Cellphone jamming equipment company lobbies for looser restrictions on jamming

In what we're sure is an act of pure, unadulterated benevolence untainted by self-interest, cellphone jamming equipment maker CellAntenna Corp. is appealing to U.S. lawmakers to change federal laws to permit broader usage of cellphone jamming equipment by law enforcement officials. We're gonna bet you can guess the reason, too — that's right, it will help in the fight against terrorism. Because, as everybody knows, there are a ton of cellphone-wielding terrorists out there (in fact, as far as we're concerned, anybody we see with a cellphone is automatically under suspicion). CellAntenna issued a statement yesterday indicating that increased cellphone jamming is "the first step in increasing our profits preventing an IED attack in the United States." How refreshing — a corporation with a social conscience.

[Antti @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

These guys just rock with originality. Why don't we just deep freeze everybody with middle eastern look, they all might be TERRORISTS!!!! OMG.

[dthree @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

How does the cellphone jammer distinguish between law-abiding american citizens and terrists?

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Universal cell phone coverage is not covered under the US constitution. Although I have a cell phone (kept permanently on silent) I would love to be able to go somewhere without hearing the newest rap ringtones or some yahoo yammering about their stupid life. I'll buy one when they make a portable one!

[Jason @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Honestly I would love for these things to become legal as long as there is a large disclaimer at the business or area warning of it being in use. Why? Simple. Movie theaters. The thought of a movie theater using one of these brings tears to my eyes. Can you imagine being able to finish a film without some jackass� cell going off? Or even worse, the people who actually hold a cell conversation during the show?

Sure, I wouldn�t want them everywhere, but there are uses for them. Let�s face it; no one needs to be connected all the time. And if you are someone who does, like a doctor then well you can go to the theater down the street that does not have the jammers active.

[Mike @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

I'm tired of this anti-terrorist bs that constantly spew from morons every day.

You know what, if a terrorist is going to attack us, they are going to do it. You can't stop them. Open your eyes people. If they don't use cell phones, they will use land phones, if they don't use the land phones they could use the mail. If they don't use the mail they could just meet in thier one place at set intervals.

This crap is rediculous. Quit tryin to take away our freedom to "protect us" and try living in the real world for once.

Jeff: While I agree with not wanting to listen to the crap that comes out of peoples phones, a portable one would not be a good idea since public services such as polive, fire, etc use those frequences. You could inavertantly cause bad things to happen. This is also why polive will never carry these.

[Ben Boyce` @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Although I can understand some peoples aversion to such a device and the implications it could possibly have, we must remember the good that could come of this as well. When I was in Baghdad we used devices very similar to this after a vehicle bomb attacks or during times when a suspected attack might occur. We also used these devices to help to protect dignitaries and heads of state and what not. There isn't a terrorist out there that wouldn't love to assasinate one of our political leaders with such a device that could be detonated by a cell phone. Yes, great care and thought would need to be put into who, where, and when a person or venue would need such protection but lets not trash the whole idea just based on there fear that it might infringe on your right to talk to your girlfriend while the president is driving by.

[Rombus @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Hold it, there�s a MAJOR Difference for using these in movie theaters and then this company saying they are for national security! When was the last time your theater was attacked by a terrorist? (No... Baby Geniuses 2 or Gigli do NOT count) Where could a company like this justify putting them in a homeland defense scenario?

[dOOLEY @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

I agree wholeheartedly with Jason. Along with Movie Theaters they should be placed in restaurants or other customer service oriented businesses. I use to work retail where customers would come up to me and spout out a quick order while on their cell phone. I simply ignored them and went over to a customer who was actually interested in my help.

If only car manufacturers could install these jammers in cars to stop people from yammering while they�re driving!

[warrenpeace @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Screw terrorists! Just get them into damn theaters so I can see a movie without some arse's phone going off.

[Rombus @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Ben: Thats fine for temporary situations, but is there anything to stop a city from installing them in a permanent setting?

[Rombus @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Ben: Thats fine for temporary situations, but is there anything to stop a city from installing them in a permanent setting?

[Alcaron @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

"Universal cell phone coverage is not covered under the US constitution. Although I have a cell phone (kept permanently on silent) I would love to be able to go somewhere without hearing the newest rap ringtones or some yahoo yammering about their stupid life. I'll buy one when they make a portable one!"

Thats all good and fine, but the I would love to go someplace without having to fight for view around a 100 SUV's, but its not RIGHT to tell other people they can't do something just because you dont like it.

