FCC Sued to Allow Cell Phone Jammers 400
stevew writes "A small company in Florida is trying to take on the FCC in an attempt to make their Cell phone jamming product legal. Their main argument seems to be that the Communications act of 1934 conflicts with the HomeLand Security Act — so the Communications act has to go." From the article: "Local and state law enforcement agencies, which would be the first responders to a terrorist attack here at home, are prohibited by law from obtaining such gear. 'It just doesn't make much sense that the FBI can use this equipment, but that the local and state governments, which the Homeland Security Act has acknowledged as being an important part of combating terrorism, cannot,' said Howard Melamed, chief executive of CellAntenna. 'We give local police guns and other equipment to protect the public, but we can't trust them with cellular-jamming equipment? It doesn't make sense.'"
Can I get one (Score:4, Insightful)
Please?
I'm failing to see the point of this (Score:3, Insightful)
Security Theatre. (Score:5, Insightful)
Great. The US is not Iraq, and frankly, it seems the police can't be trusted with tasers [go.com]. I am sure we give the military in Iraq, and federal agents, access to all sorts of other stuff I really don't want my local deputy, Jimmy-joe-bob, getting his paws on.
Frankly, this is just more FUD bullshit security theater. Cellphone jammers won't help the police one bit, and will only add to the potential for abuse/misuse by the police. This lawsuit is nothing but a ploy from a company that wants to join the halliburton gravy train. GSM can be jammed somewhat as far as I know, but my understanding (correct me if you know and I am wrong) is that CMDA/WCDMA have much more immunity to jamming. CDMA phones aren't very prevalent in Iraq, but they are here. Furthermore, this only works if you know where (within a small radius) an explosive device [that was to be detonated by cellphone] is/willbe.. so really all it encourages is either wasteful spending on useless devices, or spending on devices that will be permanently setup in "high risk" place.. which will only serve to 1: encourage the 'terrorists' to figure a way around cellphone jamming, 2: erode our rights further.
Re:Can I get one (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm failing to see the point of this (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh and the likely explaination for law enforcement needing them during a terrorist attack is to prevent the terrorists from using cell phones to trigger bombs. Of course in his haste to sell his product he's overlooking the fact that the Government can simply order the cell phone companies in an area to shut their networks down. They don't need jammers!
Re:Can I get one (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He has a valid point. (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAIK, just about every "anti-terrorism" law has been used for everything but anti-terrorism by domestic police forces.
If the police want those powers for non-terrorism related work, then they should make the argument for it, so there can be a debate on the matter.
Re:I'm failing to see the point of this (Score:3, Insightful)
"We had to jam the cell phone network around the meeting of global corporate and political leaders to protect against the threat of a terrorist attack. We realize that this may have hampered the ability of protesters to organize, but we think that safety is more important than the rights of a few extremist anti-globalization fanatics."
Forget the protesters. What if I live near that meeting and rely on a cell phone for my communications? It can be disrupted in the name of "safety"? That's bullshit.
Do local cops currently have the ability to jam landline phones? Didn't think so. If they haven't needed that for a few decades then why do they need it now with cell phones?
Re:Security Theatre. (Score:4, Insightful)
How many abuse incidents were there in the more than 70,000 times [gao.gov] that tasers have been used by police? Instead of making overbroad generalizations, you should realize that tasers (and other weapons like bean bag shotgun rounds, pepper spray, and hopefully the microwave pain ray that the military's been working on) are an effective way of apprehending criminals and protecting the public without causing lasting, disfiguring injury or death in all but the most exceptional of cases. Yes, they can be abused, but so can a firearm or a broomstick.
Damn cops, can't trust 'em with a broomstick.
Re:Why jam? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cellphones are expensive, leave a substantial paper trail, and are going to be the first thing blocked if anyone figured that's what you were up to. You want a cheap, unjammable, untraceable remote bomb detonator? photovoltaic cell and a laser pointer.
Hmm, never thought of that. That's pretty clever. It'd require a line of sight but you'd probably already need one to watch the target and figure out where to set it off.
This is a perfect example of why this type of "arms race" is foolish. A moderately clever /. poster who isn't even thinking with the mindset of a terrorist figured a way around it in about ten minutes. All this does is cost us more of our rights in the name of protecting them.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm failing to see the point of this (Score:1, Insightful)
well, here's a more careful look then (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) To let states jam cell-phone communications in state prisons, so that prisoners can't make unmonitored calls to the outside. Here [npr.org] is an NPR story on the surprising number of cell phones smuggled into prisons and their sometimes unfortunate uses. From the article:
In several criminal cases, inmates have used cell phones to run gangs operating outside of prison, to put hits out on people, to organize drug-smuggling operations and, in one case, trade gold bullion on international markets.
Er...speaking as a citizen juror, I don't much care about cons trading gold bullion from inside the pen, ha ha, but the idea that putting away a drug gang kingpin won't affect his ability to run his gang at all is a bit...disturbing.
(2) To let police jam cell phones during a raid, so that, for example, any lookouts posted won't be able to communicate back to headquarters and tip off the targest of the raid. This is elementary warfighting: you certainly jam the enemy's communications during an operation if you can, because surprise reduces casualties all around. I hope you agree that significant criminal enterprises qualify as an 'enemy' against whom we'd like the police to take action. (That is, I hope you don't think the police shouldn't be able to conduct effective raids at all. Whether they should conduct them more carefully, or only with greater justification is, of course, an unrelated separate question.)
The business about blocking bombs is a bit of a bogus red herring, agreed, but if you read the article you'll see it was the journalist that raised this point, and not the people who make the jamming equipment. They only talked about the use of the equipment in police raids and so forth. It was the (typically, sensation-seeking) newsman who decided to write about cell phones and bombs.
On the other hand, the point of the 1934 Communications Act is not as silly as the jamming equipment maker suggests: clearly the Commerce Act gives Congress the power to regulate radio communication, as very little is more interstate than radio. Furthermore, it makes sense (or at least made sense in 1934) to prohibit every state and dinky locality from making its own separate (and probably conflicting) rules about who can jam radio signals, and when and how. It would lead to a cacaphony, a completely unworkeable patchwork of regulation of the radio spectrum. (For similar reasons, the use of international-range radio is subject to several important international treaties.)
However, those were the days when "radio" typically only meant HF, long radio waves that could at least go a few hundred miles, if not several thousand. I doubt there was much thought given to the modern situation, where we have millions of low-powered radios (e.g. cell phones) operating at very high frequencies, with ranges of a mile or two at most, and networks of repeaters to help the signal get around. So there are, indeed, good arguments that this is a situation not anticipated by Congress in 1934, and some kind of review of the Communications Act makes sense. Maybe state and local jurisdictions should be allowed to deploy jamming equipment the way they see fit, if it's only going to have any effect within the jurisdiction. It's hard, after all, to see why Pittsburgh's City Council shouldn't be able to make the rules for jamming cell phones within the city limits -- and the Feds should.
Presumably this cell-jammer maker hopes to prod Congress into revisiting the Communications Act by this suit, which otherwise seems hopeless on the merits. (There's no way the Act can be unconstitutional merely because the Homeland Security Act can be interpreted as contradicting it. Courts are required to read legislation in such a way as to minimize conflicts. Hence if it's at all possible to read the Homeland Security Act in such a way that it doesn't conflict with the Communications Act -- and I'm sure it is -- then that's the way the Courts have to interpret it.)
Re:Can I get one (Score:5, Insightful)
Who do I sue for the basement bar with no cell signal? Who do I sue if I have a heart attack in the wilderness with no signal? Who do I sue if my cellphone malfunctions, the battery dies, or I'm too retarded to use it?
Re:an alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can I get one (Score:3, Insightful)
Your problem with, oh my phone HAS to be on while I'm in the theater, Because I'm a EMS person. Ummm, pager? Pagers run on a different frequency, just have the jammer disable 800/1900 etc etc.
So if I have a babysitter watching my kids while I'm out with my spouse I need to carry a pager so she can call me in an emergancy?
What the heck is wrong with just asking the theater to enforce the rule and ask offenders to leave? What's next? A sonic jammer that stops people from talking during the movie? Or should we make a law?
Re:an alternative (Score:1, Insightful)
What would you do? The same thing you would do before there were cell phones.
You'd get the message eventually. If you can't live with that then don't go
to the movies.
Re:an alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you don't. And the theater owner DOES have the right to say "No cell phones can be used, because I installed a cell blocking device on my private property. If you need to use your phone, go somewhere else."
Re:Jammers in Theaters (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I've dreamed that all you cowards (no pun intended) that sit in your seat and cry about how people are ruining the movie for you would get up off your asses and go tell the person to stick their cellphone up their ass.
A couple theater visits ago (it's been aeons because there hasn't been a movie released that I feel I have to see in the theater in a long, long time) two people were sitting in front of myself and my now-ex-girlfriend. The woman in that couple kept talking. So I leaned forward and said "Is it really necessary for you to talk all through the movie?" She did it again about fifteen minutes later, apparently having forgotten that we were in a movie theater, so I said "How about you shut the fuck up?" and that was the last I heard out of the bitch.
If you're too physically frail or too easily intimidated to deal with the problem yourself like an adult, why don't you just go report the problem to the theater owner, and in the process, demand your money back, and save it so you can just buy the fucking thing when it comes out? That way you send a message to the theater owner that you do not accept having the movie ruined for you, and you hold them accountable - and they are likely to pay you. If they do not, don't go back. Why do you want to patronize an establishment that doesn't value your business?
What is all this with "gangsters" anyway? Is bugsy malone's cellphone use offending you?
Most cellphones have variable brightness. Mine does. If I actually have to text much, I turn it down. There's also the option of moving myself off to the side of the theater someplace where I won't be bothering anyone.
Let's hope someone brings a cell phone jammer to a theater before it's made legal and I somehow catch them, because I'll steal the fucking thing from them and suggest to them that if they want to get nailed by the FCC for breach of federal communications laws they are certainly welcome to call the cops on me for my petty theft.
Okay okay, I don't really believe in stealing things. But believe me, I would be looking for creative ways to make their life miserable. The fact that many people are irresponsible about their cellphone usage does not give you an excuse to disable my cellphone. The answer is to address the abuse, not the potential for abuse. There's always potential for abuse. Go after the abusers, and leave me the fuck alone.
Re:Can I get one (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, if it's their private property, they CAN tell you what you can and cannot have on your person on their property. If you dislike the rules, take your movie ruining ass somewhere else.
I love it! I'm a "movie ruining ass" just because I have a cell phone. Despite the fact that it's on vibrate. Despite the fact that I never talk on it in the movie theater. I don't even text message because I realize that the glaring bright LCD is a distraction. All I ask is the ability to see who is calling me and go outside if I want to take it. How the hell is that bothering you? Why do I need to be jammed?
Oh and the ability of private businesses to regulate otherwise legal activities is sharply limited. Don't believe that? Ask anybody that has ever tried to ban breastfeeding at their establishment.
Re:Can I get one (Score:2, Insightful)
How about your movie theater thoughts on a pepsi, snickers, and pack of milk duds in your jacket pocket when you walk in their doors?
And the movie theater can tell you that you can't bring those but they can't really enforce it. If I choose to wear a baggy jacket and bring in juiceboxes, what are they going to do? Search me? That'd go over well.
The bottom line to this little argument is that there's no compelling reason to ban or jam all cell phones because of a few assholes. Banning the few assholes would seem to be much more effective, much safer for all concerned and much less likely to piss off people.
Re:Can I get one (Score:3, Insightful)
I see it like drunk driving. A lot of people can do it just fine, but a few assholes ruined it for everyone. Now nobody can drive drunk without risking penalty, even if they never hurt anyone.
Re:Can I get one (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever worked at a theater? Do you know how much disruption rule enforcement would cause? Minor violations aren't enforced because the person would cause a bigger disruption arguing with management and such. Better to block cell phones period and prevent any problem of that sort.
Re:Can I get one (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because you pay company 'A' for a service doesn't in any way obligate company 'B' to provide a conducive environment to use that service. If what you use is in some way detrimental to their business, they are within their rights to ban that. (ignoring a long and offtopic discussion on antitrust issues since that doesn't in any way relate here anyway). See previous post about food in theaters and stadiums.
Re:Theater Use (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can I get one (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you had your kid 10 years ago, you'd never have gone to see a movie? I doubt that. I saw plenty of parents in movie theaters before cell phones existed. Well, maybe you really would just never leave the house without a cell phone. But I'm sure if you really tried, someone could help you with that mental illness.
Re:Can I get one (Score:3, Insightful)
In an ideal world, I agree with you. The difficulty is that removing the annoying person using the cellphone can be as disruptive--or moreso--than the act of using a cellphone. Suppose the person refuses to leave? Which is going to be worse? Trying to watch a movie while some asshole talks on their cellphone or argues with the usher?
If I ran a movie theatre and this technology were available, I would use it. However, I do believe that patrons should be notified before purchasing their tickets so they have an option to go to another theatre. It shouldn't be an unpleasant surprise--you get into the theatre and suddenly "NO SIGNAL" unexpectedly appears. At the very least, let the market decide. If there are more people who would rather be connected while sitting in a theatre than people who are annoyed by it, my profits will suffer and I'll turn the jammer off or I might only use it in certain theatres or certain times and not others.
Re:Can I get one (Score:2, Insightful)
Give me a break. If you're that terrified for your children, stay home.
Re:an alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
The same is true of airspace. Private entities cannot own airspace. You can own a 10,000 acre tract of land and have "No Tresspassing" signs all over it, and if I wanna go buzzing around over your house (as long as I maintain minimum altitude set forth by FAA regs) in my Cub then you can't do jack about it, because while you own the land, you do not own the sky above it.
Re:Movie Theaters (Score:2, Insightful)