"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?