Vodacom, MTN and Cell C yesterday told the Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) that jamming cellphones in public places was a bad idea because it would irritate users and cost them money.
It fell to a company that wants to sell the devices to present an argument more likely get public attention. "If this device is in the hands of a hijacker it could be used to disable the GSM tracking system of a car," said Neil van Heerden, a representative of George Fivaz and Associates. "It is true, we don`t deny it."
Fivaz and Associates, a security firm founded by the former head of the SA Police Service, and its partner, Cellblock SA, were trying to convince ICASA to legalise jamming.
The Cellblock team said there were many potentially negative and criminal uses for the technology that blocks mobile phone signals - especially if the device is mobile. Preventing vehicle tracking companies from recovering a stolen vehicle is just one scenario. That is why it is in favour of tight control.
"If we don`t have strict regulations it will be really disastrous for the community," Van Heerden told ICASA.
Others couldn`t agree more and expressed grave reservations about the potential misuse of blocking.
"The benefits that could be accrued would be small in comparison with the detriment," says Bruce Richards of fleet management company DigiCore, which uses cellphone frequencies to track cars and trucks, and recover them if stolen. "Any perceived benefit is out of balance with the risk of hijacking and the danger to people." He has no faith in the ability of regulations to prevent the criminal use of blockers.
The Banking Council, which represents local commercial banks, says it relies in part on cellphones to guard against cash-in-transit heists and attacks on automatic teller machines. "As far as we are concerned, regulation is required to ban these (blocking) devices," said the council`s Mossie Myburgh. "If we do not, the banks` risk increases."
Yet Cellblock and George Fivaz argue that there are legitimate uses for jammers to create security zones, for example, to prevent corporate espionage or exam cheating.
"We support limited use and temporary application for law enforcement," said Vivienne Phillips of George Fivaz. "In extraordinary circumstances we support it for use in the public interest but then with limitations and constraints."
Among the constraints it suggests are the outlawing of "crude" jammers, mandatory visible signage in any area affected by jamming and a surefire way of tracking stolen units.
Although it has never sold a device, the group says it would use a "phone home" activation every time power to the unit is interrupted, making it virtually impossible for the device to be stolen or moved.
Ellectrix-C, another company planning to manufacture jammers, says the only way to control their use is to make the provider criminally liable for misuse.
It also believes law enforcement agencies have need of such technology but argues that any area "where members of the public congregate" should be eligible for blocking. Its suggested regime would see licensed providers operate jammers on behalf of clients with immovable units which require a physical coded key to activate. It says its design would render itself inoperable if there is any unauthorised attempt to move it.
Cell C, MTN and Vodacom say jamming creates technical difficulties with their networks and there is no legal way to conduct it. They agree that the practice is either already damaging them or could do so, particularly as customers perceive the side effects of blocking as being due to their bad service. A better option, they contend, is to educate users about acceptable cellphone etiquette.
Related stories:
Cellphones: To jam, or not to jam?
Share