Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Camera Looks Like a Phone

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:43:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I want
to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing looked
like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted, than if
they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera. In my work as an
appraiser, I often want to get a pix of the client and maybe their car.
Oftentimes they skip out on paying and I could file that information (ID pix of
them and their vehicle) with the whole file, to try and help in those times
when payment is turned over to collections.

So, what I basically want is a digital camera that may look like a cell phone,
that I can move about through the day either me taking pictures or the goofy
thing taking pictures on its own, at 1 minute intervals.

To download my pix, I would like some sort of wireless or WiFi connection to a
modern laptop. Could anyone advise what to buy? Thanks.

More about : camera phone

Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:43:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"MilkyWhy" <milkywhy@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20041208014300.21753.00001372@mb-m12.wmconnect.com...
> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I
want
> to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
> couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing
looked
> like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted,
than if
> they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera. In my work as an
> appraiser, I often want to get a pix of the client and maybe their car.
> Oftentimes they skip out on paying and I could file that information (ID
pix of
> them and their vehicle) with the whole file, to try and help in those
times
> when payment is turned over to collections.
>
> So, what I basically want is a digital camera that may look like a cell
phone,
> that I can move about through the day either me taking pictures or the
goofy
> thing taking pictures on its own, at 1 minute intervals.
>
> To download my pix, I would like some sort of wireless or WiFi connection
to a
> modern laptop.

>Could anyone advise what to buy? Thanks.

Buy a Google.
I think it's got exactly what you're looking for.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:02:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MilkyWhy wrote:

> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I want
> to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
> couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing looked
> like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted, than if
> they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera.

Why not just buy a camera phone then?

Disguising a camera as a cell phone isn't much of a disguise these days
- some establishments (such as upper-crust Hollywood eateries that draw
a lot of celebrity clientele) are banning cel phones outright, because
so many people try to sneak in camera phones.
Related resources
December 8, 2004 11:20:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MilkyWhy wrote:
> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I want
> to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
> couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing looked
> like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted, than if
> they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera. In my work as an
> appraiser, I often want to get a pix of the client and maybe their car.
> Oftentimes they skip out on paying and I could file that information (ID pix of
> them and their vehicle) with the whole file, to try and help in those times
> when payment is turned over to collections.
>
> So, what I basically want is a digital camera that may look like a cell phone,
> that I can move about through the day either me taking pictures or the goofy
> thing taking pictures on its own, at 1 minute intervals.
>
> To download my pix, I would like some sort of wireless or WiFi connection to a
> modern laptop. Could anyone advise what to buy? Thanks.


Spies-R-Us could prove helpful.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:14:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Ion responds:

>> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I
>want
>> to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
>> couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing looked
>> like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted, than
>if
>> they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera.
>
>Why not just buy a camera phone then?
>
>Disguising a camera as a cell phone isn't much of a disguise these days
>- some establishments (such as upper-crust Hollywood eateries that draw
>a lot of celebrity clientele) are banning cel phones outright, because
>so many people try to sneak in camera phones.
>

Now there's an idea that I'd like to see grab hold like Reaganomics never
did--and trickle down. Having a meal out without having to listen to some
moron's phone ring or a conversation shouted (why the hell don't those people
just buy megaphones?) to some other jerk would be a pleasure.

Charlie Self
"Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself
and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce
December 8, 2004 12:14:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:

> Matt Ion responds:
>
>
>>>I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I
>>
>>want
>>
>>>to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
>>>couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing looked
>>>like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted, than
>>
>>if
>>
>>>they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera.
>>
>>Why not just buy a camera phone then?
>>
>>Disguising a camera as a cell phone isn't much of a disguise these days
>>- some establishments (such as upper-crust Hollywood eateries that draw
>>a lot of celebrity clientele) are banning cel phones outright, because
>>so many people try to sneak in camera phones.
>>
>
>
> Now there's an idea that I'd like to see grab hold like Reaganomics never
> did--and trickle down. Having a meal out without having to listen to some
> moron's phone ring or a conversation shouted (why the hell don't those people
> just buy megaphones?) to some other jerk would be a pleasure.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself
> and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce


I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:41:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This kinda went off-topic, huh?

The only very small, very cheap, decent-quality cameras that come to
mind are those made by Argus. Check out

http://www.arguscamera.com

Their 3640 model can be found for <$100.

But if you're willing to pay more...

Sony makes some very cool small cameras, like the U30/U40/U50 line (all
about $200), and the P100/120/150 line ($350-450).

