Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shut The Cell Up! (JAMMERS)
CBS News ^ | March 13, 2005

Posted on 03/13/2005 5:03:47 PM PST by srm913

Wouldn't it be great if with one button you could zip obnoxious lips. Well, you can. It's called a cell phone jammer.

"I can't turn it on, for legal reasons, but if I did, mobile phones in this room would die within seconds," says Michael Menage of Global Gadget UK.

Every cell phone within 200 feet flatlines, including important emergency calls, which is why jammers are illegal to have.

But, as CBS News Correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi reports, when CBS went undercover, posing as nightclub owners into a New York City spy shop, it became apparent that they're pretty easy to buy.

When we asked if one could be obtained within 24 hours, we were told, "Yeah, just tell me when you want it, and I'll get it for you."

Moments later, a jammer was purchased out of the back room for $2,000.

For a lot less, you can order them online from companies overseas. Menage says more than 2,000 of the jammers he sells every year are shipped to the United States.

"I would say most of our customers are just people who are cheesed-off by people using mobile telephones indiscreetly," says Menage. "Then there is the business sector."

Restaurants, casinos, even churches are buying jammers. But the FCC says, it amounts to stealing, saying cell phone users pay good money to access the airwaves.

"The penalties are huge if you get caught," says Rob Bernstein of Sync Magazine. "Just having a cell phone jammer can cost you $11,000 and a year in prison."

But the thing is, no one has been caught. Most people don't even know they've been jammed.

So the next time your call drops out, think twice. Someone might have been sick of your lip and just made you "shut the cell up."

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Technical
KEYWORDS: cellphones
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: Squeako

Of course, I'll change my pary affiliation because 10% of cell phone users are ignorant and inconsiderate. What a statement.


41 posted on 03/13/2005 9:52:30 PM PST by conshack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: srm913

"I often tick off my friends and folks by either turning off my cell or leaving it behind. There really are times in life when you don't want people to be able to get hold of you!"

I usually have my ringer off. If anyone really wants to get ahold of me they will a voicemail. About the only useful reason to have a cell phone is for roadside emergencies and playing games during boring meetings and sermons.



42 posted on 03/13/2005 9:54:36 PM PST by Psycho_Runner (This tagline is recyclable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: StarfireIV
Driving is a priviledge, not a right. Even rights are meaningless without the responsibilities that go along with them. Driving while distracted by a cell phone is about as irresponsible as having a hunter as loaded as his or her 12 gauge.

Huh? I thought my statements were pretty clear, and I never mentioned driving. I addressed people who have no problem interfering with legal contracts of total strangers within a 100' radius wherever they go (whether the affected parties are loud/obnoxious or not), merely because they are annoyed by some cell phone users.

43 posted on 03/13/2005 9:59:11 PM PST by Squeako (ACLU: "Only Christians, Boy Scouts and War Memorials are too vile to defend.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: conshack
Of course, I'll change my pary affiliation because 10% of cell phone users are ignorant and inconsiderate. What a statement.

That is quite a statement, considering I have no idea what you're talking about. However, you can change your "pary affiliation" to whatever you want; why should I care? I just don't want you to jam my cell phone when I'm expecting a business call merely because you're the author of "Public Behavioral Propriety". Maybe you should just wear a special badge so I'll know to whom I should beg permission to whisper to my associates.

44 posted on 03/13/2005 10:14:33 PM PST by Squeako (ACLU: "Only Christians, Boy Scouts and War Memorials are too vile to defend.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Squeako

Just let me know where you live and I'll be happy to jam your cell phone(either electronically or into one of you orifices).
Guess your also assigned to the spelling patrol huh?


45 posted on 03/13/2005 10:23:31 PM PST by conshack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Squeako

Yeah, and you're a crybaby. It's called "life"; get used to it, or become a Democrat.

Just responding to YOUR intelligent statement quoted here.


46 posted on 03/13/2005 10:26:28 PM PST by conshack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: conshack
I do have a right to my own privacy that gets grossly invaded when folks decide to have their loud personal conversations in my space.

Unless they are coming onto your property and into your house, your right to privacy has not been invaded. You do not have the right to not be annoyed in a public place. If you are in church, tell the pastor or whomever about the problem and let him/her fix it. If they don't , don't attend that church any more go somewhere else. Same with other public places.

