Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Also, the fact that the government currently bans U.S. civilians from using drone technology or jamming technology under harsh penalty is not a good sign.

Do you honestly not see why letting the average person run around with a jammer is a bad idea? Really?

If someone wishes to jam communications going into or out of their private property, that is their right.

[Kilroy the Grand]

Also, the fact that the government currently bans U.S. civilians from using drone technology or jamming technology under harsh penalty is not a good sign.

Do you honestly not see why letting the average person run around with a jammer is a bad idea? Really?

If someone wishes to jam communications going into or out of their private property, that is their right.

Really? You think they don't allow people to have jamming technology... because they want to stop people from using it on their own private property? You see no potential for abuse at all?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Of course I see the potential for abuse. Personal freedoms bring potential for abuse in many things.

But I do think they want to stop people from using it on their private property. It's hard to spy on someone when they're jamming everything on their land.

[Kilroy the Grand]

Of course I see the potential for abuse. Personal freedoms bring potential for abuse in many things.

But I do think they want to stop people from using it on their private property. It's hard to spy on someone when they're jamming everything on their land.

Oh, of course it's to stop people from disabling wiretaps, and not say... preventing some jackoff from using one in the middle of time square, or near an airport. Gotcha. Just like how the government frowns of people trying to make nuclear reactors, their secret stranglehold on the power companies might be threatened.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I didn't say it wasn't for that as well, but if you introduced a bill to lift the ban on selling of short-range jammers I guarantee the Congressional session would get "closed as a matter of national security" so that the Congressmen could be persuaded to shoot it down in private.

The government shouldn't be spying on their own people, and if they won't ban government agencies from doing so then civilians should be allowed the tools to put a stop to it themselves. Jammers can do that, or at least a decent part of it.

[Kilroy the Grand]

Given how how of most daily peoples lives depend of radio waves, they would never allow it. You might not think jammers are a big deal, but they are.

[Leafsnail]

It also sounds like something that would just be bad for society in general.  I mean, suddenly noone can hear the radio/ use their phone nearby if you decide you want to jam signals in your area.

[scriver]

But what about my freedom and right to do what I want without thinking through the consequences first?

[MonkeyHead]

Needs of the many, and all that.....

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Like I said, short range jammers. The kind of short range that won't extend past your property line. You could file a complaint with the local government if someone's jammer extends past that point and they won't readjust it.

Before you mention apartments, if jammers were legal every apartment block under the sun would contractually prohibit them.

[Frumple]

Yeaaah... america being america, I'd just kinda' note that just about everything that's being said for/against short-range jamming devices (so far) can be applied pretty directly in relation to firearms.

Mostly just noting that "potential for abuse" isn't exactly being consistently applied in this country. Whatever reason we've been (ostensibly) using to determine personal use laws, it's probably not that -- or at least a potential for abuse problem isn't sufficient in itself to restrict access.

[Nadaka]

The effects of jammers do not stop at your propert line. That's not how radio waves work. Interference follows the same inverse square law as a transmitter and will create a shadow in the signal.

[Criptfeind]

Can we go back to the start of this argument for a second? MSH mentioned drones as well. That seems to me a even bigger deal then this jammer thing. I mean. Should a citizen be able to control a remote control killing/Spying device?

Am I missing something here?

[Leafsnail]

Like I said, short range jammers. The kind of short range that won't extend past your property line. You could file a complaint with the local government if someone's jammer extends past that point and they won't readjust it.

Because it'd be really easy to tell whose jammer is stopping you from using basic every objects, right?  It's not like in, say, a suburban area there'd be potentially dozens of people with jammers, any of whom could have deliberately or accidentally made theirs too big for their area.  Filing a complaint would involve them having to investigate and carefully test EVERYBODY's jammer (since they're pretty easy to make yourself or modify you wouldn't be able to just trust the label) in the area rather than just finding the person with the jammer like they could at the moment.  I feel like if you lived in a block with paranoid neighbours you could pretty much say goodbye to the prospect of listening to the radio or using a mobile phone or using wireless internet ever again.

Yeaaah... america being america, I'd just kinda' note that just about everything that's being said for/against short-range jamming devices (so far) can be applied pretty directly in relation to firearms.

You know what?  No, this is completely different from guns.

In a magical world where noone would "abuse" firearms, then yes, they wouldn't really cause any problems.

In a magicial world where noone would abuse jammers they would still cause huge problems (and this is ignoring the fact that there is also massive potential for abuse).  It'd be very easy to accidentally overreach your area slightly and knock out your neighbours' appliances.  The idea of pointing your jamming signals upwards to prevent drones (as MSH seems to be suggesting) would also cause horrible problems for civilian aircraft, especially in areas where planes take off and land.  There's also minor things like accidentally straying onto someone's expansive property and not being able to get off since they fucked up your GPS signals (which would also be an issue if emergency services ever had to cross your land... or do you have the right to deny someone on your land medical treatment/ police services?  Not that they'd be able to call them in since you blocked their mobile phone call).

Can we go back to the start of this argument for a second? MSH mentioned drones as well. That seems to me a even bigger deal then this jammer thing. I mean. Should a citizen be able to control a remote control killing/Spying device?

Am I missing something here?

Spying is only bad if the government's doing it, I guess.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Can we go back to the start of this argument for a second? MSH mentioned drones as well. That seems to me a even bigger deal then this jammer thing. I mean. Should a citizen be able to control a remote control killing/Spying device?

Am I missing something here?

I don't mean weapon drones. Camera drones are more in the line of what I'm thinking of.

I'd rather see them entirely eliminated from U.S. soil, but if the police are going to use them so should everyone else.

EDIT: Essentially, on both subject of drones and jammers, I'd rather see them either not present or available to everyone then in the hands of a small group of powerful elitists. Even if the latter causes chaos, it means that power remains evenly distributed.