Cellphones and Public Policy

By David Salley

Research Paper for INF637

“He who has the gift of invention is not always the best judge of the utility

or non-utility of his own invention to the users of them.” -- Socrates.

Summary:

I plan an exploration of laws and policies regulating the use of cell phones. I will

investigate limitations imposed on cell phone use by businesses and the oversight of

telephones by relevant government bodies (with particular emphasis on cellphones). This

will include a brief historical overview of the development of telecommunications and

phone regulations and may include limitations on governmental access to private phone

communications (e.g. “wiretap” issues). It is my current impression that public policy is

lagging somewhat behind technological development. Therefore I plan to consider some

possible future directions that such technological developments and policies may take.

I. Introduction

According to Paul Levinson, cellphones are another step in what he calls “Unintended

Consequences and Remedial Media” (Levinson, 2004). In brief, technology solves a

problem, but there are consequences of the technology which are themselves, problems.

If the disadvantages of the new problems outweigh the benefits of the solution, the

technology is abandoned and another approach is attempted. If not, the new technology

is kept, and additional technology is used to solve the problems of the original solution.

And of course, those solutions also have their own problems, causing a cascading effect.

Levinson cites the following simple example. Constant exposure to the outdoors is bad

for us. We build houses with walls to keep us warm and dry, but then we have no view

of the outdoors. The benefits of being warm and dry outweigh the consequences of not

seeing out, so we stay inside buildings. The building is the remedial medium; the lack of

a view is an unintended consequence. Knocking a hole in the wall allows us to see out,

but now we’re exposed to the elements again. The next stage is to install a window. This

allows us to see out, and keeps out the elements, but it still doesn’t solve the problem of

others being able to see in, so we hang curtains. Curtains block our view out, so we use

curtain tie-backs to control when the window can be looked through and when it cannot.

In each step, we’ve solved a problem, which in turn created a new, yet smaller problem.

In each step, we’ve refined our control over our environment. (Levinson, 2004)

The cellphone is another development in the unintended consequences and remedial

media chain of events. The written word conveys information to us, but it doesn’t allow

for immediate response. The telephone allows for immediate response, but it keeps us

tied down to one location. The cellphone allows us to be free but it’s a distraction while

driving so the headset version was invented. And the chain continues.

II. A Brief History of Telecommunications

1838 Samuel Morse demonstrates the telegraph to President Van Buren.

1843 Congress allocates federal funding for telegraph lines.

1844 Samuel Morse publicly demonstrates the telegraph by sending a message from

Baltimore to Washington

1851 Western Union created as The New York and Mississippi Valley Printing Telegraph

Company.

1858 First Atlantic cable fails after 26 days

1866 Second Atlantic cable

1869 Elisa Gray, a scientist working for Western Union files a caveat (a confidential

report of an invention not fully perfected) in the U.S. Patent Office for an “audio

telegraph” the same day that Alexander Bell files a patent for the telephone.

1876, March 10th the famous first phone call "Mr. Watson, come here. I want you!"

1876 Gardiner Greene Hubbard, one of Bell's financial backers and sharer in Bell's

patents, offers to sell the telephone invention to William Orton, CEO of Western Union

Telegraph Company for $100,000. Western Union refuses the offer.

1877 First telephones available to the public.

1878 First telephone exchanges created.

1879, Feb 17th Bell Telephone Company is created.

1881 William Orton advises his friend Chauncey Depew to decline an offer to buy 1/6 of

all Bell Telephone rights in perpetuity for $10,000 because the telephone was only a toy

with no commercial possibilities.

1888 Heinrich Hertz discovers electromagnetic waves. He states it will never be used for

practical communication purposes because it would require “a mirror as large as the

continent.” (Levinson, 2004)

1894 Guglielmo Marconi begins experimenting with “Hertzian waves” (radio waves)

1897 Marconi receives a patent for radio.

1914 Tom Swift and his Photo Telephone by David Appleton is published. Tom Swift is

a ‘boy inventor’ series written for teenage boys. The photo telephone mentioned in the

story is amazingly similar to modern video conferencing.

1917 Bell Telephone perfects air-to-ground and air-to-air communications for the war

effort.

1918 President Woodrow Wilson issues a proclamation giving control of all telephone

and telegraph communications systems to the federal government under the direction of

the Post Office. The Post Office???

1927 Public demonstration of television

1946 Characters in the Dick Tracy comic strip start using a ‘two way wrist radio’. The

wrist piece displays an image of the character being spoken to.

