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.
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
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
Put this technology into cinemas.
Summation 2
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.
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.
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.)