FCC Wants Your Opinion On Cell Jamming

melteye said:
Wow... you're an idiot :p Btw, Lonervamps statement made perfect sense. Are you really posting this nonsense on a technology-related forum?
Click to expand...

Just because technology is available, doesn't make it a necessity and it certainly doesn't make it a right. Just because this is a technology related forum doesn't mean there aren't as many idiots here as out in the real world. Lonervamps statement did not make perfect sense but, I don't expect a geek who wants everything 'naow' to understand the difference between being 'connected' 24/7 and real life or, even that there is a difference.
 
Magnus said:
I don't expect a geek who wants everything 'naow' to understand the difference between being 'connected' 24/7 and real life or, even that there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Hah! Nice generalizations there, thanks for supporting my first statement about you. :D
 
How about I read who responds next time *inserts foot in mouth*. I guess I should be completely ok with government/corporations limiting my communications. I don't care about movie theaters but I seriously doubt it would stop there.
 
Personal jammers are a necessity for enjoying a movie, play, or surviving on a motorcycle in the middle of traffic. The flip side of that last statement is personal jammers are a necessity for little children in a car whose fat ass mother/father drives down the highway sucking down a burger while yapping/texting at the same time! (I see this at least every week.
 
bucket said:
Bring on the movie theater cellphone jammer, like the ones they have in Japan. The sooner the better.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Nothing like paying a small fortune for admittance and refreshments for you and the kids,then have some motor mouthed jackass yak away through the whole movie. Wonderful experience.
 
I can see blocking cell phones in a movie theator, even for a doctor. Every where else, no. Even when it bugs me to hear cell phones going off while trying to enjoy a dinner out.
 
Wolfkin said:
Wow! You Americans really are scared crazy, aren't you? Signing away freedom because there's a chance, a chance, that someone might missuse a service.
In the last, lets say 5 years, how many bombs have been detonated on american soil using a cell phone or a remote?
Ask yourself, is this meassure really justified by the risk?
Click to expand...

You assume that the majority of US citizens have any control over the US government. If we really supported what the government does, there wouldn't be long-term protests throughout the US like there currently is right now. "The war on terror" is no different than "the war on drugs" or "think of the children"; it's just an excuse to spend money on private contractors, and slowly take away our freedoms, one "minor inconvenience" at a time.
 
Ualdayan said:
This is talking about government authorities (ONLY government) being allowed to legally interrupt service. This isn't talking about signal jamming (as the pdf explains), but rather government agencies asserting control over network facilities and shutting them down. (Eg shutting down a cell tower for an entire area)
Click to expand...

Both are equally ridiculous.
 
They should put cellphone jammers in all vehicles, but they should only work while you're inside the vehicles.
 
Magnus said:
Just because technology is available, doesn't make it a necessity and it certainly doesn't make it a right. Just because this is a technology related forum doesn't mean there aren't as many idiots here as out in the real world. Lonervamps statement did not make perfect sense but, I don't expect a geek who wants everything 'naow' to understand the difference between being 'connected' 24/7 and real life or, even that there is a difference.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing anything that you just said.
 
As a retired veteran, I think everyone should have the right to "communicate" as many are whining here, whenever they want or feel the need to do so. Just enact a different law that makes it legal to pummel the rude idiots that ruin movies for those of us who paid for our right to watch a movie without interruption. I also believe that side-by-side cell talkers on the interstate that don't use cruise control and are just keeping pace with the car next to them (a losing battle if they're both on the phone) should be legally forced off the road. It's really bad in tunnels! As you go from a flat road to a round opening during a lame conversation HIT THE BRAKES!, will my car fit? There are signs that say "Maintain 55" on the up side of the tunnel, yeah right, who's watching the speedo during that engrossing conversation? Because of the tunnel problems, they are now adding tolls and new taxes to build another tunnel! It's two lanes all the way to the tunnels, there are no merges, we all know what the problem is, especially the folks that lived here pre-cell phones. I love my cell phone but I do NOT impose on the rights of others nor am I rude about my usage is public places. So, in closing , are there instances where jammers make sense for those who don't know when enough is enough? Or for those who are too dumb to realize that they are NOT as important as they think they are? You betcha! ;)
 
I am all for passive jamming, Faraday cage style, for civilians that own or have legal right to inhabit a property. I have mixed feelings about the government being able to jam, or have a kill switch.
On one hand, eliminating the ability of bank robbers or terrorists to communicate with out side entities not in government control, is a serious help to law enforcement.
On the other, our government is not trustworthy enough to put aside my fears they would abuse it.
 
