Personal (But Illegal) Mobile Phone Jammers Getting More Popular?
from the doesn't-seem-all-that-helpful dept
We've known for a while that mobile phone jammers were popular with places like hotels even though they were illegal. And while a US firm selling the devices is involved in a lawsuit claiming that banning the devices is unconstitutional, they're still very much barred. Yet, as the NY Times reports this weekend, overseas sellers of the devices (including personal ones that you can keep in your pocket) are seeing growing demand from US users, including random people who just like to mess with mobile phone chatters around them. Of course, for those of you tempted to annoy those who normally annoy you with their chatter, at least recognize that the fine for getting caught using these devices starts at $11,000.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Wow!
Now these would be useful in Walmart! Imagine a world where you can shop without hundreds of people yammering away on a cell phone...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Cool!
These need to be standard issue in theaters!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Nice for blocking cell phone triggered IED's in Iraq....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Cool!
I would rather people have common courtesy/decency/respect for others than force them to be cut off from the outside world. It is really disappointing that all of those are continually decreasing....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Along ride to work
I think signs posting that all Cellualr communication is being jammed should be posted with these jammers around schools. It scares me when I see people on cell phones or texting when children are present.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Imagine this, you are in the middle of an important phone call, and some moron carrying a jamming device forces your cell phone out of service.
I would definatly say that personal use of such a device should stay illegal!
However, there is nothing wrong with a movie theater, or a classroom as this technology can prevent unwanted disruptions
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Cool!
I agree on your points, if everyone would just be a little more civil with one another....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Have you ever seen someone in a public venue talking on a cell phone who didn't think it was an "important" phone call?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Movie Theatres
If I had one of these it would ALWAYS go with me to movie theatres where a-holes decide a quiet theatre is the place to answer a call... if you need your phone that badly maybe you shouldn't be at the movies.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
The personal devices should definitely stay illegal. I see no harm though if a business or company wants to use them.
It might even start up a new wave marketing, "Come to our theater; We won't block your cell phone!"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
ALL of my calls are important because I'M important.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
even still, if jamming were legal, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a cell phone? You buy a phone to talk, and people buy a jamming device so you can't talk.
Also, the jamming of a phone is denying other people service which they pay good money for.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow...
People in our society are getting absurd in their inability to handle social interactions. Why can't people just ask them to get off the phone? Honestly, if you have a valid complain, such as a quiet restaurant or a theater, 99% of people will already be trying to hurry the conversation along, so if you mention something, they generally just hang up. If not, the theater staff will deal with them.
Jamming cell phones is illegal for a reason. Basically you are creating a transmission dead zone that has consequences for everyone else broadcasting on that frequency such as police, fire fighters, ambulance crews, everyone who uses a two way cell signal. Another thing to consider is the way it jams the signal is by generating large amounts of interference, which can cause problems with other electronic devices.
Come on people, how is trading an annoying person on a phone for an annoying person with a jammer a good solution? No matter how annoying someone is, you really don't have special rights that negate their own rights. I personally have never had a problem, if someone is talking on their phone, I ask them to stop. It is up to restaurants and theaters to regulate people, if they choose not to, then it is their choice as a private business to do so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I agree 100 percent. Devices like these should be legalized for valid uses, such as movie theaters, classrooms, and other gatherings where cell phone usage would cause a large disturbance. Such devices would have to be strictly licensed and regulated of course, but there is definitely a valid use. If people don't like not being able to use their phone in the theater, then they can just stay home. After all, if they're on the phone, they're obviously not that interested in the movie anyway.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's their own damn fault!
If people weren't rude with their cell phones, these jamming devices would never have been invented.
You reap what you sow!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Cool!
I disagree with you. My line of work requires me to be on call, so if I am out with the family at the movies, I will be unable to get calls, and if I don't get phone calls, I don't make money.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Along ride to work
I guess it should be illegal to have a phone around children.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Cool!
