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.

Comments

Should read...

[Magada]

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

Re:Should read...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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>

Re:Should read...

[BakaHoushi]

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.)

Re:Should read...

[radtea]

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.

Sure its not exclusive

[gravesb]

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.

Re:Sure its not exclusive

[Dog-Cow]

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.

Just curious

[Mateo_LeFou]

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

But seriously

[Magada]

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.

A more useful application

[Rik Sweeney]

Put this technology into cinemas.

Re:A more useful application

[Anonymous Coward]

No way. Then theaters will have to pay millions upgrading audio systems to drown out the helicopters.

I say we just punch the fuckers.

Speaking of more than one way...

[rjamestaylor]

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.

911

[Anonymous Coward]

Help, i need the police! The presidents motorcade is approaching and I can see a sni.. hello? hello?!

The symbolism is gorgeous

[DoofusOfDeath]

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.

American or Australian?

[eck011219]

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.

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong...

[_.- thimk! -._]

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.

Re:"Movie plot" security

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"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.