Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

[CaseyJones]

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/25392761/driver-caught-using-cell-phone-jamming-device


A Florida man is facing a $48,000 fine for using a "jammer" in his SUV to keep people around him off of the phone while he was driving.

The Federal Communications Commission says that Jason R. Humphreys used a phone jammer in his vehicle during his daily commute on I-4 between Seffner and Tampa for about two years before he was caught.

Metro PCS alerted the Feds of an issue in April of 2013. The company noticed that its cell phone tower sites had been experiencing interference during the morning and evening commutes.

Agents from the FCC used direction finding techniques to find that strong wideband emissions were coming out of a blue Toyota Highlander SUV driven by Humphreys.

The FCC says that Hunphreys admitted to using the jammer to keep people from talking on their phones while driving.

Federal law prohibits the operation of jamming devices in the United States.

The FCC says that jamming devices cannot be authorized because they can compromise the integrity of the nation's communications infrastructure, including 911 and police calls during an emergency.

[tod evans]

Another case of behavior that's acceptable for government is an indictable offence if a citizen does it...

[Matt Collins]

wow... I'd like more details on this thing... how powerful was it? How many watts was it putting out?

[angelatc]

Another case of behavior that's acceptable for government is an indictable offence if a citizen does it...

If you pay for a cell phone, is it really right that another "do-gooder" should be able to stop you from using it when you're in the same vicinity as he is?


I think they should be legal in theaters and churches - any place where the property owner wants them turned off. But this guy was shutting off people who just happened to be in his vicinity when he was in public. Is that freedom, really?

[Root]

Who owns the airwaves again? I forget.

[tod evans]

If you pay for a cell phone, is it really right that another "do-gooder" should be able to stop you from using it when you're in the same vicinity as he is?


I think they should be legal in theaters and churches - any place where the property owner wants them turned off. But this guy was shutting off people who just happened to be in his vicinity when he was in public. Is that freedom, really?

I'm not arguing for this guy to be able to jamb cells, I'm arguing against government doing it...

Government would be within the authority I'd grant them to point out the guy doing the blocking to those being blocked..But I'm not getting behind a $48k prosecution either....

[angelatc]

I'm not arguing for this guy to be able to jamb cells, I'm arguing against government doing it...

Government would be withing the authority I'd grant them to point out the guy doing the blocking to those being blocked..But I'm not getting behind a $48k prosecution either....

Gotcha. How much you wanna bet this guy gets in the left lane and drives the speed limit, too?

[Philhelm]

If you pay for a cell phone, is it really right that another "do-gooder" should be able to stop you from using it when you're in the same vicinity as he is?

I think they should be legal in theaters and churches - any place where the property owner wants them turned off. But this guy was shutting off people who just happened to be in his vicinity when he was in public. Is that freedom, really?

I hate cell phones and the fact that people are on them so often, on or off the road. The fact remains that cell phones are a distraction while driving, and I've seen too many dipshits almost cause accidents because of it. But having a couple of beers is a crime. Of course there shouldn't be a law to prevent people from talking on their idiot machines, but I applaud this guy for his jammer. Bravo.

[donnay]

Another case of behavior that's acceptable for government is an indictable offence if a citizen does it...


They will probably recruit him.

[Tod]

If you pay for a cell phone jammer, is it really right that another "do-gooder" should be able to stop you from using it when you're in the same vicinity as he is?


I think they should be legal in theaters and churches - any place where the property owner wants them turned off. But this guy was shutting off people who just happened to be in his vicinity when he was in public. Is that freedom, really?

there. :D

[brandon]

Who owns the airwaves again? I forget.

This is one of those great questions that I think has no good free market solution.

[Kotin]

lol guy is a sort of a badass for that in my mind.


wont argue for the right to do it but yeah..

[Tod]

This is one of those great questions that I think has no good free market solution.

This is actually very much like the smoker's argument that people don't own the air and therefore have no right to tell a smoker they can't smoke in a public area where other people are affected by the smoke. In this case, the jammer is the smoker and he would be saying that people don't own the airwaves and therefore have no right to tell a jammer they can't jam in a public area.

[Nirvikalpa]

But think of all the lost tickets this guy may have cost the police municipality... he may have forced them to do their real job, and go after real criminals. How dare he.

[fisharmor]

I've seen too many dipshits almost cause accidents because of it.

Technically, I almost get my wife pregnant about 15 times a month.

