Cell Phone Jamming Devices Enjoy an Increase In Popularity 805
rullywowr writes "A story run by local new NBC10 of Philadelphia last Friday illuminated the fact that this particular rider of the pubilc bus system is packing a cell phone jammer and is not afraid to use it. Going by the name of 'Eric,' whenever he sees someone being 'rude' on the bus and talking loudly on their cell phone, he screws the antenna on and flips the power switch. Regardless of the steep civil penalites levied by the FCC (up to $16,000 USD), many (such as 'Eric') are still interested by these devices which can be bought on the internet for $40 to over $1000. Opponents of these devices say that not only do they interfere with mobile phones, they often can interfere with 'behind the scenes' communication, Wi-Fi, etc. Despite being illegal, TFA points out that they are readily available on the internet (what else is new?). Do you have an instance where you experienced the positive (or negative) effects of a cell phone jammer?"
I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
Because your good at judging who should be on the phone and who shouldn't.
Re:I approve (Score:4, Insightful)
if everyone else is trying to sleep on the bus/ train and you are loudly using your cell phone about an obviously nonurgent matter (your sister's crazy marriage, your kid's report card, your dog's diet, etc.) then you deserve to be jammed, with my full support, and with the support of everyone else trying to get some shuteye
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah and the side effect of it blocking the person trying to make a wireless 911 call. Who cares about the innocents caught in this, right?
Why would anyone be making a private 911 call on a bus? Especially without any of the other passengers knowing?
I mean, I'm not agreeing with this; but that's a ridiculous claim under this scenario.
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a bizarre bit of info, the centrifuge devices they use at my local bloodbank get messed up by cell signals. They don't know why, and I haven't found an explanation for it, but it does happen, that's why they ban cell phones there. And remember, that jammer is stronger than a cell phone signal, if one was used on the road just outside, it could really screw things up.
I'd love to use an emp generator on that douchebag music hater that drives by at 3am with his car vibrating so loudly you can't even guess what the beat is much less the 'music' he's blasting. I can get the parts for a one-shot device, and place it in range of where his car will be. But I don't because there will be a lot of collateral damage, much of which I can't predict before hand.
Shutting down the scum and douches, great. Getting anyone else in your blanket attack, you're worse than they are.
So tell you what, next time someone is too loud on their phone, find where you left your dick, show a slight amount of courage, and tell them "Hey loudmouth, show a little consideration to the other people here and keep it down!". If you can do that instead of being a weaselly coward, make sure you do it loud enough so that not only can he hear ot, but whomever he is talking to can as well. (It's a much bigger deterrent if the person on the other end knows he's being a jerk than if he does himself.)
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
There may be other urgent calls a person would like to be able to receive. Business calls, family emergency, but who knows now right? Because this selfish asshole has decided that nobody on the bus should be able to make any calls because he can't deal with the reality of living around other people in the 21st century.
I hope all these morons get caught and have the book thrown at them.
Re:I approve (Score:5, Funny)
Because that person couldn't hear the call anyway because Aunt Bessie's corgi has asthma and she had to take it to the vet and it cut into her bridge game and she was about to win against that impossible skank Dolores the Applebee's manager who refused a refund on some disgustingly awful soup I think it was minestrone but maybe it was chicken noodle, but anyway, we're not going back to that Applebee's and we also called the regional office to tell them how awful Dolores is not that they'll do anything, I bet she sleeps with her boss, the skank, anyway the corgi is...hold on, will you shut up about your chest pains and difficulty breathing?! Can't you see I'm on a VERY IMPORTANT call?! The world doesn't revolve around you!!...so the corgi is fine now, but they have to take her in next month as a check up and I'm worried, damnit...No, I will not be quiet so you can talk to some "dispatcher!" This is a free country and I can talk as loud as I want!... God, some people are so RUDE!
Re:I approve (Score:4, Insightful)
So jam the phones of innocent bystanders because some asshole is using one.
Who's the bigger asshole?
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I approve (Score:5, Funny)
30 years ago no one had cell phones... things havent gotten THAT much more important in 30 years
Are you kidding! We have terrorists now! And child molesters! And child molesting terrorists! Think of the children! If you're against everyone calling 911 you must be a communist! I bet they don't have 911 in Communistic countries! USA! USA!
I'd even bet that thirty years ago they didn't even have italics!
You must be a pervert.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they have. Also, people are expected to have a more immediate response.
Welcome to the future, asshole.
Re:I approve (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so it's like blocking off the road with concrete blocks, then. It's only temporary, and only when you're trying to sleep. And if someone really needs to use the road, they can just ask you. Then you can judge them and see if they are likely to annoy you.
Re: (Score:3)
There may be other urgent calls a person would like to be able to receive. Business calls, family emergency, but who knows now right?
The question isn't "who knows", it's "who cares". They get a voice mail when they get off the bus, big deal. You don't need to be connected 24/7. It's the same as being out of range of a tower, you get back in range, check your voicemail, call and apologize that you were out of range. Not a big deal.
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I approve (Score:4, Insightful)
That's my choice to make - not your decision to make for me.
No, it's not the same. Unless you live out in the boonies, you're rarely out of range of a tower. Even if you are out of range/communication, as the vehicle moves - you eventually move back into range/communication. In the case of a jerk with a jammer, you remain unable to communicate until he chooses to stop using the jammer.
Re:I approve (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't use Facebook. I barely use my phone actually, so you'd think I'd be in the bitter neckbeard camp, but I'm not a horrible selfish sociopath.
Also I guess your dad is rich so you've never had to hunt for a job. One missed call CAN fuck you up.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the average range of these jammers? Could someone on the bus jamming Mr. Loud Talker also jam a 911 call from an apartment building the bus is driving by? Could someone stopping a movie theater talker be hampering a call outside of the theater?
Re: (Score:3)
What's the average range of these jammers? Could someone on the bus jamming Mr. Loud Talker also jam a 911 call from an apartment building the bus is driving by? Could someone stopping a movie theater talker be hampering a call outside of the theater?
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is sometimes your friend. Quoting the most relevant bits:
"Smaller handheld models block all bands from 800MHz to 1900MHz within a 30-foot range (9 meters)."
"The radius of cell phone jammers can range from a dozen feet for pocket models to kilometers for more dedicated units."
The larger models which interfere with a tower or cover several tens or hundreds of meters are unlikely to be hand-held due to their power consumption. So pocket-sized models are effective over about 4-9 meters, which woul
passive aggressive much? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're also jamming the receipt of said important calls, which the jammer has no knowledge of. For instance, what if there's a doctor on the bus who doesn't get the call saying he's needed in emergency surgery, or there's an undercover cop on the bus watching for trouble (we have undercover cops in Boston for instance) who doesn't get a call saying that he's needed for something.
Why is the right answer to jam them and everyone around them? Why not walk up to them and ask them to bring the volume down? Why must we resort to under-handed/passive aggressive techniques that affect others that aren't violating the social rules?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funnily enough, I did actually make a private 911 call on a bus once, with the intention that at least the bus driver wouldn't know: I was calling the police to tell them the bus driver had just busted a red light, had mounted the sidewalk earlier and seemed to be incompetent, tired or otherwise incapacitated.
Re:I approve (Score:5, Funny)
I take it that was your fist time on a bus~
Twisted people on slashdot today.... fools! (Score:3)
Most of these jammers can easily interfere 40 ft or more. There are cars around, they could be trying to call 911.
Police cars use cellular data connection all the time.
I use my phone GPS which is using a data connection too. I would break a guys head myself if he jams my cell phone while i am trying to navigate.
Where I live, one suburbs even has buses equipped with GPS enabled cellular data devices and you can track a bus while waiting on a bus stop.
I don't like people using cell phone either, but using a j
Re:Twisted people on slashdot today.... fools! (Score:4, Interesting)
Cellphone jamming does not have to be dickish to everyone else around it.
Here is how I personally would make a cellphone jammer:
Take an ordinary quad band cellphone, preferably an android one with a well documented radio, with a rear facing camera, and a custom rom image running with root.
On the phone is the "jam this bastard!" Application, which I will have written myself. What it does is put the phone into promiscuous mode to capture datagrams not directed at it, and take signal to noise ratio measurements, along with a camera distance estimate from the rear facing camera. Using some inverse cube rule math, and some fuzzy metrics from the camera, it identifies the "bastard" you are aiming the phone at. You simply pretend you are texting away.
