Slashdot Mirror


Chicagoan Arrested For Using Cell-phone Jammer To Make Subway Commute Tolerable (chicagotribune.com)

McGruber writes with this story from the Chicago Tribune: Last Fall, certified public accountant Dennis Nicholl boarded a Chicago subway train while carrying a plastic bag of Old Style beer. Nicholl popped open a beer and looked around the car, scowling as he saw another rider talking on a cellphone. He pulled out a black device from his pocket and switched it on. Commuters who had been talking on their phones went silent, checking their screens for the source of their dropped calls. On Tuesday, undercover officers arrested Nicholl. Cook County prosecutors and Chicago police allege he created his own personal 'quiet car' on the subway by using an illegal device he imported from China. He was charged with unlawful interference with a public utility, a felony. This is not the first time Nicholl has been charged with jamming cell calls. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in June 2009, according to court records. He was placed under court supervision for a year, and his equipment was confiscated and destroyed.

333 of 518 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing like editorializing in the headline of TFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a Techdirt headline.

  2. Good by fonos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's lucky there wasn't an emergency and that his device did not interfere with a 911 call. This is reckless behavior, and he already knew the seriousness of this crime because of the prior conviction.

    By the way, are you allowed to have a beer on the Chicago public transit? If so, that's fantastic!

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By the way, are you allowed to have a beer on the Chicago public transit? If so, that's fantastic!

      Yes, people drinking as they please, with no bathroom in sight (but plenty of pillars). It's a real treat.

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Chicagoan here - technically no booze allowed on the Chicago Transportation Authority (CTA) run vehicles which this guy was on, but I've never seen it enforced. You can drink to your hearts content on the Metra though, which heads out to the Chicago burbs, and is owned by the same parent organization as the CTA.

    3. Re:Good by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      By the way, are you allowed to have a beer on the Chicago public transit? If so, that's fantastic!

      No, it isn't If we need any fucking "blockers" in public transport, it's beer blockers.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    4. Re:Good by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's lucky there wasn't an emergency and that his device did not interfere with a 911 call.

      I guess I was just lucky to survive the dark ages before mobiles existed and someone would have had to get the train to stop in the next station before calling for help. Yes this guy was being an idiot but lets not blow things out of proportion: life was indeed possible before the cell phone was invented and it was not significantly more dangerous.

    5. Re:Good by stealth_finger · · Score: 4, Funny

      By the way, are you allowed to have a beer on the Chicago public transit? If so, that's fantastic!

      Yes, people drinking as they please, with no bathroom in sight (but plenty of pillars). It's a real treat.

      Gotta stop them people on the phone though.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    6. Re:Good by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      911 calls from cell phones on public transit are relatively rare. But many of us use the data links on our smart phones to check our schedules for connections for other buses or for trains. Many of us in high demand work also respond to text based alerts during lengthy commutes. We're not loud, we're not speaking on the cell phones, and it's much safer to do this on public transit than it is to drive home and have to pull off the road to handle an alert. So it sounds like he's interfering with people who are being responsible and safe, as well as those who are rude.

    7. Re:Good by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I was about to make the exact same post but you beat me to it.

      I get annoyed on the train as well. Usually though, most people are pretty reserved in the morning and it is nice and quiet. Any other time I have to listen to music or netcasts to block out the inane jabber.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    8. Re:Good by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess I was just lucky to survive the dark ages before mobiles existed

      And more people died back then (unpreventably) due to this, so it is an irrelevent point.

      If someone could call for help and get assistance faster (greater chance of surviving), and you interfere with this, then you become liable for their death, and if you did it with knowledge and/or intent, or a legal equivalent (such as reckless negligence), then criminally liable.

    9. Re:Good by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      You can drink to your hearts content on the Metra though, which heads out to the Chicago burbs

      Wow, I thought New Orleans was about the only place left in the US that didn't have open container laws, where you can drink in public.

      Do they in Chicago also have "to go" cups so you can take your drink with you out of the bars? Drive through daiquiri shops?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Good by jbengt · · Score: 1

      No, you aren't allowed to drink or eat anything on the CTA, let alone alcohol. I'm surprised he didn't get arrested for public drinking.

    11. Re:Good by Improv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Modern technologies, even comm technologies, have made some dangers (like heart attacks) significantly less dangerous. We've built a better world, and just because people survived the old doesn't mean that we should permit people to recreate those older dangers.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    12. Re:Good by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Chicagoan here - technically no booze allowed on the Chicago Transportation Authority (CTA)

      Have you ever taken the Red Line to a Cubs game?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Good by rockout · · Score: 1, Informative

      This was maybe true through the 1990's, but now it's just a well-worn joke that's not even relevant anymore.

      The explosion of craft beer in the USA in the last 20-30 years has resulted in our beer being the real beer. Go to Canada these days, and you'll find most bars carry only beers from one giant distributor or the other: Anheuser-Busch-InBev (owns Labatt) or SABMiller (owns Molson). This is due to those companies saying "You want our beers? Fine, you just can't carry anyone else's. Including microbrews." All of their beers, of course, are light-colored water.

      In the US, we no longer have that problem, and in NY's Penn Station, you can buy any one of a large number of IPA's, stouts, or whatever you want, and bring it on the train with you (as long as it's in a paper bag) regardless of color or alcohol content.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    14. Re:Good by avandesande · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes but how many? None of us walked around feeling insecure because 911 wasn't a keypress away. I would say a lot has been lost, like the ability to plan outings with family and friends or use a map. In fact there has been studies that have shown a general reduction of executive function in the population.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    15. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Happened to me once. I missed seeing my niece in the hospital before she died. Didn't learn about it until the next day. If someone calls in the middle of the night, it's an emergency. If you're such a prima dona that you need your beauty sleep and everyone else be damned, then just give up communicating with anyone.

    16. Re:Good by dave420 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, but if people think mobiles exist (which is not unreasonable, as they do exist), then people will be expecting them to work, or at least not expecting someone actively jamming them. It might take some time to figure out that /all/ phones are not working, delaying the response. Before mobiles people knew mobiles weren't a thing and wouldn't reach for one to raise the alarm. You might as well say that an entire city blackout is no big deal as people used to use signal fires to send messages.

    17. Re:Good by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

      I think any place with a tram/train system for mass transit lets you drink (or don't enforce it) on the trains, Vancouver is the same way, so is Tokyo. So long as you're not peeing on the seat or something.

    18. Re:Good by Maritz · · Score: 2

      I can tell you it never happened to me...

      Is stating that it never happened to you meaningful in some way? Do you consider anything that doesn't happen to you to be irrelevant or fictional?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    19. Re:Good by houghi · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yes, imagine that a kid is raping a terrorist and the person who manually turned on the device fell over drunk and was unable to turn it off in this hypothetical situation.

      YOU are the reason we are getting rid of our privacy. YOU are the one turning countries into police state.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    20. Re:Good by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Vegas doesn't either, or at least it didn't a few years ago. Some places in Texas don't either, I think, or maybe the local police just never enforce them.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    21. Re:Good by g5g5g5 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because then he would have had to, ya know, switch it off. What was he thinking??

      It appears that you are missing the point. It is not HIS emergency that is of concern. It is the emergency of ANY of the other passengers who would be unable to call 911. The other passengers cannot, ya know, switch it off.

    22. Re:Good by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 1

      What if, what if, what if, what if, what if, what if, what if, ...

    23. Re:Good by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      The American craft beer scene is fantastic. America is making a lot of really good beer now (and still some shitty beer, sure). But the average American craft beer probably isn't any weaker than your average German beer, and may actually be stronger, with the trend of strong IPAs being so hot right now.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    24. Re:Good by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Yes, about to make the exact same post as well.

      I mean come on, we've only had cell phones for a tiny sliver of existence (really less than 20 years) .

      Life was better in many ways before cell phones. There have been costs and tradeoffs for the benefits gained.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    25. Re:Good by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1

      "By the way, are you allowed to have a beer on the Chicago public transit? If so, that's fantastic!"

      No, the Illinois Open Liquor law for motor vehicles is so vaguely written that you can be arrested for it, same as if you had an open beer in your Camry or Malibu.

    26. Re:Good by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think any place with a tram/train system for mass transit lets you drink (or don't enforce it) on the trains, Vancouver is the same way, so is Tokyo. So long as you're not peeing on the seat or something.

      DC is pretty strict - even a candy bar can get you arrested. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    27. Re:Good by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, you mean we're not allowed to advance technology & then require it because it provides better services?

      TURN OFF YOUR ELECTRICITY!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    28. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I live in Prague and you can pretty much drink everywhere. You can get beer at McDonald's here.

    29. Re:Good by unrtst · · Score: 2

      In NYC, the Staten Island Ferry actually SELLS tall boys (I think it's ~$4 for a bud).

    30. Re:Good by rhazz · · Score: 1

      most bars carry only beers from one giant distributor or the other

      This is changing up here too, but not in the big franchises or restaurants that are more about standard food fare. Most locally owned pubs sell some, and there are very many craft breweries springing up. Part of the problem is laws around distribution which drives up costs (in Ontario at least), but progress is being made to dismantle the oligopoly.

    31. Re:Good by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      there has been studies

      That wasn't his fault. His executive functions were reduced because he received a text as he was typing.

    32. Re:Good by suutar · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's possible to survive without cellphones. But he could still get sued into bankruptcy and homelessness if a jury decides that his prevention of a 911 call caused someone harm. He was lucky that didn't happen.

    33. Re:Good by codezion · · Score: 2

      He's lucky there wasn't an emergency and that his device did not interfere with a 911 call.

      No worries at all. If there was an emergency, people would still have been able to take their cell phone out and record a video. Isn't that the first response to emergencies these days? They just wouldn't have been able to upload it somewhere until a later time.

    34. Re:Good by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      And about about a few hours a day of actual privacy. I've had friends get upset (and then as a result get upset with me) because I didn't answer the phone on their schedule.

      Work hours didn't extend to 24/7.

      When you went to the beach, you were not at work. When you went on a trip, you were not at work- you actually got complete R&R.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    35. Re:Good by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      He's lucky there wasn't an emergency and that his device did not interfere with a 911 call.

      I guess I was just lucky to survive the dark ages before mobiles existed and someone would have had to get the train to stop in the next station before calling for help. Yes this guy was being an idiot but lets not blow things out of proportion: life was indeed possible before the cell phone was invented and it was not significantly more dangerous.

      I agree that the whole "lucky there wasn't an emergency" tack is blowing things out of proportion, but while life was possible before cell phones, it was significantly more challenging. Response times are down, outcomes are improved, and most services run better since cell phones have become ubiquitous. There's also the fact that the presence of cell phones has led to a deterioration of other infrastructure, such as pay phones and some public services radios (people who might have carried a PS radio in the past now just use their cell-phones instead.) Also, millions of brains have developed with cell phone dependency, suddenly take the cell phone away and they will not adapt immediately.

    36. Re:Good by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've been on many public train systems but I have yet to see any signs that indicate that pissing on the seats isn't allowed.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    37. Re:Good by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      It sounds like she was arrested for refusing the lawful orders of a police officer. She was asked to stop and produce identification so the officer could write a ticket (for something that is a ticketable offence) and refused, so she was arrested.

      Seems perfectly legitimate to me. You don't get to walk away because you think the offence is silly, it is still an offence.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    38. Re:Good by SumDog · · Score: 2

      For the money he put into that device, he could have just bought a nice set of headphones and a music player. That's what I do. Every morning, weather I catch the tram or bus, I almost always have my headphones in while reading either the news or a book on my phone. It's a great way of tuning out the rest of the world.

    39. Re:Good by SumDog · · Score: 1

      I like it when the drivers will announce, "Attention everyone. There is another Upfield in the tunnel immediately behind me. It's mostly empty." That usually helps with #4. It only happens when stuff gets horribly backed up though.

    40. Re:Good by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Grammar is not a part of executive function. I don't think their is anything lower on earth than an anonymous grammar nazi.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    41. Re:Good by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I don't know where in Canada you've been visiting, but in Ontario, that is definitely not the case. It's very common for bars to serve micro-brews and other non-major brands. There's also a lot of brew pubs that brew their own beer. There's already an oligopoly with Molson, Labatt, and Sleeman controlling the majority of all retail sales, so I would think they would be in a heap of trouble if they tried to strong-arm their way into getting bars to only serve certain kinds of beer.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    42. Re:Good by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I don't buy "more challenging", it was simply different. Worse in some ways, better in others. Overall, though, I don't disagree with you.
      I continually wonder how many works of art/inventions that were previously invented when people were daydreaming wouldn't have been because that person was playing Angry Birds instead.

    43. Re:Good by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      It sounds like she was arrested for refusing the lawful orders of a police officer. She was asked to stop and produce identification so the officer could write a ticket (for something that is a ticketable offence) and refused, so she was arrested.

      Seems perfectly legitimate to me. You don't get to walk away because you think the offence is silly, it is still an offence.

      While that lead to her arrest, it was the act of chewing on candy in her mouth that was the initial cause. I agree she acted stupidly, and he she stopped would probably only got a ticket, but it's an example of how strict DC is on eating on the Metro. It could be worse, she could have been eating a french fry. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story... Now, if they'd just arrest people for standing on the left side of an escalator or in front of doors as you exit life would be grand. Now, if you know Oliver North, you might avoid arrest and just get a $10 fine...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    44. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Before cellphones, public payphones were ubiquitous. Most places where people assembled regularly (such as train stations) had banks of payphones and phone booths meaning that 911 was "a keypress away".

    45. Re:Good by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Missouri has the most relaxed alcohol laws on the books. Some cities don't allow open carry, but a big chunk of KC does and a majority of the rural towns do.

