backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by Mitch101.. on May 8 at 9:03 PM


  (Source: MTV)
60-year-old jammed signals for two years to try to "keep drivers safe" by preventing cell phone use

In April 2013, T-Mobile U.S., Inc. (TMUS) brand MetroPCS noticed that it had been experiencing mysterious interference on Interstate 4 (I-4), a major east-west highway in Florida.  It began to investigate the disturbance, which seemed to occur at regular intervals during commuting hours and was very location-specific.
 
I. Vigilante Jammer Polices Florida Highway
 
In collaboration with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), MetroPCS used signal analysis to discover wideband (broadcast activity with wide frequencies or wavelengths) signals that were causing localized service disruptions.  The investigation led to a surprising discovery and a hot controversy.
 
MetroPCS discovered that a blue Toyota Motor Corp. (TYO:7203) Highlander SUV was transmitting the signals and appeared to be jamming fellow motorists.  But despite its data, the FCC was unable to convince local authorities to track down the driver for some time.
 
Earlier this year, however, two Hillsborough County Sherriff’s deputies pulled over the owner of the vehicle – 60-year-old Jason R. Humphreys -- for a traffic offense.  When approaching the vehicle their two-way radios were disconnected from the dispatcher.  The officers correctly identified something was wrong, and asked to search the vehicle.

Texter
Florida has no long against talking on the phone (even holding the handset), while driving, so Mr. Humphreys took matters into his own hands. [Image Source: Getty Images]

They found Mr. Humphreys possessed a jamming device hidden behind his seat that was capable of locally blocking three bands commonly used for cell phones and radios.
 
At that point Mr. Humphreys came clean, admitting he had purchased the device with the intention of committing a bit of vigilante justice on his daily commute.  While many states have laws against talking on a cell phone while driving (typically with exemptions for emergencies and hands-free headsets), he was troubled that Florida has no such law.  And while Florida does have a law against texting while driving, he was upset that many of his fellow Floridians weren't following the law.
 
So he purchased a jammer from an unofficial source, which he believed would only interfere with motorists within 30 feet of him (or so he said).  He reportedly commented to the police officers:

[I bought it] to keep people from talking on their cellphones while driving.

He admitted that he had been using the device for the past year-and-a-half to two years.  
 
II. FCC Fines Driver $48K for Public Endangerment
 
Police seized the device and gave it to the FCC to complete the investigation.
 
The FCC concluded that the range of the jammer was substantially understated by Mr. Humphreys and was strong enough to block cell phone towers along his highway commute.  Indeed, MetroPCS noticed that after the device was seized the regional disruptions to its service stopped.
 
Now the FCC has smacked Mr. Humphreys with a whopping $48,000 USD fine for three counts of operating an illegal signal-jamming device.
 
While the device may have kept Mr. Humphreys safer from accidents by preventing drivers around him from being distracted via their cell phones, authorities complain that the vigilante move endangered public safety.  Then again, maybe he made roads more dangerous as some studies have indicated people engaged in conversation may be safer drivers.

I-4 Florida
Interstate-4, the Florida highway where the jamming was occurring.
[Image Source: Anthony Coletti]

In a release the FCC wrote that jammers are "generally unlawful" under federal law [PDF].  Currently U.S. federal law (in part via the FCC's policies) forbids the import, marketing, sale, or possession of jammers; as they might interfere with citizens calling 911, police radios (as happened in Mr. Humphreys' case), or other emergency responders (ambulances, firefighters, etc.).
 
In the document announcing Mr. Humphrey's fine, the FCC writes:

[Jammers] can endanger life and property by preventing individuals from making 911 or other emergency calls or disrupting communications essential to aviation and marine safety.

Due to the nature and extended duration of Mr. Humphreys’ violations, we take an aggressive approach and propose the per violation statutory maximum of $16,000 for each of the offenses – unauthorized operation, use of an illegal device, and causing intentional interference.

Mr. Humphreys has 30 days to respond to the fine.  If he fails to respond, he will have to pay the full amount.
 
III. Employee Fined in 2013 for Using GPS Jammer to Escape Workplace Monitoring Tech.
 
This is only the second such major headlines-grabbing fine against an individual.  The first came last year when commercial truck driver Gary Bojczak was caught using a cigarette-lighter powered GPS jamming device to block the GPS tracking that his company installed in his truck to track his job performance.  
 