Yep, just government getting more control and power in all the wrong ways... but I gotta be more careful of that government dangerous social security, or medicare.
 
Oldie said:
Anyone supporting this has to be nuts. It's simply a way to quickly control the flow of information in the event the government wants to squelch something.
Click to expand...

^^THIS.

The only way this will ever be used is against us. Not for "for" us in an attempt to make our lives any better.
 
LonerVamp said:
No one is arguing anything that you just said.
Click to expand...

Except for you and melteye who seem to think jamming your phone signals in specific places at specific times is somehow akin to taking away your human rights. :rolleyes:
 
One has to assume the worst case scenario on why they want to this and the reason is, is to cut off communication to and from and between private citizens as their will for whatever nefarious and nebulous reasons they can think of. If you can't communicate something, they win. Do want them to have that kind of power at their disposal?
 
I'd love it if it were possible to jam a signal within our library. No one reads the signs posted everywhere that our policy is no talking on a cell phone..Even when I get up and ask someone to take their call in the lobby I get responses from strange looks to who-the-hell-do-you-think-you-are? Its worse when patrons are on a public access computer sitting with a bunch of other people in a small room and someone is inadvertently talking to a friend, or some employer etc or some customer support call and they pretty much ignore me when I tell them they can't be on the phone in the building. They don't ignore me after I remotely boot them off of the machine while in the middle of that phone call....:rolleyes:

As far as automobiles, I know its possible technically for a phone to know if the user is sitting in the drivers seat or the passenger seat, but I can't remember how. A few tech guru's have mentioned it in one form or another....Still, I'm sure there are going to be ways found around it.

I don't go the the movie theater anymore for that being one of the reasons; the incessant talking (besides the fact my 55' Samsung plays HD video just fine, thank you friends and neighbors :D )

Jamming a signal in a public place like a park is going to draw a lot of concern though, I would be curious how, if allowed, it plays out. Those stating here about government abuse is also a concern, hopefully there would be accountability, but we all know how that can turn out..

Just as I believe its possible to block a signal from a driver's side vs. passenger side user, the other concern is blocking signals while allowing 911 calls to get through, in my case, inside the library. I'm sure there's a way to do it, but how?:confused:

Oh, and I found that comparison from LonerVamps regarding being "connected 24/7" and real life, and if there is even a difference to be pretty astute. Some folks anyway, believe being connected is their life, I suspect whether they want it to be or not. :p
 
Wow! You Americans really are scared crazy, aren't you? Signing away freedom because there's a chance, a chance, that someone might missuse a service.
In the last, lets say 5 years, how many bombs have been detonated on american soil using a cell phone or a remote?
Ask yourself, is this meassure really justified by the risk?
Click to expand...

damn man you stole the words outta my mouth.

I don't want to give my liberties away for a false sense of security.

Cell phone jamming shouldn't become legal. Besides the point, i think cell phones cause more problems then they solve.
 
while cell phones cause problems blocking would also cause many others. None of my friends have land lines so blocking a cell phone tower would prevent me from calling for help in an emergency. I may receive an emergency message while in the movie theater (my phone is always on vibrate and I am not stupid enough to try to have a conversation in a movie theater). Those are two examples but it would be easy to imaging more.
 
While I HATE when people answer a call/talk on their phone in the movie show, it still shouldn't be blocked/jammed.

