I know it is illegal to jam the signal. Should it be illegal ASSUMING that the blocking, in no way, impacts any neighboring property? That's the point of the "Should you?" I'm a bit up in the air about it at this point but I'm leaning towards saying that it should be allowed so long as it doesn't impact neighboring property in any way. Even though I can think of no justified reason for doing so, I'm still leaning towards private property rights. As such, I'm still very open to other views but, no, I already know that jamming is illegal and that is actually why I ask the question.
True, it is a headache but it is a question of freedom. I can't think of any reason that I'd personally have for blocking/jamming cellphone communication so it is mostly a question for the sake of some mental bubblegum.
I guess if I were going to actively hunt someone down and kill them I'd not want them to be able to use a cellphone to call emergency services...
I understand that it is illegal. My question is, should it be? This is, of course, assuming one manages to do so without impacting any neighboring property. I'm aware that it is illegal and shielding isn't my concern - active blocking and jamming is. I tried to make it clear. It may not have been clear enough.
What's funny is the people in the thread who are proposing that companies build entire new buildings as Faraday cages as their solution to blocking cell phones. I didn't bother replying to them.
That made me chuckle. I can't come up with a reason why I'd personally care but I could envision someone who found it important. It's more an exercise in deciding where to draw the line for freedom.
If they want to block cell phones signals so bad they can get a permit and have their setup done properly to ensure no one gets affected that shouldn't be.
If I'm reading correctly that's exactly what they can't do.
People MAY die due to the small delay while someone steps outside to make a phone call or someone disables the jamming device. A free society comes with risks. Would you rather the risks or would you rather a less free society? Are the risks so high that you want to tell people what they can't do on their property?
I ask those questions because I'm curious about your response. I don't expect you to change your view, look at things differently, or suddenly review your entire belief system based on an anonymous online comment.
It's some interesting mental bubble gum. My view is private property though I could see legitimately allowing businesses (with posted signs/notification) to do so so long as their blocking methods in no way impact neighboring property. As for the 911 argument, there are other methods of contacting emergency services, areas with no cell phone reception, and it is a moot point in my opinion.
I wish I'd read your post prior to posting mine. I'd have placed it differently though it was their post that made me ponder...
All of what you said is true but it made me think...
Should you have a right to use a radio on my property?
I don't own the spectrum, I don't own the device, I simply own the land. Should I be allowed to block RF (regardless of how beneficial this plan may be, no matter how ineffective, etc - we're simply concerned with rights and not efficacy) on my land?
This is different than a place of employment and I'm not speaking of places generally open to the public. I'm strictly speaking about my property - we can even limit it specifically to an area centralized around my living quarters so as to avoid any blocking from overlapping onto neighboring property. There is no situation where ones blocking should be allowed to impact neighboring property.
Now, I can't think of a legitimate reason to block RF on my land or anything like that - but that's not the point. It seems that I tend to take a rather heavy handed approach when it comes to personal freedom and property rights.
I'm not attempting to be negative nor am I attempting to start an argument. I am unsure of what to think and thus my question - I really don't know. As the spectrum is considered communal property and is regulated as such there is the argument that restricting someone's right to their property (the spectrum they're allowed to use legally) is wrong. Yet, for some unknown reason, one may wish to prevent people from using a ham radio, CB, etc on their property and actively seek to block it. Should they be allowed to do so? Should they be allowed the right to prohibit radio communication from their property?
I don't really know - I am leaning towards a, "Yes, they should be allowed to block it on their own private property while assuring that none of their blocking methods impact any portion of neighboring property." Again, I can't think of any logical reason why someone would want to block that so I'm mostly curious as to your (and other people's) opinion on where the line should be drawn.
In fact, all I can picture is some hillbilly drawling out that he "doesn't want none of your radio frequency being utilized on this here property." It's ridiculous at face value but the question remains the same where freedoms are concerned.
Also... We already have national radio quiet zones where anything of the sort is expressly forbidden but I don't think that the reasons they are allowed to enact such regulations apply to private property very well and they aren't actually blocking RF so the two aren't really related. *just wanted to cover that to avoid potential confusion*
Anyhow, yeah - it made me think. I'm unsure and I'm sure I haven't considered everything. Thoughts?
When I was younger we would take the lawn darts out back into the yard at night. We'd throw them straight up and then run around underneath them hoping that we'd not die. Amazingly, nobody died or was ever hurt from that game and I'm not sure how we managed to be that stupid and that lucky. Either way we were really stupid but we had a lot of fun. They need to bring Jarts back and they need to specifically prohibit me and my childhood friends from playing with them. Again, we were really lucky and really stupid. We all survived to adulthood - most of us are quite successful today.
Just because its an EV does not make it or its infrastructure any more or less succeptible to an attack of some kind. To say otherwise just discourages people from looking at it as an alternative and is FUD.
Pointing out potential security flaws is FUD to you? You know where you are, right? This is/. and we're huge proponents of disclosure and many of us are even fans of public disclosure. If we find a security flaw we're going to let you know and if you don't do anything about it we're going to let the world know.
