Do you know what the word ILLEGAL means? It is very obvious that you are
ignorant of the technical details and I am not going to be your electronics
teacher. It is illegal for a reason.

"KLM" wrote in message
...
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.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:53:28 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

Do you know what the word ILLEGAL means? It is very obvious that you are
ignorant of the technical details and I am not going to be your electronics
teacher. It is illegal for a reason.


Terrorists are using cellphones to kill and maim hundreds of people
and you are maintaining that unrestrcted CP use is a god given
inviolable right.

I'd rather hear your "reason" than to argue with you about the
technical details. If the rationale for public safety is there, the
laws can be changed. Maybe you should tell to us what this cast- in-
concrete law is and that will save us a lot of guesswork and
rebuttals.

I told you before, I'm not going to be your electronics teacher and in any
case, I have my doubts about your ability to comprehend.
Has nothing to do with "right to have a cell phone". 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 unless under a carefully
controlled situation for a specific reason. Paranoia is not a good reason.

"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:53:28 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

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.

I read in sci.electronics.design that KLM wrote (in
) about 'Cellphones and
Bombs', on Fri, 19 Mar 2004:

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.

If he acts entirely alone, like the one who blew up the gay pub in
London, no-one, unless by chance - nail-bomb in Brixton.

But anyone who confides in others is vulnerable to infiltration, and
there's a lot of that going on, you can be sure.
--
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

"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:53:28 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

Do you know what the word ILLEGAL means? It is very obvious that you are
ignorant of the technical details and I am not going to be your
electronics
teacher. It is illegal for a reason.


Terrorists are using cellphones to kill and maim hundreds of people
and you are maintaining that unrestrcted CP use is a god given
inviolable right.

Nope. He's simply pointed out, quite correctly, that willful
interference with a legitimate radio service is very , very illegal,
and it is so for some very good reasons.

Besides, "jamming" cell phones is a stupid and ineffective idea anyway.
You can't reliably "jam" such things within a limited area (which is one
reason for the laws in question - to RELIABLY jam phones within an
area that IS under your legal control, you MUST create signals that will
cause interference OUTSIDE that area. Hence, don't do it.) A far
better plan is to simply shield the area in question from ANY RF
transmissions - easily and relatively cheaply done, and will cause no
legal or other hassles, or unintended interference. And you can still
bring in any RF-based info you DO want - TV, radio, etc. - via a
cable.

Bob M.

"Bob Myers" wrote in
:

"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:53:28 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

Do you know what the word ILLEGAL means? It is very obvious that
you are ignorant of the technical details and I am not going to be
your
electronics
teacher. It is illegal for a reason.


Terrorists are using cellphones to kill and maim hundreds of people
and you are maintaining that unrestrcted CP use is a god given
inviolable right.

Nope. He's simply pointed out, quite correctly, that willful
interference with a legitimate radio service is very , very illegal,
and it is so for some very good reasons.

Besides, "jamming" cell phones is a stupid and ineffective idea
anyway. You can't reliably "jam" such things within a limited area
(which is one reason for the laws in question - to RELIABLY jam phones
within an area that IS under your legal control, you MUST create
signals that will cause interference OUTSIDE that area. Hence, don't
do it.) A far better plan is to simply shield the area in question
from ANY RF transmissions - easily and relatively cheaply done, and
will cause no legal or other hassles, or unintended interference. And
you can still bring in any RF-based info you DO want - TV, radio, etc.
- via a cable.

Bob M.


Spot on, thats whats used where possible in sensitive buildings in the
UK.

The use of CP's for these purposes has been going on for 30 years at
least. It's not new and various means to counter it have been tried with
various success. There's a tendancy to assume these people are stupid as
well as socially corrupt. Not true. The IRA for instance used cp's in the
70's and 80's bombing of London and the mortar attack on 10 Downing
street while the cabinet was in session. The IRA's technique was to use
two cell phones and a sequence of calls to arm and trigger the weapon.
Once the bomb was placed and the phone was on and receiving signal the
bomb was also set to go off if the phone was switched off or the signal
lost - as it would be if the area was 'jammed'.

Jamming the phone service could actually set the thing off where the
planter wanted it to be. Not a good idea.

As an aside, given that Bush has started his war on terrorism, terrorists
and all that support them, does that mean he's going to pursue all those
who have and still do support the IRA and 'the cause' who where almost
entirely funded from the US?