[Fwd: [IP] Devices Enforce Cellular Silence, Sweet but Illegal]

[Tom Azlin, N4ZPT]

Better would be location based services with quiet zones enforces except 
for 911 calls!  73, tom

Michael O'Dell wrote:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject:
> [IP] Devices Enforce Cellular Silence, Sweet but Illegal
> From:
> David Farber <dave at farber.net>
> Date:
> Sun, 4 Nov 2007 06:55:54 -0500
> To:
> ip at v2.listbox.com
> 
> To:
> ip at v2.listbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Steve Craton" <scraton at alltel.net>
> Date: November 4, 2007 5:30:13 AM EST
> To: <dave at farber.net>
> Subject: Devices Enforce Cellular Silence, Sweet but Illegal
> 
> Good morning Dave.  For IP if you wish.
> 
> Regards, Steve Craton
> 
> 
> Devices Enforce Cellular Silence, Sweet but Illegal
> 
> By Matt Richtel
> New York Times
> Published: November 4, 2007
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/technology/04jammer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th 
> 
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 2 — One afternoon in early September, an architect 
> boarded his commuter train and became a cellphone vigilante. He sat down 
> next to a 20-something woman who he said was “blabbing away” into her 
> phone.
> 
> “She was using the word ‘like’ all the time. She sounded like a Valley 
> Girl,” said the architect, Andrew, who declined to give his last name 
> because what he did next was illegal.
> 
> Andrew reached into his shirt pocket and pushed a button on a black 
> device the size of a cigarette pack. It sent out a powerful radio signal 
> that cut off the chatterer’s cellphone transmission — and any others in 
> a 30-foot radius.
> 
> “She kept talking into her phone for about 30 seconds before she 
> realized there was no one listening on the other end,” he said. His 
> reaction when he first discovered he could wield such power? “Oh, holy 
> moly! Deliverance.”
> 
> As cellphone use has skyrocketed, making it hard to avoid hearing half a 
> conversation in many public places, a small but growing band of rebels 
> is turning to a blunt countermeasure: the cellphone jammer, a gadget 
> that renders nearby mobile devices impotent.
> 
> The technology is not new, but overseas exporters of jammers say demand 
> is rising and they are sending hundreds of them a month into the United 
> States — prompting scrutiny from federal regulators and new concern last 
> week from the cellphone industry. The buyers include owners of cafes and 
> hair salons, hoteliers, public speakers, theater operators, bus drivers 
> and, increasingly, commuters on public transportation.
> 
> The development is creating a battle for control of the airspace within 
> earshot. And the damage is collateral. Insensitive talkers impose their 
> racket on the defenseless, while jammers punish not just the offender, 
> but also more discreet chatterers.
> 
> “If anything characterizes the 21st century, it’s our inability to 
> restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people,” said James Katz, 
> director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers 
> University.  “The cellphone talker thinks his rights go above that of 
> people around him, and the jammer thinks his are the more important 
> rights.”
> 
> The jamming technology works by sending out a radio signal so powerful 
> that phones are overwhelmed and cannot communicate with cell towers. The 
> range varies from several feet to several yards, and the devices cost 
> from $50 to several hundred dollars. Larger models can be left on to 
> create a no-call zone.
> 
> Using the jammers is illegal in the United States. The radio frequencies 
> used by cellphone carriers are protected, just like those used by 
> television and radio broadcasters.
> 
> The Federal Communication Commission says people who use cellphone 
> jammers could be fined up to $11,000 for a first offense. Its 
> enforcement bureau has prosecuted a handful of American companies for 
> distributing the gadgets — and it also pursues their users.
> 
> Investigators from the F.C.C. and Verizon Wireless visited an upscale 
> restaurant in Maryland over the last year, the restaurant owner said. 
> The owner, who declined to be named, said he bought a powerful jammer 
> for $1,000 because he was tired of his employees focusing on their 
> phones rather than customers.
> 
> “I told them: put away your phones, put away your phones, put away your 
> phones,” he said. They ignored him.
> 
> The owner said the F.C.C. investigator hung around for a week, using 
> special equipment designed to detect jammers. But the owner had turned 
> his off.
> 
> The Verizon investigator was similarly unsuccessful. “He went to 
> everyone in town and gave them his number and said if they were having 
> trouble, they should call him right away,” the owner said. He said he 
> has since stopped using the jammer.
> 
> Of course, it would be harder to detect the use of smaller 
> battery-operated jammers like those used by disgruntled commuters.
> 
> An F.C.C. spokesman, Clyde Ensslin, declined to comment on the issue or 
> the case in Maryland.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tacos mailing list
> Tacos at amrad.org
> http://www.amrad.org/mailman/listinfo/tacos