Cell Phone Jamming Devices Enjoy an Increase In Popularity

rullywowr writes "A story run by local new NBC10 of Philadelphia last Friday illuminated the fact that this particular rider of the pubilc bus system is packing a cell phone jammer and is not afraid to use it. Going by the name of 'Eric,' whenever he sees someone being 'rude' on the bus and talking loudly on their cell phone, he screws the antenna on and flips the power switch. Regardless of the steep civil penalites levied by the FCC (up to $16,000 USD), many (such as 'Eric') are still interested by these devices which can be bought on the internet for $40 to over $1000. Opponents of these devices say that not only do they interfere with mobile phones, they often can interfere with 'behind the scenes' communication, Wi-Fi, etc. Despite being illegal, TFA points out that they are readily available on the internet (what else is new?). Do you have an instance where you experienced the positive (or negative) effects of a cell phone jammer?"

Comments

I approve

[WillyWanker]

This guy is my new hero, even though he later backed down and said he wasn't going to use it anymore. I for one am fed up with the constant assault of cell phone conversations from people who have no idea how to be considerate to those around them.

Re:I approve

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your good at judging who should be on the phone and who shouldn't.

Re:I approve

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is my new hero, even though he later backed down and said he wasn't going to use it anymore. I for one am fed up with the constant assault of cell phone conversations from people who have no idea how to be considerate to those around them.

I hope you buy one then, and get your dick slammed in the cop car's door as they arrest your silly ass.

If your idea of "being considerate" is to break everyone else's communications infrastructure, buy a pair of earplugs. Or better yet, get a screwdriver and insert until the problem goes away...

Re:I approve

[Dunega]

Because his good at judging who should be on the phone and who shouldn't? Try that again in something resembling English please.

Re:I approve

[danomac]

I generally don't use my cell phone where I think you shouldn't. This includes restaurants, theatres, public transit, etc.

If it rings, I may look at it to see who is calling. I won't answer it and sometimes just leave the phone on vibrate.

I don't understand why people think they must be able to talk on the phone everywhere. I find it more annoying now with a cell phone, as people pretty much expect you to answer it as they're calling you directly and not your house.

Re:I approve

[zrbyte]

I think I need a jammar for you're bad grammar!

Re:I approve

[DigiShaman]

My proposal for movie theaters and restaurants. By default, these facilities should have cell phone jamming technology enabled with a clear sign stating as such. Also, the sign will point to a red painted receiver designated for 911 use only. Think of the emergency concept of a fire extinguisher and apply that to wired phones and you get the idea.

Re:I approve

[circletimessquare]

if everyone else is trying to sleep on the bus/ train and you are loudly using your cell phone about an obviously nonurgent matter (your sister's crazy marriage, your kid's report card, your dog's diet, etc.) then you deserve to be jammed, with my full support, and with the support of everyone else trying to get some shuteye

Re:I approve

[Hentes]

But sadly that is only a partial solution. There are also jerks on the bus who dare to talk to each other. Sadly, in this case phone jamming doesn't work, you have to gag them individually. But that still isn't enough, most buses/subways have engines that are even louder than talking people. I still haven't figured out a way to stop those engines, but I'm working on it...

Re:I approve

[pedrop357]

The other problem is that many times the person claims the jamming signal is confined solely within their property/building/domain, yet the jamming signal affects those outside of the jammer's property. That becomes a huge problem.

Those who wish to stop cell phone use should first STOP installing indoor repeaters, then use some form of radio wave blocking paint/building materials. Whatever method they use should be passive and not directly interfere with other property's cell phone signals.

Re:I approve

[duguk]

Yeah and the side effect of it blocking the person trying to make a wireless 911 call. Who cares about the innocents caught in this, right?

Why would anyone be making a private 911 call on a bus? Especially without any of the other passengers knowing?

I mean, I'm not agreeing with this; but that's a ridiculous claim under this scenario.

Re:I approve

[tom17]

I think someone has a 'whoosh' jammer switched on near you.

Re:I approve

[geminidomino]

No, they have ranges measured in meters... say, the 10 meters from where the bus idling at a stop light to the cafe on the corner where OP is, hopefully, having a heart attack.

Re:I approve

[tlhIngan]

I generally don't use my cell phone where I think you shouldn't. This includes restaurants, theatres, public transit, etc.

If it rings, I may look at it to see who is calling. I won't answer it and sometimes just leave the phone on vibrate.

I don't understand why people think they must be able to talk on the phone everywhere. I find it more annoying now with a cell phone, as people pretty much expect you to answer it as they're calling you directly and not your house.

I do it in degrees. If it's a casual group of my friends, I will excuse myself and leave the group to take the call outside, so I don't subject them to my conversation, then return back when I'm done.

If it's a more formal event, phone's on vibrate and only in dire emergencies would I answer. And even then I'd politely excuse myself from the group.

And texting/emailing is a no-no unless there's a very good reason - all live conversations have priority over a texted one except in emergencies. Surfing the web is limited to only if it's something the group requires (e.g., resolving an argument or looking something up).

And no, I don't have voicemail.

Anyhow, yes it's illegal, but if you do it right, it can be hard to detect (the only way to track a jammer is to triangulate its position - there's no magic CSI GPS beacon). Perhaps when the bus reaches a certain intersection implying a dead spot for signals, and never more than neessary to break the connection (should just be a few seconds).

I suppose the bigger question is - why have manners deteriorated to the point that the general public feels it's necessary to take technological measures to fix social problems? The purchase and use of jammers is just a symptom of an underlying societal problem

Re:I approve

[Almandine]

The peeple making the emergency calls may not necessarily be on the bus, just within range of the jammer. For example, maybe the bus is stuck in traffic due to an accident and people outside are trying to make emergency cals.

Re:I approve

[Desler]

Because someone gets assaulted, someone has a seizure, etc and police/ems are needed? And why did you construct this "private 911 call" nonsense? Who said anything about it being private?

Re:I approve

[DigiShaman]

I contend that as public etiquette is concerned, we've already reached rock bottom. Anything else would be an improvement.

Re:I approve

[GameboyRMH]

There may be other urgent calls a person would like to be able to receive. Business calls, family emergency, but who knows now right? Because this selfish asshole has decided that nobody on the bus should be able to make any calls because he can't deal with the reality of living around other people in the 21st century.

I hope all these morons get caught and have the book thrown at them.

Re:I approve

[Christopher_G_Lewis]

Actually, in Chicago it's against the law to sleep on public transportation, but not illegal to talk on a cell phone (at a resonable volume).

Best quote I ever heard on the train: "Honey, I've got to hang up - everyone's looking at me like I'm 'That Guy' ". Got quite a laugh out of the other riders.

