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?)

In article <VNZve.1101$zp6.723@trnddc08>, rutherford@hotmail.com says...
> 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
>

Really? Call yourself a police officer.

I think that, if anyone were to bother to investigate (and that's a
significant if unless you actually use the claim to some end), you'd
find there *are* limits.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

 

[Jer]

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

O/Siris wrote:
> In article <VNZve.1101$zp6.723@trnddc08>, rutherford@hotmail.com says...
>
>>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
>>
>
>
> Really? Call yourself a police officer.
>
> I think that, if anyone were to bother to investigate (and that's a
> significant if unless you actually use the claim to some end), you'd
> find there *are* limits.
>


Of course there are limits, but you may use any alias name you want to
identify yourself in any venue, including in person, so long as there's
no intent to defraud. Doing so to only garner someone's misguided
attention is not itself a fraudulent act within criminal statutes.
(Visit any bar on ladies night for examples) So, if JV wants to
identify himself as a police officer, then he may do so, so long as his
use of the false identity causes no real harm to anyone, nor provides
financial gain for himself or another. Now, one person's definition of
"harm" may very well be different than someone else's, but that would be
an issue for a court to decide, and the burden of proof would be
plaintiff's onus.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Guest]

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

http/www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=23199

FCC re-iterates cell-phone jammers are illegal
Jun 28, 2005
WASHINGTON-People who want to use cell-phone jammers to get rid of
annoying mobile-phone use should think again.
It is against the law. Those found using, selling, manufacturing or
distributing cell-phone jammers could be subject to an $11,000-per-day
fine and seizure of their equipment by the United States Marshals,
warned the Federal Communications Commission.

"In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of
transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation
of cellular and PCS telephones, the FCC is issuing this public notice
to make clear that the marketing, sale or operation of this type of
equipment is unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be
subject to forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution," said the
FCC.

 

[Guest]

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

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> 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...

We covered this already. I'm a long-time spam fighter and know
what I'm talking about. Services like SpamCop.net could not
exist if the originating ISP were not uniquely determinable.

--
John Richards

 

[Guest]

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

John Richards wrote:

> We covered this already. I'm a long-time spam fighter and know
> what I'm talking about. Services like SpamCop.net could not
> exist if the originating ISP were not uniquely determinable.

And there are enough anonymizing open proxies that spammers can abuse that
often that's not possible. I've been doing the spamfighting thing since
1996. I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about too.

It's not impossible in all cases, just many.

This discussion is way OT for the cellular newsgroups, so I'm not going to
say any more...



--
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 <Ma2dnax9_uCdOyDfRVnyjw@skypoint.com>, someone purporting to
be Kathleen Carmody <councilmembercarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us>
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.)

It's not a "supposition" or an "opion" -- cellphone jammers are illegal
in the United States. Period. It is illegal to sell, buy, advertise, or
operate a cellphone jammer in the United States. Period. See 47 USC
302a and 47 CFR 2.803 for the details.

If you operate a cellphone jammer, you are subject to fines of up to
$11,000 per day under 47 CFR 1.80(b)(3). Whatever reasoning you think
you have for ignoring those rules, I doubt the FCC or the judge would
agree.

If you have an area where you don't want people to use cellphones, the
only legal way to do it is by constructing a cellphone blocker --
essentially an enclosure with enough metal in the walls to absorb
enough of the wavelengths used by cellphones to make them inoperable
inside the enclosure. Google on the exact phrase "Faraday cage." Since
a Faraday cage is a passive device that does not interfere with the
operation of any equipment outside itself, it is not subject to the FCC
licensing requirements. After all, it's just a metal box.

If you're still intent on getting a cellphone jammer, I'll leave it to
the judge to "lecture" you at your sentencing.

--
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org
All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c)
This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3).
DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned.

 

[Guest]

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

Steve Sobol wrote:
> John Richards wrote:
>
>> We covered this already. I'm a long-time spam fighter and know
>> what I'm talking about. Services like SpamCop.net could not
>> exist if the originating ISP were not uniquely determinable.
>
> And there are enough anonymizing open proxies that spammers can abuse that
> often that's not possible. I've been doing the spamfighting thing since
> 1996. I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about too.
>
> It's not impossible in all cases, just many.