The SL400R is kinda flat and kinda big - I don't think it could be
mistaken for a cell phone. But if a "flat" camera is OK, I'd recommend
the Panasonic FX7, which has image stabilization, allowing for slower
shutterspeeds (and thus brighter shots) in poor lighting. The Sony T1,
the Casio EX-Z55 and EX-S100, the Fuji 440/450, and of course the Canon
SD200/300, are all good compact cameras as well.
More info at

http://digitalcameraguide.blogspot.com

BNM
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:31:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <5yytd.457914$nl.367000@pd7tw3no>, Matt Ion
<soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote:

> Disguising a camera as a cell phone isn't much of a disguise these days
> - some establishments (such as upper-crust Hollywood eateries that draw
> a lot of celebrity clientele) are banning cel phones outright, because
> so many people try to sneak in camera phones.

In the course of my business I visit the headquarters of some very
large drug and health insurance companies. Most off them don't let
camera phones in the door (at least for visitors - maybe employees can
use their phones)
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 3:47:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MilkyWhy wrote:

> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a
> phone. I want to carry it around with me all day and have it take
> It would be handier if the goofy thing looked like a modern cell
> phone because folks would take it more for granted, than if they
> realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera.

Buy a Kyocera SL400R. It's twistable down the middle and if you don't
twist it, you can hold it at waist level and look down on the display,
while you take pictures. It's very discreet.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:58:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Toke Eskildsen responds:

>MilkyWhy wrote:
>
>> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a
>> phone. I want to carry it around with me all day and have it take
>> It would be handier if the goofy thing looked like a modern cell
>> phone because folks would take it more for granted, than if they
>> realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera.
>
>Buy a Kyocera SL400R. It's twistable down the middle and if you don't
>twist it, you can hold it at waist level and look down on the display,
>while you take pictures. It's very discreet.

Of course, if you get a discreet shot and the person catches you at it, you've
upped your chances of learning what it feels like to get the snot pounded out
of you.

Charlie Self
"Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself
and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 5:40:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.

Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.

May be coincidence, but the local Schlotzsky's, which was the only
eatery I'd ever seen with a sign on the door banning cell phones, is now
defunct. Out of business. Closed.

--
John Miller
email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 5:49:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer responds:

>> Now there's an idea that I'd like to see grab hold like Reaganomics never
>> did--and trickle down. Having a meal out without having to listen to some
>> moron's phone ring or a conversation shouted (why the hell don't those
>people
>> just buy megaphones?) to some other jerk would be a pleasure.
>>
>> Charlie Self
>> "Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of
>himself
>> and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce
>
>
>I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.

Sanctity? More like sanity. But, then, two restaurants isn't even a good start.
I'd hope for something like 500,000. I guess we could leave out the fast food
dumps, because if you eat that "food", your ears fall off anyway.

Charlie Self
"Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself
and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce
December 8, 2004 6:14:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Why don't you buy a VCR camera?

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"MilkyWhy" <milkywhy@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20041208014300.21753.00001372@mb-m12.wmconnect.com...
> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I
want
> to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
> couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing
looked
> like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted,
than if
> they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera. In my work as an
> appraiser, I often want to get a pix of the client and maybe their car.
> Oftentimes they skip out on paying and I could file that information (ID
pix of
> them and their vehicle) with the whole file, to try and help in those
times
> when payment is turned over to collections.
>
> So, what I basically want is a digital camera that may look like a cell
phone,
> that I can move about through the day either me taking pictures or the
goofy
> thing taking pictures on its own, at 1 minute intervals.
>
> To download my pix, I would like some sort of wireless or WiFi connection
to a
> modern laptop. Could anyone advise what to buy? Thanks.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:47:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:

> Of course, if you get a discreet shot and the person catches you
> at it, you've upped your chances of learning what it feels like to
> get the snot pounded out of you.

My kids haven't beaten the snot out of me yet, but then again, I only
had the SL400R for a couple of months.

English isn't my native language, så I looked "appraiser" up in a
dictionary. It said "To evaluate, especially in an official capacity.",
so I assume that MilkyWhys purpose isn't to make pantyshots. But of
course he could be lying.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:30:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cp73kg$ug7$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com>, John Miller <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

> Jer wrote:
> > I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
> > jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>
> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.

more importantly, let the fcc know. jamming and transmitting without a
license is illegal. they'd love to learn about it.
December 8, 2004 11:12:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Miller wrote:

> Jer wrote:
>
>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>
>
> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.

Both places are well posted upon entering, and if necessary, the
reservation desk is clear about their expectations of dining protocol.
Their protocol is predicated on privacy, which appears to be gladly
appreciated by those I've met.

>
> May be coincidence, but the local Schlotzsky's, which was the only
> eatery I'd ever seen with a sign on the door banning cell phones, is now
> defunct. Out of business. Closed.

