 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / General / General Topics / July 2005Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer (no lectures or legal opions please!)
(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) > (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) > > Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably > stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS > that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular > jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) Fine, no jammer lectures. But, I must say that you're not very smart to use your real e-mail address, in attempting to procure illegal equipment. Notan >> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Notan And one of the Mayors Council Members to boot! Nothing like community service eh? Steve Banks >>>(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Steve Banks And anybody that assumes the OP is who is represented in the message header is stretching. I'm no expert, but there's nothing that guarantees any message is contains legit header info, including yours and mine.  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > >>>(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) > >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > guarantees any message is contains legit header info, including yours > and mine. If the poster *isn't* who he/she says she is, forging a (local) government employee's e-mail address warrants more than just a slap on the wrist. Either way (legit or not), the poster isn't the brightest. Notan >>>>>(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Notan Not the brightest? Kinda like people that use cell phones where their use is inappropriate? I know three places that use cell jammers in the U.S. but I'm not tellin because somebody will get pissed and ruin an otherwise splendid place to visit. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' jer said: >I know three places that use cell jammers in the U.S. but I'm not tellin >because somebody will get pissed and ruin an otherwise splendid place to >visit. the federal reserve board offices in downtown DC jams cellphones in certain sensitive locations. rbhm >>I know three places that use cell jammers in the U.S. but I'm not tellin >>because somebody will get pissed and ruin an otherwise splendid place to >>visit. > > the federal reserve board offices in downtown DC jams cellphones in certain > sensitive locations. Really? The federal government breaking their own rules, huh. I have a friend whose father works for the Fed back home (Cleveland branch). I'll have to find out what his experiences are. SignatureJustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638) "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe" notan said: >If the poster *isn't* who he/she says she is, forging a (local) >government employee's e-mail address warrants more than just a >slap on the wrist. its not against the law. whether or not it should be or not is a different subject, but as it stands, there are no laws saying you cant call yourself whatever you want on the internet john travolta > its not against the law. whether or not it should be or not is a different > subject, but as it stands, there are no laws saying you cant call yourself > whatever you want on the internet > > john travolta Really? Call yourself a police officer. I think that, if anyone were to bother to investigate (and that's a significant if unless you actually use the claim to some end), you'd find there *are* limits. SignatureRØß O/Siris -+- A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice. +Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+ >>its not against the law. whether or not it should be or not is a different >>subject, but as it stands, there are no laws saying you cant call yourself [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > significant if unless you actually use the claim to some end), you'd > find there *are* limits. Of course there are limits, but you may use any alias name you want to identify yourself in any venue, including in person, so long as there's no intent to defraud. Doing so to only garner someone's misguided attention is not itself a fraudulent act within criminal statutes. (Visit any bar on ladies night for examples) So, if JV wants to identify himself as a police officer, then he may do so, so long as his use of the false identity causes no real harm to anyone, nor provides financial gain for himself or another. Now, one person's definition of "harm" may very well be different than someone else's, but that would be an issue for a court to decide, and the burden of proof would be plaintiff's onus. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > Of course there are limits, but you may use any alias name you want to > identify yourself in any venue, including in person, so long as there's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > an issue for a court to decide, and the burden of proof would be > plaintiff's onus. In most (if not all) US jurisdictions impersonating an officer of the courts or a government official is most certainly illegal. While many job capacities don't have that sort of liability, government jobs like policemen certain DO. Granted, the likelihood of being prosecuted for doing it 'in a bar on ladies night' is not very high. But get caught stopping that same skirt out in the parking lot claiming to be Joe Friday and you'd be on well on your way to the lockup. None of this conflates to online identities, so please, make use of better analogies. >>Of course there are limits, but you may use any alias name you want to >>identify yourself in any venue, including in person, so long as there's [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > None of this conflates to online identities, so please, make use of better > analogies. There's nothing conflated with my analogy. One can identify oneself as a police officer without legal retribution (even if one is standing in a parking lot), but acting in a capacity of one (aka "stopping") at any location *is* deceitful, ergo fraudulent. The difference is... identifying oneself as a police officer v. acting in the capacity of a police officer. The former may get one laid while the latter may get one arrested. Intent is a key component in our criminal statutes, and last time I looked, getting laid even under the guise of being a police officer was not an criminal offense - the difference is one can get laid even if one doesn't identify oneself as a police officer, but one cannot legally act in the capacity of a police officer without actually being a police officer. You'd be amazed at the number of women that get this crap and never ask to see an ID. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>>its not against the law. whether or not it should be or not is a >>>different subject, but as it stands, there are no laws saying you cant [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > identify yourself in any venue, including in person, so long as there's no > intent to defraud. The internet is global so I assume these limits apply to every country in the world? Or are you using the approach that everyone here must be in the U.S.? > The internet is global so I assume these limits apply to every country in > the world? Or are you using the approach that everyone here must be in the > U.S.? The Internet might be global, but Sprint PCS is U.S. only, so it's natural to assume that readers here are in the USA. SignatureRØß O/Siris -+- A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice. +Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+ >>>> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > guarantees any message is contains legit header info, including yours > and mine. All emails contain at least some legitimate header info. Forged headers are easily identified and discarded. What it boils down to is that the sender's ISP can almost always be identified, and law enforcement agencies can subpena the ISP to release the sender's true identity. SignatureJohn Richards > All emails contain at least some legitimate header info. Except when mail is sent through an open proxy, in which case it's possible that none of the info is legitimate except the final Received header added by your own mail server while delivering the message to your inbox. > are easily identified and discarded. What it boils down to is that the > sender's ISP can almost always be identified, Quite often, that is an overly optimistic opinion. SignatureJustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638) "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe" >> All emails contain at least some legitimate header info. > > Except when mail is sent through an open proxy, in which case it's possible > that none of the info is legitimate except the final Received header added > by your own mail server while delivering the message to your inbox. The final (or top-most) 'Received' header is always trustworthy. While it is true that much mass spam is now sent through open proxies (or zombied/compromised machines), that is usually not the case for email that is sent by individuals other than professional spammers. >> are easily identified and discarded. What it boils down to is that the >> sender's ISP can almost always be identified, > > Quite often, that is an overly optimistic opinion. I meant in the context of individual messages like the post from "Kathleen Carmody", which was easily tracerouted to a server in Minneapolis, which generally agreed with her email address which pointed to Brooklyn Center, MN. There was not the slightest evidence of header forging in that post. SignatureJohn Richards > >> are easily identified and discarded. What it boils down to is that the > >> sender's ISP can almost always be identified, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > pointed to Brooklyn Center, MN. There was not the slightest evidence > of header forging in that post. Tell me my ISP, then. >>>> are easily identified and discarded. What it boils down to is that the >>>> sender's ISP can almost always be identified, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Tell me my ISP, then. I was speaking primarily about email messages. You are not using your ISP's NNTP server. Your NNTP service: UseNetServer.com, is one of the independents who does not record the originating IP address. Although this practice is quite common for third party NNTP service, email messages always contain the originating IP. SignatureJohn Richards > Although this practice is quite common for > third party NNTP service, email messages always contain the > originating IP. Except when they don't. Maybe your head is in the sand. That's the only reason I can think of you not knowing about spam... >> Although this practice is quite common for >> third party NNTP service, email messages always contain the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe your head is in the sand. That's the only reason I can think of > you not knowing about spam... We covered this already. I'm a long-time spam fighter and know what I'm talking about. Services like SpamCop.net could not exist if the originating ISP were not uniquely determinable. SignatureJohn Richards > We covered this already. I'm a long-time spam fighter and know > what I'm talking about. Services like SpamCop.net could not > exist if the originating ISP were not uniquely determinable. And there are enough anonymizing open proxies that spammers can abuse that often that's not possible. I've been doing the spamfighting thing since 1996. I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about too. It's not impossible in all cases, just many. This discussion is way OT for the cellular newsgroups, so I'm not going to say any more... SignatureJustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638) "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe" >> We covered this already. I'm a long-time spam fighter and know >> what I'm talking about. Services like SpamCop.net could not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's not impossible in all cases, just many. We've both had our say, and our viewpoints really aren't that far apart. As a long-time member of SpamCop.net I'd advise