Mr. Bojczak's red Ford Motor Comp. (F) F-150 pickup truck was identified via triangulation by investigators with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) following reports of dangerous disruptions to the GPS signals at the Newark, New Jersey's Liberty International Airport.  Pilots used the GPS signals to help them land, so that jamming incident was considered very dangerous.

Liberty Airport
A New Jersey driver inadvertently interfered with GPS signals used to land aircraft at the local Liberty International Airport.  The incident, which occurred last year, was triggered by the driver trying to avoid a workplace monitoring device. [Image Source: AP]

The FCC originally looked to smack the truck driver with $42,500 USD, but settled on a fine of $32,000 USD after he appealed.  The FCC wrote in a notice:

We caution Mr. Bojczak and other potential violators that we will continually reevaluate this approach and may pursue alternative or more aggressive sanctions should the approach prove ineffective in deterring the unlawful operation of signal jammers.

For example, as a companion to a proposed monetary forfeiture, we could also refer such matters to the U.S. Department of Justice for further consideration under the criminal statutes.

The New Jersey incident, which basically involved an employee playing hooky from work – and as a result accidentally creating jamming of signals used by air traffic -- is clearly very different in nature from a motorist intentionally jamming cell phone frequencies in a vigilante effort to try to create safety.  But the FCC argues that both incidents could create dangerous situations for members of the public, albeit in different ways.
 
IV. Texas Company Also Fined Last Year; Usage of Illegal Jammers is on the Rise
 
The FCC last year also issued a fine of $29,000 USD to Houston, Texas based R&N Manufacturing, Ltd (RNM) who was found to be using a jammer to stop employees from making phone calls at work.  Again, MetroPCS seemed to be among the most aware and savvy carriers as it was the first to notice and pinpoint the interference with the help of the FCC.

R&N Manufacturing
R&N Manufacturing in Houston, Texas, was fined for using an illegal jammer.

While jammers are illegal in the U.S. they are easy to make and purchase from simple electronics, leading to a thriving black market on loosely regulated internet sales sites, such as Craigslist.  Basic jammers can set you back around $200 to 300 USD.
 
The growing popular uses of jammers are broadly covered by the trio of mentioned incidents -- policing customers, employees, or family members in a building; escaping GPS tracking (e.g. car thieves or people looking to avoid employer scrutiny); or trying to play vigilante and crack down on those using cell phones on the roads.

Craiglist jammer
Cell phone jammers such as this one are often found on Craigslist. [Image Source: Craigslist]

Jammers have been frequently portrayed in television or movie dramas and are commonly used in military conflicts, as well as by police and other law enforcement officials.  However, unauthorized citizen use was not widespread until recently when the growth internet commerce made it easy to buy such mildly-illegal goods ("mild" in the sense that they carry only civil penalties at present for sales and purchase).
 
Some jammers can block signals up to 5 miles away.
 
While the FCC can currently crack down on use of jammers via fines, it lacks the authority to file criminal charges against those who jam.  Thus, for now a small but growing number of Americans will likely continue to look to jam for causes ranging from crime to vigilante justice.  

Sources: FCC [press release], Tampa Bay Tribune



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

DealExtreme
By Mitch101 on 5/1/2014 4:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ive been tempted to get one of these myself because of the typical idiot clearly texting and not paying attention. I had one so bad a few weeks back I had to follow (heading that way on the highway but stayed as the car behind them) because I felt it was going to happen. I'm glad and a bit dissapointed it didn't happen she kept swinging out of her lane and stopping short it was so bad. Must have been 20 close calls in 10 miles? Like watching a good horror flick.




RE: DealExtreme
By Just Tom on 5/1/2014 5:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
Did you call the police? You had plate, make and model, and direction of travel. She might have ended up with a hefty fine.


RE: DealExtreme
By Mitch101 on 5/1/2014 5:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Did that once before the wife and I followed someone (going that way anyhow) and wife was also recording video just in case she slammed into someone. About 3 mins after the police call we both passed a police car on the side of the road could clearly see officer and we were both 15mph over speed limit and nothing the officer never gave chase. At that point we said ok and just slowed so we didnt get a ticket.

