Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

France Legalizes Mobile Phone Jamming 93

Posted by timothy from the emp-would-be-more-permanent dept.
Metrollica writes: "Wired has reported that France has become the first country to legalize mobile phone jamming in public much to the support of the citizens. A quote from the article indicates that jamming will 'make it impossible to make or receive calls, voice mails and text messages on a mobile telephone.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

France Legalizes Mobile Phone Jamming More

France Legalizes Mobile Phone Jamming

Comments Filter:
  • that I actually agree with France on something. We need this in America, where any inconsiderate jerk with a cellphone can make or receive a call in the middle of a theatre, a church, a funeral, etc.

    Flame on.
    • Because we all know that a primary role of government is to prevent people from being annoyed...

      • The government is not preventing people from being annoyed. They are making it possible for business owners, etc. to prevent their customers from being annoyed by other customers. This is a very important distinction. They are basically formally granting more rights to its citizens. I wish the US would follow their example. The one stipulation I would suggest is that cell phones can only be jammed where hard-wired phones are readily available in case of emergency and the jammers can be easily and quickly disabled by their owners in the event of an emergency.
        • Good point.

          However, what about someone who is "on call" and would only expect such a call in an emergency. It is now incumbent upon that person to make sure at any given time that his or her phone is not being jammed.

          I mean, how precise can jamming be. Let's say "L'Escargot Snoote" decides to jam cell phones. What if someone is sitting the coffee shop ("Joyvah Jahvah" for instance) and his or her phone is being jammed without him or her realizing or perhaps even the employees of the coffee shop realizing it?

          If it were possible to precisely block signals within the exact confines of one business, then I suppose I would have no argument with the idea, but I seriously doubt that it possible.

          • Mobile phones aren't intended to be mission critical communications devices. They have no liability for missed calls or no service. I could just as easily lose service by driving into a tunnel, behind a hill, or just into one of the many dead zones around town. If somebody really didn't want to be disturbed, they could just as thoroughly block calls by putting their theater or restaurant underground or behind heavy concrete walls.
            • But wouldn't it be great, if one day, perhaps, mobile phones *could* be mission critical devices. Your argument is garbage. You're saying "hey mobile phones aren't very reliable anyway, so how could it hurt to make it less reliable?"
              • I'd rather mobile phones never became "mission critical" for the .001% of the population that needs this stuff, since (by my guess) 1/2 the population wants the right to be able to jam them, or to frequent places which jam them.

                That tells me that the surgeons-on-call, off duty Hazmat workers, and Delta force team members should use more reliable devices, even if it means carrying an extra gadget on your belt. That, or avoid certain parts of town when they are on call.

          • However, what about someone who is "on call" and would only expect such a call in an emergency. It is now incumbent upon that person to make sure at any given time that his or her phone is not being jammed.

            Here's a thought.

            Make jammers legal, but require their presence be noted, make cellphones capable of detecting the jamming (doesn't have to be all phones, just has to be available), and jammer operators are required to turn them off for some period of time (say three hours) when requested by people with a bona-fide reason for doing so (emergency personnel, people awaiting transplants, etc.)

            Alternatively, make it a requirement that cellphones have a way to be forced into silent ring mode, and make devices that transmit the signal to make them do so available. The weakness of this approach is that older phones that ignore the signal will be around for a while, and obnoxious people will probably make a market for phones that ignore the signal.
    • How about a simple "vibrate-only or off, talk in the lobby" (and make that for regular conversation as well -- good luck) policy? If a phone rings, ask the customer to leave, same as you would if he were talking too loudly to the guy next to him.

      Otherwise, you've lost my business. I chose my phone precisely because it has a silent mode.

      Now if they could jam babies...

      • Quoth the thingy:
        Now if they could jam babies...

        that's easier than jamming cell phones, all it requires is a roll of duct tape and someone to distract the parent(s).

        Cell phones are almost jammed where i work (in the US) because somebody keeps tweeking the transcevers for our laser tag system. that combined with the emf from all the other machines in the arcade positioned so the "peak noise arc" from the games all overlap to drown out the floor noise if you aren't behind a counter or directly infornt of a game

        the combined result is a weak signal and a conversation that's almost impossible to hear outside of the employee areas

        *insert ominous music here*

  • Might this push bluetooth-like capabilities? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dschuetz ( 10924 ) <david&dasnet,org> on Monday March 25, 2002 @11:57AM (#3221846)
    The main reason for people wanting things like this is to keep people's phones from ringing in the middle of, say, a movie. They say that bluetooth technologies will help prevent things like that from happening, by having the theater automatically put all phones into "silent" ring mode when you walk in. Or so one hopes.

    Might things like this eventually push broader acceptance of thse kinds of features? Or will it just piss off everyone? (I know it'd piss me off, if I were in a profession where I relied on a remote page for, say, something life-threatening. I know I already take efforts to mute my pilot and turn off my phone when I go into a theater...)

    Another classic example of punishing the innocent because of the abuses of a few jerks.
    • The problem is always the same, some people should have certain privilges, medical personel and emergency people come to the mind. The issue, is this should be a privilege (like driving a car with blue lights).