anyone who is serious about fighting spam or just wants to learn how to interpret headers to join that organization. > This discussion is way OT for the cellular newsgroups, so I'm not going to > say any more... Agreed. Over and out. SignatureJohn Richards Uh folks, don't feed the troll. > > Although this practice is quite common for > > third party NNTP service, email messages always contain the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe your head is in the sand. That's the only reason I can think of > you not knowing about spam... > I was speaking primarily about email messages. > You are not using your ISP's NNTP server. Your NNTP service: > UseNetServer.com, is one of the independents who does not record > the originating IP address. Although this practice is quite common for > third party NNTP service, email messages always contain the > originating IP. I used them about 6 months ago and they were recording the IP but the trace was hashed to mask the IP in the message. point being that someone reading the headers could not determine the IP but if required by law enforcement or the inhouse abuse dept. to produce the IP they could. Maybe they have changed, but I thought law required the service to be able to provide law enforcement with the IP. (regarding UsenetServer.com) > I used them about 6 months ago and they were recording the IP > but the trace was hashed to mask the IP in the message. point [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thought law required the service to be able to provide law > enforcement with the IP. Have you actually LOOKED at the headers? There's no NNTP-Posting-Host line at all, hashed or not. Have you actually LOOKED at their FAQ list? Here's what they say: > At Usenetserver.com, it is our goal to keep your personal information as > private as possible. Our news servers remove the X-TRACE header and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > download. We only monitor how much you download in accordance to your chosen > account. Please understand that we only see byte data and nothing else. Referenced from: http://www.usenetserver.com/faq.html no, there's no such law that the service be able to provide law enforcement with the IP for Usenet news postings. You may be thinking about email. If we as a country get to the point where the feds want to track Usenet postings, I'm getting a gun and moving to a remote cabin in Canada. > (regarding UsenetServer.com) > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > If we as a country get to the point where the feds want to track Usenet > postings, I'm getting a gun and moving to a remote cabin in Canada. If I help build the cabin, can we make it big enough for two? :) Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > > Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably > > stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But, I must say that you're not very smart to use your real > e-mail address, in attempting to procure illegal equipment. It's illegal to use, not illegal to own. Maybe she wants to take one apart and look at it. > > > Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably > > > stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Maybe she wants to take one apart and look at it. I hadn't even considered that! <g> The problem is, if Kathleen Carmody really posted this request, and there are any cellular issues at http://ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us/, who do ya think they're gonna look to for answers? Notan > The problem is, if Kathleen Carmody really posted this request, > and there are any cellular issues at http://ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us/, > who do ya think they're gonna look to for answers? If it's like the rest of the cellular world, they're going to look right at the provider. Because none of them can seem to get it right. You may not want them but you're gonna get them. > (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) > > Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably > stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS > that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular > jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) In this "I'll sue your a.s off" day and age... let me predict what will happen. They get an illegal cell phone jammer. At first nobody really notices. Then all of a sudden, people start to wonder why no one is getting any service in THAT building, yet a few feet, yards away they get crystal clear reception. Then later as everything plays out, someone will need to make or receive that ONE emergency call... the ONE call that really is a life or death matter, and they can't! Here come the suits against the person responsible for using the unit and the city government. I think people will eventually figure out why not one person can make or receive a call in that building. The rest will be history or should I say herstory. Just a guess, Steve Banks > They get an illegal cell phone jammer. At first nobody really notices. Then > all of a sudden, people start to wonder why no one is getting any service in > THAT building, yet a few feet, yards away they get crystal clear reception. Business as usual from the cell phone companies, actually. >> They get an illegal cell phone jammer. At first nobody really notices. >> Then [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Business as usual from the cell phone companies, actually. I have a friend who has a cell blocker. It looks like a cell phone and blocks within about a 15 foot radius. Works great in restaurants when the jerks are yapping and C. turns it on. Suddenly things become quiet.Love it. Wish I had one. > In this "I'll sue your a.s off" day and age... let me predict what will > happen. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Just a guess, > Steve Banks How many buildings or stores do you know that have very poor or non-existant cellphone reception? I know lots of them. Do they all employ jammers? I doubt it, and I think it's mainly due to the building's construction materials, or being in a 'shadow' from obstructions between it and the nearest tower. SignatureJohn Richards > How many buildings or stores do you know that have very poor or > non-existant cellphone reception? I know lots of them. Do they all > employ jammers? I doubt it, and I think it's mainly due to the > building's construction materials, or being in a 'shadow' from > obstructions between it and the nearest tower. The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings and businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW). Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals >> How many buildings or stores do you know that have very poor or >> non-existant cellphone reception? I know lots of them. Do they all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW). > Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals Or maybe just aluminum-foil vapor barrier on the back of the insulation. That's been in use since long before cellular telephony. >> How many buildings or stores do you know that have very poor or >> non-existant cellphone reception? I know lots of them. Do they all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW). > Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals Or maybe just aluminum-foil vapor barrier on the back of the insulation. That's been in use since long before cellular telephony. No- this is a specific part of the building design with the sole purpose of stopping cellular signals. > The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings and > businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW). > Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals OH NO! BUT WHAT IF I'M HAVING A HEART ATTACK AND I PULL OUT MY CELL PHONE AND I CAN'T CALL FOR HELP, IT'S THE EVIL BUILDING OWNER'S FAULT! WHAT IF...WHAT IF....WHAT IF...HOW DARE THEY INFRINGE ON MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE A CELL PHONE CALL FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME! THEY MUST PAY! > > The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings and > > businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE A CELL PHONE CALL FOR ANY REASON AT ANY > TIME! THEY MUST PAY! OK, Elmo- calm down. Don't hyperventilate. Walk away from the light. Hopefully anyone with this stupid an attitude would drop-dead long before help arrived. > > The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings and > > businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE A CELL PHONE CALL FOR ANY REASON AT ANY > TIME! THEY MUST PAY! > (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) Tough cookies... > Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably > stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS > that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular > jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) There are none. It sounds like you already knew jammers are illegal in the US, but just didn't want to be reminded again. SignatureJustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638) "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe" http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZglobalQ2dgadgetsdotnet These are from UK, but have been reviewed to work well. Not too likely to find a US source, unless you know someone who works IT in a Hospital or something like that. > (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) > > Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably > stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS > that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular > jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) > (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) > > Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably > stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS > that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular > jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) might try this guy if he is still in business, according to the dates of the documents he still has a few days left.... http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1622A1.html >> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) >> >> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably >> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS >> that I know of. Gee, for anybody with a lick damn of sense, that would be a big clue, right off. >> Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular >> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) >> > might try this guy if he is still in business, according to the > dates of the documents he still has a few days left.... > http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1622A1.html Excerpt: "If, after receipt of this citation, you violate the Communications Act or the Commission's rules in any manner described herein, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation." I guess his commercial endeavor's continued viability depends on whether it can tolerate $99,000 per day of fines ;). (Although I'm not sure I'm reading that right. Recalling my studies, I had *thought* fines under the Communications Act were limited to $10,0000 per violation [at the time--looks like it went up], regardless of how long it went on. Actually, $10,000 or time in the slammer, IIRC.) I bet Ms. Brooklyn-Center-Council-Member Kathleen Carmody's constituency will be just *thrilled* with her over *that* expense. One imagines $11,000 per day of FCC fines is a pretty decent chunk of change for a municipality of only 29,000 residents. SignatureJim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking." http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison > I guess his commercial endeavor's continued viability depends on > whether it can tolerate $99,000 per day of fines ;). (Although I'm [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > One imagines $11,000 per day of FCC fines is a pretty decent chunk of > change for a municipality of only 29,000 residents. thing is there are people selling the equipment in the United States, and Canada. As far as this specific vendor I would imagine he no longer lives in the United States and the government is going to spend more money in collecting the fines than the fines total, if they decide to collect. As for the post itself, I see nothing wrong with it. It's a request for information. Anyone that wants to spend an hour at http://www.google.com/ can find a way to get what the poster wants. Particularly someone who lives so close to Canada. And with a technology that is legal in the United States. But I'm not going to give you that link, do the work yourself. > thing is there are people selling the equipment in the United > States, and Canada. As far as this specific vendor I would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with a technology that is legal in the United States. But I'm > not going to give you that link, do the work yourself. That's right. There's no inherent right to make a cell phone call. I don't care if you are having a heart attack; if you try to make a call and can't, there's no one to blame. Cell phones are a convenience; if you turn yours into a mandatory lifesaving device, then you'd better have something other than traditional cell phone service. If you want to make a call for whatever reason and you can't, and there isn't a jammer around, what will you do--sue the cell phone company because they have shitty coverage? Sue the guy whose house/office you're in because he lives in a shitty coverage area or has made building decisions that prevent the cell phone from working optimally? It doesn't take an hour to find something in Google; it takes more like 10 seconds: http://slate.msn.com/id/2092059/ which says, among other things: > Americans seeking a legal way to jam cell phones can look into "passive" > jamming technologies. For instance, lining your office in lead should ensure [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > magnetic particles made of nickel-zinc ferrite that supposedly deflect 97 > percent of mobile-phone signals. You know, a better way to handle things would be to have a system whereby the phone automatically goes to a silent mode (or, for schools, be turned off) when it crosses the threshold of someplace where the owner doesn't want distraction--church, theater, whatever. Make the owner put up a sign at each entrance, similar to the "smoking prohibited" signs that are popping up as a result of no-smoking ordinances, and that's that. That would require the cooperation of the phone manufacturers, but that should be no big deal. > You know, a better way to handle things would be to have a > system whereby the phone automatically goes to a silent mode [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cooperation of the phone manufacturers, but that should be no > big deal. Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain situations. I have seen reports where several major hospitals are testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the sensitive electronic equipment. Many of us have had EKGs at one time or another. Remember how hard the tech had to work to get each of the connections just so to pick up that VERY SENSITIVE voltage from the muscles being read? Now imagine a heart attack patient, or better yet a person who had just had a transplant, and one of the contacts is maybe just on the borderline of marginal and maybe making a little bit like a diode, then key a transmitter close to it, with a signal several orders of magnitude greater the ones we are interested in. Think it won't have an impact? Put up a sign and turn on the jammer. > Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain > situations. I have seen reports where several major hospitals are > testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the > danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the > sensitive electronic equipment. Ummmmm- doesn't a jammer operate as an rf transmitter and on the same frequency as the cell phone? Wouldn't that make it as bad as the cell phone itself......or maybe worse, as it would be operating all of the time? >>Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain >>situations. I have seen reports where several major hospitals are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > frequency as the cell phone? Wouldn't that make it as bad as the cell phone > itself......or maybe worse, as it would be operating all of the time? Don't know about narrowband protocols like GSM, but in order to jam a broadband signal such as CDMA uses, the jammer is going to have to be emitting quite a lot of energy across a fairly wide bandwidth (several MHz). And it would be immediately obvious to anyone using the debug screen on a CDMA phone, when simultaneously the received signal strength shot WAY up and the signal/noise ratio dived WAY down. > And it would be immediately obvious to anyone using the debug > screen on a CDMA phone Well...that rules out 99.999999% of handset users. >> And it would be immediately obvious to anyone using the debug >> screen on a CDMA phone > >Well...that rules out 99.999999% of handset users. True, but well within the capabilities of most of the professionally employed cell signal monitoring monkeys. They might not catch you if you're walking around, but a stationary jammer will get noticed, will get complaints, and will eventually get found. SignatureJust sit through this NRA meeting Marge, and if you still don't think guns are great then we'll argue some more. -- Homer Simpson > Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain > situations. I have seen reports where several major hospitals are > testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the > danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the > sensitive electronic equipment. I think we went thru this topic before a few months ago. It is an old wives' tale that cell-phones can gunk up critical-care equipment. Some hospitals ban cell-phones for reasons of quiet, patient-care, and logistics - not for fear of killing off patients. In many hospitals, physicians routinely use cell-phones in the operating rooms and ICU's. > Many of us have had EKGs at one time or another. Remember how hard > the tech had to work to get each of the connections just so to pick [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > magnitude