It's like saying "It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye". I hate that saying. OF COURSE it's all fun and games, why do you think we're playing Jarts to begin with?
You throw your Jart directly at someone, you decide this one time you don't need the rubber, or you try to finish your text while approaching a light, and you're going to lose the fun-and-games lottery.

[Ronin Truth]

This is one of those great questions that I think has no good free market solution.

The Philosophy of Ownership

Robert LeFevre

The significance of property ownership has rarely been fully appreciated, writes Robert LeFevre.
He proceeds to present the entire libertarian case for private ownership, with his characteristic clarity of exposition. He makes what is a radically hard-core case for the absolute integrity of self ownership and property ownership but in a way that comes across as common-sense. He shows that how a society thinks about the issue of ownership is not just a matter of details; our very survival depends on it.

Here is an excellent overview of a topic that Mises said was the foundational idea of liberalism itself. But it's more than an overview: it is a strong case for iron-clad, impenetrable, and no-exceptions social rules on ownership.

http://library.mises.org/books/Robert%20LeFevre/The%20Philosophy%20of%20Ownership.pdf

[brandon]

The Philosophy of Ownership

Robert LeFevre

The significance of property ownership has rarely been fully appreciated, writes Robert LeFevre.
He proceeds to present the entire libertarian case for private ownership, with his characteristic clarity of exposition. He makes what is a radically hard-core case for the absolute integrity of self ownership and property ownership but in a way that comes across as common-sense. He shows that how a society thinks about the issue of ownership is not just a matter of details; our very survival depends on it.

Here is an excellent overview of a topic that Mises said was the foundational idea of liberalism itself. But it's more than an overview: it is a strong case for iron-clad, impenetrable, and no-exceptions social rules on ownership.

http://library.mises.org/books/Robert%20LeFevre/The%20Philosophy%20of%20Ownership.pdf

Would rather hear your thoughts than be given a link to a 100 page PDF about property.

[francisco]

...OF COURSE it's all fun and games, why do you think we're playing Jarts to begin with?


LOL

[pcosmar]

lol guy is a sort of a badass for that in my mind.


wont argue for the right to do it but yeah..

Made me grin.

But then I don't use the damn things.

[Ronin Truth]

Would rather hear your thoughts than be given a link to a 100 page PDF about property. Thanks, my thoughts are that the PDF is better.

[Uriel999]

I know it is wrong...but it feels so right!

Damn, he could pull the argument out that he is defending himself from terrorists with it. See I know exactly tech he is using and we use it in the Corps to jam radio freqs that cell phones use so the locals can't make a call and blow us up. Just saying...Hell, I've looked into buying my own.

He's protecting Merica!

[Uriel999]

Oh and for those wondering what the actual range on a device like this is, they operate line of site and about as far as you can throw a baseball.

[dannno]

If you pay for a cell phone, is it really right that another "do-gooder" should be able to stop you from using it when you're in the same vicinity as he is?


I think they should be legal in theaters and churches - any place where the property owner wants them turned off. But this guy was shutting off people who just happened to be in his vicinity when he was in public. Is that freedom, really?

A better solution may have been for his cell phone provider to contact him and tell him they will be shutting off his service if he doesn't stop using it.

If that doesn't work, I suppose they could impose a fine (although I would be willing to hear arguments against that and in favor of another more free market solution) but $48k seems a little excessive.

[Matt Collins]

Oh and for those wondering what the actual range on a device like this is, they operate line of site and about as far as you can throw a baseball.
Depends on the wattage and type of antenna.

[twomp]

I can see the argument for both sides of this but I must admit, having a portable cell phone jammer is pretty badass. I love technology.

[LibForestPaul]

wow... I'd like more details on this thing... how powerful was it? How many watts was it putting out?

cell phone tower sites

damn

[nobody's_hero]

Thanks, my thoughts are that the PDF is better.

I chuckled.

[nobody's_hero]

But think of all the lost tickets this guy may have cost the police municipality... he may have forced them to do their real job, and go after real criminals. How dare he.

You know, you might just think that's sarcasm, but you're probably right. I mean, if safety were the govt's concern, then the city officials should be giving him the key to the city or something.

Revenue, however, is most likely the motive.

[XNavyNuke]

The same regulations also prevent GPS and WiFi jamming. As long as LEOs have legal authority to put GPS trackers in your truck and skim you WiFi, I think the untermensch should have the ability to foil them. To Matt's point, I think it's about wattage.