Well, if it wasn't coincidence, considering the nature of their dining
protocol, that doesn't surprise me.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
December 8, 2004 11:17:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:

> Jer responds:
>
>
>>>Now there's an idea that I'd like to see grab hold like Reaganomics never
>>>did--and trickle down. Having a meal out without having to listen to some
>>>moron's phone ring or a conversation shouted (why the hell don't those
>>
>>people
>>
>>>just buy megaphones?) to some other jerk would be a pleasure.
>>>
>>>Charlie Self
>>>"Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of
>>
>>himself
>>
>>>and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce
>>
>>
>>I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>
>
> Sanctity? More like sanity. But, then, two restaurants isn't even a good start.
> I'd hope for something like 500,000. I guess we could leave out the fast food
> dumps, because if you eat that "food", your ears fall off anyway.
>


I don't do fast food, and I don't try to talk on a phone and dine
simultaneously. I prefer to respect my dining companions by focusing my
attention with them, and if they respond likewise, they get invited again.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
December 9, 2004 2:29:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam wrote:

> In article <cp73kg$ug7$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com>, John Miller <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jer wrote:
>>
>>>I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>>jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>>
>>Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
>
>
> more importantly, let the fcc know. jamming and transmitting without a
> license is illegal. they'd love to learn about it.

I'm sure they would, but they're friends of mine. This may come as a
shock, but I, the owners of those venues, and their patrons care more
about privacy than the law. Besides, they've been that way for over two
years, nobody has complained, so it's really nobody's business. No
harm, no foul, and not complicated.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 3:28:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:12:19 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>John Miller wrote:
>
>> Jer wrote:
>>
>>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>>
>>
>> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
>
>Both places are well posted upon entering, and if necessary, the
>reservation desk is clear about their expectations of dining protocol.
>Their protocol is predicated on privacy, which appears to be gladly
>appreciated by those I've met.

They post that they are breaking the law?
Such jammers are illegal in the US (and most other countries).
>
>>
>> May be coincidence, but the local Schlotzsky's, which was the only
>> eatery I'd ever seen with a sign on the door banning cell phones, is now
>> defunct. Out of business. Closed.
>
>Well, if it wasn't coincidence, considering the nature of their dining
>protocol, that doesn't surprise me.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 3:36:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:jjvfr01gsnaie0aba1einphc9g7fbk94io@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:12:19 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
> >John Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Jer wrote:
> >>
> >>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
> >>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
> >>
> >>
> >> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
> >
> >Both places are well posted upon entering, and if necessary, the
> >reservation desk is clear about their expectations of dining protocol.
> >Their protocol is predicated on privacy, which appears to be gladly
> >appreciated by those I've met.
>
> They post that they are breaking the law?
> Such jammers are illegal in the US (and most other countries).

I understand privacy concerns, but...

....Can you IMAGINE the lawsuit that restaurant would be CRUSHED with if/when
the first heart attack victim in that establishment is unable to dial 911
with their cell phone??? There would be NO LIMIT on damages in a case like
that.

Every lawyer in the state of California would be beating their doors down to
represent them!
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 8:07:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Jer responds:
>>
>>
>>>> Now there's an idea that I'd like to see grab hold like Reaganomics
>>>> never
>>>> did--and trickle down. Having a meal out without having to listen to
>>>> some
>>>> moron's phone ring or a conversation shouted (why the hell don't those
>>>
>>>
>>> people
>>>
>>>> just buy megaphones?) to some other jerk would be a pleasure.
>>>>
>>>> Charlie Self
>>>> "Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of
>>>
>>>
>>> himself
>>>
>>>> and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sanctity? More like sanity. But, then, two restaurants isn't even a
>> good start.
>> I'd hope for something like 500,000. I guess we could leave out the
>> fast food
>> dumps, because if you eat that "food", your ears fall off anyway.
>>
>
>
> I don't do fast food, and I don't try to talk on a phone and dine
> simultaneously. I prefer to respect my dining companions by focusing my
> attention with them, and if they respond likewise, they get invited again.
>
>
I get really annoyed when people in a restaurant spend all their time on
the cell phone, talking loudly (don't they know they are shouting in the
ear of their caller?), and worst of all, getting a cell phone call in a
restaurant or movie theater. When I go to the theater, or restaurant,
my phone is either off, or on silent.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:17:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:29:54 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <cp73kg$ug7$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com>, John Miller <me@privacy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jer wrote:
>>>
>>>>I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>>>jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>>>
>>>Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
>>
>>
>> more importantly, let the fcc know. jamming and transmitting without a
>> license is illegal. they'd love to learn about it.
>
>I'm sure they would, but they're friends of mine. This may come as a
>shock, but I, the owners of those venues, and their patrons care more
>about privacy than the law. Besides, they've been that way for over two
>years, nobody has complained, so it's really nobody's business. No
>harm, no foul, and not complicated.

