Balthisar: You aren’t getting the fundamental point: Jamming would create risk for no good reason. Creating risk of any kind must be balanced against a benefit, and there is no worthwhile benefit here.
yabob: A lot of things that have never been contemplated aren’t illegal yet. That’s one reason we still have legislatures at multiple levels of government.
But I insist that I’m not talking about jamming. I agree that jamming is an unnecessary risk. Electronics drift. They might not get maintenance. Anything that transmits RF energy has the potential to interfere with other electronics. That’s why all of our electronics have airplane modes or you must otherwise turn them off. I don’t want someone’s cell phone jammer interfering with the avionics. Blocking, though, has very low risk, is completely passive, and cannot possibly interfere with anything outside its enclosure. And of course, point-to-point communications still working inside a shrouded structure.
Balthisar: And I reiterate that it’s fundamentally the same thing from the perspective of the risks created, and that there is no good reason to take those risks.
What does it matter? Because life’s already dangerous, it’s okay to make it more dangerous? All because people talking on cell phones is somehow more annoying to you then people talking directly to other people?
You really think it’s okay to block a potentially life altering call because life already has dangers? What sort of rationale is that? And one should kill himself for what reason? Because he doesn’t like life being dangerous or because he minds that you don’t mind potentially making things worse?
I’ve never mentioned that people talking on cell phones is annoying to me. In fact, I’m not oft in situations where it could become annoying. The principle of private property and control over the use of your property is what is important. If a restaurant owner or a cinema owner should wish to control the entry and exit of electromagnetic signals to and from his property (i.e., blocking cellular calls), then that’s his perogative. You’re free not to patronize that location. Your rights aren’t being infringed. Certainly we have national building codes and so on that ensure the safety and conditions of private property, and ensure handicapped accessibility, and so on. But there’s no additional danger imposed by blocking cell phone signals. Remember, you can choose not to enter. If you’re a concerned citizen wanting to call an ambulance because you see me having a heart attack, get this – the store has telephones, or you can go outside. The risk is small. By using your stupid reasoning, we should ban automobiles, after all, there’s a risk of an accident which may injure, maim, or kill someone.
Yes, absolutely, for all of the reasons above. Life is full of risks. Do a proper risk analysis (do you know how?). You’ll find thousands and thousands and thousands of causes with a better return. The overall risk of an RF blocked building is so small as to not be relevant. And of course, the risk drops to zero should you decide not to enter.
Huh? One should kill oneself for whatever reason one likes. Had you read what I wrote (“Living is dangerous business; if one doesn’t like it, he can always stop.”), you could infer that one could stop living for any reason whatsoever. I’m certainly not endorsing suicide, however. If you had better analysis skills than you evidently do, then you’d realize that suicide is an absurd option given the circumstances, life is full of difficulties, and you just have to live with it.
Again, rescue/fire/public safety personal do not have that option. If you are doing something that makes their life difficult you may indeed have legal problems.
The certainly have that option. Just don’t go in while on call. Or if you mean public safety people that show up, well, then, they’re already on the scene. No one needs a cell phone to call them.
I can’t help but think that you’re intentionally exaggerating the importance of cellular communications for a statistically insignificant number of potential events. Where’s the need? What’s the risk?
I’m not aware that private property rights extend to spectrum any more than they extend to airspace and airplanes. You buy the real estate, but not the sovereign right to regulate whether TV, beeper, or cell phone emissions can pass through it. Personally, I think the principle of insuring unrestricted access to airwaves is more compelling than private property rights, especially when there are other solutions possible. The equation has little to do with risk.
For example, if a business owner wants to confiscate cell phones and hold them in a locker before allowing someone to enter the theater, restaurant, or whatever, I say go for it, and let the market decide. As I said before, every golf tournament I’ve been to will frisk you for your cell phone before allowing you to enter.
No, they don’t have that option. If someone has a heart attack on your property then the EMTs are going in. They communicate with the hospital to give status, to have doctors look at results, etc. And they may get called to a more urgent scene. If there’s a fire in your building, the firemen are going in. During a fire, they use various communications tools to inform the firemen that it’s unsafe, leave now! Some of these communications bands use the same or similar frequencies as cell phones. People have stated this several times in this thread.
The risk is that people can die. It’s not something that would happen every day, but several folks have outlined scenarios where jamming or blocking cell transmissions could plausibly place the public and emergency responders at risk. You may not see the problem but the people who respond in emergencies do.