      Well, until a decade or so ago....here in NOLA, we didn't even have open container laws for the cars!!

      Yep, back a short while ago, if the cop pulled you over, you just handed your drink to your passenger and they couldn't nab you for drinking and driving....well, they could still test you for intoxication, but it wasn't illegal to drive with any open beverages in the car.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    46. Re:Good by gsslay · · Score: 1

      You could say the same about defibrillators. If I'm personally annoyed by these, do I get to decide that no-one within my earshot is allowed to use them because "How do you think people manage before?"

      Fact is that once the technology is common place, people do come to rely on it and having someone decide to take it away suddenly can put them in danger.

      And that's even before you consider what his jammer may have done to systems on his train, every other train it passed and every station.

    47. Re:Good by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      Back in the 90s, I was on a business trip to a Czech manufacturing plant, and it had beer fountains on the floor, which workers were allowed to use. I was told there were some rules as to when and how, but the person telling me did not even know them, despite perusing the fountains freely.

      I do not know whether it was common practice, and the beer was very weak, by Bulgarian standards. But it was during Commie times, so it couldn't have been too out of the ordinary. I wonder whether there are still plants like this,

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    48. Re:Good by Megol · · Score: 1

      I have never been in a plane crash, train crash or car crash. Does that mean those doesn't happen? Nope.

    49. Re:Good by Megol · · Score: 1

      As alcohol content is what defines a good beer...

    50. Re:Good by Megol · · Score: 2

      But this is an egotistic asshole that likes to feel in control so that isn't an alternative.

    51. Re:Good by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      No, it's not, but that was in direct reference to the GP's assertion that it's "lightly colored water". Obviously.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    52. Re:Good by Megol · · Score: 1

      I think your brain leaked out your ear, assuming you ever had one. You are the reason assholes like this exist - self entitled idiots that doesn't accept civilization. Why don't you and your ilk move out far from other people so that nobody can use a cellphone to disturb your selfish ass? No, that wouldn't do - YOU want to have the comfort of civilization when it fits YOU, all others be damned!

      And how you think not liking active jamming of devices for civilian use is leading anything into a police state? Ludicrous, grow the fuck up.

    53. Re:Good by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      I have CAUSED a train crash - they definitely do happen!

      However, where I live subways are underground, and have no cell phone signal.

      If there is a crash, the correct response is to panic!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    54. Re:Good by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      None of us walked around feeling insecure because 911 wasn't a keypress away.

      That's because you didn't know any better, like the folks pre-vaccines that simply accepted that a lot of kids would die from childhood illnesses. Today, we do know better.

    55. Re:Good by CyclistOne · · Score: 1

      I find myself quite annoyed when someone in public is talking in a loud voice on their cell phone. I feel like yelling in a loud voice, "Yakkity, yakkity, yak,yak yak." But I don't. I'd be contributing to the problem, and besides, someone might pull out a gun and shoot me.

    56. Re:Good by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 1
      When someone yells "Does anyone have cell service? I do not and I have an emergency" then turn it off.

      I don't really care if people talk / look on their phones, keeps them from talking to me, that and the smell.

    57. Re:Good by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      And more people died back then (unpreventably) due to this, so it is an irrelevent point.

      Did they? Have proof? How many have died the texting and driving?

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    58. Re:Good by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just ask yourself if a prude would approve.

      Can I ride my bicycle. YES
      Can I own lots of guns. Let me check the bible... YES
      Can I drink in public. NO, be glad they let you drink in private. Even private stuff bothers them.

      The Bible describes Jesus drinking wine, but not toting a gun. I think your Bible-based analysis is off.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    59. Re:Good by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      We ran somewhere to get help for a response time of ten minutes, instead of calling out for a response time of five minutes. If people know that all cell phones are down, then fine, they can take the "running" option. But if people expect their phones to work, you're out a few minutes as people try to find one that DOES work (since that would give a better outcome).

    60. Re:Good by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you are silly, the CTA trains don't have continuous cell coverage anyway, In emergency there is big labeled emergency button to press to notify operator (who has cameras in cars and intercom to talk back).

      I'm tired of the obnoxious loud music people play with no headphones, and the obnoxious shouting with significant others on phone. this guy should have kept his device in his pocket and been a hero to me. We need more such jammers on the trains

      yes, ride the CTA trains every working day.

    61. Re:Good by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      false, you have no statistics to back up your ridiculous assertion. I'd argue more people are dying suddenly now because of inactivity and obesity that technology makes possible, people can whip out their smart phone while sitting on their couch and have food delivered and practically stuffed into their faces. need to move a muscle? "there's an app for that"

    62. Re:Good by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      false, you liar. Modern technology has made an epidemic of obesity and unfittness that is killing more. by the way, life expectancy in USA is falling. research facts before spewing like some tumblr SJW

    63. Re:Good by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      what alternative chicago do you live in? people eat and drink on the Chicago CTA trains. I'm on one every work day. At night they have booze bottles in paper bags (red line, blue line, green lines).

    64. Re:Good by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      We hit the big button on the sign labeled "EMERGENCY - NOTIFY OPERATOR" which starts an intercom conversation with the operator who also has cameras in cars. Oh looky thar, they still have that button since cell coverage not consistent in subways and at certain places on the elevated tracks!

    65. Re:Good by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      so when a plane or train crashes, is it cell call that notifies authorities? nope, pretty much never ever.

    66. Re:Good by MooseTick · · Score: 2

      I'm with you. While jammers are not optimal, to equate their use to risking everyone's life because 911 isn't immediately available is a stretch and mostly disingenuous.

    67. Re:Good by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      DC is pretty strict - even a candy bar can get you arrested.

      Or a cup of coffee, as Doug "the Subway Fugitive" Berman found out:
      http://wesleyanargus.com/2012/...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    68. Re:Good by avandesande · · Score: 2

      You are equating having 911 available to use on cell phones to vaccines? That is ridiculous.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    69. Re:Good by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      While that lead to her arrest, it was the act of chewing on candy in her mouth that was the initial cause.

      Did you read the article you cited? The consumption of food in a metro station was the initial cause of a warning. The failure to produce identification and decision to just walk away was the cause of the arrest.

      She was warned twice. Instead of stopping, she copped an attitude, spouted off to a cop, tried just walking away while being cited, and got busted for it.

      I agree she acted stupidly, and he she stopped would probably only got a ticket,

      No, had she stopped after getting the first warning, she would have walked away with a verbal warning. Because she acted as if she didn't care that she was breaking a law, she got a ticket.

    70. Re:Good by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      He (Jesus) said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

      and when going into garden at night to pray (dangerous situation): The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is sufficient!" he replied.

      Now Jesus did berate Peter for having a temper and cutting off the ear of a guy in group of authorities who came to arrest Jesus, that was the "live by the sword, die by the sword"....in other words don't be a violent bloodthirsty person. but Jesus wasn't against weapons

    71. Re:Good by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      it appears you are missing the point, the first action if there is emergency on chicago CTA train is not to pull out cell phone that may or may not work depending on where on the line you are, but to use the nice emergency comm system provided. after you for example crawl out of your crashed train in subway, and walk hundreds of feet to station or exit stairway back up to the surface, your phone may work. there are plenty of dead spots in the elevated tracks too, but walk a few blocks, avoiding getting electrocuted on third rail or crushed by train in areas where there is no room for human..... and your phone might work.

    72. Re:Good by sjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's referring to the new revised Fundamentalist Bible. They just ignore the parts they don't like.

    73. Re:Good by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      None of us walked around feeling insecure because 911 wasn't a keypress away.

      You shouldn't speak for other people when you clearly don't know. Of course they didn't think "911 isn't a keypress away" when neither 911 nor "keypresses" existed, but it is lunacy to think that the availability of emergency assistance wasn't a consideration when only landline phones existed.

      You can see that today in the behaviour of people who do risky things with the expectation that they can just pull out a cell and call 911 to get help. We see people go out into the wilderness around here many times with that very belief, only to wind up needing a search and rescue team to come get them. It is a common recurring education process to get people to carry emergency survival supplies with them when they go into areas where their lives could depend on them, simply because they're expecting to call 911 and get saved.

      Saying that "we survived the time" when we didn't have 911 and cellphones ignores the very real fact that the times have changed. Blocking cell calls has the very real possibility of blocking a life-saving 911 cell call, and saying "just wait until the next metro stop to find a pay phone" is ludicrous.

    74. Re:Good by sjames · · Score: 1

      Or he just happened to notice that nobody in the one car he silenced (the one he was in) was screaming OMG call 911, he's having a heart attack!!!

    75. Re:Good by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm fine with people talking. It's just that when people talk on cell phones, they try to drown out the imaginary fighter jet at full military power parked next to them.

    76. Re:Good by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      When someone yells "Does anyone have cell service? I do not and I have an emergency" then turn it off.

      How about just not violating federal laws to begin with? Much easier, and it allows all the people who are using their cellphones without making any noises at all to continue to do so unhindered.

      They're the public airwaves, and while the cellphone companies are getting a good chunk of the use of them, so are all the people using their cellphones. They don't belong to this jerk with a jammer to decide that nobody else can use them.

    77. Re:Good by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      We need more such jammers on the trains

      I hope one such asshole with an active jammer is sitting right next to you the day when your wife is in an automobile accident and the hospital is trying to contact you about it. Or your daughter. Or your wife goes into labor and needs you. Or your daughter.

      I was in a bookstore with a friend when he pulls out his phone and starts talking to his wife. "How rude", I thought. Then I found out his wife was calling because she was having complications and was going to the hospital and needed him. I learned from that. You can't predict when the next emergency happens.

      Yes, before cell phones he wouldn't have known until he got back to the office. But he knew a lot faster and was able to be there a lot sooner because of the cell phone, and in the overall scheme of things, his talking on his phone in the bookstore was a trivial annoyance.

      Other people can be annoying. Grow up and learn to deal with it like an adult.

    78. Re:Good by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      it appears you are missing the point, the first action if there is emergency on chicago CTA train is not to pull out cell phone that may or may not work depending on where on the line you are, but to use the nice emergency comm system provided.

      You seem to be missing the point that cell phone technology has advanced to the point where it is now two-way communications. It is not always the cell phone user who is observing a local emergency, but there may be external emergencies that involve the cell phone user and someone outside is calling him. Or trying to but cannot because some jerk is breaking federal law by jamming the signal.

      How does someone who is about to get an emergency call (about an injured spouse, etc.) know to stand up and press the big red button, and just how will pressing the button help?

      You also seem to be missing the point that a jammer does not distinguish between the "annoying user" who must be silenced at all costs, and the vast majority of other users who are not. They're paying for that service, they aren't disturbing anyone, and yet the jammer feels compelled to stop them, too.

    79. Re:Good by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Well, plenty of people did walk around feeling insecure, maybe just not in your neighborhood.

      Given crime statistics, you actually were less secure at that time than you are now. The fact that you didn't feel insecure was likely tied to the neighborhood in which you lived, and/or the lack of sensationalist news media bombardment. Studies have shown that people feel much less secure now than people did in, say, the 1980s, despite crime being much lower today.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    80. Re:Good by Improv · · Score: 1

      Life expectancy in the US is in fact not falling. You may be right that people are less fit than they were, but modern medicine more than makes up for that. The statistics support this.

      I'm amused at the style of "insult people as much as you can" as an argumentative tactic.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    81. Re:Good by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. We should not expect the same level of service from a radio as we do from wired communications. the fact we do is reckless.

    82. Re:Good by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Same in SF bay area, all the ferries I have taken sell beer, wine, and simple cocktails. They have ample heads (toilets). Traveling by boat is wonderfully civilized!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    83. Re:Good by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Well, duh.. DC is home of the nanny state. Everything is restricted there. Our Dear Leaders must be protected!

    84. Re:Good by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      There are always dunces like you making this shitty argument when you know full well what the real problem is: the law in question.

    85. Re:Good by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Using law to combat petty shit like this is why people have trouble respecting it.

    86. Re:Good by HiThere · · Score: 2

      That's true. The other day I saw someone "jaywalking" diagonally across the street in a motorized wheel chair while texting. That's a danger that didn't exist previously. I'd say they were going diagonally through the intersection, but actually they were just west of the intersection, where a car turning couldn't see or expect them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    87. Re:Good by Agronomist+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      I see what you did they're....

      --
      -DwS
    88. Re:Good by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      i honestly can't understand why americans are so aggressively against phone calls on public transport. why is it ok to talk to the person sitting next to you but not to somebody over the phone? it really puzzles me. i've never seen this in any european country.

    89. Re:Good by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There's nothing unique about fundamentalists among the various Christian groups editing the Bible to fit their preferences. Roman Catholicism removes "Thou shall make no graven images" from the Ten Commandments so that they can have St. Christopher doodads and other such stuff.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    90. Re:Good by rockout · · Score: 1

      "Only last April, Canada's Competition Bureau concluded a two-year investigation into allegations of anti-competitive behaviour by Labatt and Molson against several Quebec microbreweries.

      Although no formal charges flowed from that probe, the Competition Bureau found validity in complaints levied by l'Association des Microbrasseurs du Québec that "a number of (Molson and Labatt) clients are bound by potentially anti-competitive contract clauses," including restrictions on competitors, exclusivity clauses for their products, preferences for shelf-space and preferred positioning, and restrictions that require establishments to sell certain Labatt and Molson brands at the same price as their competitors.

      Unfortunately for the micros, all that "did not substantially lessen or prevent competition in the beer industry."

      https://nowtoronto.com/news/wh...

