Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cell phones on planes worry US law enforcement
Yahoo! News ^ | May 27, 2005 | Jeremy Pelofsky

Posted on 05/27/2005 11:50:32 PM PDT by El Conservador

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Allowing airline passengers to use personal cell phones during flights could help potential hijackers coordinate an attack or trigger a bomb smuggled on board, U.S. security officials have told regulators.

The U.S. Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation late on Thursday outlined the potential dangers associated with allowing cell phone use during plane flights, as the Federal Communications Commission has proposed if safety issues can be resolved.

The Federal Aviation Administration would also have to approve any rule change.

At present personal cell phones and other communication devices must be switched off at takeoff, landing and for the duration of commercial flights because it could potentially interfere with the operation of the plane.

While some have told the FCC they worry about an increase in loud, irritating chatter on flights, law enforcement officials were focused on preventing a possible attack.

"The uniqueness of service to and from an aircraft in flight presents the possibility that terrorists and other criminals could use air-to-ground communications systems to coordinate an attack," they said in comments to the FCC.

During Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, passengers and crew on the hijacked planes used cell phones as well as phones embedded in the seats to call for help and talk to loved ones.

If the cell phone ban were lifted, law enforcement authorities worry an attacker could use the device to coordinate with accomplices on the ground, on another flight or seated elsewhere on the same plane.

If wireless phones are to be allowed in-flight, the law enforcement agencies urged that users be required to register their location on a plane before placing a call and that officials have fast access to call identification data.

"There is a short window of opportunity in which action can be taken to thwart a suicidal terrorist hijacking or remedy other crisis situations on board an aircraft," the agencies said in the comments.

The security officials also worried that personal phone use could increase the risk of a remotely-controlled bomb being used to bring down an airliner. But they acknowledged simple radio-controlled explosive devices have been used in the past on planes and the first line of defense was security checks at airports.

Still, "the departments believe that the new possibilities generated by airborne passenger connectivity must be recognized," they said.

MORE AIR RAGE?

In other filings with FCC, several flight attendants worried that allowing cell phones to be used on planes could make their jobs harder during an emergency and lead to further cases of air rage by passengers.

"The introduction of cell phone use in the cabin will not only increase tension among passengers, it will compromise flight attendants' ability to maintain order in an emergency," said American Airlines flight attendant Joyce Berngard.

The possibility of air rage incidents also raised concerns among law enforcement who feared that it could complicate the job of armed air marshals disguised as passengers who are deployed on thousands of U.S. airline flights each week.

"The first and overriding priority of federal law enforcement on board aircraft is to ensure the safety of the aircraft and the flight," the law enforcement officials said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: airlinesecurity; atf; cellphones
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 next last
To: SandyB
YOu have to keep up with the times. Now that American pilots are allowed to carry guns, a cell phone is hugely more of a threat, than box cutters, nail clippers, knives, etc. Any would be hijacker with a box cutter will be blown away by an American pilot with a revolver.

What color is the sky on your planet?

What percentage of pilots do you think are flying armed today? The government has put in place a highly intrusive program designed to discourage armed pilots.

You also have not addressed the fact that building an on-board bomb detonator is trivial, and could use games, FRS radios, hobby radio kits, Bluetooth, garage door openers, etc.

You are attempting to justify a truly bone-headed move by Home-lamer "Security" to justify its existence. They are nothing but a money pit and make us not one bit safer than if we had no airport security at all.

121 posted on 05/28/2005 8:55:15 AM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I agree there was an Anthrax attack on the way but I believe the letters to the Senators were postmarked 3 weeks after 9-11. They may have been originally attended for a different group...or if the same group, no matter where the Senators were, the mail was going to be forwarded to them. The fact is: The letters got through.

Thinking about it, we could have had anthrax turning up in "Secret Locations" if the Capitol and everything around it had been hit. I believe BOTH planes heading to DC had the same target. Boom, boom....just like NY.

122 posted on 05/28/2005 9:22:20 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Doesn't really when they were "postmarked". If you've been following this I applied my vast knowledge of normal postal operations to the problem and demonstrated that ordinary procedures would most likely result in pieces mailed in Boaca Raton FL arriving in a NJ post office for distribution weeks later.

Strange things happen to single-piece rate hand-addressed letter mail ALL THE TIME!

123 posted on 05/28/2005 9:28:55 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan
What the heck is the diffence between someone talking on a phone or talking to someone sitting next them?

Because when you hear both sides of a conversation your brain has an easier time filtering it out as background noise. When you only hear one side there's more abrupt transitions from speaking to silence which causes you to be more aware of it.

Of course, this effect doesn't justify government bans. If there are no safety implications, and my sense is that there aren't, airlines should be allowed to set their own policies.

124 posted on 05/28/2005 9:37:40 AM PDT by ThinkDifferent (These pretzels are making me thirsty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
She's playing "I will save you" with the wine companies...like without her they won't change the law about interstate shipping which has already been stipulated by the Sumpreme Court.

But I have yet to hear her say anything about the base closings. Could it be that the Military are generally Republicans??

125 posted on 05/28/2005 9:39:41 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador

If I wuz a terrorist would I ask permission to use my phone? I think not.


126 posted on 05/28/2005 10:08:49 AM PDT by sandydipper (Less government is best government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

What part of using a match is a struggle? Just curious because I am about to light a scented candle and I don't feel like struggling today, it's too dang hot. ;9)


127 posted on 05/28/2005 10:16:05 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador
If someone is going to blow up a plane using a cell phone, I don't think a rule against there use is going to concern them. On the other hand, listening to people shout into a cell phone in restaurants is bad enough. The last thing I want to listen to in the seat next to me on a plane is some idiot doing it.
128 posted on 05/28/2005 10:24:45 AM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: konaice
This would be as simple as embedding a specific digital signal in the transmission which would not be allowed back into the plane

The problem is the sheer number of planes to do this to. You might remember some balking when they wanted top reinforce the cockpit doors and add cameras because of the cost. If you are United and you have thousands of planes, this could be millions of dollars.

OTOH, I am personnaly willing to spend a few bucks per ticket (OK, my company's money) to put these in. The problem is these hidden taxes start to really add up and the airline industry is understandably concerned.

129 posted on 05/28/2005 10:29:51 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Of all the idiots I've known in my life, none of them were retarded (W. Earl Brown - "Warren," SAM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador
Of course! Without cell phones the passengers om FLT 93 would have stayed in their seats. Maybe we would have lost the Capital building and Congress.

Letting those uppity civilians take out those hijackers remains a major law enforcement embarrassment...
130 posted on 05/28/2005 10:35:20 AM PDT by null and void (I am my own alter ego...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dashing Dasher

See #14


131 posted on 05/28/2005 10:38:31 AM PDT by null and void (I am my own alter ego...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: konaice

EXCELLENT!!!!


132 posted on 05/28/2005 10:40:03 AM PDT by null and void (I am my own alter ego...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Source please?


133 posted on 05/28/2005 10:43:37 AM PDT by null and void (I am my own alter ego...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador
Do you really think that banning the use of cellphones would stop determined terrorists from using them anyway? I mean, coordination of an attack with the use of cell phones wouldn't take more than a minute, probably much less than that.

In the middle of cell-phone-coordinated calls, would the terrorists actually obey a flight attendent's order to turn off the cell phones? I think not.

134 posted on 05/28/2005 10:46:39 AM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
Because when you hear both sides of a conversation your brain has an easier time filtering it out as background noise. When you only hear one side there's more abrupt transitions from speaking to silence which causes you to be more aware of it.

You know, I think you are right. For a long time it has bothered me when I am on a plane where one of two traveling companions is deaf. Or where one spouse is mad and not talking to the other.

It is annoying to no end to hear one person talking and the other person only flaling their hands about or sitting with their arms crossed about their chest in a huff.

There needs to be a law that no one should be allowed to talk to anyone that does not answer or can not answer.

Seriously, I don't mean to make fun of your irritations. But I find Americans to be so thin skinned. I respond with the rediculas to point out how rediculas I find this obsession with other people talking on cell phones.

135 posted on 05/28/2005 12:31:16 PM PDT by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace; El Conservador
RE: My Post #134

Sorry for the way I phrased that. I wasn't questioning you, but the guvmint idiots who come up with this malarkey. Not directed at you, EC.

136 posted on 05/28/2005 1:40:43 PM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Your call quality would suck, but there is no problem with the network being able to handle it.

Nope, fraid not. The cell industry is afraid of this precisely because you will ligh up towers EQUALLY, maybe as many as 200 towers at once - many of which are programmed to handle your phone thru roaming agreements. Towers were designed to decide which cell would handle a handoff ONLY within a given SYSTEM. Hand-offs to foreign systems are still tricky today - the source of a lot of dropped calls. Now with several hundred towers able to accept a hand off, but each run by a different system, there will be thrashing on a massive scale. Do a little research and you will find this to be the case.

137 posted on 05/28/2005 2:40:57 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
The problem is the sheer number of planes to do this to. You might remember some balking when they wanted top reinforce the cockpit doors and add cameras because of the cost. If you are United and you have thousands of planes, this could be millions of dollars.

You don't understand.

There WILL be a pico cell on the planes. It will be paid for by charging you a few extra cents on each call. The pico cell is a laptop sized device that is a "cell tower in a box". The Pico cells talk only to the ground and manage the in-plane cell phones.

The Pico cells are programmable devices (computers) that could easily refuse to accept uplinks from the ground that had the air-originate signal.

Its not like a camera, the only prupose of which is to tell you who killed you after the fact. This technology has willing payers, and will make money for the airlines.

Read this link to see about it:

http://cellphones.engadget.com/entry/1486373405105716/

138 posted on 05/28/2005 2:49:12 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix
The hijackers did purchase GPS receivers.

So it has been reported. However, I can't for the life of me figure out why they would bother bringing their own when they are sitting in the most advanced cocpits in the world with on-board computers that can navigate to any coordinates on earth.

139 posted on 05/28/2005 2:52:10 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
What part of using a match is a struggle? Just curious because I am about to light a scented candle and I don't feel like struggling today, it's too dang hot. ;9)

LOL - let's just say that some of the places I travel to tend to be very windy. And a lot of airports make you go all the way through Immigration and Customs and get outside before you can light up. Go ahead and light that candle...hope it's a good one. ;-)

140 posted on 05/28/2005 8:30:30 PM PDT by Allegra (It's Hotter'n A Whorehouse on Nickel Night)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson