[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Should Cell Phone Jamming be Legal? here

[mjd420nova]

Although there are very explicit laws against JAMMING cell phones, there is no mention of passive BLOCKING of cell phones. I know of one retailer that uses neon signs around the interior of their stores as a decoration but is very effective in blocking cell phone signals from penetrating the interior with any strength. This is an effect that they weren't aware of until brought to their attention by some emplyees and passed off because employees aren't supposed to be using their cell phones while working anyway. I use grounded foils placed around my routers antennas to block interference from a neighbors"N" type router and is quite effective in also preventing my routers signals from leaving the premises. Some tech savy theater owners have also employed this method of reducing signals within the theather property, thus making and taking cell phone calls very unlikely and thus less likely to disturb movie goers from being interupted by others who flaunt their rule breaking. Many hospitals have large and directly worded signs warning against cell phone usage on the premises but it really doesn't stop anyone. All manufacturers of electronic equipment must follow an FCC rule Part 15 that requires that any devices bult not radiate any RF signals above a certain strength and a specified distance from the source. This rule is meant to prevent any spurious or harmonic signals from interfering with other electronic devices but makes no mention of direct interference by any devices to prevent other device usage. Many cell phones and most of the newer cordless phones will interfere with some of the "B" & "G" type routers but there is again, no rules being broken or even slightly bent.

[Lonewaffle]

This article is ridiculous. The federal government shouldn't even have the authority to arbitrarily jam signals not belonging to them. We give the government too much power in the name of 'keeping us safe'. And the argument that they don't have the power to deny the ability to jam cell phones, I say that's a bit crazy too. We created the FCC because regulation is required in the public airwaves domain, since its frequencies that we all have to share. That's just like saying "where in the constitution does it say that I can't broadcast on the same frequency as an established radio station and just stomp them out?" I don't like government involvement, but I do think frequency management does require centralized regulation or their would be chaos. Just ask any HAM radio operator.

[gordon142]

The problem with jamming in general is that it is impossible to restrict it precisely to a certain area, and establishing a cellular network without dead zones, especially in an urban area, is a lot of work. If you let private institutions simply set up localized jamming at will, it is going to wreak havoc on the ability of people in general to make and receive calls, whether or not they are actually in an institution containing a jammer. If I can’t get a signal in my apartment because the business next door has a jammer, I’m going to be pretty mad. This is the crux of the issue: It is impossible to say just what the effect and range of jamming will be, and it runs a very high risk of preventing people from picking up legally broadcast wireless signals. Don’t even get me started on personal jammers. Why on earth should any one person on the street have the right to dictate the ability of others to receive wireless signals? What is the justification here — that people talking on cell phones are sometimes annoying? If only there was a device to block people from being annoying. I’d love a hand-held to disable the engines of drivers who refuse to give right-of-way at crosswalks. Should I be able to rip a book out of someone’s hand, or to reach over and turn off someone’s laptop on the bus just, because they annoy me? The fact that jamming does not require physical contact with the target does not make it any more acceptable to hinder someone else’s lawful use of a personal possession in a public space.
Now, there is an argument to be made for the temporary use of jammers in life or death situations, and I do think federal, state, and local government should have the ability to deploy jamming in emergencies, provided the proper regulations are in place. (I.e., deployment should always be an administrative decision — no cops carrying hand-helds.) But under no circumstances should permanent jamming be put into effect, and jamming technology has no place in private hands.
Regarding prisons specifically, I’m a lot more interested in why it is seemingly so easy for prisoners to get their hands on phones. I would much rather see improved prison security in general as opposed to a technological solution to a single aspect of a bigger issue.

[Hichardo]

I prefer technology to help do alot with very little work

I use a PDA while shopping

and people get upset that I clog up the aisles

well too bae I want convinence

so I use technology to benefit me and help me make better money

[number6]

The author is right when he says it's a State issue, not a Federal one.

[monalott]

People like Hicardo are the reason why cell phone jammers should be legal....
shopping with a PDA? How gauche and RUDE. He should have spent his money on learning how to spell.

[WinTard]

Even phones without SIM cards can make 911 calls for emergency purposes.

Whoever thinks jamming/blocking should be legal is immoral at best. Assume your jammer inadvertently prevents a life-critical emergency call from going through to the authorities, because 'oops' you forgot your jammer was on or whatever lame excuse the selfish sociopathic self-appointed vigilante uses to decide there will be no cellular service around his/her sphere of influence -- will be the first hypocritical person to deny such responsibility when catastrophe occurs.

Those who can't live in a civilized world should simply go live as hermits away from civilization.

If somebody blocks your way in a supermarket aisle, simply say something, polite and move on. If they won't move, then gently push your way through. That is civil behavior.

As for rude brutes misusing their phones and inconveniencing others, that is a fact of life; one can only pity them because their lives must be awful for them to behave that way in the first place.

Your freedom ends where mine starts...

It would be easy with open-source initiatives like Google's Android to implement a "Jammed" message when jammed. You can be sure that I would pursue just out of principle the jamming offender to the maximum extent of the law! I suspect I wouldn't be the only one...

Anyways, regardless of jurisdictions, any legal actively transmitting jammer device would have to comply with FCC regulations thus we might find ourselves with yet another can-of-worms with the Police now going around with RF sniffers, issuing fines (or worse) to offenders... Leave it alone, it's already illegal to jam airwaves...

Using a Faraday cage to passively block wireless signals is another topic altogether.

