Dave Rubin <drubin@prism.poly.edu> (06/22/91)
I was wondering if it was possible to jam the signal of a cellular phone to prevent effective communication. The reason I ask is that a new automobile anti-theft system, called "Intercept" has recently been introduced. This system uses a cellular phone to alert a central station as to the whereabouts of the stolen automobile, and the station can also send a signal to the car to turn off its engine. It would seem that if a car thief can get his hands on a device to jam a cellular phone signal, the "Intercept" system would be useless. Any info would be appreciated ... please respond via E-mail. Dave Rubin Polytechnic University drubin@prism.poly.edu [Moderator's Note: But please copy the Digest with your replies. PAT]
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (06/23/91)
I'd think a straightforward way to inactivate a system that uses a
car's cellular phone to call the cops would be to use a pair of bolt
cutters to remove the antenna. A new antenna, particularly a
glass-mount one, is cheap and easy to install should the thief be so
inclined.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnlJohn Parsons <johnp@gr.hp.com> (06/24/91)
drubin@prism.poly.edu (Dave Rubin) writes.... > .... alert a central station as to the whereabouts of the stolen > automobile, and the station can also send a signal to the car to > turn off its engine. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And suppose this results in an accident? I'll bet the lawyers are drooling over this one! Cheers, John Parsons johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com
Allen Gwinn <allen@sulaco.lonestar.org> (06/26/91)
In article <telecom11.486.6@eecs.nwu.edu> rubin@prism.poly.edu (Dave Rubin) writes: >> .... alert a central station as to the whereabouts of the stolen >> automobile, and the station can also send a signal to the car to >> turn off its engine. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > And suppose this results in an accident? I'll bet the lawyers are > drooling over this one! I don't know about other parts of the country, but in Texas, the only thing that you owe someone involved in this type of activity is not to *intentionally* injure them. I would argue that shutting off the engine of my car was to prevent a thief from driving it any further than he/she already had. If the person couldn't coast it over to the side of the road, well, thats what insurance is for :-) Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.lonestar.org)
Ihor J Kinal <ijk@violin.att.com> (06/26/91)
In article <telecom11.490.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > I'd think a straightforward way to inactivate a system that uses a > car's cellular phone to call the cops would be to use a pair of bolt > cutters to remove the antenna. I thought the same thing -- but in today's [6/26] {NY Times} Business section, there's a review of the device. [I assume it's the same thing we've been actually discussing, although the details appear to be different]. Point 1: It's not actually cellular, but some spread-spectrum technology which is much-more difficult to jam [assuming that the thief even knows that the need exists to perform jamming]. I doubt a typical scanner would notice. Point 2: It's not clear what the antenna requirements were -- supposedly the unit could be placed anywhere in the car, although I'm puzzled as to the strength outside that nice Faraday cage [unless, of course, you're driving a Vette]. Point 3: Given a choice, I might still prefer a Lo-Jack system -- this way, if the police don't repsond in time, we can still recover the car, as well as nab the gang in question. Hope this helps, [standard disclaimers, plus I'm a software person, now]. Ihor Kinal att!cbnewsh!ijk or att!trumpet!ijk