# DFing (Direction Finding)



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

While it might take awhile before "they" do... they can if they want to.

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/25392761/driver-caught-using-cell-phone-jamming-device



> Driver caught using cell phone jamming device
> 
> MYFOXNY.COM -
> 
> ...


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

I think most HAMs would tell you that the regulations around radio transmissions are pretty reasonable and basically established so people don't interfere with each other. This sounds like a case of deliberately interfering with others ability to communicate. The penalties for doing something that violates those regulations are generally very steep fines. Looks like that is what happened here.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

DFing is relatively easy with modest equipment.

This guy was an idiot and could have gotten someone killed or seriously injured. Someone might have been making an emergency call. Admittedly, that may have been unlikely but the possibility is there.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

mosquitomountainman said:


> This guy was an idiot and could have gotten someone killed or seriously injured. .


That is HIGHLY speculative!

I actually think its a good idea if implemented properly and around here would prevent a LOT of accidents if it meant keeping people off their phone and driving properly instead.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

"anti-cell-phone use-while-driving-laws" are only bound to get more strict over time.

What the guy did was wrong, but I think he had good intentions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_cell_phone_use_while_driving_in_the_United_States


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Unfortunately this fellow's approach would also block 911 calls, phone use by passengers, emergency workers, etc.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Geek999 said:


> Unfortunately this fellow's approach would also block:
> 
> 911 calls,
> phone use by passengers,
> ...


911 - while driving? It would be best to just pull over.
No sympathy there. Calls get dropped, it just comes with the territory.
Again - While driving? Not likely.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

LincTex said:


> 911 - while driving? It would be best to just pull over.
> No sympathy there. Calls get dropped, it just comes with the territory.
> Again - While driving? Not likely.


I can think of instances of calling 911 while driving. If a person was kidnapped and held in the trunk of the vehicle or restrained in some other way; a person rushing their child/sibling/spouse to emergency care; someone who was being stalked or followed; someone who was a victim of road rage or surreptitiously following someone they'd seen leaving an accident or some other type of crime scene ...

Granted, the chances of these things are slim but slim is not the same as non-existent and each could be a situation in which interrupting their cell service could prove fatal.

I understand the guys frustration but perhaps he'd be better off documenting abusers with a video camera and reporting them to police ... with his cell phone while driving.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

LincTex said:


> 911 - while driving? It would be best to just pull over.
> No sympathy there. Calls get dropped, it just comes with the territory.
> Again - While driving? Not likely.


I believe here in NJ 911 calls while driving are legal and I have made such calls to report accidents that I have seen. Reporting an accident ASAP is definitely a legal requirement here in NJ.

As for passengers, or anybody within range, driving or not, interfering with their calls is exactly what the FCC rules are designed to protect against. He was interfering with someone else's right to communicate on the public airwaves and interfering with public carriers, e.g. Verizon, ATT, etc. Dropped calls may go with the territory, but deliberate interference does NOT go with the territory.

You can bet that the carriers think this guy got off light as they have paid for that spectrum and have worked hard to make their networks reliable.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

My two thoughts...

1) Wouldn't blocking all the callers around him just make them keep looking at their phone more often as they keep trying to find a signal? It's bad enough they're on the phone but this would just distract them even more.

2) How look it took before they tried to track him down. Once the decided to it was easy but it took a few years... of the cell towers noticing a problem... along with reports... before they finally did something.


----------



## k0xxx (Oct 27, 2011)

As much as I sympathize with the man, I agree that it was an unwise thing to do. I can think of several instances when the use of a cell phone, while in a vehicle, might be needed. I've used a cell phone to report an unsafe/possibly drunk driver twice, including once when a driver was traveling on the wrong side of an interstate highway.


----------



## forluvofsmoke (Jan 27, 2012)

*Just to clarify...*



LincTex said:


> "anti-cell-phone use-while-driving-laws" are only bound to get more strict over time.
> 
> What the guy did was wrong, but I think he had good intentions
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_cell_phone_use_while_driving_in_the_United_States


...that page info is not complete. Wyoming has had restrictions on texting (zero tolerance) for drivers for a few years now.