      According to the bartenders I spoke to in Ottawa, the same contract clauses are a problem in Ontario as well. Bars can opt to sign a contract with one of the big boys, or choose to carry micro-brews and ignore the big boys.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    91. Re:Good by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If someone calls in the middle of the night, it's an emergency.

      Long before cell phones, I received a 3 AM call that a family member had died. She wouldn't have been any more or less dead at 8 AM. Nobody was better off for the call being made at 3 AM.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    92. Re:Good by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The jammer is wrong, but the vast majority of other users are annoying someone. Heavy cellphone use is creepy.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    93. Re:Good by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The jammer is wrong, but the vast majority of other users are annoying someone.

      No. Unless you are particularly annoyed that everyone isn't paying attention to you and your happiness, then the vast majority of cell phone users aren't annoying anyone.

      I'd love to hear you explain how my cell phone in my pocket is annoying you, because the vast majority of cell phone users are doing exactly the same thing I do most of the time.

      Heavy cellphone use is creepy.

      What a wonderfully meaningless statement. I have my cellphone with me almost all the time I am out of the house. Is that "heavy" use? What's "creepy", and what is creepy about my having a cell phone with me? And how did we get from "jammer blocking all use" to "heavy use"? Did you think that jammers only jam the heavy users?

    94. Re:Good by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Using law to combat petty shit like this is why people have trouble respecting it.

      Laws that apply to things that don't seem like a problem when one person does it are generally implemented because it becomes a problem when thousands of people do it. And they are usually passed because it has been a problem. What is "petty shit" when you are the only one doing it can become a significant problem when you and all your friends and all their friends join in.

      It's patently stupid to have a police officer remind you of a law, even one you don't agree with, and then flagrantly continue to violate it in front of him. If you're willing to commit civil disobedience to make a point about a law, you need to be ready to be arrested. And you cannot claim she wasn't aware of the law.

      One of my favorite lines from a Jessie Stone movie (Tom Selleck) is when he's talking to a teen about truancy and drug use. She asks him if it is right or wrong for her Mom to act a certain way. He answers: "I'm not in the right and wrong business, I'm in the legal and illegal business." The police officer here tried to do the right thing (warn), but he was pushed into doing the legal thing.

    95. Re:Good by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      He's lucky there wasn't an emergency and that his device did not interfere with a 911 call.

      I guess I was just lucky to survive the dark ages before mobiles existed and someone would have had to get the train to stop in the next station before calling for help. Yes this guy was being an idiot but lets not blow things out of proportion: life was indeed possible before the cell phone was invented and it was not significantly more dangerous.

      What does that have to do with anything? Blocking cell phone calls this way puts the public at risk regardless of how things were done in the past. It's called progress. What a silly comment.

    96. Re:Good by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > i honestly can't understand why americans are so aggressively against phone calls on
      > public transport. why is it ok to talk to the person sitting next to you but not to somebody
      > over the phone? it really puzzles me. i've never seen this in any european country.

      I live in Canada, sometimes described as the 51st state. I understand the hate. Some @##holes *YELL AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS* when talking on a cellphone. If they have the same conversation in person, with somebody sitting next to them, they talk in a normal tone of voice. That's the difference.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    97. Re:Good by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      While that lead to her arrest, it was the act of chewing on candy in her mouth that was the initial cause.

      Did you read the article you cited? The consumption of food in a metro station was the initial cause of a warning. The failure to produce identification and decision to just walk away was the cause of the arrest.

      She was warned twice. Instead of stopping, she copped an attitude, spouted off to a cop, tried just walking away while being cited, and got busted for it.

      I agree she acted stupidly, and he she stopped would probably only got a ticket,

      No, had she stopped after getting the first warning, she would have walked away with a verbal warning. Because she acted as if she didn't care that she was breaking a law, she got a ticket.

      While she was arrested for reusing to stop to be cited, the initial cause for the stop was eating on the Metro. Had she not walked away and insults date cop she probably would have gotten a warning. So I guess it comes down to what you define as "cause." To me, it's the initial act that results in the stop but I can see where you'd define the escalation of the incident as the cause.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    98. Re:Good by aevan · · Score: 1

      Overhearing both sides of a conversation is less attention-demanding than just hearing one side - brain gets the fun puzzle of trying to recreate the unheard side.

    99. Re:Good by aevan · · Score: 1

      If someone calls in the middle of the night, it's the middle of the night. The End. I've had calls simply because other person didn't realise it was late, because of pocket dialing, because of wrong number, because they assumed I'd be awake, because time-zone differences, and because they assumed it'd have went straight to voice mail. Hardly by any stretch is a night-time phone call automatically an emergency.

    100. Re:Good by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      What did people do in emergencies before cell phones?

    101. Re:Good by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There are people who strongly believe that the wine was just grape juice, and the translators were confused by linguistic fuzziness. Thus the miracle of turning water into Welch's!

    102. Re:Good by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you seem to be missing the point, the injured spouse you mention isn't going to be rescued by someone on the train. they are going to be notified later about something over which they could have done nothing. those near the injured spouse, not on the train, can call 911 not a train passenger.

      anyone yapping on the phone in a train is an annoyance, never heard a crucial exchange of information yet in a decade of riding.

      really, you are trying to make a case for a situation that doesn't exist, can't exist

    103. Re:Good by prowler1 · · Score: 1

      I guess I was just lucky to survive the dark ages before mobiles existed

      And more people died back then (unpreventably) due to this, so it is an irrelevent point.

      If someone could call for help and get assistance faster (greater chance of surviving), and you interfere with this, then you become liable for their death, and if you did it with knowledge and/or intent, or a legal equivalent (such as reckless negligence), then criminally liable.

      It wouldn't matter if they still had a signal or not when there was an accident, they would all be to busy videoing the action with their phones to make the necessary call for help.

    104. Re:Good by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      i thought the title of 51st state belonged to britain. their rectum is always receptive to the man from across the pond.

    105. Re:Good by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I'd argue more people are dying suddenly now because of inactivity and obesity that technology makes possible

      You don't have any data to support that, because you see, that isn't true.

      It doesn't matter what the global affect of the cell phone technology is; however, It is still a form of murder to employee a cellphone jammer: if someone in need of assistance cannot make a timely emergency call due to the jamming, and the person dies because of no assistance, or because of additional time it took responders due to the jamming of the emergency call.

      I would say sentence the guy who used the jammer to the electric chair, in this case.

    106. Re:Good by j-beda · · Score: 1

      I think any place with a tram/train system for mass transit lets you drink (or don't enforce it) on the trains, Vancouver is the same way, so is Tokyo. So long as you're not peeing on the seat or something.

      I cannot speak to Tokyo, but in BC you are not allowed to drink anywhere on the tranist system. I have never encountered an enforcement officer who did not enforce BC's drinking laws. With that said, there is very little enforcement because there are few patroling officers.

      From http://engage.gov.bc.ca/liquor...
      "Where can you drink?

      It’s quite simple. You can drink in your home, at a campsite or anywhere that has a liquor licence. You can’t drink in public, at beaches or parks, in your car, or at non-licensed establishments open to the public. Liquor is allowed in private non-licensed places, like a closed office or business."

    107. Re:Good by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      good thing they're in the hospital eh, because I have no medical training. I'd find out as soon as I exited the train station, which by the way is underground next to my work...I'd not get a call anyway!

    108. Re:Good by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, you mean we're not allowed to advance technology & then require it because it provides better services?

      No you certainly are allowed to use advanced technology and services. What you are not allowed to do is go around thinking that life without a mobile was practically impossible and incredibly dangerous. The delay in contacting emergency services would have been minimal since, in any emergency the train would need to make it to the next station so medics/police etc. could get on board. Hence we are talking about a delay of a couple of minutes at most and that't only the case if the train is an old one which does not have an emergency intercom connecting passengers to the driver when the emergency button is pressed who could then radio in for help to be there at the next station.

      That's the great thing about advanced technology: it has applications beyond your mobile phone.

    109. Re:Good by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      You could say the same about defibrillators.

      Really? So when riding public transport your life depends on having a mobile phone? Clearly jamming people's phones is not at all acceptable and the guy deserved to get in trouble with the law but I can't help but find it rather amusing that some people seem to equate removal of their mobile phone as something which is life-threatening.

    110. Re:Good by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      How does someone who is about to get an emergency call (about an injured spouse, etc.)

      That's not an emergency. If the call does not go through, who dies, and how is the death related to the inability to connect the call? Even if the call did connect, how is being aware of the situation going to change matters? Will the person who receives the information pull out a gun hold it to the train driver's head and force him to drive faster? Or make an emergency stop, jump off the train, and then get stuck in a traffic jam on their way to home (spouse's work place, shopping mall, whatever)?

      Try making an effective argument.

      People did actually survive things like a spouse dieing before there were cell phones.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    111. Re:Good by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      and someone would have had to get the train to stop in the next station before calling for help

      Shockingly, there is also the possibility of actually doing something about it yourself. Sudden life-threatening illness falls into one of a small number of categories - inability to breathe (in which case, you know the choking drill from your school days and from your safety training for work), loss of circulation (again, you know the drill. "Ha-ha-ha-ha-stayin'-alive!"), or stroke (not a lot you can do about that one).

      Unless, of course, you skipped the first aid classes at school, and your work is too cheap to train the requisite number of first aiders. Or you're afraid to take on the responsibility.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    112. Re:Good by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      someone might pull out a gun and shoot me.

      But you're an American. you can afford body armour, and isn't it compulsory now to carry machine guns at all times? Because terrororism.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    113. Re:Good by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Your ridiculous hyperbole is so insane that you've moved me from sitting on the fence to being convinced that the man with the jammer is in the right.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    114. Re:Good by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Good (if cynical) point!

      Also, every one of them will at some point justify their inaction by saying "I was sure someone would have been calling the emergency services."

      The only way that anyone can be sure someone is calling the emergency services is if they are the person calling the emergency services.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    115. Re:Good by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      What if he hates music (as I do)?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    116. Re:Good by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Yes, I too remember getting that 3am phone call from my father, immediately after he'd closed his father's eyes. Didn't to anything for dead Grandfather, but made Dad feel slightly better.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    117. Re:Good by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I hope one such asshole with an active jammer is sitting right next to you the day when your wife is in an automobile accident and the hospital is trying to contact you about it.

      Actually I'd really rather that the hospital were trying to like treat her injuries, not wasting time trying to phone me.

      Oh, sorry. This is an American story. I forgot, they'd be phoning you once they'd drained her credit cards to start the blood transfusion, and that's why it's so urgent they get through to some other source of profit. Try having a healthcare system!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    118. Re:Good by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      You might expect that. I don't. A good 30% of my life is spent hundreds of kilometres from the nearest cellphone signal.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    119. Re:Good by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yes, and Australia also has claims to be the 51st state.
      Canada is kinda special, the Americans in their first Constitution included a clause that the Canadian provinces automatically got Statehood just for the asking. We border them, have gone to war a few times (last time the only casualty was a pig and the higher ups weren't happy that most of the fighting happened on sports field and the pub/tavern, see Pig War). Modern Canada was actually formed to avoid becoming American States just after their civil war.
      While Canadians generally define ourselves as not American, there is a sizable minority who actually like America (vs Americans who are generally nice people) and to Americans, we were the natural way to continue expanding, being more culturally similar then any other country.
      And of course we'd be States 51-61

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    120. Re:Good by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      There was no mandatory ID, she did not get arrested or ticketed for not having ID. She got ticketed for eating in the Metro after the police officer warned her that it was against the rules. She was arrested for walking away and refusing to submit to getting a ticket once the police officer had begun writing a ticket. You can't just walk away from a police officer because you think the infraction is silly, it is the law, therefore the officer has the ability to enforce the law.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    121. Re:Good by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It is not my job to question the law, it is a metro station. Do you argue against the rule that no outside food or drink is allowed in theaters? Is it your option to ignore the rules because you don't agree with them?

      I was pointing out that she was arrested for choosing to ignore the police officer when being cited, it sounds like you are the one being a dunce here.

      Do you get to drive off because you think stopping for stop signs is stupid? Would you expect to get out of jail by saying that all stop signs should be replaced by yield signs and that you think you shouldn't have been getting a ticket for such a stupid law?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    122. Re:Good by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      they are going to be notified later about something over which they could have done nothing.

      Except maybe been there to say goodbye.

      I hope you are sitting next to a jammer should this ever happen to you, perhaps you'd grow up. Or maybe you have nobody in your life that you value that much. Either way, you're just a sad example of a human being.

    123. Re:Good by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      That's not an emergency.

      How sad you are.

      Or make an emergency stop, jump off the train, and then get stuck in a traffic jam on their way to home (spouse's work place, shopping mall, whatever)?

      I get on the train for the morning hour commute into the city. My wife, who dropped me off at the station, is hit by a truck even before the train leaves. I can get the call about it while I'm still well outside the city, hop off at the next stop, take the return, and be home at least an hour before I could be if your jammer is blocking that emergency call. Further, I can get updates on her condition while I'm traveling, call other relatives that need to know (and might be closer and able to get there in time), and do a lot of crisis management because of that cell phone. Unless there's some jerk who is so wrapped up in his personal enjoyment of life that he violates federal laws to shut down cell service where he is.

      Don't think an hour matters? My flight into Chicago many years ago was two hours late. I got to the hospital a half hour after my father died. Yes, an hour can matter very much, but only to people who have emotional attachments to others.

      People did actually survive things like a spouse dieing before there were cell phones.

      Yeah, and then life got better and communications got faster, and we can respond to emergencies faster than before, so fewer people die and more people can deal with the events in time to make a difference.

