The one thing that people apparently have been missing is the fact that they quote that the bill bans cell phones from "places of public performance", then goes on to list movie theatres, art galleries, and libraries...libraries? Last time I checked, libraries weren't considered a place of "public performance", but more of a public/community service funded by taxpayers. Also, the problem with listing "public perfomances" is the fact you also have such items as parades, circuses, other various sorts of activities that can happen in parks, conventions, et cetera, all that have to apply for a "public performance" license. So even though the Big Apple NYC Anime Convention was held there, you cannot legally use your cell phone, because since it's in a convention center, it falled under the statutes of being a "public performance". What utter silliness.
Wondering about the specifics of the bill, I attempted to possibly find a draft of it on the New York City Council's webpage: http://www.council.nyc.ny.us/ To no avail, there was none. The only bill they had that related to cell phones was about the necessary use of installing two-way radios or cell phones on NYC school buses. That would be an interesting concept, as to if they limited cell phone usage restrictions just to the building, or the surrounding area. No schoolbuses can park here! They have cell phones!
You also have the entire point of the fact that apparently most people hate cell phones is because they "make noise". I noticed the news site mentioned nothing about limitations on pagers. Does cell phones automatically equal pagers? Or did the use an ambiguous name such as "electronic communication devices", which I have seen before. This would become utter silliness eventually.
And you also have the fact of the clause that allows "emergency phone calls" How can people exactly define what is an "emergency", according to government standards that will be used in the law? And how will the court determine whether it was an "emergency" phone call? They cannot legally get any possible "recording" that cell phone companies would do, since recording phone calls would be illegal in the first place without various wire-tapping legislation enforced. (Unless you're a suspected terrorist according to Attorney General John Ashcroft, and then you have no right to privacy). So it's entirely up to the police to set out to get a warrant to access the records of your cell phones to determine just who you called, and if they responded, and summon them up to the court to get their testimony. This seems a rather cumbersome, unwieldy process just to determine if you could actually use your cell phone legally in that situation or not, and therefore would probably not be enforced. Which also brings to mind the manner of enforcement. You are "possibly" breaking a law by performing a celluar phone call. You do not have to carry ID on you at all times, unless you are operating a motor vehicle of sorts, or other such things. So the officer has no definitive source of your ID other than your own word. And you also have the issue of how does he obtain your celluar phone number, without a search warrant obtained? Like the interior of automobiles, it is considered to be a part of you, and the officer could only do it if he considered "probable cause". So if you lock your phone, and hand it over to him, it is not necessary to give him the access code.
Mainly, my point here is, it's quite silly to try to do this.
One night I found a bunch of empty beer cans in the backyard...I decided to build a submarine...
Wasn't this exactly was Asimov was fortelling when he wrote the "Foundation" series in the first book (Well, the first 3-4 stories, since the book was just an anthology of them) about the First Foundation working diligently to create the Encyclopedia Galactica, to save the knowledge of man-kind when psychohistory had forteld the collaspe of civilization? Not making fun of the idea, just seeing how it takes root in several other ways.
Slashdot Mirror
The one thing that people apparently have been missing is the fact that they quote that the bill bans cell phones from "places of public performance", then goes on to list movie theatres, art galleries, and libraries...libraries? Last time I checked, libraries weren't considered a place of "public performance", but more of a public/community service funded by taxpayers. Also, the problem with listing "public perfomances" is the fact you also have such items as parades, circuses, other various sorts of activities that can happen in parks, conventions, et cetera, all that have to apply for a "public performance" license. So even though the Big Apple NYC Anime Convention was held there, you cannot legally use your cell phone, because since it's in a convention center, it falled under the statutes of being a "public performance". What utter silliness.
Wondering about the specifics of the bill, I attempted to possibly find a draft of it on the New York City Council's webpage: http://www.council.nyc.ny.us/ To no avail, there was none. The only bill they had that related to cell phones was about the necessary use of installing two-way radios or cell phones on NYC school buses. That would be an interesting concept, as to if they limited cell phone usage restrictions just to the building, or the surrounding area. No schoolbuses can park here! They have cell phones!
You also have the entire point of the fact that apparently most people hate cell phones is because they "make noise". I noticed the news site mentioned nothing about limitations on pagers. Does cell phones automatically equal pagers? Or did the use an ambiguous name such as "electronic communication devices", which I have seen before. This would become utter silliness eventually.
And you also have the fact of the clause that allows "emergency phone calls" How can people exactly define what is an "emergency", according to government standards that will be used in the law? And how will the court determine whether it was an "emergency" phone call? They cannot legally get any possible "recording" that cell phone companies would do, since recording phone calls would be illegal in the first place without various wire-tapping legislation enforced. (Unless you're a suspected terrorist according to Attorney General John Ashcroft, and then you have no right to privacy). So it's entirely up to the police to set out to get a warrant to access the records of your cell phones to determine just who you called, and if they responded, and summon them up to the court to get their testimony. This seems a rather cumbersome, unwieldy process just to determine if you could actually use your cell phone legally in that situation or not, and therefore would probably not be enforced. Which also brings to mind the manner of enforcement. You are "possibly" breaking a law by performing a celluar phone call. You do not have to carry ID on you at all times, unless you are operating a motor vehicle of sorts, or other such things. So the officer has no definitive source of your ID other than your own word. And you also have the issue of how does he obtain your celluar phone number, without a search warrant obtained? Like the interior of automobiles, it is considered to be a part of you, and the officer could only do it if he considered "probable cause". So if you lock your phone, and hand it over to him, it is not necessary to give him the access code.
Mainly, my point here is, it's quite silly to try to do this.
One night I found a bunch of empty beer cans in the backyard...I decided to build a submarine...
Wasn't this exactly was Asimov was fortelling when he wrote the "Foundation" series in the first book (Well, the first 3-4 stories, since the book was just an anthology of them) about the First Foundation working diligently to create the Encyclopedia Galactica, to save the knowledge of man-kind when psychohistory had forteld the collaspe of civilization? Not making fun of the idea, just seeing how it takes root in several other ways.