[Fwd: [IP] Devices Enforce Cellular Silence, Sweet but Illegal]
joseph at kirtland.com
Sun Nov 4 10:14:36 CST 2007
Kudos to that thoughtful commuter that shut off that woman's
conversation! It's even worse with bluetooth devices! In the
bookshop or library, it often looks like some idiot babbling to
himself, and loudly at that! I've often thought the person speaking
to me till you see the cyberborg device hanging from their ear.
I'm all for new technology, but I think in many cases we've regressed
by having to be on a phone nearly 24 hours a day. Neighbours of mine
can't even exit their house without immediately getting on the phone.
I'll have to investigate a schematic for one of these jammer devices -
for educational purposes only, mind you.
Pleasant Grove, Utah
On Nov 4, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Michael O'Dell wrote:
> From: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
> Date: November 4, 2007 4:55:54 AM MST
> To: ip at v2.listbox.com
> Subject: [IP] Devices Enforce Cellular Silence, Sweet but Illegal
> Reply-To: dave at farber.net
> Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Steve Craton" <scraton at alltel.net>Date: November 4, 2007
> 5:30:13 AM ESTTo: <dave at farber.net>Subject: Devices Enforce Cellular
> Silence, Sweet but Illegal
> Good morning Dave. For IP if you wish. Regards, Steve Craton
> Devices Enforce Cellular Silence, Sweet but Illegal By Matt
> RichtelNew York TimesPublished: November 4, 2007http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/technology/04jammer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
> SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 2 — One afternoon in early September, an
> architect boarded his commuter train and became a cellphone
> vigilante. He sat down next to a 20-something woman who he said was
> “blabbing away” into her phone.
> “She was using the word ‘like’ all the time. She sounded like a
> Valley Girl,” said the architect, Andrew, who declined to give his
> last name because what he did next was illegal.
> Andrew reached into his shirt pocket and pushed a button on a black
> device the size of a cigarette pack. It sent out a powerful radio
> signal that cut off the chatterer’s cellphone transmission — and any
> others in a 30-foot radius.
> “She kept talking into her phone for about 30 seconds before she
> realized there was no one listening on the other end,” he said. His
> reaction when he first discovered he could wield such power? “Oh,
> holy moly! Deliverance.”
> As cellphone use has skyrocketed, making it hard to avoid hearing
> half a conversation in many public places, a small but growing band
> of rebels is turning to a blunt countermeasure: the cellphone
> jammer, a gadget that renders nearby mobile devices impotent.
> The technology is not new, but overseas exporters of jammers say
> demand is rising and they are sending hundreds of them a month into
> the United States — prompting scrutiny from federal regulators and
> new concern last week from the cellphone industry. The buyers
> include owners of cafes and hair salons, hoteliers, public speakers,
> theater operators, bus drivers and, increasingly, commuters on
> public transportation.
> The development is creating a battle for control of the airspace
> within earshot. And the damage is collateral. Insensitive talkers
> impose their racket on the defenseless, while jammers punish not
> just the offender, but also more discreet chatterers.
> “If anything characterizes the 21st century, it’s our inability to
> restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people,” said James
> Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at
> Rutgers University. “The cellphone talker thinks his rights go
> above that of people around him, and the jammer thinks his are the
> more important rights.”
> The jamming technology works by sending out a radio signal so
> powerful that phones are overwhelmed and cannot communicate with
> cell towers. The range varies from several feet to several yards,
> and the devices cost from $50 to several hundred dollars. Larger
> models can be left on to create a no-call zone.
> Using the jammers is illegal in the United States. The radio
> frequencies used by cellphone carriers are protected, just like
> those used by television and radio broadcasters.
> The Federal Communication Commission says people who use cellphone
> jammers could be fined up to $11,000 for a first offense. Its
> enforcement bureau has prosecuted a handful of American companies
> for distributing the gadgets — and it also pursues their users.
> Investigators from the F.C.C. and Verizon Wireless visited an
> upscale restaurant in Maryland over the last year, the restaurant
> owner said. The owner, who declined to be named, said he bought a
> powerful jammer for $1,000 because he was tired of his employees
> focusing on their phones rather than customers.
> “I told them: put away your phones, put away your phones, put away
> your phones,” he said. They ignored him.
> The owner said the F.C.C. investigator hung around for a week, using
> special equipment designed to detect jammers. But the owner had
> turned his off.
> The Verizon investigator was similarly unsuccessful. “He went to
> everyone in town and gave them his number and said if they were
> having trouble, they should call him right away,” the owner said. He
> said he has since stopped using the jammer.
> Of course, it would be harder to detect the use of smaller battery-
> operated jammers like those used by disgruntled commuters.
> An F.C.C. spokesman, Clyde Ensslin, declined to comment on the issue
> or the case in Maryland.
> Tacos mailing list
> Tacos at amrad.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tacos