Talk About Network

Google




Electronic Equipment > Cell Phone Tech > Re: Legality of...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 44 of 48 Topic 491 of 536
Post > Topic >>

Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking

by "GeekBoy" <allGeek@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jul 20, 2007 at 01:44 PM

"Straydog" <asd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0707190954250.28959@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, BC wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Thank you so much for all the interesting replys. I appreciate the 
>> numerous
>> responses.
>>
>> Please allow me to respond to my original post.
>>
>> I am curious if some of the "cell-phone jamming devices "actually work
as
>> the various manufacturers say they do.
>
> You might have a difficult time getting credible re****ts. After all,
many 
> who might use a jammer might not want to self-incriminate themselves or 
> reveal themselves to just everyone.
>
>> I have seen  myriad different devices advertised for sale claiming 
>> various
>> areas of effective attenuation for diameters ranging from , some claim 
>> 30,
>> 50 meters and more.
>> Does anyone have any firsthand experience with any of these devises and
>> which ones if so?
>
> Not firsthand, but one newspaper article I read years ago said some
pastor 
> in a church got pissed off with cps going off during services and he put

> in a jammer, told all of the congregation about it, and nobody came to 
> arrest him and he said no more cp problems. And, I doubt if those 
> irresponsible-inconsiderate members who came to church with their cps 
> turned on actually changed their ways.
>

That was, I beleive, in Mexico that happened.

Very few laws there, and the ones they do have are not enforced very
often.


>> I of course would want this information for educational purposes only,
>
> Ohhhhhhh....of course we believe you!
>
>  as I
>> understand they are illegal to operate in my country, the US.
>
> The key idea is what are the enforcement patterns like, what are the 
> chances of prosecution, and chances of punishment/penalty/etc/etc/.
>
>> If anyone has any first hand experience with these devices and would be

>> kind
>> enough to share the type, brand name model or whatever you wish, it
would 
>> be
>> appreciated.
>
> I have a feeling that they really do work, and are being used in many 
> cir***stances (eg. anti-industrial spying, anti-cp at classified defense

> instalations, and to foil IED control in Iraq).
>
>> Again, let me thank you for all the responses, and I apologize for any
>> breach of netiquette in advance.
>
> No problem as far as I'm concerned.
>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> bc
>>
>> meters,etc
>> "Kurt" <labolide@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:labolide-22A85D.19393118072007@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0707182214540.478@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> Straydog <asd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I have one. It is always turned off. I call it my 
>>>> heart-attack-car-
>>>> accident-emergency phone.
>>>>
>>>> I can think of no drug, no behavior, no alcohol, nothing illegal, 
>>>> nothing
>>>> unhealthy that is as addicting as cell phones. And, people have no
>>>> courtesy, consideration, or forsight.
>>>>
>>>> I think the idea that it is OK with THEM to force me to listen to
their
>>>> conversations, their ringtones while they are on MY property, or in
my
>>>> presence without my permission, is a personal offense against me.
>>>
>>> Straydog,
>>>
>>> You may be of a 'certain age' as I am, and I am often bemused with all
>>> you speak of.
>>>
>>> I was watching "The Devil wears Prada" the other night. There was a
line
>>> in the movie (and very true) where the Meryl Streep character states
>>> something to the effect that the Target/Ross/JCPenney/Sears clothes
that
>>> the assistant was wearing were a direct retooling for the m***** of
>>> former fa****on trends that the high fa****on industry (she) had
created.
>>>
>>> So true.
>>>
>>> Cell phone are exactly the same. No one would care about cameras in
>>> phones had the Japanese youth culture not embraced it as they ddid a
few
>>> years ago.
>>>
>>> Cell phone mfrs had a tough time selling them to US market -took a
>>> couple years of hard sell (and huge ad budgets) to finally get youth
>>> market here on board.
>>>
>>> If I were you, I'd buy one of those prepaid emergency phones you see
in
>>> back of Sunset Magazine. These guys hit the nail on the head with the
>>> niche market they are targeting- a phone with simple features and
large
>>> display.
>>>
>>> The irony is that these phones will come back in a few years as hip
>>> retro accessories, but then again today, little is truly new, only
>>> recycled (don't get me started about music - you'll never see another
>>> Doors)
>>>
>>> --
>>> To reply by email, remove the word "space"
>>
>>
>>
 




 48 Posts in Topic:
Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BC" <billch  2007-07-07 11:54:47 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-07 17:40:44 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Notan <notan@[EMAIL PR  2007-07-07 19:30:32 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-07 20:54:14 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Notan <notan@[EMAIL PR  2007-07-07 20:48:46 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 07:13:09 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-08 08:59:56 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 16:01:20 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-08 16:13:57 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 17:03:21 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BruceR" <ra  2007-07-08 14:13:10 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 19:40:30 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BruceR" <ra  2007-07-08 14:57:36 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 21:57:29 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-08 22:04:30 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 23:24:53 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-09 18:26:02 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
®©®@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2007-07-09 09:41:00 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"Prof. Franz Blaha&q  2007-07-09 15:46:52 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BruceR" <ra  2007-07-09 11:38:03 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-09 18:41:17 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Todd Allcock <elecconn  2007-07-19 10:41:38 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"mark krawczuk"  2008-09-06 20:39:45 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"Richard B. Gilbert&  2008-09-06 08:28:58 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"Peter Pan" <  2008-09-06 12:37:43 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
David Lesher <wb8foz@[  2008-09-06 18:20:09 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Straydog <asd@[EMAIL P  2007-07-19 10:10:40 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Russell Patterson <me@  2007-07-19 10:50:50 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"mark krawczuk"  2008-09-06 20:37:30 
Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Straydog <asd@[EMAIL P  2007-07-18 22:15:29 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Kurt <labolide@[EMAIL   2007-07-18 19:39:31 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BC" <billch  2007-07-18 20:09:48 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-18 22:31:59 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BC" <billch  2007-07-18 21:09:39 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Notan <notan@[EMAIL PR  2007-07-18 22:14:01 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BC" <billch  2007-07-18 21:40:49 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-20 10:21:40 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Andreas Wenzel <awspam  2007-07-19 19:20:39 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Simon Templar <usenet@  2007-07-21 20:42:42 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-18 22:07:17 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Bert Hyman <bert@[EMAI  2007-07-19 12:47:59 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Russell Patterson <me@  2007-07-19 09:33:25 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Straydog <asd@[EMAIL P  2007-07-19 10:00:20 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"GeekBoy" <a  2007-07-20 13:44:05 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Straydog <asd@[EMAIL P  2007-07-19 10:05:41 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Bert Hyman <bert@[EMAI  2007-07-19 14:08:48 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"prc2u1" <pr  2007-07-19 16:00:29 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Russell Patterson <me@  2007-07-19 12:08:02 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
localhost-V2008-12-19 Mon Jan 5 18:11:07 PST 2009.