Driver caught using cell phone jamming device • Hacker News Board

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#151

Post by baddox » Thu, May 01, 2014, 6:11 AM UTC

drewcrawford wrote: post #130

baddox wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> 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

It seems very much different to me, because all of those things have very obvious externalities for your neighbors. My example, where you build a faraday cage and test a signal jammer inside that cage, has no externalities (assuming a hypothetical perfect faraday cage). There would be no measurable signal an inch outside the faraday cage, and certainly none at your neighbor's property.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#152

Post by mentalhealth » Thu, May 01, 2014, 6:17 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…

Back in the day (I haven't been in a while, unfortunately, so I don't know the current status), at nicer theatres and at the opera, they had a service available for emergency personnel (doctors, et cetera) where they'd take your pager, put a tag with your seat number on it (and also typically you'd be seated on an aisle), and they come fetch you if your pager went off. Worked great with minimal disruption to patrons... though the definition of "emergency" was fairly narrow, and this likely wouldn't work if patrons were insisting on it for family phone calls and so on.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#153

Post by bradchoate » Thu, May 01, 2014, 6:24 AM UTC

"A Florida man..." -- should be disclosed in the article title (kinda how the link domain is shown).

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#154

Post by DigitalJack » Thu, May 01, 2014, 6:24 AM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #145

frandroid wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Where are "we" dismantling our landline network?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Every payphone I've ever seen in my lifetime has been removed.

There are usually a couple near grocery stores where I live.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#155

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, May 01, 2014, 7:00 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…

> we all miraculously managed to live our lives without having constant access to a telephone.

Well, except for the people who actually, literally died because the doctor who could have saved them couldn't be reached in time.

Doctors on call had pagers before anyone else had even heard of them, much less cellphones. Are you actually taking the position that barring surgeons and other emergency personnel from, not just entering, but coming anywhere near a movie theater is a reasonable solution to the problem of the occasional jerk disrupting your entertainment?

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#156

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, May 01, 2014, 7:06 AM UTC

nkozyra wrote: post #30

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.

Well that's taking it rather seriously. I had no intent of taking it to the level this guy did and merely wanted to experiment with it. :shrug:

So if you get someone killed by blocking their 911 access, it's not your fault if you weren't serious.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#157

Post by lmm » Thu, May 01, 2014, 7:13 AM UTC

mhenr18 wrote: post #112

TeMPOraL wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

> 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

Yes and no. The accident rate would I think be viewed as completely unacceptable in almost any other activity.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#158

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, May 01, 2014, 7:15 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…

It's true that the world doesn't end if Dr. Jones isn't allowed to go the movies, or if Mr. and Mrs. Smith get to watch the end credits before finding out that their baby's in an ambulance. But the world also doesn't end if you have to suffer through a rude teenager on the phone for a minute and a half. You talk like your leisure experience is an absolute moral imperative, but everyone else's is just frivolous goofing off and easily sacrificed. Why is that?

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#159

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, May 01, 2014, 7:16 AM UTC

qwerty101010 wrote: post #126

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.

Rather a lot of people actually live near roads.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#160

Post by lmm » Thu, May 01, 2014, 7:17 AM UTC

skygazer wrote: post #31

nkozyra wrote: post #18

I've dreamed of doing this for a decade, even found some sources in the U.K. to purchase a few and looked up schematics for building wideband jammers. Ultimately it was the very serious approach the FCC takes that stopped me from really exploring it, even for fun. Everthing I'd read indicated that you'd be caught and fast, so I'm sort of surprised it took two years, even if it was on a highway. But lord I still might…

Why is a husband and wife talking to each other in a grocery store so vexing? Is it only if one is remote, or have you also looked into the ramifications of muzzling fellow shoppers? Is it that you prefer to hear both sides of stranger's conversations? I ask in a flippant way, just to highlight the incongruence, but I'm sincerely curious.

> Is it that you prefer to hear both sides of stranger's conversations?

Yes. Hearing just one half is irritating, I think because I can't help expending brainpower on filling in the other side. A speakerphone conversation is much less annoying.