Teacher Suspended For Homemade Cellphone Jammer

[CrystalShadow]

Spoiler: stuff

heh. Well, that's a bit extreme, but I can understand the temptation.

Fun fact, I'm a student pilot, and this made me even more curious as to why mobile phones have to be switched off during a flight...

Well, I finally got an answer or two, and it's kind of surprising.

Firstly, yes, they do interfere with onboard equipment. (radio equipment. You can hear interference on the radios sometimes if there's nearby mobile phones)

But the reason they are banned is actually because early on when we had analog phones, some models of phone would jam the cell tower network if taken to high altitude.

Remember that at ground level you have maybe half a dozen towers visible to any given phone. These towers all have to process a signal from your phone.

Now imagine you fly over a city at 20,000 feet. Your mobile is now potentially in range of thousands of mobile phone masts all at once. Which, as it turns out, with certain combinations of old analogue phones and infrastructure could... In effect cripple ALL of the towers your phone connected to, because they weren't intended to handle that.

So... In theory, a phone on an airliner could cripple mobile phone coverage over a huge area.

Weird, isn't it? XD

But seriously though, who thought it was a good idea to stick a jammer in a classroom?
And how far is the reach of that jammer?

It's not nessesarily just the classroom itself you are jamming. You could be jamming signals over a much wider area.
Being able to turn it off is meaningless if you are jamming signals half a block away where people don't have the slightest clue what it is that is jamming the signal.

You might be able to turn it off in an emergency IF you see the emergency in that one classroom.
But if it's not there, you may well be messing things up for people quite far away who would have no idea you are jamming the signal, and neither would you know you are messing up their signal...

Not a good idea.

Preeeeetty sure the radius isn't half a block, as I'm almost certain that people everywhere would be getting angry every time someone made a jamming device.

But still, I kinda get where some people are coming from, but he could always limit the range to the classroom. Really wouldn't be that hard.

Also, the whole "THEY COULDN'T CALL 9-1-1!" bullshit? Bugger off, people have survived an emergency without immediately being able to hyperventilate to a responder. Christ, in my primary school we were all taught that if in an emergency where you couldn't get an adult, just use the land line in any damn room and press 0-0-0 (far more convenient to a child's brain that 9-1-1 if I do say so myself)

Yeah, yeah. Though no school I was ever in has a phone in every classroom. Pretty much only the admin area has phones in fact.
And yes, we survived just fine without mobiles, but there are more than a few emergencies where every second really does count.

As for the radius of a jamming device, a device like that would (hopefully) not have a range that absurdly large, but you have to remember this kind of stuff isn't an exact science. Signals get reflected off stuff, attenuated by walls, scattered by various things...
Much of it is dependent on the wavelength the devices in qeustion operate on, but that aside, tuning a device cabable of jamming a phone signal isn't likely to be an exact science.
Nor are it's effects going to be a clean on/off kind of thing. In anything but a completely open area, the exact area of effect is going to be quite chaotic.

Which classroom it's in could also impact what effect it has in a neighbourhood, how big the school is, the presence of other buildings... This isn't trivial stuff.

For instance, I can get a wifi signal from my own router while 2 streets down. Wifi isn't the same as a mobile phone signal (wifi typically has shorter range)
Jamming the signal is going to be worse, because you either have to be exploiting something fundamental about how devices connect to an access point, or you have to overpower every other signal in the area that a device might be able to pick up.
(so that you can't make out an actual signal anymore amongst all the noise)
Jamming a small controlled area isn't anywhere near as easy as it sounds.

These things are illegal for a reason, not just because governments like to ruin everyone's fun.

 

[Rayne870]

You know how the military solves this problem? Locking cubby holes or a bin with peoples names on the phones.

 

[joshuaayt]

No idea what the radius of the device is, or anything about the area around the classroom- I don't really mind a teacher using something like that to keep kids off their phones in class, so long as they know about it- but it's unacceptable if he's influencing nearby classrooms.

If it's somehow just his room, and his students know about it, they can tell him privately if they actually need their cell to work- for emergency calls and the like. If it affects nearby rooms, that makes it more complicated than just "No it's fine I'll switch it off if I see there's an emergency"

 

[CardinalPiggles]

You gotta admit he does sound a bit sketchy. I do however very much doubt he meant anything malicious towards his students, but schools (especially in the US (no offence)) have got to be careful, and be seen doing all they can to ensure student safety.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

If a kid still uses their phone in class after being told not to - take it off them. Quite simple really. Im sure the school has rules stating kids cant use phone in class.

 

[Lightknight]

? We could call 911 long before we had cell phones. It might be more useful to implement these blockers than to suspend a teacher for using one. Though I suppose that does depend on the range of the jammer. If it was school-wide and the school didn't roll out an intercom system or have phones in regular areas then I could see that being a problem.

 

[Kahani]

If a kid still uses their phone in class after being told not to - take it off them. Quite simple really. Im sure the school has rules stating kids cant use phone in class.

They do, see the linked Ars Technica article. Frankly, he sounds like an absolutely terrible teacher. He doesn't want to confiscate phones because it is "unproductive" to do so, and he doesn't want to punish students for playing with their phones, refusing to allow them to be confiscated and generally not doing anything they're told, because the punishment would not be conducive to their academic success. In other words, he can't be arsed to actually do his job and refuses to exercise any kind of authority over his students, but having discovered this approach didn't actually work and people just ignored him to play on their phones he decided to take matters into his own hands in an illegal, poorly researched manner instead of just following the school's rules.

The particularly stupid part is that there's nothing special about phones. We didn't even have mobile phones when I was in school, but we still managed to find plenty of ways to dick around in class. What would this teacher have done if someone was playing cards, reading comics, playing with tamogochis, yo-yos, or whatever the latest craze is (yes, those were both issues when I was in school)? Blocking phone signals isn't going to magically make kids start paying attention, they've been failing to pay attention in class for as long as classes have existed. You don't fix that by partially disabling the functionality of one particular thing they're playing with, you do it by actually being a competent teacher.


As for the radius, it's not just the radius of the jammer that's the issue here. As noted in the Ars Technica article (and others such as here [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/03/school_jammer/]), Verizon found out about this because he was blocking the signal from the local cell tower. So it wasn't just a few classrooms affected, but anyone in the area whose phone tried to connect to that tower. Which is exactly the kind of reason jammers are illegal; they're almost certainly going to affect a lot more people than you think.

? We could call 911 long before we had cell phones.

And we could drink water long before we invented sanitation. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to go around randomly cutting off access to people's drinking water. People adapt to the society they live in. Someone from a few thousand years ago would be fine foraging for their own water, but if you cut off the supply in a major city millions of people would die. Similarly, someone from 20 years ago who lives in a world filled with landlines and phone boxes will be able to use them easily, but someone used to ubiquitous mobile phones and who hasn't even seen a phone box in years isn't going to respond as quickly if they find their phone suddenly doesn't work for no apparent reason. I always used to carry a phone card for emergencies before mobiles became common; now I can't even remember the last time I saw a phone box.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

As a teacher of 14-something fuckers I approve of this wrestler-turned-scientist and his method.

 

[Alar]

They still have landlines at a school. This would not prevent anyone from dialing 911. In fact, most schools have a LANDLINE PHONE IN EVERY ROOM.

 

[Lightknight]

? We could call 911 long before we had cell phones.

And we could drink water long before we invented sanitation. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to go around randomly cutting off access to people's drinking water. People adapt to the society they live in. Someone from a few thousand years ago would be fine foraging for their own water, but if you cut off the supply in a major city millions of people would die. Similarly, someone from 20 years ago who lives in a world filled with landlines and phone boxes will be able to use them easily, but someone used to ubiquitous mobile phones and who hasn't even seen a phone box in years isn't going to respond as quickly if they find their phone suddenly doesn't work for no apparent reason. I always used to carry a phone card for emergencies before mobiles became common; now I can't even remember the last time I saw a phone box.

If it is a known policy put in place then it isn't an issue and other infrastructure can be put in place. Like having a classroom phone or intercom.

I'm not talking about them putting this in place without contingencies but everyone having a phone doesn't make them safer. The vast majority of the time it just means they get a worse education.

It isn't their right to have a cell phone on their person and using it.

 

[Lightknight]

They still have landlines at a school. This would not prevent anyone from dialing 911. In fact, most schools have a LANDLINE PHONE IN EVERY ROOM.

Landline and an intercom system with dual feedback (can be called and spoken through from both sides via an access panel).

 

[visiblenoise]

"I think there might be an emergency of some kind going on! I'd better switch off my doohickey!"

 

[Lightknight]

"I think there might be an emergency of some kind going on! I'd better switch off my doohickey!"

Or, how about they hit the panic button on the intercom panel that is still standard in every classroom?

 

[Yopaz]

I'd suggest that the ability to get a phone message out in the presence of digital jamming equipment is a pretty major advantage over digital

Cost of maintenance, cost of fixing damages, vulnerability to damages in storms and of course convenience.

Seriously though, you're arguing convenience over necessity. It was never common to have a phone in each room of any building before we got mobiles and carried them everywhere, we managed fine having to move short distances to get emergency signals out, that fact has not changed just because we're used to being connected 24-7. Frankly, I'd support any legislation that exempted schools from any anti-jamming laws (and cinemas, god don't get me started on the ignorant, self-centred morons who think it's ok to ruin everyone else's experience "'cus Chantelle texted and she's totes got some hot goss!").

