Driver caught using cell phone jamming device • Hacker News Board

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#201

Post by zo1 » Fri, May 02, 2014, 4:13 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #166

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…

> Start making sure that insurance companies have no payouts if the driver's phone was on X amount of time before the accident Your insurance company will happily sue you for the payout and more if you were acting tortuously at the time of the accident. The purpose of insurance isn't to protect the driver, it's to protect the victim of an accident ("There's money and you'll get it"). > Require all vehicles to install…

"The purpose of insurance isn't to protect the driver, it's to protect the victim of an accident" Well, first of all. It depends on what kind of insurance, and who got it. What I'm saying is that all of the insurance that the reckless driver has, whether for himself, or for third-party damage, should be denied. That way it's ALL out-of-pocket for him, assuming the law finds him reckless and owes damages to the victims.

Now, of course. The victim should have their own insurance, if they're smart. So they are covered whether or not the reckless driver was insured, or his insurance pays out third parties for damage.

Of course, as one of the other posters mentioned above. "Poor reckless drivers won't be able to pay the victim, and this will hurt the victim." Well, I'm not an advocate of more-state, but if that's what tickles your fancy, then mandate insurance. Like, I asssume, they already do for third-party damage? I don't live in the US so I don't know about that.

"I have 1-3 mobile phones on me most times and share around 7 SIM cards between them. Also, what about cars with more than one driver?" Well you're an exception. And if you think that's a reasonable argument against my solution, then you obviously didn't read it in its entirety, or you didn't understand it. If it's the latter, then I'm sorry I failed you. My point is that no one really wants to fix this problem, they just want to appear to fix it. Because if they really wanted to fix it, it would be fixed with whatever draconian/weird/unique/ballsy solution works.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#202

Post by zo1 » Fri, May 02, 2014, 4:17 PM UTC

ahomescu1 wrote: post #107

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. 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 lo…

"Legislative solutions should only be considered as a last resort, not the first option."

I agree with you. I'm not one to advocate more laws or more state as I'm an anarcho-capitalist. But the point I was trying to make is that if people really wanted the state to fix this problem, it would be. Either through more laws, incentives, education, technology, whatever. (Side note: this assumes the state 100% does what the general public wants.)

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#203

Post by frandroid » Sat, May 03, 2014, 2:49 PM UTC

exhilaration wrote: post #200

kalleboo wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Sweden we are. After a big storm a few years ago knocked out the phone lines to some remote homes, the telco calculated that it was cheaper to let them use 4G than to repair kilometers of telephone poles.

Same thing in parts of New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy, Verizon refused to rebuild the landlines and installed 4G base stations instead.

Whoa. I get Sweden, Scandinavia has been topping mobile penetration for a while, but Jersey... Stunning.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#204

Post by frandroid » Sat, May 03, 2014, 2:51 PM 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.

Payphones are endpoints, the network is much more than that. Except for the few examples listed in another answer, most of the infrastructure is still intact, i.e. you can get a landline in your home if you want one.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#205

Post by drewcrawford » Sun, May 04, 2014, 3:02 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #151

drewcrawford wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well like I said, I don't think anybody's coming after you for building a faraday cage for yourself.

If you do it in a movie theater though, it presents a safety issue, and that's a negative externality.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#206

Post by TeMPOraL » Sun, May 04, 2014, 11:08 PM UTC

sukuriant wrote: post #99

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…

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

I live in Poland and I see it there too.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#207

Post by nkozyra » Wed, May 07, 2014, 3:23 PM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #156

nkozyra wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed. The odds of this happening are exponentially lower than causing a fatal accident by checking your phone in your car, but I appreciate the forced aghast sentiment expressed here.