Also, the US as a whole has a zero tolerance for commercial vehicle drivers with use of hand-held phones ($2,700.00 fine to driver, $11,000.00 fine to vehicle owner, if I recall). Hands-free is OK, though......it doesn't seem to matter that what has been proven to be the main contributor to incidents/accidents with cell phone use while driving is NOT caused by the physical act of tying up one hand to hold the phone (many people drive, for the most part, with one hand all the time, and do so without incident), but it is instead the cognitive problem created while talking to someone, distracting your attention away from what is important...safe, responsible operation of the vehicle you are SUPPOSED to be in full control of. The greatest majority of vehicle crashes are caused by distracted drivers...plain and simple.

These facts are hammered into the drivers I work with a few times every year, because it's not only a risk for us, but it's our job to watch out for it with others who are supposed to be sharing the road with us, so we can possibly avoid a serious accident (55+ton truck vs 1.5-ton car...never a pretty outcome). You'd be supprised how many people you can look down on from inside the cab of a truck, and see them doing downright foolish things that, if they make a habit of doing for long enough, will prove to be fatal mistakes. (rant off)


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

CulexPipiens said:


> My two thoughts...
> 
> 1) Wouldn't blocking all the callers around him just make them keep looking at their phone more often as they keep trying to find a signal? It's bad enough they're on the phone but this would just distract them even more.
> 
> 2) How look it took before they tried to track him down. Once the decided to it was easy but it took a few years... of the cell towers noticing a problem... along with reports... before they finally did something.


You don't generally have "radio police" out hunting for people at random. Generally when something of this sort occurs, it is due to there being enough complaints that the FCC knows there is something wrong.

In this case the cell phone companies were probably getting complaints that calls were getting interference in a particular area and when they went to check on their equipment and network reliability they eventually experienced what this fellow was doing.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

ShawnHasson said:


> In this modern and high technology world which is also called the "information era". There is no doubt that people now want to own the life that is safe and free and do the thing that they like and want to do. And usually such kind of life is not so easy to own for some people and as they are monitored by some device. If so the disable mobile phones in cars can be your good assistant.


I am not sure what you mean by that. You are free to turn off the phone(s) in your own car. The issue is when you begin to interfere with others.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

LincTex said:


> That is HIGHLY speculative!
> 
> I actually think its a good idea if implemented properly and around here would prevent a LOT of accidents if it meant keeping people off their phone and driving properly instead.


I see your point here, but you also don't know how much interference he was causing. If it was messing up Bluetooth frequencies, a lot of people that wouldn't have been messing with their phone probably started.

I wish I could be a professional foxhunter


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

If you are really that opposed to people talking on cell phones in cars, including passengers, then how do you feel about someone essentially taking the law into their own hands? Isn't that what this guy was doing?


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

ShawnHasson said:


> If so the "http://www.*********.com/categories/Cell-Phone-Jammers/" disable mobile phones in cars can be your good assistant.


You have just been reported to the authorities.


----------



## bkt (Oct 10, 2008)

LincTex said:


> You have just been reported to the authorities.


Is that what this forum is about? Seriously?


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

bkt said:


> Is that what this forum is about? Seriously?


What do you think the NSA is for?


----------



## bkt (Oct 10, 2008)

Geek999 said:


> What do you think the NSA is for?


Well, yeah, exactly. It seems reporting someone is redundant.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

bkt said:


> Is that what this forum is about? Seriously?


You missed the mark entirely.

The user name "ShawnHasson" was actually a wolf in sheep's clothing... an unauthorized vendor based overseas (likely in China) trying to sell their product (cell phone jammer) here (on this forum) through an embedded link.

The "authorities" is actually a moderator... I know not which one dealt with him/her.

Not only is it against forum rules, but its a dirty sales trick to come here "looking like" a member, but really only interested in selling electronic gadgets.


----------



## bkt (Oct 10, 2008)

Gotcha. Sorry...I shouldn't have jumped the gun on that. I've run into plenty of spammers like that in the past.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

The fact that using his product can get you into hot water with the FCC is pretty unsavory. At least sell a legal product!


----------