greater the ones we are interested in. Think it won't > have an impact? Nope. I have never seen a cell-phone cause an EKG blip. On the other hand, operating room electrocautery will always zap the EKG monitoring. (OT So many things can interfere with the EKG that there is always back-up monitoring - like feeling the patient's pulse.) Bill T . [snip] > Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain > situations. Yeah, that's what they say, all right. > I have seen reports where several major hospitals are > testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the > danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the > sensitive electronic equipment. So they're going to put always-on broadband RF sources in areas where they want to prohibit RF sources, is that it? > Many of us have had EKGs at one time or another. Remember how hard > the tech had to work to get each of the connections just so to pick > up that VERY SENSITIVE voltage from the muscles being read? No, I don't. They attached the wires, did their thing, detached the wires. [snip] > Put up a sign and turn on the jammer. Uh huh. Btw: If the milliwatt-level RF energy from cell phones is so disruptive to medical equipment, please explain why hospital security staff operate multi-watt hand-held two-way radios in the same environment? Btw2: Do you know how much hospitals charge for in-room telephones? There are good and valid reasons to restrict the operation of cell phones in hospitals, but they're more along the lines of why their use should be restricted on aircraft, in theaters and restaurants, and in other venues where people are too damn stupid and inconsiderate to be allowed the freedom of their own judgement. SignatureJim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking." http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=23199 FCC re-iterates cell-phone jammers are illegal Jun 28, 2005 WASHINGTON-People who want to use cell-phone jammers to get rid of annoying mobile-phone use should think again. It is against the law. Those found using, selling, manufacturing or distributing cell-phone jammers could be subject to an $11,000-per-day fine and seizure of their equipment by the United States Marshals, warned the Federal Communications Commission. "In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation of cellular and PCS telephones, the FCC is issuing this public notice to make clear that the marketing, sale or operation of this type of equipment is unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be subject to forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution," said the FCC. In article <Ma2dnax9_uCdOyDfRVnyjw@skypoint.com>, someone purporting to be Kathleen Carmody <councilmembercarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote: > (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) > > Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably > stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS > that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular > jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) It's not a "supposition" or an "opion" -- cellphone jammers are illegal in the United States. Period. It is illegal to sell, buy, advertise, or operate a cellphone jammer in the United States. Period. See 47 USC 302a and 47 CFR 2.803 for the details. If you operate a cellphone jammer, you are subject to fines of up to $11,000 per day under 47 CFR 1.80(b)(3). Whatever reasoning you think you have for ignoring those rules, I doubt the FCC or the judge would agree. If you have an area where you don't want people to use cellphones, the only legal way to do it is by constructing a cellphone blocker -- essentially an enclosure with enough metal in the walls to absorb enough of the wavelengths used by cellphones to make them inoperable inside the enclosure. Google on the exact phrase "Faraday cage." Since a Faraday cage is a passive device that does not interfere with the operation of any equipment outside itself, it is not subject to the FCC licensing requirements. After all, it's just a metal box. If you're still intent on getting a cellphone jammer, I'll leave it to the judge to "lecture" you at your sentencing. SignatureLinc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c) This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3). DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned. FCC posting: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html > (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) > > Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably > stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS > that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular > jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) What kind of thrill do you get from asking stupid questions ? You asked the same thing in rec.radio.scanners and got flamed. Think it would be any different here moron ? >> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You asked the same thing in rec.radio.scanners and got flamed. > Think it would be any different here moron ? Must be a glutton for punishment. She also posted the question to comp.dcom.telecom, sci.electronics.misc, and sci.electronics.design. SignatureJim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking." http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison > >> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Must be a glutton for punishment. She also posted the question to > comp.dcom.telecom, sci.electronics.misc, and sci.electronics.design. Hmmm... A politician *and* a troll. Who'da thunk it! Notan Build your own, it's actually quite simple provided you don't need long range. Schematics and other info at: www.gbppr.org I think it can even be simpler than that, but I'm not stupid enough to try it myself. Enjoy. M >(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired) > >Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably >stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS >that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular >jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.