Florida Man Faces $48k Fine For Jamming Drivers' Cellphones 358
An anonymous reader writes with this news from The Independent: An American driver is facing a $48,000 fine after using a mobile signal jammer in his car to block motorists around him from using their phones on the road. Jason Humphreys reportedly used the jammer from the back seat of his Toyota Highlander for around two years before being caught by Florida police. The 60-year-old said that he used the jammer – which transmits radio signals that interfere with mobile phones – because he was 'fed up' with watching others use their phones on the road.
A story from late April (before the fine was levied) gives more detail: The case along I-4 started on April 29, 2013, when the cellular company Metro PCS contacted the Federal Communications Commission because a transmission tower along I-4 would suffer in the morning and evening. A week later, agents from the FCC's enforcement division in Tampa staked out the freeway on May 7, 8, and 9 and pinpointed a “strong wideband emission” in the cellphone wireless range “emanating from a blue Toyota Highlander sport utility vehicle,” with Florida license plates, according to a complaint issued by the FCC on Tuesday. Another clue: When Hillsborough County Sheriffs deputies stopped the SUV, their own two-way radios were jammed."
Dup (Score:3, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
Re:Dup (Score:5, Funny)
Not a dupe (Score:5, Informative)
This is a follow-up, not a duplicate.
Re: (Score:3)
You know ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't say I disagree with why he did it, but it's kind of hard to argue that he didn't break the law.
From what I can tell, at any given time a huge fraction of drivers are either texting, or holding onto their phone and talking.
If where I lived introduced one of those bounties where you get money if you can get a picture of a face and a license plate using the phone while driving ... well, I could go a few blocks from my house to an intersection, and pay off my house in a few weeks.
Almost weekly I find myself behind someone who is driving a little erratic because they're holding their phone with one hand, gesturing with the other, and not paying attention to what's going on around them.
I feel bad for this guy, but I fear he's probably screwed, since he broke the law in doing this. If someone had needed to call 911 near him that wouldn't have worked out well.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm inclined to agree. Even if one accepts his arguments, what he did is essentially a form of vigilantism, up to and including the strong risk of not ending well.
Re: (Score:3)
If what is said in the summary is true, we're past the point of a "strong risk" of it not ending well and are well into that being a reality. Apparently, this genius radio engineer was also causing interference for the two-way radio systems used by first-responders.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't feel bad for him at all.
He's just lucky he's not holding an FCC license of some kind (amatuer radio or a business license) or he wouldn't be getting off with such a small fine. (Wouldn't surprise me if he also ended up barred from holding such licenses, but there's nothing in TFA that says that.) Especially since he was also causing interference in the public saftey bands.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was jemming the cell tower. The regular denial of service was noticed and investigated. Towers service an area beyond the street.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, TECHNICALLY it's safer when there are people using cellphones because they naturally drive slower than traffic. And slowing down traffic mea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does. At least, it means more distance is covered during your reaction time, which is the same thing as driving slower and having an impaired reaction time due to not paying attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does. At least, it means more distance is covered during your reaction time, which is the same thing as driving slower and having an impaired reaction time due to not paying attention.
Those aren't even close to the same thing.
Increased speed shortens reaction time because you close the distance faster.
Not paying attention shortens reaction time because you've got your head up your ass and you're not paying attention.
World of difference between the two situations.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a gross oversimplification.
I think I'll wait until one of the folks making dubious claims about the confluence of result from increased speed vs decreased attention actually posts some verifiable, empirical data before I start talking in definites.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I find the digital screen display radio/gps/etc in my new car way more distracting. Trying to change stations, look at the map for directions etc has almost killed me twice now. They are at least as dangerous as my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I find the digital screen display radio/gps/etc in my new car way more distracting. Trying to change stations, look at the map for directions etc has almost killed me twice now. They are at least as dangerous as my phone.
And how distracting would it be if your phone connection breaks up in the middle of an important conversation? Obviously you shouldn't be talking on the phone anyway, but I could imagine that someone who loses the connection would act even more distracted and stupid than normally. And if he was driving on the motorway, lots of people on phones coming towards would have that distraction for a short time.
Re:You know ... (Score:5, Insightful)
He's screwed because he's a complete moron. He's just another asshole with anger management issues and/or delusions of grandeur who decided to grant himself law enforcement powers. Not only did he block cellphones but, apparently, he was also interfering with the radio communications of first-responders. It'd be like someone driving up onto a busy sidewalk for a chance to get photographic evidence of someone jaywalking...
Re:You know ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your second sentence is correct, but part of the social contract wherein citizens forgo taking the law into their own hands is effective law enforcement. Nearly every time you see citizens resort to vigilante justice, it's due to a lack of effective law enforcement.
Re: (Score:3)
Nearly every time you see citizens resort to vigilante justice, it's due to a lack of effective law enforcement.
Talk to a black man of a certain age and he will remind you that law enforcement was often deeply corrupted and very much a part of the vigilante justice of his time. Look closely at the vigilantes of any era and you aren't likely to like what you see.
Re: You know ... (Score:2)
Batman works because he's among the smartest people on Earth and makes far fewer mistakes than a justice system. But most self-styled vigilantes are idiots (same with your lynchmob).
Both vigilantism and one-size-fits-all regulations are bad approaches. The owner of this road should simply charge a premium fare for those who use a phone on his road while driving. The excess fares can fund insurance to internalize the risk costs to potential victims, but the net effect would be dramatically lower usage an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting but it's been proven that multitasking is a myth [npr.org] so operating a vehicle and a cell phone are mutually exclusive activities. Do one or the other but not both.
Re:You know ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Statistics and facts don't agree with you:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/texting-bans-dont-reduce-crashes-effects-are-slight-crash-increases [iihs.org]
Numbers don't lie. Think about what you are advocating. In South Carolina a texting ban was just approved. Anyone that gets into any minor accident now can have their entire cellphone bill accessed to verify they weren't texting. We just created the lowest bar ever for a court to approve access to cellphone records by local police. I can't even imagine what would happen if they wanted to see your Google Talk or iChat logs to verify you weren't using them.
Re:You know ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I honestly think that texting and cell phone bans are just using the "third brake light" effect. To get what I'm talking about, cars made before a certain year (I forget exactly when this was) only had two brake lights, one on each side of the rear of the car. Then, one year, the federal government decreed that all cars made that year and in the future needed to have a third brake light, the theory being that the third light would reduce accidents by making it more obvious when a driver was braking.
The year that regulation went into effect, there was a significant drop in the number of accidents nation-wide. The numbers increased but were still lower than normal for each of the next three or so years, and then suddenly all of the benefit from the third brake light was gone and accidents were back up to normal numbers. Most people who have studied it believe the reason was that the third brake light was something strikingly different from what people were used to, and caused them to pay more attention to the lights - but then people got used to it and the benefits of the third brake light went away.
The same thing is apparent with texting-while-driving laws. Accidents go down a little when the law is first enacted, then go back up afterward.
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree with you IF the intention of those laws were truly about safety. They are not. It is all about revenue. In my state of WV the cell phone ban went into effect last year. It is a primary offense, meaning they can pull you over just for that, with fines starting at $200 for the first offense and increasing from there for subsequent offenses. And of course, like any other moving violation, your insuran
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure you can get away with inspecting your car only once, when you buy it, even still in New Hampshire. They are probably not the only state. Don't know about liability insurance, but I don't know if I'd want to drive (or walk, or even be near a road) in a place where individuals were allowed to wing around a half ton of metal at 50+MPH without carrying some automotive liability insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of places don't require vehicle inspection, the one time I've had to have mine done was when I was living in a major city otherwise I've been on the road 15 years without requiring an inspection (WI outside of Milwaukee and Iowa).
As for insurance... you're driving a 2 ton chunk of metal at 70 mph, I see no problem requiring that you be able to pay for your portion of potential damages in the event that you cause an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're on to something here. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been seeing too many vehicles with flashing lights lately that didn't used to have them, from school buses and garbage trucks to mall cops. It's making true emergency vehicles, such as police/fire/ambulance not stand out as much as then used to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You know ... (Score:2)
If he used the jammer selectively, when he was next to a distracted driver, that would one thing. But he left it running all the time. That's going too far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also agree with the guy in principle, but there are two big problems with how he went about it:
Re: (Score:2)
I am definitely not defending that he did it, or how he did it.
But, from what I can tell, people are simply not going to stop using their phones while driving without a lot more enforcement and penalties.
I figure places where this is illegal could generate huge revenues (and hopefully start to effect change) by much more aggressively enforcing the bans.
I totally agree what he did was illegal, stupid, and dangerous. But I also can't help but notice the sheer number of drivers who are on their phones and dri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So passengers aren't allowed to use their phones? Police/fire/ambulance drivers shouldn't be able to use their two-way radios? I can't make a call, possibly an emergency call, on the side of the road?
