The ideas are getting better but are you going to be the one to explain to
people's families that it was for the public good that you were transmitting
a signal designed to set off a bomb in a crowded place? It should get the
terrorist and the couple of dozen people behind him waiting to get through
the check point.

"KLM" wrote in message
...


An idea just occurred to me.

You notice those electronic anti-shoplifting interrogators at the
checkout counters?

Why not include a circuit in every cellphone that will cause the
answer bell to ring when anyone carrying a cellphone crosses one of
these interrogators. Maybe have the circuitry activate a different
ring tone or ring pattern from the normal call ring. Its extremely
short range and won't interefere with normal cellphone use.

It will set off a cellphone bomb or at least ID a suspicious cellphone
owner who can be asked to show the phone (any cellphone modifications
will be noticed immediately) or can be called aside for further
inspection. This will enable security people in places like train
stations, bus stations and airports to quickly screen crowds.

The same interrogating circuitry could be installed in metal detector
security gates.

Its rare to be able to go anywhere without encountering one of these
interrogators these days. A bomb carrying cellphone triggered
terrorist will have a hard time moving around without attracting
attention somewhere.

------------------------------------------------

On a different discussion point, picture the recent Spanish train
bombings (10 set off.) Had the train installed cellphone signal
blocking equipment most of those bombs would probably not have been
set off. Calls on emergency workers commuting by train could easily
have been relayed by the train's onboard PA system. Calls out can be
made from on-board public pay phones. Or can the signal blocking be
effective only for incoming calls and leave out going calls
unrestricted? Airlines blocks incoming calls. Outgoing calls can be
made from anywhere during flight through the aircraft's phone system.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:12:08 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

The ideas are getting better but are you going to be the one to explain to
people's families that it was for the public good that you were transmitting
a signal designed to set off a bomb in a crowded place? It should get the
terrorist and the couple of dozen people behind him waiting to get through
the check point.

I can't make out any logic in what you have written. Are you also
plain English challenged besides being technology, legal knowledge and
public policy challenged?

I new you were an idiot. Plonk.
"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:12:08 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

The ideas are getting better but are you going to be the one to explain
to
people's families that it was for the public good that you were
transmitting
a signal designed to set off a bomb in a crowded place? It should get the
terrorist and the couple of dozen people behind him waiting to get
through
the check point.

I can't make out any logic in what you have written. Are you also
plain English challenged besides being technology, legal knowledge and
public policy challenged?

"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:12:08 -0800, "CW"
wrote:
I can't make out any logic in what you have written. Are you also
plain English challenged besides being technology, legal knowledge and
public policy challenged?

I can attest to his challenges with the last three. I posted this comment as
a seperate header but it never showed up, so here is the deal on property
rights and blocking cell signals again:

Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.

On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal, shielding,
etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that enters
or tries to leave that property. There are reasonable exceptions, before the
crazies ask what about a 1,000' balloon with radar reflector in your
airspace right next to an airport. Get real. We're talking about a
restaurant owner's right to make his interior airspace incompatible with
cellular signals, and nobody can argue he doesn't have the right to do that,
with or without notifying you of it. It's a courtesy if he tells you, tough
luck if he doesn't.

Similarly, the government regulates and (tries) to ensure the operability of
public communications while mitigating unnecessary or malicious
interference. Neither apply to a private property owner's right to have
cell-phone signals blocked on his property. If he invites the public, some
states might pass laws to require he notifies the public of that blockage,
but neither is it the public's right to assume that is so. A locality could
also decide it will prevent cell signals during any venue that takes place
on property it owns or leases. It's reasonable, it's "legal", and it's
happening. Before long, somebody will concoct a way to beat those blockers,
probably by a jam-resistant receiver card that plugs into the phone's
antenna. Then you'll have to check your gun and your cellphone with the
maitri d'. ;-)

Jack
Virginia Beach

Another ignorent one. This thred seems to be full of them.

"Jack Painter" uttered a bunch of useless crap.