Slashdot Mirror
Florida Man Faces $48k Fine For Jamming Drivers' Cellphones
An anonymous reader writes with this news from The Independent: An American driver is facing a $48,000 fine after using a mobile signal jammer in his car to block motorists around him from using their phones on the road. Jason Humphreys reportedly used the jammer from the back seat of his Toyota Highlander for around two years before being caught by Florida police. The 60-year-old said that he used the jammer – which transmits radio signals that interfere with mobile phones – because he was 'fed up' with watching others use their phones on the road.
A story from late April (before the fine was levied) gives more detail: The case along I-4 started on April 29, 2013, when the cellular company Metro PCS contacted the Federal Communications Commission because a transmission tower along I-4 would suffer in the morning and evening. A week later, agents from the FCC's enforcement division in Tampa staked out the freeway on May 7, 8, and 9 and pinpointed a “strong wideband emission” in the cellphone wireless range “emanating from a blue Toyota Highlander sport utility vehicle,” with Florida license plates, according to a complaint issued by the FCC on Tuesday. Another clue: When Hillsborough County Sheriffs deputies stopped the SUV, their own two-way radios were jammed."
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Batman get charged $48,000 for trying to save lives with gadgets
The wang state.
Now Florida Man stories are on Slashdot as well as Reddit?
Does he think it's safer when everyone near his car gets distracted at the same time trying to figure out what's wrong with their cell phones?
I know if someone did that to me, I'd go 'stand my ground' on his ass and delete him from the gene pool.
All he has to do is claim he was acting in self defense to prevent an idiot driving while on a cell phone from causing an accident around him.
I can't say I disagree with why he did it, but it's kind of hard to argue that he didn't break the law.
From what I can tell, at any given time a huge fraction of drivers are either texting, or holding onto their phone and talking.
If where I lived introduced one of those bounties where you get money if you can get a picture of a face and a license plate using the phone while driving ... well, I could go a few blocks from my house to an intersection, and pay off my house in a few weeks.
Almost weekly I find myself behind someone who is driving a little erratic because they're holding their phone with one hand, gesturing with the other, and not paying attention to what's going on around them.
I feel bad for this guy, but I fear he's probably screwed, since he broke the law in doing this. If someone had needed to call 911 near him that wouldn't have worked out well.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Seems contrary to what he is trying to accomplish. I assume he wants people to put their phones down and pay more attention to driving. I think the results will be more people looking at their phones in confusion, trying to redial, etc. i.e. the exact opposite of paying more attention to their driving.
Randomize. Have the thing be on every third day or for 20 minutes then off or some other timer. Even a toggle switch on the dash so it could be turned on when "needed" vs always on. They will find you if it's always on.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
I want a mobile version for my bicycle, so that people, you know, will refrain from trying to kill me all the time.
To stop text/cell phone usage It's totally worth disrupting all two way radios in the 700/800mhz band (if not others), including, but not limited to, police, fire, medical, public works, private business, etc.
As an amateur radio hobbyist, im absolutely fed up with people basing their knowledge of healthcare reform solely on what Fox News says, but it doesnt give me the right to build a wave bubble jammer and knock out the satellite uplink for the local affiliate station. Because as much as i hate Fox, they provide valid EAS warnings and weather.
Good people go to bed earlier.
But he could could have bought one of those russian style dash cams. Mounted it on near the roof line, looking sideways and downwards. May be two such cams on either side of the vehicle. Record it continuously and report the actual distracted drivers, along with the video footage to police. Or without even going to police upload them into some kind of YouTube channel and shame them into compliance. When they see how seriously long, their "momentary" glance at the texts, the distance covered when they were distracted, most sane people will feel compelled to comply. After all, 99.9% of the people do come to full stop at stop signs even when there is no other vehicle is in sight, without any one policing it.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Wrong.
By jamming their phones, drivers are more likely to look down at their phones wondering why the hell their calls isn't going through, making them MORE likely to cause an accident.
Captcha = reckless
... drivers trying to troubleshoot their phones. If you've ever been in the car with someone trying to reboot their phone, re-sync bluetooth, change their map destination, etc... you know they are more dangerous than anyone talking - I wonder how many inadvertent accidents his jammer caused.
When car started to be equipped with electronic spark control, it was found that a particular UK car brand was very prone to RFI from CB stations. Whenever the RF field was strong enough, the car engine stopped due to EM interference.