      I have no problem with a medic getting a phone-call in a cinema. The problem is, I can bet that 99% of the guys using portables loudly in public places do not fall into this category. On the other hand, I don't know if people who really can be called for an emergency actually rely on off-the shelf, civilian portable phones, when they are in public places, or is this a myth (I have no idea, just wondering).

      The core issue, is of course, a social problem: keeping you phone on in a public place is impolite. Solving the problem in the social context basically fails because social pressure is low and important people can break such social rules.

      Of course everybody is important. Medical people must be reachable, and firemen, and policemen, and the technician monitoring critical systems (most systems are critical in one way or another), and any mother or father with young children and the CEO of any company which might go enron, and his secretary, and their psychiatrist.
      Heck if anybody is unimportant enough so that he does not to need to be reachable at any time, he probably cannot afford to got to the cinema...

      Trying to solve a social problem with a technical solution generally fails. If such a bluetooth solution would be implemented, everybody would bypass it. The guy you think is a jerk thinks he is important.

      A social and low-tech solution would be to use the jammer and require people that need to be reachable to give their gismo at the entrance. There, the device is monitored by some guy. If a signal arrives, the guy searches the person. This would solve the technical problem (getting the information) and the social problem (medics will not objet to this, jerks will).

    • Re:Might this push bluetooth-like capabilities? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by OneFix ( 18661 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @02:26PM (#3223036)
      (I know it'd piss me off, if I were in a profession where I relied on a remote page for, say, something life-threatening.

      Ok, lets think this through...First off, it mentions "mobile phones" specifically, and while it might be obvious that any existing technology would also effect pagers, it's not exactly imposible to jam ONLY cell phones...or better yet, only allow certain phones to work...(what keeps Motorolla from designing a "Medical Use Only" pager that won't be jammed by these devices).

      The other thing is, if a cell phone or a pager is being jammed, the device should tell the user ("Out Of Range" or "No Service" message) and you can make a CHOICE to either stay at that establishment (and face the possible consequences), or in the case of a movie theater...simply walk up to the manager before your movie starts and say "I would like my money back...I'm a doctor and I can't stay here because my pager is being jammed". Or if you are seeing a movie, call your hospital and leave the number of the theater with them...

      If this happens with enough ppl, then they might disable the jamming equipment or what is more likely the case, this becomes yet another reason why you are generally paid more money for being put on pager duty.

      Then again, I know that parametics and doctors can carry walkie-talkies that are activated by a base station in a car...this is pretty much the same technology as police use.
      • The other thing is, if a cell phone or a pager is being jammed, the device should tell the user ("Out Of Range" or "No Service" message) and you can make a CHOICE to either stay at that establishment (and face the possible consequences), or in the case of a movie theater...simply walk up to the manager before your movie starts and say "I would like my money back...I'm a doctor and I can't stay here because my pager is being jammed". Or if you are seeing a movie, call your hospital and leave the number of the theater with them...

        Yes! Great idea. Every mobile phone I've ever used says "no service" in big letters when it can't get a usable signal, so no one can complain they didn't know their phone was being blocked. They can then make a CHOICE to not go to that establishment when they are on call, or make alternative arrangements, as you suggest.

      • The one that gets me is people who don't turn their phone off in church. Now, I understand its easy to forget to turn the thing off, but then they answer it and procede to have a conversation, in church! While I respect everyone's decision of religion, what kind of person decides to attend church but then that whom ever is on the other end of the phone is more important than God.
      • "Or if you are seeing a movie, call your hospital and leave the number of the theater with them..."

        Which will come in handy if the ER needs to hear the recording of which movies are showing when, but otherwise...

        I've worked movie theaters before, and no, they probably don't have another phone line.

        • they probably don't have another phone line.

          Actually, I don't know of a theater that doesn't have at least 2 phone lines. All of the theaters I know of have the standard line (listed in the phone book) and an unlisted line...

          The reason...they have to have a manager, and the manager or an assistant is always on site...they need a line for emergencies and incase a corporate office or a distributor needs to get in touch. And trust me, if they are going to install cell phone jamming equipment, they will have a phone line where you can get a real person.

          And don't tell me they don't need a line for emergencies...incomming or outgoing...even automatic fire alarms need a phone line to connect to...
          • You don't know just how cheap movie theater owning companies are, do you?
            • I'm not sure which theaters you're talking about, but all of the ones I've been to have phones incase of emergency or simply to do business. How are advertisers, employees, corporate, etc going to get in touch with the theater...then again, if it's that important, have the parametics come and pick you up...it's been done before...

              But I would guess that the kind of movie theater that would not have a phone would be the same kind that wouldn't have cell jamming equipment...

              Then again if they're that cheap, they're probably a discount/second-run movie theater, and knowing a few doctors myself...they wouldn't be caught dead in a second-run theater...
      • The other thing is, if a cell phone or a pager is being jammed, the device should tell the user ("Out Of Range" or "No Service" message) and you can make a CHOICE to either stay at that establishment (and face the possible consequences)....
        Amen and hallelujah. Let the market sort it out. Those who want jamming will get it, and those who don't won't.

        After all, was cellular reception EVER guaranteed at ANY indoor establishment? If I own a restaurant and I decide to put extra seating in a basement level, cell service is going to suck down there. Is that "jamming"? Most of the dorms at my university get horrible radio, TV, and cellular reception, but there's no "jamming". If you're a doctor on call, you need to be careful about what buildings you frequent, jamming or no jamming.
    • Having auto-silent mode helps... but doesn't completely solve the problem. Some folks will feel the vibrating ring in the movie theater... AND ANSWER THE PHONE AND START A CONVERSATION.

      I've said it elsewhere attached to a different article - first movie theater that blocks cell phone ringers and conversation and ejects patrons whose phone goes off during the show gets ALL my moviegoing dollars. I'll pay extra and drive across town.

      The alternative is violence, and I predict an outbreak of violence against cell users in movie theatres within the next two years. I myself have been close to the point of violence, and I don't consider myself a violent person.

    • "automatically put all phones into "silent" ring mode"

      Eh? How will that help? I dont want people using their phones in cinemas period. If it doesnt ring, but they still talk on them, how has that helped?

  • Good riddance (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Deagol ( 323173 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @12:03PM (#3221879) Homepage
    I wish they'd do that here in the States. I'm so sick of people yapping on their cell-phones, mostly trying to appear self-important. And don't give me the "emergency" argument -- we survived just fine in the pre-cellphone era.

    Having been a cell-phone user for the past 6 years, I still don't understand why anyone must talk to someone everywhere they go. I mostly keep my (employer-issued) phone off. If I must call anyone, I wait until I park the car and discreetly talk in the car. For the most part, if I'm not at my home or my office, I can't be reached and I like it that way. If I didn't use a modem, I wouldn't have a home phone at all.

    I just wish someone would invent an "oxygen jamming" device, so I don't have to pass through clouds of noxious cigarette fumes on the sidewalk. That, and a "screaming child jammer". :)

    • what about an emergency person getting paged? Let's say an ER doctor goes to the movies. At the same time a patient arrives at his hospital in a life threatening condition. He's the only one with the expertise to save this person's life. The person dies because the nurse cant call the doctor's cell phone thanks to a jammer in the theater.

      but i like the idea of a "cigarette smoke jammer" to weed out cigarette smoke and odor from the front of buildings.

      • Re:Good riddance (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        There should be a separate frequency available for emergency traffic. Calls to/from 911, etc. Make jammers on that frequency illegal.
      • Doctors, by career choice, must make certain sacrifices. My father is a dentist for the Army. I remember when he used to take shifts on call, in case there was an emergency after hours. While they eventually got pagers, before that he simply stayed at home for that night/weekend.

        Seemed to be part of the job.

        • that's true. doctors was probably a bad example. but illustrates the point of why jamming can be bad.

        • What is so wrong with doctors wanting to lessen the impact of their chosen profession on their personal lives? Sacrifice, in and of itself, is no virtue.

        • You're really oversimplifying the issue. It's not just the case of a doctor having to stay out of the jammed theater when he's on call. Maybe he's a specialist that never knows when he might be needed. Maybe he works in an emergency room, and might be called in whenever there's a surplus of bleeding bodies.

          And there's not just doctors, mind you. Elevator repair people. People with rare blood types who carry pagers in case they have to give a transfusion in a hurry. People who are responsible for disabled relatives, who've hired a temporary caregiver so they can take a night off. Anybody who others are depending on, and just need to be available.

          I hate distractions in theaters. Start a conversation next to me, and you risk violent death! But I think the cell/pager issue is sufficiently addressed by asking people to put them on vibrate. (And to go out into the lobby. Cell calls don't all need to be answered that very second -- an insight that would prevent quite a few traffic accidents.) Making theaters off limits to whole groups of people is an excessive response.

          There's also the problem of blocking pages and calls to people who just happen to be near a theater!

          • And there's not just doctors, mind you. Elevator repair people. People with rare blood types who carry pagers in case they have to give a transfusion in a hurry. People who are responsible for disabled relatives, who've hired a temporary caregiver so they can take a night off. Anybody who others are depending on, and just need to be available.

            What did all these people do BEFORE cell phones and pagers? Answer: they stayed somewhere they could be reached.

            Let's be honest, phones in movie theatres are a new problem, say, in the last 10 years.

            Surely people who must be urgently reached in all cases can make other arrangements, just like they did prior to 1980. Examples:

            Leave the number of the theatre with a babysitter, stay home when a fast response might be needed, check in periodically once not in the theater.

      • Doctors tend to use pagers, which work on different frequencies (most of them, at least).

        You can block mobile phones and not pagers.
        Mobile phones have little coverage outside of a city, or in some difficult environments (subway, big buildings, EM interference), while pagers work practically everywhere (maybe not underwater), so people who must be available for life-or-death matters are usually given pagers.

    • Re:Good riddance (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by CtrlPhreak ( 226872 )
      Why don't we get rid of everything new and apparently annoying to somebody. We don't need computers, everyone got along fine without them. We don't need cars, who would ever want to leave their neighborhood? TV, radio, phones, planes, all these new fangled gadgets are annoying to someone and should be banned, fuck our freedom to innovate. Why, of we didn't have technology, we wouldn't have to worry about all this digital rights bs. We'd all be a lot better living only with our family in a cave chasing after the animals with a spear. Oh wait, that spear's technology too, get rid of it. I hate technology. I hate people, I hate freedom.

      • Re:Good riddance (Score:2, Interesting)

        by 0xB ( 568582 )
        On the other hand, why does everything new have to become so ubiquitous?
        Just because we can communicate so easily, this doesn't mean the privelege should mutate into a right so quickly and easily.
        • It's always annoying at first before
          1. we get used to the new additions to the noises of life,
          2. we get used to having our gadgets and don't use them where inappropriate.
          Here in the Czech Republic (central Europe), a few years ago, you could hear cellphones ring everywhere around you. Now, while still quite annoying, it has subsided, even though there are many many more cellphones around. We'll just have to be patient.

          Oh, and don't forget to give an annoyed look to the bastard receiving a cellphone call in a movie theater, or a short "shut the fuck up!" This way they'll gradually stop.

  • Fine with me (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 0xB ( 568582 )

    I expect there will be lots of replies saying how vital cellphones are (doctors in cinemas, road accidents. etc.) to society

    Humans have survived for millions of years without cellphones. Society isn't going to disintegrate just because you can't talk to your friend 24 hours a day from every point on the globe.

    • Not good (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xenophon Fenderson, ( 1469 )

      I expect there will be lots of replies saying how unnecessary cellphones are (blabbermouths in cinemas, road accidents, etc.) to society

      Humans have survived for millions of years without cellphones. Humans have also survived for millions of years without public sanitation systems and medicine. Society isn't going to disintegrate just because you get a little annoyed with people who want to talk to their friends 24 hours a day from every point on the globe.

      • This is talking about additional technology: selective, voluntary, blocking.

        It's not trying to roll anything back -- it's adding an option for business owners to more closely control what kind of atmosphere is on their property -- like air conditioning, or no smoking signs, or sunblocks. It's a step forward -- not a step backwards.

    • Humans have also survived for millions of years without the telephone, the automobile, and the electric light. I expect there will be a lot of replies to this article from neo-Luddites who, one day, decided that everything was just OK the way it was and the old coin-op phone was the only way people should be able to talk away from home.

      Cellphones are not necessary. They are extremely useful if you are out in the middle of nowhere, don't have 0.25 (oh wait, they jacked it up to 0.35 in my area), and need to call home.

      Cellphones don't cause accidents. Stupid people do. I thought most Slashdotters would know this, but let me say it again: Legislating against tech as a way of saving people from themselves has been tried before, and it DOESN'T WORK!


  • I wish they'd do that in some restaurants around here (SF, CA Bay Area). It is quite annoying when you hear them go off while eating a nice dinner. Some restaurants discourage them but they don't stop people from using them. I hope it will be next.

    What I really want to see is a ban on driving while dialing and driving while talking without a hands free. Even though hands free is not completely safer, when you have a phone next to your ear, you usually have an arm and hand there as well and you create an even bigger blind spot than an auto driver already has. That combined with the fact that you cannot (or just don't) use your turn signals makes it impossible to figure out what you are doing on the road. This is what I see alot of and worst part is these are usually the people driving the SUV's and expensive cars.

    The GAS guzzelers. I keep seeing all these commercials about where terrorist get their money and they say it is from drugs. Osama Bin Laden got his money from OIL, which supplies the gas that goes in these big gas guzzelers, which supports terrorism. Would seem to me that these people who drive these big gas guzzelers are supporting terrorism.

    Any way it seems I have drifter a little off topic. You'd think people who don't mind spending $50 on gas a t a fillup would be able to spend the extra $30 for the hands free. Hell I got mine free. Oh I guess they have to save it for the gas to support Dick & Bush & Terrorism.

  • We have this here in Luxemburg, too at quite a few places. It is quite impossible to send/recieve short messages or calls at our local supermarket (about 4000m^2). I think they use some kind of device to interference the mobile-phone's signal. The same thing you've got when you're in an underground car-park etc... outside the building you've got full quality net.
  • Ok, so what happens when you live in an apartment in the inner city and one of the neighboring businesses decided that they wish to use this technology to make their restaurant peaceful for the customers?

    It would be reasonable for a school system to quickly adopt this technology to keep their students from using cell phones while in school, so happens to the homes that are close these schools?

    I like everyone on Slashdot think certain people should have a comet hit them for using their cell phones at the wrong place and wrong time, but I don't know about this.

    • Ok, so what happens when you live in an apartment in the inner city and one of the neighboring businesses decided that they wish to use this technology to make their restaurant peaceful for the customers?

      If we were dealing with high power or [comparatively] low frequencies, you would have a point. Frankly, the metal used in commercial buildings tends to block RF at the frequencies used by cell phones -- unless the building owners specifically take steps to make the signal available within his store.

      Jammers don't need to be powerful to be effective. When the building's walls attenuate the signal 30-40 dB already, it doesn't take much radiation inside the cage to completely mask the signal from the cell site, and result in a "No Signal" indication. Done right, it would take a handful of milliwatts to get the job done...and the same wall that attenuates incoming signals also attenuates the level of the jamming signal seen outside the building, so neighboring buildings wouldn't be affected at all.

      In the school situation you brought up in your question, the school would deploy a number of very-low-power tuned-band white-noise generators in the building so that the jamming effect would not be noticed from the parking lot or the playground, let alone at the neighbor's house or the road in front of the school.

  • Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @12:49PM (#3222182) Homepage Journal

    I have mixed feelings about this one.

    On one hand, everyone in a local area ought to have as much equal rights to the EM band for cell phone use as they have equal rights to acoustic energy bands for talking, boom boxes, etc. So that individuals have some right to low noise in movie theaters, for example.

    On the other hand, suppose that individual in the theater is getting an urgent call having to do with life-threatening events affecting a loved one?

    It's too easy to a draw a simple line that will be wrong.

    • Cell phones are a fairly recent invention. If you're in a position where being contacted is a matter of life and death its youhas meantr responsibility to make sure that you can be contacted. In the past this has meant leaving an itinerary with the persons likely to do the contacting. Parents still do this all the time, they leave contact information with the babysitter:
      • We're going to dinner at Chez McDonald's.
      • After that we're going to the 9:00 showing of "Where the Boys Aren't" at Sin City theater.


      Personally I'd prefer if people were intelligent and considerate enough to set their pager or phone to vibrate so that in an emergency they would be available. I don't see that this is happening though, either that or there's an awful lot of people having emergency calls at any given theater.

    • "On the other hand, suppose that individual in the theater is getting an urgent call having to do with life-threatening events affecting a loved one?"

      If i`m watching a film, and someone else is in that sitation, i dont give a fuck. They should make alternative arrangements, and not expect to take phone calls in a cinema/theater. And if its a call that they arent expecting, they can take it when the film is over, when they get outside. Life goes on!

  • I don't have a cell phone, but I do have a pager which I keep on "silent/vibrate" at all times. I like the fact that I can leave the kid at home with a baby-sitter, and still be reachable just about anywhere if I'm needed.

    However, if my favorite restaurant starts jamming cellphones/pagers, I'll think thrice about going there. If the price of a good meal includes being inaccessible to my child... I don't know that it's worth it.

    I have to agree with the poster who said that there should be a device which automatically sets devices to silent mode -- a comprise between accessibility and annoyance of others.

    "Commuters don't want to be stuck in a small metal capsule with people jabbering away on their mobile phones," he said.

    Poor babies! What do they do when two people are holding a loud conversation? How is a cell phone converstation different? This is a manners issue, and shouldn't be corrected with technology, but with a polite request to keep his voice down.

    zandesign said:

    We need this in America, where any inconsiderate jerk with a cellphone can make or receive a call in the middle of a theatre, a church, a funeral, etc.

    Again, a manners/behavioral issue. Ask them politely to leave. If they don't leave, kiss their ass in a precise, orderly, efficient manner. ;-)


    • Having a child is a serious responsibility. So you have a slightly smaller set of fancy restaurants to choose from? Poor baby!

      • You are correct -- a child is a serious responsibility. However, having a child doesn't mean I become a slave to my home, especially when technology enables us to remain in contact just about anywhere. The restaurant scenario was only an example. Since you fixated on that one example instead of thinking about what I said, I'll point out others for you.

        jamming:

        on the train -- now I can't take the subway

        in church -- I can't go to a service, wedding, or funeral without the kid? Would you rather I brought a screaming kid?

        in the theather -- I can't go to a movie

        Yeah, sure, I don't need movies to live; there are alternatives. However, I think business owners should recognize that they are limiting their customers if they do something like cellphone jamming.

        I've seen a few comments from people saying how we've lived fine without cellphones for centuries. Apparently, they don't see the irony in typing out that comment on a computer, which we also got along fine without for centuries.

        • However, having a child doesn't mean I become a slave to my home...

          Then get a competant babysitter! If the person can't dial 911 or handle non-threatening situations, then they have no business watching your (or anyone's) kids. If Little Johnny choked on a lambchop during dinner, and the babysitter got him to a hospitol, would the extra hour or two you couldn't be reached in a theater really matter? Not to be mean, but shit happens, and most of the time our presense doen't make any difference.

          You think my folks were slaves to their home when I was young? Hell no -- they found smart sitters. This ain't rocket science, folks.

          I've seen a few comments from people saying how we've lived fine without cellphones for centuries. Apparently, they don't see the irony in typing out that comment on a computer, which we also got along fine without for centuries.

          No irony that I see. Note that I said that I was a cell phone user myself, but I use it when appropriate. I love computers, but I would not be the least bit bothered by a "laptop jamming" device the minute laptops become an enormous bother at restaurants, etc.

          There's a big difference with using technology and being an behaving like an idiot with technology. Like someone else pointed out, this is indeed a manners thing. However, using technology to help isn't that bad is it? I mean, would you object to the Lucky 7 motel using tons of sound insulation to prevent you from hearing the couple next door fighting?

          All of these modern conveniences are nice. And make no mistake that most people complain about the convenient uses of them. I've yet to hear people bitch about the auto, but the complete and totally gross over-use of the auto in American society is causing problems. Likewise, cell phones are great -- I got mine after a large pothole stranded my family on the road and I had to go door-to-door for a phone -- but I don't use them in theaters, restaurants, on the bus, or at the grocery store. I see no problems with the jamming technology.

    • I like the fact that I can leave the kid at home with a baby-sitter, and still be reachable just about anywhere if I'm needed.

      Um... what exactly is the point of being accessable if you aren't near? If there's an emergency, the sitter should not be calling you--they should be calling 911, to get people who can actually help. If it's not an emergency, then there's no need for you to annoy the other people watching the movie (or whatever), right?

      --
      Benjamin Coates
      • If there's an emergency, the sitter should not be calling you--they should be calling 911

        Um... yes, obviously. However, after that, I'd like to notified that my kid is in/going to the hospital!

        If it's not an emergency, then there's no need for you to annoy the other people watching the movie (or whatever), right?

        Thus, the "silent" mode -- and I would leave the theater/whatever in any case. In this case the combination of silent mode and proper behaviour (leaving the "quiet" area) should be enough -- jamming signals is not neccessary.

    • You could always give the babysitter the number of the restaurant.
    • We're not talking about making cell phones illegal. Just a choice that a private business can make.

      You see a little sign that says "no cell phones" and make a decision as to whether to frequent that place or not. This provision just means that the sign has meaning, as opposed to being routinely ignored.

      Some people would be glad to pay extra to be in a cell phone free theater/cafe. If the number of such people is substantially higher than the number of people who rely on cell phone use, the business will be willing to spend the extra cash and install jamming technology. This gives them the choice to do it.

      This is no different than businesses which don't serve minors at all, or require certain dress codes.

      In the extremely unlikely event that all the restaurants adopt this policy, then a vast majority of your neighbors are effectively telling you that they don't want to eat with you if you have a cell phone. In that case, it's up to you to move to a place where the neighbors share your values, or adjust to the preferences of your community.

  • We all hate people and their cellphones.. we especially hate them in movie theatres or other venues where silence is of utmost importance (school, anyone ?). Now does that mean that some kludgy electronic jamming system is going to work well enough without causing too many woes to the rest of us, who are decent enough to shut the damned ringer off like we're supposed to ? I think not.

    The good old method works fine: if some jerk whips out his/her phone in the theatre, shush them. If they don't shush, then ask them politely.. and THEN if they don't comply, everyone in the theatre is welcome to pummel the worthless bastard. Two or three deaths like this, and the rest will behave. Fear works wonders.
  • I have absolutely no fucking problem with this. Regular readers of my pissed off diatribute will note that Profane Motherfucker has littler tolerance for a great many things, but a singing cell phone inspires a special bit of tooth knashing and roid rage.

    It's gotten so fucking bad lately. People bring those motherfucking phones everywhere. Even the last bastion of a little teensy bit of fucking sanity, the public library, has been raped by phones ringing and ringing -- usually some faggoty, 2 minute song.

    Here's the deal: I've seen countless cocksuckers call friends from a noisy disco and say "Where you at? What you doing?" in a 90dB voice. People that stupid, people too stupid to realize that the other party can't decipher their voice over the deafening melange of Oakenfold and screaming, are too stupid to remember to turn their phones off in the library or theater. It's that simple.

    I wouldn't mind seeing this shit installed in every fucking public venue. I don't buy that tired and trite argument that some bitches give, "Well, what if it's an emergency?" Well, better tell your gay uncle to call the bar, instead of you personally. It's not too fucking complicated, and quite frankly, thoughts of violence that violate every section of the Geneva Convention fill my head everytime I see some prissy little bitch that looks like he stepped out of an asspumping boy bad using the phone in reckless disregard of everyone else. Vive la France!
  • Rules:

    1) When in a crowd ( either eating, sports, or movies ) always turn pagers to vibrate and cell phones off ( unless they too, can be configured to vibrate ).

    2) If a call or page arrives while in a crowded place walk to the lobby or outside before placing the phone call.

    3) Finish the phone call at that place and then set it back into the quiet mode.

    --------
    I _HATE_ people talking on the phone in restaurants. I want them to get a blow up person - place the cell phone in the blow up doll and with some simple wiring talk to the blow-up doll so they can have a normal conversation at a normal level - the same as everyone else.

    And Yes, I *do* follow the rules I listed above. Even if it's freezing outside.

    Did I spell Ettiquette right?
    • Why do cell phone users in restaurants bother you (and apparently many others) so much?

      There are many cases of calls in restaurants that don't seem to be impolite. If someone's at a table by himself, why bother to get up? If he talks at normal conversational level, how is that a problem? Or suppose someone calls and wants to speak to the group since they couldn't make it. Is it rude then for each person to take a second on the phone?

      I do find it impolite when someone takes a call at the table, and makes no effort to excuse himself. Even turning away from the table can be enough though, depending on the circumstances and the length of the call.
      • I consider it rude because most people who are on a phone call don't realize the level at which they are really speaking. _You_ may think it's at a normal volume when it's really not. It's one of those chicken and egg things : you have to be outside of the conversation to really hear how loud the conversation is taking.

        I also consider it rude in a group. If a person has decided not to join the group then there is no reason they should be intruding upon the group. Telephones, are in my opinion, the nastiest piece of equipment there is. WHat other device allows people to intrude upon your personal life at someone else's whim?

        ( And before you ask, I carry a pager as part of the job requirement - not because I want to. The cell phone is normally off unless _I_ need to make a call -- I'm not going to pay for somebody to have the privlage of interrupting me whenever they feel like it. )
      • with several different answers.

        1) Suppose you are having a dinner with relatives/friends, and someone gets a call and starts a conversation at the dinner table. Does it bother you? If so, why? Does it make a difference if everyone else is also talking to another party?

        2) Suppose you are in a restaurant and someone starts combing their hair, or putting on some deoderant (discreetly, yet clumsily under their shirt). Does this bother you, and if so, why?

        My answers follow, but it all boils down to showing lack of respect.

        1) The ringing noise interupts movies, conversations, etc.

        2) talking on the phone is a private thing. If you don't believe me, then ask yourself if you would mind if a stranger asked to tap some of your calls, randomly. Private things are a taboo, and work both ways. So I, for one, feel uncomfortable listening in on someone else's call just as much as I feel uncomfortable knowing that my own phone call is being listened in on. Whether it's panhandling, farting in public, brushing your teeth, crying -- the embarassment is experienced by both the instigator and the object/witnesses. Add to this that with visual thigns you can look away, but sound is hard to hide from. And when people _voluntarily_ do a private act in public (as opposed to an involuntary fart), they become the source of anger.

        3) Partly because of 2), when someone takes a call, they are signalling to the rest of the group that their call is more important to them than what the rest of the group is doing. In addition to 2), they remove themselves from some common activity, and engage in something else -- without leaving. This offends people because it seems ostentatious.

        4) Many cell phone users are quite loud, gruff, and often talk "shop" in settings such as restaurants and recreational areas. They are often arrogant, give orders, and remind people of what they hate about VC's,managers, and other "plugged-in", self-important people. Unfortunately, in many quarters, "soccer moms" checking up on their kids are not viewed much higher than VC's. There are class/cultural issues.

        5) Those who are recreating want to get away from work and not be reminded of it. They often pay a lot of money just to experience a certain atmosphere. Using a cell phone in a crowded city street may just make someone sneer at you, but using one in an expensive restaurant makes people angry. With dimishing free time, this issue becomes more important, even if the venue is not a very expensive one.

  • so... (Score:1)

    by seann ( 307009 )
    who has some links on how to build a personal cell phone jammer that will work in small areas?
    :)

  • Already in Finland (Score:3, Informative)

    by jahalme ( 563074 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @01:17PM (#3222476) Homepage
    Hmm, the latest Sandrew-Metronome movie theater complex here in Turku, Finland already uses some kind of denial-of-service method in their theatres. As soon as I step into the theatre, my GSM phone shows the field strength drop to zero and the connection to the operator is lost.

    Couldn't find any information regarding whether this is accomplished by just making a huge Faraday cage around the theatre, actively jamming the GSM frequency spectrum or some other method.

    But anyway, it must already be legal here as it's being used, no?

  • Negative Effects (Score:3, Informative)

    by cassandy ( 557648 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @01:20PM (#3222498)
    Some one made the remark about posts talking about the vital need for cellphones. Here it is.

    Many people in the Armed Forces (active force or reserve) have to carry cell phones or pagers while they are on call. _At no time_ are they allowed to be inaccessible to both their home phone and their pager/cell phone while on call. If jamming becomes legal in Canada and the United States, it must come with a clause that all persons must be informed that their cell phone/pager has been turned off.

    In a case like in a theatre, where cell phones and pages have their signals jammed, the theatre should have to give notification that from point A to point B, there are jammers being used.

    And yes, places that do use jammers will lose buisiness from people who want to be able to get phone calls (such as some one waiting for a friend in a restaurant, a doctor watching a movie while on call, etc).

    Just my 2 cents ^-^
    • To further elaborate: there are some people who need access at all times - emergency personnel, for sure. But of what use is having the military on call 24-7, aside from special forces (who qualify as emergency personnel, IMHO)? Wouldn't leave be cancelled for specialists who might be necessary for an upcoming alert?

      If you set aside a special band for emergency and essential government personnel, then that should take care of the problem. Issue text pagers to them and do not allow civilians access to those bands.
      • Being on call in the military is just the same as being on call in any other occupation- it is done through shifts and only people on shift are placed on call (with obvious exceptions being New Years 2k and Sept 11).

        And there are lots of uses for having certain members on call during certain shifts. For instance, an AEC (Aerospace Controller) who manages a flight will need to be on call when his flight is up for duty. It's that simple. Hardly any one (except the rapid-reaction teams, such as the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry) is on call 24-7.

        That is a great example of a regular active/reserve military member who would need use of their phone while on call.

        And I do not believe that a 'special band' for emergency and esstential government personnel would work. Who is 'esstential'? The Prime Minister? The Minister of National Defence? An Air Force Major? A Member of Parliament who works from the Yukon?

    • Many people in the Armed Forces (active force or reserve) have to carry cell phones or pagers while they are on call. _At no time_ are they allowed to be inaccessible to both their home phone and their pager/cell phone while on call. If jamming becomes legal in Canada and the United States, it must come with a clause that all persons must be informed that their cell phone/pager has been turned off.

      I agree with the idea of posting (very much obviously) the use of jammers. However, if you chose a job which requires you to be contacted at any time, then you must deal with the bother of staying home or choosing your entertainment in a jam-free zone.

      And yes, places that do use jammers will lose buisiness from people who want to be able to get phone calls (such as some one waiting for a friend in a restaurant, a doctor watching a movie while on call, etc).

      Are you serious? As low of an opinion I have of the general populace, I highly doubt that most people are that anal. Here in Utah, the Clean Air Act prohibits smoking in a lot of places, including restaurants. In spite of the huge number of nicotine-additced people, reastaurants seem to be doing quite well here.

  • I don't have a problem with the use of this technology as long as it doesn't get to the point where its use is required by some local law, and as long as the jamming is limited to that one particular place.

    I would choose to frequent a movie theater the implemented a jammer, just as I choose to frequent restaurants that have a no-smoking policy over those that just stick me in the non-smoking section (which is separated from the smoking section by a 3' high wall with some plants).

    I do think that any location using the jamming solutions should be required to notify people that it's in use, though.

  • vibrate, damnit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Khopesh ( 112447 ) on Monday March 25, 2002 @03:12PM (#3223428) Homepage Journal
    this is a completely rediculous loss of rights.
    i have a cellphone and have never gone out in public with it on 'ring' ... i have it on vibrate. if i go to a movie, i leave it on. if i get a call during the movie, i check the caller and usually just turn off the ringer for the rest of the call. this way i can respond to emergencies or good friends (i would obviously leave the theater before answering).

    this is rather similar to the gagging of loud children, or even allowing the shooting of stupid people. ...sure, it would be nice, but only in third-person!

    the biggest problem with vibrating phones for most people (students and women at least) is that the phone is kept in a bag/purse ... so vibration isn't noticed. cellphone manufacturers could fix this by introducing a wristband, necklace, or wallet attachment that receives a wireless signal from the phone and vibrates (with the phone) on rings.
    • I think what we really need is some sort of standard interface to control a phones behavior beyond just "it works, it doesn't". Ferinstance... How about when you walk in the theater, the phone automatically gets set to "vibrate", and the mic/headset ONLY work in the lobby. Maybe a standard message goes out to the caller saying "the user of this phone is in a no-talk environment". That way, everyone wins. I don't have to listen to some schmuck babble about sometime stupid in the theater, but he can still waste his $8 from the movie tickets if he wants to talk through the whole movie. He just doesn't get the opportunity to waste my $8.
      • I think what we really need is some sort of standard interface to control a phones behavior beyond just "it works, it doesn't". Ferinstance... How about when you walk in the theater, the phone automatically gets set to "vibrate", and the mic/headset ONLY work in the lobby. Maybe a standard message goes out to the caller saying "the user of this phone is in a no-talk environment".

        I was thinking along those lines as well, but then realized that I don't want others to be able to change settings on my electronic devices as they see fit. ...it's an invasion of privacy. better to educate people as to why x is wrong rather than to change that x setting to y.

        your specialized response idea is good as well, and as cellphones beome more sophisticated, easily selected 'away messages' will come into fashion.

        at General Cinemas in the northeastern US, a large part of the "shut up and throw away your trash" reminder is devoted to turning off your cellphone. It works, too.
        • Odd.

          I would call disabling your phone completely 'changing settings', but that's just me I guess.

          Plus, the idea is that the change only effects you in a certain area. It doesn't change the settings on your phone except when in the theater, etc...
          • I would call disabling your phone completely 'changing settings', but that's just me I guess.

            as would i. i don't see how you saw my view as otherwise. the example of General Cinemas does not change any setting on cellphones, it just blatantly reminds you to take it off ring.
  • once a lawsuit is filed for someone's phone being jammed when they are trying to contact the police or emergency services ...
  • Instead of outright jamming the signal, create emitters that force (future) phones into 'vibrate' mode-- calls/pages/whatever will still be able to be received, but without disturbing those around the recipient.

    Now, if someone whose phone was forced into vibrate mode takes a call while sitting in the theater during the movie, then their fellow moviegoers should be allowed to freely dispense with some angry mob justice.

    And rude assholes with cellphones ARE a problem that should be dealt with severely. Last week I caught a very early matinee of "40 Days and 40 Nights"-- I was the ONLY person in the theater, until two theater employees came in and sat down for a bit, fairly far along in the film. Wouldn't you know one of the idiots had a cellphone that rang at full volume, five minutes later?

    ~Philly

Slashdot Top Deals

Where there's a will, there's an Inheritance Tax.

Close