4 ms·

A bar owner in the UK has built a Faraday cage to stop customers using phones

24 points by wbsun 10y ago

onion2k 10y ago
He's committed a crime that means he could face up to two years in prison. "The use of any apparatus, whether or not wireless telegraphy apparatus, for the purpose of interfering with any wireless telegraphy, is an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. It is an indictable offence that on conviction in Crown Court carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The courts can also order forfeit of any apparatus used in the commission of the offence." http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/jammers/ http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforc...
- dalke 10y ago
  A Faraday cage is not a jammer. As the article points out: > Faraday cages are different from electronic jamming devices, which work by actively blasting out an electromagnetic signal that stops someone from receiving radio waves. > Those jamming devices are illegal, but Faraday cages don't break the law, seeing as they passively filter out phone signals - although you can imagine that blocking all phone reception at the pub isn't something that would go down particularly well. The article also points out, "You most likely have a type of Faraday cage in your house right now in the form of your microwave. That metal mesh you can see in between the glass in the door is there to stop microwaves from escaping." Any metal container acts as a Faraday cage, including metal vessel hulls. Obviously these are not all banned by the law you pointed out, which only applies to a wireless telegraphy station, or wireless telegraphy apparatus.
  - onion2k 10y ago
    Building a Faraday cage specifically to block phone signals is a very different act compared to building a Faraday cage. It's the "to block phone signals" bit that makes it illegal.
    - dalke 10y ago
      Here is the law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/8 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/8 It refers to "telegraph station" and "apparatus". A Faraday cage is not a telegraph station, so it must be an apparatus to be covered under that law. What does that mean? I think it's defined in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/426/regulation/3/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/426/regulation/3/mad... : > “apparatus” means any finished appliance or combination of appliances, liable to generate electromagnetic disturbance, or the performance of which is liable to be affected by such disturbance, and which generates, or is designed to generate, or is liable to generate fortuitously, electromagnetic energy at frequencies not exceeding 3,000 gigahertz and includes— > (a) components or sub-assemblies intended for incorporation into an apparatus by an end-user, which are liable to generate electromagnetic disturbance, or the performance of which is liable to be affected by such disturbance; > (b) mobile installations defined as a combination of apparatus and, where applicable, other devices, intended to be moved and operated in a range of locations; Are you arguing that a Faraday cage is a "finished appliance or combination of appliances"? And it "generates, or is designed to generate, or is liable to generate fortuitously, electromagnetic energy"? If not, then it is not an apparatus, and so not regulated under the law you pointed to. If you still think it is illegal, then please cite the actual law, and not some commentary about the law, as commentaries are more open to misinterpretation.
      - wlesieutre 10y ago
        It generates electromagnetic energy in the same sense that noise cancelling headphones generate sound. The net effect is that it interferes destructively with the original incoming waves, never adding on to them. Whether that legally counts as generating interference, I have no idea. (all that assuming I actually understand how Faraday cages work) Addendum: maybe "generates" isn't the right word, since noise cancelling headphones make their own sounds from a power source, while this is totally passive redirection. You wouldn't say a mirror generates light, after all.
        dalke 10y ago
        Your addendum is correct. A Faraday cage is much more like a passive mirror, or sound absorbing foam, than it is an active, powered, noise cancelling headphones.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    > "The use of any apparatus, whether or not wireless telegraphy apparatus, for the purpose of interfering with any wireless telegraphy I highlighted the important bits. Hammers aren't illegal either, unless you're using them to smash out headlights.
    - dalke 10y ago
      "Apparatus" is defined at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/426/regulation/4/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/426/regulation/4/mad... . That definition does not include walls or hammers. Also, that quote that you repeated does not come from the actual law, but is an interpretation the law for those curious about phone jammers. See my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12238960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12238960 for a link to the law.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- jonsen 10y ago
  What? I'm not allowed to wear my tinfoil hat?
- vixen99 10y ago
  Isn't this passive rather than active illegal jamming? I presume there is no automatic right on the part of mobile phone companies to expose people worried (justly or not) to EM radiation and possible health effects. Thus if they wish to protect themselves why should they not be free to do so?
Pfhreak 10y ago
This feels a bit myopic to me. I rely on my phone to do all sorts of things that I need to get notifications for, even when I'm socializing. I totally understand the desire to avoid having cell phones out during a social event, but I'm not sure it's the venue's responsibility to enforce social convention -- especially in a way that could impair critical services...
- lj3 10y ago
  Then don't frequent that bar. It is absolutely the venue's prerogative to set the atmosphere in any way they like that doesn't violate the law. The customers vote with their dollars. Time will tell if there's enough people who value a tech free social experience to keep the place running.
  - SerLava 10y ago
    >Then don't frequent that bar. The customers vote with their dollars. You're talking like he was suggesting beating the bar owners to death. He just said they shouldn't set up the cage. >Taking a shit on the bar sounds rather unappealing Then don't frequent that bar!
- Anasufovic 10y ago
  Are you a system admin or some type of medical professional? I'm curious as to what jobs truly require uninterrupted smartphone notifications.
kevin_b_er 10y ago
The article appears to have some sort of bad science. > This effect was first discovered back in 1836 by physicist Michael Faraday, and it works in a similar way to noise-cancelling headphones, which block out noise by emitting the opposite wavelengths of sound. > So, when electromagnetic radiation - such as a phone signal - hits the outside of a Faraday cage, it causes electrons in the metal to move and create an electromagnetic field that exactly opposes and cancels out that wavelength of radiation. They make it sound like the mesh is actively generating an opposing signal to cancel out the cell phone signals, which is pretty far from the truth. I think the article writer looked up info on how faraday cages use charge imbalances and then figured they were just like active noise cancellation headphones.. somehow.
racl101 10y ago
What's with all these business owners trying to enforce their way of living on others? Why should I care if my patrons want to stare at their phones instead of talking to each other? As long as they're paying customers not loitering for free I'm fine. Better than a bunch of loud hooligans trying to start fights. His only concern should be making sure his customers aren't sitting there for free or nursing their drinks. The rest is irrelevant.

24 points by wbsun 10y ago

He's committed a crime that means he could face up to two years in prison. "The use of any apparatus, whether or not wireless telegraphy apparatus, for the purpose of interfering with any wireless telegraphy, is an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. It is an indictable offence that on conviction in Crown Court carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The courts can also order forfeit of any apparatus used in the commission of the offence." http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/jammers/ http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforc...

dalke 10y ago
A Faraday cage is not a jammer. As the article points out: > Faraday cages are different from electronic jamming devices, which work by actively blasting out an electromagnetic signal that stops someone from receiving radio waves. > Those jamming devices are illegal, but Faraday cages don't break the law, seeing as they passively filter out phone signals - although you can imagine that blocking all phone reception at the pub isn't something that would go down particularly well. The article also points out, "You most likely have a type of Faraday cage in your house right now in the form of your microwave. That metal mesh you can see in between the glass in the door is there to stop microwaves from escaping." Any metal container acts as a Faraday cage, including metal vessel hulls. Obviously these are not all banned by the law you pointed out, which only applies to a wireless telegraphy station, or wireless telegraphy apparatus.
- onion2k 10y ago
  Building a Faraday cage specifically to block phone signals is a very different act compared to building a Faraday cage. It's the "to block phone signals" bit that makes it illegal.
  - dalke 10y ago
    Here is the law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/8 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/8 It refers to "telegraph station" and "apparatus". A Faraday cage is not a telegraph station, so it must be an apparatus to be covered under that law. What does that mean? I think it's defined in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/426/regulation/3/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/426/regulation/3/mad... : > “apparatus” means any finished appliance or combination of appliances, liable to generate electromagnetic disturbance, or the performance of which is liable to be affected by such disturbance, and which generates, or is designed to generate, or is liable to generate fortuitously, electromagnetic energy at frequencies not exceeding 3,000 gigahertz and includes— > (a) components or sub-assemblies intended for incorporation into an apparatus by an end-user, which are liable to generate electromagnetic disturbance, or the performance of which is liable to be affected by such disturbance; > (b) mobile installations defined as a combination of apparatus and, where applicable, other devices, intended to be moved and operated in a range of locations; Are you arguing that a Faraday cage is a "finished appliance or combination of appliances"? And it "generates, or is designed to generate, or is liable to generate fortuitously, electromagnetic energy"? If not, then it is not an apparatus, and so not regulated under the law you pointed to. If you still think it is illegal, then please cite the actual law, and not some commentary about the law, as commentaries are more open to misinterpretation.
    - wlesieutre 10y ago
      It generates electromagnetic energy in the same sense that noise cancelling headphones generate sound. The net effect is that it interferes destructively with the original incoming waves, never adding on to them. Whether that legally counts as generating interference, I have no idea. (all that assuming I actually understand how Faraday cages work) Addendum: maybe "generates" isn't the right word, since noise cancelling headphones make their own sounds from a power source, while this is totally passive redirection. You wouldn't say a mirror generates light, after all.
      - dalke 10y ago
        Your addendum is correct. A Faraday cage is much more like a passive mirror, or sound absorbing foam, than it is an active, powered, noise cancelling headphones.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > "The use of any apparatus, whether or not wireless telegraphy apparatus, for the purpose of interfering with any wireless telegraphy I highlighted the important bits. Hammers aren't illegal either, unless you're using them to smash out headlights.
  - dalke 10y ago
    "Apparatus" is defined at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/426/regulation/4/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/426/regulation/4/mad... . That definition does not include walls or hammers. Also, that quote that you repeated does not come from the actual law, but is an interpretation the law for those curious about phone jammers. See my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12238960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12238960 for a link to the law.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
jonsen 10y ago
What? I'm not allowed to wear my tinfoil hat?
vixen99 10y ago
Isn't this passive rather than active illegal jamming? I presume there is no automatic right on the part of mobile phone companies to expose people worried (justly or not) to EM radiation and possible health effects. Thus if they wish to protect themselves why should they not be free to do so?

Pfhreak 10y ago

This feels a bit myopic to me. I rely on my phone to do all sorts of things that I need to get notifications for, even when I'm socializing. I totally understand the desire to avoid having cell phones out during a social event, but I'm not sure it's the venue's responsibility to enforce social convention -- especially in a way that could impair critical services...

lj3 10y ago
Then don't frequent that bar. It is absolutely the venue's prerogative to set the atmosphere in any way they like that doesn't violate the law. The customers vote with their dollars. Time will tell if there's enough people who value a tech free social experience to keep the place running.
- SerLava 10y ago
  >Then don't frequent that bar. The customers vote with their dollars. You're talking like he was suggesting beating the bar owners to death. He just said they shouldn't set up the cage. >Taking a shit on the bar sounds rather unappealing Then don't frequent that bar!
Anasufovic 10y ago
Are you a system admin or some type of medical professional? I'm curious as to what jobs truly require uninterrupted smartphone notifications.

kevin_b_er 10y ago

The article appears to have some sort of bad science. > This effect was first discovered back in 1836 by physicist Michael Faraday, and it works in a similar way to noise-cancelling headphones, which block out noise by emitting the opposite wavelengths of sound. > So, when electromagnetic radiation - such as a phone signal - hits the outside of a Faraday cage, it causes electrons in the metal to move and create an electromagnetic field that exactly opposes and cancels out that wavelength of radiation. They make it sound like the mesh is actively generating an opposing signal to cancel out the cell phone signals, which is pretty far from the truth. I think the article writer looked up info on how faraday cages use charge imbalances and then figured they were just like active noise cancellation headphones.. somehow.

racl101 10y ago

What's with all these business owners trying to enforce their way of living on others? Why should I care if my patrons want to stare at their phones instead of talking to each other? As long as they're paying customers not loitering for free I'm fine. Better than a bunch of loud hooligans trying to start fights. His only concern should be making sure his customers aren't sitting there for free or nursing their drinks. The rest is irrelevant.