I honestly think they wont pursue it may be too much of a possible distraction. I just dont know so we will probably just video next time and enjoy the show.

Jersey has a hotline for road rage and I saw it once nothing happened. No police ever showed before the people went off and they were there a while.


RE: DealExtreme
By Reclaimer77 on 5/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: DealExtreme
By Mitch101 on 5/2/14, Rating: -1
RE: DealExtreme
By Reclaimer77 on 5/5/2014 11:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
I get that, yes, so what?

That doesn't empower you to speed, which is against the law. And you can't tell me that just because your wife was shooting the video, you weren't distracted as hell.

Were you keeping a safe distance based on your speed? Nope, I doubt it, since you were staying close enough for your wife to shoot video. I mean wtf, how can you possibly expect us to think your behavior was acceptable?

You took unnecessary risks, broke the law, and were a public danger yourself. And for what? To stop a rape? To witness a murder or violent crime? Nope, someone was using a phone in their car! Wow Mitch, you're a regular hero.


RE: DealExtreme
By jeepga on 5/2/2014 8:14:26 AM , Rating: 1
Let me get this straight? In order to pump up your ego and be a vigilante against someone that may have been unsafe you broke a different law and drove unsafely. Brilliant! (That's sarcasm in case it wasn't clear.)


RE: DealExtreme
By Mitch101 on 5/2/14, Rating: 0
RE: DealExtreme
By jeepga on 5/2/2014 8:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
Going 15 mph over the speed limit is driving unsafely dimwit. Not to mention breaking the law, but apparently that only matters when it's the other person.

You may or may not be able to drive safely at that speed. Guess what? The alleged texter probably thinks the same thing about what they're doing.

Damn, there are hypocrits and then there are people who are oblivious to their own hypocrisy. Crazy.


RE: DealExtreme
By Mitch101 on 5/4/14, Rating: 0
RE: DealExtreme
By jeepga on 5/5/2014 9:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
You're a special kind of stupid.


RE: DealExtreme
By Mitch101 on 5/5/2014 5:37:09 PM , Rating: 1
Stick to the right line A-Hole.


RE: DealExtreme
By jeepga on 5/5/2014 7:58:58 PM , Rating: 1
I'll drive where I please douchebag.


RE: DealExtreme
By Reclaimer77 on 5/5/2014 7:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
LOL Says Paul Blart Road Cop!


RE: DealExtreme
By Mitch101 on 5/6/2014 2:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
Wow you getting your material from a 4th grader because I know that joke is way beyond your ability.

Im positive Blart is more physically capable than you.


RE: DealExtreme
By TheEinstein on 5/5/2014 8:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
As a Semi-Truck driver I have called in about 18 or so cases of dangerous driving.

I have gotten police to respond about 1/3 of the time.

Some texters are very dangerous, some are no hazard at all.

I would dare say that 1/3 of the population texts... trust me I can see into their vehicles!

I am an advocate for responsible self control, if you are weaving and bobbing over the lines due to ANY activity you need a reckless driving ticket and nothing less. This whole making texting a separate crime is just a way to make it so it is a far lesser issue, increases total revenue, and in no way really solves anything.

Instead you would be surprised at what a cop uses while driving, cell phones, computers, radios, cb's, walkietalkies, and even texting!

Look at it this way, I have seen professional drivers who are on their phone for 100 miles as I pass them, get passed by them (damn mountains), pass them again, and so forth. They never swerve, they never bob and weave, they drive a perfectly straight line, and they never will hit anyone.

But in regards to police doing a 'catch the texter'... often making a catch on drunk driving is hard enough, I have sat behind someone for an hour on the phone with a dispatch that WANTS to catch them before getting a good line up. Texting is harder to prove "oh my phone, sure" *hands the officer a company phone with no texting* and is a lower fine and crime.

Instead if they are all over the place report the dangerous driving WITHOUT mentioning texting. Higher chances of getting a response.


RE: DealExtreme
By Mitch101 on 5/8/2014 9:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the tip and coming from a truck driver I think you have much more credit on this topic.

