Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer (no lectures or legal..

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:44:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)

Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:44:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Kathleen Carmody wrote:
>
> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)

Fine, no jammer lectures.

But, I must say that you're not very smart to use your real
e-mail address, in attempting to procure illegal equipment.

Notan
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:44:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:42BDAA6E.9232A83C@ddress.com...
> Kathleen Carmody wrote:
>>
>> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>>
>> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
>> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
>> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
>> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>
> Fine, no jammer lectures.
>
> But, I must say that you're not very smart to use your real
> e-mail address, in attempting to procure illegal equipment.
>
> Notan

And one of the Mayors Council Members to boot! Nothing like community
service eh?

Steve Banks
Related resources
June 25, 2005 6:55:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steven Banks wrote:
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:42BDAA6E.9232A83C@ddress.com...
>
>>Kathleen Carmody wrote:
>>
>>>(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>>>
>>>Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
>>>stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
>>>that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
>>>jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>>
>>Fine, no jammer lectures.
>>
>>But, I must say that you're not very smart to use your real
>>e-mail address, in attempting to procure illegal equipment.
>>
>>Notan
>
>
> And one of the Mayors Council Members to boot! Nothing like community
> service eh?
>
> Steve Banks
>
>


And anybody that assumes the OP is who is represented in the message
header is stretching. I'm no expert, but there's nothing that
guarantees any message is contains legit header info, including yours
and mine.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 6:55:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jer wrote:
>
> Steven Banks wrote:
> > "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> > news:42BDAA6E.9232A83C@ddress.com...
> >
> >>Kathleen Carmody wrote:
> >>
> >>>(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
> >>>
> >>>Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> >>>stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> >>>that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> >>>jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
> >>
> >>Fine, no jammer lectures.
> >>
> >>But, I must say that you're not very smart to use your real
> >>e-mail address, in attempting to procure illegal equipment.
> >>
> >>Notan
> >
> >
> > And one of the Mayors Council Members to boot! Nothing like community
> > service eh?
> >
> > Steve Banks
> >
> >
>
> And anybody that assumes the OP is who is represented in the message
> header is stretching. I'm no expert, but there's nothing that
> guarantees any message is contains legit header info, including yours
> and mine.

If the poster *isn't* who he/she says she is, forging a (local)
government employee's e-mail address warrants more than just a
slap on the wrist.

Either way (legit or not), the poster isn't the brightest.

Notan
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 6:57:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Kathleen Carmody wrote:
> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)

Tough cookies...

> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)

There are none. It sounds like you already knew jammers are illegal in the
US, but just didn't want to be reminded again.



--
JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 7:47:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

You may not want them but you're gonna get them.


"Kathleen Carmody" <councilmembercarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote in
message news:Ma2dnax9_uCdOyDfRVnyjw@skypoint.com...
>
> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 9:08:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <42BDAA6E.9232A83C@ddress.com>, Notan <notan@ddress.com>
wrote:

> > Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> > stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> > that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> > jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>
> Fine, no jammer lectures.
>
> But, I must say that you're not very smart to use your real
> e-mail address, in attempting to procure illegal equipment.

It's illegal to use, not illegal to own.

Maybe she wants to take one apart and look at it.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 9:08:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>
> In article <42BDAA6E.9232A83C@ddress.com>, Notan <notan@ddress.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> > > stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> > > that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> > > jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
> >
> > Fine, no jammer lectures.
> >
> > But, I must say that you're not very smart to use your real
> > e-mail address, in attempting to procure illegal equipment.
>
> It's illegal to use, not illegal to own.
>
> Maybe she wants to take one apart and look at it.

I hadn't even considered that! <g>

The problem is, if Kathleen Carmody really posted this request,
and there are any cellular issues at http://ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us/,
who do ya think they're gonna look to for answers?

Notan
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 10:16:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZglobalQ2dgadgetsdotnet

These are from UK, but have been reviewed to work well. Not too likely to
find a US source, unless you know someone who works IT in a Hospital or
something like that.

"Kathleen Carmody" <councilmembercarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote in
message news:Ma2dnax9_uCdOyDfRVnyjw@skypoint.com...
>
> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 12:45:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <42BDCED8.C0F5FBC5@ddress.com>, Notan <notan@ddress.com>
wrote:

> The problem is, if Kathleen Carmody really posted this request,
> and there are any cellular issues at http://ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us/,
> who do ya think they're gonna look to for answers?

If it's like the rest of the cellular world, they're going to look right
at the provider. Because none of them can seem to get it right.
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 1:49:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In this "I'll sue your ass off" day and age... let me predict what will
happen.

They get an illegal cell phone jammer. At first nobody really notices. Then
all of a sudden, people start to wonder why no one is getting any service in
THAT building, yet a few feet, yards away they get crystal clear reception.
Then later as everything plays out, someone will need to make or receive
that ONE emergency call... the ONE call that really is a life or death
matter, and they can't! Here come the suits against the person responsible
for using the unit and the city government.

I think people will eventually figure out why not one person can make or
receive a call in that building. The rest will be history or should I say
herstory.

Just a guess,
Steve Banks
June 26, 2005 2:49:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Notan wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>>Steven Banks wrote:
>>
>>>"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42BDAA6E.9232A83C@ddress.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kathleen Carmody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
>>>>>stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
>>>>>that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
>>>>>jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>>>>
>>>>Fine, no jammer lectures.
>>>>
>>>>But, I must say that you're not very smart to use your real
>>>>e-mail address, in attempting to procure illegal equipment.
>>>>
>>>>Notan
>>>
>>>
>>>And one of the Mayors Council Members to boot! Nothing like community
>>>service eh?
>>>
>>>Steve Banks
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And anybody that assumes the OP is who is represented in the message
>>header is stretching. I'm no expert, but there's nothing that
>>guarantees any message is contains legit header info, including yours
>>and mine.
>
>
> If the poster *isn't* who he/she says she is, forging a (local)
> government employee's e-mail address warrants more than just a
> slap on the wrist.
>
> Either way (legit or not), the poster isn't the brightest.
>
> Notan


Not the brightest? Kinda like people that use cell phones where their
use is inappropriate? I know three places that use cell jammers in the
U.S. but I'm not tellin because somebody will get pissed and ruin an
otherwise splendid place to visit.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 12:23:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <2-KdnQ9kg-NwriPfRVn-oA@comcast.com>,
"Steven Banks" <roadkingman_FINGER_@hotmail.com> wrote:

> They get an illegal cell phone jammer. At first nobody really notices. Then
> all of a sudden, people start to wonder why no one is getting any service in
> THAT building, yet a few feet, yards away they get crystal clear reception.

Business as usual from the cell phone companies, actually.
June 26, 2005 2:52:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <Ma2dnax9_uCdOyDfRVnyjw@skypoint.com>,
councilmembercarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us says...
>
> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>
>
might try this guy if he is still in business, according to the
dates of the documents he still has a few days left....
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1622A1.html
June 26, 2005 8:07:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <11bt796hh8c04af@corp.supernews.com>,
jseymour@LinxNet.com says...
> I guess his commercial endeavor's continued viability depends on
> whether it can tolerate $99,000 per day of fines ;) . (Although I'm
> not sure I'm reading that right. Recalling my studies, I had
> *thought* fines under the Communications Act were limited to $10,0000
> per violation [at the time--looks like it went up], regardless of how
> long it went on. Actually, $10,000 or time in the slammer, IIRC.)
>
> I bet Ms. Brooklyn-Center-Council-Member Kathleen Carmody's
> constituency will be just *thrilled* with her over *that* expense.
> One imagines $11,000 per day of FCC fines is a pretty decent chunk of
> change for a municipality of only 29,000 residents.
>
>
>
thing is there are people selling the equipment in the United
States, and Canada. As far as this specific vendor I would
imagine he no longer lives in the United States and the
government is going to spend more money in collecting the fines
than the fines total, if they decide to collect. As for the post
itself, I see nothing wrong with it. It's a request for
information. Anyone that wants to spend an hour at
http://www.google.com/ can find a way to get what the poster
wants. Particularly someone who lives so close to Canada. And
with a technology that is legal in the United States. But I'm
not going to give you that link, do the work yourself.
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 8:07:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d289cb591b0c86c9896a1@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
djk <djk@spam.operamail.com> wrote:

> thing is there are people selling the equipment in the United
> States, and Canada. As far as this specific vendor I would
> imagine he no longer lives in the United States and the
> government is going to spend more money in collecting the fines
> than the fines total, if they decide to collect. As for the post
> itself, I see nothing wrong with it. It's a request for
> information. Anyone that wants to spend an hour at
> http://www.google.com/ can find a way to get what the poster
> wants. Particularly someone who lives so close to Canada. And
> with a technology that is legal in the United States. But I'm
> not going to give you that link, do the work yourself.

That's right.

There's no inherent right to make a cell phone call. I don't care if
you are having a heart attack; if you try to make a call and can't,
there's no one to blame. Cell phones are a convenience; if you turn
yours into a mandatory lifesaving device, then you'd better have
something other than traditional cell phone service.

If you want to make a call for whatever reason and you can't, and there
isn't a jammer around, what will you do--sue the cell phone company
because they have shitty coverage? Sue the guy whose house/office
you're in because he lives in a shitty coverage area or has made
building decisions that prevent the cell phone from working optimally?

It doesn't take an hour to find something in Google; it takes more like
10 seconds:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092059/

which says, among other things:

> Americans seeking a legal way to jam cell phones can look into "passive"
> jamming technologies. For instance, lining your office in lead should ensure
> that no signals get in or out. But if lead is too industrial to suit your
> dcor, a more genteel alternative exists: You could install "magnetic wood"
> paneling throughout. A Japanese scientist, Hideo Oka, has invented a new kind
> of building material
> (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992461), saturated with
> magnetic particles made of nickel-zinc ferrite that supposedly deflect 97
> percent of mobile-phone signals.


You know, a better way to handle things would be to have a system
whereby the phone automatically goes to a silent mode (or, for schools,
be turned off) when it crosses the threshold of someplace where the
owner doesn't want distraction--church, theater, whatever.

Make the owner put up a sign at each entrance, similar to the "smoking
prohibited" signs that are popping up as a result of no-smoking
ordinances, and that's that. That would require the cooperation of the
phone manufacturers, but that should be no big deal.
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 8:47:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-0620B8.08234026062005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <2-KdnQ9kg-NwriPfRVn-oA@comcast.com>,
> "Steven Banks" <roadkingman_FINGER_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They get an illegal cell phone jammer. At first nobody really notices.
>> Then
>> all of a sudden, people start to wonder why no one is getting any service
>> in
>> THAT building, yet a few feet, yards away they get crystal clear
>> reception.
>
> Business as usual from the cell phone companies, actually.
>
>
I have a friend who has a cell blocker. It looks like a cell phone and
blocks within about a 15 foot radius. Works great in restaurants when the
jerks are yapping and C. turns it on. Suddenly things become quiet.Love it.
Wish I had one.
June 27, 2005 6:41:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:44:16 -0500, Kathleen Carmody
<councilmembercarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote:

>
>(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
>Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
>stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
>that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
>jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)

Tax dollars at work. Don't you just love it!
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 10:07:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> Steven Banks wrote:
>> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:42BDAA6E.9232A83C@ddress.com...
>>
>>> Kathleen Carmody wrote:
>>>
>>>> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>>>>
>>>> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
>>>> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
>>>> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
>>>> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>>>
>>> Fine, no jammer lectures.
>>>
>>> But, I must say that you're not very smart to use your real
>>> e-mail address, in attempting to procure illegal equipment.
>>>
>>> Notan
>>
>>
>> And one of the Mayors Council Members to boot! Nothing like community
>> service eh?
>>
>> Steve Banks
>>
>>
>
>
> And anybody that assumes the OP is who is represented in the message
> header is stretching. I'm no expert, but there's nothing that
> guarantees any message is contains legit header info, including yours
> and mine.

All emails contain at least some legitimate header info. Forged headers
are easily identified and discarded. What it boils down to is that the
sender's ISP can almost always be identified, and law enforcement
agencies can subpena the ISP to release the sender's true identity.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 10:07:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

John Richards wrote:

> All emails contain at least some legitimate header info.

Except when mail is sent through an open proxy, in which case it's possible
that none of the info is legitimate except the final Received header added
by your own mail server while delivering the message to your inbox.

> are easily identified and discarded. What it boils down to is that the
> sender's ISP can almost always be identified,

Quite often, that is an overly optimistic opinion.

--
JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 10:22:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steven Banks wrote:
> In this "I'll sue your ass off" day and age... let me predict what will
> happen.
>
> They get an illegal cell phone jammer. At first nobody really notices. Then
> all of a sudden, people start to wonder why no one is getting any service in
> THAT building, yet a few feet, yards away they get crystal clear reception.
> Then later as everything plays out, someone will need to make or receive
> that ONE emergency call... the ONE call that really is a life or death
> matter, and they can't! Here come the suits against the person responsible
> for using the unit and the city government.
>
> I think people will eventually figure out why not one person can make or
> receive a call in that building. The rest will be history or should I say
> herstory.
>
> Just a guess,
> Steve Banks

How many buildings or stores do you know that have very poor or
non-existant cellphone reception? I know lots of them. Do they all
employ jammers? I doubt it, and I think it's mainly due to the
building's construction materials, or being in a 'shadow' from
obstructions between it and the nearest tower.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 10:22:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:ytXve.223$RC6.163@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

>
> How many buildings or stores do you know that have very poor or
> non-existant cellphone reception? I know lots of them. Do they all
> employ jammers? I doubt it, and I think it's mainly due to the
> building's construction materials, or being in a 'shadow' from
> obstructions between it and the nearest tower.
>

The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings and
businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW).
Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 12:45:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steve Sobol wrote:
> John Richards wrote:
>
>> All emails contain at least some legitimate header info.
>
> Except when mail is sent through an open proxy, in which case it's possible
> that none of the info is legitimate except the final Received header added
> by your own mail server while delivering the message to your inbox.

The final (or top-most) 'Received' header is always trustworthy.
While it is true that much mass spam is now sent through open proxies
(or zombied/compromised machines), that is usually not the case for
email that is sent by individuals other than professional spammers.

>> are easily identified and discarded. What it boils down to is that the
>> sender's ISP can almost always be identified,
>
> Quite often, that is an overly optimistic opinion.

I meant in the context of individual messages like the post from
"Kathleen Carmody", which was easily tracerouted to a server in
Minneapolis, which generally agreed with her email address which
pointed to Brooklyn Center, MN. There was not the slightest evidence
of header forging in that post.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 12:46:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <bAZve.1249$wH5.1164@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

> >> are easily identified and discarded. What it boils down to is that the
> >> sender's ISP can almost always be identified,
> >
> > Quite often, that is an overly optimistic opinion.
>
> I meant in the context of individual messages like the post from
> "Kathleen Carmody", which was easily tracerouted to a server in
> Minneapolis, which generally agreed with her email address which
> pointed to Brooklyn Center, MN. There was not the slightest evidence
> of header forging in that post.

Tell me my ISP, then.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 1:00:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

notan said:

>If the poster *isn't* who he/she says she is, forging a (local)
>government employee's e-mail address warrants more than just a
>slap on the wrist.

its not against the law. whether or not it should be or not is a different
subject, but as it stands, there are no laws saying you cant call yourself
whatever you want on the internet

john travolta
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 1:02:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

jer said:

>I know three places that use cell jammers in the U.S. but I'm not tellin
>because somebody will get pissed and ruin an otherwise splendid place to
>visit.

the federal reserve board offices in downtown DC jams cellphones in certain
sensitive locations.

rbhm
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 1:02:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

kipster wrote:
>>I know three places that use cell jammers in the U.S. but I'm not tellin
>>because somebody will get pissed and ruin an otherwise splendid place to
>>visit.
>
> the federal reserve board offices in downtown DC jams cellphones in certain
> sensitive locations.

Really? The federal government breaking their own rules, huh. I have a
friend whose father works for the Fed back home (Cleveland branch). I'll
have to find out what his experiences are.

--
JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 1:08:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
"SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> wrote:

> The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings and
> businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW).
> Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals

OH NO! BUT WHAT IF I'M HAVING A HEART ATTACK AND I PULL OUT MY CELL
PHONE AND I CAN'T CALL FOR HELP, IT'S THE EVIL BUILDING OWNER'S FAULT!
WHAT IF...WHAT IF....WHAT IF...HOW DARE THEY INFRINGE ON MY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE A CELL PHONE CALL FOR ANY REASON AT ANY
TIME! THEY MUST PAY!
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 1:08:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-286E86.21081127062005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
> "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> wrote:
>
> > The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings
and
> > businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal,
BTW).
> > Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals
>
> OH NO! BUT WHAT IF I'M HAVING A HEART ATTACK AND I PULL OUT MY CELL
> PHONE AND I CAN'T CALL FOR HELP, IT'S THE EVIL BUILDING OWNER'S FAULT!
> WHAT IF...WHAT IF....WHAT IF...HOW DARE THEY INFRINGE ON MY
> CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE A CELL PHONE CALL FOR ANY REASON AT ANY
> TIME! THEY MUST PAY!
>

OK, Elmo- calm down. Don't hyperventilate. Walk away from the light.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 3:57:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Hopefully anyone with this stupid an attitude would drop-dead long before
help arrived.


"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-286E86.21081127062005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
> "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> wrote:
>
> > The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings
and
> > businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal,
BTW).
> > Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals
>
> OH NO! BUT WHAT IF I'M HAVING A HEART ATTACK AND I PULL OUT MY CELL
> PHONE AND I CAN'T CALL FOR HELP, IT'S THE EVIL BUILDING OWNER'S FAULT!
> WHAT IF...WHAT IF....WHAT IF...HOW DARE THEY INFRINGE ON MY
> CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE A CELL PHONE CALL FOR ANY REASON AT ANY
> TIME! THEY MUST PAY!
>
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 4:35:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> wrote in message news:WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
>
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ytXve.223$RC6.163@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>> How many buildings or stores do you know that have very poor or
>> non-existant cellphone reception? I know lots of them. Do they all
>> employ jammers? I doubt it, and I think it's mainly due to the
>> building's construction materials, or being in a 'shadow' from
>> obstructions between it and the nearest tower.
>>
>
> The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings and
> businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW).
> Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals
>

Or maybe just aluminum-foil vapor barrier on the back of the insulation.
That's been in use since long before cellular telephony.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 4:35:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"John R. Copeland" <jcopelan@columbus.rr.aol.com> wrote in message
news:iX0we.25737$IL3.9601@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> wrote in message
news:WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
>
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ytXve.223$RC6.163@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>> How many buildings or stores do you know that have very poor or
>> non-existant cellphone reception? I know lots of them. Do they all
>> employ jammers? I doubt it, and I think it's mainly due to the
>> building's construction materials, or being in a 'shadow' from
>> obstructions between it and the nearest tower.
>>
>
> The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings
and
> businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW).
> Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals
>

Or maybe just aluminum-foil vapor barrier on the back of the insulation.
That's been in use since long before cellular telephony.

No- this is a specific part of the building design with the sole purpose of
stopping cellular signals.
June 28, 2005 5:14:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-F88651.13345226062005@nntp1.usenetserver.com:


>
> You know, a better way to handle things would be to have a
> system whereby the phone automatically goes to a silent mode
> (or, for schools, be turned off) when it crosses the threshold
> of someplace where the owner doesn't want distraction--church,
> theater, whatever.
>
> Make the owner put up a sign at each entrance, similar to the
> "smoking prohibited" signs that are popping up as a result of
> no-smoking ordinances, and that's that. That would require the
> cooperation of the phone manufacturers, but that should be no
> big deal.
>
Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain
situations. I have seen reports where several major hospitals are
testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the
danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the
sensitive electronic equipment.

