Camera Looks Like a Phone

[Guest]

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

 

[Larry]

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.

 

[Guest]

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"

 

[Guest]

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"

 

[Guest]

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!
>
>

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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"

 

[Larry]

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.

 

[Jer]

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'

 

[Guest]

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"

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Larry]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Prometheus]

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

 

[Guest]

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"

 

[Prometheus]

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

 

[Prometheus]

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