[JefHaugh]

While I certainly think law enforcement ought to have access to jammers, I would love to see a 'black box' that puts cell phones into silent mode -- that way, I wouldn't have to remember to do that. I would think it would be easy to implement, might not even require a hardware change. Just a box that puts out the right signal at a certain frequency(ies).

[PoorBird]

A tough one for sure.
Some thoughts:
1. Who gets to make the decision?....I see more fed assistance in my life....don't know how much more help I can stand.
2. I suppose we would also have to jam the i'net also?
3. Walk into the average doctors' waiting room, you would like to have that area jammed....
especially if you work there.
4. Large storms, times of heavy danger and so forth
jam cell systems anyway....they are way over-subscribed...in those events, the problem takes care of itself.
5. Maybe we should jam my toilet, which would in turn jam me up...that would for sure keep me off the cell phone.
6. I expect that for the time being, we have matters more pressing than this question... much more pressing.
Poor Bird has spoken.

[WinTard]

number6 said:

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.

> 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.

Except for anything affecting the public airwaves, the FCC has full and final jurisdiction. So every state can pass any law they see fit, until someone challenges, and ultimately, higher power will intervene and render a final decision. There is a statute in the US Justice System that says a State law cannot supercede a Federal law. But it must first make its way through due process. Each State cannot independently decide adherence to Federal standards. They can try... And have their local decisions rendered null-and-void.

And for trivial matters, some States outlaw radar detectors, while others do not. The Federal government doesn't get involved in these minor jurisdictional skirmishes.

However, messing with the public airwaves isn't a trivial matter and requires coherent governance. And jamming any signal falls into that category. Try to legally jam a radar signal anywhere in North America. What's different in this case?

An example of this is satellite dishes on the sides of condominiums. Some States passed laws against this or that. Ultimately, the FCC rendered a decision, declaring illegal any attempts to prevent the public from receiving satellite signals. Thus rendering conflicting local state laws impotent. And that was it. No appeal possible. But the final word only steps in at the end, not the beginning of a brewing conflict.

In the meantime, lawyers stuff their pockets in outrageous legal fees... Win or lose.