We've both had our say, and our viewpoints really aren't that far apart.
As a long-time member of SpamCop.net I'd advise anyone who is
serious about fighting spam or just wants to learn how to interpret
headers to join that organization.

> This discussion is way OT for the cellular newsgroups, so I'm not going to
> say any more...

Agreed. Over and out.

--
John Richards

 

[Guest]

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

Uh folks, don't feed the troll.



"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-36110E.21551128062005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> 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...
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:11c497qcrhhq648@corp.supernews.com...
> Of course there are limits, but you may use any alias name you want to
> identify yourself in any venue, including in person, so long as there's
> no intent to defraud. Doing so to only garner someone's misguided
> attention is not itself a fraudulent act within criminal statutes.
> (Visit any bar on ladies night for examples) So, if JV wants to
> identify himself as a police officer, then he may do so, so long as his
> use of the false identity causes no real harm to anyone, nor provides
> financial gain for himself or another. Now, one person's definition of
> "harm" may very well be different than someone else's, but that would be
> an issue for a court to decide, and the burden of proof would be
> plaintiff's onus.

In most (if not all) US jurisdictions impersonating an officer of the courts
or a government official is most certainly illegal. While many job
capacities don't have that sort of liability, government jobs like policemen
certain DO. Granted, the likelihood of being prosecuted for doing it 'in a
bar on ladies night' is not very high. But get caught stopping that same
skirt out in the parking lot claiming to be Joe Friday and you'd be on well
on your way to the lockup.

None of this conflates to online identities, so please, make use of better
analogies.

 

[Guest]

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

FCC posting:

http/www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html

 

[Guest]

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

> And it would be immediately obvious to anyone using the debug
> screen on a CDMA phone

Well...that rules out 99.999999% of handset users.

 

[Guest]

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

In message <4HMwe.1249$aY6.307@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
DecTxCowboy <dtc_nada_spamo_ramp@swbell.net> wrote:

>> And it would be immediately obvious to anyone using the debug
>> screen on a CDMA phone
>
>Well...that rules out 99.999999% of handset users.

True, but well within the capabilities of most of the professionally
employed cell signal monitoring monkeys.

They might not catch you if you're walking around, but a stationary
jammer will get noticed, will get complaints, and will eventually get
found.

--
Just sit through this NRA meeting Marge, and if you still
don't think guns are great then we'll argue some more.
-- Homer Simpson

 

[Guest]

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

Kathleen Carmody <councilmembercarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote in
news:Ma2dnax9_uCdOyDfRVnyjw@skypoint.com:

>
> (-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.)
>

What kind of thrill do you get from asking stupid questions ?
You asked the same thing in rec.radio.scanners and got flamed.
Think it would be any different here moron ?

 

[DJK]

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

In article <dm4we.1609$GH6.1357@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
jr70@blackhole.invalid says...
> 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.
>
I used them about 6 months ago and they were recording the IP
but the trace was hashed to mask the IP in the message. point
being that someone reading the headers could not determine the
IP but if required by law enforcement or the inhouse abuse dept.
to produce the IP they could. Maybe they have changed, but I
thought law required the service to be able to provide law
enforcement with the IP.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <MPG.1d2fa21c9721b07f9896b9@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
djk <djk@spam.operamail.com> wrote:

(regarding UsenetServer.com)

> I used them about 6 months ago and they were recording the IP
> but the trace was hashed to mask the IP in the message. point
> being that someone reading the headers could not determine the
> IP but if required by law enforcement or the inhouse abuse dept.
> to produce the IP they could. Maybe they have changed, but I
> thought law required the service to be able to provide law
> enforcement with the IP.

Have you actually LOOKED at the headers?

There's no NNTP-Posting-Host line at all, hashed or not.

Have you actually LOOKED at their FAQ list?

Here's what they say:

> At Usenetserver.com, it is our goal to keep your personal information as
> private as possible. Our news servers remove the X-TRACE header and
> NNTP-posting-host header, thereby removing where you posted from. Other users
> only see from which UNS server you posted. To track spammers, we keep a log
> of up-loaders for a period of 48 hours. We also do not monitor what you
> download. We only monitor how much you download in accordance to your chosen
> account. Please understand that we only see byte data and nothing else.

