He's committed a crime that means he could face up to two years in prison.<p>"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."<p><a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/jammers/" rel="nofollow">http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforc...</a>
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.<p>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...
The article appears to have some sort of bad science.<p>> 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.<p>> 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.<p>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.