Then stay away from places where these devices are being used when you're on call. Or, find another job.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why can't people just ask them to get off the phone?
the last time somebody told me to get off my phone i fucked them up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No one should be able to block the use of a perfectly legal device and service you pay for. At the same time, you owe common courtesy to not disrupt and annoy those around you.
I also think businesses should have the option of installing these devices provided they give public notice such devices are in use.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Cool!
Take your call...outside the theater or restaurant. That's what voice mail and caller ID is for, you can turn it on vibrate and get up and leave when it vibrates.
If you don't have vibrate, get a phone that does, you owe that to the others you are a nuisance to.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wow...
No matter how annoying someone is, you really don't have special rights that negate their own rights
I agree, with respects to personally carrying one, but businesses have every right to do what they want as far as allowing customers on cell phones. As long as they have clear signs saying if you enter this building you will not have a cell phone signal, then why not? If you do not like it, do no go to that business.
Beside they can block the certain cell phone signal (I just read up on these, pretty cool) without interfering with emergency lines.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What about parents with children?
You say that if you might need to get a call you should just not go to a theater or a restaruant. Well what about parents who have children and want to go out and have whoever is watching the kids be able to get hold of them in an emergency. Are you saying that parents should ALSO not ever go out?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
You apparently are not polite about your cell phone use. People like you are the reason why these devices were invented in the 1st place.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Replacing Annoying with Annoying
When the people with cell phones start to annoy us, we'll turn to jammers. When the people with jammers start to annoy us, we'll turn to intrusive laws. When intrusive laws start to annoy us, we'll turn to anarchy.
Is that what everyone really wants!? Anarchy?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Wow...
Exactly, you can't block everyones signal in a theater (and those outside) from using mobile devices just because you don't like it. The owner of the location is the only one to make that decision since it will impact their business. I have no problem with a business deciding to do it, although it would be almost impossible for them to get it approved by the government.
They can block a frequency, the problem is that a lot of government people use normal cell phones from the same carriers as the public for a lot of what they do. It's becoming more and more common for agencies to use someone like NexTel or sprint as a standard, which means if you choose to block the 1900mhz frequency, you are blocking all kinds of GSM traffic such as TMobile, Sprint, AT&T, and I'm sure more. Of course, not all phones are on the same frequency, so while you are fiddling with your personal jammer, you might be disconnecting everyone else who isn't even your target.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Cool!
I call BS on this one. I'm required to be on call at times too. When I am I don't go to the frickin' movies. Give me a break. It's decision based on decency and courtesy to others.
I can't stand paying to go see a movie and have to listen to someone on their cell phone or, the person in front of me texting.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Jammer Over-Ride?
If I remember correctly, RF jamming devices work by transmitting white noise in a frequency or (frequencies) with more power than the device that it is trying to jam. So, couldn't a cellphone user just use an (equally illegal by the way) amplifier with an antenna in, lets say, a book bag or something? If I ran into too many jamming devices with my phone then I'd invest in a quite powerful RF amplifier and see who jams me then ^_^
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wow...
Another thing to consider is the way it jams the signal is by generating large amounts of interference, which can cause problems with other electronic devices.
Not entirely true. Most of them simply nullify(1 +(-1)=0) the specific cell phone frequencies and leave the rest alone. A little research will show you that the people who design the jammers actually think of the exact same stuff you mention and design around it. They also typically limit the effective range to within 50 feet or so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
/| ignore the above slippery slope, this way of thinking is quite flawed, and shouldn't be taken seriously.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Jammer Over-Ride?
You're NOT remembering correctly. These days jammers use a method that nullifies the specific signal they are targeting. The fun thing about those is that the more powerful your RF amp, the more powerful the nullification signal.
X + (-X)=0, no matter what the size of X.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wow!
That's easy to fix - don't shop at Walmart.
Shop for trash WITH the trash ... that's the Walmart way.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
I have no problem with a business deciding to do it, although it would be almost impossible for them to get it approved by the government.
