Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

12-04-2007, 11:09 AM

"Big Bird" <big.bird@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fj3sdc$20i2$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk...
>* Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2889295.ece
>>
>> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
>>
>> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
>> turn off that annoying chatter
>>
>
> I'd like to see them jam my WiFi phone.

So would I

12-04-2007, 11:13 AM

In message CMf5j.59823$EU1.46786@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
notbresson <jw001t8336@blueyonder.co.uk> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:X-CdnTAAuo0o-8jaRVnytAA@bt.com...
>> In message U9SdnRgXyY23-MjanZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com,
>> ChrisM <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> Proclaimed from the tallest
>> tower:
>>
>>> In message Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com,
>>> MichaelJP <mjp@nospam.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>>>
>>>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and
>>>>>> all that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on.
>>>>>> I'm on a train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few
>>>>>> seconds to ruin Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's
>>>>>> hardly going to bring the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
>>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links
>>>>> to control signals and points at least some of the time. In which
>>>>> case, an electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering
>>>> decision. Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all
>>>> sorts of interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission
>>>> critical" applications.
>>>
>>> No, I'm not at all sure, just I thought I'd read something about it
>>> somewhere...
>>
>> Having said that, I just did a quick Google for "rail signalling
>> radio" and although I don't have time at the moment to read any of
>> the links properly, it does seem that (secure?) radio links are used
>> at least to some degree within the railway networks...
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Chris.
>> (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
>> To talk maybe?

Even if you are only jamming the drivers voice communication with the
signalman, you are creating a potentially hazardous situation...
- Another post suggested that some form of GSM is used for cab-signalling
systems.

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

12-04-2007, 12:04 PM

On Dec 4, 2:49 pm, "Dave" <d...@p.com> wrote:
> Yes one such system is called GSM-R, which can be used for cab signaling and
> voice - see my other post.

There are signs at Oxford station saying "Cotswold Line Services -
switch on GSM". It is popularly believed to refer to the "Go Slow
Motor".

Richard

12-04-2007, 12:49 PM

"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:R2vXzsARlYVHFwu$@bancom.co.uk

[snip]

: : OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming
: : .. don't think so..
: :
: : And who's approving these devices anyway .. and railway
: : GSM anyone?.... --
: : Tony Sayer

*Nobody's* approving them, that's the whole point..!

Although I could do with one on the bus sometimes ;-)

Ivor

12-04-2007, 02:00 PM

In article <5rllppF15fffvU1@mid.individual.net>, Ivor Jones
<ivor@despammed.invalid> scribeth thus
>"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:R2vXzsARlYVHFwu$@bancom.co.uk
>
>[snip]
>
>: : OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming
>: : .. don't think so..
>: :
>: : And who's approving these devices anyway .. and railway
>: : GSM anyone?.... --
>: : Tony Sayer
>
>*Nobody's* approving them, that's the whole point..!

That is the point!..

A company called Zetron make a cellphone detector which is rather useful
in some environments.

>
>Although I could do with one on the bus sometimes ;-)

Yep Joe pillock is loose on there as well;!...
>
>Ivor
>

--
Tony Sayer

12-04-2007, 02:01 PM

In article <fj46s7$h8a$2@lucy.duncodin.org>, Mike Civil
<mike@duncodin.org> scribeth thus
>In article <fj3sdc$20i2$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk>,
>Big Bird <big.bird@aol.com> wrote:
>>I'd like to see them jam my WiFi phone.
>
>A bit more Googling shows unverified reports of some jammers being
>indiscriminate enough to disrupt WLAN and Bluetooth traffic as well.
>
>Mike

Isn't wi-fi shaky enough as it is anyway?..
--
Tony Sayer

12-04-2007, 03:57 PM

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:07:29 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote this:-

>How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
>customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
>needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
>minute, or a whole host of other calls.

Move to the vestibule and one will presumably be out of the range of
such a jammer.

Of course if one was polite then one would have done so anyway, so
these jammers are only likely to affect the impolite.

An excellent idea, more people should use them.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

12-04-2007, 04:03 PM

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2889295.ece
>
> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
>
> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
> turn off that annoying chatter
>
One thought strikes me.

