On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:57:15 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

. I don't have one, never
have and wouldn't care if they disappeared from the planet but in no way
will I ever approve of electronic jamming of them

Just like the Pope is an expert on sex and birth control. He ain't
got any either. Aka Everyone should make babies but don't expect His
Holiness to help you with the consequences of bringing one into the
world. Ergo, everyone should have unrestricted useage to all the toys
of modern technology. If they can be used to blow people up, tough,
that's a price worth paying for freedom and democracy.

unless under a carefully
controlled situation for a specific reason.

Which is exactly what is being proposed. Specific denial in specific
and limited public places. They don't allow you to bring box cutters
and nail clippers on air flights and these are pretty lame threats.
What's so different from not letting you have a live device that can
be a remote bomb trigger when you are in specific high value targets
- crowded public places where it will cause the greatest carnage.

There are more than enough existing examples of cellphone use denial
to poke holes into whatever "the full weight of the (unquoted) law"
injunction you are threatening with eternal damnation in hell. As we
speak Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC, is making big changes to
the communications laws. What's so untouchable about changes to
whatever (unquoted) law there may be on limiting cellphone access.

One more example is the rule that you, whether you are on staff or a
visitor, do not bring a camera equipped cellphone into certain
business premises. My earlier comment on telephone use in commercial
aircraft. Cellphone bans in places like concert halls. Cellphone
check-in in snotty restaurants. These are all denial of use. Jamming
is just one form of it.

This is a public policy matter and you seem incapable of
distinguishing between the two issues. This is not a technology issue
and its obvious you know squat about electronics. Technology created
an unintended and real public danger in that cellphones are very
easily modified and a reliable way to set off bombs. We are exploring
technology solutions to remedy that. I have thrown open some ideas.
I made no claim that they are the solutions. You haven't suggested
any alternatives. Meanwhile blowing up innocent people is perfectly
acceptable to you so long as these same innocent people can use their
cellphone anywhere 24/7.

To the objections from other posts; of course a determined terrorist
will always get through. Who can stop one who is willing to blow
himself up. Technology solutions will never solve everything and for
every solution there is always another counter measure. That's why we
all still have jobs to go to. But if we have a fairly simple
preventive measure coupled with an equally simple screening process we
can eliminate suspecting everyone and concentrate on the small number
of likely suspects and make it harder for terrorists to plant bombs at
will and at random.

Aaah, what the heck. Only CW seems to have objections. Who cares.