Think about certaint hings. Imagine if you are at a movie theater/concert hall or somewhere they might use this, meanwhile a loved one gets into an accident or something and people are trying to reach you, but nope they can't get through because your phone is jammed.

That would be horrible, and imo far outweighs any negative things that people may use them for during events.
 
Wtf, why can't we edit in here?

I also forgot to say, what if you are at such a place and something happens? Say a fire breaks out or someone enters the place and starts shooting people, etc? No 911 help or anything.
 
It's illegal, in fact a federal offense, for an individual to use a cell phone jammer. Why would we want/allow the government to do something we can't do?

There was just a stink here in Philly: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technol...es-cell-phone-jammer-to-block-chatter-on-bus/

Yes, I have to use the bus. Yes, I get VERY tired and annoyed with the constant loud can hear both sides of the conversation phone calls. Calling to say "I'm on my way home" would be expected. Calling to say, omg he said what? blah blah blah can wait until you get home imho. I've come close to being hit by cars so many times because people are too busy yapping on their phones - even with the no handset holding/no texting laws - that they don't pay any attention to what's around them, including red lights and stop signs and people trying to cross the street (Philly has a pedestrian right of way law which drivers don't pay attention to for the most part anyway).

Some of the smaller restaurants around here do have a no cell phone policy with big signs and at least one of them, the owner will ask you to leave if you're using a cell while there. Unless it's an emergency there is no good reason to have that thing surgically attached to your ear - in a restaurant, theatre, etc. Unless of course there is an emergency. That calls for common sense and courtesy which in this day and age of me me me is sorely lacking.

And jamming could be a huge problem if there is an emergency. Now you're talking a potential life threatening situation and the liability stemming from being jammed and not being able to make that emergency call.

The flipside to this is why aren't jammers being used by the Military in areas where cellphones are used to detonate bombs (think Iraq, Afghanistan). That would be the time and place to be able to use them and save the lives of Military and any innocent civilians unfortunate enough to be nearby.
 
Magnus said:
Except for you and melteye who seem to think jamming your phone signals in specific places at specific times is somehow akin to taking away your human rights. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That is specifically *not* something I said at all, and never would.
 
Stiler said:
While I HATE when people answer a call/talk on their phone in the movie show, it still shouldn't be blocked/jammed.

Think about certaint hings. Imagine if you are at a movie theater/concert hall or somewhere they might use this, meanwhile a loved one gets into an accident or something and people are trying to reach you, but nope they can't get through because your phone is jammed.

That would be horrible, and imo far outweighs any negative things that people may use them for during events.
Click to expand...

What are you realistically going to do during the 90 minutes that the movie lasts, that you can not do after? What did people do prior to wide scale cell use?

If you were a first responder and your communications were jammed, you have a valid is a valid argument. One I disagree with, but valid none the less.

If you had the rare luck, to be in a theater with passive jamming, when a loved one was hurt/injured, and it happened at the very beginning of the movie, and some one actually tried to call you at that time, then I guess it was just not your day. You will have to find out about it in 90 minutes.

50% of why I stopped going to the movies was crappy movies. The remaining 50% was because of inconsiderate people. People with screaming babies that don't leave once it becomes obvious that the thing will not shut up, people that can't shut up, the hysterical laughter that spews from mouths of morons at inappropriate moment, and mother fuckers with afros or other stupidly tall hair, and of course, retards with cell phones with the ring tone set to maximum volume.

Seriously, when did the afro come back into style anyway? Why did it come back into style?????
 
Wolfkin said:
Wow! You Americans really are scared crazy, aren't you? Signing away freedom because there's a chance, a chance, that someone might missuse a service.
In the last, lets say 5 years, how many bombs have been detonated on american soil using a cell phone or a remote?
Ask yourself, is this meassure really justified by the risk?
Click to expand...
xxEIEIOxx said:
It's all BS. They just want to make sure people can't communicate when they declare martial law. They just want to make it look like we asked for it. Protecting us from me and you while taking the freedoms they claim to be defending.
Click to expand...
^This. When the country goes bankrupt within 10-20 years, we may see the military take over.
 
