Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tampa Bay Online)   Florida Man arrested after being caught operating a mobile phone jammer during his daily commute to work. Bonus: When pulled over, the police radios got blocked, too   (tbo.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, police radio, Federal Communications Commission, Seffner, MetroPCS Communications Inc., Larry McKinnon, two-way radio, transmission tower, radar detectors  
•       •       •

7704 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Apr 2014 at 10:44 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



191 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-30 02:03:10 PM  

mcreadyblue: Crotchrocket Slim: TNel: DaStompa: Wellon Dowd:

It's amazing our species survived before the invention of the mobile phone. All those people dying on the side of the road because they couldn't summon a tow truck, or because the only IT guy who knows how to reset the server was at the cinema.

Because the call wouldn't drop and they couldn't call right back when the man drove past, their phones would explode, killing hundreds, nay, thousands.

Learn to science

I'm glad you are on board with vigilante justice.  This is just a douche who thinks he better than everyone else.

This. There are very practical reasons these jammers are pretty damned illegal.

Cell jammers can be used on private property and by any Federal Agency.


LOL no they can't. You don't own the spectrum over your property not does any interference you put out magically stop at the property line.
 
2014-04-30 02:03:21 PM  

StrangeQ: picturescrazy: Walker: I need one of those on the rare occasion that I go to see a movie. Annoying people texting and playing on their phones during the movie is why it's a rare occasion for me.

I've seen someone claim to use one here for that reason. That was ten years ago so hopefully he's stopped or been caught. Yeah the people in the theater are annoying but it's not your place to interrupt service in case of emergency. Especially since you'll effect far more people outside the theater than inside.

Again, it's absolutely amazing how we survived before cell phones.  I suppose it would be absolutely impossible to call the theater itself and ask them to page whoever you needed to get a hold of?


I'm not talking about someone trying to call someone IN the theater. I'm talking outgoing calls. And no, I don't trust a 16 year old kid to page someone in a full movie theater with movies playing. I also don't think it's realistic that anyone would know said person was in the movie theater in the first place. If a couple kids checking text messages bother you so much then don't go out.
 
2014-04-30 02:05:11 PM  

StrangeQ: picturescrazy: Walker: I need one of those on the rare occasion that I go to see a movie. Annoying people texting and playing on their phones during the movie is why it's a rare occasion for me.

I've seen someone claim to use one here for that reason. That was ten years ago so hopefully he's stopped or been caught. Yeah the people in the theater are annoying but it's not your place to interrupt service in case of emergency. Especially since you'll effect far more people outside the theater than inside.

Again, it's absolutely amazing how we survived before cell phones.  I suppose it would be absolutely impossible to call the theater itself and ask them to page whoever you needed to get a hold of?


It's almost like people know longer give the details of their plans that they used to because there are cell phones now. And the kid at the theater has probable never been asked to find a customer before. Not to mention the same people who are rage-shiatting about people texting during the previews would ragearrhea at the house lights coming up so someone could come into the theater and ask for Dave.
 
2014-04-30 02:05:17 PM  

buckler: StrangeQ: Maxout623: Wellon Dowd: kronicfeld: StrikitRich: Bet there were a lot of upset teenagers and soccer moms between Seffner and Tampa.

Or, you know, people with emergencies trying to call tow trucks, 9-1-1, highway services, etc.

It's amazing our species survived before the invention of the mobile phone. All those people dying on the side of the road because they couldn't summon a tow truck, or because the only IT guy who knows how to reset the server was at the cinema.

To be fair, society had a different way of asking for help when there car broke down. We had things like pay phones and sun screen protectors that literally said "Need assistance, call 911" on the back. When was the last time you've seen a pay phone?

When was the last time you ever saw a pay phone on the side of a highway?

I don't know if they still exist, but along I-4, there used to be free phones every couple of miles that connected with a dispatch service for police, highway patrol, ambulance, firefighters and tow services.


Nope. Florida is pulling them out. I travel down there regularly on business, and they have been taken down, or are in the process of doing so.
 