You reek of zealotry. This isn't FUD if it is true. Knock the sand out of your vagina and man up. We don't care if it is your favorite flavor of ice cream, if we find a flaw we're going to want it fixed. What sort of moron wants to keep potential problems hidden? It's obvious that you advocate EVs and that's a good choice but if you were smart you'd WANT to build the system with security from the ground up instead of trying to bolt the security on as an afterthought.
Do, for us and for yourself, try to think before typing. If your idol is so shaky that this would cause someone to change their mind about purchasing an EV then maybe you should pick a new idol. It's an EV. It doesn't need zealots and evangelists. It needs people who can think logically, the sort of people who'd be grateful that people are looking into potential security issues.
Is this me missing the joke? Fuse is fine. I could check but I'm lazy though I'm pretty sure that fuze and fuse are exactly the same thing just spelled differently.
I've watched a lot of documentaries and many of them have been about NK. This is one that I haven't seen but I'll watch it tonight. Thank you for bringing the title to my attention though, I appreciate it. I have read a lot of information about NK but I've never read a book about them. Odd I guess. Either way, your mentioning the book brought this to my attention and now I'll have something new and educational to watch. Thanks again.
True, I just don't see them getting out much in order to do so. I am usually the guy that laughs at the conspiracy nuts but I wonder if this is a false flag op or something. I don't really know or anything, it just seems a little off.
It is pretty clever. Someone linked to an autopsy down further in the thread. I'm kind of surprised though it does look like poor security practices were in place.
What I find amazing is that NK is technologically capable of causing that amount of damage both in terms of technology and infrastructure. I didn't believe they'd get enough bandwidth by using the soldiers to manually hand off the packets. I figured they'd be too busy eating grass and tree bark really.
Okay, okay. So I'm only a little kidding. I'm still surprised they had the tech chops to pull that off OR that they were so poorly defended. It could go either way I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it is illegal to jam the signal. Should it be illegal ASSUMING that the blocking, in no way, impacts any neighboring property? That's the point of the "Should you?" I'm a bit up in the air about it at this point but I'm leaning towards saying that it should be allowed so long as it doesn't impact neighboring property in any way. Even though I can think of no justified reason for doing so, I'm still leaning towards private property rights. As such, I'm still very open to other views but, no, I already know that jamming is illegal and that is actually why I ask the question.
True, it is a headache but it is a question of freedom. I can't think of any reason that I'd personally have for blocking/jamming cellphone communication so it is mostly a question for the sake of some mental bubblegum.
I guess if I were going to actively hunt someone down and kill them I'd not want them to be able to use a cellphone to call emergency services...
I understand that it is illegal. My question is, should it be? This is, of course, assuming one manages to do so without impacting any neighboring property. I'm aware that it is illegal and shielding isn't my concern - active blocking and jamming is. I tried to make it clear. It may not have been clear enough.
What's funny is the people in the thread who are proposing that companies build entire new buildings as Faraday cages as their solution to blocking cell phones. I didn't bother replying to them.
That made me chuckle. I can't come up with a reason why I'd personally care but I could envision someone who found it important. It's more an exercise in deciding where to draw the line for freedom.
If they want to block cell phones signals so bad they can get a permit and have their setup done properly to ensure no one gets affected that shouldn't be.
If I'm reading correctly that's exactly what they can't do.
Think of the children!!!
People are going to die regardless.
People MAY die due to the small delay while someone steps outside to make a phone call or someone disables the jamming device. A free society comes with risks. Would you rather the risks or would you rather a less free society? Are the risks so high that you want to tell people what they can't do on their property?
I ask those questions because I'm curious about your response. I don't expect you to change your view, look at things differently, or suddenly review your entire belief system based on an anonymous online comment.
Do you have a right to use your cellphone everywhere you wish?
Should you?
I don't really know but I think it is a question that should be discussed.
A couple of points to play the Devil's Advocate...
5 digits isn't that much as a rare business expense. The benefit (say a theater) in providing the service may well pay for itself.
As time goes by and as more companies bought these devices the price could drop due to manufacturing scale.
I hadn't read your post when I posted this:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3651639&cid=43458461
It's some interesting mental bubble gum. My view is private property though I could see legitimately allowing businesses (with posted signs/notification) to do so so long as their blocking methods in no way impact neighboring property. As for the 911 argument, there are other methods of contacting emergency services, areas with no cell phone reception, and it is a moot point in my opinion.
I wish I'd read your post prior to posting mine. I'd have placed it differently though it was their post that made me ponder...
All of what you said is true but it made me think...
Should you have a right to use a radio on my property?
I don't own the spectrum, I don't own the device, I simply own the land. Should I be allowed to block RF (regardless of how beneficial this plan may be, no matter how ineffective, etc - we're simply concerned with rights and not efficacy) on my land?
This is different than a place of employment and I'm not speaking of places generally open to the public. I'm strictly speaking about my property - we can even limit it specifically to an area centralized around my living quarters so as to avoid any blocking from overlapping onto neighboring property. There is no situation where ones blocking should be allowed to impact neighboring property.
