Cell Phone Jammers: Coming To An Event Near You? 332
DarwinDan writes "The L.A. Daily News has an article about Cell phone jamming to prevent terrorists from detonating bombs remotely. Jamming technology is already being used "to protect President Bush." An interesting quote from the article: "Public safety is more important than public convenience.""
That's great (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's great (Score:2)
Also used for silencing theatres and such (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't want to be interrupted by a ringtone while watching Van Helsing, but I think switching my Nokia to 'silence' enables this far enough, I don't need help from others silencing my cellphone.
Re:Also used for silencing theatres and such (Score:3, Funny)
ANY excuse to get out of that movie would be better than nothing.
Re:Also used for silencing theatres and such (Score:3, Interesting)
I had a job where I needed a cellphone, but I ditched the damn thing the second I quit
"Convenience" versus safety (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, it's only arguable that cell phone usage is an "essential liberty", but then again you can argue just about anything on the Internet
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:5, Funny)
Good thing the terrorists can't get those, or they could remote detonate bombs even with their cellphones jammed!
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:5, Interesting)
Another jamming cellphones doesn't just cause a problem by preventing citizens from dialing 911. Many public safety personnell, like detectives, part-time police, and firefighters are on call for duty via their cellphones or pagers. What happens if they can't be contacted in an emergency?
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:2)
At the last movie I went and saw, peoples phones were ringing nonstop, throughout the whole film. The guy two seats ahead of me stayed on the phone through the whole damn
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, there is no such right to not be annoyed, and there is no right to not be offended. If I keep my cellphone on vibrate during movies, at restaurants, etc... why should I be prevented from getting urgent messages? I think the solution (as has been su
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:3, Interesting)
I never claimed a right, but common good graces, respect for your fellow man. Being that people lack manners, they should be enforced. When I go to a good resturant, a movie, the theater, or classes, I'm paying
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:3, Insightful)
Great. Sign me up.
Seriously, I'd be happy to pay a premium if the movie or restaurant I was thinking of going to advertised itself as using jamming gear, perhaps, with a little marketing pizazz, they might tout that a "Self-Absorbed Idiot Free-Area" was available.
Doctors and firefighters, of course, would be wise to avoid thes
Re: Theatre usage (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:5, Interesting)
1) low power walkie-talkies in Walmart for a few bucks. Range is maybe 100 yards, which would be enough.
2) radio control for model aircraft. Range is 1/2 mile or more and it would be really easy to make a servo operate a switch.
3) it really isn't very difficult to make a spark-gap transmitter, with a wide-spectrum frequency range.
Any of those would be sufficient to remotely trigger an explosive device. And over at Scitoys.com there's a very simple design for a laser communicator made from a laser pointer and a solar cell...
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:4, Insightful)
Somewhat appropriate, then, that they GET neither liberty nor safety in 95% of cases.
They lose the liberty to use their cellphone.
They don't get safety because anyone who really wants to blow something up isn't going to be deterred by something as small as a cell phone jammer.
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:3, Insightful)
Imho the real danger lies when someone takes small steps that eventually DO lead to a loss of liberty. If you can't make a big jump, then do a lot of small ones that you can rationalize individually.
A >> B >> C >> D
A to B is perfectly logical, likewise B to C and C to D, but if you step back and look at A and then D you're probably not going to like what you see.
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:2)
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:2)
The problem is that one of the small steps leads to a loss of liberty, but most are unwilling or unable to see it. Because its so small.
Most holes in the legal system start out small. But in legal terms, size does not matter.
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:3, Insightful)
Easier to say it than to do it.
Anyway, I think that the quote doesn't take into account that public safety IS public convenience sometimes. The fact I swear at my cell when someone's jamming it to prevent a bomb from detonating doesn't mean I don't think they should've done that.
And anyway I would say that cell phones are FAR from being an
Re:"Convenience" versus safety (Score:4, Funny)
SWAT could use these. (Score:2)
Whenever you've got barricaded subject(s), you always want to cut off their communications... get them talking to you and nobody else. This keeps other people from interfering with hostage negotiations, feeding the subjects intel, warning them that a breach is imminent, calling in reinforcements, etc, etc.
There was a case a few years back in Tampa, Florida... multiple cop-killer actually called a radio station and gave an interview before ki
What about 911? (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, if someone wants to detonate a bomb they will find a way, and if they have to press the button themselves.