I mentioned seizures in my last post. Yes, it s8ure is convenient to be able to call 911 when someone is having a seizure. Is it necessary? In many cases, yes. Oh well, since I have already been proven wrong about the presence of land lines I guess it doesn't matter. Sorry if I came across as rude.

I sent a PM about the other bit, so I'll just address the edit: Yes. Teachers need to dial a special extension in order to call any number not within the school, but every classroom has, or at least had, its own landline phone.

capcha: I... I have no idea... I had to flip through over 20 capcha pictures before I found one I even thought I could read...

In that case my point is not applicable to this case and I am wrong. I'll edit my post. I hope I didn't come across as rude and thanks for making me slightly more informed about the state of American schools. Now have a great weekend.

 

[flying_whimsy]

This sounds like a pretty cool teacher. I had no idea it was illegal to operate a jammer: why didn't those train stations in San Francisco get busted for it a few years back?

I have to be honest, I don't think the guy should have been using a cell jammer. There are better ways to handle this sort of thing, like detention and then suspension for multiple infractions.

I really like the idea of having little cubbies for kids to put their phones in when they come into class: still hard to prevent theft, though.

 

[Lightknight]

This sounds like a pretty cool teacher. I had no idea it was illegal to operate a jammer: why didn't those train stations in San Francisco get busted for it a few years back?

I have to be honest, I don't think the guy should have been using a cell jammer. There are better ways to handle this sort of thing, like detention and then suspension for multiple infractions.

I really like the idea of having little cubbies for kids to put their phones in when they come into class: still hard to prevent theft, though.

That's a good idea. Perhaps a locker system then?

Though, I've got to say, why are we OK with their cell phones being taken away and not a jammer?

 

[Jamieson 90]

This sounds like a pretty cool teacher. I had no idea it was illegal to operate a jammer: why didn't those train stations in San Francisco get busted for it a few years back?

I have to be honest, I don't think the guy should have been using a cell jammer. There are better ways to handle this sort of thing, like detention and then suspension for multiple infractions.

I really like the idea of having little cubbies for kids to put their phones in when they come into class: still hard to prevent theft, though.

That's a good idea. Perhaps a locker system then?

Though, I've got to say, why are we OK with their cell phones being taken away and not a jammer?

I think it's because you're not actually interfering with their phone or other communications. A classroom with a locker system still has a landline and the teacher's mobile where a jammer could interfere with multiple classrooms. If every class had a locker system everyone would know where they stood.

 

[happyninja42]

This sounds like a pretty cool teacher. I had no idea it was illegal to operate a jammer: why didn't those train stations in San Francisco get busted for it a few years back?

I have to be honest, I don't think the guy should have been using a cell jammer. There are better ways to handle this sort of thing, like detention and then suspension for multiple infractions.

I really like the idea of having little cubbies for kids to put their phones in when they come into class: still hard to prevent theft, though.

That's a good idea. Perhaps a locker system then?


Though, I've got to say, why are we OK with their cell phones being taken away and not a jammer?

I think it's because of the following reasons:

1. The device, if taken, is still functional and can be used if necessary by returning the device.

2. The parents/guardians of the child can still send important information (family member dies, your sister is missing, etc), even if the device is not with the child. If it's jammed, I'm pretty sure the device wouldn't be able to receive any information, and thus potentially important messages would be lost.

3. The range of the jamming device might exceed the range of the classroom, and thus illegally block people's phones who do have permission to use them, and might need to use them in an emergency. Possibly forcing someone to leave an injured person and run far away from them, in order to request help. Which would make it difficult to have the 911 responder walk them through first aid on the phone.

These are just random theories I have on what they will probably say is the reason why the jammer = bad. I don't actually agree with them much, since you could easily say "Well taking the phone away prevents all those things too, just like the jammer", and I would agree. But that's my guess as to the arguments they will present.

The only one of those I personally might agree with is number 3. If say, your classroom is only 30 square feet big, but the range of your jammer is say, twice that, or 3 times that. You could potentially jam classes on other floors, and out into the hallway, possibly even the administrative offices if you are close enough. This would have the unforseen outcome of jamming more than just your class. And I can kind of see that reasoning. Having been in an emergency situation where we needed to call 911, having to suddenly stop and try and find the jammer, and turn it off, and then try to contact help could mean someone dies. Beyond that situation though, yeah, local jammers to keep them focused on class seems a fairly good idea to me.

 

[Callate]

He sounds like an awesome teacher, honestly.

No! No! Cell phone jammers are wrong! The FCC says so!

...And I totally don't want to sneak one of those things into a movie theater... No! Wrong! Naughtybadmusn't!