Many of us have had EKGs at one time or another. Remember how hard
the tech had to work to get each of the connections just so to pick
up that VERY SENSITIVE voltage from the muscles being read? Now
imagine a heart attack patient, or better yet a person who had just
had a transplant, and one of the contacts is maybe just on the
borderline of marginal and maybe making a little bit like a diode,
then key a transmitter close to it, with a signal several orders of
magnitude greater the ones we are interested in. Think it won't
have an impact?

Put up a sign and turn on the jammer.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 5:14:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"tim" <timothybil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9682D80689D12timothybilcomcastnet@207.69.189.191...

> Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain
> situations. I have seen reports where several major hospitals are
> testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the
> danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the
> sensitive electronic equipment.

Ummmmm- doesn't a jammer operate as an rf transmitter and on the same
frequency as the cell phone? Wouldn't that make it as bad as the cell phone
itself......or maybe worse, as it would be operating all of the time?
>
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 7:10:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

SS wrote:
> "tim" <timothybil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9682D80689D12timothybilcomcastnet@207.69.189.191...
>
>>Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain
>>situations. I have seen reports where several major hospitals are
>>testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the
>>danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the
>>sensitive electronic equipment.
>
> Ummmmm- doesn't a jammer operate as an rf transmitter and on the same
> frequency as the cell phone? Wouldn't that make it as bad as the cell phone
> itself......or maybe worse, as it would be operating all of the time?

Don't know about narrowband protocols like GSM, but in order to jam a
broadband signal such as CDMA uses, the jammer is going to have to be
emitting quite a lot of energy across a fairly wide bandwidth (several
MHz). And it would be immediately obvious to anyone using the debug
screen on a CDMA phone, when simultaneously the received signal strength
shot WAY up and the signal/noise ratio dived WAY down.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 7:27:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

> Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain
> situations. I have seen reports where several major hospitals are
> testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the
> danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the
> sensitive electronic equipment.

I think we went thru this topic before a few months ago. It is an old
wives' tale that cell-phones can gunk up critical-care equipment. Some
hospitals ban cell-phones for reasons of quiet, patient-care, and
logistics - not for fear of killing off patients. In many hospitals,
physicians routinely use cell-phones in the operating rooms and ICU's.


> Many of us have had EKGs at one time or another. Remember how hard
> the tech had to work to get each of the connections just so to pick
> up that VERY SENSITIVE voltage from the muscles being read? Now
> imagine a heart attack patient, or better yet a person who had just
> had a transplant, and one of the contacts is maybe just on the
> borderline of marginal and maybe making a little bit like a diode,
> then key a transmitter close to it, with a signal several orders of
> magnitude greater the ones we are interested in. Think it won't
> have an impact?

Nope. I have never seen a cell-phone cause an EKG blip. On the other hand,
operating room electrocautery will always zap the EKG monitoring. (OT So
many things can interfere with the EKG that there is always back-up
monitoring - like feeling the patient's pulse.)



Bill T


..
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 8:28:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <bAZve.1249$wH5.1164@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> are easily identified and discarded. What it boils down to is that the
>>>> sender's ISP can almost always be identified,
>>>
>>> Quite often, that is an overly optimistic opinion.
>>
>> I meant in the context of individual messages like the post from
>> "Kathleen Carmody", which was easily tracerouted to a server in
>> Minneapolis, which generally agreed with her email address which
>> pointed to Brooklyn Center, MN. There was not the slightest evidence
>> of header forging in that post.
>
> Tell me my ISP, then.

I was speaking primarily about email messages.
You are not using your ISP's NNTP server. Your NNTP service:
UseNetServer.com, is one of the independents who does not record
the originating IP address. Although this practice is quite common for
third party NNTP service, email messages always contain the
originating IP.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 3:17:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <Xns9682D80689D12timothybilcomcastnet@207.69.189.191>,
tim <timothybil@comcast.net> writes:
[snip]
> Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain
> situations.

Yeah, that's what they say, all right.

> I have seen reports where several major hospitals are
> testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the
> danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the
> sensitive electronic equipment.

So they're going to put always-on broadband RF sources in areas where
they want to prohibit RF sources, is that it?

>
> Many of us have had EKGs at one time or another. Remember how hard
> the tech had to work to get each of the connections just so to pick
> up that VERY SENSITIVE voltage from the muscles being read?

No, I don't. They attached the wires, did their thing, detached the
wires.

[snip]
>
> Put up a sign and turn on the jammer.

Uh huh. Btw: If the milliwatt-level RF energy from cell phones is so
disruptive to medical equipment, please explain why hospital security
staff operate multi-watt hand-held two-way radios in the same
environment?

Btw2: Do you know how much hospitals charge for in-room telephones?

There are good and valid reasons to restrict the operation of cell
phones in hospitals, but they're more along the lines of why their
use should be restricted on aircraft, in theaters and restaurants,
and in other venues where people are too damn stupid and
inconsiderate to be allowed the freedom of their own judgement.

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 1:55:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <dm4we.1609$GH6.1357@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

> Although this practice is quite common for
> third party NNTP service, email messages always contain the
> originating IP.

Except when they don't.

Maybe your head is in the sand. That's the only reason I can think of
you not knowing about spam...
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 1:59:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <VNZve.1101$zp6.723@trnddc08>, rutherford@hotmail.com says...
> its not against the law. whether or not it should be or not is a different
> subject, but as it stands, there are no laws saying you cant call yourself
> whatever you want on the internet
>
> john travolta
>

Really? Call yourself a police officer.

I think that, if anyone were to bother to investigate (and that's a
significant if unless you actually use the claim to some end), you'd
find there *are* limits.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
June 29, 2005 3:35:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

O/Siris wrote:
> In article <VNZve.1101$zp6.723@trnddc08>, rutherford@hotmail.com says...
>
>>its not against the law. whether or not it should be or not is a different
>>subject, but as it stands, there are no laws saying you cant call yourself
>>whatever you want on the internet
>>
>>john travolta
>>
>
>
> Really? Call yourself a police officer.
>
> I think that, if anyone were to bother to investigate (and that's a
> significant if unless you actually use the claim to some end), you'd
> find there *are* limits.
>


Of course there are limits, but you may use any alias name you want to
identify yourself in any venue, including in person, so long as there's
no intent to defraud. Doing so to only garner someone's misguided
attention is not itself a fraudulent act within criminal statutes.
(Visit any bar on ladies night for examples) So, if JV wants to
identify himself as a police officer, then he may do so, so long as his
use of the false identity causes no real harm to anyone, nor provides
financial gain for himself or another. Now, one person's definition of
"harm" may very well be different than someone else's, but that would be
an issue for a court to decide, and the burden of proof would be
plaintiff's onus.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 6:25:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=23199

FCC re-iterates cell-phone jammers are illegal
Jun 28, 2005
WASHINGTON-People who want to use cell-phone jammers to get rid of
annoying mobile-phone use should think again.
It is against the law. Those found using, selling, manufacturing or
distributing cell-phone jammers could be subject to an $11,000-per-day
fine and seizure of their equipment by the United States Marshals,
warned the Federal Communications Commission.

"In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of
transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation
of cellular and PCS telephones, the FCC is issuing this public notice
to make clear that the marketing, sale or operation of this type of
equipment is unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be
subject to forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution," said the
FCC.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 6:48:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <dm4we.1609$GH6.1357@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Although this practice is quite common for
>> third party NNTP service, email messages always contain the
>> originating IP.
>
> Except when they don't.
>
> Maybe your head is in the sand. That's the only reason I can think of
> you not knowing about spam...

We covered this already. I'm a long-time spam fighter and know
what I'm talking about. Services like SpamCop.net could not
exist if the originating ISP were not uniquely determinable.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 6:48:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

John Richards wrote:

> We covered this already. I'm a long-time spam fighter and know
> what I'm talking about. Services like SpamCop.net could not
> exist if the originating ISP were not uniquely determinable.

And there are enough anonymizing open proxies that spammers can abuse that
often that's not possible. I've been doing the spamfighting thing since
1996. I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about too.

It's not impossible in all cases, just many.

This discussion is way OT for the cellular newsgroups, so I'm not going to
say any more...



--
JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 8:57:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <Ma2dnax9_uCdOyDfRVnyjw@skypoint.com>, someone purporting to
be Kathleen Carmody <councilmembercarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us>
wrote:

> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)

It's not a "supposition" or an "opion" -- cellphone jammers are illegal
in the United States. Period. It is illegal to sell, buy, advertise, or
operate a cellphone jammer in the United States. Period. See 47 USC
302a and 47 CFR 2.803 for the details.

If you operate a cellphone jammer, you are subject to fines of up to
$11,000 per day under 47 CFR 1.80(b)(3). Whatever reasoning you think
you have for ignoring those rules, I doubt the FCC or the judge would
agree.

If you have an area where you don't want people to use cellphones, the
only legal way to do it is by constructing a cellphone blocker --
essentially an enclosure with enough metal in the walls to absorb
enough of the wavelengths used by cellphones to make them inoperable
inside the enclosure. Google on the exact phrase "Faraday cage." Since
a Faraday cage is a passive device that does not interfere with the
operation of any equipment outside itself, it is not subject to the FCC
licensing requirements. After all, it's just a metal box.

If you're still intent on getting a cellphone jammer, I'll leave it to
the judge to "lecture" you at your sentencing.

--
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org
All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c)
This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3).
DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 1:16:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steve Sobol wrote:
> John Richards wrote:
>
>> We covered this already. I'm a long-time spam fighter and know
>> what I'm talking about. Services like SpamCop.net could not
>> exist if the originating ISP were not uniquely determinable.
>
> And there are enough anonymizing open proxies that spammers can abuse that
> often that's not possible. I've been doing the spamfighting thing since
> 1996. I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about too.
>
> It's not impossible in all cases, just many.

We've both had our say, and our viewpoints really aren't that far apart.
As a long-time member of SpamCop.net I'd advise anyone who is
serious about fighting spam or just wants to learn how to interpret
headers to join that organization.

> This discussion is way OT for the cellular newsgroups, so I'm not going to
> say any more...

Agreed. Over and out.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:28:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Uh folks, don't feed the troll.



"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-36110E.21551128062005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <dm4we.1609$GH6.1357@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Although this practice is quite common for
> > third party NNTP service, email messages always contain the
> > originating IP.
>
> Except when they don't.
>
> Maybe your head is in the sand. That's the only reason I can think of
> you not knowing about spam...
>
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:33:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:11c497qcrhhq648@corp.supernews.com...
> Of course there are limits, but you may use any alias name you want to
> identify yourself in any venue, including in person, so long as there's
> no intent to defraud. Doing so to only garner someone's misguided
> attention is not itself a fraudulent act within criminal statutes.
> (Visit any bar on ladies night for examples) So, if JV wants to
> identify himself as a police officer, then he may do so, so long as his
> use of the false identity causes no real harm to anyone, nor provides
> financial gain for himself or another. Now, one person's definition of
> "harm" may very well be different than someone else's, but that would be
> an issue for a court to decide, and the burden of proof would be
> plaintiff's onus.

In most (if not all) US jurisdictions impersonating an officer of the courts
or a government official is most certainly illegal. While many job
capacities don't have that sort of liability, government jobs like policemen
certain DO. Granted, the likelihood of being prosecuted for doing it 'in a
bar on ladies night' is not very high. But get caught stopping that same
skirt out in the parking lot claiming to be Joe Friday and you'd be on well
on your way to the lockup.

None of this conflates to online identities, so please, make use of better
analogies.
!