Re:What about 711? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about 711? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much an example that as soon as you beat the bad guys tech, they change it. Frankly the whole issue regards jammers is best illustrated by why are they protecting our President with it and NOT protecting our soldiers in Iraq with it. If you have someone in your family who is serving in Iraq, buy them a cell phone jammer. They are cheap and available over seas.
In the mean time roast the back side of your congress critter for not supplying this tech for our soldiers to be safe.
Athens Bomb (Score:2, Funny)
Wasn't the athens bomb (100 days before the olympics) made up of some sticks of dynamite connected to an alarm clock?
Police are looking for a brown coyote with suspected association to an organisation known only as ACME.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about 911? (Score:2, Insightful)
RC car remotes aren't cheap but aren't jammed by cell phone jammers and cost less than a cell phone.
But if cost is not an object then use amature radio equipment.
Also why use a pasive signal when you can use an active?
Directly from security alarms. A passive signal means when you trigger it there is a signal, cut the wires and you'll never get a signal.
ACTIVE signal means when you trigger you CUT the signal.
Now we have an active cell phone triggered by a jamming field and you'll never k
Re:What about 911? (Score:2)
An R/C plane would make an extremely ineffective flying bomb. At most, with a huge plane, you could only hold a few pounds of explosives. The only way it would be dangerous to the president would be if it could be aimed right at him, which would require very good pil
What about the other frequencies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about the other frequencies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, you can garuntee (sic) a premature detonation.
Re:What about the other frequencies? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What about the other frequencies? (Score:2)
you know anything about radios?
all this cellphone jammer does is that it makes it impossible to use an off the shelf cellphone for the detonator(thus making it quite easy to construct. however, there's still other very easy ways to detonate it wirelessly).
it leaves ALL other frequencies open and when you don't care about the rules the attacker could use ANY frequency and method that exists to transfer the trigger signal.
what would be actually useful wo
Re:What about the other frequencies? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about the other frequencies? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not having access to the standard mobile phone detonation technique means that terrorists have to go down the fabrication route, which means trial and error, possible accidents, and a much higher chance that a planted bomb won't go off as planned - if at all.
Personally, I agree with you in that it
Re:What about the other frequencies? (Score:2)
Since you mention airports, what if someone used the WiFi that is available on some public places (like airports) to SSH from his home in other side of the world and 'trigger' the bomb? Should we ban that too?
But not across hundreds of miles (Score:2)
maybe this works for other frequencies as well, maybe someone could enlighten on that subject
I can picture it now... (Score:3, Interesting)
bob marley (Score:5, Funny)
And I hope you like jammin', too.
Rediculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Other than that, this is just yet another textbook example of the Bush Administration stomping all over the constitutional rights of its citizenry (but he hasn't really been very supportive of free speech from the get-go anyhow, so you shouldn't be surprised.) When are people going to get pissed off enough at this outrageous behavior and finally vote him out of office? He still seems to be ahead in the polls. Get it together, Americans!
free speach (Score:3, Funny)
Re:free speach (Score:2)
And what constitutional right of yours justifies trumping my ability to have a cell phone?
You may not like cell phones, but you have to put up with them. Don't use some political paranoia to justify your own personal convenience and comfort over others.
Re:free speach (Score:3, Insightful)
That falls under the second amendment. The government tries to take away my freedom of expression, I try and take away the government.
Re:free speach (Score:4, Insightful)
Citizen 1: "Hello, hello?". "Dammit, I can't get through on this thing."
Citizen 2: "Better just assume its a normal hijacking then.
As they slip back in their seats, Citizen 1: "Okay, we'll cooperate fully. We don't want anyone to get hurt."
The terrorist smirks. Some time later, Flight 93 slams into the White House.
The above scenario is obviously fictitious. The passengers of Flight 93 did not have their cell phones jammed. They did find out about the other planes hitting the WTC, and they did choose to sacrifice themselves to save lives.
But as cell phones have already proven their usefulness in saving lives during a terrorist attack, it is ridiculous to be jamming them now.
Regarding the issue of telephone rights:
1) The government, using my tax money, set up the 911 service so I could get the help of police, fire, etc. if I really need it. Use of this service requires a telephone. As often 911 calls deal with the safety of the community (bank robbery, finding trapped people in a disaster, terrorism), jamming them endangers the community.
2) Cell service is paid for. Under the Fifth Amendment (Bill of Rights), I require compensation if the government disrupts it.
Movie (December 1998): "The great devil will come from the sky!"
Video Subtitle (Summer 1999): "The King of Terror is coming!"
American Version (May 2003): "The King of Terror!"
