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

131–140 of 207 posts

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#131

Post by wahsd »

TheCapn wrote: post #41

"Agents from the FCC used direction finding techniques to find that strong wideband emissions were coming out of a blue Toyota Highlander SUV driven by Humphreys." This I find interesting and am curious what devices they had to obtain in order to accomplish this. I used to work for a telco that, to this day, continues to have this very issue with _someone_ in a remote rural location. By the time the NOC can inform lo…

I could imagine how you could cross-reference data from the towers and start seeing a pattern. You might even be able to track it to a specific location over time. Seems totally doable with access to enough information.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#132

Post by TallGuyShort »

gkop wrote: post #95
mikestew wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No it isn't - in this case triangulation is the correct technique. Trilateration is when you measure distances. For instance, locating the epicenter of an earthquake is done by comparing the time at which various waves arrive, and making calculations based on the known speeds of those waves. Doing that with the speed of light at terrestrial distances is very tough and will be prone to inaccuracies and large errors. Instead, you measure the angles at which the signal is strongest, and that is triangulation.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#133

Post by wsh »

There are a few more details in the FCC's official “Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,” which was released yesterday:

  On June 14, 2013, agents from the Tampa Office tested the seized cell phone
  jammer and confirmed that it was capable of jamming cellular and PCS
  communications in at least three frequency bands: 821-968 MHz, 1800-2006 MHz,
  and 2091-2180 MHz.
— http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014...

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#134

Post by vacri »

stevekinney wrote: post #124
vacri wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The 'we got along fine without instant connectivity' argument is a counter to the overwrought life-and-death-situation arguments in general. It's not about being a luddite, it's about keeping perspective.

Have another read of my comment, and you'll see in the middle of it that I'm saying that it's an argument of conveniences. It's convenient for a parent to have instant connectivity in case the babysitter calls, just as it's convenient for the audience to enjoy the movie they paid for without distractions. You say the theatre would take a financial hit for installing blocking devices, yet the more common trope is that the major annoyance in a theatre is people on phones - you could just as easily argue that they'd get a financial benefit from it. Doctors specifically on-call to deliver babies aren't much of a market segment to a movie theatre.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#135

Post by vacri »

prawn wrote: post #127
nkurz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depends on your state. This isn't the case in Victoria. I think they split the licenses into auto and manual about 15 years ago.

This being said, I trained and passed in a manual car, and have driven an auto since. I at least know what the clutch is supposed to do, but I'm not exactly practised :)

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#136

Post by vacri »

neil_s wrote: post #26

On a related note, anyone know why cinemas don't have some form of shielding/Faraday caging to prevent people from making calls? You could shield just the movie halls themselves, so people can still make emergency calls from the lobbies.

Faraday caging is an extra expense, especially when it comes to retrofitting.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#137

Post by kosievdmerwe »

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…

I imagine whoever has a jammer can be hit with manslaughter charges in the case someone dies. Or at least something like reckless endangerment.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#138

Post by thrownaway2424 »

neil1 wrote: post #120
Jtsummers wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll make the claim that I've not noticed reception issues in theaters in at least the last 5 years. My use-case is typically texting (usually with the other members of my group, things like "Hey, I'm on the 5th row up") though, but even then I usually see 2+ bars, sufficient for voice calls. My apartment has worse reception than that (I can make calls from my sunroom, nowhere else).

You can buy and install a cellphone extender for your house.

Yes, it's a true fact that you can pay money for the privilege of extending the cell phone provider's network, while also paying the backhaul the cell phone company's traffic over your internet link, while also paying the cell phone for their "service" that you have to personally install and operate. I have no idea why people think this is an acceptable scenario.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#139

Post by thrownaway2424 »

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.

It's actually a trivial matter of image processing to detect, by classification, photos depicting a driver looking down at their hands or holding their hand to their face. It is also completely trivial to OCR license plates. It would be a quite simple system to classify such pictures, send them to human review for verification, and then mail out tickets.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#140

Post by frandroid »

lotu wrote: post #129
ryandrake wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 antibiotic…

Huh? Where are "we" dismantling our landline network?
Post reply on HN