If it is illegal for the individual, it should be illegal for a government, for a government is comprised of individuals.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Jamming should be used for Law enforcement purposes only. A lot of people are on call and need to have their phones on, including emergency services (e.g. doctors on call). That is why they invented the vibrate mode. I think the current method works just fine.

For theaters, I think theaters should be allowed to kick out those who break the policy, but not jam them altogether due to the very few extenuating circumstances. For at least the past 5 years I have seen them heavily advertise the "turn off cellphone" policy. Sprint has even got creative and made ads telling people to shut off their phone.
Click to expand...

And/Or have them fined if they don't stop after being warned. That'll be a disincentive.
Jamming should banned, but I supposed extenuating LEO or military related circumstances might be an exception.
 
Cell phone jammers, or any other microwave/radio wave jammers, are electronic warfare devices and should be treated as such - completely banned except on the battlefield (in an actual battle, not a "war on terror" battlefield that comprises of 100% of American soil 24/7).

Passive cell phone blocking technologies (Faraday cages) are more acceptable since those are set up for specific areas and should have minimal collateral damage. It may be expensive for many and infeasible for some situations, but at least the surrounding area won't be designated an electronic warfare zone. In addition, they could possibly be used in areas where active jamming is not acceptable due to fears of interference with equipment (hospitals and airports).
 
Electronic warfare?
Bwahahahahahaha!


You do not have the right to life, liberty and, the pursuit of FB updates. Jammers? Faraday cages? I've got a much cheaper solution that's good for the economy too! Hire "Bubba" to bitch slap anyone caught using a cell phone in the theater/library/restaurant.
 
Lol, active cell phone jamming for the drive home to kill the call that a dumbass teenager is making while driving wrecklessly.
I have a low powered model that i want to put on an amp and really have fun.

like sitting at the mall or infront of the verizon store :)
 
Out of curiosity, how would they go about making passive jamming illegal. Outlaw paint with metal flakes in it? Or maybe metal screen, chicken wire, steel siding, steel reinforcement in concrete, or any other number of ways one could build a building that was cell signal unfriendly?
 
you have to remember the govt. can turn it all off at anytime internet telco and radio
 
Aluisious said:
Freedom my ass. Was I not free ten years ago when I didn't have a cell phone? I got all the way through college without one. Oh, the humanity, I was so desperately oppressed.
Click to expand...

you sir hit the nail on the head. Cell phones are not a freedom or a right. The people who complain about the idea of cell phone jamming because of emergency's must not realize that before cell phones humanity did just fine.

Cell phone usage is a convince nothing more.
 
No...

the terrorists have no problems finding hundreds (thousands?) of people willing to strap bombs to themselves and run at US troops. They'll have no problems finding jihadis willing to manually detonate without the use of remote cellphone detonation.

Cellphones are a freedom & a right. At least in the eyes of the government, they would not be offering obama phones to provide cellular service to those who cannot afford it otherwise. The obama phone program just goes to show cellphones are right up there with food and shelter.

Why is this an issue suddenly? What role did smart phones play in the fall of Gadafi?
 
BiGx5MurF said:
No...

the terrorists have no problems finding hundreds (thousands?) of people willing to strap bombs to themselves and run at US troops. They'll have no problems finding jihadis willing to manually detonate without the use of remote cellphone detonation.

Cellphones are a freedom & a right. At least in the eyes of the government, they would not be offering obama phones to provide cellular service to those who cannot afford it otherwise. The obama phone program just goes to show cellphones are right up there with food and shelter.

Why is this an issue suddenly? What role did smart phones play in the fall of Gadafi?
Click to expand...

*edit, think, closer to the Gadafi incident, what did President Obama want? The power to shut down the internet.
 
Cell phones are largely irrelevant to what's being proposed - which is to intentionally disable a method of communication from being used. What good is freedom of speech in our increasingly interconnected world if the government can regulate or block the means to exercise that right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top