×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cell-Phone Wars

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the it-was-only-a-matter-of-time dept.

Technology 992

Makarand writes "According to this article in the Houston Chronicle people fed up with cell phone chatter have declared war against cell phones. They are arming themselves with detectors, jammers and other gizmos to defend privacy, security, sanity and blissful silence. Although jamming cell phones is not legal in the US, pocket-sized jammers are available online and even on eBay. Cell-phone jammers typically work by disrupting the communication between handsets and cellular towers by flooding an area with interference or selectively blocking signals by broadcasting on frequencies used by these phones. The FCC has received very few complaints about jammed cell phones and has never taken action against anyone for that violation."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

992 comments

I want a bowlegged woman (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286329)

mmm mmm bitch!

I Like the cut (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286444)

of This [slashdot.org] gals trousers...

Re:I want a bowlegged woman (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286462)

By women this forum should assume he wants to vaginally ravage a Jr High Schoolgirl. Below is a supporting quotation from his auto-biography -

"I am now 24 years old, but I am facing charges for something done while I was 23. I was involved in a relationship with a young lady who was 13 years old. Her parents knew of this relationship and even allowed me to live in their home. I was told by the young lady's mother that "she wouldn't mind having me for a son in law" and the father told his daughter to "stick with John, he is a good man, and he will treat you right!". After the relationship prospered, the parents decided that I was a distraction to their daughter and I should not be allowed to see her again. When I refused, they pressed charges against me for criminal sexual conduct 2nd degree(in South Carolina) and I am facing considerable time in jail. My question is this if the parents knew of the relationship and allowed it to continue, is it legal for them to press these charges. I have fully admitted to having sex with this young lady and it is well known that she and I were in a relationship together. We had even planned to get married. What do u think? I have searched everywhere I can look for more information and I can't find any. What do u think? Any comments on this situation would be helpful!"

Please visit www.freethejewpony.com to help his cause and/or instructions on how to make a donation.

Few complaints (5, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286330)

The FCC has received very few complaints about jammed cell phones

They tried to call and complain, but ...

George Bush Needs Your Help (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286464)

With the national Democrats and third party groups raising hundreds of millions to attack our President, we have to fight back with the most effective grassroots campaign in national history!

And that's where you come in.

What better way to show your strong support for President Bush and Vice President Cheney than by getting involved at the ground level of their organization now?

What better way to show your support [donationreport.com] for the President's compassionate conservative agenda, for his commitment to winning the war on terrorism, creating new jobs, cutting taxes, reforming education, and improving health care?

Electronic warfare (0, Redundant)

shamir_k (222154) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286333)

Electronic Warfare for the common masses. Just another example of civilian uses of orginially military technologies.

Re: Electronic warfare (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286430)


> Electronic Warfare for the common masses. Just another example of civilian uses of orginially military technologies.

Though in this case a good old fashioned broadsword would be a better solution.

Re:Electronic warfare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286496)

From Tactical to Practical. With Hunter Ellis. Sundays @ 8pm On the History Channel.

3rd post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286334)

Yeah. I got # 3. I smell muffins!

Re:3rd post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286384)

YOU FAIL IT! Truly an American icon.

JIHAD!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286335)

f/p bitches, i'm rick james

better alternative (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286339)

I'd like to jam your cell-phone in your butt...

It's the only language they'll understand

MODS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286413)

Off Topic??? Troll, Flamebait maybe, but surely right on topic.

No complaints now, but... (5, Insightful)

DarthAle (83736) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286341)

...just wait until someone blocks a 911 call.

Re:No complaints now, but... (5, Interesting)

jaiger (166690) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286393)

If the 911 call doesn't go through, how will anyone know that it was blocked?

Even the 911 caller would likely not distinguish a blocked/jammed call from a normal "no service" area. My assumption is that a jammed call appears as "no service" to the handset. After all, it can't communicate with the tower.

This is an interesting point however.

-joe

Not good (-1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286348)

As a top IT executive for a fortune 50, I spend a lot of time on global conference calls. I would be extremely annoyed, and would consider it an attack on both me personally, and me professionally (and, by extension, my company) if someone were to jam my cellular during an important conference call.

The courts would see it my way, as well. As would the service provider - after all, by interrupting their service, you are proving malicious intent to disrupt services, in much teh same manner as you would be if you cut the power lines to my building.

I recommend you not do this.

Re:Not good (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286362)

Who gives a fuck what your job it. Anyway. You're a 15 year old geek-boy. If you were really an important executive do you think you'd have time to waste posting on Slashdot???

Re:Not good (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286412)

On a Sunday? After returning from church with my family, and deciding to spend a few minutes catching up on the techie chatter of the weekend prior to VPN-ing in? Yes, I have time - it is important to know what my organization's contributors are reading about and likely to be discussing throughout the week.

Not to get too far off-topic, but Slashdot is a trasure trove of information (and quite a bit of uselss chatter - your post comes to mind, but that is to be expected). Reading comments here gives me insight into the views that may not be expressed to me regularly (open source - although the zealotry needs to be toned down somewhat, the usual struggles and concerns of gearheads, how informed the average technician is about budgetary and risk matters, etc).

Re:Not good (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286491)

Ah! A Christian. That would explain why you sound so self-righteous.

Anyway, what does god say about feeding trolls?

Re: Not good (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286366)


> As a top IT executive for a fortune 50, I spend a lot of time on global conference calls. I would be extremely annoyed, and would consider it an attack on both me personally, and me professionally (and, by extension, my company) if someone were to jam my cellular during an important conference call. ... I recommend you not do this.

As a normal person, I consider it an attack on me both personally and professionally, when someone use a cell phone in an inappropriate context.

I recommend you not do this.

Re: Not good (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286488)

"As a top IT executive for a fortune 50, I spend a lot of time on global conference calls. I would be extremely annoyed, and would consider it an attack on both me personally, and me professionally (and, by extension, my company) if someone were to jam my cellular during an important conference call. ... I recommend you not do this."

I think proves the link between cell phones and brain damage.

Re: Not good (4, Insightful)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286548)

If YOU had a cell phone and YOU had something that you deemed important enough to talk to someone about wherever you were, who do you care about most? Your job, your success in business, or some nearby person who you'll never see again, and who has some kind of insane twisted fixation on someone else talking on a cell phone? Seriously...I don't mind when other people are talking on their cell phones. You guys are acting like nut cases here. Why don't you pick something else to notice about other people and hassle them about, like loud footsteps, breathing, blinking too much, not laughing the same way you do, or anything else that will send you into a blind rage? Psychos.

Re:Not good (5, Insightful)

marklar1 (670468) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286368)

I'm tired as fuck of all the self-righteous pricks running around who think their one-on-one conversations are more important than my conversation over the phone. If I'm at a restraunt dining alone (traveling for business or just a loser....) unless everyone can't talk then I'll talk on my phone till the cows come home. Ms. Manners can shove it... Never is it acceptable where no one should be talking, movies, churches, etc....but unless it's unacceptable for everyone to talk, then find something else to bitch about.

Re:Not good (5, Insightful)

rot26 (240034) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286446)

I'm tired as fuck of all the self-righteous pricks running around who think their one-on-one conversations are more important than my conversation over the phone.

Those are my feelings EXACTLY. The only difference that I've thought of is the tendency for some morons to talk a lot more loudly on a cell call than during a one-on-one conversation. I've found that imitating them puts a stop to that, usually.

Re:Not good (1)

The_Unforgiven (521294) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286379)

Somehow I doubt this is happening in office buildings. Probably more like public places and such, where you shouldn't be having such vital conversations anyway.

Re:Not good (5, Insightful)

marklar1 (670468) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286426)

who cares if it's vital or not. If you're sitting there conversing with your mates, then I have every right to talk to my friend/associate/whatever virtually... again, if it's a library, chrurch, theatre, where NO ONE should talk to anyone, fine....but to have a conversation with a person on the phone in a normal tone is no more distracting than listening to your annoying drivel to your table mates.... the logic is total BS: the first paragraph alone where some asshole is jamming conversation at a coffee house????? come the F*&^% on....tell the prick to go to a library...IF I caught someone doing this I wouldn't hesitate to take a swing at him... And you know the only people running around with these devices would be greasy little geeks without friends to bring in person or to call on the phone that you could wipe the floor with one hand..

Wow! (1)

twoslice (457793) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286385)

As a top IT executive for a fortune 50,

I never knew I was in such esteemed company! Here I always thought Slashdot was only frequented by lowly underpaid geeks. Why did you post as AC? didn't want anyone to know you were slumming it?

Not the same at College (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286416)

There are tons of people in college that just yap away in the middle of class and everywhere you go their cell phone is their best buddy. As a student paying for my education I get tired of dealing with the constant interruption to MY EDUCATION. If people are going to be dumb about using their cell phones then others can go right ahead and jam calls. They should do the same thing in movie theatres and other "quiet" areas to keep the peace.

Re:Not the same at College (2, Insightful)

marklar1 (670468) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286467)

why don't you have the BALLS to stand up and work with your peeers. Be a leader..,..or be a snitch and run to your professor since you apparently have no leadership or interpersonal skills to address your peers.

Re:Not the same at College (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286502)

lol, you are a funny guy. When you have a class of 300 people it is hard to yell across the room and get the attention of the person you want. You must be one of those annoying people that carries your cell phone everywhere you go on campus. "Hey what are you doing"..."Nothing just shopping for my textbooks, o yea my teacher is a dick"... haha

Re:Not good (2, Insightful)

Fluk3 (742259) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286432)

People can make 911 calls from a land line

Conduct your business at your office or at home.

Don't do it in my library, movie theatre, bookstore, coffee shop.

I will block these inconsiderate loudmouths.

Noise pollution should be outlawed.

Re:Not good (0)

marklar1 (670468) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286499)

when did coffee shops become "quiet places".... what if i bring in my "smelly cat" song and my acoustic guitar... smokey, people filled gathering places...a site of connection, not a site of meditation... go to a library, a church, a yoga class, or your own kitchen antisocial prick

Re:Not good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286543)

Gotta love those payphones on the side of the freeway during interstate journeys.

Re:Not good (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286451)

As a top IT executive for a fortune 50...

The courts would see it my way, as well.

C'mon, you will always win in the courts, you have an army of lawyers and money to crush anyone, even if you are not right.

Now I will buy one of those things for my own protection. Don't worry, I'm not in the US. In my country there are places where cell phone use should be banned because people have used the phones for malicious purposes (I mean inside banks).

Re:Not good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286472)

As a top executive for a fortune 50 company, you would be unlikely to know what slashdot is, let alone post here. Regardless; nobody is talking about jamming you in your office.

If you are the sort of moron who wants to take a vital international conference call in a theatre/gallery/whatever ... well, you deserve to lose.

Re:Not good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286476)

Blah, blah, blah. Cockmouth, cockmouth, cockmouth. I'm more important than shit on a stick.

Why you posting AC? Don't you want people to know who this very important person is dishing out his or her valuable advice? Or are you just modest?

I'm posting AC in case you're telling the truth and I might want to work for you some day.
Fucker!

Re:Not good (3, Insightful)

cprincipe (100684) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286478)

As a top IT executive for a fortune 50, I spend a lot of time on global conference calls. I would be extremely annoyed, and would consider it an attack on both me personally, and me professionally (and, by extension, my company) if someone were to jam my cellular during an important conference call. The courts would see it my way, as well. As would the service provider - after all, by interrupting their service, you are proving malicious intent to disrupt services, in much teh same manner as you would be if you cut the power lines to my building. I recommend you not do this.

Oh, all the lawyers just got a woody. Another lawsuit in the making.

Poor people whine. Rich people call their lawyers.

Re:Not good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286533)

Then I suggest that you refrain from using it when driving in front of me, or in the supermarket when in line, or sitting next to me when eating lunch. Consider yourself under attack. Just remember - catch me if you can!

Telemetry (4, Insightful)

lostchicken (226656) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286351)

Cellular Telephones aren't just used for idle chatter. Remember, a lot (not most, but not insignificant) of cellular traffic comes from telemetry systems. So, the next call you might jam could be some heart paitent's ECG telling his cardiologist that he's having a heart attack, or somebody's Saab saying that it's airbag has gone off in an accident, or perhaps it is just a cell call, and it's just the hospital trying to get their neurosurgeon in.

Re:Telemetry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286508)

Well, then maybe cell phones should require a lisence, so pinkhaired teenybobbers can't polute the environment with their idle gossip.
Guns have practical usages too, but you don't see a lot of people passin' out guns to the younin's, do ya?
Cellphone technology is much too practical to be banned in total. Way too many people abuse it. The solution is clear: No cellphones for private unlicenced citizens!

Re:Telemetry (2, Insightful)

Bin_jammin (684517) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286511)

Geez, I'd hate to think that there'd be one less Saab owner on the road :) In all seriousness though, I don't think these devices are powerful enough to knock out communications in a hospital unless you were in the hospital with it. I sounds like the point of the blocker is to create a swath around yourself of quiet bliss, so unless you walk through your local hospital for kicks, it shouldn't be an issue.

Chatter (0, Offtopic)

rtkluttz (244325) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286352)

Cell phone chatter is a fact of life. Get over it.

My gripe is that I wish people would realize how big of a rip off it is that phones are locked in to a single service provider. I use the free introductory phones only just because of that. They expect ME to pay for a phone that I REALLY have no choice with? heheh Thats funny. If I pay for a phone, its gonna be MY phone and I'm gonna have REAL choices.

no reason to live (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286357)

Who cares...

Angel has been cancelled...

I don't want to live anymore.

FCC complaints (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286358)

All that incoming breast chatter probably just made their automated call routing system fall over. Try again later.

Cellphone Overuse (3, Insightful)

lithiumfox (736891) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286360)

It is apparent that many people do use cell phones a lot. I mean, its convient then going to a payphone. Anyone can contact you anywhere in the world (if you have a good signal), but people use them too much. They should do more of a push to use SMS and it would solve the problem with people talking too much.

Re:Cellphone Overuse (1)

BlueTooth (102363) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286398)

In the states, SMS is generally more expensive than voice. The cariers are starting to come around, but for me anyway, I have to pay more for SMS while I have free nights, free weekends, free incoming calls and free long distance (and by free I meen, unmetered).

No action taken (5, Insightful)

Peter Cooper (660482) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286363)

The FCC has received very few complaints about jammed cell phones and has never taken action against anyone for that violation.

How could they take action? The people with the jammers keep them in their pockets. And the only reason they're doing it is for the entertainment/proving a point aspect. It's not as if Wal*Mart is mass-installing jammers to stop shoppers talking while shopping, so how would the FCC catch anyone?

Besides, with the way people move around, service would only appear to be patchy, dropping out as you walk past someone with a jammer, then coming back again. Cellphones do this anyway , so how you would you know what to complain about?

This is pretty much a non story because it's hard to tell if you're being jammed or if you're just getting a crappy signal. Sure, you shouldn't be blocking cellphone signals, but I can't see how the FCC is going to catch you doing it.

Re:No action taken (5, Funny)

arkanes (521690) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286405)

And to me it just makes them even more annoying - people yelling into thier phones and saying "can you hear me?" over and over again are far more obnoxious than people carrying on a normal conversation in a low tone of voice.

Re:No action taken (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286473)

No commercial outfit would be stupid enough to mass install these things. Other than being just plain illegal, it's not that smart an idea because they'd lose the business of those who need to stay in cell conact.

jammers (5, Funny)

happystink (204158) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286364)

Wow, they sell jammers? That is terrible, so disruptive and bad, it's just wrong. Where do you buy those by the way?

Re:jammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286525)

there was an artists project about this a while back, check out http://www.bubl-space.com

Emergencies (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286367)

What happens when one of these frequency jammers is in effect in an area where there has been an accident (or robbery, or some other emergency), and the only way of getting help is a cell phone?

Re:Emergencies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286517)

Well then I guess you don't get to use the cellphone to get help, do you? Pretty obvious, I thought. Same situation if you're in a no-service area.

I jam cell phone conversation MY WAY (5, Funny)

Roofus (15591) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286370)

With a swift kick to the nuts!

Re:I jam cell phone conversation MY WAY (1)

rot26 (240034) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286521)

I jam cell phone conversation MY WAY with a swift kick to the nuts!

I don't have a problem with that. If someone is being rude, I don't have a problem with responding rudely. The idea of hiding behind some pocket-jammer would only appeal to some passive-aggressive control freak anyway. If it's worth getting upset about, it's worth actually being ASSERTIVE about. If you don't have the balls to be assertive, then quit whining.

DIY plans? (4, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286374)

While 'warfare' may not be the right answer, Its about time people are fighing back.

About the only thing i can think of that is more rude, is a SUV driver .. and thats why god made paint balls :)

Re:DIY plans? (0, Flamebait)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286404)

Your signature concerns the freedom to bear arms and yet your post concerns limiting the freedoms of others. If someone is in public, you don't want them speaking too loudly but you'll die for their right to pack heat?

Freedoms end... (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286485)

Where it impedes on others rights and freedoms.

Talking on a cell phone during a movie, or while driving down the road ( not being attentive, and illegal in many areas ) crosses that line..

Nice try though...

Re:DIY plans? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286506)

Sorry, I've read his message three or four times and can't see the place where he's proposing laws be passed against SUV ownership or the use of cellphones to annoy people.

Could you point out where he proposes those laws? Or are you suggesting that reacting to someone acting anti-socially is "limiting the freedom of others"?

BTW, I'm a liberal. Get over it.

Re:DIY plans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286528)

Read the post you're responding to a few more times. Where does it say that the parent of that post was proposing laws? Limiting freedoms does not mean passing laws. There are other ways.

Re:DIY plans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286497)

>>About the only thing i can think of that is more rude, is a SUV driver .. and thats why god made paint balls :)

You are an idiot. What fucking good would a paintball do? One day you'll grow up, and do something that pisses off some other insignificant little twerp. Then you'll be the victim.

What good? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286538)

Toss it thru your sunroof at a idiot behind you, after it splatters over their winshield they will no longer be behind you.

Besides, it was just a joke.. geeze, get a grip.

Safety? (2, Insightful)

booyaka (563501) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286378)

One of the great advantages of Cell Phones is the ability to call for help in the case of an emergency. I can't really understand the justification for interfereing with this function because you want to have your coffee in silence. It seems a little reactionary, libraries are meant to be quiet, not cafes and restaurants.

Re:Safety? (3, Informative)

Avihson (689950) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286510)

What cafes and restaurants do you frequent that do not have a land line for emergencies?

I don't care if you use a cellphone in public, I just watch you intently and take notes! I only interrupt if I miss part of the conversation.

You lose your right to privacy when you talk in public. I take advantage of that to embarrass the obnoxious by being just as obnoxious.

Re:Safety? (4, Insightful)

MesiahTaz (122415) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286551)

Scenario: You're a soccer-mom and your kids are at school. Their listed emergency # is mommy's cell phone. What then? Mommy can't go to the coffee shop because her phone might be jammed? That's a bit ridiculous. Same goes for a Doctor. Same goes for people who *need* to be able to receive calls for their jobs.

Cell phones are a fact of life. If you don't like, move to Elbonia.

from the article... (0, Flamebait)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286380)

"The inventor of the cell phone never thought about the fact that people would be using them constantly and impeding on other people's privacy,"
It may be rude and obnoxious to blather on on your cell phone in a crowded elevator or a restaurant but how exactly is that impeding on someone's privacy? Seems like a logical jump without any argument.

All is needed... (4, Insightful)

dabadab (126782) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286382)

...is just to learn some proper manners.
Don't shout loudly if it bothers people and don't jam other people's cell phones.

Social Pressure vs. Technology (2, Interesting)

kjfitz (256432) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286391)

In situations like this I try to catch the offending person's eye and with a sad expression shake my head no. It very often works.

Re:Social Pressure vs. Technology (1)

Mod Me God (686647) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286477)

Is that because you'd appear like a psycho causing them to walk away quickly, rather than an association with the phone?

Cones of silence (4, Insightful)

Avihson (689950) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286397)

Jamming sounds like a great solution at first. but wouldn't Faraday cages be simpler? I drive past a theater that overpowers my FM radio along a few hundred ft stretch of roadway. If they lined the theater with copper foil, it would stop the cell phones and the interference the theater itself is producing.

Tin foil may be an answer after all...

The ultimate cell-phone jamming technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286407)

...is a bullet to the brain.

MOD PARENT UP SEVEN-BAZILLION INSIGHTFUL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286529)

That's right, I said SEVEN-BAZILLION! The majority of people just DO NOT UNDERSTAND that some of us are really irked by people on cell phones. What really gets me irritated is when people are talking about absolutely nothing. Sometimes it's funny how people forget they are out in public, and they'll start talking about one of their friends with regards to sleeping with someone. It blows my mind. In return, I should be able to blow their mind ... WITH AN AXE! CHOPPITY CHOPPITY MOTHERFUCKER! *SPLURGE!*

P.S. The UT2004 demo is actually pretty cool. Assault and Onslaught are so cool that In Soviet Russia, I, for one, welcome our Natalie Portman Petrified and Covered in Hot Grits overlords! Truly an American icon.

'War on' cell phones (4, Insightful)

ToadMan8 (521480) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286409)

Ah, first the war on drugs, the war on poverty then the war on terror.
I see we've solved those issues to now have the time to wage war on those annoying annoying people on cellphones.

I think those people who are complaining must be the people who don't get enough cell calls and feel left out. Amusing as it would be I'll break the fingers of the first person cellphone jamming I see.

Why is it socially acceptable to talk to people but as soon as the person is separated by a bit of technology is it considered obnoxious and socially unacceptable?

Re:'War on' cell phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286463)

"Hey, remember when we had a War on Drugs and then you couldn't buy drugs anymore?" -D. Cross

Re:'War on' cell phones (5, Insightful)

DoorFrame (22108) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286523)

Because people on cell phones invariably talk much louder than people having a face to face conversation (where you can accurately gauge an appropriate volume level for conversation based on your partners volume level). That's why.

Times they are a changin' (2, Insightful)

TGK (262438) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286410)

I've often wondered if this kind of technology might be employed in a legal manner by businesses and other establishments. If enough people take to using these devices the FCC may well bow to public pressure.

It won't be much later that we'll see restaurants offering "cellular or non-cellular" seating and theaters (both cinematic and live) physically preventing the use of phones in their establishments.

I welcome it. Cell phones have their uses but are frankly some of the most intrusive devices to penetrate the market as of late. There are barriers of common courtesy that need to remain in place. The person you're standing in front of simply needs to take precedence over the person calling you to let you know orange juice is on sale. The cashier has the right to expect you to pay attention to your purchase. And damnit, I have the right to a dinner in peace.

Just needs one improvement (5, Funny)

eraser.cpp (711313) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286414)

What we really need is a jammer that will only effect 13 to 17 year old girls.

Misleading article (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286423)

The 'Safe Haven' system by Iceberg is not a camera phone jammer.

It's basically a feature that needs to be built into the phone. When it receives a certain signal it disables the camera. Iceberg claim it could be used for laptops and PDA's but neglect to mention that disabling the technology would be trivial for any determined pervert.

The complaints over camera phones are pretty idiotic anyway. The determined pervert could just use a tiny camera if they really wanted to take photo's anywhere.

I'm not paying Nokia et al to integrate technology that selectively disables my phone. It reminds me the recent debacle about printers with built in mechanisms to defeat currency copying. I'd rather Nokia and HP spent their time working on useful new features than trying to nursemaid me.

If you are worried about someone taking your photo in the locker room, that is your problem.

What's the problem? (2, Interesting)

shadowkoder (707230) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286427)

I don't see a huge problem with cell phones. As long as you can control how loud you are and respect other people (ie. not in theatres or other quiet places). Illegally jamming signals all the time is a wee bit too harsh.

Re:What's the problem? (2, Interesting)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286515)

exactly.

I'm a cellphone-only user (ie no landline at home), and when I'm in public, my conversations are usually limited to "ok yea yea meet you there".

And I am still as annoyed as any non-cell-user by those inane loud cell-users who talk about the frickin weather or verbally abuse whoever they're talking to on the phone in ultra-crowded places, such as the bus at rush-hour.

I suppose 99.9% everyone in here agrees with me, so this is just a rant and none of the people who actually annoy me and others will read this, but it feels good to say it nonetheless! :)

Is it ok... (1)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286448)


...if I "jam" you while you're talking to the person next to you? It's so annoying and it ruins my peace and quiet!

Honestly, unless you're in a place where you're not SUPPOSED to make noise, like perhaps a library or a movie theater, there is NO reason to be disturbed by a cel phone conversation, other than the fact that you're a nosy asshole and can't stand hearing one side of a conversation.

I have a cel phone, and I use it. If anyone tries to stop me, I'll send them to the hospital. I'm sick of this nonsense.

who needs cell phone jammers... (5, Funny)

froboy (580500) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286457)

when you have AT&T's GSM: its like having a legal cell phone jammer at all times!

Not cool (5, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286459)

My cell phone is on vibrate 24/7. Why should I get jammed? The only good solution is a bluetooth type technology that silences any phone in the area without disabling them.

Sure some people are inconsiderate jerks. People talk to people sitting next to them in movies all the time. We don't duct tape everyone's mouthes shut on the way in.

Actually they should have screened the line for Return of the King. If you didn't see the first two movies, you should not have been allowed in. There were people all around me having the first 6 hours of film described to them on the fly.

-B

Re:Not cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286522)

"People talk to people sitting next to them in movies all the time. We don't duct tape everyone's mouthes shut on the way in."

But if it talking is out of control you may get asked to leave. If you talk to the right person.

Cell phone jamming on private property (5, Insightful)

hillct (230132) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286474)

While cell phone jamming in public spaces is illegal, my research suggests that jamming on private property is not illegal. It appears this has never been challenged in court. The big question though is, whether or not it's a good practice.

I finally relented and got a cell phone vary recently. I (like almsot every other slashdot reader) work in the tech sector 8 hours a day 5 days a week and have revused until recently to bring some of this technology into my home. I don't have cable TV, I don't have an answering machine and until a few weeks ago I didn't have a cell phone.

I for one, would be in favor of movie theaters jamming cell phones inside the theaters themselves, and any other private institution (museums perhaps) who wish to, being able to legally jam cell frequencies at their discression, within their own premisis. It should be considered no different than banning smoking in facilities on private property. The owners should have discression here, And if cell phone users don't like it they can take their business elsewhere. This will cause the business owners to carefully consider the practice before enguaging in it.

I do believe that signage should be requires when such jamming is in effect, so patrons would be aware they will be incomunicado while they are within the given facility, such that they can make an informed choice.

--CTh

Re:Cell phone jamming on private property (3, Informative)

jgabby (158126) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286539)

Being the primary service in the bands they are located, the cell phone providers are entitled to interference protection throughout their service contour, regardless of private property or not. By emitting a signal to purposely interfere, if someone complains, the FCC will likely fine the perpetrator and confiscate the equipment (if they can find him).

What IS entirely legal however is to design your building such that cell phone signals are unable to penetrate it...For example, by making your building a faraday cage. This I think could be a lucrative business - retrofitting movie theaters to block (not interfere with) the cell phone frequencies.

What a bunch of assholes. (4, Insightful)

juuri (7678) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286479)

Jamming cellphones in an area greater than your personal space is incredibly fucking selfish. When you go out in public, you are subject to the social norms of the area you live in. If other people in your city think it is cool to be obnoxious on the cell phone, deal with it, try and change it through non passive-aggressive means or move.

When I lived in San Francisco I would be amazed when people would get pissed at others for talking in normal tones on cellphones while on the bus. As I told this one old guy who was yelling, "Why don't you yell at the couple in front of her who are talking even louder?!". Personally I don't use my cellphone in crowded places and always keep my ringer off. I don't see why so many people who have vitriol for those who conduct themselves with decent manners.

Cellphones, breasts, and the FCC (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286480)

The FCC has received very few complaints about jammed cell phones and has never taken action against anyone for that violation
So, Colin Powell's son FCC Chairman Michael Powell is outraged at the sight of Janet Jackson's breast, but he doesn't care much about cellphone jamming. Same seems to go with the general public. There we have it, ladies and gentlemen, CELLPHONES ARE MORE ANNOYING THAN BREASTS POPPING OUT! News at 11...

Fun (5, Interesting)

Z-MaxX (712880) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286487)

A couple years ago, I was working in Santa Rosa for a company, developing cell-phone test equipment. There was a nice little Mexican restaurant where the my coworkers liked to eat lunch, across the street from a school.

The first day I there with them, one of the hardware engineers pulled this thing that looks like a cell phone out of his pocket. He looked at me at said, "Watch this," and pointed toward a guy crossing the street, talking on a cell phone.

My coworker then pressed a button on his "cell phone" and a second or two later, the man on the street took the phone away from his ear and looked at the display as if to see if the call had been dropped. He put it back to his ear, appeared to say something, and then repeated this sequence a couple of times before giving up.

The device was a jammer that my coworker had built into a cell phone case to make it inconspicuous.

It was pretty funny to see hordes of people rushing around, all looking at their phones trying to figure out what's going on.

I could only imagine what they were saying: "Hello? Can you hear me now?"

True Luddites (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286505)

A Luddite isn't just somebody who refuses to adopt a technology, but somebody who goes out of their way to try to destroy the new technology because they are against its existance.

That's exactly what the people who want these jammers are doing, trying to get in the way of cell phones because they just don't like them.

Frisking.. (1)

MisanthropicProggram (597526) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286514)

With revealing or embarrassing photos of people appearing on the Internet without their knowledge, locations around the nation have banned camera phones, including many health clubs and schools. Sensitive government and corporate buildings also are trying keep the phones out, and a handful of states are considering new laws to limit their use.
How are they going to enforce this? By frisking everyone that comes into an area that doesn't allow phone?
I'd rather have jammers in place then have to put up with being patted down - whic I won't. I don't go to ball games anymore because of their insistance of searching amyone who comes into the stadium.

A better soltution - Cellphone Detectors (5, Insightful)

lxt (724570) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286524)

In the theatre industry we have to think of other creative ways of stopping cellphones even from being switched on (even on silent - as most tech people know, digital cellphones can badly interfere with electronic equipment). Thus, a company does produce a "cellphone detector", picking up cellphone radiation. An automated message can inform people to turn their phones off - failing that, in cases where phones MUST be turned off (live recordings etc) you can refuse to start until all phones are off.

There shouldn't be a problem with mobiles (5, Insightful)

RandBlade (749321) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286530)

For most people on mobile phones (cell phones) they're used properly, no shouting and no louder than if you're talking with someone who's next to you. I use my mobile regularly and always try to make sure I'm not being disruptive, not in the wrong places (eg libraries) and no shouting. Just because a few people abuse them, does not mean most people do.

Someone carrying a jammer is being deliberately and obnoxiously selfish. They're worse than the ignorant fools who talk to loudly.

If people used better judgement (5, Insightful)

Coolmoe (416032) | more than 10 years ago | (#8286535)

then this would not be a problem. Society has functioned for many years without cellular technology. If you have an area such as a movie theatre or a classy restaraunt you should be expected to use some judgement and turn it to vibrate or off to go to VM. This is the ideal, but people have shown time and again that this is not in line with reality. I am all for business owners jamming these devices. I think that there ought to be a large sign stating that the devices will not work and to use a land line if you need to make emergency calls. I have seen so many times that people will take calls anywhere and talk completely disregarding your feelings to have a peaceful dinner or watch a movie without hearing about somebodys personal crap. This could be a great niche market for people that want have a peaceful shopping or viewing experience that is uninterupted. I pay money to get away from pagers, cellphones and others screaming kids and I expect that this will not be a problem. If I want the noise of everyday life I will go home or to work. There ought to be a place to get away from this stuff.

stopping cell phone pictures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8286536)

um, correct me if i'm wrong (i don't own one) but can't the cell phones (with digital cameras built in) still take snapshots regardless of their cellular signal?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...