Now, I can't think of a legitimate reason to block RF on my land or anything like that - but that's not the point. It seems that I tend to take a rather heavy handed approach when it comes to personal freedom and property rights.
I'm not attempting to be negative nor am I attempting to start an argument. I am unsure of what to think and thus my question - I really don't know. As the spectrum is considered communal property and is regulated as such there is the argument that restricting someone's right to their property (the spectrum they're allowed to use legally) is wrong. Yet, for some unknown reason, one may wish to prevent people from using a ham radio, CB, etc on their property and actively seek to block it. Should they be allowed to do so? Should they be allowed the right to prohibit radio communication from their property?
I don't really know - I am leaning towards a, "Yes, they should be allowed to block it on their own private property while assuring that none of their blocking methods impact any portion of neighboring property." Again, I can't think of any logical reason why someone would want to block that so I'm mostly curious as to your (and other people's) opinion on where the line should be drawn.
In fact, all I can picture is some hillbilly drawling out that he "doesn't want none of your radio frequency being utilized on this here property." It's ridiculous at face value but the question remains the same where freedoms are concerned.
Also... We already have national radio quiet zones where anything of the sort is expressly forbidden but I don't think that the reasons they are allowed to enact such regulations apply to private property very well and they aren't actually blocking RF so the two aren't really related. *just wanted to cover that to avoid potential confusion*
Anyhow, yeah - it made me think. I'm unsure and I'm sure I haven't considered everything. Thoughts?
And this, folks, is what happens when you're struck in the head with a lawn dart.
These are big heavy things that can do some serious damage. Perhaps you're thinking of something else?
That's awesome. LOL We never thought of that. The mystery of where it was going to land at night was great though. I'm amazed we lived.
I said they should be brought back.
When I was younger we would take the lawn darts out back into the yard at night. We'd throw them straight up and then run around underneath them hoping that we'd not die. Amazingly, nobody died or was ever hurt from that game and I'm not sure how we managed to be that stupid and that lucky. Either way we were really stupid but we had a lot of fun. They need to bring Jarts back and they need to specifically prohibit me and my childhood friends from playing with them. Again, we were really lucky and really stupid. We all survived to adulthood - most of us are quite successful today.
Who the fuck is modding this fanciful astroturf up?
It's bullshit. Like any bad tool, Windows 8 gets more painfully irritating the longer you use it. Don't be fooled by this lying piece of shit.
Yeah, I haven't used Windows 8 yet either.
You could try working for it?
I keed... I keed... Mostly.
Just because its an EV does not make it or its infrastructure any more or less succeptible to an attack of some kind. To say otherwise just discourages people from looking at it as an alternative and is FUD.
Pointing out potential security flaws is FUD to you? You know where you are, right? This is /. and we're huge proponents of disclosure and many of us are even fans of public disclosure. If we find a security flaw we're going to let you know and if you don't do anything about it we're going to let the world know.
You reek of zealotry. This isn't FUD if it is true. Knock the sand out of your vagina and man up. We don't care if it is your favorite flavor of ice cream, if we find a flaw we're going to want it fixed. What sort of moron wants to keep potential problems hidden? It's obvious that you advocate EVs and that's a good choice but if you were smart you'd WANT to build the system with security from the ground up instead of trying to bolt the security on as an afterthought.
Do, for us and for yourself, try to think before typing. If your idol is so shaky that this would cause someone to change their mind about purchasing an EV then maybe you should pick a new idol. It's an EV. It doesn't need zealots and evangelists. It needs people who can think logically, the sort of people who'd be grateful that people are looking into potential security issues.
You misspelt fuze.
Is this me missing the joke? Fuse is fine. I could check but I'm lazy though I'm pretty sure that fuze and fuse are exactly the same thing just spelled differently.
I got curious and am too lazy to go order a book so I fired up a search engine and found this:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Camp_14_Total_Control_Zone/70264533?locale=en-US
I've watched a lot of documentaries and many of them have been about NK. This is one that I haven't seen but I'll watch it tonight. Thank you for bringing the title to my attention though, I appreciate it. I have read a lot of information about NK but I've never read a book about them. Odd I guess. Either way, your mentioning the book brought this to my attention and now I'll have something new and educational to watch. Thanks again.
True, I just don't see them getting out much in order to do so. I am usually the guy that laughs at the conspiracy nuts but I wonder if this is a false flag op or something. I don't really know or anything, it just seems a little off.
It is pretty clever. Someone linked to an autopsy down further in the thread. I'm kind of surprised though it does look like poor security practices were in place.
It runs in Windows. They've likely had to reformat lately so the disks should be easy to find.
What I find amazing is that NK is technologically capable of causing that amount of damage both in terms of technology and infrastructure. I didn't believe they'd get enough bandwidth by using the soldiers to manually hand off the packets. I figured they'd be too busy eating grass and tree bark really.
Okay, okay. So I'm only a little kidding. I'm still surprised they had the tech chops to pull that off OR that they were so poorly defended. It could go either way I suppose.