Re:I approve

[Volante3192]

Because that person couldn't hear the call anyway because Aunt Bessie's corgi has asthma and she had to take it to the vet and it cut into her bridge game and she was about to win against that impossible skank Dolores the Applebee's manager who refused a refund on some disgustingly awful soup I think it was minestrone but maybe it was chicken noodle, but anyway, we're not going back to that Applebee's and we also called the regional office to tell them how awful Dolores is not that they'll do anything, I bet she sleeps with her boss, the skank, anyway the corgi is...hold on, will you shut up about your chest pains and difficulty breathing?! Can't you see I'm on a VERY IMPORTANT call?! The world doesn't revolve around you!!...so the corgi is fine now, but they have to take her in next month as a check up and I'm worried, damnit...No, I will not be quiet so you can talk to some "dispatcher!" This is a free country and I can talk as loud as I want!... God, some people are so RUDE!

Re:I approve

[gstoddart]

My proposal for movie theaters and restaurants. By default, these facilities should have cell phone jamming technology enabled with a clear sign stating as such.

My biggest fear of this would be interfering with some implanted medical devices.

Make some poor bastards pacemaker stop working, and you're gonna be in for a world of hurt when the lawyers show up.

I think the unintended consequences of this needs to be better understood before we just go deploying these things around to make people stop using their phones.

Of course, in a movie theatre the MPAA will probably argue that it could be used to record some of the movie and therefore their rights take precedence and you can't come to a movie with a pacemaker. But, again, I can't see an entire group of people being told they're not allowed to go see a movie is going to be well received either.

Re:I approve

[XxtraLarGe]

I don't understand why people think they must be able to talk on the phone everywhere.

The worst place is in a public restroom. I've seen people sit down in one of the stalls and carry on a conversation all the while they're vacating themselves, complete with grunts, groans and other bodily noises. Another time, a guy was singing along with his music that he was playing over his phone speakers.

Re:I approve

[SiChemist]

And Mr. Wanker lives up to his slashdot handle. It's ironic that you say,

I for one am fed up with the constant assault of cell phone conversations from people who have no idea how to be considerate to those around them.

when its obvious that you "have no idea how to be considerate to those around them" if you advocate disrupting everyone else's communication devices. The guy sitting next to you quietly streaming pandora over his mobile device and listening via headphones should not have his communications interrupted by an inconsiderate asshole like yourself.

Re:I approve

[GameboyRMH]

So jam the phones of innocent bystanders because some asshole is using one.

Who's the bigger asshole?

Re:I approve

[Talderas]

That would be an awesome superpower.

I am the Stealth Duct Taper. I can duct tape anything without you knowing. Having sex with your wife? How'd that duct tape get plastered across her vagina?

Re:I approve

[tkrotchko]

I think he was leaping ahead by assuming that if someone was assaulted, had a seizure, needed a cop or paramedic, it wouldn't be secret information.

The guy jamming the signal would know about it as well and shut off his jammer.

Re:I approve

[Anonymous Coward]

God YES!!

Re:I approve

[Rufus Firefly]

You only need to turn the jammer on long enough for the douche to drop carrier.

Re:I approve

[unrtst]

Many buses disallow cell phone calls (ex. express bus service in NYC). Many trains have "quiet cars" where cell phone calls are not permitted. They're not absolutely strict on that stuff, but it's certainly unacceptable.

Loud and obnoxious activities (because really, the cell phone itself isn't at issue) are never socially acceptable around a group of quiet people. To think otherwise is ignorant. Act otherwise and you're just an asshole.

Re:I approve

[Jason Levine]

What's the average range of these jammers? Could someone on the bus jamming Mr. Loud Talker also jam a 911 call from an apartment building the bus is driving by? Could someone stopping a movie theater talker be hampering a call outside of the theater?

Re:I approve

[GameboyRMH]

I still haven't figured out a way to stop those engines, but I'm working on it...

Sodium silicate in the engine oil before you leave. The access panel's at the back and usually just has a couple of unsecured latches.

Re:I approve

[ganjadude]

30 years ago no one had cell phones... things havent gotten THAT much more important in 30 years

Re:I approve

[Hoi Polloi]

If a cell phone jammer can penetrate into your pacemaker and interfere with it then they need to design them better. Why would a pacemaker be responsive to cell phone frequencies anyway? There are plenty of other sources of radio noise already too.

Re:I approve

[0100010001010011]

Why does it have to be active? You can certainly design buildings such that all signals die. There are probably cheaper alternatives out there than a copper mesh.

Re:I approve

[g0bshiTe]

Bazinga!~

Re:I approve

[g0bshiTe]

Why would you need to dial 911 while on the bus? There is still a CB radio on the bus that the driver can use, and I imagine a driver calling via cb to dispatch would get you an emergency vehicle to your location quicker than your 911 call.

Re:I approve

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of an active jammer, would it be possible to instead coat the theater with some kind of paint that blocks wireless signals?

Active jammers will get the FCC upset with you, but I would think that a passive blocking of the signals would be OK, in conjunction with your marked emergency phone.

Re:I approve

[tobych]

Funnily enough, I did actually make a private 911 call on a bus once, with the intention that at least the bus driver wouldn't know: I was calling the police to tell them the bus driver had just busted a red light, had mounted the sidewalk earlier and seemed to be incompetent, tired or otherwise incapacitated.

Re:I approve

[demonbug]

Yeah and the side effect of it blocking the person trying to make a wireless 911 call. Who cares about the innocents caught in this, right?

Not to mention the five people quietly texting away, or browsing the web, emailing, etc. Basically, the idiot vigilante is screwing everyone over because of one loudmouth. And lets not forget the cell-based position reporting of the bus/train/whatever, or the GPS that his $40 jammer is also screwing with, and so on. Yes, the guy talking loudly on his phone is an asshat; the guy jamming everybody is even worse.

Re:I approve

[amicusNYCL]

There may be other urgent calls a person would like to be able to receive. Business calls, family emergency, but who knows now right?

The question isn't "who knows", it's "who cares". They get a voice mail when they get off the bus, big deal. You don't need to be connected 24/7. It's the same as being out of range of a tower, you get back in range, check your voicemail, call and apologize that you were out of range. Not a big deal.

Re:I approve

[Charliemopps]

It would be more effective and have less side effects if they just constructed the room with materials that naturally turned it into a Faraday cage. I think it would be relatively trivial to invent wallpaper that was made with a sheet of conductive metal film. Overlap them, connect them to a ground (any plumbing fixture would do) and cellphones would stop working inside that room. You don't have all of the problems that jammers cause or any legal issues with the FCC.