Businesses(nor homeowners or anyone who has the right to modify their buildings) don't need these jammers to do that in the first place. Read up on the "Faraday Cage" and its effects on radio signals. No electronics required.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Well you are either a stupid asshole or a liar...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
More likely a little of both. Probably didn't graduate high school. We'll most likely end up supporting this person on welfare or through prison system.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Constant Contact
Good lord people...there was a time less then 10 years ago when we all made it just fine without constant contact.
If you're a parent and you're that worried that you need to have your cell then you should NOT be going out without your child. Anyone over the age of 15 made it to this point without having cell phones to connect us to our parents 24/7 so your kid can make it too.
Next if you're on call...you can stay at home or be some place where receiving a call isn't an annoyance to those around you.
And they should run jamming around the interstate (minus shoulder areas) because do you know how hard it is to txt, drive at 75mph, and eat a McDonald's hamburger is?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Wow...
Because it would still be illegal. A business can post whatever (legal) signs it wants, and a business can prohibit cell phone use, but when a business prohibits someone from making an emergency phone call, they could have civil and criminal liability. I also wouldn't limit "emergency" phone calls to 911 calls. Business don't get special rights on their property that individuals don't have on their own property.
I also agree that if you're willing to commit a crime to avoid a minor verbal confrontation with an individual in public, you shouldn't be in public.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Private Property?
i'd say these things should be legal, on private property only, and clearly sign posted.
range to be limited so the effect is say 90% on the private property only.
in a public place illegal, I'd go as far to have a license requirement.
now if a cinema wants to be mobile free it can be, and if another one wants to allow phones thats fine too. people will go to whatever they want.
random jamming in public is a bad idea.
public transport, well you don't need a jammer, design the vehicle to block signals passively, faraday cage etc.
as for liability for blocking an 'important call' thats the point behind the signs and private property only. when you go in you accept the limits on the service.
this can't be too hard.
places will probably on block the signals if they think its good for business to do so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Scenario
You're at the mall in the movie theater, happily enjoying a ringtone-free experience. When it's over, you get up to leave, pleased with yourself that your pocket-jammer saved it for everyone. You shut it off so you can make a call. On your way out, you pass someone else in the mall coming out of an restaurant adjacent to the theater, talking on their now working phone. "What do mean my patient just died? Why didn't you call me?"
Still pleased with yourself?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Cool!
Which is probably what he does...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Anonymous Coward...
The problem is... what if I'm dialing 911 for a REAL emergency, and some moron either doesn't know this is a real emergency or just wants to screw around...
This is simply a case of vigilantism. Let law enforcement deal with enforcing the laws fairly and with common sense! Whenever regular people get involved with regulating the public, the public gets screwed.
---- Constant contact....dude... come on... Ties change. this isn't 1970. Its stupid to say that just because we've only had technology for a few years, that we can simply do without it today. Today cel phones are a "required" or at least heavily relied upon piece of communication equipment for business and families alike. Just because you think people did without it yesterday has nothing to do with the argument of how we use the technology today and tomorrow.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Um...
I pay for my service, pay a lot in fact. It doesn't matter how important that call is, there's no real reason that I need to be shut off from a call.
Now, having said that, I am curtious enough to turn the phone on vibrate in a movie theatre or when I was in college in a class.
The resteraunt argument or anything ragarding a public place doesn't make sense. What's the difference if I am on the phone talking, or talking to a person physically next to me???
As a parent that phone is my lifeline to my child at home. If I lose signal for 4 hours while I'm out for dinner and a movie with my wife and something happens to my child how will I know? Oh yeah, once I get signal again when I'm on my way home when my kid has been in the hospital for the past 4 hours bleeding to death. What was I thinking...
These devices should remain illegal. What would happen if there was an emergency situation and 911 was the only way to alert authorities?? How would anyone be able to get help?? I would think the person who set up the device would have liability for anything that happened in that kind of a situation (although I'm no a lawyer).
RE: Constant Contact by Luke
Good lord people...there was a time less then 10 years ago when we all made it just fine without constant contact.