I really wish we still have the video to post it and see what people think about both cases. These two were way out of control I'm still in shock they didn't kill themselves or someone around them. I too see texters all the time you can tell they are almost always late to start moving and late to stop but the two I talk about and extremes the ones where you go look at that they are gonna crash. Must be drunk oh no just havily distracted texters.

As much as they are texting they should just call much safer than trying to type.


RE: DealExtreme
By tim851 on 5/2/2014 2:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ive been tempted to get one of these myself because of the typical idiot clearly texting and not paying attention.

Sure. And then I get one too. And the next guy. Soon, you'll have zero reception anywhere, because a hundred million self-righteous jammers are driving around the country.
But at least we'll have demonstrated how great vigilante justice is.


RE: DealExtreme
By rs1 on 5/2/2014 5:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ive been tempted to get one of these myself because of the typical idiot clearly texting and not paying attention.


Problem is, you don't need an active signal to compose a text. So you jam the connection, and the idiot just continues typing away obliviously. Then they hit send, it fails, and they start over.

Your jammer has accomplished absolutely nothing, except perhaps stopping any new texts from coming in. But if they were already texting, that probably is of little use.


RE: DealExtreme
By Mitch101 on 5/2/2014 1:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
And thats what keeps me from getting one is the jamming wont change the habbit of the person only make it worse. With my luck they would hit my car trying to retext.


more dangerous
By doughtree on 5/1/2014 4:50:55 PM , Rating: 5
i'd argue that driving with a signal jammer is more dangerous then without one as it distracts and frustrates drivers who are on a call only to find out their cell stopped working. so these drivers start to troubleshoot their phones while driving, a harder task then just chatting i think.




RE: more dangerous
By Omega215D on 5/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: more dangerous
By sorry dog on 5/3/2014 12:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that but he was most likely also jamming much more than cell signals. Wireless operators have multiple frquencies like 700, 850, 1900, 1700, etc., and he also got the police radios so it sounds like we was blanketing over a very very wide range. In fact, he was probably transmitting in the same range as aircraft comms and transponders, and only his limited power or limited antennae prevented more serious interference there.


Moral of the story
By corduroygt on 5/1/2014 5:11:56 PM , Rating: 5
If you're going to do this kind of stuff, quit after a year.




RE: Moral of the story
By DougF on 5/3/2014 9:07:33 AM , Rating: 2
Or use alternate routes and timing to/from work...


By jimbojimbo on 5/1/2014 4:59:46 PM , Rating: 5
Now the idiot trying to talk on their phone would be staring at their phone trying to figure out why they can't call anybody or trying to send their texts over and over again and then trying to post on FB "My cell service dropped!"




Take them off the road.
By Wombat_56 on 5/1/2014 8:04:00 PM , Rating: 3
I think texting while driving is so dangerous, and scientific tests back me up, that it should be treated like low range drink driving in terms of fines and other penalties.

Give offenders an hour or so to to complete their current journey, (to save the trouble of having them towed) then fine them and ban them from driving for a period, perhaps a month or so.




RE: Take them off the road.
By Omega215D on 5/1/2014 9:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
Unless if the driver is becoming increasingly erratic then should get stopped immediately and jailed plus fine plus revocation of their license.

Even with a ban these idiots still get on the road, just unlicensed is all and check points are increasingly becoming illegal.


Traffic accidents...?
By wordsworm on 5/1/2014 6:42:21 PM , Rating: 3
It's doubtful that any statistic could be derived from that stretch of highway to see if there were fewer accidents because of his jamming.. or more... but if they could find out it would be an interesting study to read.




too bad they are illegal =)
By Silver2k7 on 5/2/2014 3:27:03 AM , Rating: 3
Ive been tempted to buy one for a movie theater lol.
but its probably illegal even if you would put up a big fat note saying no cellphone reception in this area.




Superb...
By Amiga500 on 5/2/2014 6:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
Now to get one to take to the next pub quiz I go to...

Be interesting to see if there is much change in the typical scores... ;-)




lack of service
By ssobol on 5/2/2014 2:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
There is no guarantee of cell service and your cell provider is not liable if you cannot get a signal (its in the agreement). If you don't have good service you can change providers but you cannot sue them. Therefore if I had a building that "just happened" to block cell service due to its location or construction (provided its built to the local codes which AFAIK do not require a building be transparent to cell signals) it would be difficult for anyone to sue because their cell phone did not work. While this works for say a theater, restaurant, office, etc., it does not work for cars (as they are currently built). You could make a car that would block cell signals without a lot of difficulty.

