The boss and I were talking about this one just Friday: How the urge to commit violence can become overwhelming when one is subjected to loud cell phone users who are oblivious to the fact that the air space around us is a shared environment. He recounted a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode where Larry David, not being capable of violence, counters a dining-solo cell-phone blabbermouth in a restaurant by conducting his own high-volume soliloquy ... to which the other chattering chap takes ironic offense.
Of course, violence and public spectacle are poor countermeasures against cell-phone rudeness when technology provides a much more effective and stealthy alternative. According to this morning's New York Times:
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 problem with this approach, as many of you no doubt know, is that cell-phoning jamming is a teensy-weensy bit against the law. (So are violence and public spectacles, in many cases, I might point out.)
The issue has been brewing for years, as one maker of jamming equipment told me back in 2001.
"Our position is that the proprietor of an enclosed space should have the right to control disturbances within that space. That could be a fight in a bar, that could be somebody yelling at his kid on a cell phone, or whatever."
Tell it to the judge.
Now it should go without saying that there are competing interests at work here and neither the jamming-equipment maker, Larry David, nor I would advocate a universal right to willy-nilly block cell signals.
It's just that the weighing of interests has been so one-sided on this matter. And you can blame the carriers.
"It's counterintuitive that when the demand is clear and strong from wireless consumers for improved cell coverage, that these kinds of devices are finding a market," a Verizon spokesman complained to the Times, proving once again that tone-deafness is a requirement of the job in that company's public relations department.
Bottom line: If vigilante cell jamming is a bad idea, somebody needs to come up with a better one ... before somebody gets hurt.
Welcome regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent Buzzblog items. And, if you'd like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here's where to sign up.
Vinnie the IT pro vs. Verizon customer service.
Why phone-record thieves laugh at the law.
Santa's unimaginable data disaster to mean empty stockings on Christmas.
Gates on education: Knowledge is good.
Average Joe asks Bill Gates a priceless question.
BSA, software giants target little guys most often.
Can the geek press handle a Microsoft sex scandal?
Hacking for better grades gets 4 preppies bounced from elite school in Mass.
This year's "25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries."
When the patient is a Googler and the doctor is a pompous jerk.
Cell phone jamming on the rise.
|
|
Jamming vs. Public SAFETY
Though I realize the current problems with the bane of cell-phone users' inability to follow basic etiquette, the other side of the matter is the fact that these cell phone jamming devices have an unintended, and possibly deadly side-effect - and I'm not talking about radiation. These devices also block and interfere with the common frequencies used by many metropolitan public-safety radio systems and can cause those users radios to cease to function. Imagine the situation where someone is in a restaurant with a medical emergency, and the very first responders that people rely upon are unable to communicate with each other due to a device placed in order to remove an 'social annoyance'. Just something to keep in mind and perhaps temper the arguments for this particular 'technology'.
A safer way.
Though more expensive than a jammer, it is possible to use shielding paint on walls and ceilings, or even grounded screen material to block electro-magnetic waves going in or out of a room. This would have the same effect without a jammer signal spilling out into the surrounding outside environment. You would have to go outside the shielded room to make a call.
If the room has public WiFi, it would still be possible to work around the shielding by making a VOIP call though.
The poster raises an
The poster raises an important point. You can PASSIVELY BLOCK signals, using copper-based paint for example. The paint is expensive - $100/gallon last I checked. That's a LOT more than a $150 cell jammer, but unfortunately that's the structuring of the law.
A poor signal WILL drive these morons outside the to join the smokers.
You can't actually
The FCC does not, last I heard which could have changed or just been hear-say, allow you to shield your site because you then cast a shadow in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Granted, they will never find a small house or the like, but it is potentially a larger problem then the jammers, having the potential to harm more people. Looking into the laws, asking a real lawyer (a.k.a. "Not Me") would be advisable before doing anything expensive and permanent.
Not True!
The jammers specifically emit RF in cell-specific parts of the bands. To "barrage" jam the entire spectrum requires far too much power! So cell jammers DO NOT disturb police, fire, GMRS, FRS or other radio services. At worst, they might block a possible 911 call.
It is true!
Not only is it illegal to intentionally interfere with proper use of frequencies regulated by federal law and properly licensed for use, whether the interference is to businesses, to police or fire, municipalities or military, but it may also interfere with current and developing methods for notification of people for critical emergency notifications. Think emergency notification systems being built to avoid the situations like that at Virginia Tech...
It will be interesting in that event to see how someone using a patently illegal device could defend their actions in court if someone dies or is injured because of the use of the illegal device.
Given the limited range of
Given the limited range of cell phone jammers, the situation is the equivalent of a bad cell location where 50 feet to a good area is not unusual. Unless of course you have Verizon where cell phones work anywhere, everywhere. (Can you hear me now?)
Intelligent use won't compromise safety...
These devices don't disable equipment permanently. An intelligent user is going to blip it on until the offending signal is disrupted and then turn it off. It's a product who's time has come.
Yes and it won’t be long
Yes and it won’t be long before every criminal has one and uses it to bypass house alarms and to stop those pesky 911 calls.
Blocking Legitimate and paid for services
By blocking the airwaves traffic to/from a cellular device, you also are preventing a customer from accessing the services they pay for. Can you go out in the public street outside your business and set up a toll booth because you feel there are too many automobiles passing your establishment?
Additionally, you are preventing users from calling for that much needed help in a crisis. What would happen if I witnessed someone fall and severely injured him/her self on some stairs in your business, and I could not connect to 911 due to your blocking cellular access. That is a nice lawsuit waiting to happen. To deliberately prevent someone access to a resource that can save their life could easily be gross negligence, and potentially you could be viewed as having malicious intent.