Once it identifies the "bastard", and their uuid (iemi, ssid, mac, whatever the network uses), and the tower+protocol used, it starts spoofing RST datagrams from the tower, sent as unicasts over the cellular band being used by the "bastard", with headers indicating that it is for the bastard's handset. The rate of injection is configurable.
This causes the "bastard" to lose connection with the tower as his handset obeys the connection reset command. A combination of this and some clever and fast spoofing on the part of the jamming phone to impersonate the jammed handset to send the "hang up" signal to the tower, will force a targetted dropped calls. At least in theory.
It would not impact any other cellular users, since it would use spoofed unicasts.
In the event that it can't directly interface with the target network, it would use the camera for range finding, and look for "noise".
It would then use a combination of the internal antennas broadcasting raw bit patterns to poison a specific noise source. (Say, using a multiplexed 2.4ghz wifi signal with an 800mhz signal to create a psuedo-broadcast at some other frequency via partial wave reinforcement, done using timed broadcasts of a user data pattern.)
The partial wave reinforcement to create the false effective signal would have a radically short range. It might interfere with other nearby devices, but would be quickly and effectively attenuated by environmental obstacles.
(Basically, you create a "beat" frequency emission using two frequencies on either side of the target frequency. The overlap of the two signals creates a 'false', or "beat" frequency in the desired band. If either of the source emissions falls off or gets deflected/reflected, the resulting beat freq will not be in the target band.)
This means the signal would still not leave the bus.
This might not force a disconnect, but would degrade QoS, and might improve the chances of a natural disconnect, especially if the bus is moving, since it could disrupt tower handoff.
(The second method is for, eg, a verizon smartphone using "bastard", and a quadband T-mo using jammer. The jammer cannot see the raw data traffic on verizon's spectrum, since the phone antenna is not able to pick it up. No radio emission is completely discrete, especially with multipath interferences and other randomizing sources of attenuation, so communications on that foreign band should be detectable as noise on the native band from the local environmental attenuation. This is similar to an att gsm phone making a home stereo buzz. The phone is not really broadcasting on such a low frequency, the signal just attenuates there/causes a signal induction, creating noise.)
In europe, where practically everyone uses gsm, the android smartphone based jamming app would be surgical and effective. In NA, where there is cdma and gsm, the dirty second option is needed.
Granted, very few handsets have radios with such capabilities, or are sufficiently well documented publicly to bastardize them for this purpose.
In the first case, anybody else on the bus will be totally unimpacted by the DoS exploit.
In the second case, some nearby (within maybe 2 to 5 meters) people might be effected, but only if th
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt the jammer device would be considerate enough to restrict its area of effect to the bus. There might be people you don't see being affected by the jammer, people using their phones silently, people using their phones for actual important stuff.
Someone with a jammer is just a little delinquent with too much self-entitlement. Pretty much the radio equivalent of a script kid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he was leaping ahead by assuming that if someone was assaulted, had a seizure, needed a cop or paramedic, it wouldn't be secret information.
The guy jamming the signal would know about it as well and shut off his jammer.
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
He may know about it, but if he's the one that needs help he may not be able to turn it off.
Re:I approve (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah and the side effect of it blocking the person trying to make a wireless 911 call. Who cares about the innocents caught in this, right?
Not to mention the five people quietly texting away, or browsing the web, emailing, etc. Basically, the idiot vigilante is screwing everyone over because of one loudmouth. And lets not forget the cell-based position reporting of the bus/train/whatever, or the GPS that his $40 jammer is also screwing with, and so on. Yes, the guy talking loudly on his phone is an asshat; the guy jamming everybody is even worse.
Re:I approve (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I approve (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, in Chicago it's against the law to sleep on public transportation, but not illegal to talk on a cell phone (at a resonable volume).
Best quote I ever heard on the train: "Honey, I've got to hang up - everyone's looking at me like I'm 'That Guy' ". Got quite a laugh out of the other riders.
Re:I approve (Score:4, Insightful)
Many buses disallow cell phone calls (ex. express bus service in NYC). Many trains have "quiet cars" where cell phone calls are not permitted. They're not absolutely strict on that stuff, but it's certainly unacceptable.
Loud and obnoxious activities (because really, the cell phone itself isn't at issue) are never socially acceptable around a group of quiet people. To think otherwise is ignorant. Act otherwise and you're just an asshole.