      Your attitude is so cold and callous. Heartless is another word for it. "Fuck you and anything to do with YOUR life, I don't want you to be able to use your cellphone in my vicinity for ANY PURPOSE whatsoever because I say so." That's what you are defending here.

    124. Re:Good by gsslay · · Score: 1

      He didn't remove people's mobile phone. He blocked the frequencies used by the mobile phone networks, which may be used by any number of devices carried by people, in everyday use or in emergencies, and may even feature in the safe functioning of the train itself.

    125. Re:Good by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Or a fucking wrong number from another time zone. I used to get wrong number calls from foreign countries in the middle of the night. Nothing more fun than being woken up to a language you can't even identify. I tried telling them in English and Spanish that they had the wrong number. They would still call every couple of weeks!

    126. Re:Good by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Actually I'd really rather that the hospital were trying to like treat her injuries, not wasting time trying to phone me.

      It's not usually the surgeon trying to call you before starting the surgery. They have coordinators and receptionists, you know, people who wouldn't be that much use in the operating room.

    127. Re:Good by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      PBR-drinker.

  3. No good guys. by Cytotoxic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are no good guys in this story. He's a dick for blocking other people's services. The government are being ridiculous in charging him with felonies and holding hundreds of thousands in fines over his head, and people having loud animated conversations on their cell phones in crowded public spaces are rude.

    If he did what he is accused of then he is guilty of disturbing the peace. He should be punished accordingly. He's not guilty of intercepting people's cell calls and recording their conversations with a sting-ray device. He didn't bring down the local power sub-station. He did the equivalent of loudly disrupting a public meeting. Proportionality is an important concept, and we've lost track of it.

    1. Re:No good guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He did the equivalent of loudly disrupting a public meeting. Proportionality is an important concept, and we've lost track of it.

      The person in question was engaging in electronic warfare in an enclosed public space. He completely denied access to electronic communications in a location where people were not free to move and did not have other means to communicate with anyone outside. That's a bit more significant than capturing cell phone metadata without proper justification.

    2. Re:No good guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But he was blocking the use of a sting-ray device, so they threw the book at him.

    3. Re:No good guys. by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The only thing I would add is that if all Mr Nicholl wanted to do was silence the cellphones, he could've left the jammer in the bag.

      Bringing it into plain view ratchets it up a notch to, "I am making a point here. Look at me!"

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:No good guys. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      and people having loud animated conversations on their cell phones in crowded public spaces are rude.

      I never got this. If two people are sat on the bus/train whatever and having a chat, no one gives a shit, remove one of the people and half the conversation and people are suddenly put out by it.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re:No good guys. by red+crab · · Score: 1

      You a lawyer or what?

    6. Re:No good guys. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      There are no good guys in this story.

      Except the guy blocking the douchebag callers. Oh, and if he carried a baseball bat to break the kneecaps of anyone putting their feet up on the seats, I'd nominate him for a fucking sainthood.

      As a regular rail communter, I'm only like 0.5% kidding here.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:No good guys. by sharkman67 · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt it. The power of these jammers is low to start with not to mention he was inside a metal box. Maybe someone on a platform that they passed would have had a momentary signal drop but that's about it. F the FCC anyway. Nothing but 2 bit thugs.

    8. Re:No good guys. by plover · · Score: 3, Informative

      The flaw with that argument is there is no way to predict the urgency of the other communications trying to use the frequencies being jammed during the time of the jamming. Pacemakers automatically call 9-1-1 in the event of heart failure; a crime victim could be calling the police. Those people have a licensed device and they have the right to use the airwaves according to the terms of the license.

      This is not new, this is not some recent "loss of proportionality". The FCC's stance was published at the advent of radio telecommunications, long before cell phones existed, and has been very, very consistent for at least 80 years: the airwaves are a shared resource, and cooperation is vital to their ongoing utility; you will not deliberately deny others their licensed use of their frequencies, or Uncle Charlie will come down with his Very Big Hammer. And the hammer has always been big: 40 years ago the max fines were in the $10,000 range. Not even the Secret Service has official permission to jam frequencies around the president (although I suspect they have the equipment at the ready.)

      --
      John
    9. Re:No good guys. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      The one quibble I have with this case is the charge they levied against him: "interfering with a public utility". Cellular service isn't much of a utility if you ask me, because they don't treat it like one. For one thing, there's multiple providers (utilities are usually monopolies), and for another, there's almost no regulation, or else we'd have inexpensive cell service like they have over in Europe where supposedly the cost of living is so much higher.

      Personally, I think they should let the guy off and allow jamming devices like this until the stupid government can get its shit together and start regulating cell services properly like they do in Europe.

      The way it is now, it just reeks of the government doing the corporations' bidding, with we the people getting nothing out of it in return.

    10. Re:No good guys. by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      This is what I was thinking as well.

      Although, it would only have increased the time until he was caught if he used it regularly.

      I recall hearing a story about a guy who had one of these devices in his car and kept it on all the time, creating a bubble as he drove down the freeway.

      They caught him because a pattern could be established (he took the same route at the same time every day).

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    11. Re:No good guys. by The-Ixian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, it depends on how loud the chat is.

      I get annoyed at loud conversation all the time. Of course, I hate people so...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    12. Re:No good guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They threw the book at him since he didn't learn the lesson when he got caught back in 2009, where he got off with a simple misdemeanor. Instead of being an ass he could have bought a headphone or earplugs.

    13. Re:No good guys. by aslagle · · Score: 1

      My wife's pacemaker certainly doesn't call 9-1-1 in the event of heart failure. The only "phone home" functionality is via a base station next to her bed where it sends log data to the doctor nightly.

      I can't imagine them building cell functionality in a pacemaker - they want them to be as small as possible, since they're devices implanted in the body.

    14. Re:No good guys. by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      Actually, it depends on how loud the chat is.

      I get annoyed at loud conversation all the time. Of course, I hate people so...

      That's by the by, why is half a conversation more annoying than a full one you're not listening to anyway? (By the way I agree with you, life would be better if everyone else would just fuck off)

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    15. Re:No good guys. by Improv · · Score: 2

      First, the government is not "just another actor", and your tit-for-tat ideas are this nonsense, as are the claims of hypocrisy. They're allowed.
      Second, plenty of us don't really care if we're being recorded but being blocked actually stops us from having communications we want.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    16. Re:No good guys. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      If he didn't want to hear the cellphones, he could have gotten a good pair of noise canceling headphones and put on some music. It would block out the sounds of other people talking on the phone without breaking any laws. As it was, he was upset that people's actions (talking on the phone) were affecting him so he took an action (using a jammer) that affected others (not just the ones talking on the phone, but anyone using a cell phone even in a quiet manner).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    17. Re:No good guys. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      remove one of the people and half the conversation and people are suddenly put out by it.

      Correct. Many people find half a conversation to be very annoying, as their brain is distracted by trying to "fill in" the other half. Psychologists have studied the phenomena, and some comedians exploit it (Bob Newhart was a famous example).

      Other people (including me) are not bothered by it. I find it easy to tune out other people, sometimes even when they are talking directly to me. My wife can confirm this.

    18. Re:No good guys. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Oh, and if he carried a baseball bat to break the kneecaps of anyone putting their feet up on the seats

      What should he do about manspreading?

    19. Re:No good guys. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The only thing I would add is that if all Mr Nicholl wanted to do was silence the cellphones, he could've left the jammer in the bag.

      Yeah, that's it. It really sounds like he got busted for being a dick.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:No good guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and people having loud animated conversations on their cell phones in crowded public spaces are rude.

      I never got this. If two people are sat on the bus/train whatever and having a chat, no one gives a shit, remove one of the people and half the conversation and people are suddenly put out by it.

      And yet, it is a tested and documented phenomenon. Google will find many reports of this, see for example this paper (PDF) or this webpage, this webpage, or this webpage.

    21. Re:No good guys. by xvan · · Score: 1

      Public transport is noisy. When you talk with another person you get constant visual feedback to adjust your voice to the right volume. When you talk by phone, you loose that feedback. If YOU don't listen because of the noise, the natural reaction is to talk louder.

    22. Re:No good guys. by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Firstly, I've found that people tend to talk louder when they are on the phone. Maybe it's because there is no feedback to adjust their speaking volume. Almost everyone on the phone on the bus is loud while many people having a conversation together speak in a lowered voice.

      Secondly, it's harder to ignore half a conversation. http://www.scientificamerican....

    23. Re:No good guys. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Proportionality is an important concept, and we've lost track of it.

      And a long long time ago, when all was right in the world we "lost track of it". Jamming of communications has been illegal just about since radio communications existed. And the F.C.C. takes it very very seriously.

      As for the proportionality of it, his penalty is just what you get when you get caught jamming with no public harm. Add people harmed, and you end up with a lot more trouble for your jamming.

      Proportionality? This doesn't just inconvenience some mass transit riders, it can cut service to everyone along the route, not for as long a time, but depending on the power he was using, a fair amount of time.

      As well, if his jammer was broadband - and it likely was, who knows what else he was jamming.

      All that being said, the level of stupidity it takes to do cell jamming is damn high. Just because you might be moving, the cell towers are politely keeping track of the jamming signal, as part of the inherent nature of cellular communications, the times and locations can be easily matched with the form of transit, then you just put a person on the train or bus with some verifying equipment around the time the jammer has been doing his dirty work, let a few more jam sessions take place for evidence, and there ya go.

      A lot of work for a lot of people for your disturbing the peace scenario.

      Regardless, don't try this stunt kids. You'll be caught fo shizzle.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    24. Re:No good guys. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Informative

      I highly doubt it. The power of these jammers is low to start with not to mention he was inside a metal box. Maybe someone on a platform that they passed would have had a momentary signal drop but that's about it.

      You seem to know a lot about these jammers. By the way, the windows in that metal box do just fine for letting those UHF signals out for the cell phones, they'll do the same for the jammer signal, which is also making it ot the cell towers, making you remarkably easy to trace.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    25. Re:No good guys. by eam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder if the half conversations via cell-phones are inherently louder due to less than perfect transmission. I witness people communicating effectively in person while whispering, but I can't imagine being able to be heard while whispering over a cell connection.

      However, if you want to see what researchers found, I located an article:

      http://healthland.time.com/201...

    26. Re:No good guys. by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      ...and people having loud animated conversations on their cell phones in crowded public spaces are rude.

      Serious question here: What exactly makes that rude? Are people equally rude if the person they are having the conversation with happens to be present, rather than on the other end of a phone?

      I actually don't like phones (although I love having a portable internet connection). However, conversations, up to a certain (very high) volume, seem to be considered perfectly acceptable on public transit, even though I often find them even more distracting. If those are OK, why is it bad when you physically remove one of the participants? What's the standard here?

    27. Re:No good guys. by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      He is guilty of intentionally causing interference on multiple licensed frequencies. If people were also breaking laws disturbing the beach etc sure get them but I doubt it noise laws are pretty lenient.

      Really if they guy can not stand other people he should get out the the cesspools that are cities.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    28. Re:No good guys. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      No, he did this a bunch of times before. Now he gets fines and jail time for repeated dickery. This is how we deal with rich people who go "oh a fine lol ok yeah sure go away."

    29. Re:No good guys. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What should he do about manspreading?

      Silent, subtle knee fights are acceptable behaviour. I don't want to listen to anyone's inane babble and I don't want to sit in whatever crap is on someone's shoes.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    30. Re:No good guys. by Jahoda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "There are no good guys in this story"? WT actual F logic is this? Excuse me, sir, but I don't want some baby-boomer rageoholic, upset that the world doesn't work the way *he* wants it to in the train car he shares with others, buying crappy Chinese electronics and interfering with my ability to use my technology. It is impossible to not know that these devices are illegal and prohibited by the FCC, and he's been arrested for it before. The first time, he got a slap on the wrist. Now, he gets the felony. This is how this shit works. "No good guys in the story". SMH.

    31. Re:No good guys. by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Human brains are wired to follow a conversation (hence humans frequently participating in them). When one only hears half a conversation, the absence of a second party is actively noticeable by those listening (or accidentally overhearing) the conversation. Also, phone calls will tend to make people talk louder (than they would to their friend sat next to them), which increases the already-disturbing half-conversation. I can understand why you'd think it would logically be little or no different, but it's a bit more complicated than you seem to realise.

    32. Re:No good guys. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I find it easy to tune out other people, sometimes even when they are talking directly to me. My wife can confirm this.

      Ha! tell me about it ;). Thanks for the link though.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    33. Re:No good guys. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link, I guess it's not just people being dicks then. Well, on purpose.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    34. Re:No good guys. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    35. Re:No good guys. by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      I think it's even more simple. It's not a public utility because your taxes don't pay for it.

    36. Re:No good guys. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      If YOU don't listen because of the noise, the natural reaction is to talk louder.

      Apparently people also talk louder on mobile phones than on landlines, because on a landline phone you can hear your own voice played back immediately through the speaker. This is missing on a mobile phone call, so people "compensate" by speaking louder, without realising they're doing it. I know I do.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    37. Re:No good guys. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Firstly, I've found that people tend to talk louder when they are on the phone. Maybe it's because there is no feedback to adjust their speaking volume.

      They actually talk louder on mobile phones versus landlines. A landline phone plays your own voice back to you immediately through the speaker, and those of us old enough to have primarily used landlines are so used to it, that when it's missing from a mobile phone call, we subconsciously compensate for the lack of echo by speaking louder.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    38. Re:No good guys. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      He disrupted the ability of others to engage in perfectly lawful (if somewhat annoying) behaviour.

    39. Re:No good guys. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      People that are bothered by "half conversations", generally are not bothered if the conversation is in a foreign language that they don't understand. Because their brain is no longer distracted, trying to reconstruct the missing half.

    40. Re:No good guys. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> If he did what he is accused of then he is guilty of disturbing the peace.

      Disturbing it? He was CREATING it.

    41. Re:No good guys. by tibit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pacemakers automatically call 9-1-1 in the event of heart failure

      No, they don't. Stop making shit up.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    42. Re:No good guys. by SumDog · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Interfering with signals is dangerous. There are 911 emergency calls. Plus what if a doctor was on board and (I know this is unlikely because of the frequency pagers work at) and it interfered with his pager? What if some of the trains communication equipment operated off cell communication (GPS receivers on buses usually do this). He was irresponsible, plus..he's been busted for this before. He knew what he was doing was wrong and illegal. Also, why take the device out of your pocket? He could have left it in and gone totally unnoticed. He wanted to be seen. He's a dick.

      He's been busted before. He had a warning. If he hated the people or noise, could buy headphones, or ear plugs. That's what I do every morning while on the bus or tram. You can get a decent set of headphones + music player for the cost of that jammer.

      Part of being on public transport is being exposed to and seeing other people. Rich executives in New York have private limos that take them from their Penthouses to their office via private elevators. They literally go from home to work without interacting with a single person. Even the minimal interaction with people on transit makes a difference in how we approach the world and makes us more tolerant to it.

    43. Re:No good guys. by L4m3rthanyou · · Score: 1

      Two people conversing in person tend to be more receptive to the ambient noise level, and will moderate their volume accordingly. For normal conversation, that means they're generally not going to be too obnoxious to those around them.

      Cell phone conversations throw that off. The lack of visual feedback from the listener, and distraction of the speaker, combined with people's general tendency to speak into cell phones at an almost-yelling volume, means that cell phone conversations are often overly loud and irritating in public spaces.

      --
      One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
    44. Re:No good guys. by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

      Not even the Secret Service has official permission to jam frequencies around the president (although I suspect they have the equipment at the ready.)

      They have other tools at their disposal. They don't broadcast that. When the first reports of the Boston Marathon bombing came in, the first thing the authorities did was to disable the cell transmitter towers. This effectively prevented any more bombs from being triggered by cellular technology. That is how the authorities were able to locate and disarm unexploded devices, which led them to the culprits. A friend of mine had finished the race and when the attack happened his cell phone wouldn't work - it was a day or two before he could contact family to tell them he was safe.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    45. Re:No good guys. by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Yeah the audio and connection quality of mobile phones are horrendous and have never gotten any better.

      We continue to push the technology yet the quality remains the same at best and is often way worse as new components are added (bluetooth/hands free) and phones get smaller.

      I would say that about 90% of the calls on every cell phone I have ever had, I have said "what did you say?" at least once during the conversation. Roughly 30% of calls are dropped or are so bad (echo or volume or no audio on one or both legs) that the call must be reestablished. And even the "good" calls have terrible audio quality.

      I remember the first time I used an HD audio codec voip phone... It made me realize how bad normal call quality really is.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    46. Re:No good guys. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      If they are speaking a romance language, my brain will start trying to find the Latin common ancestor to the words.

      --
      Good-bye
    47. Re:No good guys. by Beerdood · · Score: 1

      So, basically he set up a scenario where people taking the subway couldn't use their cell phones. Or as I like to call it, "When I used to take the subway a decade ago".

      The horror of denying access to electronic communication in a location! Throw the book at him!

      --
      Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
    48. Re:No good guys. by Megol · · Score: 1

      I think the senility is beginning to set in for you. One decade ago: 2006, lots of cellphones then. 1996? Still a lot of cellphones. 1986? A lot less but still existing.

      Think of the equivalent of someone not liking you playing music at home and then cutting your power. Still seem reasonable? Both are denial of service attacks.

    49. Re:No good guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Erm, your outburst does very little to dispute the sentence you were supposedly disagreeing with. The guy jamming is a douche. The assholes shrieking their life stories at their phones on public transit are also douches. To top it off, the government imposing over-the-top penalties that will both bankrupt and embitter far before they have any useful effect (this isn't a common occurrence, after all) are the elected representatives of douchetry. No, there are no good guys in this story. Just because the law has been around for ages doesn't mean that it is well tested, effective, or just, just old and seldom needed. I cannot find an ounce of actual “Insight” in your post.

    50. Re:No good guys. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The only thing I would add is that if all Mr Nicholl wanted to do was silence the cellphones, he could've left the jammer in the bag.

      Bringing it into plain view ratchets it up a notch to, "I am making a point here. Look at me!"

      Yes, not every hero wears a cape.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    51. Re:No good guys. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I've got my jammer hooked to a 1kw linear and have half a leafs worth of batteries, all disguised as an airplane roll-on bag.

      The huge wheels give it away, that and the molly steel frame.

      Think I'm going to roll my own 'stingray' next. The US federal government is, more or less, on Verizon for insecure comms? Gotta pick my frequencies.

      Kidding feds. I know, I know: 'Not funny, no clearance for you.'

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    52. Re:No good guys. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We should find our Latin teachers and kick them square in the nuts.

      I still remember how those books burned...what a waste of time. Python did it best.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    53. Re:No good guys. by sjames · · Score: 1

      If he did what he is accused of then he is guilty of disturbing the peace.

      Irony at it's finest!

    54. Re:No good guys. by sjames · · Score: 1

      People seem to naturally talk much louder on a cellphone than they would face to face.

    55. Re:No good guys. by sjames · · Score: 1

      A long time ago when the FCC started taking jamming seriously, jamming meant cranking out a few kilowatts to jam a region larger than you could see across.

    56. Re:No good guys. by sjames · · Score: 1

      People tend to talk much louder on the cellphone than they would in person. They also tend to forget that they're in public. I do NOT want to hear all about your crotch rot at 120 decibels.

    57. Re:No good guys. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      There are no good guys in this story.

      What about the vast majority of the cell users who were sitting there minding their own business but didn't have use of the cell service they were paying for? Like the people who were streaming music into their earphones so they could enjoy the ride, but were stopped by the "dick" who was breaking federal law. What about the people who were on the way to meet someone, but couldn't get the text message that the meeting was delayed or called off because of this dick? What about ... oh, never mind. You're so focused on the one dick and the one loud talker that you're ignoring the damage this dick did to a large number of innocent people.

      It is perfectly reasonable for the government to throw the book at this guy, simply as deterrent to others who might think it is a good idea to shut off other people's access to cell phone service.

      If he did what he is accused of then he is guilty of disturbing the peace.

      No, he didn't disturb the peace. He operated an unlicensed transmitting device with the intent of causing harmful interference to licensed users. Deliberate and willful. He caused deliberate harmful interference to a communication system used by a large number of people. Those are federal crimes, and the deliberate nature of the crime makes it more serious.

    58. Re:No good guys. by SydShamino · · Score: 1
      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    59. Re:No good guys. by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      It's linked by others above, but in case you don't see those posts:
      http://healthland.time.com/201...

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    60. Re:No good guys. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      He denied access, but I posit that this isn't anywhere near as bad as intercepting and listening in on peoples' private communications.

      "Officer, I don't think you can give me a ticket for going 80 MPH in a 30 MPH zone because you had to drive 80 MPH to catch me so you are guilty too! And my neighbor Bill parks illegally all the time, so because someone else committed a crime you can't charge me, so there!"

      I think it is a positive attribute of the criminal justice system that people who commit a crime don't get let off the hook just because someone else committed a different crime.

    61. Re:No good guys. by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      This was the guy's second offense jamming cell phones so I have no sympathy for him.

      Penalties for operating illegal jammers should be high because of the impact to public safety and productivity, and because catching people operating jammers can be difficult so there needs to be a significant legal deterrent. It sounds like they took it easy on him for his first offense, but he didn't learn his lesson.

      Unfortunately for him it sounds like he was being pretty obvious about it, so people took his picture with the jammer and reported it to the police who set up a sting operation (at the taxpayer's expense I might add) to arrest him and stop him.

    62. Re:No good guys. by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      The solution then it to turn on the speakerphone.

    63. Re:No good guys. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What law would have had a useful effect? The guy got busted earlier, and got a misdemeanor rap. It didn't work. Now, since he's a repeat offender, he gets hit with a felony. That's how the system works.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    64. Re:No good guys. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There are a number of related reasons. Cell phones are half duplex, thus you have to keep talking loud so that background noise on the other side doesn't cause your voice to break up. Cell phones don't have a good ear seal. The microphone of a cell phone isn't near your mouth, so the signal/noise ratio is inferior to an old-style phone and you have to talk louder to overcome the background noise on your side..

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    65. Re:No good guys. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Somebody who is apparently talking to nobody is a warning sign that the talker is mentally unhinged and possibly dangerous. Combine that with being in a place where you can't escape, like a railroad car, and fear is a natural response.

      Another example of a loud talker to empty space is an angry drunk. Again, fear is a reasonable response.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    66. Re:No good guys. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Many cities own electric power companies. Users pay by consumption, not by house or by individual as a tax might be. It's still a public utility, partly by convention and partly because it's widely available and almost a necessity.

      From wikipedia: A public utility (usually just utility) is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service (often also providing a service using that infrastructure). Public utilities are subject to forms of public control and regulation ranging from local community-based groups to statewide government monopolies.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    67. Re:No good guys. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      My electricity is a service which I pay a private company for. Its a utility.

    68. Re:No good guys. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Anything installed on the train to allow operators to detect faults and track its location almost certainly works through a cellular data link.

    69. Re:No good guys. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't. Noise cancellation phones do not work well in the voice band, and since the train is a noise environment, people tend to TALK VERY LOUDLY.

      Oh, and could you tell us your address? I have a couple of ampules of mercaptane that I want to dispose of, it's a bit stinky but you can always wear noseplugs.

    70. Re:No good guys. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Genius!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    71. Re:No good guys. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with "someone else" committing a crime, it has to do with the cops and government themselves committing crimes. And no, the cop driving 80mph to catch you is not in any way, shape, or form comparable to Stingray, and you're an idiot if you think it is.

    72. Re:No good guys. by citylivin · · Score: 1

      People of any age can be a cel phone zombie. I see many grey haired people with celphones on the train every night. Its a disease.

      Its exactly like that star trek episode where everyone is brainwashed into playing the same game and only wesley survives to stop the take over of the enterprise.

      Its crazy that no one can simply sit and stare out the window anymore. Or god forbid have a quiet moment to think by yourself. Narcissistic zombies rule the world, with their thumbs constantly a twiddling, their eyes downcast and their postures deformed, they have tuned out of real life.

      My friend went to a chiropractor and he was told he has "cel phone spine" now and was advised to hold the phone up and infront of him. He doesnt do this.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    73. Re:No good guys. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      First, the government is not "just another actor", and your tit-for-tat ideas are this nonsense, as are the claims of hypocrisy. They're allowed.

      The Fourth Amendment disagrees with you.

    74. Re:No good guys. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Public utilities are subject to forms of public control and regulation

      This is why I object to calling cellular services "utilities". If there were any real regulation, we wouldn't have the ridiculous prices we have now, compared to what the Europeans enjoy.

    75. Re:No good guys. by plover · · Score: 2

      See http://www.news-medical.net/ne... for the news blurb of a pacemaker under research in India a while ago, and http://www.inderscience.com/of... for the abstract of the paper.

      For more current news, see the Telepatch: https://www.medicompinc.com/in...

      --
      John
    76. Re:No good guys. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the public isn't getting that much out of it. The cellular companies get to use the spectrum, and then charge us ridiculous prices for their services. Over in Europe, prices are far lower and service quality is far, far better, even in rural northern Finland.

      There's supposed to be an equitable exchange: the corporations get to use the spectrum, and in return we have strong regulation giving us good prices on service for using that spectrum. And given that there's multiple cellular companies, it should be even better, but it's not: our prices and service our miserable compared to other nations.

    77. Re:No good guys. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Bay Area Rapid Transit had no problem shutting down cell phone service to interfere with just a planned protest and nobody was sanctioned. The FCC tacitly approved of this.

      https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

    78. Re:No good guys. by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      ...people having loud animated conversations on their cell phones in crowded public spaces are rude.

      I think trains and planes are about the only crowded public spaces where people don't regularly have loud, animated conversations. Ever been to a restaurant?

    79. Re:No good guys. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      it was a day or two before he could contact family to tell them he was safe.

      It took him 24 to 48 hours to find somewhere with a landline? Even his hotel didn't have one? In central Boston?

      It may be true that your friend didn't call his family, but lack of working communications equipment wasn't the reason.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    80. Re:No good guys. by tibit · · Score: 1

      So, not only you're making shit up, you're openly admitting to it and pretending that we won't read your references :) None of what you linked to is a pacemaker that can call 9-1-1, if I wasn't clear enough up to that point. It's not even close. A Holter isn't a pacemaker. Bluetooth isn't a cellular interface. A local hospital isn't 9-1-1. I can't even understand the level of confusion necessary to mix all of these up.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    81. Re:No good guys. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't. Noise cancellation phones do not work well in the voice band, and since the train is a noise environment, people tend to TALK VERY LOUDLY.

      Really? Because I have a pair of bluetooth headphones that, while not noise cancelling, tend to block out voices rather well when I'm playing music. I had to stop using them because I couldn't hear when people in my office were calling my name.

      Oh, and could you tell us your address? I have a couple of ampules of mercaptane that I want to dispose of, it's a bit stinky but you can always wear noseplugs.

