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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-145 next last
You know what???

We should fly nude.

Lots of hassles will be avoided (/sarc)

1 posted on 05/27/2005 11:50:33 PM PDT by El Conservador
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: El Conservador
If cellphones are a significant enough risk them block 'em and make passengers use the old style airphones.
2 posted on 05/27/2005 11:53:12 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador

I'm kinda torn here. The peace and quiet of the cabin without cell phones is kind of nice, but at the same time, with all of these airines cutting back on services, it would give passengers another thing to do on an otherwise long and potentially boring flight.

I thought that most cell signals don't make it over 10,000 feet anyway.


3 posted on 05/27/2005 11:53:38 PM PDT by GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: El Conservador

Poorly written article.


5 posted on 05/27/2005 11:57:54 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (Jeb Pilate and the Republican Congress: Stood by while someone died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: El Conservador
what a load of BS.
7 posted on 05/28/2005 12:09:56 AM PDT by tomakaze (Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador
i should clairfy.
crap like this has less to do with safety than it does with control of information pertaining to crashes/hijackings/whatever.
note the feds penchant for covering stuff up.
8 posted on 05/28/2005 12:13:48 AM PDT by tomakaze (Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador
You know what???

We should fly nude.

ROFL!

They banned lighters last month. I suppose cell phones are next.

I fly internationally a lot and it's a PAIN to arrive at an airport after 12 hours on a plane and have to struggle with matches to have a smoke.

Now will I have to dig through my checked luggage after Customs to make a phone call?

This is getting ridiculous.

9 posted on 05/28/2005 12:18:34 AM PDT by Allegra (It's Hotter'n A Whorehouse on Nickel Night)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador

Security and Freedom are mutual enemies.


10 posted on 05/28/2005 12:21:06 AM PDT by sourcery (Resistance is futile: We are the Blog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador
"MORE AIR RAGE? "

I wonder if the airlines aren't causing some of this "air rage" themselves. The pilots have control of how much fresh air is allowed into the passenger compartment, and it has been seriously curtailed with the advent of the "no smoking rule". It has been reduced because the introduction of fresh air costs fuel economy. In other words, all passengers are forced to breathe the same contaminated air over and over. I am of the opinion that this might influence passenger behavior.

11 posted on 05/28/2005 12:29:31 AM PDT by de Buillion (Thank God for Ann Coulter, and PARIS HILTON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador
They have probably been training using cell phones to coordinate attacks.

Before 9/11 everyone would've balked about pepper spray and box cutters banned in-flight.

Flying is a privilege. To be totally stripped down is going to be needed. If you don't need to get there so fast, DRIVE.

Planes in general are far far too dangerous to last long anyway without these total limits. General aviation will go eventually too, with idiots in planes going into DC.

Eventual GA planes will be nice places to get a warhead into 2/3k feet for optimum blast effects. That'll all go once it happens.
12 posted on 05/28/2005 12:39:56 AM PDT by LAURENTIJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

This could be solved technologically by fitting planes' windows with screen mesh dense enough to turn the craft into a Faraday shield (from which only insignificant radio emissions can enter or escape).

Since it's only prior to takeoff or after landing that the passengers may use the phones now, I don't see the risk. Any terrorist attempt undertaken at such a time would (literally) not get off the ground. Not to mention dozens of furious passengers bashing the terrorists with their 50 pound carry on luggage.


13 posted on 05/28/2005 12:43:26 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LAURENTIJ
Eventual GA planes will be nice places to get a warhead into 2/3k feet for optimum blast effects. That'll all go once it happens.

The new kamikaze.

14 posted on 05/28/2005 12:46:00 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Tis just my opinion.. Sadly, freedom of the skies will turn out to be quite impossible down the road.


15 posted on 05/28/2005 12:51:04 AM PDT by LAURENTIJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

And, they don't go bonkers over cesnas now cause they think it might be loaded with TNT against some building.

Chem/Bio/Nuclear. That is why fighters go after these guys. Watch the actions of the military. Eventually General Aviation will be completely banned, when they really think the threat is bad enough.

However, that may not be until GA is used for a WMD attack, when it'll be too late.


16 posted on 05/28/2005 12:54:39 AM PDT by LAURENTIJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Jarhead
If cellphones are a significant enough risk them block 'em and make passengers use the old style airphones.

I guess that the cell phones are a danger if they're used to call someone else aboard a plane, whereas the airphones would in theory be safe since you can't call an airphone.

It would seem to me the simpler solution would be to put in blocker broadcasters that would disrupt incoming call signals to those people on planes. That would prevent the possibility of using a cell phone to trigger an on board bomb, and the passenger public won't have to deal with what turned out to be a pretty valuable service on 9-11 being shut down.
17 posted on 05/28/2005 1:05:23 AM PDT by kingu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador
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.

Seems simple enough to just prevent any call from the plane to another cell phone on that plane or any other. This would be as simple as embedding a specific digital signal in the transmission which would not be allowed back into the plane. The way cell phones are going to be handled on planes is to but a mini-cell station on-board. Having a "cell tower" in the cabin forces all the phones to drop to the lowest power setting so they don't light up every cell tower in 3 states as they would if talking directly to the ground. The mini cell tower then relays to special ground stations. Since the plane's own cell processor handles every call, all they need do is insert this bit pattern in, and only allow out-going traffic to carry the bit pattern. That turns off seat to seat calls and air to air calls.

18 posted on 05/28/2005 1:10:12 AM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
I'm kinda torn here. The peace and quiet of the cabin without cell phones is kind of nice...

What the heck is the diffence between someone talking on a phone or talking to someone sitting next them? I don't mean any offense by this, but it seems you have an anti cell phone fettish. I can see no other rationalization unless you just don't like people talking at all on a plane.

19 posted on 05/28/2005 1:17:01 AM PDT by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
I thought that most cell signals don't make it over 10,000 feet anyway.

Cell signals make it to Mars. Baring obstructions, you would be amazed at the distance cell phones can connect.

The systems are designed with small cell sizes so that you are seldom talking more than 10 miles but in open areas like parts of Montana Arizona and Alaska you can get to high place and get triple that.

The reason cell phones have previously not been allowed on planes is not that they don't work or that they interfere with navigation equipment - that has never been demonstrated.

The reason is a cell phone at 30k feet will light up 100 cell towers and send the cell systems into a hand-off-frenzy. The system was never designed for that.

By putting mini cell systems in the cabin, they can trigger all cell phones to drop to the lowest power, and not try to connect to the ground. Which means they can charge you big bucks for those calls.

20 posted on 05/28/2005 1:18:43 AM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-145 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