Difference between smoke and conversation (Score:3)
Re:Difference between smoke and conversation (Score:4, Informative)
I agree, short cell call at reasonable volume is not a problem. What is a problem is 45 minutes of someone shouting into their phone. Which I get about twice a week on my commute.
Re:Difference between smoke and conversation (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if only they could invent a jammer for people who have their headphones cranked up to 11 until I swear their ears must be bleeding. If it is loud for me sitting next to you I can only imagine what must be left of your hearing.
Re:Difference between smoke and conversation (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondhand smoke is clinically proven to increase the occurrence of lung cancer. A short cell phone call at a reasonable volume is not.
"A short cell phone call at a reasonable volume" is not the problem that people who use jammers are trying to solve.
Re:I approve (Score:4, Funny)
God YES!!
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
An who the hell are you to determine when someone can use their phone? Buses/trains are not bedrooms, sleep in your bed, not on the bus. Don't like someone talking, wear earplugs. If you haven't noticed buses/trains are not the quietest places and phone feedback makes it easy to think your not speaking loud enough. Buses and trains are public congregation points like any other and people have the freedom to speak/entertain themselves as they please. Don't like it, drive your own car. Personally, I hope these jamming pricks run into people with detectors, and forget jail just a good ass whipping should do and then a technology ban.
Aggressive in-your-face "i do what i want" behavior only works if you manage to pull it off without being a jerk to others. What if a guy sitting next to you was coming back from a soccer game and blew a compressed air 120db horn next to your ear? What if someone on the train spat in your face when talking to their neighbor or dropped mustard in your lap while eating a sandwitch and didn't even apologize?
Don't like it? Drive your own damn car. It's easy to have a tough attitude about personal liberty. Difficult when you are facing the brunt of it.
And yes, someone talking for a few minutes on the phone and trying to keep their voice low in a crowded train is one thing. Someone talking very loudly for a couple of hours in a crowded train is completely another thing. There's no rule book for this - the assumption is that as a citizen of society, you would be considerate to others and learn how to co-exist without getting into a fistfight every day. Unfortunately, so many people nowadays are so self-absorbed and grow up with a sense of entitlement, they're forgotten how to be a gentle human being (without necessarily being a pushover). Or they turn their nose at the concept.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a member of the public who doesn't want to spend his entire time in a public space listening to someone else's noise. A short, or low-volume conversation is one thing, but you are in public, among other people, and your right to do stops at their right to not be bothered by you.
Personally, I hope you run into someone with a short temper who rams that cellphone up your nostrils.
Mart
Re: (Score:3)
If both they and the one making the call are in public, then yes, he is a good judge of who should be on the phone or not: the ones able to keep a conversation brief, or of sufficiently low volume that they don't bother anyone.
Re:I approve (Score:4, Insightful)
Movies, Plays, Recitals, Conferences,
Public Transit, quiet talking for a short period of time if you are sitting next to someone, otherwise no time limit on the length of conversation just keep the conversation suitable for a public setting and use your indoor voice.
Restaurants unless you want to convey that the phone conversation you are having is more important then the company you keep, keep it short.
Sidewalks, streets,
These are simple rules to follow, and anyone that is too ignorant or rude to follow them should be subjected to jamming of their call. The only thing that Eric did that was wrong was his jammer was omnidirectional so anyone using their cell phone in a proper manor could have been cut off.
Re:I approve (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I approve (Score:5, Funny)
I think someone has a 'whoosh' jammer switched on near you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy is my new hero, even though he later backed down and said he wasn't going to use it anymore. I for one am fed up with the constant assault of cell phone conversations from people who have no idea how to be considerate to those around them.
I hope you buy one then, and get your dick slammed in the cop car's door as they arrest your silly ass.
If your idea of "being considerate" is to break everyone else's communications infrastructure, buy a pair of earplugs. Or better yet, get a screwdriver and insert until the problem goes away...
Re:I approve (Score:4, Interesting)
I generally don't use my cell phone where I think you shouldn't. This includes restaurants, theatres, public transit, etc.
If it rings, I may look at it to see who is calling. I won't answer it and sometimes just leave the phone on vibrate.
I don't understand why people think they must be able to talk on the phone everywhere. I find it more annoying now with a cell phone, as people pretty much expect you to answer it as they're calling you directly and not your house.
Re:I approve (Score:5, Interesting)
I do it in degrees. If it's a casual group of my friends, I will excuse myself and leave the group to take the call outside, so I don't subject them to my conversation, then return back when I'm done.
If it's a more formal event, phone's on vibrate and only in dire emergencies would I answer. And even then I'd politely excuse myself from the group.
And texting/emailing is a no-no unless there's a very good reason - all live conversations have priority over a texted one except in emergencies. Surfing the web is limited to only if it's something the group requires (e.g., resolving an argument or looking something up).
And no, I don't have voicemail.
Anyhow, yes it's illegal, but if you do it right, it can be hard to detect (the only way to track a jammer is to triangulate its position - there's no magic CSI GPS beacon). Perhaps when the bus reaches a certain intersection implying a dead spot for signals, and never more than neessary to break the connection (should just be a few seconds).
I suppose the bigger question is - why have manners deteriorated to the point that the general public feels it's necessary to take technological measures to fix social problems? The purchase and use of jammers is just a symptom of an underlying societal problem
Re:I approve (Score:4, Informative)
I don't understand why people think they must be able to talk on the phone everywhere.
The worst place is in a public restroom. I've seen people sit down in one of the stalls and carry on a conversation all the while they're vacating themselves, complete with grunts, groans and other bodily noises. Another time, a guy was singing along with his music that he was playing over his phone speakers.
Re:Cell phone call on the bus (Score:4, Interesting)
Thaat depends
Are you talking loud enough to be clearly heard the length of said bus. It is about volume more thann anything. Talk softly and no one is likely to care.
For me i would put a jammer with a momentary switch so it only jams while being depressed. 5 seconds is enough to cut a call. And it looks like the provider dropped it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I approve (Score:5, Insightful)
The other problem is that many times the person claims the jamming signal is confined solely within their property/building/domain, yet the jamming signal affects those outside of the jammer's property. That becomes a huge problem.
Those who wish to stop cell phone use should first STOP installing indoor repeaters, then use some form of radio wave blocking paint/building materials. Whatever method they use should be passive and not directly interfere with other property's cell phone signals.
Re:I approve (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, install an indoor repeater with a dummy load on the outdoor antenna port. The signal from the cell phone will be "captured" by the repeater, but the user won't be able to get a channel to place a call.
Re: (Score:3)
My biggest fear of this would be interfering with some implanted medical devices.
Make some poor bastards pacemaker stop working, and you're gonna be in for a world of hurt when the lawyers show up.
I think the unintended consequences of this needs to be better understood before we just go deploying these things around to make people stop using their
Re: (Score:3)
If a cell phone jammer can penetrate into your pacemaker and interfere with it then they need to design them better. Why would a pacemaker be responsive to cell phone frequencies anyway? There are plenty of other sources of radio noise already too.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does it have to be active? You can certainly design buildings such that all signals die. There are probably cheaper alternatives out there than a copper mesh.
Re:I approve (Score:4, Informative)
You would still need a clear sign indicating that cellphones will not work in the theater... and people like me wouldn't be able to go (I'm on call 24/7and have my phone on vibrate)
A less intrusive solution would be to have a friendly bluetooth or wifi signal that indicated that "This area is a vibrate only area" and get the cellphone manufacturers on-board. Then the theater could set your phone to vibrate for you if you let them. This would let people like me, who HAVE to have their phone with them at all times, still go to the movies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I approve (Score:4, Insightful)
But sadly that is only a partial solution. There are also jerks on the bus who dare to talk to each other. Sadly, in this case phone jamming doesn't work, you have to gag them individually. But that still isn't enough, most buses/subways have engines that are even louder than talking people. I still haven't figured out a way to stop those engines, but I'm working on it...
Re:I approve (Score:4, Informative)
I still haven't figured out a way to stop those engines, but I'm working on it...
Sodium silicate in the engine oil before you leave. The access panel's at the back and usually just has a couple of unsecured latches.
Re:I approve (Score:4, Insightful)
And Mr. Wanker lives up to his slashdot handle. It's ironic that you say,
I for one am fed up with the constant assault of cell phone conversations from people who have no idea how to be considerate to those around them.
when its obvious that you "have no idea how to be considerate to those around them" if you advocate disrupting everyone else's communication devices. The guy sitting next to you quietly streaming pandora over his mobile device and listening via headphones should not have his communications interrupted by an inconsiderate asshole like yourself.
You are not more important than others. (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one am fed up with the constant assault of cell phone conversations from people who have no idea how to be considerate to those around them.
While you're sitting there like a fat little smug antisocial nerd who thinks the world revolves around him and reading his Ayn Rand in peace and quiet, the psychologist three seats in front of you is desperately hoping that none of his patients are feeling suicidal at that particular moment.
I have friends who are doctors, some of them psychologists. They're on call a great deal of the time, and people don't call their psychologist to talk about the weather. They call with things like "I'm having suicidal thoughts."
I have a friend who is an eye surgeon. When she's on-call, she sometimes gets patients who have hours or less before they could permanently lose their eyesight from an injury or complications from an earlier surgery.
I'm not saying THEY are more important. I'm saying their PATIENTS are. You have not seen panic until you've seen a psychologist who has a private practice and discovers her cell phone ran out of battery at some point, and she's an hour from a charger...
I've actually seen a psych emergency unfold, too - the psychologist-friend working with 911 operators and the police and EMS to find the patient and get them to a hospital. That can't happen unless they can reach their doctor to ask for help. Too bad for them some fat asshole nerd is sitting there giggling with his cell phone jammer.
Re: (Score:3)
"Start an I.V. and tell the patient to remain calm, I'm on my way. I just have to transfer to the red-line bus on 43rd then it's only about a 20 minute ride from there.!"
Re: (Score:3)
No, they have ranges measured in meters... say, the 10 meters from where the bus idling at a stop light to the cafe on the corner where OP is, hopefully, having a heart attack.
Re:Illegal Toys for Passive-Aggressive Cowards (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I approve (Score:4, Funny)
That would be an awesome superpower.
I am the Stealth Duct Taper. I can duct tape anything without you knowing. Having sex with your wife? How'd that duct tape get plastered across her vagina?
I use my iPad on the train (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone was doing this while I commute to work, and I wasn't able to use my 3g connection, I would be pissed.
Re:I use my iPad on the train (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah -- I mean, this is the problem. Like, frequently -- most of the time -- I sort of wish that talkers would, you know, die, but there's lots of unobtrusive usage that's nobody's business.
I'll tell you what I really think is going to happen: I think in 10 or 15 years, we're going to look back on this time period, and be sort of aghast at how people behaved with regards to their phones. I don't accept that things are moving in a more-talk-is-OK direction, I think that there's the possibility that this is a manners-haven't-caught-up-to-tech blip. There's going to be a certain amount of soul-searching as we deal with the driving issue, and I'm hoping that what will come out of that will be, 'Wait -- is what I have to say really important enough to need saying, now, in these circumstances?'
And I'm not generally optimistic about human nature. But cell phone usage, I just don't see how this can go on very much longer as it is -- I mean, it's raw uncut assholishness, all the time, and everyone KNOWS it, but for now, they all DO IT anyway.
My fingers are crossed for what alcoholics refer to as a 'moment of clarity'.
Re:I use my iPad on the train (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, it's raw uncut assholishness, all the time, and everyone KNOWS it, but for now, they all DO IT anyway.
Actually, the point is that the assholes don't think what they're doing is assholish at all. This will never change.
Re: (Score:3)
Your mom says you're grounded and she's also taking the batteries out of your Xbox 360 controllers.
ladyada (Score:3, Interesting)
As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily... (Score:3, Interesting)
I can tell you with what joy it is to live in a city where listening to B-grade hip hop music on tinny cell phone speakers is the norm. That you can't stop, but when I have to be subjected to a very lengthy screaming match between baby-momma and her baby-daddy, with a push of a button I can cut that nonsense out. If you want to do that nonsense, then get off the train at the next stop and have your bitch fest there.
I can't do much about the panhandlers that pass through the trains hocking bootleg DVDs, scented oils or begging for quarters, but I CAN do something about the chaff of society who can't keep their Jerry Springer drama to themselves, and so I shut them down with a jammer. If an emergency crops up, I turn the device off.
Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've got an issue with a particular person talking on her phone, sit down beside her and make snarky remarks until she shuts up or hits you. Don't interfere with everyone else in the area just for your personal convenience. Hey... that's what you're mad at baby mamma for doing isn't it?
Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily... (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering how many people in Philadelphia have criminal convictions, I don't feel like playing therapist to baby-momma-drama. It's easier to just shut them down. If you want your bars back, then step off the subway and talk on the platform and get on the next train.
Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm sure that annoying cell phone user would tell you that if you want peace and quiet, stay home.
You're acting illegally, without regard to others because you're somewhat annoyed by the behaviour of a few people and going over and you don't "feel like" going over and telling them so. I take it back. You're WAY more selfish and inconsiderate than baby momma.
Someone else used the phrase "passive-agressive nerd rage." It fits you pretty well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's public transit. Deal with it, or find private transportation - you don't have the right to a bitch-free ride on SEPTA. Anyone using a jammer is just being an asshat, not to mention breaking the law which exists for a good reason.
Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a Philadelphian who rides SEPTA Daily... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't, or you won't?
I see...
really? you can't? hmm
Oh okay, I see what you're saying now.
If you could turn off all the B-grade hip hop music with the push of a button, you would.
If you could shut the panhandlers down with a jammer, you would.
In essence, if you could do something about X in practical anonymity with an easily concealed device with little to no chance of getting caught, you would.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you chickenshit. Certainly it's much better to avoid conflict with the baby-momma and her posse by just letting her call drop instead of confronting her in person.
Unfortunately, however, it also means you're affecting the person just quietly talking, the person just doing some texting, the person just browsing the web, and - provided that the bus isn't a magic faraday cage for your outgoing jammer signal - anybody in the vicinity of the bus.
Not to mention that...
For another, what if you are the emergency? You're on the highway, you get a heart attack, you fall down, your jammer's still on - nobody can call it in.. they flag down another driver, their phone doesn't work either, they figure it must just be reception there, so (rather than asking another drive to call from somewhere where they can get a signal) they drive the bus further to get a signal again, but still nothing.
I know, society survived without cellphones, I'm sure it will when somebody misses, or can't place, an important call just as well.
But please do choose your jamming moments wisely, and consider the unintended consequences - be that your own untimely demise (I <3 my contrived example!) or somebody's casual game of Wordfeud being cut short.
Re: (Score:3)
Need to be used in certain places. (Score:4, Interesting)
They always have that announcement that everyone ignores to turn off your phone
This way they don't have to ask, they just stop working.
If there's some sort of emergency, I'm sure the theaters have a wired phone somewhere they can use quickly.
negative effect (Score:5, Funny)
Do you have an instance where you experienced the positive (or negative) effects of a cell phone jammer?"
Yeah. I was having a stroke and nobody could understand why I was flopping about with half my face looking like it was ready to melt off. I reached for my phone, dialed 911... and nothing happened. Then I died. I had to submit this as a ghost because nobody thinks about what blocking a communications medium does to innocent people, they just want to get at the one asshole amongst the dozens or so in the area abusing it.
Re:negative effect (Score:5, Informative)
In fictional settings, people retain enough dexterity to dial a phone while having a stroke.
Re: (Score:3)
That would depend entirely on the area of the brain that is affected.
Re: (Score:3)
Those people 50 years ago were pussies. 300 years ago there was barely any medical care, the water wasn't exactly clean - heck, indoor plumbing was for rich people - and the fastest form of communication was a dude on a horse carrying a letter. But people lived. Well, a lot of them did.
Right to not be annoyed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Audio pollution isn't something you get to have control over. Feel free to tell someone they're being annoying, but sometimes you're just going to have to deal with someone talking on their phone in a way that annoys you. If it's not that, it will be someone talking loudly to the person standing next to them. Or a person honking their horn to much or for no reason. Or someone with their cell phone's speaker turned on as they listen to MP3s. Or jackhammers or machinery or the buzz of a refrigerator. How are you going to jam that?
Re:Right to not be annoyed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Effect on rude driving (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen the effect upon drivers talking on their phones while driving. While talking on the phone, their speed is erratic and inconsistent, they wander around their lane. Once in range of such a device, they look at their phone for a second or two, put the phone down, and start to pay attention to the machine that they are controlling. Once their conversation ends, they have become much more responsible drivers, aware of those that are sharing the road with them.
