Hacker News Reader

Comment by yzzxy | Hacker News Reader

This is smart. Cellular jamming is mega-illegal in the US (even in prisons![0]), and when I first read through this article I missed part of the first paragraph and couldn't understand how this product could be sold.

However, the idea of working with network providers is great, and opens the door to a lot more options, such disabling cellphones in bars, resturants, etc. based on complex filters (e.g., allow "emergency" texts or only from close family).

I bet the movie theater industry will jump on this quickly.

[0] http://www.wired.com/2010/03/prison-mobile-phone-debate-jamm...

View on HN

Why is it the responsibility or even the right of carriers to deny people the service they pay for simply because it annoys you?

Texting while driving is a public safety hazard, and that's pretty unambiguous. From where do you derive the right to control what I do in a bar or restauraunt?

Why is it the responsibility or even the right of carriers to deny people the service they pay for simply because it annoys you?

Exactly!! Are we so immature that we can't take responsibility for our own behavior and want laws and systems to do for us what we should do for ourselves?

Because a sufficiently large percentage of the population is shitbags.

Yeah, it's always the other guy that needs strict parenting from the government right?

The majority of people who just want to live safe, comfortable, predictable lives have a right to use government to protect themselves from the (very substantial) minority of people who are shitbags.

Predictable? There's autocratic regimes out there where life is much more predictable. We probably more laws to keep government and other autocratic shitbags in check.

Yes, predictability is something normal people value, and are entitled to structure their society to encourage.

Doesn't really need to be "strict" in this case. Texts could come back with a context from the recipient. Say you text someone, they're driving, you get a status of "In motion," or "In a movie," or something based on the data coming back from the phone.

They're not necessarily unable to respond to you, as in not locked out of their phone by the carrier, but the carrier knows they're moving at 30+mph, and gives that data to the sender.

When I say smart, I mean purely from a cold, heartless, moneymaking perspective. I would not start this business because I agree with you in many cases.

Because bars and restaurants are private property?

How does that grant the carriers the right to deny you service that you are paying them to have? The property rights of bars and restaurants in no way overrides your contract.

If the bars don't like mobile phones they can ban them, or even (assuming it's legal) install Faraday cages.

I believe the suggestion was to allow carriers to disable service at the direction of private property owners.

Property owners do not own the electromagnetic spectrum in their property. I'd go as far as to say that even the carriers do not own the spectrum. They merely rent it (in the US). I'd say they have certain implicit (and explicit) responsibilities when they assumed the spectrum slices.

Did we really go so far as to welcome intrusion where someone can just ping your phone to get a reply with our location? I for one was very concerned when BART shut down cellular connectivity in order to cover up its incompetence.

You can easily block all cellphones on private property without broadcasting crap. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

I think of it more as a condition of the license to be physically on the property in the first place (e.g. no shoes, no shirts, no service).

Oh yeah and while we're at it we should also jam people's devices at protests and large gatherings as well. /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com