Should we allow Cell Phone Blocking?

[jcarter]

I agree with Paddy, but if the jammers were used only on private property?  But that sure would be hard to police like you say. Next would come the schools, then the hospitals, then stores, then more.
Yeah, I guess they should be illegal, but law enforcement should have the option to use them.
Interesting point, new technology, new rules, new everything!

[Xairbusdriver]

Law enforcement does use them. I think you've missed reading some posts in this thread. Why they are illegal is mentioned in at least two of them.

[chriskleeman]

QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 15 2012, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After careful study of your message and perusing many of your past posts while using my well know skill of keen observation and vast mental powers, I have found what is probably the cause of your frustrations. I will grace you with my diagnosis at absolutely no cost since you are such a valuable member of this group. No, no, I insist! It's my privilege and honor!

You're getting OLD!!!

As proof, I offer your own words:

QUOTE

When I was young enough to have a babysitter

Well, there's your problem!

Jim, may I say you appear to have way too much time on your hands!!! I wanna be retired like you so I can just poke fun at everything!!! but I'm apparently not quite old enough!!!

CK

[Bbob]

And while we're at it, let's ban the damn teevees from restaurants, too.
 

[tacit]

QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 16 2012, 01:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Law enforcement does use them. I think you've missed reading some posts in this thread. Why they are illegal is mentioned in at least two of them.

In the US, it's not even clear whether or not the networks themselves can voluntarily disconnect cell phone towers if law enforcement asks them to without a court order.

The cell phone service in the San Francisco subway was shut down for a while when BART was afraid that people might be planning to stage a protest when BART security shot and killed a man who had been arrested for disorderly conduct and was lying face down on the ground. (The security officer says that he shot the man by mistake; he says he was reaching for his taser, accidentally drew his gun instead, and then shot the man. Witnesses say the security officer was angry at the man and shot him deliberately but didn't intend to kill him.) The officer was later convicted of manslaughter in court.

Anyway, in order to fend off what they thought was a protest against BART, the BART police asked the cell phone networks to shut down cell phone service in and around the subway stations, which they did.

Since then, a large number of civil and legal groups have protested that shutting down cell phone service in order to disrupt a legal protest is against the law; it amounts to prior restraint of speech, and is the sort of tactic that might be appropriate in places like North Korea or China but not the United States. There are currently a number of Federal lawsuits and investigations pending, and the FCC has even become involved in the fray. The cases have not been decided yet, but it looks like there's a strong argument that disrupting cell phone service at the request of police is against the law if there is no due process or court order.