However, you'd probably have some reduction in business or car sales if this was the case because a lot of people these days can't seem to exist without constant cell contact.

I would love to have a cell jammer that worked out to about 30 feet from me. I'd test it to be sure that was what it actually did though. I'd also make it so that it cycled on for a few seconds and then switched off (on just long enough to drop the cell calls). It may be illegal, but I can dream.




DISGUSTED!!
By timothyd97402 on 5/2/2014 4:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
I truly am disgusted by the number of people that have decided that the rules don't apply to them. No matter the "rationale", adherence to certain basic rules is what makes civil society possible. I hope you all enjoy life when this country devolves into total chaos and anarchy.




By bupkus on 5/2/2014 4:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
I would really like to see some statistics about the number of accidents and other emergency responder activities in that stretch of highway before, during and after his interference ended.




Play it smart
By dgingerich on 5/1/14, Rating: -1
RE: Play it smart
By Nightbird321 on 5/1/2014 4:45:19 PM , Rating: 4
Try searching for directional EMP or EMP gun, good luck getting off with just a fine after using one though...


RE: Play it smart
By Jeffk464 on 5/1/2014 7:14:56 PM , Rating: 3
Wouldnt that also take out the engine management computer?


RE: Play it smart
By Cypherdude1 on 5/1/2014 8:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
There's a bigger penalty than just the $48K from the FCC. There's also the probable lawsuits from T-Mobile and every other cellphone provider which uses every tower Mr. Humphreys jammed. Chances are, Mr. Humphreys will be sued by at least one cellphone company and probably more. The cellphone companies may want to make an example of Mr. Humphreys.

There's also a lot of illegal wiretapping through cellphones going on. We have all heard about the spying occurring in the USA on USA citizens. What we haven't heard yet is the other half of the illegal spying on our phones, emails, bank accounts and CC accounts by private firms such as our media companies.

We already know about a single newspaper in the UK spying on UK citizens. We have not yet heard about illegal spying on USA citizens by our large media conglomerates. Eventually it will come out. When it does, it will be explosive.


RE: Play it smart
By Argon18 on 5/2/2014 12:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
"Wouldnt that also take out the engine management computer?"

Doubtful. Every engine management computer I've seen is inside a steel case. The steel jacket would block RF signals in the same way that getting into an elevator causes your cell phone to lose signal. I think only military grade megawatt EMP equipment would be powerful enough to do as you describe.


RE: Play it smart
By FaaR on 5/2/2014 1:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
Wires hooked up to the engine management computer would pick up the EMP and transmit the energy inside the steel case just fine, including power cables which are typically not shielded...


RE: Play it smart
By Cypherdude1 on 5/2/2014 7:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wires hooked up to the engine management computer would pick up the EMP and transmit the energy inside the steel case just fine, including power cables which are typically not shielded...
In case of nuclear attack by any of our enemies, we're just going to have to go retro. We're all going to have to buy classic cars from the 60's. I once had a 1968 Fastback Mustang. I sold it 8.5 years ago. I was prepared for hostile EMP attack, but now I am not. Horses are next.


RE: Play it smart
By Jeffk464 on 5/1/2014 7:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
Also I'm guessing buying an emp gun would earn you a visit from the FBI.


RE: Play it smart
By Flunk on 5/1/2014 5:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
The best thing to do, would be to NOT do this.


RE: Play it smart
By inighthawki on 5/1/2014 9:21:29 PM , Rating: 5
Then you end up confusing people and they'll fidget with the device trying to figure out the reception issue instead of getting back to driving :)


RE: Play it smart
By ipay on 5/2/2014 9:51:12 AM , Rating: 2
This. I have one in one of my vehicles and have it configured for momentary on. From experience I don't recommend using one in moving traffic, but at stop lights it works pretty good. But with fine's like that... goodbye, jammer!


RE: Play it smart
By Flunk on 5/2/2014 9:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you're just a jerk who enjoys annoying people.


RE: Play it smart
By dgingerich on 5/2/2014 1:09:32 PM , Rating: 3
Jerks who enjoy annoying people are busy running 40mph on a crowded 55-65mph highway trying to "regulate traffic."


Personally
By FITCamaro on 5/2/14, Rating: -1
RE: Personally
By Cypherdude1 on 5/2/2014 8:12:29 AM , Rating: 2
That might be illegal. Also, you would be liable should any emergency occur and your equipment was jamming customers' cellphones while they were trying to call 911.

A good example is the July 20, 2012 attack by maniac James Eagan Holmes during the The Dark Knight Rises Batman movie where he killed 12 people and injured 70 others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

If you were running equipment which was jamming customers' cellphones during this attack, you would be sued by 70 different families and you would be out of business.

If you're running a business which harms a large number of people and they become aware of your transgressions, you will be sued by so many parties you would be out of business, wiped out.


RE: Personally
By bigboxes on 5/2/2014 8:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
Jeez, what did we do before cell phones? People act like it's their right to be constantly tethered to the device. I use mine while driving (gps/hands-free bluetooth), but so many people feel entitled in their use they have no idea when it's appropriate.


RE: Personally
By Flunk on 5/2/2014 10:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
That's how freedom works, it's not just for you but other people too.


RE: Personally
By EricMartello on 5/2/2014 1:06:43 PM , Rating: 1
If he owns the movie theater, he can jam electronic devices so long as the interference is limited to the area of his business. It's not the same as going out onto a public road and jamming cellphones because you think that makes you a hero. As for a potential emergency situation, there are other ways to deal with it. You do not need to have a cellphone stuck to your head every waking moment. It never ceases to amaze me how gains in technology scale inversely to the average person's individual competence.


RE: Personally
By FaaR on 5/2/2014 2:01:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If he owns the movie theater, he can jam electronic devices so long as the interference is limited to the area of his business.

Wut! What on earth makes you think that?!

You do NOT have the right to operate unlicensed radio transmitters in protected EM bands just because you own the piece of land the transmitter is sitting on. Didn't you read this article? The guy it's about was fined tens of thousands of bucks for doing just what you're proposing.

Also, how do you propose limiting the interference solely to the area of business? Radio waves do not respect property bounds.

So in closing, stop being an entitled douche who thinks it's your place to lord over other people. Thanks.


RE: Personally
By Camikazi on 5/2/2014 2:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
Transmitters do have max limits based on power output, with some work you can limit how far a signal goes by using higher or lower output and different placements of the equipment. I do the same now with a few wireless routers to make sure I get coverage in every part of the house.


RE: Personally
By EricMartello on 5/3/2014 12:12:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Wut! What on earth makes you think that?!


Y u no miss pell wut bowf tims?

quote:
You do NOT have the right to operate unlicensed radio transmitters in protected EM bands just because you own the piece of land the transmitter is sitting on. Didn't you read this article? The guy it's about was fined tens of thousands of bucks for doing just what you're proposing.


I didn't propose to do what the guy did - he was jamming signals in a public area. If you want to put a faraday cage around your building, YOU CAN. If you want to broadcast interference on the frequencies used by cellphones and wifi, you can so long as the interference does not extend beyond the bounds of your property.

quote:
Also, how do you propose limiting the interference solely to the area of business? Radio waves do not respect property bounds.


They have a limited range based on the power with which they are broadcast, and you can use directional antennas to limit the jamming signals to specific perimeter.

quote:
So in closing, stop being an entitled douche who thinks it's your place to lord over other people. Thanks.


As long as there are people who feel entitled to do whatever they want, wherever they want without common courtesy or regard for others in the area, I will have no problems with a business owner who wants to jam cellphone signals in his place of business if the usage of cellphones would generally be disturbing to other patrons.


RE: Personally
By Solandri on 5/3/2014 3:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't propose to do what the guy did - he was jamming signals in a public area. If you want to put a faraday cage around your building, YOU CAN. If you want to broadcast interference on the frequencies used by cellphones and wifi, you can so long as the interference does not extend beyond the bounds of your property.

