Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer (no lectures or legal..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

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 / sjsobol@JustThe.net / 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"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:ytXve.223$RC6.163@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

>
> 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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <bAZve.1249$wH5.1164@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

> >> 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.

Tell me my ISP, then.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

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 / sjsobol@JustThe.net / 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"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
"SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> 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!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-286E86.21081127062005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
> "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Hopefully anyone with this stupid an attitude would drop-dead long before
help arrived.


"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-286E86.21081127062005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
> "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> 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!
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> wrote in message news:WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
>
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ytXve.223$RC6.163@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>> 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"John R. Copeland" <jcopelan@columbus.rr.aol.com> wrote in message
news:iX0we.25737$IL3.9601@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> wrote in message
news:WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
>
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ytXve.223$RC6.163@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>> 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.

 

[Tim]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-F88651.13345226062005@nntp1.usenetserver.com:


>
> 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"tim" <timothybil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9682D80689D12timothybilcomcastnet@207.69.189.191...

> 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?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

SS wrote:
> "tim" <timothybil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9682D80689D12timothybilcomcastnet@207.69.189.191...
>
>>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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

> 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.

I think we went thru this topic before a few months ago. It is an old
wives' tale that cell-phones can gunk up critical-care equipment. Some
hospitals ban cell-phones for reasons of quiet, patient-care, and
logistics - not for fear of killing off patients. In many hospitals,
physicians routinely use cell-phones in the operating rooms and ICU's.


> 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?

Nope. I have never seen a cell-phone cause an EKG blip. On the other hand,
operating room electrocautery will always zap the EKG monitoring. (OT So
many things can interfere with the EKG that there is always back-up
monitoring - like feeling the patient's pulse.)



Bill T


..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <bAZve.1249$wH5.1164@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Tell me my ISP, then.

I was speaking primarily about email messages.
You are not using your ISP's NNTP server. Your NNTP service:
UseNetServer.com, is one of the independents who does not record
the originating IP address. Although this practice is quite common for
third party NNTP service, email messages always contain the
originating IP.

--
John Richards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <Xns9682D80689D12timothybilcomcastnet@207.69.189.191>,
tim <timothybil@comcast.net> writes:
[snip]
> Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain
> situations.

Yeah, that's what they say, all right.

> 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.

So they're going to put always-on broadband RF sources in areas where
they want to prohibit RF sources, is that it?

>
> 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?

No, I don't. They attached the wires, did their thing, detached the
wires.

[snip]
>
> Put up a sign and turn on the jammer.

Uh huh. Btw: If the milliwatt-level RF energy from cell phones is so
disruptive to medical equipment, please explain why hospital security
staff operate multi-watt hand-held two-way radios in the same
environment?

Btw2: Do you know how much hospitals charge for in-room telephones?

There are good and valid reasons to restrict the operation of cell
phones in hospitals, but they're more along the lines of why their
use should be restricted on aircraft, in theaters and restaurants,
and in other venues where people are too damn stupid and
inconsiderate to be allowed the freedom of their own judgement.

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http/jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <dm4we.1609$GH6.1357@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

> Although this practice is quite common for
> third party NNTP service, email messages always contain the
> originating IP.

Except when they don't.

Maybe your head is in the sand. That's the only reason I can think of
you not knowing about spam...