There was a time when we scavenged for food in forests and our clothes were made from animal hide that we tore of the beasts by hand or with tools made out of rocks/sticks.
If you're a parent and you're that worried that you need to have your cell then you should NOT be going out without your child. Anyone over the age of 15 made it to this point without having cell phones to connect us to our parents 24/7 so your kid can make it too.
Have you ever heard of an emergency? Wouldn't you like to know if you child got hurt and is in the hospital? This doesn't apply only to parents, but ANY emergency.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Points Missed
Here are some arguments that I don't quite understand:
1) Parents have been going out for decades and have done just fine. Leave the number of the restaurant or theater.
2) Businesses would be liable for not making emergency calls. Not really, they can just provide a pay phone. 911 calls are free.
3) Breach of service contract? Nah, people always have a choice to not go somewhere.
4) The doctor and his patient dying. If a patient is going to do because one doctor can't get a call...you have more problems than just a blocked phone. There is ALWAYS a backup doctor.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Finally someone mentioned cars on here. Yeah just ask them to get off the phone. Honk at them tap on the glass hit there bumper. Oh, finally you got there attention...now ask them to get off the damned phone... right before they shoot you.
Cars have always represented autonomy and for the discourteous and just plan stupid they take this to the Nth degree. Whether traveling at high speeds or bumper to bumper there are times when someone knocking some idiot off there "CELL" phone could save lives or at least prevent some road rage.
If your call is that important and you can't get a signal ...pull over and or use a land-line. Hell that right there might improve social skills. Learning once again how to ask some if you can use there phone.
Whaaa, whaaa "But I paid for this service" that I can't use this very minute even though I'm driving and listening to the radio. I still can't tell my friend about the dummy who just walked into a pole while calling in to the radio show.
"But, I paid for it" either by the minute or an unlimited plan. Your being charged when using the phone or you'd have paid the same amount anyway. OMG I cant use the phone I'm paying for, for a whole three minutes.
"But, but.. I PAID FOR IT ...damn You!"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Cool!
You ignorant people, like Random Loser here:
Just because someone is "on call" does not mean they are disruptive.
I need to be on call very often. Like Mike, I go to the movies while on call. And just like Mike I put my phone on vibrate. When I get a call I have two chioces: 1) Step into the lobby and take the call or 2) ignore it. Nobody in the theater is disturbed or even aware that I got a call.
THINK! Especially before you spew your BS all over the page.
PS - How do you listen to someone texting?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Coward, the baby killer...
Nothing wrong with jamming cell phone signals in theaters??? How about doctors on call (with their phones set on vibrate of course).
While you're at it, you might as well install baby blenders at the theaters as well. That would definitely prevent some unwanted disruptions.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
True dat!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
About the "I paid fot it" argument...
Some of you have stated that you paid for your phone service and that no one has the right to interrupt it. But you have overlooked the obvious... PEOPLE ALSO PAID FOR THE MOVIE and you have no right to interrupt that either.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Points Missed
Yes, and if you (or someone in your family) were waiting on a kidney, would you:
a) stay at home round the clock for weeks, months, or years until a compatible kidney is found.
b) trust the cashier at the theater to raise the lights in the theater, interrupt the movie and pass on the message, versus blowing it off as a crank call.
Yep, we've been doing just fine all these decades without cell phones. All those inconvenient emergencies just went ahead and died.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No matter how annoying someone is, you really don't have special rights that negate their own rights
But that works two ways - why do you have the right to tell someone they can't own an electronic device?
So - regardless of the fact if your call gets disconnected and you get annoyed - you don't have special rights that negate their right, correct?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Constant Contact
Anyone over the age of 15 made it to this point without having cell phones to connect us to our parents 24/7 so your kid can make it too.
People made it through the Dark Ages, too. Do we really need to revert back to those days? It's called progression.
Next if you're on call...you can stay at home or be some place where receiving a call isn't an annoyance to those around you.
SILENT MODE AKA VIBRATE!!!!!!!!!!