Thats part of the problem with this country. As long as it stops something that annoys you, go for it. Whatever happened so "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."????

People only care about freedom as long as its THEIR freedom.

"Majority rules, THATS insane."

[Alcaron @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Oh and #7 missed the mark COMPLETELY.

a) This is NOT iraq. We do not get IED attacks on a regular basis.
b) They are NOT talking about pretecting heads of state.
c) Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, is suggesting there isn't a USE for this.

But things like #5, doctors can just go down the street. Well, what if down the street is active too? Oh well, guess you shouldn't have picked a job that requires you to be ready to SAVE SOMEONES LIFE at a moments notice, because you might make someone mis .5 seconds of xXx: State of the Sequel.

Again, me me me me me, screw everyone else.

I cannot remember ther last time a cellphone went off in a theater I was in.

[jared @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Disabling communications infrastructure because "terrorists use communications" is like removing public access to oxygen because "terrorists breathe oxygen."

For that matter, how long until we see IED's designed to go off in close proximity to cell-phone jamming equipment?

Monopol^H^H^H^HStandardization of the jamming hardware would only make that project easier.

[TimTucker @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Maybe a compromise is needed: it should be possible to get cell phone manufacturers to come up with a standard way of switching phones to silent/vibrate when they're within range of a certain signal.

Pros:
- No ringing phones in movie theaters/etc.
- Incoming and outgoing calls are still possible (for emergency reasons, etc.)
- Isn't blocking a signal, so there shouldn't be any FCC problems

Cons:
- Incoming and outgoing calls are still possible (people can still be annoying in theaters, could still be used to trigger explosives, etc.)

I'm surprised that I haven't seen more efforts in this direction.

[dthree @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Have any IEDs ever been set off in the US by cellphone?

[gristle @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

No but i bet the number of IUDs in cinemas is going down...

[Rusty Shackleford @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Cellphone-wielding-terrorists don't kill people; The Government Does.

[Bob @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

"Cellphone-wielding-terrorists don't kill people; The Government Does"

Really? Wow, so the perpetrators of the London and Madrid bombings were actually government agents then? Thanks for clearing that up.

[Hitesh Sawlani @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

@Rombus, didn't happen in the US, but in Russia a couple of years ago a bunch of chechen terrorists took a whole movie theatre hostage.

[squiggle @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

I like the idea of a cell phone knowing that it's in an area where it should keep quiet. If someone is rude enough to answer or start a call in a theater they deserve some popcorn thrown at them.

I REALLY like the idea of jamming to protect important people (especially US soldiers).

[Mike @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Alcaron: Your theater/life threatening example is good, but I would rather see them put it on silent then turn it off completely.

TimTucker: Excellent Idea. Thank you for providing an alternate solution.

Hitesh Sawlani: Your example doesn't even have anything to do with this case. 1. The terrorists if they were using cell phones would of been outside the theater, 2. Everybody would already know if people couldn't call from inside because obviously they want everyone to know, hence the word "hostage."

[Deputy Dan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

First of all, there should be a law that cell phone blockers are MANDITORY in all movie theaters! If one more person answers their phone during the climax of a movie, I am going to pull out my gun and put a round through the cell and whoever�s ear it is attached to.

Secondly, cell phones have been used in the past and will, I'm sure, be continued to be used I see no reason that cell phone coverage be a "right" in areas that are likely to be targets of attack.

Thirdly (if that is a word) the use of cell phone-jammers would GREATLY increase the effectiveness and safety of officers while they are executing search warrants. It is rather counterproductive and down right dangerous for officers to cruise up to a house and knock on the door, when the people they are serving the warrant on have been alerted by lookouts with cell phones. Though it doesn't seem like much, but that extra 30 seconds to a minute is enough time for people to destroy evidence, alert someone else, or load the big-gauge.

I am NOT one to stomp on civil rights, and I have let people, I KNOW are guilty, go because I could not find what I was looking for without infringing on someone�s rights. I'm am sick to death of "it's because of the terrorists" reasons for doing everything, but these are just some of the things to consider when you are looking at this kind of technology.

[RAW @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Don't we have enough of a problem with our legislators and the supreme court taking our freedoms and rights away? Why would we ever want anyone controlling our ability to converse via cellphone?

[Mathew Nottingham @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM]

Are these in use on Midlan Mainline trains in the UK? on Their new Meridian trains your phone doesn't work compared to the old HST trains where your phoe works all the time.