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.

30 of 518 comments (clear)

  1. 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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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.
    9. 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

    10. 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.
    11. 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.

  2. 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: 5, Funny

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

    2. 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

    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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...

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
  3. 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 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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).

  8. 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?
  9. 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.

  10. 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.