And they should run jamming around the interstate (minus shoulder areas) because do you know how hard it is to txt, drive at 75mph, and eat a McDonald's hamburger is?
Then they should ban eating McDonald's hamburgers, especially on the shoulders since that is where all the trash ends up.
Really, your points are pretty moronic
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Theaters?
To hell with theaters, I just download the torrent and watch it at home ;-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: About the "I paid fot it" argument...
What jamming is, is called theft of personal property. You are blocking someone else's signal. Thats why its illegal. Oh and the small fact that if there's an emergency, well you can thank the theatre for now blocking your phone huh?
Also, you can be hit with 1st amendment charges too. Stifle someone's speech a little/censorship?
I hope they put people who jam away to jail, not just fine em, unfortunately first offense doesn't hit that probably.
Just wait for that to happen anywhere with a blocker and it'll be a GIANT oops. The problem is being able to prove the blocker (I can't find any jammer detectors on the market).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
?
2 people taking and laughing to each other in public...nobody says a word. One person talking on a cell phone and everyone gets their panties in a wad. (My dad and ex-step mom are like this.)
Am I missing something or are there just a lot of idiots on the lose?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Imagine this
"Imagine this, you are in the middle of an important phone call, and some moron carrying a jamming device forces your cell phone out of service."
if your in the middle of such a important call -- stay in your damn car -- it sucks getting stuck inline between 2 smucks flapping their lips on a phone.hell i was in the store today and a woman was standing in the middle of the isle flapping her lips acting like the whole world should stop for her call. -- theSavage
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
see that thing over on the wall? its called a pay phones -- see that big ass hole in the wall? its called a door -- go outside. how did ppl get help before the cell phone came along? Did some one have to run done the street to the fire station?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Cool!
Insensitive!
Maybe his job requires him to be on call a lot, maybe even 24/7. As he says, "if I don't get phone calls, I don't make money" Notice he said get calls, not talk. It very easy to have your phone on vibrate in a theater, and walk outside the room to take your call if necessary.
I've never understood this huge problem people have with public cell talk. Unless the person is talking unnecessarily loud, i don't see the problem. Yeah I know a lot of people do talk loudly, but that is the problem that should be fixed, not using a phone in public.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cool!
Thank God, another sane, realistic person does exist!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What about parents with children?
As commented above, same goes for emergency personnel. As far as i know, most volunteer firefighters are on call 24/7, at least in small towns with few fires and firefighters (i may be wrong, but still...) Who is to say they can't ever go to the movies or dinner, or why should they have to go off call durng these times.
Imagine blocking signals like that "I'm sorry that your house burnt down sir, but too many of our firefighters were out to diner and didn't receive the call" RiDICKulous, Anonymous Dick
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: About the "I paid fot it" argument...
well what about I paid for my cell phone jammer and i want to use it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
I also agree that if you're willing to commit a crime to avoid a minor verbal confrontation with an individual in public, you shouldn't be in public.
I ddn't see anyone say this before, but how true. If you have a problem with people using cell phones in WalMart, DON'T GO!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wow...
Every person I ask to hang up on their call for polite reasons either ignores me completely or tells me to f*** off. Thats why I think the jammers are a great idea.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wow!
What about the people who have to call home to find out what what their wives needed to finish off the Thanksgiving meal or the cake for their child's first birthday?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Constant Contact
Anyone over the age of 15 made it to this point without having cell phones to connect us to our parents 24/7 so your kid can make it too.
Yeah, and back then, parents left numbers/names of places they would be for the babysitter. If your kid hurts them self and has to go to the hospital, or there is some other emergency, you want to know about it!
P.S. Techdirt wasn't around until 10 years ago, maybe you should consider why you need that!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Birth Repair Money and Impending Death
If someone blocks cellular calls many things could happen:
1) Expecting parents could miss the call that their child is being born. 2) Your repair man may not get the call to come out and restore your power, telephone or internet. 3) It may cause some business thousands of dollars due to missed service agreements. 4) You might get cut off when your getting the news that a loved one has been critically injured and may not make it through the night......
