 |
In a story headlined Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals, Sunday’s Washington Post reports state and local officials are pushing for permission to deploy equipment that can intentionally interfere with radio signals. Why do you think this capability should or should not be used inside the United States? If you think it should be available, under what circumstances should it be used? Who should be allowed to use it? |
February 2, 2009
Jam, Anyone?
2 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
When I was co-running the Lake City Playhouse, I did research to see whether a jammer was available, so that we could have some peace during our shows. This was before a majority of people discovered the vibrate feature on their cell phones. I discovered that the process was available, but highly restricted. I think that’s for a good reason.
Giving the power of cell phone suppression to local law enforcement frightens me. Its use could become arbitrary, and that’s too much power to leave in the hands of a 22-year-old with an attitude who just graduated from the academy. Already I know there are issues some LEOs have with people video taping them or recording things. Who knows what would reign if they had the ability to suppress those things. Not all LEOs, but a few. That makes me nervous.
In fact, this seems like yet another case of a government that doesn’t trust its people.
Comment by Dan — February 3, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Local law enforcement already has the authority to shut down a specific cell phone in a verified emergency. For example, if a hostage taker is using a cellphone, law enforcement can get an exigent circumstances court order to control messages to and from that specific cell phone. Law enforcement can control the incoming and outgoing calls to and from that specific phone by working with the cellular carrier. I have no problem with that at all, because the specific phone is the only one affected.
The issue of cell phones being used as radio remote-controlled initiators for improvised explosive devices (RC-IED) is a different matter altogether. This is by no means a new issue, however it has become more technically feasible since the cell phones sized down to where they are now. People need to remember that cellular telephones are nothing more than two-way radios operating in a system. They obey all the laws of physics.
The article focused on cellular telephones, but the use of RC-IEDs is decades old. Effective active countermeasures are heavily intelligence driven. In practical terms what that means is usually law enforcement doesn’t know enough about the RC-IED to obtain, deploy, and safely use an effective active countermeasure.
Comment by Bill — February 3, 2009 @ 11:38 am