Driver caught using cell phone jamming device • Hacker News Board

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#121

Post by vacri » Thu, May 01, 2014, 3:00 AM UTC

stevekinney wrote: post #113

vacri wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 passenge…

I think the point was that if a theatre installed jammers, then patrons could not receive calls. Yea, I get that no one wants to overhear someone having a long chat with their significant other right as the plot line thickens, but a doctor on call or a parent who's kid is just got hurt at the baby sitter might appreciate being able to receive a call or text while their phone is on silent. They can then step out of th…

A doctor on-call can go without going to the movies. I say this having been on-call (not as a doctor) myself. When you're on-call, your life is seriously curtailed. You can't drink, you have to be within range of tools to do your work, you have to be immediately accessible. Being on-call sucks, but it's no reason to argue against passive signal blocking in theatres.

As for the babysitter, deal with it. If you're not contactable for 90 minutes, you're not contactable for 90 minutes. This perma-connectivity is an entirely new phenomenon, and there's no absolute need for it. Essentially this argument is saying that the parent's inability to deal with lack of connectivity is a convenience which trumps the general theatre-going public's convenience of not having people talking on the phone, or who light up the people behind them because they're bored with the movie and are playing online.

Being uncontactable for a short period is not the horror that it's made out to be in these arguments. The good old argument that someone can't sit through a lecture without connectivity "in case Auntie Mabel dies", but of course it's just a cover for having phone access for other things. If one were to believe the excuses that get trotted out, you'd be forgiven for thinking that human mortality had skyrocketed since the public acceptance of mobile phones :)

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#122

Post by vacri » Thu, May 01, 2014, 3:03 AM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #115

stevekinney wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point was that if a theatre installed jammers, then patrons could not receive calls. Yea, I get that no one wants to overhear someone having a long chat with their significant other right as the plot line thickens, but a doctor on call or a parent who's kid is just got hurt at the baby sitter might appreciate being able to receive a call or text while their phone is on silent. They can then step out of th…

Thanks, receiving calls is really the big one for me. I know a lot of people working in fields requiring them to be on call 24x7 unless they're on leave. A 2 hour delay in calling back is just barely tolerable for most of them, and unacceptable for some. It'd suck to have to stop enjoying something outside a couple vacations a year because some people are inconsiderate and other people can't tune them out. That said,…

That's assuming it's not an attacker who would prevent you from leaving in the first place.

Is this really such a pandemic in the US these days?

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#123

Post by gpcz » Thu, May 01, 2014, 3:19 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #103

drewcrawford wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think that falls in a "it's not illegal if you don't get caught" scenario -- that is, unless you make an incomplete Faraday cage, the FCC would have no real means to catch you doing that. Also, since you wouldn't be jamming anyone else's signals, nobody would report you.

You'll find out real quick if you screwed up your Faraday cage design, though.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#124

Post by stevekinney » Thu, May 01, 2014, 3:26 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #121

stevekinney wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point was that if a theatre installed jammers, then patrons could not receive calls. Yea, I get that no one wants to overhear someone having a long chat with their significant other right as the plot line thickens, but a doctor on call or a parent who's kid is just got hurt at the baby sitter might appreciate being able to receive a call or text while their phone is on silent. They can then step out of th…

A doctor on-call can go without going to the movies. I say this having been on-call (not as a doctor) myself. When you're on-call, your life is seriously curtailed. You can't drink, you have to be within range of tools to do your work, you have to be immediately accessible. Being on-call sucks, but it's no reason to argue against passive signal blocking in theatres. As for the babysitter, deal with it. If you're not…

Yea, I could probably list a few hundred examples and you could probably shoot each and every one of them down on an individual level. Great. The larger point is that in the aggregate, there are enough individual situations that would be disrupted by jammers in the theatre that it would outweigh the nexus between the number of times someone is going to be inconvenienced by a conversation during a movie and the number of times someone is actually rude enough to pick up the phone during a movie. At the end of the day, it's a cost-benefit analysis.

If a movie theatre did in fact install jammers each parent concerned about their kid (yea, it's probably not a true emergency, but subjective perception matters) or each doctor (I'm thinking more about delivering babies, which can mean being on call for weeks at a time, than an ER doctor) might choose to skip the movie. The end result is that that the theatre will likely take a hit on their profits. That's not a compelling reason to invest in installing a jammer.

The whole "we survived just fine without constant connectivity" argument is flawed. Yea, we did a lot of things without modern technology. We got along fine without movies, driving to the movies, mobile phones, the Internet, or arguing on the Internet about the need for mobile phone access during a movie.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#125

Post by ryandrake » Thu, May 01, 2014, 3:27 AM UTC

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…

Somehow, back before cell phones were invented, we all miraculously managed to live our lives without having constant access to a telephone. If you needed to call someone, you stepped away from whatever you were doing and called them. If Aunt Mabel had a heart attack, you'd find out about it, just not 500ms after it happened. If someone wasn't happy with how you filled out your TPS report at work, you'd go into the office in the morning and fix it.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#126

Post by qwerty101010 » Thu, May 01, 2014, 3:28 AM UTC

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.

But... if they became standard, no one would ever be able to use their phones near roads. Which would cause people to stop trying in the first place.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#127

Post by prawn » Thu, May 01, 2014, 3:33 AM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #118

mhenr18 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. Every day large chunks of the world's population are able to drive safely to their destinations. We have illustrated an ability to do this year after year and yet there's this idea that the best solution to stopping accidents is to ban humans from the equation. I agree with your thoughts on properly training people on how to drive a car - Western countries that have better driving training and safer cars…

That I was able to get a manual license (in Australia) without needing to demonstrate a hill start to my tester is a complete joke. Perhaps it would make you feel better to know that here in America, there is no distinction of licenses for a manual transmission. You can pass in an automatic and then drive whatever you want. So not only do you not have to demonstrate a hill start, you don't even have to know how to kn…

This is true in Australia too though you can take the test(s) with either transmission. e.g., you can pass your test in an automatic and then drive a manual.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#128

Post by prawn » Thu, May 01, 2014, 3:36 AM UTC

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 imagine that many accidents aren't due to poor training but poor discipline and lack of appreciation for the seriousness of the task at hand.

The fines for using your phone while driving are high and there are frequently advertising campaigns about it, but I still routinely see people (especially 16-45yo women) texting or calling in traffic.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#129

Post by lotu » Thu, May 01, 2014, 3:50 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #125

Jtsummers wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Somehow, back before cell phones were invented, we all miraculously managed to live our lives without having constant access to a telephone. If you needed to call someone, you stepped away from whatever you were doing and called them. If Aunt Mabel had a heart attack, you'd find out about it, just not 500ms after it happened. If someone wasn't happy with how you filled out your TPS report at work, you'd go into the o…

The problem is we are dismantling our land line network. So if you don't have cell phone there might not by any phone in the building that works. Next what about emergency workers? They need to be able to be contacted. Or what about people on call for their jobs? All of these things could be blocked by jammers and the idea that we survived once without it unconvincing we survived once without vacancies and antibiotics too.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#130

Post by drewcrawford » Thu, May 01, 2014, 4:02 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #103

drewcrawford wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not a lawyer but I do read FCC regs for fun...

A passive faraday cage on your own property that's not open to the public probably isn't an issue. As far as size goes you would be subject to local building codes of course.

Once you get into active jamming however that requires you to transmit and to transmit you need a license from the FCC. The right to transmit anywhere in the US is under the FCC's jurisdiction and doesn't have anything to do with the landowner. It may seem strange to divorce airwave rights from property rights but it's not that different from water rights or mineral rights or airspace rights, which have a long legal history of being divorced from landowner rights.

When you open your faraday cage to the public it gets a little tricky too, because if a "licensee" has the legal right to be somewhere according to you and the legal right to transmit or receive according to the FCC then you can't really legally prevent them from doing both at the same time. This idea, which is called the "OTARD rule" in some situations, is interpreted to force landlords to allow tenants to install WiFi and satellite equipment on rented property for example.

There probably is an FCC rule that would prevent stores or movie theaters or similar public places from jamming via a Faraday cage, but since actively jamming is cheaper I am not aware of any actual instances of this type. So in that sense it's a test case, but I'm reasonably certain which way it would go.