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."

Comments

matter of time

[yagu]

Probably just a matter of time before an emergency requires a quick call to 911 that gets blocked by this illegal tactic. And then nasty court battles... the "blockers" will deserve it. You don't silence rude cell phone people by cutting off the cell phone universe. You don't stop obnoxious car drivers by blockading the interstate.

There are better ways to deal with the issue. It requires a little courage on the part of those who are violated, but it's better than the alternative. Personally, I do think cell phones are way overused and a general nuisance, certainly the way they're used today. But I'm coming out with guns blazing the day I can't get emergency help for me or someone who needs it because some gutless wonder is using one of these devices and my cell phone is rendered more useless than it already is.

From the article, one of the makers of a jamming device offers up this weak rationalization:

"Our position is that the proprietor of an enclosed space should have the right to control disturbances within that space. That could be a fight in a bar, that could be somebody yelling at his kid on a cell phone, or whatever."

Back to my example of bad and dangerous drivers... yes, there's a "collective right" to "control" bad behavior, but you wouldn't blockade the interstates in the interest of "control". Similarly, to unilaterally disable all cell phones is ludicrous.

In pre-response to:

• Just take it outside! Answer: In an emergency one may not be thinking that clearly about just why their cell phone isn't working, losing precious time.
• Just take it outside! Answer: Outside may not be all that close... what if you're on the commuter train? Where's "outside" there?
• Just take it outside! Answer: What if "outside" is another zone where someone has deemed it appropriate to silence rude cell phones?

I do propose at some point the ubiquitous rude behavior on cell phones dictates some solution. I hope sooner rather than later. Jamming.... is not the solution.

Re:matter of time

[Daniel Dvorkin]

911 calls were the first thing I thought of, too. Any business owner who jams a call about somebody having a heart attack would be sued into oblivion, and deserve it.

For restaurants, hair salons, etc., there's a simple solution -- just make it a policy, and have the guts to enforce it. Post little "No cell phone usage inside this establishment" signs. If people ignore the signs, politely remind them of the policy. If they continue to ignore it, throw them out, just like with any other customer who violates a policy of the business. Make common-sense exceptions for 911 calls. (They could even put that on their signs, if they wanted to.) Whatever business they'd lose in aggrieved cell-phone-addicted customers, they'd probably gain in others who appreciate the peace and quiet. The jamming thing is sneaky, cowardly, and dangerous.

Re:matter of time

[Neoprofin]

You know, there are a lot of things that I hate when I got to movies, including but not limited to cell phones going off, people talking loudly, people who go to the bathroom too often, people who eat loudly, people who put there feet up, etc etc. All of these things could be prevented in one way or another.

However, I lack that feeling of self-importance that the entire movie theater revolves around my experience. If someone's cell phone goes off, fine. If they answer it or if it goes off again I politely ask them to get out of the theater. If someone eats too loudly, not much you can do there but tell them, because your food jammer hasn't come in the mail yet. If people are talking, ask them to stop because you can't legally duct tape their mouths shut yet. Jamming cell phones is just an unneeded cost to stop something that isn't even the most common or distracting thing that happens(at least at any movie I've ever seen). If someone does something you don't like, tell them about it, don't sit around thinking about a preemptive strike to try and control other people. Try being assertive, it works even on problems that technology can't solve.

hmmm

[nomadic]

What I find a little strange is how some people consider someone talking on a cell phone in a restaurant automatically rude, even if they're speaking at a normal volume. If someone's in a conversation at another table, is it really that bad if the other participant in the conversation isn't actually in the restaurant?

Rudeness vs. Illegality

[LightPhoenix7]

No, the rudeness is not criminal. A cell phone jammer takes away a person's right to be a loud, annoying, inconsiderate idiot. Rudeness is a person exercising their right to be a loud, annoying, inconsiderate idiot.

Re:Full support

[stratjakt]

The ambulance isn't coming, skippy.

You'll just lay on the floor breathless, your life slipping away as a crowd stands around you in increased frustration as they're calls to 911 won't get through.

The coroner will find the jammer in your pocket later, when he inventories your possessions before tagging your toe and zipping up the bag.

And all because you didn't have the stones to just ask people to please turn off their phones so you could hear better.

A little over the top there...

[bashibazouk]

A jammer does not need to be on all the time to work. Just turn it on when someone is being annoying. They loose signal. try again, loose signal. They go outside thinking they are not getting enough bars. Problem solved.

Not to mention society seemed to get along just fine before the invention of the cell phone. Landlines work for 911 as well, you know. And if it's a pay phone you don't even need money...

Re:A little over the top there...