Why do you think lawyers exist? Because the law isn't clear-cut, open to interpretation, and is oftentimes conflicting and irrational.

~~~~~~~~~~
Those who respect the law, and appreciate sausages, would lose complete respect and appetite for either of them, if they saw how they were made...
~ Anonymous

[mpheadley]

The argument for jamming in jails is strong, but the article really falls apart after that. Are you really arguing for cell phone jamming in movie theaters?! Was this article written in 1997? Has the author ever heard about the magical cell phone features of vibration and texting?!
I really don't like the idea of jamming at all.
Anyone ever try to make a cell phone call inside a mobile home? If we want to prevent criminals inside of jails making cell phone calls, just line the prison walls with the same sheet metal that mobile homes are made out of, ha!
I am bothered that even the feds can jam cell phones whenever they want and I did not know that they did that while the president was walking outside after the inauguration.
And I definitely question the wisdom in blocking a cell phone tower if they think a terrorist attack is going to happen. Maybe if they were 100 percent sure something was going to happen, but wouldn't it be smarter to monitor those cell phone conversations instead of blocking them? And of what use would it be to block cell phones after an attack?
It also seems kind of silly to say, "why can't we allow cell phones in planes" without even questioning whether they block the instrumentation of the plane or not. And I say, if they don't, to definitely allow the use in planes.
This article fails in differentiating between public safety and public annoyance. I'm sorry that some people are rude and obnoxious in movie theaters, libraries, hotels, etc. But does that mean we should be allowed to jam their conversations and everyone else's silent text messaging and vibrating cell phones?
Absolutely not. But I'm open to the possibility in prisons where criminals lose most of their rights.

[number6]

Where does the FCC's jurisdiction come from? Is it Constitutional?

[mjd420nova]

The FCC gets its power and jurisdiction from an international treaty known as the Communications act of 1934. This sets up the agency and allocates the RF spectrum and its uses by each country. Now this was originally meant to only apply to RADIATED RF energy or electro-magnetic waves. Only recently has it been expanded to cover cable TV systems as those signals are not transmitted over the air but through a closed(cable) system. No one can legally transmit any signal intended to interfere with any other licensed signal. The government has made its own exceptions to this, naturally. The Iraqi militants have found that by jamming GPS signals at the time of an attack will destroy the accuracy of GPS guided bombs, thus killing many civilians and not a meeting of militant leaders two blocks away. Also, jamming cell phone signals as a troop convoy passes prevents militants from using a cell phone to trigger a bomb placed near or on the road as the convoy passes. The digital age has opened up many new uses for communication and some new ways of preventing interference, either intentional, accidental or celestial from being blocked. Spread spectrum is where a signal is transmitted over a large part of the RF spectrum, preventing any single signal from interfering or blocking the intended signal from reaching its intended receiver. Using passive blocking or sheilding will prevent any signal from entering into a protected area or preventing any from leaving those areas. No problems there as there are no signals being transmitted so the term JAMMING does not apply.

[g4acre]

I only use a cell phone & have no home phone,this started several years ago when my parents moved out of state & the land lines charged for all calls beyond 15 miles of my house as long distance calls. so a cell with nationwide calling was much cheaper for me,as I can call & check on my Mom & Dad any time with out worry of a bill I don't have the cash for.so any jamming of it would cut me off to all outside contact.so what gives ANY ONE the right to do that. I turn mine off or on vibrate at all times when it would annoy any one around me.butt to jam every one because some inconsiderate jerks don't is no less the same as giving me a trafic ticket for being on the same road as the person that just broke the speed limit. G4acre

[jmndos]

Cellphone jamming should not be legal for many reasons.
Cellular communications use high powered bursts that can cause interference which can affect a variety of equipment, from studio recording equipment to other kinds of radio interference.

Airplanes hardware can no long be disrupted by cellular equipment, but the FCC is slow to act. Most other countries all cellular usage onboard.
Cell phones may interfere with ekg but this has to be close to the sensor, like inimitably close, same with pace makers.
In movie theater's, its just an inconvenience and very rare, since people can react violently.
Cant be blocked by cops, since cops are a corrupt bunch.
Prisons, for the same reason as cops, some are corrupt and would not adhere to privacy laws in high profile cases.

Basically, its a degree of responsibility. People living next to the hospital would be affected. The hospital CAN put Faraday cages inside their walls to reduce reach.
Churches can put Faraday ages inside their walls to reduce reach.
Same thing with movie theatre.....
But, you cannot use an active electronic counter measure.

[squishie]

mpheadley...



They jam a cell phone tower in the case of a terrorist attack because you can't "monitor" a call to a bomb. Cell phone technology is a common method in the middle east to set off explosives. That's how a lot of our soldiers die. You drive up next to bomb, man makes call to bomb, Bang! Bang!, your dead....

[mpheadley]

Right. And that's why I'm not totally opposed to all jamming across the board. But if the feds were to jam cell phones in an area or cell phone towers more than once in a great while for any remote threat, I would find that very scary, and more threatening to us than the terrorists! I'm open to the idea of them using it if there is almost assuredly a direct threat.

[WinTard]

number6 said:

Where does the FCC's jurisdiction come from? Is it Constitutional?

In addition to the rationale provided by mdj420nova's excellent technical acumen, please consider the following:

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 27,000,000 for FCC [definition]. (0.19 seconds)

Quote

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Home PageThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent US government agency, directly responsible to Congress, and regulates interstate and ...
www.fcc.gov/ - 75k - Cached - Similar pages

Quote

How to Contact the Federal Communications Commission21 Jan 2009 ... Here you will find important addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and other contact information of the Federal Communications ...
[http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html] - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

Quote

Federal Communications Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created, directed, and empowered by Congressional ...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FederalCommunicationsCommission] - 113k - Cached - Similar pages

Quote

Except from: [http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html]
About the FCC
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

[quote]Excerpt from: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FederalCommunicationsCommission]
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created, directed, and empowered by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154), and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President. The FCC works towards six strategic goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security, and modernizing the FCC.[1]

The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States. It is an important factor in U.S. telecommunication policy. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. Due however to close geographic proximity to the United States, the FCC also provides varied degrees of cooperation, oversight, and leadership for similar communications bodies in other countries of North America. The FCC has a 2009 proposed budget of 466 million dollars which is funded by 1 million in taxpayer appropriations and the rest regulatory fees. It has 1,899 Full Time Equivalent federal employees. [1].

On 14 November 2008, Barack Obama selected Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach to lead the review of the FCC. The review team will review the commission to aid the new administration in its planning decisions.[2] The team "will ensure that senior appointees have the information necessary to complete the confirmation process, lead their departments, and begin implementing signature policy initiatives immediately after they are sworn in."[3]

[conquer4]

I agree, it is a thorny issue. I think it has had limited use outside of federal problems because of jurisdiction and the problems those entities come up against. Is a federal unit more likely to encounter terrorists then a local police unit? but that's a weak argument.
The main issue i see here is the Constitution. if you start widespread cellphone jamming, your effectively putting a stop to assembly as much as if facebook started deleting groups or the goverment blocking certain web pages (like china). That would have to be settled in courts though. but I'm sure EFF or another org would challenge it.
Personally, I see it useful on raids against high organized crime leaders and in jails. Hospitals/theaters? please, and i want roads that have no drunk drivers on it. Why would i go to a theater if i knew that if one of the people i love had been in car crash or died and i didn't know for hours? (time i could have used to quietly leaved, drove to the hospital to be with them). My phone is always on vibrate anyways.
And if it becomes widespread, criminals will recognize it for an impending raid...which means all we're doing is giving a warning to them.

[mjd420nova]

I have no qualms against the US military undertaking small area jammimg of cell phone communications in an immediate area to provide a blanket of protection while the President or any heads of state are in the area. The jamming of cell phone by private enterprise is illegal and should remain so. Along with that should be the enforcement of profane language too. In plain language communications such as FRS, GMRS or even CB, profane and obcene language will get you five years in jail and up to $25,000. fines. Back in the later seventies when CB's were in just about every car and truck, emergency radio teams monitored certain channels (9) just for the purpose of providing needed connections to police and fire services. I was one of those people but with small children in the home I was forced to curtail that part of my life when the air waves became overwhelmed with potty mouthed fools who felt the need to vent their bowels upon others. I think that this is also true of those businesses and entities who think they have a need to protect their patrons from others who wish to flaunt common sense rules and follow rules of courtesy and respect the rights of others. Again, there are many other ways to give patrons the courtesy of piece and quiet in an environment conducive to their retail offering. Churches, hospitals, theathers and even grocery stores could and should embark upon passive methods of reducing signal strengths within their premises. This can be done without active jamming and possible creation of interference outside their immediate areas of ownership.

[YukonCornelius]

I say Yes! They should be legal. I would love to carry one around in my pocket to silence the annoying, never ending ringing of cell phones everywhere I go. Just say NO to Cell Phones!

[WinTard]

ROTFLMAO! :^0

[number6]

I've looked at the posts made by you and mjd and still can't see the Constitutionality the Federal Government's restricting the use of cell phone jammers. It still looks like a State issue to me because I can't find anywhere in the Constitution that the Federal Government is allowed to regulate in this area; and if the Federal Communications Act of 1934 was unconstitutional, then the FCC is unconstitutional.

[franklanguage]

Interestingly, before I had a cell phone--and I resisted getting one for several years--I absolutely thought public places (like theaters) should have cell phone jammers and I wanted to get one myself. Now that I have a cell phone of my own, I'm not so sure.

[Yizzerin]