2014-04-30 02:09:04 PM  

TNel: StrangeQ: As opposed to them interrupting the movie when they pull their phone out of their pocket and start yammering into it? The movie gets interrupted either way; if it's truly an emergency then it is forgivable. And if you do it my way, that is the only interruption you will see, as opposed to now where our OCD society can't stand going 90 minutes without sending a text.

Yeah because I'm sure this happens all the time.  I have never seen this.  I don't know what movie theaters you guys keep going to but I've seen people play on their phone before the movie but I have never seen or heard someone "yammering into it" during a movie.  I'm sure this is exactly like all the people that see foodstamp users buying steak and lobsters all the time.


Apparently lots of serious Fark cinephiles went to Twilight on opening weekend.
 
2014-04-30 02:09:20 PM  

dittybopper: Most phones these days can go through WiFi. Hell, my wife's TracFone does that. Set the phone up to use WiFi if available. Problem solved.

Or, you could actually have phone service to your house. Because if you've got WiFi connection to the intarwebs, you're getting that somehow, and you can get phone service that same way, most likely.


No not most phones, the el cheapo carriers have that setup because they don't want you to use cell towers and want you to use your own bandwidth that is how they save money.  "normal" carriers do not allow that unless you buy a cell to lan base station.

So I get a home phone and then what happens when I leave that house?  So let me guess you want me to setup google voice to auto-forward calls to the other number.... too much work for what benefit?  Someone seeing my SSID?
 
2014-04-30 02:10:18 PM  
About 20 years ago a guy I worked with had a little X band radar transmitter.  Just strong enough to trigger radar detectors.  Twice I went on road trips with him, where he would occasionally turn it on in highway traffic.  The brake lights and swiveling heads were pretty funny.
 
2014-04-30 02:14:37 PM  

dittybopper: TNel: I mean who needs cell service when my neighbors can see my SSID.

That's just it:  They *COULDN'T* see it, because it would be stopped by the cage.  Think of it as an aluminum foil wrapper:  It keeps the stuff on the inside from getting out, and the stuff outside from getting in, but if you're inside it, it doesn't stop your access to the things inside the wrapper.


Um yes I understand that.  What I'm getting at is you will have no cell service because you are afraid that your neighbors will see your SSID.  Put a damn password on it and call it a day.  Unless you pissed off your neighbors they are not going to try and hack your wifi.
 
2014-04-30 02:17:51 PM  
TNel:Yeah because I'm sure this happens all the time.  I have never seen this.  I don't know what movie theaters you guys keep going to but I've seen people play on their phone before the movie but I have never seen or heard someone "yammering into it" during a movie.  I'm sure this is exactly like all the people that see foodstamp users buying steak and lobsters all the time.

I dunno about steak and lobster, but a few years back a dude right in front of me answered his cell phone (ringer was NOT on silent) and was talking on it for like 2 minutes. I did not video tape it, but it happened. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't make it a lie. That was the last time I went to the theater on a Friday or Saturday night. Seems to me like that's when people that simply want to be entertained go. People that want to watch the movie go during the slower times.
 
2014-04-30 02:18:44 PM  

TNel: dittybopper: TNel: I mean who needs cell service when my neighbors can see my SSID.

That's just it:  They *COULDN'T* see it, because it would be stopped by the cage.  Think of it as an aluminum foil wrapper:  It keeps the stuff on the inside from getting out, and the stuff outside from getting in, but if you're inside it, it doesn't stop your access to the things inside the wrapper.

Um yes I understand that.  What I'm getting at is you will have no cell service because you are afraid that your neighbors will see your SSID.  Put a damn password on it and call it a day.  Unless you pissed off your neighbors they are not going to try and hack your wifi.


Also you can force a router to give up the SSID with free open source tools that work by just cd boot.
 
2014-04-30 02:22:48 PM  

Click Click D'oh: I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us the physics are all wrong and it's not possible to do what this guy was doing... but if we had read the original specs in German we would have known that already.


The physics is correct for the jammer to work: His jammer is closer to the receivers he wants to block than the cell tower is.
He didn't have to be putting out more than 3.6 kilowatts from 35 meters away in order to overwhelm a 0.05 watt signal that only has to travel 13 centimeters.

You should go back to the talent store and wish for something useful, because the only real talent you've demonstrated so far is one for calling me out and being wrong.

/Makes me wonder how many of your students you've killed by setting them up for failure.
 
2014-04-30 02:23:44 PM  
I died in 1978 because cellphones weren't invented yet.
 
2014-04-30 02:24:24 PM  

olapbill: Click Click D'oh: I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us the physics are all wrong and it's not possible to do what this guy was doing... but if we had read the original specs in German we would have known that already.

specs in ze deutsch?


Your pun is die wurst.
 
2014-04-30 02:26:39 PM  

TNel: dittybopper: TNel: I mean who needs cell service when my neighbors can see my SSID.

That's just it:  They *COULDN'T* see it, because it would be stopped by the cage.  Think of it as an aluminum foil wrapper:  It keeps the stuff on the inside from getting out, and the stuff outside from getting in, but if you're inside it, it doesn't stop your access to the things inside the wrapper.

Um yes I understand that.  What I'm getting at is you will have no cell service because you are afraid that your neighbors will see your SSID.  Put a damn password on it and call it a day.  Unless you pissed off your neighbors they are not going to try and hack your wifi.


Just turn off SSID broadcast.  I think that's been a feature for about a decade or so.
 
2014-04-30 02:31:36 PM  
I know he thought what he was doing was right, but there are too many everyday things that use cell service that are not phones
 
2014-04-30 02:32:25 PM  

Gunderson: This A-hole was blocking cell phone calls done in a legal manner as well.  There are people who talk on cell phones using bluetooth or a hand-free device.

Now if only someone sold a cellphone unjammer to counteract the jammers...


That's not how jamming technology works.  If it was we'd be able to make a device that makes megaphones quiet.
 
2014-04-30 02:39:08 PM  

TNel: dittybopper: TNel: I mean who needs cell service when my neighbors can see my SSID.

That's just it:  They *COULDN'T* see it, because it would be stopped by the cage.  Think of it as an aluminum foil wrapper:  It keeps the stuff on the inside from getting out, and the stuff outside from getting in, but if you're inside it, it doesn't stop your access to the things inside the wrapper.

Um yes I understand that.  What I'm getting at is you will have no cell service because you are afraid that your neighbors will see your SSID.  Put a damn password on it and call it a day.  Unless you pissed off your neighbors they are not going to try and hack your wifi.


Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I'm saying that the neighbors couldn't get into your WiFi, period.  They can't see the SSID because there would be no detectable signal outside your house.  Meaning "no detectable RF energy", not just that you SSID is hidden.

The added benefit being, in a crowded RF environment, you'll have higher speeds because you won't have interference.

You're also assuming that everyone has a cellphone.  They don't.  I don't, for example, and as I pointed out, you can use your phone on WiFi while you're inside your cage, if the cell phone is your only phone.

No not most phones, the el cheapo carriers have that setup because they don't want you to use cell towers and want you to use your own bandwidth that is how they save money.  "normal" carriers do not allow that unless you buy a cell to lan base station.

Bullshiat.  iPhones have the capability, as do the Samsung Galaxy smartphones.  Plus, like I said, my wife's TracPhone has the capability (can't remember the make and model).
 
2014-04-30 02:39:31 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: olapbill: Click Click D'oh: I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us the physics are all wrong and it's not possible to do what this guy was doing... but if we had read the original specs in German we would have known that already.

specs in ze deutsch?

Your pun is die wurst.


brat!
wurst.
 
2014-04-30 02:44:11 PM  

Gunderson: This A-hole was blocking cell phone calls done in a legal manner as well.  There are people who talk on cell phones using bluetooth or a hand-free device.