Moll, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks" / "Rebirth of Mothra 3"
really safer? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet many of the survivors of Sept. 11 2001 made it through because of cell phone communications.
Okay, so lets say you DO run some frequency jammers...and some terrorist decide to use another means of communication to carry out their plans. Now you have a large number of people with no communication outside the affected area. Police/Medics will have a longer time of arriving to the scene. It will take longer to locate injured persons.
Re:really safer? (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt it. From what I remember, all the lines were clogged. It may have saved a few people but most of it was people trying to call relatives.
Re:really safer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:really safer? (Score:2)
Re:really safer? (Score:2)
Re:really safer? (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, we know that cell phone communications probably saved quite a number of lives on September 11, 2001. The folks on the fourth plane found out what was going on via their cell phones, and that's what made them decide to overwhelm the hijackers and crash in an empty field instead of whatever the intended target was.
Frankly, it's hard to kill someone with a cell phone. It's a lot easier to save someone with it. So taking away the ability for EVERYONE to use them in most cases will cause more harm than good.
Where can I get one of these (Score:2)
Anything that helps get those yappy valley girls to stfu is OK in my book.
Re:Where can I get one of these (Score:2)
A much better technique for dealing with kids (especially ones under the age of 16) is to step directly in front of them, crouch down to their eye level, and tell them that if they don't STFU, that you are going to follow them out to their parents' car after the movie and tell their parents that their kids are not mature enough to attend mov
IANA US Citizen, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:IANA US Citizen, but... (Score:2)
Public safety of whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
The politician on the podium, however, has no use for a cellphone, so s/he won't be inconvenienced at all, while his/her safety is increased.
Once again it's public policy taking care of their own. Seems to be a hallmark of this administration.
How terrorists will respond to this (Score:5, Interesting)
IF kaboomSignal THEN
blowup
ENDIF
To:
IF NOT dontKaboomSignal THEN
blowup
ENDIF
So true! (Score:2, Funny)
Not really practical (Score:2)
No, a better way would be to use a signal on a frequency that wasn't being jammed, or use a line-of-sight system with a laser, or use a good old-fashioned timer, or use a good old-fashioned suicide bomber,
Re:Not really practical (Score:4, Insightful)
Bombs are usually planted in advance. This has several benefits for the bomb-planters, among those being not getting arrested and not getting blown up.
Still, a good old timer does the job as well.
Using some sort of over-the-air detonation can have benefits as well though; for example, say terrorists plant a bomb in some police cars. Upon seeing one of the compromised police cars (they are usually numbered right on the roof) close to the target, they detonate.
They could even just use the police frequencies, since those are unlikely to be blocked, especially when there is a large police presence. Remember, they're terrorists, if they feel like using off-limits frequencies, they can. (If you want to call 911, you're stuck with licensed frequencies).
Ah the illusion of safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't forget the terrorists favourite method - suicide bombing.
I think cell phones are just the most convenient method. They'll find another way in a hurry, you can be sure about that.
Re:Ah the illusion of safety. (Score:2)
I'm no expert in this matter, but I would think that terrorists that make these bombs get "standard instructions" on how to build the bombs. This way a government agency knows what frequencies are most likely to be used, and therefore easier to be jammed. Of course it is possible to make a bomb detonate on other frequencies too, but are the average terrorist capable of that?
If you want
Re:At the movies (Score:4, Insightful)
In that situation, you might call (or SMS) for help, tell how many of them are, where they are, what weapons do they have... Unless your mobile was jammed.
Re:At the movies (Score:2)
And most idiots in theaters aren't SOSing family members, their chatting inanely while I'm trying to watch a movie, or just ringing (with their obnoxious ringtones). Hell, I bet the Chechens were at least quite during the movie.
Re:At the movies (Score:2)
Gigli may have been bad, but wouldn't blowing up a movie theater be overkill?
Another act in "security theater" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no radio expert, but isn't it still possible that you could simply use some other kind of transmission, rather than cell phones? Say, ham radio, police frequencies, citizen band, or whatever?
Blocking cell phones seems to me to be what's called "security theater." It's all show to make people think they're safe, and (more especially) that the government is "hard at work ensuring the nation's security." (Blah, blah, blah.)
This is good theater, too, because it is something that affects almost everybody at an event, so they're sure not to miss noticing the "hard work." Why, it'll be the talk of the town!
At most, this is 10% security, 90% public relations.
Re:Another act in "security theater" (Score:4, Interesting)
And yes, creating a radio controlled detonator is pretty easy.