That's the rub. Radio signals fall off by the inverse square law, not based on property lines. So the only way to jam signals on your property but not outside it is to enclose the property in a Faraday cage. But if you do that (some theaters do), you don't need a jammer in the first place.


RE: Personally
By germanicevich on 5/3/2014 3:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
You have to think not only of the signals being generated on your hypothetical movie theater, but also the signals sent from outside the property that go through it to the nearest antenna. Not always will be possible for the signal reach an alternative node, causing more damage that benefits.


RE: Personally
By Argon18 on 5/2/2014 12:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
Believe me, I'm no fan of self-centered "entitlement" attitude people. On this particular issue however, when someone is paying for a service, they expect that service to be available. When a 3rd party enters the scene and disrupts that service, people are justifiably irate. No different from someone stealing the newspaper off your front lawn before you've had a chance to read it.


RE: Personally
By Natch on 5/2/2014 7:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
They used pay phones. How many of those have you seen lately? ;)


RE: Personally
By MrBlastman on 5/2/2014 11:07:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A good example is the July 20, 2012 attack by maniac James Eagan Holmes during the The Dark Knight Rises Batman movie where he killed 12 people and injured 70 others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting


I am sorry. I have much respect and condolences for the families who lost loved ones. However, that incident is a great example as to why you should concealed carry a firearm. Sure the dude was armored but if you hit him in the legs he's going down--and in the chest well it might knock the wind out of him long enough for someone to tackle him.


RE: Personally
By FaaR on 5/2/2014 2:05:35 PM , Rating: 3
Goodie. A crossfire in a movie theatre is JUST what we need, isn't it! Some of you "hero" vigilante "protectors" are gonna get a bunch of other moviegoers killed - possibly kids - when you start shooting at each other in the dark.

Dumbest, most idiotic post ever, possibly. Well, no, not really. This IS dailytech after all...


RE: Personally
By Argon18 on 5/5/2014 4:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
"Goodie. A crossfire in a movie theatre is JUST what we need, isn't it! Some of you "hero" vigilante "protectors" are gonna get a bunch of other moviegoers killed - possibly kids - when you start shooting at each other in the dark."

Ignorant dishonest liberals like yourself try and portray firearm owners as vigilante cowboys, ready to rain a hailstorm of bullets and crossfire down on the innocent public masses, killing women and children and oppressed minorities and PETA vegans in the process.

In the real world however, a firearm owner is responsible for every bullet that leaves his gun. He or she knows this well. Firing a gun in the dark in a crowded theater is not something any law abiding firearm owner would ever do. History shows this to be true, with many thousands of lawful firearm uses every year, where peoples lives were saved by a quick thinking firearm owner with a concealed handgun.


RE: Personally
By Argon18 on 5/5/2014 5:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Goodie. A crossfire in a movie theatre is JUST what we need, isn't it! Some of you "hero" vigilante "protectors" are gonna get a bunch of other moviegoers killed - possibly kids - when you start shooting at each other in the dark."

Also, while there are thousands of documented lawful firearm uses every year in the US where peoples lives were saved, can you cite even a single instance of what you're describing? Where a concealed carry permit holder fired a gun in self defense and ended up killing an innocent bystander instead? Just one occasion? I doubt you can.

Please, prove to us your concern is more than just ignorance and confusion.


RE: Personally
By nafhan on 5/2/2014 9:18:31 AM , Rating: 2
So... I'm curious. How do you make sure it doesn't extend beyond the bounds of your property?

My understanding would be that unless your property is enclosed in something along the lines of a conductive cage it will extend beyond your boundries, and if your property is enclosed in a conductive you don't need a jammer...


RE: Personally
By FITCamaro on 5/2/14, Rating: 0
RE: Personally
By FaaR on 5/2/2014 2:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
Since cell phone signals penetrate the walls just fine, the jammer's signals would also.

In addition, just because you own a piece of land doesn't mean you're exempt from the law, and you're not legally allowed to jam cell phone frequency bands.


RE: Personally
By MrBlastman on 5/2/2014 11:10:04 AM , Rating: 2
You can do this with passive jamming. Instead of using an active device that emits RF, you build your property with a "faraday cage" surrounding each individual building or room.


RE: Personally
By DigitalFreak on 5/2/2014 3:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's easier to just throw them out.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki