CB Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:08:01 GMT, the renowned KLM <klmok88@yahoo.com>
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
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Eric R Snow]

Is it always illegal to block cell phone signals? I ask because the
hospital where I was a patient had an area where cell phones would not
work and as I seem to recall had signage stating that fact and how
cell phone usage in that area was prohibited.
ERS

 

[Tim Auton]

Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

> wrote in
news:4ndi50loirkshdi00l8eh03qfrk1pjrli5@4ax.com:
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

You would have to have every phone in the nation ring every couple of
hours. They're not going to be stupid enough to have the phone both
switched on and connected to the bomb until the last minute.

Actually,they have to have it active before they enter 'enemy' territory,as
citizens there often notice some stranger fiddling with a package and then
leaving it behind;the common indicator a bomb has been placed.

So you're defining where the last minute is. Israel is tiny and most
of it is within an hours travel of "hostile" territory. My point about
the rate at which you would have to call mobiles stands.

You would have to disable every RF device in the nation to stop that
means of detonation. Removing RF communication from the population
means the terrorists have won. The only way to beat them is to carry
on doing exactly what you are doing now - changing your behaviour is a
victory for the terrorists. I'm British, I've lived under the threat
of terrorism (the comparatively mild IRA) almost my entire life (I'm
28). You just accept the risk - which is very, very small compared to
car accidents etc. etc. etc.

Changing laws and changing behaviour is *exactly* what they want. Fuck
them. The only thing you can do is report suspicious packages at train
stations etc. Other than that, just ignore the bastards and get on
with your life - if you do anything else they have won.

If you're scared then they have won. That's why it's called TERRORism.
Look at the odds - if you're not scared of crossing the road you
shouldn't be scared of terrorism.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

 

[CW]

Well said.

"Tim Auton" <tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY]> wrote in message > So
you're defining where the last minute is. Israel is tiny and most

of it is within an hours travel of "hostile" territory. My point about
the rate at which you would have to call mobiles stands.

You would have to disable every RF device in the nation to stop that
means of detonation. Removing RF communication from the population
means the terrorists have won. The only way to beat them is to carry
on doing exactly what you are doing now - changing your behaviour is a
victory for the terrorists. I'm British, I've lived under the threat
of terrorism (the comparatively mild IRA) almost my entire life (I'm
28). You just accept the risk - which is very, very small compared to
car accidents etc. etc. etc.

Changing laws and changing behaviour is *exactly* what they want. Fuck
them. The only thing you can do is report suspicious packages at train
stations etc. Other than that, just ignore the bastards and get on
with your life - if you do anything else they have won.

If you're scared then they have won. That's why it's called TERRORism.
Look at the odds - if you're not scared of crossing the road you
shouldn't be scared of terrorism.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

 

[CW]

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.

"KLM" <klmok88@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mcfk505dkgl77pi8ev4t4mdkor9fvjtjof@4ax.com...

An idea just occurred to me.

You notice those electronic anti-shoplifting interrogators at the
checkout counters?

Why not include a circuit in every cellphone that will cause the
answer bell to ring when anyone carrying a cellphone crosses one of
these interrogators. Maybe have the circuitry activate a different
ring tone or ring pattern from the normal call ring. Its extremely
short range and won't interefere with normal cellphone use.

It will set off a cellphone bomb or at least ID a suspicious cellphone
owner who can be asked to show the phone (any cellphone modifications
will be noticed immediately) or can be called aside for further
inspection. This will enable security people in places like train
stations, bus stations and airports to quickly screen crowds.

The same interrogating circuitry could be installed in metal detector
security gates.

Its rare to be able to go anywhere without encountering one of these
interrogators these days. A bomb carrying cellphone triggered
terrorist will have a hard time moving around without attracting
attention somewhere.

------------------------------------------------

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. Calls on emergency workers commuting by train could easily
have been relayed by the train's onboard PA system. Calls out can be
made from on-board public pay phones. Or can the signal blocking be
effective only for incoming calls and leave out going calls
unrestricted? Airlines blocks incoming calls. Outgoing calls can be
made from anywhere during flight through the aircraft's phone system.

 

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:38:29 -0500, Ben Bradley
<ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.example.com> wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna,

( I suppose this is on RRAA because cell phones have antennas )

sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.basics, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

Call phones have become the trigger of choice for terrorist bombs.

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

This might already be illegal there (not that that would stop a
government). I've heard that various parts of Europe have much
stronger privacy laws than the US, so there's little or no
telemarketing.

ROTFLMAO!

Of course, in the USA, one could put the cell number on the
national DO-NOT-CALL list, then only an "illegal" telemarketer would
trigger the bomb.
Or Church, politician, or charity, or any other 501C3 orginization, or

.....

Bombers might figure ways around this (especially if they search
Usenet), such as a cellphone answering circuit and a "dee tee em eff"
decoding circuit. I wouldn't want to spell it out for them...

I'd think that would be a given. Oops...wrong number.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

...Jim Thompson

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

 

[David Williams]

New anti-terrorist weapon => telemarketers. They call everybody.
Should wipe
out the bomb makers in about a week.

Dave Head

Not if they're on the Do Not Call list
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Please add me to the Do Not Bomb list! Aren't all terrorists required to
avoid
bombing those registered? Just like telemarketers?

David

 

[David Williams]

I noticed that the appearance of the no cell phone signs came around
the
same time that gas stations started running audio commercials through
speakers at the pump.

Interesting observation.

we dont have audio commercials at the pump here in New Zealand
(thankfully),
but we do have the no-cellphone signs though. It is likely to be no more
than corporate paranoia - can we get our asses sued off if we dont tell
people to do this.......I suggest we blame the lawyers

Cellphones can only ignite gasoline fumes in the vicinity of
cars prone to unintended acceleration.

David

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that David Williams <ddR_E_M_O_V_Ewilli
ams@northstate.net> wrote (in <105koqecutl289c@corp.supernews.com&gt
about 'Cellphones and Bombs', on Thu, 18 Mar 2004:

Aren't all terrorists required to
avoid bombing those registered?

Sounds like the sort of law they pass in France. Or Tennessee. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Active8]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:04:42 -0500, David Williams wrote:

New anti-terrorist weapon => telemarketers. They call everybody.
Should wipe
out the bomb makers in about a week.

Dave Head

Not if they're on the Do Not Call list
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Please add me to the Do Not Bomb list! Aren't all terrorists required to
avoid
bombing those registered? Just like telemarketers?

David

ROFL. Yeah, but the list is only updated quarterly, the tangos are
only required to update every month, and if you're already a
customer, they can still bomb you until you request that they put
you on their corporate DNB list.

With the high quality urethane wheels available, I think all those
dunes, nuked into glass, would make an excellent skate park. The
flat areas would be perfect for R/C parks and rocket launches.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Active8 wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:08:33 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

ROTFLMAO!

...Jim Thompson

Had the liberals not f'd everything up, this would've been a common
counter-terror measure. You place radio transmitters at sensitive
locations to blow up car bombs before they got close enough to do
damage. The theory is that if the tango pusses out, another tango
remote detonates the bomb, so all bombs have a radio failsafe.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
-----------

Doesn't work, they are set off with a touch tone code AFTER the
phone answers.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that The Captain <Captain794@yahoo.com>
wrote (in <7199d521.0403181757.7ab27279@posting.google.com&gt about 'CB
Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Thu, 18 Mar 2004:

All handheld radios used on rigs are
intrinsically safe, making them far more expensive than the standard
variety.

But do they NEED to be that costly or is that what the market will
stand?

I very much doubt that cell phones are buit to intrinsicly safe
standards, and under those circumstances I would certainly not feel safe
near someone yacking while filling.

So, an interesting querstion is; does your phone conform to UL
requirements for intrinsic safety? And if not, why are you using it in
an area where an explosive gas air mixture is possible?

We are effectively discussing whether there are any grounds for
requiring cell-phones, non-intrinsically safe, to be switched off, or
not used, at gas stations. So far, the numbers suggest that the hazard
is minute and the risk is also minute.

There is a relatively new philosophy being applied to safety standards,
including UL standards. It's called 'hazard-based', and requires a
logical chain of reasoning to justify every provision of a standard.
This is likely to result in significant changes to such standards over
the next decade or so. Many current standards have 'just growed' over
many years, and in some cases no-one knows why a certain provision is
included.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Active8]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:18:54 GMT, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Active8 wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:08:33 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

ROTFLMAO!

...Jim Thompson

Had the liberals not f'd everything up, this would've been a common
counter-terror measure. You place radio transmitters at sensitive
locations to blow up car bombs before they got close enough to do
damage. The theory is that if the tango pusses out, another tango
remote detonates the bomb, so all bombs have a radio failsafe.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
-----------
Doesn't work, they are set off with a touch tone code AFTER the
phone answers.

