(no subject)

[scottobear]

I think this is a great idea... jamming cell phones... no more of that movie theatre irritation.

I don't see that as a public safety issue, as they'll be used in public places where other folks will be, plus, the jammers can be turned off and on at will by the owners.

Comments

[bsgi.livejournal.com]

What about hte doctor or power plant or safety official on-call but unreachable because of the jammer. Also, I would find it an infringement on my rights to receive or make a call.

Now for the other side, I do not talk long or loudly when inappropriate. If possible I will take the call elsewhere -- if no other reason the call is my business and no one elses. etc. Seems to me the better solution would be to re-educate the selfish louts who have no manners and ruin it for the rest of us.

Re:

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

That's fair... perhaps go to a different theater, or make it accessable to beepers, not cell phones?

I don't know if you have any rights to make a call in a privately owned building... sort of a man's home being his castle... you don't have to go to the movie...


Reeducation is a good idea... but people are notoriously stupid and rude. I think forced lifestyle is simpler, albeit a toe-stomper...

Re:

[bsgi.livejournal.com]

for purposes of the law, even though a building is privately owned, if it is accessible, as a part of normal business, to the public, then it becomes a "public" location.

The other problem would be if you said beepers but no phones, then you have the government legislating personal forms of communication -- a problem with horrid precedent-setting potential. Then you have to be sure that jammers comply with certain FCC rules about interference in particular: they cannot interfere with electronic equipment within the building (e.g., computers), plus they can not interfere with any medical equipment (e.g., pacemaker, insulin pump, heart monitor), official forms of communication (e.g., police and fire radios) and the jamming can not leave the premesis -- which in reality nmay be very difficult to achieve.

The whole idea opens up a lot of potential problems.

Re:

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

hmm.. you're quite right...


many good points.

Re:

[bsgi.livejournal.com]

part of me agrees with the sentiment being expressed by wanting to jam the phones and part of me freaks at the implications. kinda like porno...it is not for everyone (esp. children) but everyone has a right to see, read, hear and think it. The real problem comes in trying to meat htat requirement without forcing it on those who do not want it at all and vice versa.

Re:

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

yup... I think a sign saying "warning, no cellphones past this point" should do it..

Re:

[bsgi.livejournal.com]

actually a law allowing an owner to say and enforce that in certian places like movies and plays and concerts and fine dining establishments, etc. (and not Mickey D's) would probably work if it also allowed certain people to have them: doctor's, lawyers, safety types like cops and firemen, parents with children being kept by a sitter, or similar people who need to be reached in emergencies....and you could legitimately require them to have the phone and beeper on vibrate. Maybe we ought to write a law :)

Re:

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

sure!

not that it'd pass... the yeti's got lucky. :)

Re:

[bsgi.livejournal.com]

LOL!