Fred Atkinson wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:05:50 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
> <blbergman@withheld_on_request> wrote:
>>> The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless
>>> communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934,
>>> as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act
>>> prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with
>>> the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under
>>> the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333.
>>> The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including
>>> advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless
>>> transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in
>>> violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set
>>> out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can
>>> range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up
>>> to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited
>>> to the U.S. government.
>> Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
>> Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
>> 5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
>> Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.
> Don't miunderstand me here. I basically agree with your position.
> But didn't the more recent communications act render the
> Communications Act of 1934 obsolete? I don't think that cell phone
> technology was considered when it was written, either.
> I do think that perhaps use of such jamming devices (if properly
> designed) might be useful in prisons where there is a problem with
> contraband cell phones running being used for drug deals and other
> problematic things. Of course, we'd have to address the issues and
> how to correctly make it legal for use (so that situations like you've
> described can be avoided).
> Fred
And here you fall into that common fallacy. 'We can't have these
people doing this bad behavior that we outlawed. So lets ban one of
their instrumentalities to stop their bad behavior.' Remember how
effective those laws against flagrant beeper use in the 80s were at
stopping the drug dealers? You would be far better served by going
after the root causes of the bad behavior, then by blocking this or
that object from functioning, or making the object more difficult to
obtain legally for the ordinary citizen.
--Dale
Dale Farmer (dale@cybercom.net)