You would still need a clear sign indicating that cellphones will not work in the theater... and people like me wouldn't be able to go (I'm on call 24/7and have my phone on vibrate)

A less intrusive solution would be to have a friendly bluetooth or wifi signal that indicated that "This area is a vibrate only area" and get the cellphone manufacturers on-board. Then the theater could set your phone to vibrate for you if you let them. This would let people like me, who HAVE to have their phone with them at all times, still go to the movies.

Re:I approve

[mswope]

Or, install an indoor repeater with a dummy load on the outdoor antenna port. The signal from the cell phone will be "captured" by the repeater, but the user won't be able to get a channel to place a call.

Re:I approve

[asliarun]

An who the hell are you to determine when someone can use their phone? Buses/trains are not bedrooms, sleep in your bed, not on the bus. Don't like someone talking, wear earplugs. If you haven't noticed buses/trains are not the quietest places and phone feedback makes it easy to think your not speaking loud enough. Buses and trains are public congregation points like any other and people have the freedom to speak/entertain themselves as they please. Don't like it, drive your own car. Personally, I hope these jamming pricks run into people with detectors, and forget jail just a good ass whipping should do and then a technology ban.

Aggressive in-your-face "i do what i want" behavior only works if you manage to pull it off without being a jerk to others. What if a guy sitting next to you was coming back from a soccer game and blew a compressed air 120db horn next to your ear? What if someone on the train spat in your face when talking to their neighbor or dropped mustard in your lap while eating a sandwitch and didn't even apologize?

Don't like it? Drive your own damn car. It's easy to have a tough attitude about personal liberty. Difficult when you are facing the brunt of it.

And yes, someone talking for a few minutes on the phone and trying to keep their voice low in a crowded train is one thing. Someone talking very loudly for a couple of hours in a crowded train is completely another thing. There's no rule book for this - the assumption is that as a citizen of society, you would be considerate to others and learn how to co-exist without getting into a fistfight every day. Unfortunately, so many people nowadays are so self-absorbed and grow up with a sense of entitlement, they're forgotten how to be a gentle human being (without necessarily being a pushover). Or they turn their nose at the concept.

Re:I approve

[ColdWetDog]

30 years ago no one had cell phones... things havent gotten THAT much more important in 30 years

Are you kidding! We have terrorists now! And child molesters! And child molesting terrorists! Think of the children! If you're against everyone calling 911 you must be a communist! I bet they don't have 911 in Communistic countries! USA! USA!

I'd even bet that thirty years ago they didn't even have italics!

You must be a pervert.

Re:I approve

[AliasMarlowe]

What's the average range of these jammers? Could someone on the bus jamming Mr. Loud Talker also jam a 911 call from an apartment building the bus is driving by? Could someone stopping a movie theater talker be hampering a call outside of the theater?

Wikipedia is sometimes your friend. Quoting the most relevant bits:
"Smaller handheld models block all bands from 800MHz to 1900MHz within a 30-foot range (9 meters)."
"The radius of cell phone jammers can range from a dozen feet for pocket models to kilometers for more dedicated units."
The larger models which interfere with a tower or cover several tens or hundreds of meters are unlikely to be hand-held due to their power consumption. So pocket-sized models are effective over about 4-9 meters, which would extend outside a bus, but not very far outside. The risk of interfering with a 911 call or other emergency situation is very low, but if there are enough jammers in use around the world then it is bound to happen. Interference with 911 calls would be much more likely with the large jamming units employed by police and other government agencies, or by simply switching off cellphone towers (to prevent any call being made).

Re:I approve

[digitalsolo]

How is this insightful? Are we all Luddites today? This whole argument is akin to saying "people drive like assholes in front of my house, so I jackhammered a hole in the road so that the road is not usable". I'm surprised the government doesn't endorse this, it's very bureaucratic to attempt to resolve one problem by creating another.

Re:I approve

[GameboyRMH]

I don't use Facebook. I barely use my phone actually, so you'd think I'd be in the bitter neckbeard camp, but I'm not a horrible selfish sociopath.

Also I guess your dad is rich so you've never had to hunt for a job. One missed call CAN fuck you up.

Re:I approve

[mvdwege]

If both they and the one making the call are in public, then yes, he is a good judge of who should be on the phone or not: the ones able to keep a conversation brief, or of sufficiently low volume that they don't bother anyone.

Re:I approve

[geekoid]

Yes, they have. Also, people are expected to have a more immediate response.

Welcome to the future, asshole.

Re:I approve

[geekoid]

I take it that was your fist time on a bus~

Re:I approve

[meerling]

More than enough to mess with the cars on the road beside you, people on the sidewalks, and in some places it can interfere with the homes. Even if it has a 'range' of about 10m, that's it's effective range of jamming, there is no magical sudden stop for radio waves, it just gets weaker but can still interfere.
Here's a bizarre bit of info, the centrifuge devices they use at my local bloodbank get messed up by cell signals. They don't know why, and I haven't found an explanation for it, but it does happen, that's why they ban cell phones there. And remember, that jammer is stronger than a cell phone signal, if one was used on the road just outside, it could really screw things up.

I'd love to use an emp generator on that douchebag music hater that drives by at 3am with his car vibrating so loudly you can't even guess what the beat is much less the 'music' he's blasting. I can get the parts for a one-shot device, and place it in range of where his car will be. But I don't because there will be a lot of collateral damage, much of which I can't predict before hand.

Shutting down the scum and douches, great. Getting anyone else in your blanket attack, you're worse than they are.
So tell you what, next time someone is too loud on their phone, find where you left your dick, show a slight amount of courage, and tell them "Hey loudmouth, show a little consideration to the other people here and keep it down!". If you can do that instead of being a weaselly coward, make sure you do it loud enough so that not only can he hear ot, but whomever he is talking to can as well. (It's a much bigger deterrent if the person on the other end knows he's being a jerk than if he does himself.)

Re:I approve

[mvdwege]

An who the hell are you to determine when someone can use their phone?

I'm a member of the public who doesn't want to spend his entire time in a public space listening to someone else's noise. A short, or low-volume conversation is one thing, but you are in public, among other people, and your right to do stops at their right to not be bothered by you.

Personally, I hope you run into someone with a short temper who rams that cellphone up your nostrils.

Mart

Re:I approve

[gorzek]

Clearly, some people's solution to rudeness is to be passive-aggressive assholes. No thanks.

If I have a problem with someone chatting on their cell in an inappropriate venue (or talking way too loud, as is most often the case), I am happy to say so.

Re:I approve

[Windwraith]

I doubt the jammer device would be considerate enough to restrict its area of effect to the bus. There might be people you don't see being affected by the jammer, people using their phones silently, people using their phones for actual important stuff.

Someone with a jammer is just a little delinquent with too much self-entitlement. Pretty much the radio equivalent of a script kid.

Re:I approve

[duguk]

I think he was leaping ahead by assuming that if someone was assaulted, had a seizure, needed a cop or paramedic, it wouldn't be secret information.

The guy jamming the signal would know about it as well and shut off his jammer.

Thank you for being the only person who replied who got this! It seems very few people read the thread anymore.

I personally think jammers are a terrible idea under any circumstance, but some of the scenarios people are using for justification against them are insane.
There's plenty of reasons to ban them; but because "someone might need to make a 911 call on a bus"?... bloody hell.

Re:I approve

[yurtinus]

Who cares? One person is being loud and because you're too passive-aggressive to politely ask them to quiet down, you're going to block *everybody* from using the service - including those quietly streaming music, surfing, or messaging? Why is it suddenly your place to enforce your will upon everybody on the bus?

Re:I approve

[supremebob]

The problem isn't that you're blocking the obnoxious caller on the bus with the jammer, but that you're probably also blocking half a dozen other people who are trying to check their e-mail or read Facebook on their smartphones. They're not doing anything wrong, so there is no reason to punish them.

There is a reason these things are illegal, ya know.

Re:I approve

[geekoid]

again, no they shoudl not.
How about we deal with it correctly.
If you are being too loud, you are asked to quite down or leave? The response depending on the circumstance. I have no problem with an usher tossing out someone without giving them a warning.
This solve the situation short term, and give a clear indication of expect phone use in the future.

There are far more emergency then just 911.
Sitter may have a problem, school may be calling you, nursing home, the infrastructure at you're work may have gone down and so on.

Sometime people have to RECEIVE an unexpected emergency call.

Re:I approve

[darronb]

Uh, no... it's a jammer... it's screwing up everything in the entire band and probably beyond it. It's the difference between a single person talking into a tube pointed at someone else listening with a tube (roughly equivalent to the limited channel use and directionality modern cellphones and towers have with phase array antennas) and someone screaming "F YOU F YOU F YOU F YOU" so loud nobody in the room can hear at all.

Cell phones are required to demonstrate they do not interfere with other equipment on licensed bands. Unlicensed band products (like Part 15 devices) MAY be affected, but that's rare. This is probably due to the fact that those are relatively narrow bands compared to the entire spectrum of licensed frequencies and if the phones are not interfering with any of the licensed bands it's very likely they're not interfering with the unlicensed ones either.

An illegal device like a jammer is not tested, and could EASILY inject harmful noise broadly over wide parts of the spectrum. It's very unlikely the device was designed and constructed by someone competent enough to do it correctly.

It's EASY to construct a device that makes horribly loud screeches to prevent anyone from talking. It's much harder to construct a device to silence just people speaking at a certain pitch without harming anyone else's conversation.

Re:I approve

[yurtinus]

No mod points, but this is really the argument we should focus on. Sure, it could interfere with an emergency but that is rare and anecdotal. What is very real is that this asshat is interrupting all sorts of other people due to one asshat being loud. It is simply not his place to decide what the people around him should and should not be allowed to do. Some adjectives to describe a person like that: self important, sociopath, passive aggressive... asshat... I'm sure you can chime in with more.

Re:I approve

[booyoh]

30 years ago no one had cell phones... things havent gotten THAT much more important in 30 years

I agree, but then again 30 years ago you could easily find a payphone.

Re:I approve

[yurtinus]

Hah - I have no problem with people using the phone in the restroom. It's disgusting and tacky and hilarious. It just makes another story to tell when I get out: "Oh man, Larry was totally just taking a s#it while talking to his wife!"

The trick is to always get a few toilet flushes in the background so whoever they are talking to knows it and can mock them accordingly.

Re:I approve

[Imrik]

He may know about it, but if he's the one that needs help he may not be able to turn it off.

Re:I approve

[Quiet_Desperation]

Not really. A hole is pretty permanent and needs to be fixed. A jammer can be switched off again, leaving the spectrum as it was.

Re:I approve

[jimbolauski]

Here is a simple test to determine if you are being rude talking in a public setting.
Movies, Plays, Recitals, Conferences, ... no cell phone use unless it is so important that you must leave the area and have no plans on returning.
Public Transit, quiet talking for a short period of time if you are sitting next to someone, otherwise no time limit on the length of conversation just keep the conversation suitable for a public setting and use your indoor voice.
Restaurants unless you want to convey that the phone conversation you are having is more important then the company you keep, keep it short.
Sidewalks, streets, ... use a normal voice and keep the conversation suitable for the public.
These are simple rules to follow, and anyone that is too ignorant or rude to follow them should be subjected to jamming of their call. The only thing that Eric did that was wrong was his jammer was omnidirectional so anyone using their cell phone in a proper manor could have been cut off.

Re:I approve

[GuldKalle]

Ok, so it's like blocking off the road with concrete blocks, then. It's only temporary, and only when you're trying to sleep. And if someone really needs to use the road, they can just ask you. Then you can judge them and see if they are likely to annoy you.

Re:I approve

[DerekLyons]

You don't need to be connected 24/7.

That's my choice to make - not your decision to make for me.
 

It's the same as being out of range of a tower, you get back in range, check your voicemail, call and apologize that you were out of range. Not a big deal.

No, it's not the same. Unless you live out in the boonies, you're rarely out of range of a tower. Even if you are out of range/communication, as the vehicle moves - you eventually move back into range/communication. In the case of a jerk with a jammer, you remain unable to communicate until he chooses to stop using the jammer.

Re:I approve

[TubeSteak]

and because you're too passive-aggressive to politely ask them to quiet down,

Confronting someone on public transportation is a dicey proposition.
You literally do not know who you're dealing with.
The type of person who does not respect the public space they are in is much more likely to get stabby than your average citizen.

I use my iPad on the train

[darjen]

If someone was doing this while I commute to work, and I wasn't able to use my 3g connection, I would be pissed.

Re:I use my iPad on the train

[Hnice]

Yeah -- I mean, this is the problem. Like, frequently -- most of the time -- I sort of wish that talkers would, you know, die, but there's lots of unobtrusive usage that's nobody's business.

I'll tell you what I really think is going to happen: I think in 10 or 15 years, we're going to look back on this time period, and be sort of aghast at how people behaved with regards to their phones. I don't accept that things are moving in a more-talk-is-OK direction, I think that there's the possibility that this is a manners-haven't-caught-up-to-tech blip. There's going to be a certain amount of soul-searching as we deal with the driving issue, and I'm hoping that what will come out of that will be, 'Wait -- is what I have to say really important enough to need saying, now, in these circumstances?'

And I'm not generally optimistic about human nature. But cell phone usage, I just don't see how this can go on very much longer as it is -- I mean, it's raw uncut assholishness, all the time, and everyone KNOWS it, but for now, they all DO IT anyway.

My fingers are crossed for what alcoholics refer to as a 'moment of clarity'.

Re:I use my iPad on the train

[foo1752]

I mean, it's raw uncut assholishness, all the time, and everyone KNOWS it, but for now, they all DO IT anyway.

Actually, the point is that the assholes don't think what they're doing is assholish at all. This will never change.

Re:I use my iPad on the train

[jo_ham]

Your mom says you're grounded and she's also taking the batteries out of your Xbox 360 controllers.

ladyada

[AtomicAdam]

I saw designs on Limor fried's Site years ago that she made for her thesis I believe. It's a good read. Either way it's funny how long these things took to become popular http://www.ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/index.html TFL for anyone who can't google

As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily...

[christoofar]

I can tell you with what joy it is to live in a city where listening to B-grade hip hop music on tinny cell phone speakers is the norm. That you can't stop, but when I have to be subjected to a very lengthy screaming match between baby-momma and her baby-daddy, with a push of a button I can cut that nonsense out. If you want to do that nonsense, then get off the train at the next stop and have your bitch fest there.

I can't do much about the panhandlers that pass through the trains hocking bootleg DVDs, scented oils or begging for quarters, but I CAN do something about the chaff of society who can't keep their Jerry Springer drama to themselves, and so I shut them down with a jammer. If an emergency crops up, I turn the device off.

Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily...

[ceoyoyo]

If you've got an issue with a particular person talking on her phone, sit down beside her and make snarky remarks until she shuts up or hits you. Don't interfere with everyone else in the area just for your personal convenience. Hey... that's what you're mad at baby mamma for doing isn't it?

Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's public transit. Deal with it, or find private transportation - you don't have the right to a bitch-free ride on SEPTA. Anyone using a jammer is just being an asshat, not to mention breaking the law which exists for a good reason.

Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily...

[SJester]

I ride the infamous A train in NYC and my jammer is a relief. I experience much the same - hellfire preachers, drunks pissing on the floor, and stoned thugs arguing about which court they're supposed to be in today. The train is held at the station about once a month for police to search it. My ride is nearly two hours and a jammer makes it a bit quieter. I don't even turn it on for most of the ride; why would I interfere with Words with Friends or a quiet phone call? But when someone starts screaming into their phone they discover there's no service anymore.

Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily...

[QuasiSteve]

I can tell you with what joy it is to live in a city where listening to B-grade hip hop music on tinny cell phone speakers is the norm. That you can't stop

You can't, or you won't?

but when I have to be subjected to a very lengthy screaming match between baby-momma and her baby-daddy, with a push of a button I can cut that nonsense out.

I see...

I can't do much about the panhandlers that pass through the trains hocking bootleg DVDs, scented oils or begging for quarters,

really? you can't? hmm

but I CAN do something about the chaff of society who can't keep their Jerry Springer drama to themselves, and so I shut them down with a jammer

Oh okay, I see what you're saying now.

If you could turn off all the B-grade hip hop music with the push of a button, you would.
If you could shut the panhandlers down with a jammer, you would.

In essence, if you could do something about X in practical anonymity with an easily concealed device with little to no chance of getting caught, you would.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you chickenshit. Certainly it's much better to avoid conflict with the baby-momma and her posse by just letting her call drop instead of confronting her in person.

Unfortunately, however, it also means you're affecting the person just quietly talking, the person just doing some texting, the person just browsing the web, and - provided that the bus isn't a magic faraday cage for your outgoing jammer signal - anybody in the vicinity of the bus.

Not to mention that...

If an emergency crops up, I turn the device off.

...it's impossible for you to determine that. For one thing, you can't magically know about remote emergencies that require a person to be called.

For another, what if you are the emergency? You're on the highway, you get a heart attack, you fall down, your jammer's still on - nobody can call it in.. they flag down another driver, their phone doesn't work either, they figure it must just be reception there, so (rather than asking another drive to call from somewhere where they can get a signal) they drive the bus further to get a signal again, but still nothing.

I know, society survived without cellphones, I'm sure it will when somebody misses, or can't place, an important call just as well.

But please do choose your jamming moments wisely, and consider the unintended consequences - be that your own untimely demise (I <3 my contrived example!) or somebody's casual game of Wordfeud being cut short.

Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily...

[yodleboy]

so basically you're saying your response to a rude public asshole is to be a rude secret asshole? Public transportation pal, if you can't tolerate other people, get some noise cancelling headphones, or better yet get a car. I rode the bus and train for many years before telecommuting and I agree these loud talkers are annoying, but they are legal. You on the other hand are breaking the law to enforce your little cone of silence. Tell you what, next time you're talking to someone how would you like it if some jerk slapped a strip of duct tape over your mouth?

Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily...

[christoofar]

Considering how many people in Philadelphia have criminal convictions, I don't feel like playing therapist to baby-momma-drama. It's easier to just shut them down. If you want your bars back, then step off the subway and talk on the platform and get on the next train.

Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily...

[ceoyoyo]

And I'm sure that annoying cell phone user would tell you that if you want peace and quiet, stay home.

You're acting illegally, without regard to others because you're somewhat annoyed by the behaviour of a few people and going over and you don't "feel like" going over and telling them so. I take it back. You're WAY more selfish and inconsiderate than baby momma.

Someone else used the phrase "passive-agressive nerd rage." It fits you pretty well.

Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily...

[Ash-Fox]

Sounds like you're getting annoyed over someone quietly being inconsiderate to others as opposed to being loudly inconsiderate to others. Considering that most public transporation these days (at least here) have stickers that tell you not to be loud and annoying to other passsengers - I'm not really convinced on the ethical stand point that the cell phone jammer is 'more wrong'.

I don't think very highly of someone who turns a blind eye to some ettiquete/rules and comes down on another that in retrospect, is at most, as bad in comparison.

Need to be used in certain places.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Movie theaters come to mind at first, granted I don't go all that often, but still.
They always have that announcement that everyone ignores to turn off your phone
This way they don't have to ask, they just stop working.
If there's some sort of emergency, I'm sure the theaters have a wired phone somewhere they can use quickly.

negative effect

[girlintraining]

Do you have an instance where you experienced the positive (or negative) effects of a cell phone jammer?"

Yeah. I was having a stroke and nobody could understand why I was flopping about with half my face looking like it was ready to melt off. I reached for my phone, dialed 911... and nothing happened. Then I died. I had to submit this as a ghost because nobody thinks about what blocking a communications medium does to innocent people, they just want to get at the one asshole amongst the dozens or so in the area abusing it.

Re:negative effect

[janeuner]

In fictional settings, people retain enough dexterity to dial a phone while having a stroke.

Re:negative effect

[Thiez]

That would depend entirely on the area of the brain that is affected.