If they're doing cellphone jamming, it'll actually make detonators more reliable on other frequencies. There won't be that RF burst when a call is taken and the mic on the phone is opened. Which means less premature explosions.
yeah, and does this jammer (Score:4, Interesting)
walkie talker freqs (49 mhz)
block fm radios?
block am radios?
block ham radio?
block light?
unless it's a faraday field in a box, part of the EM spectrum will get through... boom
to paraphrase lelo, bada boom..
LOL! (Score:5, Funny)
And exactly what number is that? I had an old math teacher in highschool... err... nevermind.
Yeah, that's great. (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if they jam pager frequencies as well? Pagers seem like they'd be a much more sensible choice. Much longer battery life, coverage is EVERYWHERE, and they don't broadcast a traceable signal.
I love how the goverment spends my money on useless crap instead of trying to make fewer enemies by not being so heavy-handed with the rest of the world.
Re:Yeah, that's great. (Score:2)
As far as these people are concerned, that's fine. The radius of interference exceeds the radius of destruction of the expected explosives; if Shrub's anti-mobile-phone field triggers an explosion while he's driving around, he's still a safe distance away.
Remember, this isn't about making sure that people can't detonate explosives -- if someone simply wants to detonate some explosives, they don't need a cell phone to tr
Safety is about mitigating risk (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Terrorists using cell phones to detonate bombs (which can be done with a simple mechanical timer far more easily)
2) Fire, heart attack, drowning, etc. wherein using a cell phone to dial 911 could save lives?
Public Convenience? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's very debateable whether the possible loss of life due to disruption to emergency services and the general terror and panic caused to the public is less than the possible lives saved (which requires both that there is a terrorist attack going to happen, and that they are reliant on mobile phones).
Of course, everyone bending over backwards to ensure Bush's safety is nothing new. When he visits the UK, it costs the British taxpayer $8.5 million [cnn.com] for security (meanwhile, UK visitors to the US can look forward to such fun as photographing and fingerprinting, but that's another story).
Another pointless technical solution (Score:5, Insightful)
This is somewhat like banning cars from an area. Sure, cars are a convenient way to move people, but hey, it could also be used as a delivery mechanism for an explosive!
Hasn't anyone in America clued up to the idea that 99% of the impact of Terrorism is exploiting FUD? In allowing the freaky controlling elements of society to make life impossible for the rest of the sane people, don't you lose so much more?
And don't give me that "if we can save just one life" crap. If that's the case then ban cigarettes, alcohol and McDonalds. Hell, ban religion and guns while you're at it.
For goodness sake! Stop letting the terrorists run your lives for you! They're winning! Wake up!
Just how far will this go? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I think most people will agree that jammers are okay to stop terrorists from blowing things up, I don't like the idea of all police having access to this. It seems to be the slippery slope. There is a valid function for this, but then it gets extended and extended. I say leave it to the air force, if there is a need they can fly a plane over the area and block everything. Then afterwards they will have to explain. Don't give it to the police, where 1000's of departments and chiefs of police might decide for themselves when and how to use it. Plus, everyone has heard stories of bad apples in police departments. The last thing they need is a method to shut down communications.
Re:Just how far will this go? (Score:2)
There was an article on Salon about how everyone can be a photographer now. How we can get much closer to wars and protests because it is more difficult for authorities to corral an ordinary person with a mobile phone than i
High schools use these (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple and cheaper solution to bypass the blocking (Score:2)
a more important use (Score:4, Funny)
No more soccer moms meandering all over the road, screaming at their kids and yapping on their cellphones!
what about other methods? (Score:2)
Then you discover that they are perfectly serious - it's just that they have zero imagination. They cannot imagine a novel threat mechanism and so assume that nobody else could.
I would guess that 110% of new "security" spending in the US is wasted money as it's targetted at old threats.
Other techniques that may work (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, bomb makers could just put in a manual switch in series with the ringer detonation circuit to wait until the ring before activating that part of the mechanism. Unless there was some kind of random delay before the ring and/or a second ring at random. Add in unpreditability so safetly activating the detonation mechanism becomes unsafe.
Other things to do would be to make the ring circuit only work if the correct impedence was detected. You could get around that but then making bomb denotators would not be an off the shelf solution.
This will be necessary with cel-video (Score:2)
Thad
Cell Phones are not a right (Score:2)
Now when they stop people from speaking, then we have a problem. But a cell-phone restriction? Is that all you people can find today to bash Bush on and express your ludicrous unwarranted hatred?