Do we really want to block cellular communications???
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Points Missed
2) Businesses would be liable for not making emergency calls. Not really, they can just provide a pay phone. 911 calls are free.
There are plenty of situations that i can think of where you might not be able to get to the pay phone in the establishment. I'm no lawyer, but i see no reason why the establishment wouldn't be liable for the results.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Business Use
TheDock22 is right. There are absolutely legitimate business uses for jammers. For example, my company builds and operates multi-unit housing (apartments). When we build an apartment complex we include all the utility infrastructure including water distribution and metering, electricity distribution and metering, cable, and telephone. We then sell these services to our customers, the residents. For the telephone part we have our own switch fed with multiple T1 lines that we lease from the local incumbent telco and then we provide telephone service through our own equipment and on-property wires to our customers. This is all on our own private property and no other service providers allowed on our property so this is an important source of revenue for us. The problem is that in recent years many of our customers have been opting to disconnect from our phone service and use cell phones instead which of course interferes with our business model. The lease that all our customers must sign clearly states that we are to be the sole provider telephone services on our property so we consider this to be theft. Up until now we have been powerless to prevent this since jammers are illegal. We clearly have a legitimate business need to be able to jam these signals and our association has been lobbying congress and petitioning the FCC to allow jammers for business use. Many hotels have also joined us in this effort. Hopefully we will be able get this stupid restriction changed.
Now in our latest project under construction we are including special screening in the walls and windows to keep cell phone signals out of our buildings. But there is still the problem of people stepping outside to use their cell phones. We have rules against loitering that say that walkways and such can only be used for ingress and egress which makes such activities a lease violation, but enforcement is difficult and expensive. (24 hour guards don't come cheap) So even with fully screened buildings jammers are still needed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Constant Contact
"Yeah, and back then, parents left numbers/names of places they would be for the babysitter."
Yeah, so they can do it now too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ?
You're either missing it or ignoring it. I suspect the latter.
Yes, there are quite a few of you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Scenario
"What do mean my patient just died? Why didn't you call me?"
That's about as stupid as saying that doctors shouldn't be allowed to go to the bathroom because their patients might die while they're in there. Get a clue: That's why hospitals have more than one doctor.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
In checkout
As you can see from my previous posts, I think blocking phones is bullcrap, but just one more place that people should be courteous and not talk on their cell is the checkout line. Not while waiting in line, but when you get to the cashier. I worked as a cashier for a year or so, and let me tell you, nothing is more annoying n that job than when someone totally ignores you and just talks on their cell.
However, that doesn't mean cell signals should be blocked n the checkout line (which from the article it sounds like t would be possible to limit it to that area), but instead people should take the common courtesy to say to the person on the other end, "Hold on, I'm in at the checkout lne", and the put the phone down, pay the cashier, and the resume their conversation.
And if business want to, any cell phone usage rule can be enforced. Yes, some may be hard, but if your are n the theater and someone is on the phone, far enough away the you can't easily say something to them, just get the attendant outside and tell them that someone is on the phone in the theater. Problem solved. And no, i don't think anyone will think of you as a "tattle-tale", just thank you for stopping the disturbance. As for the checkout line, have seen many businesses who solve the problem with signs at the check, "We will be happy to serve you when you are finished with your phone call" A simple point at the sign by the cashier to a person talking on the cell when they should be completing their transaction fxes the problem
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Along ride to work
I guess it should be illegal to have a phone around children. Think of the children!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Well you are either a stupid asshole or a liar...
say that to my face and i'll fuck you up to
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What scares me
With Halloween just getting over. I can’t help but point out the worst case scenario. “And no stealing it for a new horror flick- bad writers, bad!”
That is, what happens when a rapist or mugger, gets a hold of one of these. He could corner someone in a dark ally or deserted parking structure. And then cut off their only means of calling for help.
Casper’s got the right idea. Teach our kids some manners. That is to say that some of us still have some?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Jammer Over-Ride?
"These days jammers use a method that nullifies the specific signal they are targeting." Not these. They just bury the signal in noise. You're not an electrical engineer, are you?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
On call, jamming and others
I used to work on call. Back then I carried a pager. I put the pager on vibrate when I went to the movies or restaurant. Problem solved. Some people work on call so that others have services they want without those service providers having to charge more money for staffing a person. Making their on-call life restricted to home, etc. is not an answer.
Also, mentioned in the story, are hotels. They want to jam your signal so you use their over-priced inhouse telephone service.
Sure a lot of this would be buyer-beware should these things be legal -- but they are not.
Common decency and courtesy is uncommon and that's really the problem. You can't legislate or jam that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What about parents with children?
Wasn't a problem 10-15 years ago. Now was it? Back then, parents checked in with the baby sitter. Friggin overprotective parents now days. Maybe you should stay home with your kids and teach them what the public schools aren't. How to read and write, with maybe a side of common courtesy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Business Use
What the hell!!!
That is total bullcrap. You have no right to force people to have your phone service. That's a monopoly. People should have the right to use whatever they want or property they lease, as long as it doesn't damage your property (as having other phone or cable lines, or a satellite dish installed would), or pose safety hazards, as a kero space heater would (stealing your ability to charge them for the electricity to heat their apt.)
But using a cell instead of your line doesn't damage your property in any way, nor does it pose any safety hazards. Blocking that would be like people from buying bottled water and drinking it on your property!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Can't, because you're an Anonymous Coward! HA!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: What about parents with children?
We're not talking about people "checking in" with their kids, we're talking about the kid/babysitter contacting the parent in case of emergency
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Points Missed
Do you have any actual examples of people dying because their cell phones were jammed? I thought not.
It's amazing how quickly some people will resort to outlandish claims to support their position not matter how obviously stupid such claims are.
Speaking of stupid, do you have any more stupid made-up scenarios?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Anonymous Coward...
"This is simply a case of vigilantism. Let law enforcement deal with enforcing the laws fairly and with common sense! Whenever regular people get involved with regulating the public, the public gets screwed."
Whenever Law Enforcement gets involved with regulating the public, the public gets tazored!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: ?
You both seem to be missing the key difference: the volume of the conversation, whether on a cell or in person.
Two People in a restaurant talking loudly or people in a movie theater talking at all, are just as rude and disruptive, if not more (twice the people!) as a single person on a cell.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Business Use
Not if the lease prohibits it. People don't have to live there if they don't want to.
It damages the owner's income. That income is part of the payment the owner expects for the usage of his private property. It's called capitalism. Communists ans socialists always want to take away the rights of private property owners. Which are you?
You don't get out much do you? I've been to many restaurants and other places that will only serve bottled water (that they probably bottle from the tap in the back room) and won't let you bring your own in either. The last was an outdoor concert in 100F+ heat. Water was going for over $15 per little bottle and people were glad to get it! Now that's capitalism done right!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Business Use
FCC just came down on that.. No more cable agreements that lock out competition.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: In checkout
Just exactly how "many" is this "many"? One? Two? None? I have never, ever seen such a sign. But then, I don't live in fantasy land either. Maybe things are different there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Business Use
FCC just came down on that.. No more cable agreements that lock out competition.
We don't do that so that doesn't affect us (or hotels with their own systems). We actually have our own cable systems, not exclusive agreements with local providers. We own our own equipment, buy satellite feeds and then resell that programming on our own systems. It's all perfectly legal.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Anonymous Coward...
"Whenever Law Enforcement gets involved with regulating the public, the public gets tazored!"
Jammers are sure better than tazers!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Businesses(nor homeowners or anyone who has the right to modify their buildings) don't need these jammers to do that in the first place. Read up on the "Faraday Cage" and its effects on radio signals. No electronics required.
No need? Retrofitting shielding to entire buildings is EXPENSIVE! Jammers are much, much cheaper. So yes, they DO need them!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Other uses
I wonder if these things could be modified to jam police radios?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)