Now if only someone sold a cellphone unjammer to counteract the jammers...

redmid17: Click Click D'oh: I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us the physics are all wrong and it's not possible to do what this guy was doing... but if we had read the original specs in German we would have known that already.

I finally found one thing (two if you include the challenge authentication method) he was talking about but he never did provide a link to the German specs. The best he mustered up was the patent, which supported none of what he was saying, and then the FCC docs, which corroborated the frequency the authentication.

He then told me to go find the German documents myself. How useful. I wasn't even questioning if he was correct. I just wanted to read the stuff in German.


I linked the company's German web site for you.
I told you to go to the EU patent site to read the German language version of the patent, since I'd already linked the EU official English-language version of the patent.
I also farking linked you to the FCC certifications for the devices. With nice detailed pictures of the damned things so you can reverse engineer them. This included the interference test results by the German testing company (I also provided a link to their German language home page): Zigbee protocol - DS spread-spectrum frequency-hopping - in the 916 MHz ICOM band, which, coincidentally is also an RFID band that uses *drum roll* DS spread-spectrum frequency hopping (12.3 in the RFID spec).

/I also refuse to hold your hand when you need to pee.
 
2014-04-30 02:48:02 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: /Makes me wonder how many of your students you've killed by setting them up for failure.


Who are you and what are you rambling about?
 
2014-04-30 02:48:11 PM  

dittybopper: ItachiNai: kendelrio: Ftfa: "agents from the FCC's enforcement division"

Waitaminnit. That's a real thing?

/backs out of thread and starts dismantling antennas.

Try building a biquad dish antenna for your wifi card, then boosting the power up to a couple of watts.  You'll get APs from many miles away, but then you've also built a transmitter that operates in the licensed and restricted power range, as well as a focused transmission device (dish), both of which can put you squarely in the FCC enforcement division's crosshairs due to its ability to "shout" over other devices in its line of sight.

You ever read that little tag that says "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules..."?  They've tried to strike a balance between how powerful a consumer device should be and likely density of those devices from one another.  That way your neighbor's wireless keyboard doesn't flood yours into disconnecting (among many other potential cases).  If the FCC didn't enforce the rules, consumers and companies alike would simply keep escalating the power levels in an attempt to make their device more appealing to customers, or to unfairly crowd out other similar devices in the area, to the point where every time the gadget whore next door keyed up his brand new two-way radios, the neighborhood would lose its wifi connection.  Also all the popcorn in the pantry could start popping.

Actually, if you're a ham, you can do that because you're operating under Part 97, not Part 15.

But only on certain WiFi channels that coincide with ham bands.

I know a fellow ham who is heavily into the whole satellite thing.  He's got a dish with a 2.4 GHz feed on a 30 foot tower with an azimuth/elevation rotator.   When he plugs his router into the 7/8ths hardline that feeds that dish, he can see literally hundreds of SSIDs from miles and miles away.

Also, there has been a lot of interesting work being done with self-configuring mesh networks by hams using modified WiFi routers and spec ...


There was a time where all of the above would have been in a Star Trek script...
 
2014-04-30 02:50:09 PM  

hungryhungryhorus: Gunderson: This A-hole was blocking cell phone calls done in a legal manner as well.  There are people who talk on cell phones using bluetooth or a hand-free device.

Now if only someone sold a cellphone unjammer to counteract the jammers...

That's not how jamming technology works.  If it was we'd be able to make a device that makes megaphones quiet.


They do, but they aren't perfect.
 
2014-04-30 02:51:48 PM  

Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: /Makes me wonder how many of your students you've killed by setting them up for failure.

Who are you and what are you rambling about?


You can't even tell a lie well, tex.
 
2014-04-30 02:54:37 PM  

Walker:  Annoying people texting and playing on their phones during the movie is why it's a rare occasion for me.



The volume in the movie theater is way too loud which is why movies are a rare occasion for me.

That said, I think schools and universities should have cell phone jammers in classrooms.
 
2014-04-30 02:59:17 PM  

This Looks Fun: Which is to say that, yes, you're correct; cell phones are not the only way to summon help in an emergency and before their invention, lots of people still survived emergencies. But if you're arguing that cell phones do not help save lives, then I have to disagree.


I'd be willing to bet there's been a lot more deaths caused by people talking on cell phones while driving than lives saved by people talking on cell phones while driving.
 
2014-04-30 03:00:04 PM  

dittybopper: Wrong, wrong, wrong.I'm saying that the neighbors couldn't get into your WiFi, period. They can't see the SSID because there would be no detectable signal outside your house. Meaning "no detectable RF energy", not just that you SSID is hidden.The added benefit being, in a crowded RF environment, you'll have higher speeds because you won't have interference.You're also assuming that everyone has a cellphone. They don't. I don't, for example, and as I pointed out, you can use your phone on WiFi while you're inside your cage, if the cell phone is your only phone.No not most phones, the el cheapo carriers have that setup because they don't want you to use cell towers and want you to use your own bandwidth that is how they save money. "normal" carriers do not allow that unless you buy a cell to lan base station.Bullshiat. iPhones have the capability, as do the Samsung Galaxy smartphones. Plus, like I said, my wife's TracPhone has the capability (can't remember the make and model).


WTH is my browser doing with quotes now... anyway

Higher speeds.... yeah sure I'm sure that extra few bits is going to matter.  If you aren't using 5GHz then you are a fool, higher speeds and basically a zero percent chance of same channel.

By default a S anything that is not on a carrier that allows wifi calling does not have the ability.  My S3 does not even have the option in settings because ATT does not allow it.  You must use an app like:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gvoip&hl=en
 
2014-04-30 03:02:04 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: You can't even tell a lie well, tex.


Huh?  Seriously, wut?
 
2014-04-30 03:03:01 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Gunderson: This A-hole was blocking cell phone calls done in a legal manner as well.  There are people who talk on cell phones using bluetooth or a hand-free device.

Now if only someone sold a cellphone unjammer to counteract the jammers...
redmid17: Click Click D'oh: I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us the physics are all wrong and it's not possible to do what this guy was doing... but if we had read the original specs in German we would have known that already.

I finally found one thing (two if you include the challenge authentication method) he was talking about but he never did provide a link to the German specs. The best he mustered up was the patent, which supported none of what he was saying, and then the FCC docs, which corroborated the frequency the authentication.

He then told me to go find the German documents myself. How useful. I wasn't even questioning if he was correct. I just wanted to read the stuff in German.

I linked the company's German web site for you.
I told you to go to the EU patent site to read the German language version of the patent, since I'd already linked the EU official English-language version of the patent.
I also farking linked you to the FCC certifications for the devices. With nice detailed pictures of the damned things so you can reverse engineer them. This included the interference test results by the German testing company (I also provided a link to their German language home page): Zigbee protocol - DS spread-spectrum frequency-hopping - in the 916 MHz ICOM band, which, coincidentally is also an RFID band that uses *drum roll* DS spread-spectrum frequency hopping (12.3 in the RFID spec).

/I also refuse to hold your hand when you need to pee.


Yes and the company's website has zero useful material in English or German as far as I can tell.
The English patent didn't have what you said it had.
The FCC certifications backed up one of the things you said.

You weren't holding hands. You were tossing paper into the wind. I wasn't even disagreeing with you. I just wanted to read the German patents you claimed to have read (mostly because reading German newspapers doesn't let me brush up on technical writing). For someone who read the German patents and probably has the URL in his browser history, you went to extensive lengths to *not* show it.
 
2014-04-30 03:10:25 PM  

TNel: By default a S anything that is not on a carrier that allows wifi calling does not have the ability.  My S3 does not even have the option in settings because ATT does not allow it.  You must use an app like:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gvoip&hl=en


That's the fault of your carrier, not your phone.  Your phone has the hardware to do it, and if you wanted to, you could switch carriers.

But meh.  Like I said, I don't have a cell phone, nor will I ever own one.  I don't need one.  Though I would probably think about it if Gmail Tap was actually a real thing.  Until then, I'll just keep using Morse code the old fashioned way.
 
2014-04-30 03:18:44 PM  

redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Gunderson: This A-hole was blocking cell phone calls done in a legal manner as well.  There are people who talk on cell phones using bluetooth or a hand-free device.

Now if only someone sold a cellphone unjammer to counteract the jammers...
redmid17: Click Click D'oh: I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us the physics are all wrong and it's not possible to do what this guy was doing... but if we had read the original specs in German we would have known that already.

I finally found one thing (two if you include the challenge authentication method) he was talking about but he never did provide a link to the German specs. The best he mustered up was the patent, which supported none of what he was saying, and then the FCC docs, which corroborated the frequency the authentication.

He then told me to go find the German documents myself. How useful. I wasn't even questioning if he was correct. I just wanted to read the stuff in German.

I linked the company's German web site for you.
I told you to go to the EU patent site to read the German language version of the patent, since I'd already linked the EU official English-language version of the patent.
I also farking linked you to the FCC certifications for the devices. With nice detailed pictures of the damned things so you can reverse engineer them. This included the interference test results by the German testing company (I also provided a link to their German language home page): Zigbee protocol - DS spread-spectrum frequency-hopping - in the 916 MHz ICOM band, which, coincidentally is also an RFID band that uses *drum roll* DS spread-spectrum frequency hopping (12.3 in the RFID spec).

/I also refuse to hold your hand when you need to pee.

Yes and the company's website has zero useful material in English or German as far as I can tell.
The English patent didn't have what you said it had.
The FCC certifications backed up one of the things you said.

You weren't holding hands. You were to ...


Okay and I found the German patent. Still doesn't mention the Zigbee protocol or SSPH.
 
2014-04-30 03:20:36 PM  

nyrB: This Looks Fun: Which is to say that, yes, you're correct; cell phones are not the only way to summon help in an emergency and before their invention, lots of people still survived emergencies. But if you're arguing that cell phones do not help save lives, then I have to disagree.

I'd be willing to bet there's been a lot more deaths caused by people talking on cell phones while driving than lives saved by people talking on cell phones while driving.


Your hypothetical bet has nothing to do with the fact that when an emergency presents itself on the road, a working cell phone can mean the difference between life and death. Just because guns cause more deaths than they prevent doesn't mean we should ban all guns. OR DOES IT?!
 
2014-04-30 03:21:19 PM  

BigSnatch: Jammers have no effect on my cell phone service, I already have Sprint.



You misspelled AT&T.
 
2014-04-30 03:29:31 PM  
Device
Not
Illegal
 
2014-04-30 03:55:16 PM  
Phone or no phones, I-4 is the scariest highway I've ever driven on.

You've got blind with cataracts old people, meth-addicted Polk County rednecks, and Disney-bound minivans (happy stick figure family stickers included) with mom losing her shiat, screaming at the 6 kids in the backseat the entire drive... all of whom driving at a speed somewhere between 40 and 95 MPH, and all insisting they have full authority to use the left lane.
 
2014-04-30 03:57:33 PM  
Never expected to see so many pro phone comments.  Every bar, restaurant or store I go in there are so many people on the phone it's weird.  I really want a jammer.  Great when you see a table of 8 and all of them are on the phone so the server can't get their attention to place order.  The world has gone to hell.
 
2014-04-30 04:02:50 PM  

This Looks Fun: Your hypothetical bet has nothing to do with the fact that when an emergency presents itself on the road, a working cell phone can mean the difference between life and death. Just because guns cause more deaths than they prevent doesn't mean we should ban all guns. OR DOES IT?!


It's a moot point.  Sure, that working cell phone *could* mean the difference between life and death.  Arming children with tasers and bearspray *could* prevent them from being kidnapped.  You have to weigh the pros and cons.  Have we, as a society, actually benefited from being able to talk on the phone while driving?  I'd say no.  The down-side's too large.
 