CB radio drivers, whenever they spotted this car type in the London traffic, drove close to it, honked at the poor driver to get his attention, and then showed him their hand pressing the push-to-talk button of the transceiver...
Just tap on the brakes when there's a phone idiot coming up behind you. There's nothing like the look of panic when they finnaly look up from their text message.
what we've known survival prospects community at for 7rools' to get some eye
You gotta wonder how many watts his jammer was putting out if it was able to affect a cell phone tower than was several hundred feet away if not further. There are 100-watt mobile models available.
I'm not one of those people who think the minuscule power a cell phone puts out is going to rot your brain from occasional use but I've got to imagine that lots of watts in close proximity at that frequency can't be good. Especially daily for two years.
Oddly enough, using this RF calculator, seems to show no safety problems except, possibly, for the cars directly adjacent.
Cheers,
Matt
If you wanted to do this without getting caught, keep the jammer turned off but within reach. When you see a driver on their phone, run the jammer for just long enough to drop their call. May also be wise to do this sparingly, and not on a daily commute route. This guy was asking to get caught.
If you pretentious jerks would follow the rules of the road Instead of doing things like: splitting lanes with cars, especially when they're stopped at a traffic control; riding next to your buddies in the car lane when you have a perfectly good bike lane; and completely ignoring traffic controls creating situations that would get a motorist killed if they tried that in a car; you might not think people were trying to kill you.
It always shocks me when I see one whose actually following the rules of the road.
I feel like this would cause a dangerous rolling bubble of confusion as all the drivers around me pay even less attention as they look at their phones to see if the call got dropped. I'm glad this guy got caught.
Florida Stand Your Ground Law comes into play when "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another " It doesn't say anything about blocking phone signals.
what if people had to dial 000, 112, 999 or whatever emergency number is in the US? first responders can't use thier walkie talkies. shame on the jammer! hope the judge throws the book at him.
I've been seeing too many vehicles with flashing lights lately that didn't used to have them, from school buses and garbage trucks to mall cops. It's making true emergency vehicles, such as police/fire/ambulance not stand out as much as then used to.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/o...
This is a follow-up, not a duplicate.
I can drive while talking on a phone because first of all, they let 1 armed people drive and they do just fine and second, my IQ is 30% higher than the average person and I'm a pro at multitasking because of video games. Some people are too stupid and slow and inexperienced to do it but I can. So what happens when a Toyota drives past me and my call drops? I look down at my phone to see what the heck happened because I NEVER drop calls and then I hit into the Toyota. That guy is an idiot.
It's pretty easy to miss a speed limit sign and unintentionally go, say 55 in a 40, especially if you're on a road you don't travel very often. It's at least understandable to accidentally run a red light, especially when the yellow-light duration may be too short for the given road conditions and the speed of the flow of traffic. Lots of people may not realize that in some areas it's technically illegal to hang stuff from your rearview mirror, etc. It's easy to increase revenue by being a prick about enforcing those things.
When it comes to using a cell phone in the car, holding it up to your face with one hand or even typing on it while driving, it's clearly a really really stupid thing to do and you'd have to be a complete moron to think it's really a good idea. It's also 100% impossible to do it accidentally, and the existing laws are new enough that they've been very highly publicized, so it's pretty difficult to be completely ignorant of them.
As such, no, it's not just a money grab in this case. I'm 100% for screwing over people who deliberately break the law in such a way that it endagers others. That's kind of the entire point of criminal law. Now if the law says you can't check your phone when you're stopped at a red light, and if they go around enforcing that it becomes a bit much, but laws applying to the operator of a vehicle in motion seem perfectly justified.
"But what about people fiddling with their radios, or yelling at their kids in the back seat, or staring at scantily-clad pedestrians or rubbernecking at existing accidents? Are we going to ticket them too?" NO, unless the cause an accident or break other traffic laws while doing so, Why? For exactly the same reason we arrest drunk drivers for DUI, but don't arrest sleepy or crying drivers unless they actually cause an accident or break other traffic laws.
All he has to do is claim he was acting in self defense to prevent an idiot driving while on a cell phone from causing an accident around him.
There is a saying we have in manufacturing that "local maximums make global minimums". Just because it is optimal for one part of the system doesn't mean it is globally optimal. His jamming activities could easily interfere with 911 or emergency broadcasts or ambulance transmissions or cell phones that have nothing to do with anyone driving. He's basically deciding unilaterally that his needs should be placed ahead of everyone else's. It's self indulgent and potentially dangerous. We regulate the airwaves and how people can use them for VERY good reasons. Reasons that are much more important than his little temper tantrum.
I can't say I disagree with why he did it
I disagree with why he did it. He could have easily jammed 911 calls, ambulance transmissions to hospitals, law enforcement, first responder requests/communications, etc. Not to mention all the people he blocked who were not driving, i.e. passengers. He unilaterally decided that his needs were more important than everyone else's. As far as I'm concerned he should see some jail time in addition to a huge fine. This is not a small deal.
From what I can tell, at any given time a huge fraction of drivers are either texting, or holding onto their phone and talking.
That's true but it doesn't give anyone the right to go all vigilante about the problem.
I feel bad for this guy,
I don't. He's a self indulgent asshole.
Bicyclists want to treated like both a car AND a pedestrian. Meaning they ride on sidewalks, cross streets whenever they want - ignoring traffic lights, and get all pissed when pedestrians get in their way or when they disobey traffic rules and get pissed at motor vehicles.
I got clipped by a cyclists riding in a pedestrian lane and the fucker acted like I was at fault.
There are a lot of assholes on bikes.
requiring insurance is extremely important. Trust me, you DO NOT want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit that will bankrupt you for being at fault in a relatively minor accident that results in someone else being injured, nor being seriously injured and your car destroyed by some other moron crashing into you who is broke and doesn't have insurance.
Inspection stickers are a little more questionable, but there are at least some actual administrative costs in the system (mainlining vehicle registrations, license plates, etc) and it's probably still better for drivers to pay for that portion than for it to be part of the general tax.
... was having it broadcast. He should have made it narrowbeam, and good for *under* 100 feet (I think it is). Then you just shut up psycho drivers who are also texting....
mark "set jamsers at 'SHUT UP'"
Will Florida Man ever be stopped?!
I want a mobile version for my bicycle, so that people, you know, will refrain from trying to kill me all the time.
Do you have any suggestions for what to do about cyclists who are jabbering on their phone via bluetooth while they ride?
As long as it is hands free, what is the problem?
Or who are having their texts read to them?
Um . . . wut? Eh, regardless, as long as it is hands free, what is the problem?
Or who are wobbling along at 10mph using an entire lane with a 45mph limit, as they fiddle with their handlebar-mounted smartphone's You Are Fabulous, Look How Fit You Are! app?
Roads were not invented for cars. You should have learned that in driver's ed. In most states, a cyclist has the right to take the lane, if safety necessitates. You should have learned that in driver's ed, too.
I've never heard of the app you mention. I use Strava. It doesn't give me a pat on the back, but it does gather statistics for me. I like to know if I am improving. You sound like you have a problem with that, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why.
I've never seen anybody fiddle with these apps while they ride. If they do, then they deserve what they get for not keeping their eyes on the road. In that case, the law will not be on the cyclist's side. What more do you need?
Or those that weave through slow moving cars in order to beat them to a red light so they can scoot across the intersection against the light when they think they can make it?
I don't weave through cars (I stay to the right), but I certainly will not wait for a red light, if I can get across safely. Feel free to call the police on me, if you have a problem with that.
Most of the risk I see involving cyclists is completely self-inflicted.
Um . . . wut? The risk is self inflicted? I think I know what you are trying to say, but there are facts and there are opinions; yours is the latter.
We have all sorts of bicycle lanes around here, paid for by all tax payers, but reserved just for those special snowflakes on bikes. And those lanes look just fantastic there, empty, while the guy on the road bike climbs a hill at 3mph in the middle of traffic in a main lane right next to it.
I don't know where "here" is. Even if I lived "here", more than likely those bike lanes probably aren't headed in the direction where I am going. Commuters (commuting cyclists) asked for bike lanes, not roadies.
So far, my sympathy continues to hover right around zero.
Let the ignorance subside and maybe your attitude will change.
P.S. - Fitting CAPTCHA: tolerant
...this wouldn't be a story. The law did it's job and the man was fined, but there isn't a news article for every parking ticket.
The reason this is interesting is because the ethics of this part of the law are in question.
...accidents, too?
If this guy is responsible for people having accidents because they chose to troubleshoot their phones while driving, why isn't anyone whose software, hardware or design that causes cell phone glitches responsible for accidents caused when people decide to troubleshoot those problems?
