Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

myfoxny.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 207 posts

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#91

Post by TeMPOraL »

georgemcbay wrote: post #82
koenigdavidmj wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If parent commenter already wants to require tethering your phone and your car in order to disable the phone, I have little doubt they're okay with what they would likely describe as a small inconvenience to save lives.

Well if that is his stance, why stop there? Let's just ban cars altogether and everyone can walk everywhere they need to go. Not only would it be much safer for everyone in the short-term but the exercise would improve long term health as well.

> Let's just ban cars altogether

No, let's just ban human-driven cars altogether. This is actually a good solution. Can't wait until the day it becomes reality.

In the meantime, maybe the society should start approaching driving cars the way they approach flying airplanes? That is, actually train the people operating the vehicle. Current driving license exams are a joke, and people still complain they're too difficult.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#92

Post by jlgaddis »

About 20 years ago, an electrical engineer friend of mine had built himself a small (~10 GHz, IIRC?) transmitter about the size of a garage door opener. It had a single red button on it that, when pressed, emitted a signal in one of the frequency bands that radar detectors picked up.

As a teenager, it was amusing to watch another car go zipping past us on the highway and then see their brake lights come on right after Nathan would hit the button.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#93

Post by baddox »

hsod wrote: post #77
zo1 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying we're not all equal if such "special privileges" are granted to some special few individuals for one reason or another. Overall, it was a reference to the Animal Farm book. But if you want to know if I think it's wrong for us to have inequality in the form of non-universal applications of morality or "law", then I'll answer with Yes.

Interesting. Is this essentially an anarchic worldview? I can't see how a government could function without privileging certain individuals.

As long as people recognize that, it's a good start. But I suspect a lot of people would do mental gymnastics to avoid accepting that governments privilege certain individuals.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#94

Post by shabble »

rdl wrote: post #83
xacaxulu wrote: post #4

I got to play with these in Afghanistan. They were installed in our SUVs but they were so huge and unwieldy. I'd be interested in seeing what setup he had. Unless the traffic was very dense and slow, I'd imagine him just forcing calls to be dropped as he passed by which doesn't really seem helpful. Restaurants/theaters/anywhere-there-be-tweens, yeah bring it on in those locales!

You can do network-specific jamming really easily (P25, the dominant digital trunked police radios, can be locked out by reprogramming a toy pager to tie up the trunks, for about $20 and in the milliwatts...). JIEDDO was generally trying to jam more than just cellphones, and wanted high assurance, and while they were in motion (so, you needed range).

I imagine you already know, but for everyone else, the full comedy of the P25 system can be found in "Why (Special Agent) Johnny (Still) Can’t Encrypt"[1] by Clark, Goodspeed & others.

Chapter 4 covers the DoS using a kid's wireless IM gadget

Also:

> "All users operated in the clear, but gave an indication that they believed they were operating in encrypted mode. In some cases, this involved one user explaining to another how to set the radio to encrypted mode, but actually described the procedure for setting it to clear mode."

[1] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/sec11/tech/full_papers/C...

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#95

Post by gkop »

mikestew wrote: post #58
TallGuyShort wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Causing interference is generally covered by regulation, and the FCC enforces it. See some examples for violation of amateur radio misuse: http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/Welcome.html edit: I don't work for a wireless service provider, but I'm into amateur radio.

And to follow up on what TallGuyShort says, they most likely triangulate just as for amateur radio when looking for transmissions that violate regulations. Or, come to think of it, if you know the transmitter goes down I-4 everyday, just sit by the side of the road with a receiver and watch signal strength. I-4 can be pretty crowded, but it shouldn't be hard to narrow it down as the signal gets stronger then starts t…

I learned from another HN comment that the correct word for this is trilaterate, not triangulate.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#96

Post by Wistar »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #85
sukuriant wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I need to read those studies closely; but, I imagine there's a difference between gabbing about nothing and doing serious mental work when it comes to the amount of focus taken away by talking. Singing with the radio probably has similar focus requirements to gabbing. I have not done any tests on this; and we're not going to stop singing on the radio. Fiddling with a phone is probably the most dangerous of phone rela…

I know there was a study and analysis a few years back that found the reason people are more distracted having a hands-free conversation in the car vs a conversation with someone next to them is that the person on the other end of a phone call doesn't have awareness to your situation. So, while someone talking with you while sitting next to you in the car will naturally quite down while a change in driving conditions…

Maybe from the same study... IN addition to citing the advantages of conversing with a situation-aware passenger vs an unaware phone-caller, the study summary also made much of their finding that there is a significant cognitive load devoted to visualizing the person at the other end of a phone call. This visualization is not needed when the person is in the car.

It also mentioned that young children can cause dangerous distractions because they lack the knowledge to know when the driving has gotten tough.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#97

Post by sukuriant »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #85
sukuriant wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I need to read those studies closely; but, I imagine there's a difference between gabbing about nothing and doing serious mental work when it comes to the amount of focus taken away by talking. Singing with the radio probably has similar focus requirements to gabbing. I have not done any tests on this; and we're not going to stop singing on the radio. Fiddling with a phone is probably the most dangerous of phone rela…

I know there was a study and analysis a few years back that found the reason people are more distracted having a hands-free conversation in the car vs a conversation with someone next to them is that the person on the other end of a phone call doesn't have awareness to your situation. So, while someone talking with you while sitting next to you in the car will naturally quite down while a change in driving conditions…

That would make sense, too. In my own driving experience, most of the people that ride with me in the car in the front seat are of the mind "We're looking at the road", not "the driver is looking at the road, so I don't have to" as their general attitude; and when I've been under the weather, driving poorly, they've been the first to comment and require a fix to it.

As for the phone, they're also the hands that will affect my phone if we need to change settings on GPS or music or whatever, because they understand the safety precautions.

So, what you say makes sense at least anecdotally and mentally.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#98

Post by Wistar »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #5
xacaxulu wrote: post #4

I got to play with these in Afghanistan. They were installed in our SUVs but they were so huge and unwieldy. I'd be interested in seeing what setup he had. Unless the traffic was very dense and slow, I'd imagine him just forcing calls to be dropped as he passed by which doesn't really seem helpful. Restaurants/theaters/anywhere-there-be-tweens, yeah bring it on in those locales!

They're (cellular frequency jammers) down to the size of a cigarette pack, and can run off 12V aux power in your car. Range isn't terribly great (~100ft). Examples: http://www.phonejammer.com/home.php?cat=249 Mods: I posted the link (which was the first google result for "cell phone jammer") just to show what the size and cost was. If it needs to be removed, please feel free to remove my comment in its entirety.

I darn well KNOW that a crappy hotel I stayed at in San Diego a few years ago was using a jammer.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#99

Post by sukuriant »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #91
georgemcbay wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if that is his stance, why stop there? Let's just ban cars altogether and everyone can walk everywhere they need to go. Not only would it be much safer for everyone in the short-term but the exercise would improve long term health as well.

> Let's just ban cars altogether No, let's just ban human-driven cars altogether. This is actually a good solution. Can't wait until the day it becomes reality. In the meantime, maybe the society should start approaching driving cars the way they approach flying airplanes? That is, actually train the people operating the vehicle. Current driving license exams are a joke, and people still complain they're too difficul…

In the United States, and especially certain states. Poor driver's ed isn't a global problem.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#100

Post by seanmcdirmid »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #91
georgemcbay wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if that is his stance, why stop there? Let's just ban cars altogether and everyone can walk everywhere they need to go. Not only would it be much safer for everyone in the short-term but the exercise would improve long term health as well.

> Let's just ban cars altogether No, let's just ban human-driven cars altogether. This is actually a good solution. Can't wait until the day it becomes reality. In the meantime, maybe the society should start approaching driving cars the way they approach flying airplanes? That is, actually train the people operating the vehicle. Current driving license exams are a joke, and people still complain they're too difficul…

I've heard that driver's ed in Germany is quite comprehensive and rigorous. Heck, even the yearly car checks are thorough (hey, you don't have a standard German first-aide kit in your car? Fail!).
Post reply on HN