Straydog wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Prof. Franz Blaha wrote:
>=20
>> <??????.???> wrote in message=20
>> news:20070709054101.094$hv@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> I bet people are shaking in their boots afraid that you will
>>> destroy their phone, no way, they are laughing at your
>>> pencildick ass! Run to mommy you ****ing whiner!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> BruceR wrote:
>>>>> Jer wrote:
>>>>>> BruceR wrote:
>>>>>>> > Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:1392k4mg1j9k018@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>> What part of
>>>>>>>>> "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front ha=
lf
>>>>>>>>> or the back half?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While you might like to think that one's home is his or her castl=
e
>>>>>>> and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I'm somew=
hat
>>>>>> familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don't=
>>>>>> even involve me. Take a break.
>>>>>
>>>>> Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal
>>>>> (presumably in the US). It's not. If you can't stand a challenging
>>>>> reply, don't post.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you can't keep up with the thread enough to know who to challenge=
,
>>>> I'd offer the same recommendation. So, to help you...
>>>>
>>>> To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't =
>>>> know
>>>> nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've alrea=
dy
>>>> mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it=20
>>>> beats
>>>> the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can't se=
em
>>>> to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is. FCC re=
gs
>>>> and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.
>>>
>>
>> Before the discussion deteriorates even more (if that's possible), let=
me
>> point out that the OP said s/he understood "they
>> are illegal in the us (sic!) but they are available overseas," and mer=
ely
>> wanted to know if they did what they are supposed to do. It's a techni=
cal
>> question that interests me as well. For legal/moral questions (WHYis i=
t
>> illegal and SHOULD it be illegal?), one could start another thread=20
>> (which I
>> would also be interested in).
>=20
> OK, I'll start this thread. Cell phones are nice and convenient and=20
> being used too much by the "me" generation who have come to the point=20
> where they can't live without "keeping in touch" with all the members o=
f=20
> their social butterfly community and doing this in all kinds of=20
> inappropriate settings (eg. busy traffic where cell phone distraction i=
s=20
> known to be a factor in accidents, movie theaters, church services,=20
> restaurants, and just recently at my barber shop where a guy carried on=
=20
> his commercial business in a loud
> tone of voice so everyone heard his side and after he hung up the damne=
d
> thing rang and it took him five minutes to get it out of his pocket aga=
in
> so we all had to listen to that annoying jingle all that time.
>=20
> Yes, I have one. It is always turned off. I call it my heart-attack-car=
-
> accident-emergency phone.
>=20
> I can think of no drug, no behavior, no alcohol, nothing illegal,=20
> nothing unhealthy that is as addicting as cell phones. And, people have=
=20
> no courtesy, consideration, or forsight.
Here's a novel use of a cell phone - cleaning the gene pool.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3D3378025
>=20
> I think the idea that it is OK with THEM to force me to listen to their=
=20
> conversations, their ringtones while they are on MY property, or in my =
> presence without my permission, is a personal offense against me.
>=20
> And, what would my recourse/greivance be? Legally? Could I file charges=
=20
> of disturbing the peace?
>=20
> Cell phone jammers can be found using search engines and I gather that =
> law enforcement agencies use them, legally or illegally, in the course =
> of law enforcement and I'll bet that they worry more about their missio=
n=20
> than the FCC's laws. There appear to be commercial cell phone jammers o=
f=20
> high power and also used in cor****ate settings to deter industrial=20
> spying. Do they have licenses? Apparently the military uses them to=20
> attempt to thwart cell phone mediated IED explosions/bombs.
I'm aware of two law enforcement agencies using cell jammers. Just=20
before serving a no-knock warrant, they'll engage a mobile cell jammer=20
to blind the area so the "good eyes" are left with playing pocket pool.
>=20
> Or, perhaps we should ask if anyone knows if there have been any cases =
> of person or persons using a cell phone jammer being caught and=20
> prosecuted (apparently by the FCC?)? After all, there is sold IRS data =
> that show that significant fractions of tax dogers (25% to 75%,=20
> depending on methods) never get prosecuted by the IRS.
>=20
> Not that I'm advocating broad scale disobedience of the law, but an art=
icle
> in the WSJ years ago said that it was OK for a jury to find 'not guilty=
'
> in a clear case of guilt if the broken law was a bad law to begin with.=
=20
> In other words, there are bad laws out there. Prohibition never worked,=
=20
> so it was eventually withdrawn, too.
Yes "jury nullification" is sometimes used when the jury is sympathetic=20
to the defense. Maybe some day, this will be tested.
>=20
>=20
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Franz
>>
>> P.S: Sometimes the law really is an ass (with compliments to Charles
>> Dickens)
>>
>>
>>
--=20
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
|
