraid of represalies... or whatever the word is. So, it comes to reason, if Bush is still alive, he won't die from a terrorist attack, unless it's a rouge Arab gone berserk, and if this happens, a stupid jamming signal won't do any good.

    It's as Shevek said... laws are stupid and useless. Would you kill me? no. And if you WOULD.. would a law stop you from doing it? NO.

  175. Which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is it going to be - bash the govt for letting people know what's going to happen or bash the govt for not letting people know what's going to happen?

    Can't have it both ways.

  176. Ron Paul for President by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    Ron Paul is the only person running that stands true to his philosophy. You can verify that by checking hsi voting record:
      He has never voted to raise taxes.
    He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

    He voted against the Patriot Act.
    He voted against regulating the Internet.
    He voted against the Iraq war.

    He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
    He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

    Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  177. This happens wherever he goes. by pseudosero · · Score: 1

    This happens wherever he goes.

    --
    sometimes, nothing.
  178. Liberties by Geminii · · Score: 1

    As an Australian, I can honestly say that I do not want the current mess of political office holders reducing _my_ convenience just because bloody Bush has pissed off three-quarters of the planet. Personally, I'd tell him that he could fly in economy class like everyone else - with plenty of attention from the rubber-gloved airport 'security' he's responsible for encouraging - and catch a bloody taxi. And none of those jumped-up American security guards allowed in, either. He can take his chances.