Re:negative effect

[xs4some]

Before mobile phones, people just died all over the place if they were within arm's reach of a landline phone. It's amazing we got this far without any phones at all, so many unanswered questions. How did we coordinate coming down from the trees? How did we find our way out of africa without a GPS? How did we communicate with anyone at all??

Re:negative effect

[GameboyRMH]

Those people 50 years ago were pussies. 300 years ago there was barely any medical care, the water wasn't exactly clean - heck, indoor plumbing was for rich people - and the fastest form of communication was a dude on a horse carrying a letter. But people lived. Well, a lot of them did.

Re:negative effect

[Samantha Wright]

They sure did! All the way up to the ripe old age of forty or so. What has medicine ever done for us, anyway?

Right to not be annoyed?

[John Napkintosh]

Audio pollution isn't something you get to have control over. Feel free to tell someone they're being annoying, but sometimes you're just going to have to deal with someone talking on their phone in a way that annoys you. If it's not that, it will be someone talking loudly to the person standing next to them. Or a person honking their horn to much or for no reason. Or someone with their cell phone's speaker turned on as they listen to MP3s. Or jackhammers or machinery or the buzz of a refrigerator. How are you going to jam that?

Re:Right to not be annoyed?

[Jawnn]

True, we do not have the right to not be annoyed, in public places. The bus/train arguably qualifies as "public", but I will never understand why, for example, restaurants and movie theaters (most of them) tolerate behavior this is, to say the least, boorish and disruptive to the experience of the other customers. Just once, I'd love to see the dumb-ass at the next table have her meal removed and shown the door, with the explanation that manners count and those without them are unwelcome.

Re:They're illegal?

[Desler]

It's illegal for private use without a permit from the FCC and law enforcement can only use them in certain circumstances.

Effect on rude driving

[Matt_Bennett]

I've seen the effect upon drivers talking on their phones while driving. While talking on the phone, their speed is erratic and inconsistent, they wander around their lane. Once in range of such a device, they look at their phone for a second or two, put the phone down, and start to pay attention to the machine that they are controlling. Once their conversation ends, they have become much more responsible drivers, aware of those that are sharing the road with them.

Just an observation. I understand that jammers are illegal for very good reasons, and their abuse can lead to much more harm than good.

Re:Effect on rude driving

[Ferzerp]

No. Not abuse. Their *use* leads to much more harm than good. The only place that "use" is not abuse is turning them on in a private faraday cage on your own property.

There is no use case for these devices that do not run afoul of extremely well reasoned laws. In fact, the laws prohibiting the use of these things are one of the few sane laws that we do have.

Re:They're illegal?

[Matt_Bennett]

In the United States, jammers are illegal for everyone.

Up the penalties

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the potential penalties are not high enough. This is naked vigilanteism and should be stopped cold and hard.

YOU don't have RIGHT to interfere in MY liberty. If I'm being an asshole and talking loudly on the bus, then call a cop. That's how law and order works.

What's next, you firing an EMP gun at my house because my lights are interfering with your desire to stargaze?

Are you going to poison my dog because he barks too much or shits too much?

This one's a real slippery slope people.

Re:Up the penalties

[goose-incarnated]

Conversely, you don't have a right to cell signal. This isn't about rights, it's about whats legal and what's not. It's legal to be an asshole in public.

Nonetheless, expect to see more passive-aggressive behaviour towards assholes in the future as the technology matures to the point of being cheap enough. I'm divided as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, I don't buy the emergency arguments - we don't behave in anticipation of statistical outliers (which is what the emergency arguments amount to - there is a greater chance of getting struck by lightening than needing to use the phone for an emergency in a public place). Quickly and quietly shutting down an asshole is a good thing - confronting someone who already parades their assholery in public will not end well.

On the other hand, there is a lot of collateral damage to the non-asshole phone-users by using a jamming device. The airwaves are regulated for a reason, after all, and it's so that we can all use them. Performing what amounts to a DoS won't end well either.

The best thing, I think, is to crowdsource the jamming. Equip all passengers with a button (say by placing them at regular intervals in the bus) that will, when a certain threshold of buttons are pushed, enable the jamming device for a few seconds. Make these buttons large and visible, so that everyone can see when anyone pushes it. If the majority of buttons are pushed, not only will the phone call drop, but the asshole will understand that the rest of the passengers are, in the large, against him/her. Making sure that said asshole can see more and more people reaching for their nearest button will go some way towards making them end their call without the threshold ever getting reached.

That's the best solution, all round, I think, as these things aren't going to go away and are impossible to police anyway, so may as well put one well-regulated jammer on the bus so that no one feels compelled to buy their own and operate it indiscriminately.

Jammin'

[Kenja]

Ooh, yeah! All right! We're jammin': I wanna jam it wid you. We're jammin', jammin', And I hope you like jammin', too. Ain't no rules, ain't no vow, we can do it anyhow: I'n'I will see you through, 'Cos everyday we pay the price with a little sacrifice, Jammin' till the jam is through.

Re:I wish they'd put them in theatres

[pedrop357]

I support removing and barring a person who talks during one of these performances, regardless of how they're doing it.

Inadvertent jamming

[Cytotoxic]

I haven't run into a cell phone jammer - as far as I know - but I do have a pirate radio station nearby that is pretty annoying. They are some kind of Hatian radio station that moves around the area. Their transmitter is low power, so it only covers a few square miles - but it is extremely noisy, so it stomps all over 3-4 stations when you are in the area. Missing the end of an interesting story on NPR because I'm driving through their broadcast zone is more annoying than I would have thought.

I can only imagine that getting knocked off of my phone would be even more annoying. Heck, I've considered firing an anti-radiation (HARM) missile at the Hatians, and I only missed out on hearing the end of "This American Life".... Cut off my wife and who knows what might happen?

Jammed?

[darkpixel2k]

Do you have an instance where you experienced the positive (or negative) effects of a cell phone jammer?

The problem is bigger than you realize. I'm constantly dropping calls. If anyone is actually able to complete a call, tell AT&T their network is constantly being jammed.

(Maybe tell Blackberry their service is frequently jammed for days on end too)

"Should Be Banned"

[djdbass]

I like the comments at the end of the article. There are people who recognise this may block someone's 911 call and say it's just collateral damage and the people talking on the phone should be blamed. Holy shit - blame the law abiding people, not the law-breaking?

The closest thing I saw to common sense was a comment that said "These things should be banned." I agree. So does the FCC. Which is why they are banned, ie illegal to own, sell or use!

I want the people in my office to shut-up, but I don't get to tell them to. I just put in ear buds. Duh.

Re:Illegal Toys for Passive-Aggressive Cowards

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You must take classier buses than some of us...

