You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull electronic
interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the part of my post
about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try again. If a terorist
is going to strike, he is going to strike. The Department of Homeland
Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything about it.


"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:59:41 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

The countermeasure I think, is fairly simple. Every vulnerable public
place which may be targeted by terrorist bomb attacks, should install
cellphone signal blockers.

Not in the US. Intentional interference is illegal. It likely is in most
places.


Homeland security has done worse on civil liberty laws.

Compared to the cost and unfeliability of security personnel and
person-body checks surely a "cellphone safe" building, train or public
conveyance is acceptable. After all it wasn't that many years ago
(~10) when there were no cellphones. The what did emergency workers
do then? What happend when you are out of cellphone range? Have you
actually heard of anyone dying because the party called couldn't get
his/her cellphone page?

I would certainly feel a lot more comfortable if the building
advertises itself as a cellphone free location to a point where I
would prefer to shop there. A work around for emergency worker
phone access is for the emergency worker to tell a service provider
that he is at a particular cellphone free location. If he needs to be
contacted the service provider will phone that building(s) management
by landline who will then page the emergency worker. It will work
like a 911 line and is meant for emergencies only, not a mom looking
for a shopping mall crazy daughter. Outside these cellphone free
buildings any cellphone will work normally.

I read in sci.electronics.design that CW
wrote (in ) about 'Cellphones and
Bombs', on Thu, 18 Mar 2004:
You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull
electronic interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the
part of my post about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try
again. If a terorist is going to strike, he is going to strike. The
Department of Homeland Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything
about it.

I am ALMOST old enough to remember a similar idea held in UK and Europe
before WW2, that 'the bomber (aircraft) will always get through'. The
RAF pretty well disproved it.

There is a finite probability that an individual terrorist, acting
completely alone, might evade all the checks. But it's far more
difficult for members of a terrorist cell to evade detection.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

"John Woodgate" wrote in message
...
I read in sci.electronics.design that CW
wrote (in ) about 'Cellphones and
Bombs', on Thu, 18 Mar 2004:
You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull
electronic interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the
part of my post about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try
again. If a terorist is going to strike, he is going to strike. The
Department of Homeland Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything
about it.

I am ALMOST old enough to remember a similar idea held in UK and Europe
before WW2, that 'the bomber (aircraft) will always get through'. The
RAF pretty well disproved it.

They did not disprove it.
All they disproved is the notion that a war can be won by air power alone.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org

I AM old enough to remember the pre-war and the phoney-war impressions of
the population of the cities of Birmingham and Coventry about the
capabilities of the Luftwaffer.

It was "They'll never get this far."

At the same time the citizens of Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin and Dresden were
saying much the same thing.

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
I AM old enough to remember the pre-war and the phoney-war impressions of
the population of the cities of Birmingham and Coventry about the
capabilities of the Luftwaffer.

It was "They'll never get this far."

At the same time the citizens of Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin and Dresden were
saying much the same thing.

Whath they found out was that they don't have to ALL get through.

Reg Edwards wrote:
"At the same time the citizens of Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin and Dresden
were saying much the same thing."

Yes. Hermann Goering boasted early in the war that his name was mud if
bombs fell on Berlin.

Later in the war as Hermann scurried for shelter he was heard
introducing himself as "Herr Mud".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Damn sight bigger target and there are not a lot of hiding places in the
sky. In any case, you are talking about a miniscule little country. Try to
keep an eye on this one.

I am ALMOST old enough to remember a similar idea held in UK and Europe
before WW2, that 'the bomber (aircraft) will always get through'. The
RAF pretty well disproved it.

There is a finite probability that an individual terrorist, acting
completely alone, might evade all the checks. But it's far more
difficult for members of a terrorist cell to evade detection.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

"John Woodgate" wrote in message
...
I read in sci.electronics.design that CW
wrote (in ) about 'Cellphones and
Bombs', on Thu, 18 Mar 2004:
You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull
electronic interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the
part of my post about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try
again. If a terorist is going to strike, he is going to strike. The
Department of Homeland Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything
about it.

I am ALMOST old enough to remember a similar idea held in UK and Europe
before WW2, that 'the bomber (aircraft) will always get through'. The
RAF pretty well disproved it.


OTOH, the Eighth Air Force did pretty much prove it. Unfortunately, they
didn't always come back.

Ed
wb6wsn

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ed Price wrote
(in 12W6c.19644$uh.12711@fed1read02) about 'Cellphones and Bombs', on
Sat, 20 Mar 2004:

"John Woodgate" wrote in message
...
I read in sci.electronics.design that CW
wrote (in ) about 'Cellphones and
Bombs', on Thu, 18 Mar 2004:
You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull
electronic interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the
part of my post about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try
again. If a terorist is going to strike, he is going to strike. The
Department of Homeland Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything
about it.

I am ALMOST old enough to remember a similar idea held in UK and Europe
before WW2, that 'the bomber (aircraft) will always get through'. The
RAF pretty well disproved it.


OTOH, the Eighth Air Force did pretty much prove it. Unfortunately, they
didn't always come back.

The idea was that there was *no effective defence** against bomber
aircraft, and it is that which is false. OTOH, there was no effective
defence against V2 rockets at the time. Luckily, they were developed too
late to prevail.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:00:55 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull electronic
interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the part of my post
about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try again. If a terorist
is going to strike, he is going to strike. The Department of Homeland
Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything about it.



And cellphone signal blocking is localized, short range, same as WiFi.
Put up a sign to that effect in your business premise. Those who feel
they must have their cellphone access 24/7 can always step outside
the door or avoid the place. That business will survive because there
are a miniscule number of 24/7 cellphone freaks.

Anyway the use of cellphones while driving is banned in many states in
the US and worldwide. What is so different in banning their use in
selected public places. The only difference is that signal blocking
is applied universally in that defined building area, and without
having intrusive checks being made on anyone to effect compliance.