There is nothing to agree with him about because he was potentially jamming all sorts of perfectly legal communications.
Don't feel bad for him (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't say I disagree with why he did it
I disagree with why he did it. He could have easily jammed 911 calls, ambulance transmissions to hospitals, law enforcement, first responder requests/communications, etc. Not to mention all the people he blocked who were not driving, i.e. passengers. He unilaterally decided that his needs were more important than everyone else's. As far as I'm concerned he should see some jail time in addition to a huge fine. This is not a small deal.
From what I can tell, at any given time a huge fraction of drivers are either texting, or holding onto their phone and talking.
That's true but it doesn't give anyone the right to go all vigilante about the problem.
I feel bad for this guy,
I don't. He's a self indulgent asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, in many many places I could stand on a sidewalk and successfully do this. Hell, I strongly suspect in most places I could do this. Pretty much any busy intersection from what I've been able to see.
Give me $50 for every picture I can get with a face and a license plate and a cell phone ... and I could probably make several thousand dollars in an hour without even trying very hard
Re: (Score:2)
You know, in many many places I could stand on a sidewalk and successfully do this. Hell, I strongly suspect in most places I could do this. Pretty much any busy intersection from what I've been able to see.
Give me $50 for every picture I can get with a face and a license plate and a cell phone ... and I could probably make several thousand dollars in an hour without even trying very hard.
And, failing that, have a police office standing there doing the same thing, mailing out tickets, and taking points off people's licenses.
If many accidents are now caused by distracted drivers, and it's trivial to find places where you can stand there and watch people on cell phones while driving ... do something about it.
A lawyer did this in Copenhagen, DK, and while he didn't receive any money for it, he did receive numerous threats ...
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, then, as I said, let the police do the exact same thing.
See how threatening a police officer works out for you.
I'm simply saying that it is literally trivial to be able to find places where you can identify a large amount of people doing this.
Which means if you make the penalties meaningful enough, it should be trivial to fine a lot of people, and if you write your laws correctly, have people eventually lose their license.
But from what I can tell, being able to pick a few places where this is easy to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...the people who have accidents while using the phone, have just as many accidents without it.
You didn't back up your argument. I'll back up the counter-argument -
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/files/Driving-While-Using-Cell-Phone-as-Dangerous-as-Driving-While-Drunk.html#.U6mvI7G9a1w
https://www.vtti.vt.edu/featured/052913-cellphone.html
You're a danger to yourself and others. Please, drive responsibly and stop pretending to be a victim.
Re: (Score:3)
If that passenger was calling 911 for a firetruck as their car was on fire, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying.
You guys lead way more exciting lives than I do....
Re: (Score:2)
Seems contrary... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems contrary... (Score:5, Insightful)
That there is the problem with vigilanteism. It's fueled by emotional reaction which is almost never coupled strongly with rational thought.
Dumb Ass (Score:2)
Randomize. Have the thing be on every third day or for 20 minutes then off or some other timer. Even a toggle switch on the dash so it could be turned on when "needed" vs always on. They will find you if it's always on.
[John]
Use a dash cam, not a jammer. (Score:5, Insightful)
But he could could have bought one of those russian style dash cams. Mounted it on near the roof line, looking sideways and downwards. May be two such cams on either side of the vehicle. Record it continuously and report the actual distracted drivers, along with the video footage to police. Or without even going to police upload them into some kind of YouTube channel and shame them into compliance. When they see how seriously long, their "momentary" glance at the texts, the distance covered when they were distracted, most sane people will feel compelled to comply. After all, 99.9% of the people do come to full stop at stop signs even when there is no other vehicle is in sight, without any one policing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't underestimate addictiveness of "always connected" lifestyle and power to rationalize away your bad decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have obviously never driven in South Florida.
Believe it or not, the black letter of Florida law does NOT require that drivers unconditionally come to a complete stop at stop signs. That doesn't mean a cop can't give a ticket, but it does mean you're likely to prevail at getting it dismissed in court if you hire an attorney and the police officer can't compellingly demonstrate that you put a specific person in non-theoretical danger.
What's worse than drivers using their phones? (Score:4, Insightful)
... drivers trying to troubleshoot their phones. If you've ever been in the car with someone trying to reboot their phone, re-sync bluetooth, change their map destination, etc... you know they are more dangerous than anyone talking - I wonder how many inadvertent accidents his jammer caused.
Re: (Score:3)
I can hear the ambulance-chaser ads now:
This remembers me what happened years ago... (Score:5, Funny)
CB radio drivers, whenever they spotted this car type in the London traffic, drove close to it, honked at the poor driver to get his attention, and then showed him their hand pressing the push-to-talk button of the transceiver...
Re: (Score:3)
RF Melting His BRAIN! (Score:2)
You gotta wonder how many watts his jammer was putting out if it was able to affect a cell phone tower than was several hundred feet away if not further. There are 100-watt mobile models available.
I'm not one of those people who think the minuscule power a cell phone puts out is going to rot your brain from occasional use but I've got to imagine that lots of watts in close proximity at that frequency can't be good. Especially daily for two years.
Oddly enough, using this RF calculator [hintlink.com], seems to show no safet
Re:In other news (Score:4, Funny)
In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong.
By jamming their phones, drivers are more likely to look down at their phones wondering why the hell their calls isn't going through, making them MORE likely to cause an accident.
Captcha = reckless
Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoever uses the phone while driving will try 2-3 times and have his eyes on the phone longer as opposed as having the other side answer and him talking and leat looking in front of him.
Yes, I know the attention span of someone talking on the phone and driving is the same as someone who's drunk, but still it must beat not looking at the road.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
It is illegal to cause harmful emissions (jamming)
If legality was all people cared about... (Score:3)
...this wouldn't be a story. The law did it's job and the man was fined, but there isn't a news article for every parking ticket.
The reason this is interesting is because the ethics of this part of the law are in question.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
In Florida, only for text messaging. They don't ban hand-helds or cell phones.
See http://www.drivinglaws.org/flo... [drivinglaws.org]
Also, officers don't pull you over simply because you are on the phone, they only enforce it if they catch you doing something else at the same time.
Re: In other news (Score:3)
Every heard of hands free devices? Usually its implemented via Bluetooth.
I'm my car I can press a button on the wheel, say "Call Wife Mobile" and it will call my wifes mobile phone. Never seeing or touching my phone.
I live in Saskatchewan, Canada. We ridiculously harsh penalties when it comes to "distracted driving" (their words). I haven't heard of any province or state that has banned using your phone through a hands free device.
The claim that using a cellphone while driving is dangerous stems completely
Re: In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Which given enough time will do absolutely zero for accidents. The problem isn't the handsfree, it is the fact you have someone paying more attention to what is being said on the other side of the phone call than actually what is happening around them. Driving should take up 100% of your attention.
Re: (Score:2)
So we shouldn't have kids in a vehicle or speak to the passengers then?
Re: (Score:3)
No. Passenger conversations differ substantially from cell phone conversations, and prove far less distracting. [distraction.gov]
Re: In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then we should ban all conversation inside the vehicle period. Sounds like a nanny state utopia to me.
Re: In other news (Score:4, Funny)
He said he called his wife. He wasn't paying attention.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim that using a cellphone while driving is dangerous stems completely from the action of taking your hand(s) off the wheel, and eyes off the road. This is exactly what bluetooth hands free systems are designed for, and exactly why they are including it in more and more vehicles
Actually, there have been a number of studies that show it's the distraction of talking on the cell phone that is dangerous and using a headset does little to reduce that danger.
Re: (Score:3)
Fines like that don't stop Americans. Passing laws where the officer can punch you in the face, THAT will stop people from doing it. we are some of the stupidest people on the planet, we can't connect financial fines with our behavior, but physical pain will connect just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Hands-free sets don't help (or drinking from a travel mug while driving, for example, would have been banned long ago). The conversation with a party not in the vehicle is what is causing the problems. Note also that passenger conversations differ substantially from cell phone conversations, and prove far less distracting. [distraction.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like most states ban texting while driving but talking on the cellphone while driving is legal in many areas.
Re:Guy is a moron (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the first part of your comment, and came here to say almost the same thing. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
The second part makes you seem like a moron. Seriously, losing access to your e-toy for a minute or two is worth killing over? Get a grip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Guy is a moron (Score:4, Funny)
I heard this one kid once started a thermonuclear war, just because he was looking for a BBS to play games on.
It all ended up OK in the end though after tic-tac-toe proved that all conflict is pointless.
How about a nice game of chess?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Either way, though, it's typical of the stand your ground mentality.
Re: (Score:2)
Your interacting with other members of the gene pool makes you a member, if not directly, because you influence the success of the other members.
Even if you're dead, you still have a lasting influence.
Re: Guy is a moron (Score:3)
I'll see your random AC comment and raise you one Pol Pot.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider this: A driver who does not receive texts will not check their texts.
That's true. Sadly a driver that attempts to call 911 from a ditch will wonder what's up.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but then again all those folks who's calls get dropped are now distracted by trying to figure out what's going on, or reconnect. Not everyone has a fancy voice-command system to help out with that.
Re: (Score:3)
If this sounds like a typical firearm owner to you, you don't know many. Most you will never even know own a firearm.
Re:Castle Doctrine Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
And if he drove past an accident and interrupted a 911 call? Man fuck you.
Re:Castle Doctrine Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
he was acting in self defense to prevent an idiot driving while on a cell phone from causing an accident
"The signal is bad around these parts... let's switch to message chat !"
This is a prime example of why we have societies, laws and regulations - in this case those designed to stop mobile phone usage. Going for an individual solution quickly devolves into mayhem: thousands of bystanders affected, emergency calls interrupted, and probably not a single accident prevented.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. We can have people go ape shit because ONE problem isn't being resolved by the authorities or people are being unreasonable. IMHO it's easier to just lower your window and nicely tell them they are causing danger for other drivers and should consider getting a blue tooth device. Sure some will tell you to go F yourself but some will think twice before picking up the phone.
Local maximums = Global minimums (Score:5, Insightful)
All he has to do is claim he was acting in self defense to prevent an idiot driving while on a cell phone from causing an accident around him.
There is a saying we have in manufacturing that "local maximums make global minimums". Just because it is optimal for one part of the system doesn't mean it is globally optimal. His jamming activities could easily interfere with 911 or emergency broadcasts or ambulance transmissions or cell phones that have nothing to do with anyone driving. He's basically deciding unilaterally that his needs should be placed ahead of everyone else's. It's self indulgent and potentially dangerous. We regulate the airwaves and how people can use them for VERY good reasons. Reasons that are much more important than his little temper tantrum.
Re: (Score:2)
I want a mobile version for my bicycle, so that people, you know, will want to kill me all the time.
FTFY :-)
Re: (Score:2)
A cyclist using a phone will only kill himself. For others, just some bumper damage. At worst he'll ram another cyclist, rarely serious in practice.
Incorrect statement. [kqed.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I want a mobile version for my bicycle, so that people, you know, will refrain from trying to kill me all the time.
Do you have any suggestions for what to do about cyclists who are jabbering on their phone via bluetooth while they ride? Or who are having their texts read to them? Or who are wobbling along at 10mph using an entire lane with a 45mph limit, as they fiddle with their handlebar-mounted smartphone's You Are Fabulous, Look How Fit You Are! app? Or those that weave through slow moving cars in order to beat them to a red light so they can scoot across the intersection against the light when they think they can
Re: (Score:2)
Having texts read to them? Just yesterday I saw a bicyclist on the road (in a bicycle lane, but still near traffic) texting with one hand while pedaling. Of course, she also wasn't wearing a helmet.
I'm hoping to get back into biking soon (it's really good exercise), but if I feel the need to text someone, I'll pull my bike to a safe spot, stop, text the person, and start up again. Otherwise, all focus will be on my surroundings, not my electronic gizmo.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any suggestions for what to do about cyclists who are jabbering on their phone via bluetooth while they ride? Or who are having their texts read to them? Or who are wobbling along at 10mph using an entire lane with a 45mph limit, as they fiddle with their handlebar-mounted smartphone's You Are Fabulous, Look How Fit You Are! app?
Bumper tag.
bicyclists are why I don't ride a bicycle (Score:3, Insightful)
If you pretentious jerks would follow the rules of the road Instead of doing things like: splitting lanes with cars, especially when they're stopped at a traffic control; riding next to your buddies in the car lane when you have a perfectly good bike lane; and completely ignoring traffic controls creating situations that would get a motorist killed if they tried that in a car; you might not think people were trying to kill you.
It always shocks me when I see one whose actually following the rules of the roa
Re:bicyclists are why I don't ride a bicycle (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like littering, middle land hogs and people who don't recycle. That doesn't mean I get to go around breaking laws to try and punish them for it and nor should it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to understand tantrums. It's not about maximizing your score. It's about lowering someone else's, and some personal sacrifice can be justified if that leads to further suffering for the adversary.
It's perfectly fine to take the possible safety hit of your adversary getting confused and colliding with you, because even though it poses
Re: (Score:3)
Well, let's look at this carefully. You can get weather from NOAA (162.5xx mHz). At least in my neck of the woods, you can also get EAS warnings from them.
So now, that jamming system is looking quite a bit more attractive, no?