Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer (no lectures or legal opions please!)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:44:16 -0500, Kathleen Carmody
<[email protected]> 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!

---

› See More: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer (no lectures or legal opions please!)

Jer wrote:
> Steven Banks wrote:
>> "Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> 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

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

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 / [email protected] / 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"

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

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

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

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 / [email protected] / 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"

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> 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

"SS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> 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.

"John R. Copeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"SS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> 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.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


>
> 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.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "SS" <[email protected]> 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.

"tim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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?
>

SS wrote:
> "tim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>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.