Just an observation. I understand that jammers are illegal for very good reasons, and their abuse can lead to much more harm than good.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Not abuse. Their *use* leads to much more harm than good. The only place that "use" is not abuse is turning them on in a private faraday cage on your own property.
There is no use case for these devices that do not run afoul of extremely well reasoned laws. In fact, the laws prohibiting the use of these things are one of the few sane laws that we do have.
Up the penalties (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously the potential penalties are not high enough. This is naked vigilanteism and should be stopped cold and hard.
YOU don't have RIGHT to interfere in MY liberty. If I'm being an asshole and talking loudly on the bus, then call a cop. That's how law and order works.
What's next, you firing an EMP gun at my house because my lights are interfering with your desire to stargaze?
Are you going to poison my dog because he barks too much or shits too much?
This one's a real slippery slope people.
Jammin' (Score:4, Funny)
Inadvertent jamming (Score:3)
I haven't run into a cell phone jammer - as far as I know - but I do have a pirate radio station nearby that is pretty annoying. They are some kind of Hatian radio station that moves around the area. Their transmitter is low power, so it only covers a few square miles - but it is extremely noisy, so it stomps all over 3-4 stations when you are in the area. Missing the end of an interesting story on NPR because I'm driving through their broadcast zone is more annoying than I would have thought.
I can only imagine that getting knocked off of my phone would be even more annoying. Heck, I've considered firing an anti-radiation (HARM) missile at the Hatians, and I only missed out on hearing the end of "This American Life".... Cut off my wife and who knows what might happen?
Jammed? (Score:3)
Do you have an instance where you experienced the positive (or negative) effects of a cell phone jammer?
The problem is bigger than you realize. I'm constantly dropping calls. If anyone is actually able to complete a call, tell AT&T their network is constantly being jammed.
(Maybe tell Blackberry their service is frequently jammed for days on end too)
Meh, not the right approch. (Score:3)
Talking loudly isn't limited to cell phones. Trying to modify behavior by limiting technology isn't the answer. The answer is modifying behavior by establishing consequences.
Example: Loud Cell Phone User in Theater. This actually happened to me a year or so ago, where not only was someone rude and stupid enough to leave their phone on during the movie (which of course got a call), but to actually answer the call, and not only just answer the call and exit to talk, but to sit there in the middle of the movie, talking loudly. I couldn't believe it, I was stunned to the point of not doing anything about it. Fortunately some actually got up, walked down to the guys isle, and actually shouted at him "SHUT YOUR DAMN PHONE OFF", to which got cheers from the crowd.
Anyway, go to Theater manager and demand your money back... for having your viewing entertainment ruined. If the theater has a problem with that, perhaps then they should then try to recoup (sue) the individual who was at fault, and let them pay for the entire crowd.
I am sure one bill of 15$ x 100 people will be enough to stop any individual from doing something like that again. Behavior changed. Also when others hear of this, you can bet that they will be extra careful to turn off their phones, etc...
I mean how hard is it to put it on vibrate, and if it is important call to, go outside to answer it.
Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Folks, this is Slashdot, so I expect some more consistency in in your positions. Here we are supposed to be proponents of network neutrality, ardent supporters of anti-censorship methods, and unrepetent voices in support of freedom of information all over the world. We don't like governments mucking with DNS servers, and we hate the publishing companies trying to tell us how we should and shouldn't use our media.
Yet, here is a guy who passes swift judgment on others and renders their expensive cell phones inoperable for the sole reason that a single individual personally annoys him. He does this anonymously in public spaces, and the victims of his jammer have no recourse to repair their device. The loud, obnoxious caller suffers the same fate that the quiet girl chatting to her mother from three seats back does: everyone is silenced indiscriminately.
For some bizarre reason, the hivemind of Slashdot holds this one-man censorship czar in high esteem, but they would probably object to a public school, library, or hospital prohibiting cell phone use via means of a jammer for the same reasons he uses.
Obligatory: Why Cell Conversations Are Distracting (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtdpJlZ07u4 [youtube.com]
Re:Here is what I believe... (Score:4, Funny)
1990 called
OMG, did you warn them about the '93 World Trade Center attack, '95 Oklahoma City Bombing, or Sir Mixalot?
Re:Cell Phone jammer not really a NEW thing (Score:4, Insightful)