Re:Jammer Schmammer

[lewko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtdpJlZ07u4

Difference between smoke and conversation

[tepples]

Secondhand smoke is clinically proven to increase the occurrence of lung cancer. A short cell phone call at a reasonable volume is not.

Re:Difference between smoke and conversation

[onkelonkel]

"A short cell phone call at a reasonable volume is not."

I agree, short cell call at reasonable volume is not a problem. What is a problem is 45 minutes of someone shouting into their phone. Which I get about twice a week on my commute.

Re:Difference between smoke and conversation

[Hoi Polloi]

Now if only they could invent a jammer for people who have their headphones cranked up to 11 until I swear their ears must be bleeding. If it is loud for me sitting next to you I can only imagine what must be left of your hearing.

Re:Difference between smoke and conversation

[amicusNYCL]

Secondhand smoke is clinically proven to increase the occurrence of lung cancer. A short cell phone call at a reasonable volume is not.

"A short cell phone call at a reasonable volume" is not the problem that people who use jammers are trying to solve.

Re:Difference between smoke and conversation

[geekoid]

Yes it has. Jesus Christ the tobaccos campaign is still seeding its way through culture even though they have stopped trying to hide that particular truth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22383660 - Not LC, but still killing people

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22217548

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21925188

and so on.

Re:Difference between smoke and conversation

[yurtinus]

Why do you think it's up so loud?

Meh, not the right approch.

[DarthVain]

Talking loudly isn't limited to cell phones. Trying to modify behavior by limiting technology isn't the answer. The answer is modifying behavior by establishing consequences.

Example: Loud Cell Phone User in Theater. This actually happened to me a year or so ago, where not only was someone rude and stupid enough to leave their phone on during the movie (which of course got a call), but to actually answer the call, and not only just answer the call and exit to talk, but to sit there in the middle of the movie, talking loudly. I couldn't believe it, I was stunned to the point of not doing anything about it. Fortunately some actually got up, walked down to the guys isle, and actually shouted at him "SHUT YOUR DAMN PHONE OFF", to which got cheers from the crowd.

Anyway, go to Theater manager and demand your money back... for having your viewing entertainment ruined. If the theater has a problem with that, perhaps then they should then try to recoup (sue) the individual who was at fault, and let them pay for the entire crowd.

I am sure one bill of 15$ x 100 people will be enough to stop any individual from doing something like that again. Behavior changed. Also when others hear of this, you can bet that they will be extra careful to turn off their phones, etc...

I mean how hard is it to put it on vibrate, and if it is important call to, go outside to answer it.

Re:Cell phone call on the bus

[peragrin]

Thaat depends
Are you talking loud enough to be clearly heard the length of said bus. It is about volume more thann anything. Talk softly and no one is likely to care.

For me i would put a jammer with a momentary switch so it only jams while being depressed. 5 seconds is enough to cut a call. And it looks like the provider dropped it.

Censorship?

[Veggiesama]

Folks, this is Slashdot, so I expect some more consistency in in your positions. Here we are supposed to be proponents of network neutrality, ardent supporters of anti-censorship methods, and unrepetent voices in support of freedom of information all over the world. We don't like governments mucking with DNS servers, and we hate the publishing companies trying to tell us how we should and shouldn't use our media.

Yet, here is a guy who passes swift judgment on others and renders their expensive cell phones inoperable for the sole reason that a single individual personally annoys him. He does this anonymously in public spaces, and the victims of his jammer have no recourse to repair their device. The loud, obnoxious caller suffers the same fate that the quiet girl chatting to her mother from three seats back does: everyone is silenced indiscriminately.

For some bizarre reason, the hivemind of Slashdot holds this one-man censorship czar in high esteem, but they would probably object to a public school, library, or hospital prohibiting cell phone use via means of a jammer for the same reasons he uses.

You are not more important than others.

[SuperBanana]

I for one am fed up with the constant assault of cell phone conversations from people who have no idea how to be considerate to those around them.

While you're sitting there like a fat little smug antisocial nerd who thinks the world revolves around him and reading his Ayn Rand in peace and quiet, the psychologist three seats in front of you is desperately hoping that none of his patients are feeling suicidal at that particular moment.

I have friends who are doctors, some of them psychologists. They're on call a great deal of the time, and people don't call their psychologist to talk about the weather. They call with things like "I'm having suicidal thoughts."

I have a friend who is an eye surgeon. When she's on-call, she sometimes gets patients who have hours or less before they could permanently lose their eyesight from an injury or complications from an earlier surgery.

I'm not saying THEY are more important. I'm saying their PATIENTS are. You have not seen panic until you've seen a psychologist who has a private practice and discovers her cell phone ran out of battery at some point, and she's an hour from a charger...

I've actually seen a psych emergency unfold, too - the psychologist-friend working with 911 operators and the police and EMS to find the patient and get them to a hospital. That can't happen unless they can reach their doctor to ask for help. Too bad for them some fat asshole nerd is sitting there giggling with his cell phone jammer.

Re:You are not more important than others.

[Eponymous Coward]

"Start an I.V. and tell the patient to remain calm, I'm on my way. I just have to transfer to the red-line bus on 43rd then it's only about a 20 minute ride from there.!"

Re:Here is what I believe...

[oodaloop]

1990 called

OMG, did you warn them about the '93 World Trade Center attack, '95 Oklahoma City Bombing, or Sir Mixalot?

Re:Don't be silly

[CodeHxr]

If there was an obvious emergency, the guy *should* just switch his jammer off.

FTFY. I don't trust that someone with that level of a superiority complex would be that considerate of others. Sure there might be some that will, but there will also be those that won't and it's those people that cause me concern.

Besides, being annoying on a cell call is *not* a crime. Deciding what is law and what is not, passing judgement of guilt, then applying a sentence is not the job of one person alone. When did people start getting such thin skin? "OMG, this person is annoying/offending me - they must be silenced!". Seriously... people need to learn some toleration.

/rant off

Obligatory: Why Cell Conversations Are Distracting

[JoeDuncan]

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/09/16/why-are-cell-phone-conversations-so-distracting/

Re:Cell Phone jammer not really a NEW thing

[Skidborg]

Seriously think that through. What happens if the tables are turned and the abuser is the one with the cellphone jammer? What happens if a person delusionally believes that they are entitled to extreme revenge over a minor slight? If you are going into a situation and want to prevent your target calling the police for any reason, you are on very, very dangerous ground.

passive aggressive much?

[Ameryll]

You're also jamming the receipt of said important calls, which the jammer has no knowledge of. For instance, what if there's a doctor on the bus who doesn't get the call saying he's needed in emergency surgery, or there's an undercover cop on the bus watching for trouble (we have undercover cops in Boston for instance) who doesn't get a call saying that he's needed for something.

Why is the right answer to jam them and everyone around them? Why not walk up to them and ask them to bring the volume down? Why must we resort to under-handed/passive aggressive techniques that affect others that aren't violating the social rules?

Re:passive aggressive much?

[yurtinus]

As a matter of fact, I have. Politely ask somebody to quiet down and they will most likely apologize and comply. Sure, some will be rude and beligerent, but that is rare (I've actually never had it happen). I don't know when everybody got so terrified of talking to other people, but it really is not that bad.

Re:passive aggressive much?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

And? They're right! People are allowed to talk, or make whatever noise they want to in public. Which includes buses. Sorry bub, but if you're too timid to ask someone to keep it down, you're going to find that people don't whisper all the time on the off chance that it might irritate somebody. You know what happens if you ask somebody to be quiet who's bothering everybody around and they yell at you? The other people who were bothered will probably speak up at that time. If that doesn't happen, chances are fair that it's you that's being an asshole.

Is there some "right to sleep in public" I'm unaware of? What if your snoring annoys the everloving shit out of me? (it does) Can I blast an air horn every time you drift off and start cutting wood? Or does your right to sleep in public outweigh everybody else's rights?

Here's a hint: There's no right to stop anything just because it annoys you. If there were, me alone exercising my rights would depopulate the earth, and dingbats who think they own the commons would be the first to go. Lucky for you, I'm not allowed to do that.

Twisted people on slashdot today.... fools!

[mrops]

Most of these jammers can easily interfere 40 ft or more. There are cars around, they could be trying to call 911.

Police cars use cellular data connection all the time.

I use my phone GPS which is using a data connection too. I would break a guys head myself if he jams my cell phone while i am trying to navigate.

Where I live, one suburbs even has buses equipped with GPS enabled cellular data devices and you can track a bus while waiting on a bus stop.

I don't like people using cell phone either, but using a jammer is just as or more selfish than the person talking on the phone.

At the end of the day, get a car and pay for it if cell phones are annoying enough. Stay at home, don't go screwing around and justifying it.

Re:Twisted people on slashdot today.... fools!

[wierd_w]

Cellphone jamming does not have to be dickish to everyone else around it.

Here is how I personally would make a cellphone jammer:

Take an ordinary quad band cellphone, preferably an android one with a well documented radio, with a rear facing camera, and a custom rom image running with root.

On the phone is the "jam this bastard!" Application, which I will have written myself. What it does is put the phone into promiscuous mode to capture datagrams not directed at it, and take signal to noise ratio measurements, along with a camera distance estimate from the rear facing camera. Using some inverse cube rule math, and some fuzzy metrics from the camera, it identifies the "bastard" you are aiming the phone at. You simply pretend you are texting away.

Once it identifies the "bastard", and their uuid (iemi, ssid, mac, whatever the network uses), and the tower+protocol used, it starts spoofing RST datagrams from the tower, sent as unicasts over the cellular band being used by the "bastard", with headers indicating that it is for the bastard's handset. The rate of injection is configurable.

This causes the "bastard" to lose connection with the tower as his handset obeys the connection reset command. A combination of this and some clever and fast spoofing on the part of the jamming phone to impersonate the jammed handset to send the "hang up" signal to the tower, will force a targetted dropped calls. At least in theory.

It would not impact any other cellular users, since it would use spoofed unicasts.

In the event that it can't directly interface with the target network, it would use the camera for range finding, and look for "noise".
It would then use a combination of the internal antennas broadcasting raw bit patterns to poison a specific noise source. (Say, using a multiplexed 2.4ghz wifi signal with an 800mhz signal to create a psuedo-broadcast at some other frequency via partial wave reinforcement, done using timed broadcasts of a user data pattern.)

The partial wave reinforcement to create the false effective signal would have a radically short range. It might interfere with other nearby devices, but would be quickly and effectively attenuated by environmental obstacles.

(Basically, you create a "beat" frequency emission using two frequencies on either side of the target frequency. The overlap of the two signals creates a 'false', or "beat" frequency in the desired band. If either of the source emissions falls off or gets deflected/reflected, the resulting beat freq will not be in the target band.)

This means the signal would still not leave the bus.

This might not force a disconnect, but would degrade QoS, and might improve the chances of a natural disconnect, especially if the bus is moving, since it could disrupt tower handoff.

(The second method is for, eg, a verizon smartphone using "bastard", and a quadband T-mo using jammer. The jammer cannot see the raw data traffic on verizon's spectrum, since the phone antenna is not able to pick it up. No radio emission is completely discrete, especially with multipath interferences and other randomizing sources of attenuation, so communications on that foreign band should be detectable as noise on the native band from the local environmental attenuation. This is similar to an att gsm phone making a home stereo buzz. The phone is not really broadcasting on such a low frequency, the signal just attenuates there/causes a signal induction, creating noise.)

In europe, where practically everyone uses gsm, the android smartphone based jamming app would be surgical and effective. In NA, where there is cdma and gsm, the dirty second option is needed.

Granted, very few handsets have radios with such capabilities, or are sufficiently well documented publicly to bastardize them for this purpose.

In the first case, anybody else on the bus will be totally unimpacted by the DoS exploit.

In the second case, some nearby (within maybe 2 to 5 meters) people might be effected, but only if th

Not the best analogy.

[rykin]

That happened in my neighborhood, so they added speed bumps in the road.

Re:I approve - not

[jte]

I have a 92 year old parent that lives alone and needs to call often - she's also hard of hearing. I'm as conscious of others need for space as my own and don't wan't to disturb it, but in some situations I have to.

Someone is going to be very unhappy

[roc97007]

I've had two emergency texts from my daughter in the five years she's owned a cell phone, both involving a firearm on campus. (Two different schools.) Both times I found through local law enforcement that someone inside the school had called 911 just seconds before I did. On a cell phone.

If someone thinks its clever to jam cell phones because he finds them annoying, he will find himself in a heap of trouble the first time he blocks the transmission or reception of an emergency call. Then he can enjoy a different kind of cell while the people involved take away everything he owns in civil court. This is not civil disobedience, it's a criminal act.

I totally understand that people often misuse their cell phones, and I get just as pissed off as the next guy. But the first time a disgruntled geek jams an emergency call, his life will effectively be over. Is it worth it?

Cover your mouth with your hand?

[dtmancom]

I don't understand why more people don't do this. If I am at a restaurant or something and get a support call, I just put the phone to my mouth, and cover the entire talking area with my other hand. I can speak low and the soundwaves from my vocal chords get funneled to the phone receiver, my user can hear me loud and clear, and the people at my own table can't even hear what I am saying. I put cell phone jammer people in the same category as the people who turn off the TVs in the airport with their universal remotes, and the people who buy the little device to disable the seat recline of the person in front of them: Cowardly self-important weasel scumbags pieces of shit. :-D