[plate_o_shrimp]

That argument assumes jammers would be used responsibly. If cell phones aren't being used responsibly, what are the odds that jammers would be?

Re:You don't have an argument

[diskis]

Same way as before cell phones. How did you ever manage 10 years ago when there were no cell phones?

Same old same old

[knorthern knight]

The only hot-button missing from your tirade is "think of the children". OK, I'll admit I'm in my mid 50's. Back in the early/mid 1980's, I remember 2 new trends in phones...
1) the rise of telemarketing (answering machines were non-existant for the average consumer)
2) instead of phones being hard-wired into the wall, you could actually get the now-familiar phone-jack

There was all sorts of yelling and screaming and apocalyptic predictions about the thousands of people who would die because they had disconnected their phones from the wall socket, and wouldn't get the warning phone call that their house was on fire, or some natural disaster (flood/fire/whatever) was coming their way. Guess what, it didn't happen.

One incident I do remember is when my employer was short-staffed in one office. In addition to someone being on vacation, and someone else on a long training course, another employee in a rotating shift position got pregnant, and was unable to continue, especially with the shiftwork. Because I had done the same job a few years earlier, I got pulled off my regular duties, got a 1-week refresher course by the shift supervisor, then went on rotating shifts by myself for a month.

The morning after my first graveyard shift, I got home around 8:00 AM, and was not exactly 100% lucid. I undressed and crashed into bed... only to be awakened 3 times in the next hour and a half by telemarketing assholes. Fortunately, I had a condo with the "new" phone jacks, and disconnected it from the wall. If the phone had been hard-wired, so help me, I would've "disconnected" it "the hard way".

Similarly, I don't think that society is going to callapse if cellphones become unreliable. Unlike you young whippersnappers, I remember the ers BC... Before Cellphones. Civilization survived thousands of years without cellphones, and can do so again.

Re:You don't have an argument

[cduffy]

If you got to the hospital an hour after he died, there'd be a large amount of 'matterin' about it. The difference is you being there when that person needs you.

Would your presence have prevented his death? If not, your nonpresence is just another of life's unfortunate circumstance (same as if you'd been unavailable due to travel, a dead phone battery, or any other reason), not a tragedy in and of itself.

People a hundred years had no expectation of continual, interrupted connectivity, and even today it is enjoyed only by a limited subset of the world's population; I find it hard to treat such connectivity as a necessary element of the human condition.

Re:Emergency Use? My Ass...

[Dunbal]

But I need it for emergency... I'm a Sysadmin/Nurse/Surgeon/Firefighter

      I'm a doc, and I have NO problem switching off my phone when I go to the movies or at a fancy restaurant. If I'm expected to be available, I simply don't go to those places that day. And I doubt very much that anyone can make up a more pressing reason to be reachable than me. It's just bad manners, there's no excuse.

Re:You don't have an argument

[Anonymous Coward]

"What does it matter if you get the message right away? Doesn't change your father's medical condition any."

If you got to the hospital an hour after he died, there'd be a large amount of 'matterin' about it. The difference is you being there when that person needs you.

This statement is the fundamental attitude problem with rude cell phone users. You imply that the probability of there being an actual, life-or-death event, during the two hours of a movie, that only your specific attention can prevent, is high enough that you must answer every single call immediately, regardless of the inconvenience to others. If your attention is so critical to the functioning of the world, perhaps you should consider forgoing the distraction of a movie or dinner out until a competent person can be found to stand in for you for a couple hours.

Re:You don't have an argument

[ceoyoyo]

Exactly. Another thing to consider is simple absence of service. Cell phones don't work everywhere, even when not purposely actively or passively blocked.

Can you successfully sue a cell phone carrier because your emergency call didn't get through because you were in a dead spot? Bet you can't.

Can you successfully sue a business owner because his building is built with plaster with metal particles, reinforced concrete or drywall with metal mesh that blocks your signal? Bet you can't.

So no, there is no right to always available cell phone service. Jamming is illegal only because any sort of unlicensed transmission on a licensed band is illegal. Laws to make passive jamming illegal would have some very nasty repercussions in all kinds of places, including for the carriers themselves.

Re:You don't have an argument

[Anonymous Coward]

If your father's condition is so serious that you need to be on-call 24 hours a day, you shouldn't be leaving him alone while you go to the movies in the first place.

To the others who will inevitably pop up in this thread claiming that they need to be "on call" for a job or something:

1) You're not that important. Really.

2) If you actually ARE that important, you shouldn't be fucking around at the movies without arranging for someone to cover for you. Really.

3) It sucks to be on call. That doesn't mean you're entitled to make life suck for everyone else in the theater. It's not all about you and your personal convenience. Really.