Referenced from:

http/www.usenetserver.com/faq.html


no, there's no such law that the service be able to provide law
enforcement with the IP for Usenet news postings. You may be thinking
about email.

If we as a country get to the point where the feds want to track Usenet
postings, I'm getting a gun and moving to a remote cabin in Canada.

 

[Jer]

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

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <MPG.1d2fa21c9721b07f9896b9@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
> djk <djk@spam.operamail.com> wrote:
>
> (regarding UsenetServer.com)
>
>
>>I used them about 6 months ago and they were recording the IP
>>but the trace was hashed to mask the IP in the message. point
>>being that someone reading the headers could not determine the
>>IP but if required by law enforcement or the inhouse abuse dept.
>>to produce the IP they could. Maybe they have changed, but I
>>thought law required the service to be able to provide law
>>enforcement with the IP.
>
>
> Have you actually LOOKED at the headers?
>
> There's no NNTP-Posting-Host line at all, hashed or not.
>
> Have you actually LOOKED at their FAQ list?
>
> Here's what they say:
>
>
>>At Usenetserver.com, it is our goal to keep your personal information as
>>private as possible. Our news servers remove the X-TRACE header and
>>NNTP-posting-host header, thereby removing where you posted from. Other users
>>only see from which UNS server you posted. To track spammers, we keep a log
>>of up-loaders for a period of 48 hours. We also do not monitor what you
>>download. We only monitor how much you download in accordance to your chosen
>>account. Please understand that we only see byte data and nothing else.
>
>
> Referenced from:
>
> http/www.usenetserver.com/faq.html
>
>
> no, there's no such law that the service be able to provide law
> enforcement with the IP for Usenet news postings. You may be thinking
> about email.
>
> If we as a country get to the point where the feds want to track Usenet
> postings, I'm getting a gun and moving to a remote cabin in Canada.
>


If I help build the cabin, can we make it big enough for two?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Guest]

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

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:11c497qcrhhq648@corp.supernews.com...
> O/Siris wrote:
>> In article <VNZve.1101$zp6.723@trnddc08>, rutherford@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>>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
>>
>>
>> Really? Call yourself a police officer.
>>
>> I think that, if anyone were to bother to investigate (and that's a
>> significant if unless you actually use the claim to some end), you'd find
>> there *are* limits.
>>
>
>
> Of course there are limits, but you may use any alias name you want to
> identify yourself in any venue, including in person, so long as there's no
> intent to defraud.

The internet is global so I assume these limits apply to every country in
the world? Or are you using the approach that everyone here must be in the
U.S.?

 

[Guest]

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

Build your own, it's actually quite simple provided you don't need
long range. Schematics and other info at:

www.gbppr.org

I think it can even be simpler than that, but I'm not stupid enough to
try it myself.

Enjoy.

M


On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:44:16 -0500, Kathleen Carmody
<councilmembercarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> 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.)

 

[Guest]

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

In article <-uKdnTJGKNMXUFHfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, demenas@comcast.net
says...
> The internet is global so I assume these limits apply to every country in
> the world? Or are you using the approach that everyone here must be in the
> U.S.?
>

The Internet might be global, but Sprint PCS is U.S. only, so it's
natural to assume that readers here are in the USA.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

 

[Guest]

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

Jim Seymour wrote:
>
> In article <Xns9685974EA56D1ewrfdgrstnet@140.99.99.130>,
> Jesse <org@org.orgy> writes:
> > Kathleen Carmody <councilmembercarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote in
> > news:Ma2dnax9_uCdOyDfRVnyjw@skypoint.com:
> >
> >>
> >> (-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.)
> >>
> >
> > What kind of thrill do you get from asking stupid questions ?
> > You asked the same thing in rec.radio.scanners and got flamed.
> > Think it would be any different here moron ?
>
> Must be a glutton for punishment. She also posted the question to
> comp.dcom.telecom, sci.electronics.misc, and sci.electronics.design.

Hmmm... A politician *and* a troll. Who'da thunk it!

Notan