"the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

Mizter T

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <b3842569-a505-416f-8190-a3640a92967b@e25g2000prg.googlegroup
> s.com>, Mizter T <mizter.t@gmail.com> scribeth thus
> >
> >On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> >> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...eb/gadgets_and...
> >>
> >> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
> >>
> >> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
> >> turn off that annoying chatter
> >
> >
> >The potential for these devices to interfere with important
> >frequencies is dismissed very quickly...
> >
> ><quote>
> >Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
> >the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
> >interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
> >users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
> >used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."
> >
> >I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
> >that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on a
> >train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to ruin
> >Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to bring
> >the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
> ></quote>
> >
> >
> >...which hardly constitutes an analysis of whether these devices could
> >cause wider problems. I'd be very interested to know how tightly the
> >frequency jamming is drawn on these devices, and whether they are
> >likely to disturb more critical radio communications - not just that
> >of the emergency services, but also the radio networks of transport
> >providers such as Network Rail and the various bus companies.
> >
> >The author of the Times piece would appear to subscribe to the more
> >general cynicism about warnings from the powers that be that mobile
> >jamming devices might affect critical radio communications. Without
> >knowing the details, I'm far from happy for these warnings to be
> >dismissed out of hand.
>
> Now potential jammer.
>
>
> How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
> customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
> needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
> minute, or a whole host of other calls.
>
> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't think
> so..
>
> And who's approving these devices anyway .. and railway GSM anyone?....
> --
> Tony Sayer


Now potential idiot.

How would you feel if <your> usenet post was completely misrepresented
by another poster in the same way that you have misrepresented me and
misrepresented what I wrote.

If you actually read my post you will see that I am in no way
advocating the use of jamming devices and am certainly not considering
obtaining or using one myself nor am I condoning or encouraging their
use.

My whole post had an entirely different tone, and was a series of
question marks over whether these devices actually have far wider
consequences than merely jamming mobile signals. I did not raise the
issue of whether or not it was right for someone to "play god" in the
selfish and self-satisfied manner of the Midlands commuter the
reporter spoke to, because I thought someone else could raise that
issue. But just so you don't misrepresent my view on this issue I
shall spell it out - no, I don't think it's OK for someone to do that
either.

*If* your introductory address "Now potential jammer" was not in fact
aimed at me, but was actually aimed at a hypothetical reader whom may
have been considering obtaining and using a jamming device, it was a
dismal linguistic failure - because it certainly read as if it was
addressed directly to me. *If* that is the effect you desire then I'd
urge you to structure your comments more carefully in the future.

*If* however you were addressing me directly then you got it very
wrong.

Anyway, the device I'm looking for is not a radio jammer but some kind
of electro-magnetic pulse weapon that would destroy the external
speakers of mobile phones. Unfortunately as it might also destroy
pacemakers and make Li-ion batteries explode again I reckon it
probably wouldn't be a great idea in practice.

David Hansen

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:07:29 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote this:-

>How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
>customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
>needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
>minute, or a whole host of other calls.

Move to the vestibule and one will presumably be out of the range of
such a jammer.

Of course if one was polite then one would have done so anyway, so
these jammers are only likely to affect the impolite.

An excellent idea, more people should use them.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

John Williamson

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2889295.ece
>
> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
>
> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
> turn off that annoying chatter
>
One thought strikes me.

If these are available, then they can be used by the criminal classes to
prevent calls for help by, for example, a potential crime victim.

Is this a price worth paying for a bit of peace?

Leaving aside all the other (Generally agreed to be necessary) uses
which could be disrupted.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Nomen Nescio

tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

> Now potential jammer.
>
>
> How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
> customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
> needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
> minute, or a whole host of other calls.
>
> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't think
> so..

Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.

tony sayer

>
>How would you feel if <your> usenet post was completely misrepresented
>by another poster in the same way that you have misrepresented me and
>misrepresented what I wrote.
>
>If you actually read my post you will see that I am in no way
>advocating the use of jamming devices and am certainly not considering
>obtaining or using one myself nor am I condoning or encouraging their
>use.
>
>My whole post had an entirely different tone, and was a series of
>question marks over whether these devices actually have far wider
>consequences than merely jamming mobile signals. I did not raise the
>issue of whether or not it was right for someone to "play god" in the
>selfish and self-satisfied manner of the Midlands commuter the
>reporter spoke to, because I thought someone else could raise that
>issue. But just so you don't misrepresent my view on this issue I
>shall spell it out - no, I don't think it's OK for someone to do that
>either.
>
>*If* your introductory address "Now potential jammer" was not in fact
>aimed at me, but was actually aimed at a hypothetical reader whom may
>have been considering obtaining and using a jamming device, it was a
>dismal linguistic failure -

Sorry haven't got all day to reply in GR8 detail to usenet posts but you
should have got the drift..

>because it certainly read as if it was
>addressed directly to me. *If* that is the effect you desire then I'd
>urge you to structure your comments more carefully in the future.
>
>*If* however you were addressing me directly then you got it very
>wrong.


Actually I was agreeing with you!........................more than less..
>
>Anyway, the device I'm looking for is not a radio jammer but some kind
>of electro-magnetic pulse weapon that would destroy the external
>speakers of mobile phones. Unfortunately as it might also destroy
>pacemakers and make Li-ion batteries explode again I reckon it
>probably wouldn't be a great idea in practice.

Now your asking ...That would take a <lot> more energy...

Course if people could be a bit more considerate then it wouldn't be a problem
but that ain't gonna happen is it?....

--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

In article <a3f3cf18b6a0eb25108ed4df9ac74b59@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> scribeth thus
>tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Now potential jammer.
>>
>>
>> How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
>> customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
>> needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
>> minute, or a whole host of other calls.
>>
>> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't think
>> so..
>
>Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
>had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.
>
>
>
>
>

It seems to me that people do talk louder than what they have to due to
the amount of background noise around them rather than what the caller
hears .. but then again -noise cancelling- is a bit new for mobile
telephony applications...
--
Tony Sayer

Ben

John Williamson wrote:

> If these are available, then they can be used by the criminal classes to
> prevent calls for help by, for example, a potential crime victim.

And if they are indiscriminate enough to jam wifi networks then they
could be used to disrupt home security systems too.

Ben

ChrisM wrote:

> - Another post suggested that some form of GSM is used for cab-signalling
> systems.

Isn't the use of GSM-R in-cab signalling compulsory for line speeds over
125mph?

David Hansen

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:07:29 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote this:-

>How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
>customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
>needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
>minute, or a whole host of other calls.

Move to the vestibule and one will presumably be out of the range of
such a jammer.

Of course if one was polite then one would have done so anyway, so
these jammers are only likely to affect the impolite.

An excellent idea, more people should use them.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

John Williamson

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2889295.ece
>
> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
>
> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
> turn off that annoying chatter
>
One thought strikes me.

If these are available, then they can be used by the criminal classes to
prevent calls for help by, for example, a potential crime victim.

Is this a price worth paying for a bit of peace?

Leaving aside all the other (Generally agreed to be necessary) uses
which could be disrupted.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.