Letter to Industry Canada: Cell-Phone Jamming
[update: the decision has been made; no cell phone jamming, unfortunately. I would encourage anyone interested in jamming cell phones to disobey this regulation.]
Preamble
The debate over cell-phone jamming has recently been opened by Industry Canada in Gazette Notice DGTP-002-01.
Although Industry Canada correctly points out that many different solutions to cell-phone jamming exist, they all boil down to one thing: it is possible to prevent incoming or outgoing cell calls from certain well-defined areas.
Industry Canada also points out that many businesses (such as movie theatres, restaurants and coffee houses) have policies asking patrons to not use cell-phones. This is a situation very similar to smoking, which is not permitted in many businesses. The only real difference is that there is a usable and quite feasible way to technologically prevent people from using their cell-phones.
Would there be objections if a similar technology existed for smoking, whereby a business could install a device which prevented cigarettes from igniting?
I very much doubt it. Obviously, there are valid objections if a particular cell-phone jammer doesn't work very well and ends up jamming cell calls outside of the business it is intended for, but situations such as this can be easily dealt with: the jammer must be improved or its use discontinued. This is not a reason to completely outlaw the use of such devices, however.
If a business is allowed control over the atmosphere inside their establishment (as they clearly are, or non-smoking establishments couldn't exist) then there is no reason why they can't prevent microwave transmissions through that very same atmosphere.
The only semi-plausible objection raised by the ``Wireless Services Industry'' is the spectre of missed emergency calls. Although cell-phones can certainly be useful in emergency situations, they are an inherently unreliable technology; pockets of non-service areas persist in even the most densely-covered cities. Adding a few more of these areas -- whether consciously or not -- is not a huge burden on the cell-phone user.
If a cell-phone user is expecting an important call, they are free to patronize an establishment which permits phone use, just as a smoker is free to patronize a restaurant which permits the use of their drug.
Another important point is the fact that businesses are already implementing policies preventing cell-phone use; if there are valid objections to these policies being enforced technologically, then the same valid objections can be used against the policy itself. Few would suggest that businesses should not be allowed to ask people to turn their phones off; why are there objections to the use of a technology which merely enforces this policy?
Industry Canada should absolutely allow the development, sale and deployment of cellular jamming devices of all types. Objections by adjacent businesses who suspect that a neighboring cellular jamming device is affecting their space can be dealt with by local officials, who could be equipped with the necessary detection technology, if needed.
Specific Answers
Industry Canada asks for answers to specific questions in section 3 of the Notice. Here are mine:
a) i) The public interest in allowing jamming devices is the free choice of business owners to make their environment to their (and presumably their customers') liking. This might include distractions from other patrons such as smoking or cell-phone use or dress-codes. Just because a technological solution to implement a particular policy exists isn't a reason to ban it; if there are problems with the initial policy (i.e. ``blacks only'' is commonly seen as a poor policy) than those problems should be dealt with at their root. Few people would object to a business having a policy of ``no cell-phone use'', so consequently there should be no reason to limit a technological solution to implementing such a policy.
a) ii) Any type of jamming device should be allowed provided it doesn't interfere with adjacent businesses.
a) iii) I know of no risks associated with the use of jamming technology, although I am certainly not an expert. If a health risk exists, this might be a valid reason to limit the deployment of such devices.
a) iv) Some jamming devices emit microwave radiation; the effects of this on people should be explored. However, it is important to note that cell-phones themselves emit the same radiation and have been shown to increase the risks of brain tumors.
b) There is no distinction between jamming in public verus private spaces, besides the method of decision-making: a public-space jamming device would presumably be deployed only after the decision-makers of that jurisdiction had consulted their constituents. If by ``public space'' you mean a restaurant (versus a ``private space'' of a board-room) then there is no distinction.
c) i) There should be no restrictions, besides the restriction that neighboring businesses should not be affected by jamming devices if they choose not to be.
c) ii) If there are no health risks, and the device doesn't interfere with any other business or space then there should be no restrictions.
c) iii) Manufacturers may make their devices as finely tunable as they like. Obviously, less-accurate devices may not be desired by stores which may be forced to remove them if their jamming ability encroaches on someone else's space.
Comments
comment on article ``Letter to Industry Canada: Cell-Phone Jamming'' by Ian Enderwick (iane [at] trakcom [dot] com):
Ian Enderwick
Excellent Arguments, except, most regional Emergency Medical Systems (EMS) require their level 3 paramedics to call a base hospital physician before starting some procedures. Almost always they use a cell-phone. Jam that and the critical patient in that facility is seriously at risk. Jammers should be tied into the facilities emergency plan, fire alarm system, and even perhaps be tripped off if someone calls 911. Most local phone switching systems can have their software upgraded to facilitate this. Therefore, I see the implementation of jammers as the "gun" that requires close coordination to limit the risk (lawsuits) to users.