Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FBI warns of cell phones aloft

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 8:17:53 PM

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

For those who travel by air frequently, you might be interested in the
following from ZDnet news -
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5726850.html?tag=nl....

Bob
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 8:17:54 PM

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

Bob Smith wrote:
> For those who travel by air frequently, you might be interested in the
> following from ZDnet news -
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5726850.html?tag=nl....
>
> Bob

Yeah, yeah, the government wants to restrict more of our activities in the
name of national security. And security at our airports (on the ground, in
the terminal!) is *still* a joke. FBI and DHS need to get their priorities
straight. Not that I expect that to ever happen.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
June 1, 2005 8:17:55 PM

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

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Bob Smith wrote:
>> For those who travel by air frequently, you might be interested in
>> the following from ZDnet news -
>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5726850.html?tag=nl....
>>
>> Bob
>
> Yeah, yeah, the government wants to restrict more of our activities
> in the name of national security. And security at our airports (on
> the ground, in the terminal!) is *still* a joke.

With all due respect, what does it matter? The bad guys want to kill
lots of people; and commandeering an airplane requires a lot of work and
planning just to down one plane--from within the plane. They know that
the possibility of using multiple jet airliners as cruise missiles ended
on 9-1-1. We know this because of the actions of the passengers on
United Airlines Flight 93. Before 911, hijacking was, for the most part,
a rather benign event: stay calm and your chances of coming out if alive
are pretty good (or at least better than putting up a fight).

But after hearing about the other 911 attacks, the passengers on Flight
93 *knew* this was no longer a "normal" hijacking and they took action
("let's roll"). The bastards "flying" that plane knew they were going to
be overpowered and deliberately put it down. Their objective was most
likely to hit the White House or the U.S. Capital. They failed in that
objective. Ironically, cell phones were a factor in that.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/911.flight.93/

And does anyone think--today--that if they were on a plane being
hijacked that every passenger on board wouldn't violently resist? They
ain't gonna fall for the "there is a bomb on board" BS--they'll know
damn well *they* are the bomb and act accordingly.

Yet, we're still spending billions of dollars on yesterday's problem.
Just like the terrorists want us to do.


--
Mike
Related resources
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 11:06:53 PM

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

In article <d7ku62$etd$4@ratbert.glorb.com>,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
> Bob Smith wrote:
>> For those who travel by air frequently, you might be interested in the
>> following from ZDnet news -
>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5726850.html?tag=nl....
>>
>> Bob
>
> Yeah, yeah, the government wants to restrict more of our activities in the
> name of national security. And security at our airports (on the ground, in
> the terminal!) is *still* a joke. FBI and DHS need to get their priorities
> straight. Not that I expect that to ever happen.

While I agree with the gist of your comments, Steve, I also feel that
any excuse used to keep cell phone use in-flight prohibited is a good
excuse.

--
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
June 1, 2005 11:06:54 PM

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

Jim Seymour wrote:
>
> While I agree with the gist of your comments, Steve, I also feel that
> any excuse used to keep cell phone use in-flight prohibited is a good
> excuse.

Why is that, because you feel you will be annoyed? And for that you are
willing to give up one more slice of liberty? If so, color me
disgusted...

And BTW, if it weren't for the cell phones used on Flight 93 we might
lost either the White House or U.S. Capital.

If you have some valid reason for not wanting cell phones on planes, say
so. But to hide behind "national security" is, to me, pretty damn
pathetic.


--
Mike
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:05:43 AM

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

"Tinman" <mlynch@REMOVEMEcitlink.net> wrote in message news:3g6fmaFafnrbU1@individual.net...
> Jim Seymour wrote:
>>
>> While I agree with the gist of your comments, Steve, I also feel that
>> any excuse used to keep cell phone use in-flight prohibited is a good
>> excuse.
>
> Why is that, because you feel you will be annoyed? And for that you are
> willing to give up one more slice of liberty? If so, color me
> disgusted...

Do you advocate allowing cellphone use in theaters and churches also?
The extremely crowded environs of airplane seats makes such use
highly annoying, especially to those who want to sleep or read.

> And BTW, if it weren't for the cell phones used on Flight 93 we might
> lost either the White House or U.S. Capital.

Life or death emergency use is different than routine use.

--
John Richards
June 2, 2005 2:05:44 AM

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

John Richards wrote:
> "Tinman" <mlynch@REMOVEMEcitlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3g6fmaFafnrbU1@individual.net...
>> Jim Seymour wrote:
>>>
>>> While I agree with the gist of your comments, Steve, I also feel
>>> that any excuse used to keep cell phone use in-flight prohibited is
>>> a
>>> good excuse.
>>
>> Why is that, because you feel you will be annoyed? And for that you
>> are willing to give up one more slice of liberty? If so, color me
>> disgusted...
>
> Do you advocate allowing cellphone use in theaters and churches also?