      If the question here was people coming to your home and talking loudly on their phones, you might have a point. I wouldn't want anyone dumping smelly chemicals in my house any more than I'd want a crowd of people to invade my house and yell on their cellphones. However, when you're out and about you need to realize that the public situation is different than your own house. You don't get to make the rules for others to follow in a public setting. Society, as a whole, decides what is allowed and what isn't allowed. You can argue that X should be allowed and Y shouldn't be, but if society as a whole decides otherwise, there are really no grounds to find fault in people not observing your rules in public.

      For example: It has been decided in many areas that breastfeeding in public is allowed. So women who are feeding their babies might feel free to expose themselves in the process of feeding their infant. Now, some people might not like that sight and might decide that it's evil for a woman to expose her breast in public for any reason. If they think this, they are welcome to argue against this practice (just as proponents are welcome to argue for it), but they can't yell at a breastfeeding mother, rip the infant away from her, and physically force her to cover up. That would (depending on the actions) could constitute assault.

      Bringing it back to the article's subject: The guy on the subway has the right to argue to his state legislators that cell phone use on the subway should be illegal. He can write blog posts, letters to the editor, and even hand out flyers on the street corner trying to drum up support for a ban on subway cell phone use. What he can't do, however, is physically prevent people from using their cell phones just because HE has declared that they will be off-limits. He doesn't have the authority to make that sort of declaration. In fact, the law explicitly says that this type of action is illegal - something he knows because he's been convicted of doing this before.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    82. Re:No good guys. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with "someone else" committing a crime,

      Oh, for Pete's sake. Of course it does. Here, I'll quote YOU again:

      He denied access, but I posit that this isn't anywhere near as bad as intercepting and listening in on peoples' private communications. Since the government happily does this all the time with devices like Stingray,

      They shouldn't charge the jammer with a crime because people in the government are committing other crimes.

      it has to do with the cops and government themselves committing crimes.

      Those are the other people you just claimed you weren't using as the reason why the jammer cannot be charged.

    83. Re:No good guys. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I don't see the distinction. The government is charging him with a crime, but the government itself is committing crimes, and not just any other crimes, but crimes involving interfering with cellular signals, just like him. It's clear hypocrisy. And no, it isn't OK just because the exact same people in government aren't involved: the government is a singular entity AFAIC. When the government goes to court, it's a singular entity there, whether it's prosecuting or defending; individual employees are not named.

  4. Beer? by JanneM · · Score: 1

    Didn't realize drinking beer in US subways is according to the rules. Wouldn't want a self-styled vigilante grab your beer and pour it all over you or something, now would we?

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:Beer? by JanneM · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Section 1050.7
      Disorderly conduct.
      No person on or in any facility or conveyance shall: ...
      (g) drink any alcoholic beverage or possess any opened or unsealed container of alcoholic beverage, except on premises duly licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages, such as bars and restaurants;"

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:Beer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... they sell beer in Penn Station.

      Is that in the Amtrak/restaurant/shops area, or in the actual subway area? There's a security gate between them, if they sell beer in one area doesn't mean they allow it in the other.

    3. Re:Beer? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      You can drink beer in the MTA but you may not. Meaning that you CAN but it is illegal.

      You can however buy and consume alcoholic beverages on the LIRR and Metro North.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    4. Re:Beer? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      I am assuming the MTA is also an acronym for the chicago or some other subway system. It's also the acronym for the NYC though CT commuter rail that definitely allows drinking, has trains with bar cars and licenced vendors selling booze on the platforms. To the point where I swear the stock brokers buy houses within easy walking distance so they can get lit on the way home.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    5. Re:Beer? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      No. My bad. I was referring to NYC.

      It's illegal to drink in the NYC subway system (although the police will usually give you a break if you are quiet and drinking from a paper bag).

      It is legal to drink on the LIRR and Metro-North.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    6. Re:Beer? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Being quiet and well mannered drinking with at least a little discretion tends to be allowed even where not legal. Simply too far down on the priority list to bother with. On the other hand have seen some bar cars that remind me of happy our at a pickup bar.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  5. Hero by butzwonker · · Score: 1, Troll

    He's a hero. Please jam cell phones everywhere.

    1. Re:Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And cut all the internet fibre while you're at it. I'm tired of my kids finding pornography on the internet and having their face buried in a tablet watching netflix. We did fine pre-internet, we can go back.

      What, just because I'm a shitty parent doesn't mean I should tell you what to do? Let that sink in, please.

    2. Re:Hero by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2

      They hit the passenger assistance alarm?

    3. Re:Hero by suso · · Score: 1

      And also start prosecuting texting while driving, because this is actually causing 9 deaths a day on average in 2014, some places say its as much as 16 a day and causes 1.6 million accidents a year.

    4. Re:Hero by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      He's a hero. Please jam cell phones everywhere.

      How about he follows you around with it?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re:Hero by _UnderTow_ · · Score: 1

      You sound old.

    6. Re:Hero by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If he caused such a problem, charge him.

      If the threat of potential injury is a serious crime, start seriously prosecuting tailgating.

      You might not even know if you caused a problem. Regardless, tailgating is a crime, Jamming any RF signal is a crime. Deal with it.

      There are Amateur radio operators who have been fined for jamming other communications. The metric isn't remotely based on actual damage done, it's a crime all by itself. Don't like the punishment? Elect people who will make jamming legal. Probably some anarchist party or something will suit you.

      The ease with which cell phone jammers can be caught illustrates their base stupidity, as any signal that overwhelms local cell phones is also making it to the cell towers, so you are nicely tracked and logged.

      In my estimate, such base stupidity shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. But then, I can't force everyone to act as I want them to act, and neither can jamming proponents.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Hero by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Which may use radio which may be jammed by the jammer.

    8. Re:Hero by suso · · Score: 1

      Its not prosecuted in every state yet and the enforcement is not nearly strong enough. I think it should be criminal just like DUI, not just a traffic violation.

    9. Re:Hero by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      People defended themselves before guns, why should anyone care if you take their guns away?

    10. Re:Hero by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      > The ease with which cell phone jammers can be caught illustrates their base stupidity, as any signal that overwhelms local cell phones is also making it to the cell towers, so you are nicely tracked and logged.

      You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

      I'm a bit surprised that you don't kow how cell phones work.

      Here's a decent primer by the EFF

      https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/...

      If you are using something on thoes frequencies, you are located and if you are traveling while jamming, they can form a likely path, then give hte path individual attention.

      And while the jammer isn't broadcasting any actual data or voice, he's hitting the cell phone towers. The rest I'll leave up to you, AC

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  6. "More tolerable," bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Buy some ear plugs, asshole. And get over yourself.

    1. Re:"More tolerable," bullshit. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      No. Don't talk on the phone while the subway. A$$hole. Don't listen to music without headphones.

      Get over yourself.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:"More tolerable," bullshit. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      No. Don't talk on the phone while the subway. A$$hole. Don't listen to music without headphones. I see a future for you of yelling at those fucking teenagers who come near your lawn.

      Sucks to not be able to control everyone around you in everything they do doesn't it? Do you yell at your television a lot? Life is much better when you don't decide to allow other people to have such control of your mood. And if you are such a sensitive little snowflake that you can't control your emotions, don't be around other people.

      Because you really can't control other people. Not when they are just doing what people do, and breaking no laws. So take a deep breath, relax, and go forth in the world. It's actually a beautiful place, and shouldn't be viewed through enraged eyes.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:"More tolerable," bullshit. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The issue is consideration and respect for others in a public space. It's not a matter of control - it's a matter of sharing space with others, realizing that, and acting on that knowledge.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    4. Re:"More tolerable," bullshit. by kqs · · Score: 1

      Buy yourself some noise-cancelling headphones, stop whining about people who annoy you, and please get over yourself.

      (I agree that folks in public should use headphones for their music, though.)

    5. Re:"More tolerable," bullshit. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Or I could take my headphones off and blast my music as well. Sh!t why don't we all do that.

      hmmm...

      Maybe because life would be better if we showed respect to our neighbors instead of being d!cks.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  7. RF leakage by emj · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well he is probably blocking calls not just in the subway but allround, at least in the NYC there are not that many basestations in the subways. There is data about this on RF spotting site: http://subspotting.nyc/

    1. Re:RF leakage by magarity · · Score: 1

      And speaking of RF leakage, what he's probably also doing is giving himself a much higher risk of cancer. The illegal jammer made in China is hardly a well regulated device made with user safety in mind. And there he sat with it in his pocket.

    2. Re:RF leakage by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Are you one of those fools who believes that radio waves can give you cancer? Then obviously you don't have a mobile phone, do you?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  8. In Japan by Pikoro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People just don't talk on their phones in the trains excepting the actual emergency call. It's considered rude and people respect that. Too bad people in the USA can't think of others before their own selfish needs. This would be a non-issue if people were actually polite. Hell, people who kill themselves in Japan actually have the courtesy to take their shoes off before jumping in front of a train so others will know it's intentional and not an accident. Thinking of others until the end.

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    1. Re:In Japan by Flavianoep · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hell, people who kill themselves in Japan actually have the courtesy to take their shoes off before jumping in front of a train so others will know it's intentional and not an accident. Thinking of others until the end.

      People in the US are more likely to have the courtesy of not suiciding at all.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    2. Re:In Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Oh, he intentionally turned himself into paste on my train windshield? Well that's different. Now I'm not traumatized!"

    3. Re:In Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Population density of Japan: 336 people per sq km.
      Population density of the USA: 33 people per sq km.

      Quite literally, in Japan you can't easily get away from other people and must put up with them, and thus they must put up with you. Therefore, understandably, the rules require a different method of interaction.

      In the US it is fair to say "If you don't like listening to someone on their cell phone, why don't you just walk away?" Even the subway ride will end soon and you'll quickly be far away from everyone. For the autistic who can't handle a few minutes of sound, they do make ear muffs. Give them a go!

    4. Re:In Japan by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      Population density of Japan: 336 people per sq km. Population density of the USA: 33 people per sq km.

      Quite literally, in Japan you can't easily get away from other people and must put up with them, and thus they must put up with you.

      Misleading. That takes into account total country area of which USA has a shit ton more and a lot of it is empty. Look at the cities. Tokyo has a pop density of 6,200/km2 and New York has 10,756.0/km2. Chicago has 4,447.4/km2. All numbers from wiki.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re:In Japan by dfn5 · · Score: 1

      This would be a non-issue if people were actually polite.

      "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God given right"
      - Mayor Lenny

      --
      -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    6. Re:In Japan by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Those population density numbers are basically BS and not useful for comparison. Much of the US is uninhabited space, especially if you count Alaska. How much does that number change if you leave out Alaska? How much does it change if you restrict it to states east of the Mississippi? This happened in Chicago, one of the largest cities in the US; a fair comparison would show the top 5 cities in the US and their density and the top 5 in Japan. Japan's still probably denser, but not 10 times as much.

    7. Re:In Japan by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I know it's a quote, but having grown up there although people are in a rush they are quick to help out if you ask for it. It's the people from the outer boroughs (think jersey shore show) you want to avoid.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    8. Re:In Japan by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Hell, people who kill themselves in Japan actually have the courtesy to take their shoes off before jumping in front of a train so others will know it's intentional and not an accident. Thinking of others until the end.

      Do people in Japan suddenly feel better if they know they person they killed by running over them did it on purpose?

      Worst

      "Murrica is inferior because"

      Comparison

      Ever!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:In Japan by Aerokii · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's also rude to block the network access of everyone in the subway car just because a few people are talking. Phones are used for so much more than talking to people these days. Actually I shouldn't say rude- it's illegal.

    10. Re:In Japan by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      Misleading.

      It's complicated.

      That takes into account total country area of which USA has a shit ton more and a lot of it is empty.

      Large swaths of Japan are mountains that have not been developed, and most of Japan (by land area) has a population density under 100/km2. Hokkaido is to Japan as Alaska is to the USA. Japan isn't one massive Tokyo.

      Look at the cities. Tokyo has a pop density of 6,200/km2 and New York has 10,756.0/km2. Chicago has 4,447.4/km2. All numbers from wiki.

      Tokyo is a metropolitan prefecture and consists of 23 smaller municipalities or special wards, as New York City is a collection of 5 boroughs, though London is more analogous. Anyway, much like NYC contains both Manhattan and Staten Island, Tokyo also has Toshima and Chiyoda (though Chiyoda's low population density is because it's is more like the National Mall in DC than anything else). Either way, here's some more numbers to both fill out the point you were making as well as demonstrate the internal heterogeneity of modern metropolises.

      Special wards of Tokyo:
      Population density of Toshima: 22,625/km2 (most dense)
      Population density of Shinjuku: 18,517/km2 (subjectively typical?)
      Population density of Chiyoda: 4,585/km2 (least dense)

      Boroughs of New York City:
      Population density of Manhattan: 25,846/km2 (assumed most dense)
      Population density of Brooklyn: 14,182/km2 (subjectively typical?)
      Population density of Staten Island: 3,151.8/km2 (assumed least dense)

      But if anyone thinks that it's hard to get away from people in Japan, that's just not true. Hop on the train to Nikko to check out the Tokugawa shogunate's shrines, enjoy the Kegon falls, and hang out with some snow monkeys to see how quiet Japan can be. Even Kyoto is filled with plenty of open space, with people seemingly farming along the river right in the heart of the "city". The Greater Tokyo Area, while containing 30% of Japan's population, is not emblematic of Japan.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    11. Re:In Japan by pla · · Score: 1

      Do people in Japan suddenly feel better if they know they person they killed by running over them did it on purpose?

      As an American, I sure as hell would!

      Killing someone in the US, whether accidentally or not, comes with the potential for biiig civil liabilities. If they meant to die, that nicely nips any frivolous wrongful death suits in the bud.