How does jamming cell phone signals enhance privacy?
I can understand a desire to not be bothered by others on phones, but
that's not a privacy issue, that's an annoyance issue.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
December 9, 2004 3:46:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <081220041830020282%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam@nospam.invalid
says...
> more importantly, let the fcc know. jamming and transmitting without a
> license is illegal. they'd love to learn about it.
>

Making your cell phone un-usable inside a building is not a violation of any
law,(in the US) as long as you are made aware (by signage and/or
announcement) that the condition exsists.

There has been discussion about doing the same thing inside some of the
theaters on Broadway.

Im uncertain as to whether it has allready been done in some theaters, as I
was not paying full attention to the TV show that mentioned it (History
Channel sometime in OCT or NOV).




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 3:46:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c22596e3287b08998985c@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

> In article <081220041830020282%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam@nospam.invalid
> says...
> > more importantly, let the fcc know. jamming and transmitting without a
> > license is illegal. they'd love to learn about it.
>
> Making your cell phone un-usable inside a building is not a violation of any
> law,(in the US) as long as you are made aware (by signage and/or
> announcement) that the condition exsists.

depends how it is done.

intentionally broadcasting without being licensed for those frequencies
and more importantly, deliberate interference, aka jamming, is illegal.


passive methods, such as putting metal in the walls and ceiling to turn
the building into a faraday cage so that reception is essentially null
is not illegal.
December 9, 2004 7:53:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Jer wrote:
>
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>>> Jer responds:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Now there's an idea that I'd like to see grab hold like Reaganomics
>>>>> never
>>>>> did--and trickle down. Having a meal out without having to listen
>>>>> to some
>>>>> moron's phone ring or a conversation shouted (why the hell don't those
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> people
>>>>
>>>>> just buy megaphones?) to some other jerk would be a pleasure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Charlie Self
>>>>> "Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a
>>>>> fool of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> himself
>>>>
>>>>> and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sanctity? More like sanity. But, then, two restaurants isn't even a
>>> good start.
>>> I'd hope for something like 500,000. I guess we could leave out the
>>> fast food
>>> dumps, because if you eat that "food", your ears fall off anyway.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't do fast food, and I don't try to talk on a phone and dine
>> simultaneously. I prefer to respect my dining companions by focusing
>> my attention with them, and if they respond likewise, they get invited
>> again.
>>
>>
> I get really annoyed when people in a restaurant spend all their time on
> the cell phone, talking loudly (don't they know they are shouting in the
> ear of their caller?), and worst of all, getting a cell phone call in a
> restaurant or movie theater. When I go to the theater, or restaurant,
> my phone is either off, or on silent.


I remember a time when a mobile phone was only expected to be used by
Really Important People(tm). Now, few give a rat's furry butt about
anything except themself, and considering the overwhelming lack of
courtesy and discretion, only an idiot would allow neighbours to
eavesdrop on their privacy. Clearly, our world is full of idiots.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 8:12:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:29:54 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>>nospam wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <cp73kg$ug7$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com>, John Miller <me@privacy.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>>>>jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>>>>
>>>>Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
>>>
>>>
>>>more importantly, let the fcc know. jamming and transmitting without a
>>>license is illegal. they'd love to learn about it.
>>
>>I'm sure they would, but they're friends of mine. This may come as a
>>shock, but I, the owners of those venues, and their patrons care more
>>about privacy than the law. Besides, they've been that way for over two
>>years, nobody has complained, so it's really nobody's business. No
>>harm, no foul, and not complicated.
>
>
> How does jamming cell phone signals enhance privacy?
> I can understand a desire to not be bothered by others on phones, but
> that's not a privacy issue, that's an annoyance issue.
>

Hi...

In the olden days (back around the time sunshine was
invented :)  I used to occasionally dine out leaving the
youngsters with a baby sitter. I'd leave the restaurant
number by the phone; and excuse myself to go and call
home from the restaurant phone or a pay phone to make
sure that all was well every half hour or so...

In these days, had I it to do over, I'd simply carry
my cell phone - leave the number with the sitter - and
tell her it was for emergency only.

Now imagine that the emergency arises - get to the
hospital right now (fill in your most horrific thoughts)
and someone doesn't get that message in time because
some fool is tampering with it?

I'd surely hate to be in the shoes of the one tampering.

As for the OP's claim of wanting to take surreptious
pictures of everyone/everything he came in contact with
because "I'm an adjuster, and someone might not pay me" ???
Yeah, right. What evil deed are you really doing?

Ken
December 9, 2004 9:15:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <091220041159083416%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam@nospam.invalid
says...
>
> passive methods, such as putting metal in the walls and ceiling to turn
> the building into a faraday cage so that reception is essentially null
> is not illegal.
>
>
This is what was talked about for use in Broadway theaters, ect.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:13:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:12:56 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>
>
>Big Bill wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:29:54 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <cp73kg$ug7$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com>, John Miller <me@privacy.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>>>>>jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>more importantly, let the fcc know. jamming and transmitting without a
>>>>license is illegal. they'd love to learn about it.
>>>
>>>I'm sure they would, but they're friends of mine. This may come as a
>>>shock, but I, the owners of those venues, and their patrons care more
>>>about privacy than the law. Besides, they've been that way for over two
>>>years, nobody has complained, so it's really nobody's business. No
>>>harm, no foul, and not complicated.
>>
>>
>> How does jamming cell phone signals enhance privacy?
>> I can understand a desire to not be bothered by others on phones, but
>> that's not a privacy issue, that's an annoyance issue.
>>
>
>Hi...
>
>In the olden days (back around the time sunshine was
>invented :)  I used to occasionally dine out leaving the
>youngsters with a baby sitter. I'd leave the restaurant
>number by the phone; and excuse myself to go and call
>home from the restaurant phone or a pay phone to make
>sure that all was well every half hour or so...
>
>In these days, had I it to do over, I'd simply carry
>my cell phone - leave the number with the sitter - and
>tell her it was for emergency only.
>
>Now imagine that the emergency arises - get to the
>hospital right now (fill in your most horrific thoughts)
>and someone doesn't get that message in time because
>some fool is tampering with it?

The restaurant's phone will still work.
>
>I'd surely hate to be in the shoes of the one tampering.

Cell frequencies can be legally blocked (not jammed); for example,
using building materials that shield RF.
There's no requirement that you be able to connect with your carrier
at any given place.
>
>As for the OP's claim of wanting to take surreptious
>pictures of everyone/everything he came in contact with
>because "I'm an adjuster, and someone might not pay me" ???
>Yeah, right. What evil deed are you really doing?

Many places (gyms, for example) ban cell phones for that reason.
There's no effective way to determine if a cell phone is
picture-capable quickly by an untrained person, so they are just
banned.
>
>Ken

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:15:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:46:26 -0500, Larry
<lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

>In article <081220041830020282%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam@nospam.invalid
>says...
>> more importantly, let the fcc know. jamming and transmitting without a
>> license is illegal. they'd love to learn about it.
>>
>
>Making your cell phone un-usable inside a building is not a violation of any
>law,(in the US) as long as you are made aware (by signage and/or
>announcement) that the condition exsists.

It depends; jammimng is illegal in the US.
Blocking the RF by building materials isn't.
>
>There has been discussion about doing the same thing inside some of the
>theaters on Broadway.

IIRC, that was done by building materials to block the RF passively.
>
>Im uncertain as to whether it has allready been done in some theaters, as I
>was not paying full attention to the TV show that mentioned it (History
>Channel sometime in OCT or NOV).

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 1:43:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 00:36:56 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
>news:jjvfr01gsnaie0aba1einphc9g7fbk94io@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:12:19 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>
>> >John Miller wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jer wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>> >>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
>> >
>> >Both places are well posted upon entering, and if necessary, the
>> >reservation desk is clear about their expectations of dining protocol.
>> >Their protocol is predicated on privacy, which appears to be gladly
>> >appreciated by those I've met.
>>
>> They post that they are breaking the law?
>> Such jammers are illegal in the US (and most other countries).
>
>I understand privacy concerns, but...
>
>...Can you IMAGINE the lawsuit that restaurant would be CRUSHED with if/when
>the first heart attack victim in that establishment is unable to dial 911
>with their cell phone???

Given the spottiness of cell phone coverage and the fact that
911 can't yet locate them, it would be criminal negligence not to use
the restaurant's land line.

Why is it not OK for a restaurant to block usage when usage of
some systems blocks itself if you go a hundred yards off a main
highway?