2014-04-30 04:10:52 PM  

Rent Party: kendelrio: Ftfa: "agents from the FCC's enforcement division"

Waitaminnit. That's a real thing?

/backs out of thread and starts dismantling antennas.

Yes, and it's one of the few federal agencies that should have one.   When people start dicking around with airline, rail road, and shipping frequencies, seriously bad things can happen.   There is a reason the FCC exists, and it's not just to prevent you from seeing tits on TV.


Agreed. But I can't believe it is illegal to own a jammer.  Certainly illegal to use one, and maybe even to sell something for this expressed purpose; but to own one?  Has anyone looked that up?

/bookmark for after work :)
 
2014-04-30 04:12:49 PM  

frozenhotchocolate: I would imagine that his approach would be more distracting than not. If people driving alongside him all of a sudden lost cell service they would all be glued to their phones wondering and attempting to fix whatever happened. Either way forty eight thousand dollars seems appropriate.


I don't think 48,000 dollars is appropriate,  Punishments should be designed to be stiff but still realistic.  It's not realistic to think that any normal person has 48,000 dollars sitting around.  We need to differentiate between corporations and citizens when we start making punishments,  You just cannot treat them the same.
 
2014-04-30 04:13:56 PM  
SteakMan:
Agreed. But I can't believe it is illegal to own a jammer.  Certainly illegal to use one, and maybe even to sell something for this expressed purpose; but to own one?  Has anyone looked that up?

Does this device have some other legitimate purpose?  If the answer to that is "no" then there is no practical difference between prohibiting possession and prohibiting use, but a very real difference in the  public safety outcomes.
 
2014-04-30 04:16:52 PM  

thesubliminalman: Never expected to see so many pro phone comments.  Every bar, restaurant or store I go in there are so many people on the phone it's weird.  I really want a jammer.  Great when you see a table of 8 and all of them are on the phone so the server can't get their attention to place order.  The world has gone to hell.


What's it matter to you?  Why do you think you are so special that you should be able to disrupt others?  If the server can't get their attention trust me she will get revenge by either letting the cooks know or by being really slow with their service there is no reason for you to poke your little dick into someone else's affairs.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-30 04:23:42 PM  
The FCC letter to the guy does not mention any regulation prohibiting possession of a jammer, and 47 USC 302a does not prohibit possession without use. A jammer might be subject to seizure as contraband. It is hard to acquire one legally.
 
2014-04-30 04:25:37 PM  

Warlordtrooper: frozenhotchocolate: I would imagine that his approach would be more distracting than not. If people driving alongside him all of a sudden lost cell service they would all be glued to their phones wondering and attempting to fix whatever happened. Either way forty eight thousand dollars seems appropriate.

I don't think 48,000 dollars is appropriate,  Punishments should be designed to be stiff but still realistic.  It's not realistic to think that any normal person has 48,000 dollars sitting around.  We need to differentiate between corporations and citizens when we start making punishments,  You just cannot treat them the same.


He wasn't just shutting down private citizens cell service. The device he was using shut down the police radio and could have shut down the communication system of an ambulance. I'm sure he can suspend the fine and go to jail instead.
 
2014-04-30 04:28:59 PM  

TNel: give me doughnuts: TNel: give me doughnuts: If they were dicking around with their phones rather than paying attention to traffic, then they earned their tragic deaths.

If those girls didn't wear short skirts they wouldn't get raped, they deserved it for looking like sluts.


Nice comparison. Here's another one: Apples are just like toasters because reasons.

Why not?  Both your example and mine are of people doing legal things (using their phone vs wearing clothing) and you said it's ok if bad things happen to them for doing a legal activity.


You may want to check and see how many states have laws against using your phone and/or texting while driving.

You may also really want to think about your initial camparison, see which requires the ill-intent and criminal acts of another person. Then think about how stupid you were for making the comparison in the first place.
 