I'm glad you highlighted the quirks of US law in regards to cell phone jammers, but I think you missed the point about emergency use. I don't think it's generally for incoming calls but rather for outgoing emergency calls (say, if someone had a heart attack or someone started attacking people in a theater). I agree with you that incoming emergency calls are much less of a concern. I'd be less willing to give up my ability to call 911 from anywhere.

[WinTard]

number6 said:

>I've looked at the posts made by you and mjd and still can't see the Constitutionality the Federal Government's restricting the use of cell phone jammers. It still looks like a State issue to me because I can't find anywhere in the Constitution that the Federal Government is allowed to regulate in this area; and if the Federal Communications Act of 1934 was unconstitutional, then the FCC is unconstitutional.

Constitutional or not, as interpreted by you or another, the bottom line is they have full jurisdiction (non-military) over the public airwaves and telecommunication across the USA, TODAY. You can bank on it, and perhaps can even try in a court of law, all the way to the Supreme Court of the USA if you have the time, and associated deep pockets. But they ARE the Federal government. Try to tell them they don't have jurisdiction, since their inception back in 1934. I suppose if they were on shaky grounds constitutionally, someone would have challenged something over the past 75 years? And successfully dissolved the FCC?

That is Relativity: the difference between Academic and Applied, or Theory versus Reality. And please allow me to reiterate; that is why we have lawyers... To solicit a biased perspective from a judge's perceived interpretation of what is actually written in the Law. Messy eh?

Quote

mjd420nova wrote:

>Although there are very explicit laws against JAMMING cell phones, there is no mention of passive BLOCKING of cell phones.

Quote

WinTard wrote:

>However, messing with the public airwaves isn't a trivial matter and requires coherent governance. And jamming any signal falls into that category. Try to legally jam a radar signal anywhere in North America. What's different in this case?

Quote

mjd420nova wrote:

>The FCC gets its power and jurisdiction from an international treaty known as the Communications act of 1934. This sets up the agency and allocates the RF spectrum and its uses by each country. Now this was originally meant to only apply to RADIATED RF energy or electro-magnetic waves. Only recently has it been expanded to cover cable TV systems as those signals are not transmitted over the air but through a closed(cable) system. No one can legally transmit any signal intended to interfere with any other licensed signal. The government has made its own exceptions to this...
>...
>Using passive blocking or sheilding will prevent any signal from entering into a protected area or preventing any from leaving those areas. No problems there as there are no signals being transmitted so the term JAMMING does not apply.

Please google: Results 1 - 10 of about 5,260 for cell phone jammer FCC legal. (0.25 seconds)

>FCC nixes DC prison cell phone jamming demo - Ars Technica20 Feb 2009 ... The FCC has reversed itself, denying the District of Columbia the right to run a cell phone jamming experiment in one of its jails.
>http://arstechnica.c...amming-demo.ars - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

>Cell Phone Jammers6 Nov 2007 ... Cell phone jammers are devices that create a temporary "dead zone" to all ... Any site selling jammer will include legal notices to help ... attracts the FCC, you can link a cell phone jammer with a cell phone detector. ...
>http://www.methodsho...ers/index.shtml - 69k - Cached - Similar pages

>The Right Way to Allow Cell Phone Jammers - And the FCC?s Way ...The FCC probably already has the authority to ban jammers under Section 302a, ... It may not be legal, but Americans can already buy cell phone jammers. ...
>http://techliberatio...d-the-fccs-way/ - 99k - Cached - Similar pages

What did I say about a brewing conflict? And the final words steps in last?

Go ahead, do what you think SHOULD be legal, and face the consequences of reality... Because ultimately, YOU will be held responsible for your actions, and lamenting, I didn't know, WON'T cut it for anyone caught pants down.

Bottom line: Until the FCC is dissolved, it is in charge all of all telecommunications over the USA. Period. Good luck to any challengers...

Not to mention I approve with the FCC stand on jamming in general because I understand the ramifications, and consequences of jamming.

But those proponents for jamming may already have bought such jamming devices, without serious thoughts about the implications, and inconvenience these selfish individuals would pose upon the general public, not to mention radiation poisoning (yes Radio Frequencies are radiation since they radiate through no medium such as space...) leading to cancer... Why? because these devices must transmit at higher power levels than usual cell phones, to overcome their signals in the first place. Also cell phone transmitters only use occasional packets bursts (to save the battery), whereas jammers must transmit 100% of the time...Now put that dubious jammer cloaked into your pants, close to you know what, and see what happens in a year from now... {Probably testicular or ovarian cancer}. Hey believe what you want.


(This doesn't apply to you Number6) On second thought, since it will take years for the legal system to conclusively decide on the situation, I think all illegal jamming device users should keep the neat, safe, convenient, ego & low self-esteem power-tripping device in their pockets close to their family jewels or kidneys or other vital organs and make sure it is powered up all the time... It's your choice, right? Ever heard of Karma?


With my apologies to sensitive types.

~~~~~~~~~~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse or defense.

What goes around, comes around.

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
~ Mark Twain, 1835-1910, American Writer and Humorist

[Yizzerin]

I'm glad you pointed out the quirks of US cell phone jamming law; however, I think you have mistaken the "emergency call" justification. It's not incoming calls that matter but outgoing emergency calls (e.g. reporting someone having a heart attack or a criminal attacking at a theater, etc). I'd be much less willing to give up my ability to call 911 from anywhere.