Some links:
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1776A1.pdf
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1642A1.pdf

XNN

[Antischism]

Not sure why anyone would applaud someone for doing this, aside from being inclined to dislike cell phones which is obviously no excuse for interfering with the ability of others to use a service they're paying for. Furthermore, there's the potential for interrupting or preventing emergency calls where people may have need assistance from medics in the case of an accident or other such unfortunate circumstance. As for the fine, I'm thinking it's excessive, though in a case where it would have led to the death of an individual unable to reach 911 to get an ambulance on site, I'm wondering what the repercussions would be. It would make for a very interesting case, though of course, it's not worth entertaining such an idea that would come at the expense of a life.

No doubt the technology is curious and I'd prefer people didn't have their faces glued to a phone all the time, but what they do or how often they use them is their business in the end and no one should be interrupting their service unless it's due to an unpaid bill. Angela brought up a good point about movie theaters, where I think the technology could be put to great use.

To add to this, if his intention was to stop people from being a risk on the road while using their mobile device, wouldn't it backfire horribly since it would only serve to distract drivers tenfold as they're now trying to figure out why their device has stopped working? All around stupid idea, I have to say. Throw in the fact that it isn't always the driver in the vehicle using mobile devices and that some simply use bluetooth to speak hands-free, as well.

[Ronin Truth]

I think I understand the guy. He probably just doesn't to be hit or killed by some goober yakking or texting on their cell phone being a distracted driving menace. Makes loads of sense to me. Give him a medal.

[oyarde]

48k is excessive and therefore cannot be supported .

[KCIndy]

I can see the jamming causing more problems than it prevents.

Just imagine: I'm driving down the road with my jammer running full blast. In the car traveling in the lane next to me, the driver is tinkering with his phone, wondering why he has no signal. Checking to see if "radio is enabled." Checking to make sure his network settings are correct. Trying to reboot. In frustration, he takes both hands off the wheel, figuring he can steer "just for a while" with his knees while he tries to shuck his phone out of its protective cover, peel off the back of the casing so he can pull his batter--- CRASH!!!

[angelatc]

I chuckled.


Me too. I imagined the cell tower engineers finally noticing their "random" outages were occurring in a predictable succession about the same time every morning, and then in reverse in the evening, Monday through Friday.

[bunklocoempire]

Who owns the airwaves again? I forget.


This is one of those great questions that I think has no good free market solution.

Just a hunch, but I figure the market solution driven by necessity or want has been stymied for many years by regulation -concerning waves right out of the gate no?

Why try to improve the situation with R&D? Just get yourself a congressman/lobbyist to have the laws push what you're selling. Or has the science of waves been totally exhausted?

[CPUd]

I don't use them when I'm driving. I prefer to let the car do the talking.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

As someone who has had three near death experiences with crazy multi-tasking soccer moms yapping on their cellphones, I support this.

[Philhelm]

Technically, I almost get my wife pregnant about 15 times a month.

It's like saying "It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye". I hate that saying. OF COURSE it's all fun and games, why do you think we're playing Jarts to begin with?
You throw your Jart directly at someone, you decide this one time you don't need the rubber, or you try to finish your text while approaching a light, and you're going to lose the fun-and-games lottery.

Very well, I've seen some odd, outright accidents that simply shouldn't have happened. One guy driving behind me on the highway casually veered into the concrete wall for no apparent reason whatsoever. This resulted in his car shooting across three lanes, hitting another car. During another instance, while stopped on a highway exit, I saw a car slam into a car a few spaces behind me at full speed, without the screeching of brakes. I thought for sure that I would get hit by the cars behind me but I lucked out. This car also shot out, hitting several more cars in the process. These are accidents that were so obscene that I can only assume cell phone use had something to do with it.

My ex-mistress' brother was texting while on the highway. He flipped up on a curb, flew out the rear windshield, and landed on the railing about a hundred feet from his vehicle. Ended up with a broken back, and a ruined arm and leg.

I've never been in so many near-miss accidents since the rise of the cell phone. I'm not talking about run-of-the-mill, bona fide accidents, but accidents that should not have been even close to occuring if the driver were paying the least bit of attention to the road. If anyone is wondering about the distinction - Normal Accident: car on highway stops for some reason and the following car slams on the brakes but hits into the front car anyway. Unreasonable Accident: car on highway stops fro some reason and the following car hits into the front car with no attempt to slam on the brakes because the driver was too busy talking about pop culture on the idiot machine.