2014-04-30 04:30:00 PM  

Rent Party: Does this device have some other legitimate purpose?  If the answer to that is "no" then there is no practical difference between prohibiting possession and prohibiting use, but a very real difference in the  public safety outcomes.


RF noise generator.
 
2014-04-30 04:32:08 PM  

nyrB: This Looks Fun: Your hypothetical bet has nothing to do with the fact that when an emergency presents itself on the road, a working cell phone can mean the difference between life and death. Just because guns cause more deaths than they prevent doesn't mean we should ban all guns. OR DOES IT?!

It's a moot point.  Sure, that working cell phone *could* mean the difference between life and death.  Arming children with tasers and bearspray *could* prevent them from being kidnapped.  You have to weigh the pros and cons.  Have we, as a society, actually benefited from being able to talk on the phone while driving?  I'd say no.  The down-side's too large.


The fact that cell phones are dangerous when used while driving is unrelated to the fact that they can save lives after crashing. The first is a case of misuse. The second is use case. Should we also ban spray paint to prevent huffing and graffiti? Ban painkillers to prevent abuse? There is downside to everything. The way to cure downside is to expose it and to teach it. Unfortunately, like guns and unlike drugs, etc this is something that when misused because a murder machine and not a suicide machine. The highways are already unsafe. I want fast access to help.
 
2014-04-30 04:32:59 PM  

dittybopper: Rent Party: Does this device have some other legitimate purpose?  If the answer to that is "no" then there is no practical difference between prohibiting possession and prohibiting use, but a very real difference in the  public safety outcomes.

RF noise generator.


Yup.  I was going to call it lab equipment.
 
2014-04-30 04:34:49 PM  

Rent Party: kendelrio: Rent Party: kendelrio: Ftfa: "agents from the FCC's enforcement division"

Waitaminnit. That's a real thing?

/backs out of thread and starts dismantling antennas.

Yes, and it's one of the few federal agencies that should have one.   When people start dicking around with airline, rail road, and shipping frequencies, seriously bad things can happen.   There is a reason the FCC exists, and it's not just to prevent you from seeing tits on TV.

Ya but keeping me from seeing tits when I was young scarred me.

You never fought with the scrambled cable porn thing?

This was my misspent youth.

[www.okgazette.com image 622x468]


Nah, my dad built a descrambler for the video.  Videocipher II video was easy to reconstruct.
 
2014-04-30 04:38:23 PM  
 FTA: The FCC action now starts a 30-day clock for Humphreys to either pay or give a reason why he won't. If he doesn't, the FCC can force payment.

The FCC can do this without going to court? The more you know.
 
2014-04-30 04:39:02 PM  

dittybopper: Rent Party: Does this device have some other legitimate purpose?  If the answer to that is "no" then there is no practical difference between prohibiting possession and prohibiting use, but a very real difference in the  public safety outcomes.

RF noise generator.


That isn't designed for broadcast.   No antenna, no amp, no nothing.  That, in and of itself, doesn't do what you think it does.  It's about as hazardous as your cable connection.
 
2014-04-30 04:44:05 PM  

This Looks Fun: The fact that cell phones are dangerous when used while driving is unrelated to the fact that they can save lives after crashing. The first is a case of misuse. The second is use case. Should we also ban spray paint to prevent huffing and graffiti? Ban painkillers to prevent abuse? There is downside to everything.


And that's why I said you have to weigh the pros and cons.  If far more lives are being lost because of driving and cell phones than we're saving, then that's a net-negative.


The way to cure downside is to expose it and to teach it.

It's been tried in this situation to little effect.  Even in places (such as where I live) where cellphone/driving use is banned, people still do it (and not just in isolated cases).


The highways are already unsafe. I want fast access to help.

They're unsafe in part because people insist on doing dumb things like texting or talking on the cell phone while they should be concentrating on the road.

How about a car-phone that only works when the car is not moving?  That would satisfy your need for access to emergency services wouldn't it?
 
Displayed 50 of 191 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report