> There would be NO LIMIT on damages in a case like
>that.
>
>Every lawyer in the state of California would be beating their doors down to
>represent them!
>
>
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 1:43:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:84lhr0l5u9jr1lmk0sevgi5c37c1vmdio1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 00:36:56 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
> >news:jjvfr01gsnaie0aba1einphc9g7fbk94io@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:12:19 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
> >>
> >> >John Miller wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Jer wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
> >> >>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
> >> >
> >> >Both places are well posted upon entering, and if necessary, the
> >> >reservation desk is clear about their expectations of dining protocol.
> >> >Their protocol is predicated on privacy, which appears to be gladly
> >> >appreciated by those I've met.
> >>
> >> They post that they are breaking the law?
> >> Such jammers are illegal in the US (and most other countries).
> >
> >I understand privacy concerns, but...
> >
> >...Can you IMAGINE the lawsuit that restaurant would be CRUSHED with
if/when
> >the first heart attack victim in that establishment is unable to dial 911
> >with their cell phone???
>
> Given the spottiness of cell phone coverage and the fact that
> 911 can't yet locate them, it would be criminal negligence not to use
> the restaurant's land line.
>
> Why is it not OK for a restaurant to block usage when usage of
> some systems blocks itself if you go a hundred yards off a main
> highway?

Because in your example, there is no intentional blocking in what is
otherwise a covered area. BTW-Modern cell phones can be tracked for
location now (my 2 year old phone enables this by default, but I have it
turned off...I guess it's the anti-big-brother in me. I think their problem
would arise from not notifying their customers that they are being blocked.
If they notify them, I would imagine that this would remove much of their
problem. My comments were made on the assumption that you cannot legally
block the signal. If that is indeed legal, then I would withdraw my
comment. My shaky understanding is that this is not allowed...but I could
certainly be wrong.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 1:43:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:43:41 GMT, kashe@sonic.net wrote:

>On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 00:36:56 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
>>news:jjvfr01gsnaie0aba1einphc9g7fbk94io@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:12:19 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>> >John Miller wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Jer wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>> >>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
>>> >
>>> >Both places are well posted upon entering, and if necessary, the
>>> >reservation desk is clear about their expectations of dining protocol.
>>> >Their protocol is predicated on privacy, which appears to be gladly
>>> >appreciated by those I've met.
>>>
>>> They post that they are breaking the law?
>>> Such jammers are illegal in the US (and most other countries).
>>
>>I understand privacy concerns, but...
>>
>>...Can you IMAGINE the lawsuit that restaurant would be CRUSHED with if/when
>>the first heart attack victim in that establishment is unable to dial 911
>>with their cell phone???
>
> Given the spottiness of cell phone coverage and the fact that
>911 can't yet locate them, it would be criminal negligence not to use
>the restaurant's land line.

Maybe where *you* are.
Here (in Phoenix area) coverage is pretty good, and 911 can use the
GPS in the phone to locate the caller.
>
> Why is it not OK for a restaurant to block usage when usage of
>some systems blocks itself if you go a hundred yards off a main
>highway?

Because it's illegal.
OK, for some that's not enough...
Because the jammer has no right to disable someone's phone for the
convenience of others. If a place wants to limit cell phone use,
simply post an appropriate sign, and enforce it by asking the user to
end the call, or step outside while calling.
>
>> There would be NO LIMIT on damages in a case like
>>that.
>>
>>Every lawyer in the state of California would be beating their doors down to
>>represent them!
>>
>>

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
December 10, 2004 1:43:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xg5ud.61$2r.24@fed1read02>, "Mark²" says...
> Because in your example, there is no intentional blocking in what is
> otherwise a covered area. BTW-Modern cell phones can be tracked for
> location now (my 2 year old phone enables this by default, but I have it
> turned off...I guess it's the anti-big-brother in me. I think their problem
> would arise from not notifying their customers that they are being blocked.
> If they notify them, I would imagine that this would remove much of their
> problem. My comments were made on the assumption that you cannot legally
> block the signal. If that is indeed legal, then I would withdraw my
> comment. My shaky understanding is that this is not allowed...but I could
> certainly be wrong.
>

You CAN block the signal by mechanical means, you CANNOT block it with
interference of an electrical nature ie broadcast a blocking signal.

If you block it (on purpose) you are supposed to post notices and announce to
the public that you are doing so.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
December 10, 2004 1:43:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

[....]

> BTW-Modern cell phones can be tracked for
> location now (my 2 year old phone enables this by default, but I have it
> turned off...I guess it's the anti-big-brother in me.

Well, anti-big brother notwitrhstanding, 2 of the 3 cell tracking
systems currently deployed in the U.S. don't need help from the handset.
They'll even track an unregistered handset into a blind area with last
know location coordinates. http://www.trueposition.com is your friend -
or not.

[....]


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 1:43:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:33:13 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
><kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:84lhr0l5u9jr1lmk0sevgi5c37c1vmdio1@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 00:36:56 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
>> >news:jjvfr01gsnaie0aba1einphc9g7fbk94io@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:12:19 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >John Miller wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Jer wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>> >> >>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Both places are well posted upon entering, and if necessary, the
>> >> >reservation desk is clear about their expectations of dining protocol.
>> >> >Their protocol is predicated on privacy, which appears to be gladly
>> >> >appreciated by those I've met.
>> >>
>> >> They post that they are breaking the law?
>> >> Such jammers are illegal in the US (and most other countries).
>> >
>> >I understand privacy concerns, but...
>> >
>> >...Can you IMAGINE the lawsuit that restaurant would be CRUSHED with
>if/when
>> >the first heart attack victim in that establishment is unable to dial 911
>> >with their cell phone???
>>
>> Given the spottiness of cell phone coverage and the fact that
>> 911 can't yet locate them, it would be criminal negligence not to use
>> the restaurant's land line.
>>
>> Why is it not OK for a restaurant to block usage when usage of
>> some systems blocks itself if you go a hundred yards off a main
>> highway?
>
>Because in your example, there is no intentional blocking in what is
>otherwise a covered area. BTW-Modern cell phones can be tracked for
>location now (my 2 year old phone enables this by default, but I have it
>turned off...I guess it's the anti-big-brother in me. I think their problem
>would arise from not notifying their customers that they are being blocked.
>If they notify them, I would imagine that this would remove much of their
>problem. My comments were made on the assumption that you cannot legally
>block the signal. If that is indeed legal, then I would withdraw my
>comment. My shaky understanding is that this is not allowed...but I could
>certainly be wrong.
>
In the US, it's illegal to jam cell phones. You can use building
materials to block calls in and/or out, but you can't legally jam
them.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 1:43:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c22b3c9cc71168989861@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <Xg5ud.61$2r.24@fed1read02>, "Mark²" says...
> Because in your example, there is no intentional blocking in what is
> otherwise a covered area. BTW-Modern cell phones can be tracked for
> location now (my 2 year old phone enables this by default, but I have it
> turned off...I guess it's the anti-big-brother in me. I think their
problem
> would arise from not notifying their customers that they are being
blocked.
> If they notify them, I would imagine that this would remove much of their
> problem. My comments were made on the assumption that you cannot legally
> block the signal. If that is indeed legal, then I would withdraw my
> comment. My shaky understanding is that this is not allowed...but I could
> certainly be wrong.
>

You CAN block the signal by mechanical means, you CANNOT block it with
interference of an electrical nature ie broadcast a blocking signal.

If you block it (on purpose) you are supposed to post notices and announce
to
the public that you are doing so.
-----------
That was my understanding too, but I don't have proof of this.
Do you?
December 10, 2004 1:43:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <9Z5ud.68$2r.49@fed1read02>, "Mark²" says...
>
> "Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c22b3c9cc71168989861@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> In article <Xg5ud.61$2r.24@fed1read02>, "Mark²" says...
> > Because in your example, there is no intentional blocking in what is
> > otherwise a covered area. BTW-Modern cell phones can be tracked for
> > location now (my 2 year old phone enables this by default, but I have it
> > turned off...I guess it's the anti-big-brother in me. I think their
> problem
> > would arise from not notifying their customers that they are being
> blocked.
> > If they notify them, I would imagine that this would remove much of their
> > problem. My comments were made on the assumption that you cannot legally
> > block the signal. If that is indeed legal, then I would withdraw my
> > comment. My shaky understanding is that this is not allowed...but I could
> > certainly be wrong.
> >
>
> You CAN block the signal by mechanical means, you CANNOT block it with
> interference of an electrical nature ie broadcast a blocking signal.
>
> If you block it (on purpose) you are supposed to post notices and announce
> to
> the public that you are doing so.
> -----------
> That was my understanding too, but I don't have proof of this.
> Do you?
>
>
>

Only the fact that I saw some mention of it on a TV show I was "half
watching" on the History Channel during Oct or Nov.

They were talking about shielding some theater on Broadway so that cell
phones wouldn't chirp during the play... I believe the play was they were
talking about was "The Producers" which had not yet opened when the TV show
was filmed.

I dont know if the work was done, or just discussed, because I wasn't really
paying attention at the time.

As far as LAW is concerned, Im sure its legal, as my employer has shielded
several meeting rooms so that they wont be interupted during meetings. There
are signs on the walls announcing "If you MUST use a cellular phone, you MUST
be outside this room".