If these are available, then they can be used by the criminal classes to
prevent calls for help by, for example, a potential crime victim.

Is this a price worth paying for a bit of peace?

Leaving aside all the other (Generally agreed to be necessary) uses
which could be disrupted.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

12-04-2007, 04:10 PM

tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

> Now potential jammer.
>
>
> How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
> customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
> needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
> minute, or a whole host of other calls.
>
> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't think
> so..

Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.

12-04-2007, 04:35 PM

>
>How would you feel if <your> usenet post was completely misrepresented
>by another poster in the same way that you have misrepresented me and
>misrepresented what I wrote.
>
>If you actually read my post you will see that I am in no way
>advocating the use of jamming devices and am certainly not considering
>obtaining or using one myself nor am I condoning or encouraging their
>use.
>
>My whole post had an entirely different tone, and was a series of
>question marks over whether these devices actually have far wider
>consequences than merely jamming mobile signals. I did not raise the
>issue of whether or not it was right for someone to "play god" in the
>selfish and self-satisfied manner of the Midlands commuter the
>reporter spoke to, because I thought someone else could raise that
>issue. But just so you don't misrepresent my view on this issue I
>shall spell it out - no, I don't think it's OK for someone to do that
>either.
>
>*If* your introductory address "Now potential jammer" was not in fact
>aimed at me, but was actually aimed at a hypothetical reader whom may
>have been considering obtaining and using a jamming device, it was a
>dismal linguistic failure -

Sorry haven't got all day to reply in GR8 detail to usenet posts but you
should have got the drift

..

>because it certainly read as if it was
>addressed directly to me. *If* that is the effect you desire then I'd
>urge you to structure your comments more carefully in the future.
>
>*If* however you were addressing me directly then you got it very
>wrong.

Actually I was agreeing with you!........................more than less..
>
>Anyway, the device I'm looking for is not a radio jammer but some kind
>of electro-magnetic pulse weapon that would destroy the external
>speakers of mobile phones. Unfortunately as it might also destroy
>pacemakers and make Li-ion batteries explode again I reckon it
>probably wouldn't be a great idea in practice.

Now your asking ...That would take a <lot> more energy...

Course if people could be a bit more considerate then it wouldn't be a problem
but that ain't gonna happen is it?....

--
Tony Sayer

12-04-2007, 04:36 PM

In article <a3f3cf18b6a0eb25108ed4df9ac74b59@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> scribeth thus
>tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Now potential jammer.
>>
>>
>> How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
>> customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
>> needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
>> minute, or a whole host of other calls.
>>
>> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't think
>> so..
>
>Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
>had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.
>
>
>
>
>

It seems to me that people do talk louder than what they have to due to
the amount of background noise around them rather than what the caller
hears .. but then again -noise cancelling- is a bit new for mobile
telephony applications...
--
Tony Sayer

12-04-2007, 04:45 PM

John Williamson wrote:

> If these are available, then they can be used by the criminal classes to
> prevent calls for help by, for example, a potential crime victim.

And if they are indiscriminate enough to jam wifi networks then they
could be used to disrupt home security systems too.

12-04-2007, 04:47 PM

ChrisM wrote:

> - Another post suggested that some form of GSM is used for cab-signalling
> systems.

Isn't the use of GSM-R in-cab signalling compulsory for line speeds over
125mph?

12-04-2007, 04:53 PM

On 4 Dec, 13:52, Paul Weaver <use...@isorox.co.uk> wrote:

> Personally I think that anyone with a standard season ticket should
> get a first class upgrade at weekends.

There is no first class at weekends on my line; it becomes chav class.
Let them have their complimentary upgrades (if they have a ticket at
all) if it means they're out of my face!

Jonathan

12-04-2007, 04:56 PM

On 4 Dec, 22:45, Ben <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> And if they are indiscriminate enough to jam wifi networks then they
> could be used to disrupt home security systems too.

And large businesses... and even security cameras in towns (some of
Westminster use cameras linked wirelessly).

It's yet another thing the police should be aware of, but will
invariably won't do sod all about until it's far too late.

Jonathan