Bush Causes Cell Phone Ban 588
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.
Sure its not exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)
I've wondered about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
A more useful application (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just curious (Score:2, Insightful)
The propaganda has had its effect on you, then. But some of us are still resisting it.
Re:Should read... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just curious (Score:4, Insightful)
Hang on... (Score:4, Insightful)
So much for mobile phone radio frequencies interfering with saftey-critical avionics! I guess milirtary helicopters don't have the most vulneable equipment (namely the credit card readers in seatback phones).
In other news: President stung to death by bees driven into a frenzy by mobile phone radiation... (Yes, yes I know the mobile phones affect bees thing has been debuinked).
Re:Should read... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
I love the spin (Score:1, Insightful)
The symbolism is gorgeous (Score:5, Insightful)
His "legacy" practically writes itself.
Re:Sounds pretty mild (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how he travels about in the US but I'm sure that Sydney isn't inherently any more dangerous than Washington ( how many terrorist attacks have there been in Australia ? ) so if you ask me all these ridiculous measures are more to do with him emphasising his own importance and the fact places he visits are willing to accede to his demands.
Re:But seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
Famous quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Just do it with a little more finesse
If you can slip a tablet into someone's coffee
Then it avoids an awful lot of mess
I guess the point of terrorism is to make a really big bang, not just commit "murder by numbers".
Re:Typhoid Mary has nothing on GWB. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we would be better off in the US president just stays in the USA where he is safe and people love him.
Re:Sure its not exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just curious (Score:1, Insightful)
Um.. no. The president can violate laws as well. Otherwise, he would be an 'emperor', which is what he thinks he is anyway.
Re:Sure its not exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure its not exclusive (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, most of the big terrorist acts in the late years involved people who bombed themselves together with the bomb.
To kill Bush, you'll find enough people ready to die for the chance to do it. If you don't care for your life, there are hundreds of ways to sneak a bomb in close enough radius to kill one man. Actually, it may not even need a whole bomb to begin with.
I hope they have brain activity jamming device (it's safe for Bush).
Re:I've wondered about this... (Score:2, Insightful)
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
*bush* casues? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush just happens to be president at the moment.
Geesh.
Re:Should read... (Score:4, Insightful)
Silly Secret Service, don't you know suicide bombers are for kids? When they realize they can't do it remotely, someone will "martyr" themselves to get the job done. That's the insidiousness of Islamic fascists.
That said, doing something is better than doing nothing. A lot of the complaints here seem to be along the lines of "why lock my car door when someone can steal my stereo by breaking the window anyway?"
It just means you'll be limiting your opponents to only very serious players instead of wannabes.
Re:Sure its not exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should read... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe, the concept of being retarded is beyond partisan lines? Or how about the fact that there is at least one liberal who is more conservative then bush (and I'll assume you're going by the "bigger govt = liberal" view, since bush certainly seems to want a bigger govt but I can't think of any other way he is liberal) doesn't mean bush is liberal? Or, I don't know... maybe not every person who identifies themselves as "liberal" has identical views?
Look, it doesn't take a genius to see that Bush isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. He just happens to be rich enough to hire someone to run a good smear campaign.
Re:Should read... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Movie plot" security (Score:3, Insightful)
But they were hitting a stationary target. In order to get the timing right to hit a moving motorcade they would have to be the luckiest people in the world. Much easier to have someone sitting a block or two away and watching for when the president's car is next to the trashcan or car or whatever they planted the bomb in.
Ah! Finally! (Score:1, Insightful)
Don'tcha get tired of this? Ignore it all ya like, but there have been dozens of real, dangerous terrorist attacks thwarted locally. Get over it; there are bigger problems than a Republican in the White House.
Re:Should read... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:But seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll tell you what. You tell me how much damage you would expect a 50,000 person RIOT to do in downtown seattle. Personally, I'm pretty sure if 50,000 people RIOTED, seattle would have been left a smoking ruin.
Then compare that to any accounts of real damage done. Pay attention to any pictures you find, make sure they aren't of the same few stores actually.
I think, if you aren't a fool, you'll realize that for a 50,000 protest, very, very little damage was done. The police freaked out, sure, but the protestors were very restrained. A handful of anarchists shouldn't discredit the entire protest, and wouldn't, if the media weren't strangely refusing to delve into the reasons for the protest in the first place and instead choosing to get all excited about a few starbucks windows.
Re:Should read... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Should read... (Score:2, Insightful)
WTFIU with pejorative labels applied to those who simply ask questions?
Yes, I presume that "lefties" is meant as an insult.
Sure. Okay. The title of the discussion about the article is "Bush Causes Cell Phone Ban." Surely everyone knows that George W. Bush most certainly did not say, "...and make sure them cell phones are turned off."
It's the government that deserves the insults--specifically the appointed fools who jump to conclusions like "Let's jam the mobile phone frequencies, that'll absolve us of any responsibility in case... you know" and then allow these paltry tactics to be leaked to the media. And it's not just the inconvenience of jamming signals or turning off towers. It's the foolish attempts to foil terrorism that are easily shown not to have any deterrent effect. As someone has already pointed out, the Australian government--whose "conservative" candidate is pulling out more and more terrorFUD stops lately--is the entity responsible.
Maybe a better title would have been "Fear Over Bush Visit Causes Cell Phone Ban".
You mean "Time to stop asking questions and just cooperate," then.
"What do you want me to do, Thiokol? Launch in April?? ~another guy who didn't want any more questions asked.
Re:Should read... (Score:3, Insightful)
Other options would include pressure + presence of jamming signal, noise + presence of jamming signal, motion detector tripped + presence of jamming signal, IR sensor tripped + presence of jamming signal, etc. The jamming signal could simply "arm" the bomb, while a different trigger detonates it.
Another thing: sure, this will prevent (weak) cell phone signals from being recognized, but so? As if people couldn't get their hands on any other kind of radio transmitter or receiver with a lot more power and a narrower band.
Re:Should read... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Should read... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
On the other hand, there's a lot of spectrum, and if you are planning an assassination, local rules about "assigned frequencies" and "allowable broadcast power" really aren't a concern for the bad guys. An pro-am radio transmitter, tone generator, and a high-powered parabolic antenna (an old satellite dish?) shouldn't add more than $5k (at worst) to the cost of the plot. Finding a location to transmit from shouldn't be too hard; bypassing a home's mains feed to get you 100A at 220V takes a qualified electrician to do without killing yourself, but that's not an excessively hard-to-get skill set. The transmitter won't last long when overpowered by that much, but it's doesn't need to. Voila, any transistor radio now can serve as the detonator (as may the filings in your teeth). To add insult to injury, use a cell phone to remotely activate the radio transmitter.
I suspect the point is not to make it impossible for the terrorists (it's not practical), but merely to make sure it isn't easy — the old "low hanging fruit" approach. The fanatic mindset isn't generally very good at creative thinking, so if the can defenders prevent old ideas from working, they force the fanatics to continue working from a weakness rather than their strengths.
putting (Score:2, Insightful)
And, yes, sometimes, those people are very hard to replace. Do you think there's a neuro-surgeon, or a member of a rapid response hostage rescue team on every corner, perhaps? Being on-call doesn't mean not having a life. It means finding a balance between life and specific job responsibilities.
The point is that the suggestion to jam phones is trying to solve the wrong problem. Cell phones and pagers are NOT the problem -- rude, thoughtless PEOPLE are the problem.
By trying to solve the wrong problem, you only make it harder for reasonable people to actually try to maintain that balance. The rude, thoughtless people, however, are still going to be disruptive, even if they don't have a working cell phone.