-Steve

Read the thread.

Now read this post.

car bomb - driver activated - needs no cell phone.

driver - chickens out - someone else remote detonates.

Doesn't work, they are set off with a touch tone code AFTER the
phone answers.

-Steve

Is that why counterterror units had the system designed some 20 yrs
ago?

Someone else seems to think the T's aren't using DTMF. Does the
phone answer itself?
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[KLM]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:57:15 -0800, "CW" <clinton.magers@comcast.net>
wrote:

. I don't have one, never
have and wouldn't care if they disappeared from the planet but in no way
will I ever approve of electronic jamming of them

Just like the Pope is an expert on sex and birth control. He ain't
got any either. Aka Everyone should make babies but don't expect His
Holiness to help you with the consequences of bringing one into the
world. Ergo, everyone should have unrestricted useage to all the toys
of modern technology. If they can be used to blow people up, tough,
that's a price worth paying for freedom and democracy.

unless under a carefully
controlled situation for a specific reason.

Which is exactly what is being proposed. Specific denial in specific
and limited public places. They don't allow you to bring box cutters
and nail clippers on air flights and these are pretty lame threats.
What's so different from not letting you have a live device that can
be a remote bomb trigger when you are in specific high value targets
- crowded public places where it will cause the greatest carnage.

There are more than enough existing examples of cellphone use denial
to poke holes into whatever "the full weight of the (unquoted) law"
injunction you are threatening with eternal damnation in hell. As we
speak Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC, is making big changes to
the communications laws. What's so untouchable about changes to
whatever (unquoted) law there may be on limiting cellphone access.

One more example is the rule that you, whether you are on staff or a
visitor, do not bring a camera equipped cellphone into certain
business premises. My earlier comment on telephone use in commercial
aircraft. Cellphone bans in places like concert halls. Cellphone
check-in in snotty restaurants. These are all denial of use. Jamming
is just one form of it.

This is a public policy matter and you seem incapable of
distinguishing between the two issues. This is not a technology issue
and its obvious you know squat about electronics. Technology created
an unintended and real public danger in that cellphones are very
easily modified and a reliable way to set off bombs. We are exploring
technology solutions to remedy that. I have thrown open some ideas.
I made no claim that they are the solutions. You haven't suggested
any alternatives. Meanwhile blowing up innocent people is perfectly
acceptable to you so long as these same innocent people can use their
cellphone anywhere 24/7.

To the objections from other posts; of course a determined terrorist
will always get through. Who can stop one who is willing to blow
himself up. Technology solutions will never solve everything and for
every solution there is always another counter measure. That's why we
all still have jobs to go to. But if we have a fairly simple
preventive measure coupled with an equally simple screening process we
can eliminate suspecting everyone and concentrate on the small number
of likely suspects and make it harder for terrorists to plant bombs at
will and at random.

Aaah, what the heck. Only CW seems to have objections. Who cares.

 

[KLM]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:12:08 -0800, "CW" <clinton.magers@comcast.net>
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]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:32:03 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> 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.

 

[Terry Given]

"David Williams" <ddR_E_M_O_V_Ewilliams@northstate.net> wrote in message
news:105kp2pir1ld1e7@corp.supernews.com...

Changing laws and changing behaviour is *exactly* what they want. Fuck
them. The only thing you can do is report suspicious packages at train
stations etc. Other than that, just ignore the bastards and get on
with your life - if you do anything else they have won.

If you're scared then they have won. That's why it's called TERRORism.
Look at the odds - if you're not scared of crossing the road you
shouldn't be scared of terrorism.

hear hear

 

[Terry Given]

"Cecil Moore" <Cecil.A.Moore@ieee.ONEDOT.org> wrote in message
news:405a439f$1_3@corp.newsgroups.com...

Terry Given wrote:
dont they have a nice monument though?

Terry, what the heck are you doing awake at 2am tomorrow?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

questioning my own causality?

 

[CW]

I new you were an idiot. Plonk.
"KLM" <klmok88@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bj0l50hldf4d8kht8j0juf5epejf61b3th@4ax.com...

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:12:08 -0800, "CW" <clinton.magers@comcast.net
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?

 

[Jack Painter]

"KLM" <klmok88@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bj0l50hldf4d8kht8j0juf5epejf61b3th@4ax.com...

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:12:08 -0800, "CW" <clinton.magers@comcast.net
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