And let the free-market decide. I already do not shop where I get no cell coverage, in case someone needs to contact me in emergency... It would be advantageous for retailers to install repeaters at their premises, ensuring coverage IMHO, or they'll lose the business. Simple eh?

~~~~~~~~~~~
Remember the three 'R's:
- Respect of self
- Respect of others
- Responsibility for all your actions
~ Dalai Lama

Never make fun of someone who speaks broken English. It means they know another language, and you don't.
~ H. Jackson Brown Jr.

The wise are instructed by reason; ordinary minds by experience; the stupid, by necessity; and brutes by instinct.
~ Cicero

Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them.
~ Dalai Lama (Head of the Dge-lugs-pa order of Tibetan Buddhists, 1989 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, b.1935)

[monalott]

Immoral? IMMORAL? Are you kidding me? What did we ever do BEFORE cell phones? Excuse me, but the world is not your private phone booth.

I'm glad you don't shop where there is no cell phone coverage, because I'll be shopping there! Are you THAT co-dependent that you can't decide what size can of beans to buy without calling someone to ask? Being rude and inconsiderate, turning all the people around you into involuntary listeners to your vapid conversations is HARDLY civilized. Why don't you go move somewhere else? What an ego!

And by the way, good luck trying to find my portable jammer that I carry with me at all times.

[jcastle]

I for one believe that law enforcement should be allowed to jam cell phones. That includes state and local police, prisons etc.
Other use of cell phone jammers is a more complex issue that should be up to states.
Theaters where someone uses a cell phone should be able to ban the user from returning.
In hospitals there may be a safety reason for the ban on cell phone use but the use of jammers may also be a safety issue for the same reasons that cell phones are a problem. This is an issue that needs further discussion.

[WinTard]

monalott said:

Immoral? IMMORAL? Are you kidding me? What did we ever do BEFORE cell phones? Excuse me, but the world is not your private phone booth.

I'm glad you don't shop where there is no cell phone coverage, because I'll be shopping there! Are you THAT co-dependent that you can't decide what size can of beans to buy without calling someone to ask? Being rude and inconsiderate, turning all the people around you into involuntary listeners to your vapid conversations is HARDLY civilized. Why don't you go move somewhere else? What an ego!


And by the way, good luck trying to find my portable jammer that I carry with me at all times.

Hmmm, If I were you, I wouldn't be so proud to admit publicly that I am an outlaw and therefore also a criminal.

Please excuse me if I don't take seriously your views on morality... Especially if in order to do the right thing you believe in requires you to be cloaked...

For others, they might be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FederalCommunicationsCommission to see what it's all about, legally. And BTW, the FCC has jurisdiction over all various states in the USA.

What kind of society do we pretend to live in? One that is based on just principles of ethics and the law, or a free-for-all chaos?

[etim]

I just want a rig that will fry those idiots' phones who insist on phoning/texting near me in traffic!

[WinTard]

I entirely agree with you sir, just because regulated airwaves are vital to the well-being of the entire world, doesn't mean there are not stupid users out there, doing foolish things. Similar to bad drivers on our highways. The public roads are governed by law, yet we've got many fools driving. The same applies to public airwaves... The problem isn't the law or responsible civilized citizens. The problem are the outlaw inconsiderate human beings towards each others...

Thus my point being is your freedom stops where mine starts...

If someone wants to be irresponsible towards themselves, so be it. But that's got to be forcefully stopped when their irresponsibility could affect other's well-being.

That is why most of us enjoy living peacefully and safely in a civilized society of law and order.

[JimH443]

It's simple enough to passively block cell phone signals. Theaters and hospitals that seriously want to accomplish this merely need to employ the Farady Cage concept while the building is being designed. Of course, it's not cheap - but if they're really serious about the subject, they should be willing to lay out serious $$.

[WinTard]

I'm all for passive blocking. Never for active jamming.

In cinemas, in order to be civil and considerate of others, I turn-off my cell phone. Similarly in airplanes and hospitals, just in case my cell phone transmitter could disrupt more important functions, I comply and turn-off my cell-phone, because I understand the importance of the issue.

Civility is important in any civilization.

PS: The US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, except in a court of law, airports, or other restricted venues... Or in one case, employment. One past employer had the rule that weapons of any sort were prohibited in any of their locations. Period. Now I had the choice to accept the terms of employment, or not. That is freedom. I accepted the reasonable terms out of my own free will. They also had a weird restriction about (visible) body-piercing... Non issue to me.

[gordon142]

Yes, there is a huge difference between jamming and blocking. If I theatre wants to construct their walls in such a way as to filter out signals, that certainly seems to be their right, as it can't possibly effect the signal quality beyond their doors. Jamming on the other hand is impossible to reliably confine.

[shanedr]

Jammers should be legal - provided they only jam a designated area and not outside that area. In short, Jam the jail, the courthouse, the theater but not the street outside. If you can't do that then jamming should be illegal.

[WinTard]

The problem with jamming is it becomes impossible to confine the jamming signal to specific areas, as it will leak out of bounds, and affect others...

Anyway, a RF transmission technology called CDMA (versus TDMA) prevents jamming, by randomly multiplexing onto multiple frequencies the composite signals... The US military designed that to make signals unjammable...

Alas the common 3G networks do not use CDMA.

For more background, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA
>Code division multiple access (CDMA) is a channel access method utilized by various radio communication technologies. It should not be confused with the mobile phone standards called cdmaOne and CDMA2000 (which are often referred to as simply "CDMA"), this uses CDMA as an underlying channel access method.
>
>One of the basic concepts in data communication is the idea of allowing several transmitters to send information simultaneously over a single communication channel. This allows several users to share a bandwidth of frequencies. This concept is called multiplexing. CDMA employs spread-spectrum technology and a special coding scheme (where each transmitter is assigned a code) to allow multiple users to be multiplexed over the same physical channel. By contrast, time division multiple access (TDMA) divides access by time, while frequency-division multiple access (FDMA) divides it by frequency. CDMA is a form of "spread-spectrum" signaling, since the modulated coded signal has a much higher data bandwidth than the data being communicated.

BTW: I do work in the telecommunications industry since 1978.

[gordon142]

shanedr said:

Jammers should be legal - provided they only jam a designated area and not outside that area. In short, Jam the jail, the courthouse, the theater but not the street outside. If you can't do that then jamming should be illegal.

See, that's the problem: It is impossible to make a jammer effect only a specific area. You'd have to establish some sort of measurable threshold for allowable out-of-area interference. Even if you say that the allowable measurable impact of the jammer to surrounding cell phones is around 2%, what happens to people who only got very weak signals in the area to begin with? or what happens when multiple institutions in the same area set up jammers, or the jammer malfunctions, or someone relocates it without permission? You'd have to establish some sort of government agency to regulate and inspect jamming devices, and how often would they do inspections, would they have enough staff to respond quickly to jamming problems, what happens if they just plain can't find a suspected jammer at an institution?

Simply put, active jamming prevents lawful public access to airwaves and absolutely must remain illegal.

[number6]

Do you all realize that the pros and cons of jammers is largely irrelevant since it's a State issue. The Federal Government is not to legislate one way or the other.

[quote]Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.