You do not have the right to interfere with someones phone call. You can ask them to please refrain but that is about the extent of it, legally.

Once again, if you are in a public place your privacy has not been invaded.

47 posted on 03/13/2005 10:43:26 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Squeako
It's always funny to hear conservatives whine like liberals about things that annoy them, which of course gives them the right to electronically sabotage someone else's paid electronic service. Oh, but they were talking so loud! They're so obnoxious! Yeah, and you're a crybaby. It's called "life"; get used to it, or become a Democrat.

You're the one who sounds like a crybaby.

48 posted on 03/13/2005 10:46:49 PM PST by judgeandjury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: judgeandjury
You're the one who sounds like a crybaby.

I beg to differ with you. All of you people who are crying about cell phone users are the ones who sound like crybabies, I will have to hang with Squeak on this one.

You are crying about people using a legal product on public property and acting as if you have some god given right to jam their conversations. This is immature and very cry babyish.

You definately all sound like liberals whining about religion and how they have the right not to see crosses, nativity scenes etc. out in public.

Grow up and be what you claim to be, conservatives and libertarians, or maybe the complainers are the DU people who hang out here, is that it? you guys are DU?

49 posted on 03/13/2005 10:51:26 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: srm913

I'll bet the 911 hijackers would have loved to have a couple of these things. It would have eliminated all those pesky calls home etc.


50 posted on 03/13/2005 10:58:00 PM PST by Species8472 (ANWR - Drill now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conshack
Just let me know where you live and I'll be happy to jam your cell phone(either electronically or into one of you orifices). Guess your also assigned to the spelling patrol huh?

If I were a member of the spelling patrol, I'd guess I'd have to point out "one of you orifices" should be "one of your orifices". Then, you used "your" where it should be "you're" (a conjuction of "you are"), so you clearly have difficulty using this word. Aside from that, I don't know what your problem is. You decided to address me and brought up party affiliation for some reason. So, I'll address anything I choose within those replies.

My original post was about how people are so bothered by others talking on their phones (and I am very considerate when using mine), yet they don't have a problem interfering with people who aren't loud and obnoxious, merely to satisfy their urge to punish those who offend them. That sounds like a liberal position to me.

51 posted on 03/13/2005 10:59:17 PM PST by Squeako (ACLU: "Only Christians, Boy Scouts and War Memorials are too vile to defend.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: calex59

You do not have the right to interfere with someones phone call. You can ask them to please refrain but that is about the extent of it, legally.

Once again, if you are in a public place your privacy has not been invaded.

Let me understand this correctly, it's your Constitutional right to be a pain in the a$$ to dozens of citizens because you want to discuss something on the telephone? People that object to cell phones in public are usually complaining about a cell phone user that shows absolutely no consideration for others, not the casual user who has a discussion. For some reason, some folks think they have to raise their tone considerably when speaking on a cell phone and that's the folks that are annoying. Drivers using are a real plus too(is that another Constitutional right?) All due consideration should be given to a person that wants to use a cell phone, but it sure must be a two way street.


52 posted on 03/13/2005 11:05:21 PM PST by conshack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: conshack

You have no "right" to privacy in a PUBLIC place. If you wish to have privacy, look for it at home. These jammers are ILLEGAL. End of story.


53 posted on 03/14/2005 3:57:20 AM PST by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

I wonder if anyone has done any research into regular cordless phones use and possible brain cancer links? All I ever hear about is a wireless/brain tumor connection....


54 posted on 03/15/2005 6:18:58 AM PST by dirtbiker (Solution for Terrorism: Nuke 'em 'till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: conshack

If a church or place of business wishes to install a jammer and notify the public that such a jammer is in place, I have no problem with that. I may not like it, but they would be within their right to prohibit cell phone use on their property. No problem there. What I have a problem with is a person buying an illegal jammer and interfering with the personal phone calls of another person by stealth, no less.
People who do not wish to patronize churches or businesses with jammers would certainly have the option to take their business elsewhere. However, if you go to a public place, you have to accept the fact that other people may be doing things that you find annoying. I may find a slogan on a t-shirt annoying. I may find a conversation that contradicts a viewpoint that I hold annoying. It doesn't give me the right to interfere with a lawful activity. If a business or church does it, then at least I have the option to go elsewhere.


55 posted on 03/17/2005 2:48:39 PM PST by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson