Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phone Jamming on the Rise
netbuzz writes "It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone either, as the number of inconsiderate dolts who yammer away oblivious to the disruptions their yapping is causing those around them continues to rise. Pocket-sized cell jammers are becoming a hot item, while proprietors of restaurants and the like look to defend themselves as well. Yes it's illegal, but given that the rudeness is pretty close to criminal as well, it's unlikely to stop any time soon."
You can't blockade your driveway if the power company has an easement on your land.
Property rights may be separated. Just because you own some land doesn't mean you have the mineral rights, water rights, air rights, etc and the same goes for airwaves. Even when you do own certain rights, the government can still control what you do through zoning. Cities say you can't make disruptive audible noise and the FCC says you can't make disruptive noise at cell phone frequencies.
Check again dumbass....
Under law, the importation, sale or use of cell-phone jammers is banned in the United States and can result in Federal Communications Commission fines of up to $11,000 daily per device. An FCC spokesman said the fines have been levied against people for not holding a license to use the devices.
"The FCC rules are clear," said Travis Larson, spokesman for the international Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. "Jamming is illegal, but whether there is an exception made for law enforcement is a decision the FCC will have to make."
True to a point, but hardly absolute. I have a right to breath. If I have a cold and sound like Darth Vader and that annoys you, the fact that my right to breath has annoyed you (quite possibly infringing on your right to sit in peace and quiet) does not in any way grant you the right to terminate my breathing.
In this case, Federal law says that air waves are public and that I have a right to use them. There is no Federal law that protects you from listening to me talk in a restaurant. In this case, my legally protected rights trump yours. Sorry... If you don't like it, write your Congresspersons.
That said, as every responsible cell user before me has posted: Use vibrate, use the phrase, "Hi! Can I call you back in a minute?", and that should about do it.
I'm quite certain that my reaction to finding a jammer in use would be to simply take it and destroy it. Go ahead. Call the police on me. Which charge is more likely to stick: My destroying your property which is in fact ILLEGAL to even possess, or you violating Federal law operating an unlicensed transmitter device with the express intent of interfering with licensed communications.
Building it yourself doesn't make it legal. It is still a jammer and jammers are illegal.
Building it yourself doesn't make it legal. It is still a jammer and jammers are illegal.
It may be illegal, but the chances of actually being 'busted' are very small unless the device happens to actually cause enough damage/disturbance to attract serious law enforcement attention. The same laws and FCC regs apply to CB radio, and those regulations...especially regarding transmitter power and intentional interference..are broken constantly and regularly with complete disregard and derision.
The FCC field investigation operations are woefully understaffed and underfunded, and availability of "export-only" and foreign manufactured radios whose transmitters exceed US CB transmitter power limits by a large margin, as well as covering frequencies outside band limits, and extremely high-powered external transmitter power amplifiers (known as 'linear amplifiers', many well in excess of 1 kw) is ubiquitous.
A person using one of these cell phone jammers would be in much, much greater danger of a beating from an aggrieved cell phone user than he would be of any possible legal action by the FCC.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Untrue. The MPAA ratings do not have any legal force, and are simply guidlines that pretty much every chain and most independent theaters follow. Excepting pornography (which would be NC17), there are no legal restrictions on what a child can see at the movies, at least in the US.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
Contrary to common belief, California's original anti-smoking law in bars etc. was passed as a workplace safety law, not a law to enforce general public health. The idea is that for waiters/waitresses, bartenders, etc., prolonged and repeated exposure to secondhand smoke is more dangerous to them than it is to their employers or customers.
This is one place where the marketplace is unlikely to lead to adequate protection. Owners of bars and restaurants do not have enough of an incentive to protect the long-term health of their employees, and low-paid service employees do not have the leverage to force it to happen. Many employers believed that they would lose business if they banned smoking -- and had a few acted individually as you suggest, they very well may have lost too many customers to competitors who did not protect their employees. But because smoking was banned industry-wide (something only the government could have made happen), there was no relative disadvantage as there would have been if only a few bars acted in their employees' interests.
Secondhand smoke is a prototypical example of an externality in economic theory: smokers cause negative health outcomes for others, but smokers do not pay the price for their negative effects. And laissez-faire markets do not do a good job of managing externalities.