My employer (a small municipality) would make sure its legal before doing it

Seems to cover it.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 1:48:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 8 Dec 2004 09:41:52 -0800, "malfitano" <malfitano@gmail.com> wrote:

>This kinda went off-topic, huh?
>
>The only very small, very cheap, decent-quality cameras that come to
>mind are those made by Argus. Check out
>
>http://www.arguscamera.com
>
>Their 3640 model can be found for <$100.
>
>But if you're willing to pay more...
>
>Sony makes some very cool small cameras, like the U30/U40/U50 line (all
>about $200), and the P100/120/150 line ($350-450).
>
>The SL400R is kinda flat and kinda big - I don't think it could be
>mistaken for a cell phone. But if a "flat" camera is OK, I'd recommend
>the Panasonic FX7, which has image stabilization, allowing for slower
>shutterspeeds (and thus brighter shots) in poor lighting. The Sony T1,
>the Casio EX-Z55 and EX-S100, the Fuji 440/450, and of course the Canon
>SD200/300, are all good compact cameras as well.
>More info at
>
>http://digitalcameraguide.blogspot.com
>
>BNM

It was never explianed why simply writing the make, model,
color and license plate of the car with a pencil wouldn't be
sufficiently high tech. Adding a picture of the person wouldn't be
likely to help unless you could locate the car anyway.
December 10, 2004 3:00:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c22a6992e0552ce98985e@news.comcast.giganews.com>, Larry
<lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> writes
>In article <091220041159083416%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam@nospam.invalid
>says...
>>
>> passive methods, such as putting metal in the walls and ceiling to turn
>> the building into a faraday cage so that reception is essentially null
>> is not illegal.
>>
>>
>This is what was talked about for use in Broadway theaters, ect.

Until the emergency services need to operate inside the building, i.e.
monitoring fire officers & giving them instructions, advice and
facilities requests from paramedics & signals from bio-monitoring
medical equipment used by paramedics, etc. Of course you might not be
able to require buildings that are poor in this respect are adapted, but
you can object to a building being modified in a way that prevents
emergency communications. Don't forget that emergency communications
will include pager and mobile phones used for staff on call-out.

--
Ian G8ILZ
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 3:00:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:06 +0000, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>In article <MPG.1c22a6992e0552ce98985e@news.comcast.giganews.com>, Larry
><lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> writes
>>In article <091220041159083416%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam@nospam.invalid
>>says...
>>>
>>> passive methods, such as putting metal in the walls and ceiling to turn
>>> the building into a faraday cage so that reception is essentially null
>>> is not illegal.
>>>
>>>
>>This is what was talked about for use in Broadway theaters, ect.
>
>Until the emergency services need to operate inside the building, i.e.
>monitoring fire officers & giving them instructions, advice and
>facilities requests from paramedics & signals from bio-monitoring
>medical equipment used by paramedics, etc. Of course you might not be
>able to require buildings that are poor in this respect are adapted, but
>you can object to a building being modified in a way that prevents
>emergency communications. Don't forget that emergency communications
>will include pager and mobile phones used for staff on call-out.

I think you'll find that emergency comm units are significantly more
powerful than cell phones.
What will block cell phone signals won't block the emergency comm
units.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
December 10, 2004 9:23:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <hn8ir09qgpkpjpqbjo59iieuu0jnurgd7u@4ax.com>, Big Bill
<bill@pipping.com> writes
>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:06 +0000, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
-----Cut, about using a Faraday cage to block signals
>>
>>Until the emergency services need to operate inside the building, i.e.
>>monitoring fire officers & giving them instructions, advice and
>>facilities requests from paramedics & signals from bio-monitoring
>>medical equipment used by paramedics, etc. Of course you might not be
>>able to require buildings that are poor in this respect are adapted, but
>>you can object to a building being modified in a way that prevents
>>emergency communications. Don't forget that emergency communications
>>will include pager and mobile phones used for staff on call-out.
>
>I think you'll find that emergency comm units are significantly more
>powerful than cell phones.
>What will block cell phone signals won't block the emergency comm
>units.

True a Faraday cage is best viewed as an increased path loss, I have
worked with cages that prevent communication between two 2W handsets
either side of the window; a theatre system could have holes in the
screen so as to pass some signal, although mobile phones handsets are
not a lot less powerful than handheld transceivers (i.e. viz. 1W vs.
5W), if a building is in a strong signal region for mobile phones then
the screening required could prevent emergency comms which could be with
a weaker more distant base.
--
Ian G8ILZ
December 10, 2004 9:26:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <v38ir0152dshr6st3t84ihqn7pk56cn7p5@4ax.com>, Big Bill
<bill@pipping.com> writes
-cut------
>Because the jammer has no right to disable someone's phone for the
>convenience of others.

Added to which for the jammer to be effective throughout the building it
will also jam signals outside; put simply, it will not stop at the
window.

--
Ian G8ILZ
!