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."

20 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Dup by tbuddy · · Score: 5, Funny

    timothy's best posts are dupes. It's the original stuff that you need to watch out for.

  2. Re:Guy is a moron by Salamander · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with the first part of your comment, and came here to say almost the same thing. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

    The second part makes you seem like a moron. Seriously, losing access to your e-toy for a minute or two is worth killing over? Get a grip.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
  3. You know ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:You know ... by GameMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's screwed because he's a complete moron. He's just another asshole with anger management issues and/or delusions of grandeur who decided to grant himself law enforcement powers. Not only did he block cellphones but, apparently, he was also interfering with the radio communications of first-responders. It'd be like someone driving up onto a busy sidewalk for a chance to get photographic evidence of someone jaywalking...

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    2. Re:You know ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Statistics and facts don't agree with you:

      http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/texting-bans-dont-reduce-crashes-effects-are-slight-crash-increases

      Numbers don't lie. Think about what you are advocating. In South Carolina a texting ban was just approved. Anyone that gets into any minor accident now can have their entire cellphone bill accessed to verify they weren't texting. We just created the lowest bar ever for a court to approve access to cellphone records by local police. I can't even imagine what would happen if they wanted to see your Google Talk or iChat logs to verify you weren't using them.

    3. Re:You know ... by timrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I honestly think that texting and cell phone bans are just using the "third brake light" effect. To get what I'm talking about, cars made before a certain year (I forget exactly when this was) only had two brake lights, one on each side of the rear of the car. Then, one year, the federal government decreed that all cars made that year and in the future needed to have a third brake light, the theory being that the third light would reduce accidents by making it more obvious when a driver was braking.

      The year that regulation went into effect, there was a significant drop in the number of accidents nation-wide. The numbers increased but were still lower than normal for each of the next three or so years, and then suddenly all of the benefit from the third brake light was gone and accidents were back up to normal numbers. Most people who have studied it believe the reason was that the third brake light was something strikingly different from what people were used to, and caused them to pay more attention to the lights - but then people got used to it and the benefits of the third brake light went away.

      The same thing is apparent with texting-while-driving laws. Accidents go down a little when the law is first enacted, then go back up afterward.

    4. Re:You know ... by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your second sentence is correct, but part of the social contract wherein citizens forgo taking the law into their own hands is effective law enforcement. Nearly every time you see citizens resort to vigilante justice, it's due to a lack of effective law enforcement.

      --
      Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
  4. Seems contrary... by Rurouni_Jaden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Seems contrary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That there is the problem with vigilanteism. It's fueled by emotional reaction which is almost never coupled strongly with rational thought.

  5. Re:Castle Doctrine Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And if he drove past an accident and interrupted a 911 call? Man fuck you.

  6. Use a dash cam, not a jammer. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Jamming signals is illegal, and it could affect lots of legitimate use of cell phone use without being distracted. Data link for emergency and police vehicles, streaming in music, passengers using cell phones etc. So what he did was wrong.

    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
  7. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  8. Re:Castle Doctrine Defense by Stellian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    he was acting in self defense to prevent an idiot driving while on a cell phone from causing an accident

    "The signal is bad around these parts... let's switch to message chat !"

    This is a prime example of why we have societies, laws and regulations - in this case those designed to stop mobile phone usage. Going for an individual solution quickly devolves into mayhem: thousands of bystanders affected, emergency calls interrupted, and probably not a single accident prevented.

  9. What's worse than drivers using their phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 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.

  10. This remembers me what happened years ago... by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 4, Funny

    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...

  11. Re:In other news by rotaryexpress · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not illegal to be riding and using a cell phone at the same time.

    It is illegal to cause harmful emissions (jamming)

  12. Re:In other news by Sigma+7 · · Score: 4, Informative

    In Florida, only for text messaging. They don't ban hand-helds or cell phones.

    See http://www.drivinglaws.org/flo...

    Also, officers don't pull you over simply because you are on the phone, they only enforce it if they catch you doing something else at the same time.

  13. Re:Guy is a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I heard this one kid once started a thermonuclear war, just because he was looking for a BBS to play games on.
    It all ended up OK in the end though after tic-tac-toe proved that all conflict is pointless.
    How about a nice game of chess?

  14. Not a dupe by CauseBy · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a follow-up, not a duplicate.

  15. Local maximums = Global minimums by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.