On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:32:03 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:


On a different discussion point, picture the recent Spanish train
bombings (10 set off.) Had the train installed cellphone signal
blocking equipment most of those bombs would probably not have been
set off.

From the fact that few of them went off in the station, where they
would have been far more effective, one may conclude that they were
triggered by simple timers.


Let's say three bombs went off at the station. If the other seven
were prevented from going off that would still have been a significant
victory against terror.

Of course terrorists will always find other ways to detonate their
bombs and the most effective method is still the suicide bomber, no
technology sophistication there. Be forewarned. They will not remain
the technology primitives they are today. In this escalating war new
solutions will have to be found again and again. But in the meantime
I think I have put forth a reasonable proposal that is cheap and
easily implemented, to greatly reduce the opportunities for cellphone
triggered bombs. More important, perhaps to reduce the enormous
effort and costs to provide surveillance in public places.

I like my idea of a built-in transponder chip that can be interrogated
at check-out counters. A portable interrogator can be used to check
abandoned packages from a safe distance without needing to know the
cellphone call number. The Spanish rescue team found an unexploded
bomb laden bag with a cellphone trigger and were very lucky that it
didn't go off.

I new you were an idiot. Plonk.
"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:12:08 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

The ideas are getting better but are you going to be the one to explain
to
people's families that it was for the public good that you were
transmitting
a signal designed to set off a bomb in a crowded place? It should get the
terrorist and the couple of dozen people behind him waiting to get
through
the check point.

I can't make out any logic in what you have written. Are you also
plain English challenged besides being technology, legal knowledge and
public policy challenged?

"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:12:08 -0800, "CW"
wrote:
I can't make out any logic in what you have written. Are you also
plain English challenged besides being technology, legal knowledge and
public policy challenged?

I can attest to his challenges with the last three. I posted this comment as
a seperate header but it never showed up, so here is the deal on property
rights and blocking cell signals again:

Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.

On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal, shielding,
etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that enters
or tries to leave that property. There are reasonable exceptions, before the
crazies ask what about a 1,000' balloon with radar reflector in your
airspace right next to an airport. Get real. We're talking about a
restaurant owner's right to make his interior airspace incompatible with
cellular signals, and nobody can argue he doesn't have the right to do that,
with or without notifying you of it. It's a courtesy if he tells you, tough
luck if he doesn't.

Similarly, the government regulates and (tries) to ensure the operability of
public communications while mitigating unnecessary or malicious
interference. Neither apply to a private property owner's right to have
cell-phone signals blocked on his property. If he invites the public, some
states might pass laws to require he notifies the public of that blockage,
but neither is it the public's right to assume that is so. A locality could
also decide it will prevent cell signals during any venue that takes place
on property it owns or leases. It's reasonable, it's "legal", and it's
happening. Before long, somebody will concoct a way to beat those blockers,
probably by a jam-resistant receiver card that plugs into the phone's
antenna. Then you'll have to check your gun and your cellphone with the
maitri d'. ;-)

Jack
Virginia Beach

Another ignorent one. This thred seems to be full of them.

"Jack Painter" uttered a bunch of useless crap.

"KLM" schreef in bericht
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:32:03 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:


On a different discussion point, picture the recent Spanish train
bombings (10 set off.) Had the train installed cellphone signal
blocking equipment most of those bombs would probably not have been
set off.

From the fact that few of them went off in the station, where they
would have been far more effective, one may conclude that they were
triggered by simple timers.


Let's say three bombs went off at the station. If the other seven
were prevented from going off that would still have been a significant
victory against terror.

Of course terrorists will always find other ways to detonate their
bombs and the most effective method is still the suicide bomber, no
technology sophistication there. Be forewarned. They will not remain
the technology primitives they are today. In this escalating war new
solutions will have to be found again and again. But in the meantime
I think I have put forth a reasonable proposal that is cheap and
easily implemented, to greatly reduce the opportunities for cellphone
triggered bombs. More important, perhaps to reduce the enormous
effort and costs to provide surveillance in public places.

I like my idea of a built-in transponder chip that can be interrogated
at check-out counters. A portable interrogator can be used to check
abandoned packages from a safe distance without needing to know the
cellphone call number. The Spanish rescue team found an unexploded
bomb laden bag with a cellphone trigger and were very lucky that it
didn't go off.

Forget it. You can't fight terrorism. You can only take away
the anger/frustration that *feeds* it, which takes time and
a lot of wisdom. A roll of duct-tape isn't going to fix anything.


--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


CW says...

You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull electronic
interference of a radio service is a crime.

You need to stop saying things like "is a crime" when posting to
Usenet, a medium that is worldwide.

Also, the following web pages may help you:

Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

Why bottom-posting is better than top-posting
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

+What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"?
http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/

The advantages of usenet's quoting conventions
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccau...ks/uquote.html

Why should I place my response below the quoted text?
http://allmyfaqs.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl...bottom-posting

Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
http://www.xs4all.nl/%7ewijnands/nnq/nquote.html



--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

Active8 says...

Someone else seems to think the T's aren't using DTMF. Does the
phone answer itself?

The B*s*c St*mp that decodes the DTMF cam also look for a ring
and answer the phone.

Terrorists hire engineers and technicians. Countermeasures that
any random sci.electronics.design participant can defeat are a
waste of effort.



--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

KLM says...

I like my idea of a built-in transponder chip that can be interrogated
at check-out counters.

It has a fatal flaw. Al, the terrorists have to do is to buy a
couple of hundred of the current cell phones that lack the chip
and store them away for making bombs with.


--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 05:54:13 GMT, KLM wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:32:03 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:


On a different discussion point, picture the recent Spanish train
bombings (10 set off.) Had the train installed cellphone signal
blocking equipment most of those bombs would probably not have been
set off.

From the fact that few of them went off in the station, where they
would have been far more effective, one may conclude that they were
triggered by simple timers.


Let's say three bombs went off at the station. If the other seven
were prevented from going off that would still have been a significant
victory against terror.

Of course terrorists will always find other ways to detonate their
bombs and the most effective method is still the suicide bomber, no
technology sophistication there. Be forewarned. They will not remain
the technology primitives they are today. In this escalating war new
solutions will have to be found again and again. But in the meantime
I think I have put forth a reasonable proposal that is cheap and
easily implemented, to greatly reduce the opportunities for cellphone
triggered bombs. More important, perhaps to reduce the enormous
effort and costs to provide surveillance in public places.

I like my idea of a built-in transponder chip that can be interrogated
at check-out counters. A portable interrogator can be used to check
abandoned packages from a safe distance without needing to know the
cellphone call number. The Spanish rescue team found an unexploded
bomb laden bag with a cellphone trigger and were very lucky that it
didn't go off.

Objections of others partially aside, you're getting close to a
workable idea. If a few of the off the shelf trak phones had to be
recalled or exchanged for new ones, any old ones the T's stockpiled
would be worthless.

The RFID systems could be set up to either cover a small area like a
turnstile or a larger area depending on how you wanted to go about
implementing security for a given loacation.

The problem to overcome is that we don't want to set one off in a
crowd, so we don't want it to ring in response to the RFID
interrogation. We also don't want an invasion of privacy, so a
generic RFID response would be the solution.

We also don't want the thing detonating from the interrogation with
people around and that's the biggest prob. You have to admit only
one person at a time into the area. That's not too bad. It's common
courtesy to stand back from someone using an ATM so maybe a few feet
will do. Like in a bank line.

I don't imagine the T's will want the thing detonating at the check
point either, so they'll probably have that figured out and an
inspection of the phone should reveal anything suspicious.

I think the real problem is the human factor. When baggage handlers
make $15/hr and get full union benefits, while the security
contractor pays his monkeys minimum wage, you have apathy. This is
no BS, it's serious. Back in the 80's after the Berlin disco bombing
and a few other attacks, people were talking a lot about security.
And talking is about all they did.

I went through the security check at the Atlanta airport and after
being admitted into the so-called secure area I had to go to the
bathroom so I asked where it was. Damned if it wasn't outside the
secure area. I went out through an unckecked passage and came right
back in. No one bothered checking me.

Last few times I went through a metal detector, I set it off. The
first time, the guard checked me with the wand and suggested it was
my shoes or the jacket zipper, but didn't ask me to remove them. The
second time (a month later) I went through, the same guard was
there. I just pointed to the shoes and the zipper and I was in.
Friggin' apathy. Maybe he remembered that the wand didn't indicate a
big enough chunk of metal, but that jacket fit just about right to
conceal a Glock.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:08:01 GMT, the renowned KLM
wrote:

On a different discussion point, picture the recent Spanish train
bombings (10 set off.) Had the train installed cellphone signal
blocking equipment most of those bombs would probably not have been
set off.

From the fact that few of them went off in the station, where they
would have been far more effective, one may conclude that they were
triggered by simple timers.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


Yes, that is correct - at least that's what was said on the news channels
here in the UK. The Spanish bombs were triggered by mobile phones set on
alarm at 7:39am IIRC - the phones didn't even have to have SIM cards in
them. No signal jamming equipment could have prevented them from going off.

cheers,
Costas