[Fwd: [IP] Devices Enforce Cellular Silence, Sweet but Illegal]
public at ryan-silva.com
Sun Nov 4 13:22:36 CST 2007
She's even got the Eagle files for you.
On Nov 4, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Joseph Bento wrote:
> 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.
> Joe, N6DGYPleasant 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
> Tacos mailing list
> Tacos at amrad.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tacos