Bush Causes Cell Phone Ban

An anonymous reader writes "When President George Bush visits Sydney, Australia for the APEC Summit in September, all cell phone calls within the radius of a football field will be suppressed. The president's motorcade will be shadowed by a helicopter equipped with signal-jamming equipment. Terrorists have used mobile phones to detonate remote-controlled bombs in Iraq and elsewhere in the world." There are other ways to detonate explosives remotely. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

Should read...

[Magada (741361)]

Title should read "Al-Qaeda scare causes widespread FUD in US and Aussie govts".

Re:Should read...

[xENoLocO (773565)]

Remember. The terrorists are not winning.

*jedi hand movement*

Re:Should read...

[Architect_sasyr (938685)]

I'm not likely to be a terrorist soon, but don't these people know what REDUNDANT control's are?

That said, I have no doubts that said helicopter will also take out 802.11 signals because only a really dumb team would jam only mobile signals. As far as I am concerned the only reason these plans have been "leaked" is because people would otherwise be calling their Telco going "WTF MY PHONE DROPPED OUT".

So yeah, ten points for a great idea, but try and think like a terrorist, and then how would you defend against that. I'm happy enough to bash the administration as much as the next guy (personally I think Howard [aussie PM] is a dick, but better than the alternatives), but sometimes we need to step back from the abuse and look at what we're really talking about...

My $0.02 AU

Re:Should read...

[Anonymous Brave Guy (457657)]

So yeah, ten points for a great idea, but try and think like a terrorist, and then how would you defend against that.

<obligatory>

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” — George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., 5 August 2004

</obligatory>

"Movie plot" security

[Joce640k (829181)]

This is a perfect example of what Bruce Schneier calls "movie plot security" - looks good to have black helicopters flying around but doesn't really achieve much.

http://www.google.com/search?q=movie+plot+security [google.com]

PS: Yes, the Madrid bombers used cell phones to detonate the bombs, but they didn't do it by calling the 'phone. They used the alarm clock function.

PPS: How till this prevent suicide bombers, etc.?

Re:Should read...

[BakaHoushi (786009)]

You're assuming liberals (true liberals, anyway) think democrats are liberal. Not even close. Is there even a single liberal who's been elected in the last 30 years? Heck, has there been a true CONSERVATIVE either?

In my humble opinion, no. We've only had Opportunists. Both parties favor large cash donations from large groups.

Doing the right thing, at this point, will require saying unpopular things, making unpopular decisions, acting out of principle, and self-sacrifice. Honestly, I don't expect that from anyone in Washington.

And on one other note, some people may bash Bush not because he's a Republican, but because he's a HORRIBLE president. Not to mention the only one. Being in the spotlight tends to draw attention from all sides.

(And yes, his being a "horrible" president is an opinion, but I base that opinion based on the facts that he started an unnecessary war, LIED intentionally to start that war, gave people awards for messing up that war, has refered to the Constitution as "just a piece of paper," demonstrated ineptitude to lead under emergencies [See: Initial reaction to 9/11, Katrina], unwillingness to try new methods, or even just give up old ones when they don't work, or even ADMIT that his methods don't work [HOW many times have we heard "we're making progress" in Iraq?], and, intentional or not, the utter genocide of innocent English words. And yes, in nearly every instance listed, he is not FULLY to blame, but he certainly shares credit.)

Re:Should read...

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496)]

Even if your story is true, which I somehow doubt (as another poster pointed out, signal jammers don't cause you to not have the signal at all), it's something else that bothers me more deeply.

See, it's YOUR preseident. As far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever you wish to help keep him alive: turn off the cell-phone network completely, jam all radio signals imaginable, turn off the GPS, glue everybodies eyelids together, so that nobody can aim a sniper at him - I don't care. AS LONG AS YOU DO IT IN YOUR OWN BACKYARD. Sorry for shouting, but I'm somehow afraid otherwise you won't get it.

Traveling to OTHER countries and terrorizing OTHER people - who never elected Mr. Bush, moreover who very probably don't give a flying fuck about him - by forcing the local authorities to turn off the cell phone network respectively block the traffic along the route he is supposed to take, is what bothers me! He's not the first president of the USA to travel abroad, you know, but for reasons of overblown security measures interfering with other people's lives in very unpleasant ways, he's most probably the least wellcome one.

I just hope no locals will have to pay for this little trip of his with their lives because of not being able to dial an emergency number when neccessary.

Sure its not exclusive

[gravesb (967413)]

I am sure that this isn't the only countermeasure that they are taking. Its good to publish this one, though, so people know in advance their cell phones won't work. The other counter measures probably don't affect personal electronic devices in the same manner.

Re:Sure its not exclusive

[Dog-Cow (21281)]

You fail to realize that the "someone else" would be Cheney. I think Americans are more afraid for Bush's life right now than Bush himself could possibly be.

Re:Sure its not exclusive

[VJ42 (860241)]

You could say this would be a major coup for whatever terrorist organisation pulls it off but it wouldn't be if you didn't let it and just shrugged your shoulders "So, you killed the president. So what ? Someone else is doing his job now".

Bingo, you got it in one, that's exactly what our respnse should be to all terrorist attacks; over here we learned quickly that the best response to the IRA was to carry on about our bussiness, but just to remain a little more vigilant. Unfortuneately in the post 11/9/2001 world, our leaders seem to have forgotten that lesson, and instead are placing ever more draconaian and stupid "security meausures" in place to protect us from a vague threat that's extremely unlikely to affect 99% of the population even if the worst occoured. This is all the more puzzling as the provos (and now the dissidents) made Al Quiada look like amaturs.

Re:Sure its not exclusive

[CmdrGravy (645153)]

I agree, this puzzles me too. I remember when the IRA were in full swing, every so often we'd see a bombing or something on the news, there were posters in swimming baths warning you about bombs and there was a lack of rubbish bins in stations and that was it. I don't remember us needing half the special measures we seem to require now despite the fact on their record alone the IRA were far far more of a threat to the UK than Al-Quaeda are or likely will ever be.

Just curious

[Mateo_LeFou (859634)]

What's the legality of using signal-jamming equipment? I mean for non-presidents. Obviously, whatever the president does is always legal.

Helicopter

[MECC (8478)]

Will people be able to hear anything he says in the open with a helicopter overhead?

Oh wait that's right - it won't matter.

I've wondered about this...

[SCHecklerX (229973)]

With the terrorists probably not using the most advanced triggering mechanisms, couldn't the jamming itself cause a bomb to go off? Anybody who understands how it all works, please comment.

Re:I've wondered about this...

[Dan East (318230)]

They typically wire the detonator in place of the vibrator motor in the phone. The motor is (relatively) large, the leads are fairly easy to access, the power source is continuous DC (unlike speakers, which is an analog signal), and it almost certainly is provided the most amperage of any other component in the phone. They then set the phone on vibrate, attach the explosives, and call the phone when they want it to detonate.

Obviously the digital communication required to uniquely address the ESN of the phone, do the proper handshaking, and inform the phone that there is an incoming call is quite complex. The odds of a jamming signal being mistaken for the exact trunk-side communication required to indicate a call is infinitesimally small.

Dan East

But seriously

[Magada (741361)]

Security theater at its very best, folks... Only there may be an ulterior motive here. The Seattle WTO riots were co-ordinated via cellphone. Someone has taken the lesson to heart. Oh well, it's back to walkie-talkies for the concerned activists.

A more useful application

[Rik Sweeney (471717)]

Put this technology into cinemas.

Re:A more useful application

[by Anonymous Coward]

No way. Then theaters will have to pay millions upgrading audio systems to drown out the helicopters.

I say we just punch the fuckers.

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong...

[_.- thimk! -._ (898003)]

I hear this suggested periodically, and it's, simply put, a very poor idea, that's not been thought through at all.

There are a lot of us who DO really have to have cellphones and pagers active 24x7, who are also smart and polite enough to put them on vibrate only, and to leave the theater if we need to respond. And, no, I'm not just talking geeks. That includes members of the medical and law enforcement professions, as well, where receiving an unexpected page or call really may be critical, and yes (not trying to be melodramatic), might just save someone's life.

Stop thinking technology is the answer to what is a SOCIAL problem. Grow a spine, and hold people responsible for their actions and their effect upon others around them, rather than trying to hide behind a bad technological band aid.

The answer is NOT to restrict the use of technology for those who use it properly, but to throw the asshats who are disruptive out of the theater, regardless of whether or not they happen to have a phone, or a pager.

(God forbid that anyone should actually have any personal responsibility, or actually have to confront someone obnoxious.)

</rant>

We now return you to your regularly scheduled pithy remarks about the idiocy of using this technology to attempt to protect a man so (deservedly) loathed that they think something like this might actually be necessary. I, of course, refer to the continuing dissemination of FUD, not the jamming, per se.

Speaking of more than one way...

[rjamestaylor (117847)]

There are other ways to detonate explosives remotely. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.

What makes you think this is the only countermeasures they are employing? Perhaps they just want to get the word out about why a helicopter is tailing the President and why people's cell phones seem to be losing signal in his powerful presence. That is, maybe they want to explain the obvious stuff in advance.

Sounds pretty mild

[Timesprout (579035)]

They practically wanted to take over London when he visited. US agents were to be armed and given ridiculous powers (the we can shoot who we want and are not to be held accountable was particularly amusing). The usual visiting dignatary events were ignored and large portions of the city were closed to the public if Bush was anywhere near.

The heavy handed approach is a really good way to make a very poor impression with the citizens of nation you are visiting.

911

[by Anonymous Coward]

Help, i need the police! The presidents motorcade is approaching and I can see a sni.. hello? hello?!

The symbolism is gorgeous

[DoofusOfDeath (636671)]

To have Bush covered in a cone of reduced civil liberties is perhaps the most honest herald to ever signal a leader's presence.

His "legacy" practically writes itself.

American or Australian?

[eck011219 (851729)]

Is that an American football field or an Australian Rules football field?

Seriously, though, can't we just use yards or meters? I don't know about other countries, but here in the U.S. we spend more mental energy envisioning big rotating or end-to-end football fields around or next to things.

Re:Uhm..

[MindStalker (22827)]

Unless your talking about a really big fing bomb (which these terrorist generally don't use and if they had wouldn't need cellphones etc to use) the blast range is a few feet at best. Meaning it will receive the jamming long before there is anything interesting to blow up.