Scammer Yammer-Jammers to Slammer?
posted by Frank Pasquale
Cell phone yakkers, beware: a new device threatens to level the logorrhea:
[An architect] sat down next to a 20-something woman who he said was “blabbing away” into her phone. “She was using the word ‘like’ all the time. She sounded like a Valley Girl,” said the architect, Andrew, who declined to give his last name because what he did next was illegal.
Andrew reached into his shirt pocket and pushed a button on a black device the size of a cigarette pack. It sent out a powerful radio signal that cut off the chatterer’s cellphone transmission — and any others in a 30-foot radius.
This reminded me a bit of the airplane “seat blocker,” which prevents the seat in front of you from reclining. As far as I recall, the FAA did little to prevent their sale, but the FCC is taking no chances with the yammer-jammer:
The Federal Communication Commission says people who use cellphone jammers could be fined up to $11,000 for a first offense. Its enforcement bureau has prosecuted a handful of American companies for distributing the gadgets — and it also pursues their users.
Investigators from the F.C.C. and Verizon Wireless visited an upscale restaurant in Maryland over the last year, the restaurant owner said. The owner, who declined to be named, said he bought a powerful jammer for $1,000 because he was tired of his employees focusing on their phones rather than customers.
If the restaurant owner were to give notice of the jamming to customers, I would find this a difficult property rights issue. Loud cell phone conversations remind me of the proverbial “sparks from a train” that had to either be prevented by railroads or avoided by owners of flammable material. Who should get the initial entitlement: the yellular or the silence-seeking?
Photo Credit: Jovike.
November 4, 2007 at 11:57 am
Posted in: Anonymity, Cyberlaw, Privacy, Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Print This Post
Responses (7)
Kevin Guidry - November 4, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I don’t see how this is at all a complicated (legal) issue as the FCC has sole jurisdiction over the airwaves. If a restaurant owner wanted to simply kick out customers who were talking on their phones that would be one thing. But to jam the airwaves is completely different and I don’t see much (legal) similarity between the two situations.
Frank - November 4, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I don’t question the FCC’s jurisdiction here. I just question whether they *should* be exercising that power in the way they are here. Perhaps they need to be balanced by a Federal Silence Commission.
Lead Underwear - November 4, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I suppose it is illegal to transmit an interfering signal without an FCC license … but there’s nothing to prevent the owner of a restaurant from shielding the interior from cell signals, is there?
Kevin Guidry - November 4, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Make your entire business into a Faraday cage? Good question. Courtesy (and perhaps law) would dictate that you should prominently warn your customers as some *have* to be in touch with the outside world. I’m sure there have been many people that have elevated the tin foil hat to a tin foil room or building.
dave hoffman - November 4, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Did you catch Verizon’s economic argument?
““It’s counterintuitive that when the demand is clear and strong from wireless consumers for improved cell coverage, that these kinds of devices are finding a market,” said Jeffrey Nelson, a Verizon spokesman.”
bill - November 5, 2007 at 9:48 am
The FCC’s heavy regulatory hand is preventing Coaseian bargaining and market sorting here. If it’s economically worthwhile to eat in a restaurant where customers and servers are not using their cell phones, such a restaurant should be able to implement the policy.
My understanding is that there were no-smoking eating and drinking establishments before the smoking bans (think Starbucks), along with ones that allowed smoking (almost every bar).
By creating the entitlement on behalf of the Yellulars /and/ preventing private property owners from disabling cell phones on their premises, the FCC is by definition creating an inefficient result.
Maryland Conservatarian - November 5, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I agree with bill – but of course all kinds of governments are populated with people who know how to run busineses better than the business owners. we call it a public sevice.
Leave a Reply