Corporate Lobbying at work? (Score:2)
Casinos use jammers to prevent people from cheating using cell phones and some federal law enforcement agencies use the equipment during hostage situations.
I can probably concede to the secret service using
They simply turn off the towers (Score:2)
There's a flag on the play! Let's listen in..... (Score:2, Insightful)
FWEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!
False dichotomy.
On the offense.
10 sentences back from the original argument.
Still first down.
FWEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!
Bereft of Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Look folks, Al Qaeda didn't use cellphone-triggered remote bombs, tunnels under schools, IRC, or even orbiting brain-lasers, or whatever stupid possibility has been dreamed of by the Department of Paranoia. They used box-cutters. I'm fairly certain that whatever choice they make next is going to be a surprise. It's not going to be something that the US Gov't expects, so let's stop trying to list the millions of possible ways and monitor the thousands of possible targets.
I really wish the hype and paranoia would stop. I used to listen to ("conservative") radio host Monica Crowley, until one night she bleated like a sheep stuck in a fence for an hour about how "we should do everything possible" in regard to airport security. I mean, come on Monica, that's something a 7th grader would say. There's a balance between cost and safety, and nobody in her right mind would suggest spending an unlimited amount of public funds just to make sure we can catch someone who has a box-cutter, because there's a one in a billion chance he might want to also fly an airliner into a building.
Likewise we have El Rushbo, trumpeting that the fact we haven't had an Al Qaeda attack on US soil for one and a half years is proof positive that Bush's strategy is working. As much as I'd like to believe that, the fact is that it costs Al Qaeda money and takes lots of time to plan an act on US soil. The second WTC attack happened almost 8 years after the first. The attacks aren't likely going to stop as long as we're involved in the Mid-East (as long as we back Israel and pull the strings for the Saudi monarchy).
So once again, it's not a choice with absolutes. Either we continue our current policy and some of us get killed every ten years or so, or we trade some other lives for our own, and watch the slaughter of the Jews, the Kurds, or some other religious minority that is sufficiently westernized to perhaps believe in freedom, interest on money, rights for women, or perhaps not stoning people to death for breaking society's rules. Or, we pick something inbetween, and successive presidents jump to either side of the fence (like the case now). One thing I can be sure of is that some US citizens are going to have a shot at stopping the next attack, just like the last one. So maybe this time we won't behave like subservient little hoplophobic sheep, and someone will fight back with deadly force to spare the lives of others.
No RF Needed (Score:4, Interesting)
They've already won. (Score:2)
ever since one left-alone box is suspicious and might be a bom instead of a box,
ever since cellphones have to be blocked,
ever since people are affraid to get on a train,
ever since terrorists don't have to do anything to disrupt my normal life, they have already won.
Rather tha Jamming: (Score:5, Interesting)
Eg in a theatre, the cell could act as a normal relay outside performance times, but suddenly become a black hole when the performance starts. (obviously it has to pretend still to be working, or the phones will just use another cell)
Such a system could allow emergency calls while blocking anything else.
Re:Jamming in the city (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, I've been working in hospitals for 25 years and never seen this happen. Just not possible. Defibrillators are NOT controlled by radio waves. I guess some very sensative telemetry montitors can be interfered with, but I have never seen this happen either. I think this is a little FUD by hospitals, because cell phones are annoying to people trying to recover.
Re:Jamming in the city (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jamming in the city (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Some mobile phone systems have call setup done in a different frequency band from the actual call transmission; blocking the call setup band will ensure that the call transmission band doesn't get used.
Seconded (Score:2)
Also... setting off someone's defibrillator?? Uh, how about "no" and "hell no." Anyone who thinks a bio-med company could get away with selling implantable cardioverter/d
bad idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's bad enough with them dialing the thing at 80Mph.
Re:I want one! (Score:2)
If you have that right, which I don't think any of us have, you certainly would waive it as soon as you step out of your home.
Right to peace and quiet (Score:2)
I would agree that in many cases the use of a cell phone in public should fall under the same rules and the offenders be fined and have their phone taken away from them, and crushed on the pavement in front of them.
And if they use it while driving, they should have their CAR crushed in front of them. Though this also would include inconsiderate drivers, which would make our roads a LOT safer if all these jerks
Re:In an emergency. . . (Score:2, Insightful)
You -> 911 -> E911 lookup -> Local responding rescue squad -> On site rescue squad -> You through the crowd.
or
You -> Local security -> On site rescue squad -> You through the crowd.
The main problem with cell phones nowadays are the issues of pseudo safety and convenien