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

101–110 of 207 posts

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#101

Post by drewcrawford »

baddox wrote: post #88
mikestew wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting a sign up is not the equivalent to an FCC license. And if you're going to transmit radio waves, you'll need an FCC license (yes, there are exceptions and I'm vastly simplifying for this specific topic). Good luck with getting the FCC to grant you that license. That's not to say that a movie theater or coffee shop couldn't passively attenuate cell phone signals with metallic paint or other equivalents to a gia…

If you could ensure that the interference didn't extend pass your own property, I don't think there should be a problem. That's probably not how the FCC works though.

This is like trying to exert control over the airspace (e.g. for airplanes) on your property. It is completely unworkable.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#102

Post by Jtsummers »

Bluestrike2 wrote: post #79
incision wrote: post #6

Certainly a terrible idea on every level, but I can't help but sympathize with the intent. Too much of the public simply aren't responsible about driving and there doesn't seem to be any good way to identify and prevent or penalize them for it.

I can't. There are accidents where even seconds matter and the effects of the jamming can mean the difference between life and death or even simply a shift in the a victim's odds. Or consider emergency services whose radios were affected: maybe paramedics were radioing in status updates to a hospital, or perhaps police officers were in the middle of receiving an Amber alert. Or, imagine that he's injured in an accide…

A friend of mine used to rant about cellphones in theaters, and thought theaters should install jammers (as in, he was actually surprised that none had done this yet). The fact is, they're a primary communication device for many people. Who knows when you might receive a call that you have to take (for certain jobs or with situations concerning family or friends), or when you need to make a phone call (see the Aurora shooting or the recent one in FL for violent examples, but even a heart attack or some other medical emergency). Jammers just aren't a good idea for 99.999% of the situations people suggest using them.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#103

Post by baddox »

drewcrawford wrote: post #101
baddox wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could ensure that the interference didn't extend pass your own property, I don't think there should be a problem. That's probably not how the FCC works though.

This is like trying to exert control over the airspace (e.g. for airplanes) on your property. It is completely unworkable.

I don't see why it's like that at all. Am I not allowed to create a small faraday cage in my garage, and inside that test out a cell phone jamming device? Why does it matter if there's literally no measurable effect on the surrounding property?

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#104

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #53
rohansingh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Let's just hope nothing happens that requires someone to call 911 around you, finding themselves unable to and having emergency services be delayed.

You don't have to leave the jammer turned on. You just pulse them on every now and then. That drops all the calls. Keep doing it for a few minutes and people give up using their devices.

[deleted]

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#105

Post by iLoch »

DanBC wrote: post #53
rohansingh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Let's just hope nothing happens that requires someone to call 911 around you, finding themselves unable to and having emergency services be delayed.

You don't have to leave the jammer turned on. You just pulse them on every now and then. That drops all the calls. Keep doing it for a few minutes and people give up using their devices.

"Hello? Emergency services? Someone is having a heart attack. The address i--"

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#106

Post by iLoch »

harrystone wrote: post #48
michh wrote: post #20

My guess would be driving around with a relatively short-range jammer actually increases the odds of being hit by a distracted driver. Rather than people driving near you being distracted by conversations on their phones, they're going to be even more distracted because their call just got dropped, prompting them to look at the display waiting for the bars to come back so they can re-dial.

I agree. Most people aren't smart enough to put down their phone even to save their own life. The guy has good intentions but some people just can't be saved.

Ahh, so the effectiveness of this devices is actually a matter of perspective...

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#107

Post by ahomescu1 »

zo1 wrote: post #59
jablan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is not only logical, but also an answer to lots of other problems: ditch the car-centric culture and move these people out from their cars to buses, trains, trams, bicycles and other forms of sustainable transport. It's not that hard, takes some time getting used to, but will do good to all of us.

Here's another non-obvious solution to the problem: Start making sure that insurance companies have no payouts if the driver's phone was on X amount of time before the accident. That way they pay for their own damage, and the damage done to everyone around them. Regardless if they were "at fault" using conventional reasoning. How about another one: Require all vehicles to install cell phone tethers that have the driv…

> Almost ALL problems have a technical/legislative solution for them.

Legislative solutions should only be considered as a last resort, not the first option. Pretty much all laws that I can think of come with unintended consequences, and sometimes create larger problems than they solve. Top examples: alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs.

Also, as you yourself pointed out, enforcement is a big issue requiring a lot of resources and placing a lot of responsibility (and also authority, that maybe they shouldn't have) on the police.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#108

Post by marcosdumay »

georgemcbay wrote: post #81
zo1 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another non-obvious solution to the problem: Start making sure that insurance companies have no payouts if the driver's phone was on X amount of time before the accident. That way they pay for their own damage, and the damage done to everyone around them. Regardless if they were "at fault" using conventional reasoning. How about another one: Require all vehicles to install cell phone tethers that have the driv…

"Almost ALL problems have a technical/legislative solution for them" Still waiting to hear practical solutions, because the ones you gave thus far don't cut it in the real world, IMO. I like using my phone (responsibly, in a dashboard mount) as a network-connected mapping/GPS device. If I'm heading to an event with a guest and running late, I like being able to ask a passenger to quickly use my phone to call ahead an…

> Still waiting to hear practical solutions, because the ones you gave thus far don't cut it in the real world, IMO.

That's because the real world is developing self driving cars, and they are relatively boring: there is no revenge in that, and they won't save the world.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#109

Post by maresca »

maresca wrote: post #36

My opinion is probably in the minority on this issue, but I think cell phones should be disabled by default near vehicles(Except for emergency services). As a stick-driver and motorcyclist, I see way too many distracted drivers. People will miss lights, swerve, and worse because of their cell phones. The one thing that will help reverse this trend will be self-driving cars.

Downvotes for an unpopular opinion. Keep up the good work hacker news!

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#110

Post by vacri »

Jtsummers wrote: post #102
Bluestrike2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't. There are accidents where even seconds matter and the effects of the jamming can mean the difference between life and death or even simply a shift in the a victim's odds. Or consider emergency services whose radios were affected: maybe paramedics were radioing in status updates to a hospital, or perhaps police officers were in the middle of receiving an Amber alert. Or, imagine that he's injured in an accide…

A friend of mine used to rant about cellphones in theaters, and thought theaters should install jammers (as in, he was actually surprised that none had done this yet). The fact is, they're a primary communication device for many people. Who knows when you might receive a call that you have to take (for certain jobs or with situations concerning family or friends), or when you need to make a phone call (see the Aurora…

If it's known that the theatre is a phone dead zone, you can step outside the theatre and make the call. If someone's having a heart attack, you have a whole theatre full of people that you can pull resources from.

A car driving around is a secret dead zone that punishes you for being nearby, even if you're not transgressing any social norms or traffic laws. Sitting on a park bench nearby? Hell, even being a passenger in a vehicle? That's the problem - he's being an indiscriminate vigilante.

Post reply on HN