Cell phone glitches happen -- blaming someone other than a driver who decided that troubleshooting their phone was more important that driving for the accident seems ridiculous, especially if you're willing to blame some mobile jammer when you're not willing to blame poor programming, poor hardware or poor design.
Not only did he block cellphones but, apparently, he was also interfering with the radio communications of first-responders.
Imagine what is going on inside the head of the officer who pulls you over for any reason just as his radios go dead. This is a tense and dangerous moment for him under the best of circumstances.
Let's go and get sushi and not pay!
using your cellphone in a house that he happens to drive by.
That's all. Have a nice day.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
He should have just shot some people and claim he was threatened by their cell phone use and was standing his ground. He would not have had to pay the fine in that case.
Personally I like those upper lights. In a long line of cars, they make it easier to see when cars up ahead OTHER than the one directly in front of me are braking.
AFAIR, interfering with telecommunications systems is a federal crime. Certainly in England it's in there with mail robbery and will likely get you a long holiday (they will throw away the key if they think for a second they'll get away with it).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
He needs to pulse the thing. He's doing it wrong. You need to run it for a random time, so its not easy to pick up, and it absolutely needs to be off if you are moving less than 5 miles per hour. Cops pull you over, radios and phones work. They got the wrong guy. See someone blabbing? Push an intermittent "Shut up" button. Clearly people don't give a shit about driving safety and care more about texting or blabbing instead of driving. If we had more guys like this, our roads would be safer. Also, the signal is broad and wide. You only need to knock out the people 4 lanes wide, and 8-10 cars ahead and behind you.
He probably left the transmitter on all the time, and had a 5 watt or more transmitter. If he had a smaller, say 100 mw transmitter that he could send out a burst signal when he saw someone texting, or whatever, he may have not gotten caught, and more than likely would not have interfered with the cell tower.
No, you're generalizing.
Whether I am in my car, or on my bike, I've witnessed far more inconsiderate motorists, than cyclists. We are talking orders of fucking magnitude. So don't make it sound like it is always the cyclists fault. Since I am pointing it out, of course you won't admit it, but I guarantee you drive over the speed limit, and don't come to a complete stop at every stop sign. And yes, as a cyclist, I will not wait for a red light, so long as I can cross it without putting anyone's life in danger. You break the laws you see fit to break, and I will break the laws I see fit to break. It goes both ways.
And seriously, dude, your going to cry in your pillow because you had to slow down and wait a whole 10 seconds, in order to safely pass a cyclist? Roads were invented several thousand years before the automobile was, yet you seem to think that cars have more of a right to the road than cyclists do. And if cyclists were breaking the law as often as you seem to think they are, why aren't you calling the cops? I'm sure they would have a field day out there citing them for their infractions? It should be pretty easy for a cop to catch up to a cyclist, shouldn't it? And if you run injure, or kill a cyclist as a result of the cyclist's breaking the law, do you seriously think the law will be on the cyclist's side?
As far as taxes,why would you think that cyclists don't pay taxes toward the roads? I would think that most cyclists ride for exercise, not as a form of commutation. I had health problems at a very young age, so I exercise. If I need to get from point A to point B, I'll drive. I'm out there trying to live, not trying to die. And if you do commute by bike, then great for you, consider the tax break a government granted incentive to go green. It's such a minority that I can't believe you're crying about that, too. Besides, if it gets popular enough, the government will find a way to tax it.
Honestly, I feel if safety is being jeopardized and law enforcement or state justice departments are not willing to enforce a reasonable measure of safety, it should be well within the rights of citizens to not only encourage safety but to enforce it as well, outside of using guns to do so. No one was physically harmed in the act, people were prevented from non-hands free driving and texting which in turn probably saved lives. In the state of Nevada, it is illegal to drive and text or talk without a hands-free ear piece. This should be standard in all states, including Florida where I used to reside. People are dangerous on the roadways because they have no concept of safety as they drive and text or talk non-hands free ALL THE TIME. Maybe it's time to enact the law in all 50 states so people would have to take the law into their own hands to correct the injustices being carried on by Florida law enforcement. Don't get all conservative on me now... let's be realistic in admitting what this guy did probably saved lives.
you go FLORIDA MAN!
Yeah, well they are not all they are cracked up to be. All they do is collect road debris. Bicycle tires do not have the puncture resistance that automobile tires do. At some point the bicycle lanes become unusable, then we are forced to ride in the main road.
There is a reason why why we call them "broken glass lanes".