Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Laws to shut down mobile phone networks

2»

Comments

  • #32
    stoneill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭stoneill


    I heard that he is also banning wind up clocks and batteries.


  • #33
    danniemcq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    seamus wrote: »
    The Gardai don't shut down peaceful protests. Preventing a violent or tense mob from regrouping elsewhere is a good thing.

    Peaceful protests by definition are not affected by this law.

    My point is for example 150,000 people walking through Dublin like the anti war march, would or could that be classed as possibly damaging to property if a splinter protest kicks off.

    Despite nothing having happened yet and maybe nothing will even but ya know just in case lets shut down networks in Dublin then to disrupt people meeting up at X location or following updates if you are at home.

    We haven't seen it yet in this country but often mobile phones are confiscated by authorities. If you are unable to call/tweet/fb/email something you have seen or taken a picture of it will end up your word against theirs and well thats only gonna go one way.

    This is not guaranteed to happen i know and as i said in my original post i do feel a bit of jim corr right now but quickly writing it into law something with such power could be used in ways we don't see right now.


  • #34
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    Thankfully this won't affect too many Donegal people as we mostly only get UK signal here anyway.


  • #35
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I can see the benefit, but it has big drawbacks, you would need to definitely still allow calls to emergency services.


  • #36
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Have the good folks over in CT got their teeth into this one yet? They'll have to order a new batch of tinfoil...


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Corkbah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭Corkbah


    danniemcq wrote: »
    Losing the abilty for real time communications disrupts abilities to have an effective protest.

    Guards shutting down/kettling on X street, can't get everyone to meet up on Y street instead.

    and on the point of constant "open" connection i don't mean have it calling just on, for example using tasker its not impossible to set up a phone to have a set up where if no 3g turn on wifi.

    Now there is no difference to it from anyone looking for odd signals it just seems like a normal phone staying in the same place and not a 4 hour call from the same place.

    Using apps like that you could even have it turn on the phone at X time.

    you do know there is such a thing as a walkie-talkie which will work if phone lines are down....if people really wanted to get their message to others there are loads of other ways of communicating.


  • #38
    Cianos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Cianos


    seamus wrote: »
    Scaremongering. Too many devices, too many people, not enough Gardai. The same volume of video/image devices didn't exist on May Day 2004 and yet footage still managed to get out.

    Not trying to scaremonger. Regardless of anecdotal examples it's possible that a device containing damning video footage could be confiscated and destroyed before the content is distributed. As technology improves and mobile internet speeds increase it will be much more common to broadcast live by default, unless there's shutdown of course.
    Nonsense. Mobiles have been around as a mainstream communication tool for 15 years. Like I say, the most effective marches and protests all took place before this. How come they didn't suffer because they had no mobiles?

    You're drawing a very precise conclusion on a matter that has an incalculable amount of variables. You can't draw conclusion that because mobiles are predated by the most successful protests that their use or lack thereof will not have an effect on peoples ability to arrange, organise and coordinate future protests or public events present day. Society has an effect on technology and technology has an effect on society. The more intrinsic technology is, the more normalised it is and the more dependent we are upon it.
    You can, you know, walk over to a policeman? If I needed emergency assistance in a crowd, pretty much the last thing I'm going to do is ring 999.

    And if there isn't a policeman in sight? What if you're living in one of the nearby buildings and are having a heart attack, etc etc. Do we know what the range is on the blanketing of devices?

    Another example is if you have a child to whom you've given a mobile phone in case of emergencies. If the child understands that they should call you if you're separated, there is here a very normal case of technology being depended upon as a given and without contingency.
    What I'm finding bizarre is this attitude that there's some universal human right to be able to use your phone wherever and whenever you want. Phone use should be and can be restricted where public or personal safety is an issue.

    I believe society should be more questioning of things being passed under the banner of 'public safety', and further, it's not strange for the access to technology to be deemed a right, for example the UN's position on internet access being a human right.

    In any case as technology becomes more and more intwined with our day to day lives there should be an awareness of all matters around censorship regardless of what form they're in.


  • #39
    danniemcq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    Corkbah wrote: »
    you do know there is such a thing as a walkie-talkie which will work if phone lines are down....if people really wanted to get their message to others there are loads of other ways of communicating.

    walkie talkies aren't great, we tried them before and you just end up getting crap reception (especially in city areas where there are tall buildings) or getting onto other peoples (guards/security) signals.


  • #40
    munchkin_utd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,979 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    On UK mobile networks there is a way of shutting down all but designated phones. The idea is to free up the networks for emergency use only.

    I dont know if it has ever been used, but no one could make calls after the 7/7 bombs. The sms system still worked though.
    For the Omagh bombing all non emergency service phone lines were taken out of use but to be honest its a moot point whether you do it or not anyhow (attacking free speech or not) as a sudden surge of calls can cripple a telecoms network locally anyhow.
    Just try and make a call from Landsdowne or Croke Park after a game or send a text for new year for example!

    Re jursistiction of the G8 conference...
    The russians (and Mr Putin) are supposedly staying in the Slieve Russell in Ballyconnell (which IS in Ireland ) and seeing as the Russians have plenty of crazy terrorists its very relevant to the irish state to have whatever tools are available in place should they be needed.


  • #41
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Under the amendments, a direction may be issued to mobile phone service providers to shut down services in areas where there is deemed to be a threat to life or property, in limited areas.
    This law isn't there for us regular folks but for the authorities to safeguard dignitaries. Alan doesn't give a crap about Joe Soap but if some G8 fella got blown up it'd be a sad day indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    People actually managed to organize protests before mobile phones, believe it or not.


  • #43
    danniemcq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    biko wrote: »
    This law isn't there for us regular folks but for the authorities to safeguard dignitaries. Alan doesn't give a crap about Joe Soap but if some G8 fella got blown up it'd be a sad day indeed.

    oh yeah i have no doubt that its aimed at important people right now, but where is the line when you have wording like "threat to life or property"


  • #44
    MajesticDonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭MajesticDonkey


    You can buy a GSM jammer on eBay for around 100 quid.

    Overheal wrote: »
    I can see the benefit, but it has big drawbacks, you would need to definitely still allow calls to emergency services.
    You can call emergency numbers without signal...


  • #45
    danniemcq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    MajesticDonkey wrote: »
    You can call emergency numbers without signal...

    Not quite, you can call over alternative networks and if phones are locked etc but if you are in the middle of nowhere (leitrim or Offlay) where there is 0 signal from any masts you can't.


  • #46
    Kichote
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 305 ✭✭Kichote


    Surely they can just program the bomb to detonate if it loses coverage. This is just the government wanting more control over the people as usual


  • #47
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    danniemcq wrote: »
    technically i guess so, I think that they are using it though as mobile networks from the republic can be picked up over the boarder. I haven't heard the UK attempt this (correct me though if anyone has) for the royal wedding, the olympics or this event so again i see no point in passing this

    That's because there is technology available to block phone and radio transmissions within a small area. Shutting down an entire mobile network is simply unnecessary.


  • #48
    Autonomous Cowherd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭Autonomous Cowherd


    Personally, i think the OP has a point. I am actually flabbergasted at the casual enactment of a statute that can so whimsically infringe upon the freedom of the individual.
    I live near the area. Many of us have stopped paying for landline phone services due to the recession and are wholly dependent upon mobile networks. What, for example, if some local yokel had a medical emergency should the government choose to call into play these new powers and shut down the mobile network? And all because the leaders of the ''free world'' wish to have fine dining, sight seeing, chin wagging and a spot of breezy golf on the idiot tax-payers tab!
    The level of security up here has been ridiculous - helicopters, extra police patrols, I have even heard of anti aircraft deployments in the forests.
    Lads! If ye really want to chat about how sh1t is gonna go down in the world, and if ye can't do it without costing the great unwashed millions of pounds of their hard earned tax bucks in security provisions, here's a hint - Video Conferencing. ;)


Advertisement
Advertisement