    12. Re:In Japan by magarity · · Score: 1

      Japan isn't one massive Tokyo

      How do you figure that? It sure is in every anime I've ever seen.

    13. Re:In Japan by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      Can't figure out why you can't just go to the doctor to have your life ended in a humane and clean way with a kiss and a hug.

    14. Re:In Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More people die in the US of suicide than of car accidents. 38,364 people in 2010.

    15. Re:In Japan by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      Come back to me when you find Americans expressing pride for their suicide etiquette, or complaining about the lack thereof.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    16. Re:In Japan by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Do people in Japan suddenly feel better if they know they person they killed by running over them did it on purpose? Killing someone in the US, whether accidentally or not, comes with the potential for biiig civil liabilities. If they meant to die, that nicely nips any frivolous wrongful death suits in the bud.

      There is a difference between legal iability and psychological damage.

      So if you killed someone, and it turned out to be a suicide, you'd be happy? I'd assume not. People who accidentally kill someone often need counseling afterward. Nightmares where they re-live the killing incident, flashbacks, PTSD, and stuff like that.

      http://www.experienceproject.c...

      Even people who kill someone justifiably in self defense can have problems afterward. http://www.mlive.com/news/inde...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re:In Japan by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's the case in Japan too. In case you didn't know, Japan has very rural areas too. Very few people live there because there's no jobs there, just like here.

    18. Re:In Japan by lilrobbie · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think you've misconstrued the OP's point.

      The point wasn't "America sucks because it has no suicide etiquette"... the point was Japanese take politeness SO SERIOUSLY they remember to employ this even in committing suicide. I.e., a Japanese person in the middle of taking their life is more polite than most Americans.

  9. Comment Subjects as Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where is this Chicago 'subway'? Must have good sandwiches, cause it certainly isn't for traveling.

  10. dipshit by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....for taking it out to flip a stupid switch.
    Smart would have been to be on a call himself, and meanwhile in his pocket flip the switch, then act all annoyed and pissed like everyone else.

    BTW where could I buy one?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:dipshit by eric2hill · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
      LOADING...
      READY.
      RUN
    2. Re:dipshit by Kinthelt · · Score: 1

      Dang, another 5-digit beat me to it.

      --

      "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

    3. Re:dipshit by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if my post encourages someone ELSE to do it:
      - someone else does it, and jams phones (my benefit)
      - they get caught because it's in THEIR pocket (still my benefit)

      I don't see the problem.

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:dipshit by rsborg · · Score: 1

      ....for taking it out to flip a stupid switch.
      Smart would have been to be on a call himself, and meanwhile in his pocket flip the switch, then act all annoyed and pissed like everyone else.

      BTW where could I buy one?

      Alternatively to just have it intermittently (1/m) jam the signal for a few seconds. It would let the quiet people playing games to get their fix (as connections heal quickly), but the annoying talkers would get their calls cut. After a few drops, they would just postpone their conversations. Emergency calls would likely be unaffected.

      This could have gone on for months or years and people would have just blamed their already shitty mobile providers.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    5. Re:dipshit by mjwx · · Score: 2

      BTW where could I buy one?

      In just about any electronics bazaar in SE Asia.

      I got an 1800/2100 MHz jammer in a store near MBK in Bangkok. Illegal to even posses in Oz, but I wasn't an idiot with it so I never had to worry.

      The thing about jammers is that they actually take a minute or two to start working.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:dipshit by dcxdan · · Score: 1

      I think he had a beer in his other hand..... so he himself could not use a cell phone :-)

    7. Re:dipshit by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      How low... can we go!

  11. He either wants attention or does this often. by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    Since he had already been arrested before, he was well aware of the consequences of getting caught. So why take out the device. Keep it hidden somewhere while using it. (Although now that he has a record, he would be a suspect) The probably of their just happening to be undercover police on that train and them knowing what is going on is pretty low. He must have done this enough to arouse a level of suspicion where undercover police were put on the train. This is more like, habitual offender continues to commit crime in the most public way possible until police feel compelled to arrest him. File this in news of the stupid. Why are people using their phones on the commute? To make it more tolerable. I'd certainly find talking to somebody I already know and like preferable to hanging out with this guy!

    1. Re:He either wants attention or does this often. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I've also caught employees taking calls from recruiters on their morning commute, to avoid using the phone in their offices where they may be overheard by colleagues. I've only had to take someone like that aside for a personal chat once, when I was involved in consulting work with their employer and they were flat-out lying to the recruiter. But there's a real risk of being overheard when you do this.

    2. Re:He either wants attention or does this often. by qvatch · · Score: 1

      it's a decently powerful emitter. You can hunt those down with directional receivers, which are just as small and concealable.

    3. Re:He either wants attention or does this often. by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but my point is that, under normal circumstances, there isn't an undercover police officer walking around with a directional receiver looking for somebody jamming cell phone signals. AFAIK they don't issue these to every cop. In order to get caught he had to be either extremely unlucky or a habitual offender. My guess is the latter. Probably somebody in network operation for the phone company noticed something strange on a regular basis and this lead to an investigation.

    4. Re:He either wants attention or does this often. by swb · · Score: 2

      I don't know how long these devices need to be on to be effective as disrupting cell phones, but the descriptions of their use implies that you flip the switch and it pretty much instantly disrupts calls.

      I would think the "safer" method of using a jammer would not be to turn the thing on and leave it on (thus leaving you exposed to detection), but to have some kind of pulse mode where it comes on for the minimum amount of time necessary to disrupt calls. Of course, people will think it's just a normal dropped call, so have a time that causes it to pulse on again for 5 seconds 30-60 seconds later to kill off calls that people re-establish.

      Ideally you would determine the ideal pulse frequency and repetition to just convince people that the phone network isn't working and have them give up. My thought is that after about 5 iterations of this, a lot of people would simply give up and assume there was some network disruption. There's probably some optimal repeat pattern necessary to keep the most persistent from retrying, like a one-off pulse every 10-15 minutes or some kind of 30 minute period where there's an exponential backoff on repeated pulses.

      The "positive" benefit would be that it would be a lot kinder to people just using data, since the interruptions would be pretty brief for them. I would also think it would be a lot harder to track, especially if it allowed the device to remain completely off for long periods of time. And I think it would be a lot harder to reach the conclusion that a jammer was even being used because there would a lot less obvious evidence of a long pattern of loss of signal. And the battery would last longer.

    5. Re:He either wants attention or does this often. by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Since writing the original message, I actually RTFA. I know shocking. He clearly wasn't trying to avoid getting caught. He did this regularly. On multiple occasions people had seen him with the device even circulating his picture. It's been pointed out in another post that you could find this with directional equipment. If the police are actively looking for you, a five second burst every thirty seconds would be enough. This might work in combination with other mechanisms of being covert. It would also work if you were smart enough to realize that the game is up and stop doing it once they are passing your picture around!

    6. Re:He either wants attention or does this often. by swb · · Score: 1

      In my mind, the guy got caught because he was a dick about it, not because of the stealthy efforts of directional locating agents.

      My theory on pulsing the jammer wasn't that you'd constantly be pulsing it, but that you'd be able turn it on and pulse it a few times over a 10 or 15 minute period and give the appearance that cell service was unreliable enough that trying to keep re-establishing calls was a waste of effort.

      I'm sure you could still be tracked if there was an active directional location system up, but I think it would be more challenging with short pulses and with most of the time spent in the off position, especially since you're on a moving train. I would guess that really homing in on you would require them to be pretty close to you during a pattern of on pulses, too.

      The other thing that would be beneficial would be some way to tune the power output as low as possible to achieve the effect you want but without so much output power that you can be triangulated from any distance.

      I would think that stealthy use like this would make it more difficult to tracking even with directional equipment and would certainly make it very hard for someone to establish a coherent pattern of jamming.

  12. Why should people feel at liberty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    to bombard this fellow with their radiations?

    1. Re:Why should people feel at liberty... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Because he's doing it to them when he turns on his jammer.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  13. Re:Terrorist Disables Mobile Phones On Chicago Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How did all these people do their jobs before mobile phones were invented?
    Are doctors and firefighters expected to react to mobile phone calls and respond immediately, abandoning whatever they're doing at the moment like Superman? Do they have to change in phone booths too?

  14. Headphones by b0bby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A pair of Quiet Comfort noise cancelling headphones would have been a better idea, especially since he had been caught with a jammer before.
    Must not have been paying attention in kindergarten when they discussed making good choices.

    1. Re:Headphones by Solandri · · Score: 1

      It isn't about personal comfort or enjoyment. It's about inflicting your desires onto others, giving you a sense of power over them. It's the same reason idiots tweak/remove the exhaust system of their car so it can be heard for miles. I suggested just rigging up a computer to the tachometer and having it generate the same sound through the car's speaker system. They get the loud noise they desire, everyone else gets peace and quiet. They laughed at me.
      ,br> It's why the guy openly showed the jammer to everyone in the train car. If people didn't know that he was the cause, that he was the one with the power and in control, the whole thing would've been meaningless to him and thus not worth doing.

      Scary thing is, I see the same thing happening more and more in politics. The polarization of the country has emboldened both the far left and far right to try to impose their hardcore beliefs onto everyone.

  15. Re:Great! Now the police can go after stingrays! by plover · · Score: 1

    I think one of the reasons Harris Stingrays and other IMSI catchers have been sold under very restrictive non-disclosure agreements is that they have always been in clear violation of the FCC's rules, and every user is guilty of frequency jamming, regardless of the warrants. If even one case goes before the FCC, the whole IMSI catching business could be shut down if the judge is sufficiently pissed off.

    --
    John
  16. In a related story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Chicago subway passengers engross selves in phones to avoid making eye contact with weirdo drinking a beer on the subway.

  17. Re:Terrorist Disables Mobile Phones On Chicago Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And the doctors used to use rocks that they sharpened to perform surgery thousands of years ago. Since that's how they did it before, that's how you want them to do it now, on you, right? Sorry to drag your ass into the present, but the world has up and changed in the past 30 years. Here's the memo.

  18. How can anyone talk on the El? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 4, Informative

    The El in Chicago is LOUD. The Red Line and Blue Line especially, at least the parts underground. Maybe the Red gets quieter up North—I know the stop where he got on.

    Outside the train, an over-passing El will stop conversation for a good 20 seconds or more. The Loop is quite loud, but the loudest stop is the Brown Line at Diversey. It's overhead, most of the support is painted steel, and there are brick buildings directly adjacent to the track on all four sides. It's a deafening echo-chamber.

    The cell phone situation in London is much better, at least on the tube. Compared to Chicago's, that thing is VERY LOUD. The Regional trains, well, it's a mixed bag. But they do have a "Quiet Car" on many of the lines (no cell phones allowed).

    1. Re:How can anyone talk on the El? by samwichse · · Score: 1

      By shouting into your cellphone, obviously.

    2. Re:How can anyone talk on the El? by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      I used to just turn down my hearing aid, but not all the way off. Worked well enough. It's been a few years since I worked downtown, though. I kinda miss that guy announcing, "The doors open on the right at Wabash," or whichever street.

  19. Re:Terrorist Disables Mobile Phones On Chicago Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How did all these people do their jobs before mobile phones were invented?
    Are doctors and firefighters expected to react to mobile phone calls and respond immediately, abandoning whatever they're doing at the moment like Superman? Do they have to change in phone booths too?

    Try job hunting while still in college without a cell phone so you can do interview calls in whatever random free time you have. You can't. You sound like the type of person who hasn't actually had to really hunt for a job in decades and don't know jack and shit all about the current market.

    On the topic of doctors and phone, a bunch of doctors...yes. Did you forget pagers have exists for a long time? What do you think "on call" means? IT people have cell phones so they can be reached immediately in case of an emergency too. Welcome to how the world works. You fell behind a long time ago apparently so stop pretending this is recent just because you are ignorant .

  20. Try again. by wkwilley2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...and his equipment was confiscated and destroyed.

    Highly unlikely.

    More likely, confiscated and given away during the monthly employee empound raffle.

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
    1. Re:Try again. by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      ...and his equipment was confiscated and destroyed.

      Highly unlikely.

      More likely, confiscated and given away during the monthly employee empound raffle.

      Wrong, it is highly likely that it was destroyed or at least kept locked up. It's an illegal device, one that (probably) only has illegal use, and can't be used discreetly. They'd be likelier to share some weed from a drug bust.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  21. Re:Not very smart by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I mean, if it was me I would leave it concealed and only use it if people were being really bad. But only long enough to disrupt the call. Then repeat if they dial back.

    People are used to dropped calls on their mobile phones so just repeat like 3 times and they will give up and try their call when they are off the subway.

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  22. Re:Great! Now the police can go after stingrays! by The-Ixian · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Don't you know that police don't have to obey the law? I thought everyone knew this. Why else does one become a cop?

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  23. Am I the only one... by Jawnn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...who thinks that this guy was doing a service to all riders who also consider inconsiderate cell phone talkers to be boorish? When I'm forced into close proximity (train, restaurant, etc.), I should not be forced to listen to your over-loud end of a phone conversation just because your mother never taught you anything about proper decorum in such situations.

    1. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. The self-entitled whine of someone who thinks their whims have to be obeyed by other people.
      If you want quiet, go somewhere quiet. If you can't do that, bring quiet with you (e.g.: a noise-cancelling headset, or even ear plugs).

      Despite your 'me-me-me-I'm-the-only-person-who-matters' attitude, other people have the right to communicate with other people. Talking in public has happened for *thousands* of years.

      Get over yourself.

    2. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, we all agree he was doing those people a service. But I'm not sure you realize that he was doing a disservice to anyone who wants the ability to place an emergency call or silently use the web browser.

    3. Re:Am I the only one... by davydagger · · Score: 1

      yeah, I think you are.

      I fear the day when someone can litterally force their ideas of what they think "considerate" should be at the cost of public safety.

      Personally, I think this man needs an ass-whoppin.

    4. Re:Am I the only one... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      ...who thinks that this guy was doing a service to all riders who also consider inconsiderate cell phone talkers to be boorish?

      Yes you're the only one. Now buy yourself a set of noise cancelling headphones and stop dictating what other people have a right to do in public spaces.

    5. Re:Am I the only one... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      People who don't have noise cancelling headphones and only read the ads for them think that they remove voices. I've yet to meet one that does, having owned three Bose ones over the years, a Phillips one, and one from Sharper Image. They remove the sound of the aircraft engines somewhat, but in general it's easier to hear a voice on a plane with them on than off.

    6. Re:Am I the only one... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They soften voices, in my experience. I find them spooky, since they seem to cut out noise I expect (internally produced?), so I play music on the things. That keeps pretty much everything from distracting me.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:Am I the only one... by kqs · · Score: 1

      When faced with an annoyance, you can either change your behavior (buy some cheap noise-cancelling headphones), or try to force everyone else to change their behaviors (jam their signals, including those who are just browsing the web or texting quietly). One of these makes you a reasonable person, the other makes you an arrogant dick, far ruder than the people talking on their phones. The solution to rudeness is not more rudeness.

    8. Re:Am I the only one... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      People who don't have noise cancelling headphones and only read the ads for them think that they remove voices. I've yet to meet one that does, having owned three Bose ones over the years, a Phillips one, and one from Sharper Image. They remove the sound of the aircraft engines somewhat, but in general it's easier to hear a voice on a plane with them on than off.

      I have a set of quiet comforts. On an airplane it does make it easier to hear voices as the dominant sound on an aircraft is a low frequency roar of a jet engine, one of the easier ones to filter out. Claiming that it doesn't block voice simply because it does a better job at blocking low frequencies is disingenuous. They most absolutely do block voice, with actual head model tests the voice frequencies get reduced by 25-30dB. Now have you ever heard someone whispering from the other end of a church? Your ability for your ears to adjust to a new noise floor doesn't mean speech is lower.

      But here's an easy way to get around your problems. Record the sound of a train. Put on your headset and play back that sound, then turn noise cancelling on. Speech will be totally inaudible and you can have the nice comforting bangs clanks whining and screeching that you so desperately desire.

    9. Re:Am I the only one... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      When I'm forced into close proximity (train, restaurant, etc.), I should not be forced to listen to your over-loud end of a phone conversation

      I'm sure the guys who are stuck on the train with you, don't think they should be forced to behave as you want them to, either, so call it a draw. Your idea of proper decorum isn't the same as everyone else's, so you might enjoy the elimination of cell phones, but then the tyranny of the majority will continue to progress until it stops you from doing things which you think are proper, but similarly impacts other people.

      In a restaurant, it's entirely up to the proprietors to decide the rules. You can ask them to intervene, ask to be seated elsewhere, etc., or you can take your business elsewhere. If they want a rowdy atmosphere, it's idiotic to try and force your preference on them.

      You might notice libraries never have problems with people speaking loudly on their phones... Go there, if you demand a quiet environment.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  24. Re:Great adivce by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    Actually, you do have every right to talk on your cellphone. Being rude and being against the law are two different things. The reaction to the former shouldn't be to do the latter. If you don't like hearing people talking on their cellphones, invest in some noise cancelling headphones. What's next? You don't like the smell of people when shoved together into the tiny metal box of a subway car so you bring a super-soaker filled with perfume and spray them all down?

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  25. Re:Terrorist Disables Mobile Phones On Chicago Bus by bluegutang · · Score: 1

    Call me Mabey?

  26. Re:Terrorist Disables Mobile Phones On Chicago Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How did all these people do their jobs before mobile phones were invented?

    Differently. These days, access to cellular networks is assumed (though this is not always a valid assumption). This drives many other decisions and can make a loss of network access far more significant than it was 20 years ago. Human beings got along fine without electricity too, but today a power outage is considered a major problem. Times change.

  27. life in the city by snsh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unless you've ever lived in a big city and commuted regularly by train, you wouldn't be aware of how silent riders are in rush hour, especially morning rush hour when the trains and stations are most crowded. A single person making small talk on their phone annoys everyone.

    The mistake this guy made was running his jammer continuously. If you have jammer and want to target one person on a cell phone, you only have to momentarily switch on the jammer when the other end of the call is talking. When the rider is chatting, you leave the jammer off, when the other end is talking, you turn it on. Within 30 seconds, the caller will give up. Using this approach, your jammer is only on for a few seconds at a time.

    1. Re:life in the city by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      A single person making small talk on their phone annoys everyone.

      Then have the stones to politely ask that single annoying person to lower their voice. Or go sit in one of the designated "quiet cars." Or, as others have pointed out, whip out your noise isolating headphones. Being annoyed is absolutely zero justification for the kind of passive-aggressive, illegal, and dangerous tactics you're advocating.

    2. Re:life in the city by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      A single person making small talk on their phone annoys everyone.

      The 28th amendment, the right not to be annoyed?
      People are such precious snowflakes. It's almost like someone needs to create a product for these people

    3. Re:life in the city by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Then have the stones to politely ask that single annoying person to lower their voice.

      Fuck off you cunt, I'll talk as loudly as I like.

      That is the kind of response you'll get... and at that point with the kind of person who drinks on a train you'll end up with a shouting match of obscenities. Probably wont culminate in a fist fight as most people are actually cowards, but a lot of angry cunts will be exchanged.

      dangerous tactics

      Ignoring the fact that the GP's tactics wont actually work (mobile signal jamming isn't an instant on/off effect) what is actually dangerous about it?

      And dont bring up that they cant call 999/000/911 because if someone is in that kind of imminent danger that it a minute to dissipate a jamming feild will kill them, calling emergency services would have been pointless anyway. So there is nothing dangerous about it what so ever.

      Sounds like you're just another arrogant tosser who thinks it's their right, nay, their duty to bombard everyone with your banal, vapid phone conversations.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:life in the city by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      So there is nothing dangerous about it what so ever.

      You sound pretty confident in that position. Confident enough that you stand ready to assume the liability for any bad outcomes that come from people taking your advice? I'd best not hold my breath for that one.

      Sounds like you're just another arrogant tosser who thinks it's their right, nay, their duty to bombard everyone with your banal, vapid phone conversations.

      Ah, so if I'm not in favor of illegal jamming, that means I must be in favor of obnoxious cell phone conversations--particularly my own. Got it. Seriously, friend, it's never too late to take another shot at remedial reading comprehension.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

      Ironic.

    5. Re:life in the city by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The mistake this guy made was running his jammer continuously. If you have jammer and want to target one person on a cell phone, you only have to momentarily switch on the jammer when the other end of the call is talking.

      Anybody who is using their phone at the time, will be pretty easily able to spot the guy who keeps putting his hand in his pocket, every time the cell signal drops.

      I'd do you one better, and recommend just listening to an AM radio as you move around, to more easily track down the source of this, or any other kind of RF interference.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:life in the city by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Yup, that's the "have the stones" part. For the risk-averse, there are plenty of other legal options.

  28. Re:Terrorist Disables Mobile Phones On Chicago Bus by nojayuk · · Score: 2

    I work alongside someone who has permission to keep his mobile phone on his desk in an office which is otherwise meant to be a no-mobile zone. He's waiting for a transplant and if an organ match comes available he needs to know right away so he can get to the hospital and start getting prepped for the operation immediately. Someone using a jammer for their convenience could result in him dying before he can get treated.

  29. quiet cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    911 calls from cell phones on public transit are relatively rare. But many of us use the data links on our smart phones to check our schedules for connections for other buses or for trains. Many of us in high demand work also respond to text based alerts during lengthy commutes. We're not loud, we're not speaking on the cell phones, and it's much safer to do this on public transit than it is to drive home and have to pull off the road to handle an alert. So it sounds like he's interfering with people who are being responsible and safe, as well as those who are rude.

    In Ontario, Canada, the commuter rail system (GO) has designated "quiet cars" where speaking and electronic noises is not allowed:

    * http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/travelling/quietzone.aspx

    Perhaps something similar is needed in Chicago.

    1. Re:quiet cars by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      In Ontario, Canada, the commuter rail system (GO) has designated "quiet cars" where speaking and electronic noises is not allowed:

      * http://www.gotransit.com/publi...

      Perhaps something similar is needed in Chicago.

      Only during rush hour and only on the upper level. Also no enforcement. You can clearly hear the idiots on the lower levels making their calls home as they enter and leave every station to inform thier other half that they are still on time.

  30. Public Utility, my ass. by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    He was charged with unlawful interference with a public utility, a felony, which is insane.

    We already have a law for unlawful interference with radio communication, from back when the Titanic went down and unlicensed radio stations made it harder for them to get distress signals out. Let's use that.

  31. Just repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When a person talks loudly on his phone not too far from me, I just pretend to have a phone in my hand, and I repeat everything he says.

  32. Life in Mass Transit by btroy · · Score: 1

    I've used mass transit for years. He was either arrogant or ignorant. Simple solution is noise blocking earphones or headphones. I use them when people are annoying or simply I want quiet or to listen to music. It works amazingly well. I've even had people complain to me about various stuff over the years and have even been known to say. "Hey what do you expect for $x." In the end, he wanted to be seen and caught. Now the consequence.

  33. I'm sympathetic by XXongo · · Score: 2
    Turns out it's been shown that hearing half of a conversation is much more distracting and annoying than hearing people talking to each other.

    I am extremely sympathetic to this guy. I'd like to myself have the technology to shut down annoying people doing annoying things. Unfortunately, I am also sympathetic to the fact that this is illegal, and it's illegal for good reason, and he should go to jail. If he'd only done it once, he should just get a warning: but this isn't the first time, and he should go to jail

  34. same argument against jail jammers by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Bootleg cellphones are common in prisons - most inmates do not have cell phone privileges. Inmates run businesses of them, talked to friend etc. I've read of great lengths to get batteries charged. Yet FCC band blockers in prisons for safety reasons.

  35. Step #1 is to always have a plan,,,, by Slugster · · Score: 2

    The guy is a jerkwad and deserves to get reamed for this. If he would have kept it hid, he would have had his quiet-time and nobody (there) would have known who to blame.
    ,,,,,
    I am making a mental note of this incident tho: if I am somewhere similar and my phone (and everyone else's) appears to be dead, then Imma going to pull out my phone, pretend to call somebody and just keep on talking like normal.

  36. He would not be convicted by a jury of his peers by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Also, isn't most of the Chicago "subway" elevated, not underground? I suspect most subway systems don't have this problem because cell reception is nonexistent underground in the first place. If this system had been designed properly in the first place, this wouldn't have been a problem. I just got a new cell phone, and it doesn't get data service inside most stores... should i suspect people are jamming it, or that cellular data signals just don't work very well through metal walls... you know, like the kind all trains have?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  37. market opportunity? by pikalek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps this demonstrates consumer interest in offering signal free cars? Add a physical 'in case of emergency' phone for 911 calls if need be.

    1. Re:market opportunity? by hraftery · · Score: 1

      FWIW, in Australia the rail organisations have implemented "Quiet Carriages". Generally, in an 8 carriage train, the first, last and middle two carriages are quiet carriages. You are regularly reminded by announcements and signs that if you're in those carriages you're expected not to talk on phones, not play music audible to others, keep conversations to a minimum and generally stay quiet. Tends to work pretty well, and people do choose the carriage that suits their intentions. An effective, social solution to a social problem.

  38. Second time by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    Did you miss the point that he was charged and plead guilty to the exact same offence in 2009? The first time he got a slap on the wrist. It seems he didn't learn from it.

    This is not the first time Nicholl has been charged with jamming cell calls. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in June 2009, according to court records. He was placed under court supervision for a year, and his equipment was confiscated and destroyed.

  39. Someone keeps doing this in Seattle too by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Not that we have a subway, but I've noticed at certain bus rides the entire cell coverage on multiple channels drops entirely, when certain people get on the bus and comes back after they leave it.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  40. Headline should read: by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 2

    Chicagoan Arrested For Using Cell-phone Jammer To Make Subway Commute Tolerable For Himself at the Expense of Everyone Around Him

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  41. hide it by kylemonger · · Score: 1

    What I wonder is why the imbecile didn't just hide his fun box with its many antennas? You know, just keep it in a backpack. He'd been caught jamming once already, so if he was going to be an ass and keep doing it, he could at least be a smart ass. They could still figure out it was him using surveillance cameras and statistical analysis, but it might take more work than the local police would be willing to put in.

  42. Something should be done about endless loud talk by Max_W · · Score: 1

    Sociologists should study and solve the problem of endless loud talk over telephone on the bus, train, tram, etc. When someone starts it near me, I just have to move to another part of the wagon. It is so annoying.

  43. Re:Great adivce by aevan · · Score: 1

    Almost assuredly could be, especially if the other person has an allergic reaction to it.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/02/woman-charged-in-perfume-assault

  44. What a moron. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    No, I didn't equate them, and you'd have to an idiot with the reading comprehension of a wad of used bubble gum to believe so.

    1. Re:What a moron. by avandesande · · Score: 1

      The whole point was to compare actual risk vs perceived risk, so I am not sure why you brought up vaccines. Also no reason to get nasty :-)

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  45. how did he get caught ? by DerekPelt · · Score: 1

    maybe a dumb question but how did he get caught doing this ?