I haven't "advocated" anything. I am saying, as clear as can be, that I
think you are a fool and a coward if you hide behind "national security"
to achieve a goal that has nothing to with said security. Clear?


--
Mike
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:16:12 AM

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

"Tinman" <mlynch@REMOVEMEcitlink.net> wrote in message news:3g6f5aFarsisU1@individual.net...
> But after hearing about the other 911 attacks, the passengers on Flight
> 93 *knew* this was no longer a "normal" hijacking and they took action
> ("let's roll"). The bastards "flying" that plane knew they were going to
> be overpowered and deliberately put it down. Their objective was most
> likely to hit the White House or the U.S. Capital. They failed in that
> objective. Ironically, cell phones were a factor in that.
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/911.flight.93/

That article indicates Todd Beamer used an "onboard phone",
which most likely was not a personal cellphone. I'm not sure
cellphones could work properly with towers 35,000 feet below.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:16:13 AM

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

John Richards wrote:
>
> "Tinman" <mlynch@REMOVEMEcitlink.net> wrote in message news:3g6f5aFarsisU1@individual.net...
> > But after hearing about the other 911 attacks, the passengers on Flight
> > 93 *knew* this was no longer a "normal" hijacking and they took action
> > ("let's roll"). The bastards "flying" that plane knew they were going to
> > be overpowered and deliberately put it down. Their objective was most
> > likely to hit the White House or the U.S. Capital. They failed in that
> > objective. Ironically, cell phones were a factor in that.
> > http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/911.flight.93/
>
> That article indicates Todd Beamer used an "onboard phone",
> which most likely was not a personal cellphone. I'm not sure
> cellphones could work properly with towers 35,000 feet below.

While I couldn't quote the exact altitude, I remember losing
a usable signal at aprroximately 10-12,000 feet. (This was
in a private aircraft, where cell phones are/were permitted.)

Notan
June 2, 2005 2:16:13 AM

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

John Richards wrote:
> "Tinman" <mlynch@REMOVEMEcitlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3g6f5aFarsisU1@individual.net...
>> But after hearing about the other 911 attacks, the passengers on
>> Flight 93 *knew* this was no longer a "normal" hijacking and they
>> took action ("let's roll"). The bastards "flying" that plane knew
>> they were going to be overpowered and deliberately put it down. Their
>> objective was most
>> likely to hit the White House or the U.S. Capital. They failed in
>> that objective. Ironically, cell phones were a factor in that.
>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/911.flight.93/
>
> That article indicates Todd Beamer used an "onboard phone",
> which most likely was not a personal cellphone. I'm not sure
> cellphones could work properly with towers 35,000 feet below.

Does it matter? Do you think the FBI is OK with ignoring Air Phone calls
as long as cell phone calls can be monitored (within ten-minutes)? Think
about it.


--
Mike
June 4, 2005 4:47:55 AM

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

In article <119s1qda4kp9da6@corp.supernews.com>, jseymour@LinxNet.com
says...
> While I agree with the gist of your comments, Steve, I also feel that
> any excuse used to keep cell phone use in-flight prohibited is a good
> excuse.
>
>
unofortunate that nothing can be done about screaming/crying babies on
board. if it can be regulated as silent/vibrating on the receiving end with
violators losing the phone for the flight with 1 verbal request to lower
the noise disobeyed. headsets covering hearing and speaking also need to be
rquired. Finally, it's just another slap in the face to the general
American public who supposedly cant' remeber that most airlines have been
carrying phones in flight for years. Are they gonna take those out also?
The FBI just gave an unfront huge clue to anyone interested in plane
jacking
June 4, 2005 12:53:31 PM

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

john <john@invalid.inv> wrote:

> In article <119s1qda4kp9da6@corp.supernews.com>, jseymour@LinxNet.com
> says...
> > While I agree with the gist of your comments, Steve, I also feel that
> > any excuse used to keep cell phone use in-flight prohibited is a good
> > excuse.
> >
> >
> unofortunate that nothing can be done about screaming/crying babies on
> board. if it can be regulated as silent/vibrating on the receiving end with
> violators losing the phone for the flight with 1 verbal request to lower
> the noise disobeyed. headsets covering hearing and speaking also need to be
> rquired. Finally, it's just another slap in the face to the general
> American public who supposedly cant' remeber that most airlines have been
> carrying phones in flight for years. Are they gonna take those out also?
> The FBI just gave an unfront huge clue to anyone interested in plane
> jacking

I agree! the government is running out of stupid thing to make them
special, so they just recycle the same old stupid to make it stupider.

Years ago, I had no problem photo wild-life, now with the Homeland
Security and To Make America Safe sometime I being asked "what are you
doing?" (I think they are park keepers?). And all I can say is "taking
photo of our beauty America" <bg>
!