1946 A Logic Named Joe by Murray Leinster is published in Astounding SF. The ‘logic’

may be science fiction’s first prediction of a modern computer hooked up to the Internet.

1949 New York City wireless network has12 people total.

1954 The movie Sabrina, starring Humphrey Bogart as a millionaire, opens. Bogart’s

character has a car phone in his limo.

1957 The 50 millionth telephone is installed in the U.S.

1963, June 20th A U.S.-Russia “hot line” is established after the Cuban Missile Crisis

1965 Teri Pall patents the first cordless phone.

1966 The TV series Star Trek, begins. Characters have pocket communicators for

communication between landing parties and the mother ship. “Beam Me Up, Scotty!”

1973, April 3rd Martin Cooper working for Motorola, placed 1st cellphone call from

Motorola Manhattan to Bell Labs in New Jersey.

1979 Walkmans are available to the public.

1980 Cordless phones available to the public. They have a range of 100 feet from the

base.

1981 IBM introduces the first desktop computer.

1983 First cellular subscribers in US. Cellphones were $4,000 apiece, roughly the size of

a brick and weighed over two pounds.

1987 1 million cellular subscribers in the US

1995 25 million cellular subscribers in the US

2001, September 11th Passengers Todd Beamer and Jeremy Click, onboard United

Airlines Flight 93 near Pittsburgh, bring it down in an empty field after hearing about the

World Trade Center Towers crashes in cellphone conversations with their families.

2002 The movie Minority Report opens. It’s set 50 years in future and offers possible

glimpses into the future of communications technology.

2003, February 1st New York City bans the use of cellphones in Broadway theaters,

movie houses, museums, libraries, and art galleries but not sports arenas. The fine is $50.

(The majority of this information comes from www.webbconsult.com and Cellphones by

Paul Levinson, assorted statistics verified on the Internet.)

“In 1980, only a year after the walkman, we got the world’s first pocket

television and, in 1982, Seiko built the first wristwatch television. Sixteen

years later, in 1998, I designed and built the world’s first Linux-based

wristwatch/video conferencing system, a watch that can display full-color

broadcast-quality video.” (Mann, Cyborg, pg. 59)

III. Laws

There is no planned approach to cellphone laws or policies in the United States. What

exists is a scattering of rules and regulations on federal, state and local levels, down to

corporate and business policies. Arrests and lawsuits are generally made on the basis of

existing laws where the methodology, either high tech or low tech, is not a factor at all.

Other countries, like Australia and Canada have Federal Privacy Commissions which

oversee regulations governing the amount of privacy a citizen can expect.

“The new federal privacy commissioner says Canada needs guidelines to

deal with camera cellphones, black boxes in cars and other new

technologies that are blurring the distinctions between public and private

information.

Jennifer Stoddart [the privacy commissioner] says new devices with

privacy implications are emerging so quickly that principles are needed to

govern their use.

‘Technology has been growing faster than we’ve been able to get a handle

on. Rather than going after each new one – because they develop at a

rapid rate – I would like our office to look at what are the principles to be

applied’ she said.”(McGregor, 2004)

This chapter will examine the illegal use of cellphones in descending order of severity

and criticality starting with terrorist attacks and working down through illegal drug deals

to driving accidents to annoyances in movie theatres.

III. Laws – A. Terrorist Attacks

While it should be noted that the September 11th terrorists did most of their

communicating via cellphone to avoid being monitored by the FBI, communications is

the least of the cellphone advantages available to a terrorist.

“By connecting a cell phone to hidden explosives, and then calling that

phone, one can detonate a bomb (the electrical charge that activates the

ringer on the cell phone serves as the triggering signal). In May 2002,

Palestinian militants in Tel Aviv nearly caused a major explosion when

they placed a bomb wired to a cell phone in a fuel truck headed for Israel's

largest fuel depot. The bomb detonated, but the fire was put out.”

(Bennahum, 2003)

The May 2003 terrorist bombing in Riyach, Saudi Arabia was also set off by a cellphone.

The bomb killed 35 people. Terrorists used cellphones to detonate railway bombs in

Spain on March 11, 2004.

While the U.S. government refuses to confirm or deny, experts believe the missile attack

launched against Saddam by the U.S. in April 2003, may have been targeted by

cellphone. An Iraqi double-agent smuggled in a cellphone, activated it and then quickly

left before a missile could home in on the cellphone’s frequency. Compare that to the

Adolph Hitler bomb plot in 1944 which failed because the explosives were discovered

before they could be detonated to kill Hitler. It’s a lot easier to hide a cellphone than a

bomb.

Naturally, this has not escaped notice back home.

“Cellphone use could be blacked out at Los Angeles International Airport,

the Rose Bowl or Universal Studios under an anti-terrorism plan being

formulated by L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca and other law enforcement

authorities

Mr. Baca is exploring the use of jamming equipment – already widely

used in other countries and to protect U.S. President George W. Bush – to

intercept cellphone signals if a terrorist attack was expected in Los

Angeles.” (Anderson, 2004)

More on cellphone jamming later.

Finally, it should be noted that when the World Trade Center was destroyed on

September 11th, 2001 that nearly the entire landline telephone network was destroyed

along with it. With land lines being unavailable, people turned to their cellphones.

”The attacks spurred a tremendous spike in telephone calls that overloaded

the capacity of some networks. Verizon normally handles 115 million

calls per day in New York City and 35 million in Washington D.C.

Following the attacks, the combined total jumped to 340 million calls.

Similarly, Cingular Wireless said its call volume jumped 400%. Requests

were made to international telecommunications carriers, such as France

Telecom, to control the flow of calls to the United States in an effort to

keep trans-Atlantic links open.

Many people turned to cellphone-based text messaging, Internet-based

instant messaging, and the use of two-way radio features of cellphones to

get around the congested phone networks. AOL reported a 20% jump in

instant messaging volume, handing 1.2 billion messages on September

11.” (Seifert, 2002)

III. Laws – B. Prisons

Almost all prisons across the United States have policies that do not allow a prisoner to

have or to use a cellphone. Texas, Iowa and Pennsylvania have gone further and made it

a felony offense.

“’If these guys were just calling their girlfriends, it wouldn’t be such a

problem, but we are concerned about cellphones being used for drug deals

and arranging crimes’ said a senior law enforcement official involved in

the indictment this spring of three Philadelphia jail guards accused of

smuggling in cellphones, cigarettes and drugs in exchange for money.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation

is continuing.” (Butterfield, 2004)

Cellphones are occasionally smuggled in by visiting family members, but the majority

come from guards or prison staff officials who have either been bribed or manipulated

into a sympathetic relationship with the prisoners. Bribery is a common method because

often prison guards are underpaid and undereducated.

Convicts have used the cellphones not only to violate prison policies by keeping in

contact with their families and former gang members, but to actually commit additional

crimes while in prison. Cellphones have been used to intimidate witnesses to future

trials, buy drugs, plot escapes, oversee gang activities while incarcerated, and even

contract out for murder!

Sending out jamming signals to block cellphone calls is not practical. The jamming

signal interferes with legitimate communications between guards and can block cellphone

signals to nearby communities.

Prisons which boast of low numbers of contraband incidents, including drugs, weapons

and cellphones, attribute it to strict policies and constant vigilance. Such procedures

include, but are not limited to: monitoring mail to prisoners, installing sewer traps to

catch contraband flushed down the toilets, requiring visitors and staff to be searched with

metal detectors, regular inspection of cells, and electronic surveillance to detect the use of

illegal cellphones.

“As bad as the problem is becoming in the United States, it is worse in

many foreign countries. Two years ago, in Brazil, inmates using

cellphones organized simultaneous riots in 29 prisons in which 15 people

were killed and 8,000 guards and relatives visiting the prisons were held

hostage. Last year, an inmate was charged with running a drug ring from

a prison in Ontario Canada and there have been reports of inmates illegally

acquiring cellphones in Britain, Sweden, Thailand and India.” (Butterfield,

2004)

III. Laws – C. Felonies, Misdemeanors and Civil Suits

It has become increasing common for ‘electronic evidence’ to be used in courtrooms.

Modern conveniences such as automated toll booth payments (E-Z pass), cellphone

transmitter towers and car tracking services like On-Star not only provide a service, but

also collect data as to when and where that service was provided. More and more,

lawyers are subpoenaing this data in effort to track litigants, clients or suspects to prove

or disprove their claims.

“Cell towers may be an eyesore for some, but police and lawyers say data

from them provide a new investigative tool that helps solve serious crimes.

In the last year, cellular towers have led to the capture of a kidnapping

suspect in Wisconsin, a murder suspect in North Dakota and another

murder suspect wanted in Atlanta and caught in Milwaukee.

’It's another tool that law enforcement is beginning to use that we're

finding uses for,’ said Ed Wall, special agent with the Wisconsin

Department of Justice, who assisted in the Wisconsin kidnapping case.

Cellular providers declined to make available statistics on how often they

are subpoenaed for help in criminal matters. Cingular Wireless, Sprint and

Verizon Wireless all declined to comment. Chicago-based U.S. Cellular

reported a 70 percent increase in requests from law enforcement in the last

nine months, but would not release actual numbers.” (Baldas, 2004)

It has not gone unnoticed. The invasion of privacy issue is a regular topic of discussion

at conferences sponsored by the American Bar Association. Harold Krent, a professor at

Chicago-Kent College of Law has often expressed his concern with the lack of

knowledge of consumers who are creating these electronic records of their daily lives

without even being aware of it. (Baldas, 2004)

“’The big problem is that all of these technologies are being used to create

a surveillance society,’ said Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology

and Liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union. ‘Even as

we’re creating this surveillance monster in our midst, we are not creating

the chains for the monster, which is law.’ (Baldas, 2004)

III. Laws – D. Wiretapping

A brief history of Federal wiretapping: In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed the

Espionage Act, authorizing the surveillance and wiretapping of German delegations to

the United States. The U.S. was in a state of war with Germany at the time. In 1928, the

U.S. Supreme Court held, in Olmstead vs. U.S., that warrant-less wire tapping of

telephones was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because it did not involve

‘tangible property’ and therefore a ‘search and seizure’ was not possible. In 1934, the

Communications Act was passed. “No person not being authorized by the sender shall

intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance,

purport, effect or meaning of such interrupted communication to any person.” Federal

agents argued that the law did not apply to them because they weren’t divulging any

information. This started three years worth of arguments. Finally, in 1937 the Supreme

Court ruled that wiretapping prohibitions did apply to the Federal government. In 1967,

two historic decisions were handed down. In Berger vs. New York, Berger argued that a

New York State wiretapping statute was unconstitutional because it didn’t provide for

adequate supervision. It didn’t specify the crimes for which wiretapping was permitted,

the places which could be tapped, the people who could be tapped or the time limitation

on the wiretapping itself. The Supreme Court agreed. In Katz vs. U.S. that same year,

the Supreme Court overturned the Olmstead ruling and declared that wiretapping was a

violation of the Fourth Amendment because the amendment was written to protect the

individual, not the place. The Omnibus Crime Control Act (O.C.C.A.) was passed in

1968. Federal wiretapping was allowed in domestic circumstances under very limited

conditions. Agents had to prove to a judge that there was ‘probable cause’. In 1978, the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (F.I.S.A.) was created. It allowed for electronic

surveillance and physical search if the target was a foreign agent. It also bypassed the

need to prove probable cause of a crime and allow intelligence gathering for its own sake.

The Cable Communications Policy Act was passed in 1984. It mandated that service

providers notify subscribers when law enforcement officials requested customer data

about them. This gave strong privacy protection to the customer. If the customer

contested the order, federal agents would then have to justify their request to a court

judge. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (E.C.P.A) of 1986 was an update of

the O.C.C.A. passed in 1968. The updated law now included cellphones and electronic

devices. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (C.A.L.E.A.) was

passed in 1994. It required telecommunications providers to make their equipment allow

government interception of all wire and electronic communications carried by the

provider. Government software, called Carnivore, created for this usage in 1997, crashed

EarthLink’s service. EarthLink challenged the regulation in 2004 and lost. The

compromise was that EarthLink would install its own equipment to provide the data to

the government. The USA-PATRIOT act was passed October 26th, 2001, just 45 days

after terrorists struck at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This act weakened a

number of federal laws and gave enormous powers to federal law enforcement agents.

(Salley, 2004)

One of the reasons behind the Patriot Act is that the terrorists involved communicated by

cellphone and thus the FBI was not able to wiretap them. Earlier this year, the FBI

submitted a request to the Federal Communications Commission proposing that all

broadband providers including cellphone, cable, modem, DSL, and instant messaging

rewire their networks to support surveillance by authorities in compliance with the

C.A.L.E.A act of 1994. If this proposal is passed, it will slow down Internet product

development and raise costs for the corporations who will in turn, pass those costs on to

the consumers. (McCullagh, 2004)

III. Laws – E. Driving While Distracted (DWD)

The following countries have banned the use of a cellphone while driving unless used

with some form of a hands-free head set: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile,

Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong,

Hungary, India, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia,

Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South

Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United

Kingdom, and Zimbabwe. Botswana and New Zealand currently have laws under

proposal as of the time of this writing.(Cellular News)

The fines range from U.S. $22 (Austria) to U.S. $1,000 (Poland) and nearly everything

in-between including varying amounts of points on the license to actual imprisonment for

three months (Ireland). Ironically, two countries that don’t appear on this list are Canada

and the United States. (Cellular News)

“The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration estimates

that up to 30% of the 3 million accidents a year may be attributable to

distracted driving.” (Howlett, 2004)

“New York became the first state to ban the use of handheld cellphone

while driving in 2001. New Jersey will become the second state in July

after passing a similar law last month. [April 2004] Washington D.C. also

passed a ban on handheld cellphones last month, which also goes into

effect in July.”(Howlett, 2004)

Similar laws are currently being enacted in Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina, and

major cities in Florida and Pennsylvania. While New York is currently the only state

which has a law specifically targeting the use of cellphones while driving, the states of

Delaware and New Hampshire have driving while distracted laws, which includes

cellphone use along with eating, map reading and coffee drinking. (Cellular News)

“Drivers have been documented eating, reading, chatting, shaving,

primping, e-mailing, watching videos, changing CDs. And all those

activities divert attention from the road. A Mason-Dixon poll last spring

found that 91% of the drivers surveyed said they had engaged in some sort

of risky behavior behind the wheel, including speeding, eating, or reading,

during the previous six months.”(Howlett, 2004)

“Whether cellphones are a greater risk than other activities while driving

isn't as important as stopping distracted driving altogether, says Fisher, the

New Jersey assemblyman. The point literally hit him last May [May

2003]. He was driving to Trenton to testify about his distracted-driving bill

when his car was hit from behind. The other driver, a local TV news

anchor, didn't see Fisher had hit the brakes because he was reaching for an

orange.” (Howlett, 2004)

Unfortunately, while the New York law was obeyed at first, compliance started to drop as

time continued.

“U.S. researchers looked at several communities in New York and found

that shortly after the state brought in its law, cellphone use dropped from

2.3 per cent of drivers to 1.1 per cent. But in March 2003, one year after

the legislation took full effect, usage had returned to pre-law levels, at 2.1

per cent.” (Sun Media, 2004)

Nor was this phenomenon restricted to New York State.

“’Not long after the law took effect last April, there was a ‘dramatic’ drop

in cellphone usage in cars,’ said Sgt. John Hill, head of traffic enforcement

for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary ‘Now it’s starting to sneak

back up again, that’s just my own visual observations,’ Hill said.” (Sun

Media, 2004)

III. Laws – F. Cellphone Jamming

“The physics of jamming a cell phone are actually quite simple. Cell

phones operate by sending signals along a range of the electromagnetic

spectrum reserved for their use. (In the United States that part typically is

measured as either 800 or 1,900 megahertz; in Europe it's usually 900 or

1,800 megahertz.) All a cell-phone jamming device needs to do is

broadcast a signal on those same frequencies, and it will interfere with any

devices trying to transmit in that range. The net effect for a hapless cell-

phone user? The phone's screen will simply indicate that no signal is

available. Odds are most people won't even notice that their phones are

being jammed. They'll just assume that they're in a dead spot—and feel

annoyed.” (Bennahum, 2003) [Italics not in original quote]

I’ve highlighted the problem in italics. A cellphone jamming device does not

discriminate. It will jam all devices operating in that range, including the hospital

equipment or airline equipment itself that the cellphone is interfering with. There’s also

the matter that cellphone jamming is illegal except by the federal government itself when

it’s protecting the president.

“In the United States, actively jamming a cell-phone signal is illegal. The

FCC, which is the government agency in charge of regulating the

airwaves, has established severe penalties for doing so. If you're caught at

your local restaurant with the SH066PL2A/B, it's possible you could face

an $11,000 fine and a one-year jail term. It’s possible, but apparently

highly unlikely. It seems that the FCC has never charged anyone with this

crime, even though the American market is one of the most important

when it comes to selling cell-phone jamming equipment.” (Bennahum,

2003)

The Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) considers cellphone jamming illegal

because it amounts to property theft. Commercial establishments have paid for the rights

to use that portion of the spectrum and they’re not getting what they paid for. Some

companies are looking into ‘passive jamming’ techniques. Hideo Oka, a Japanese

inventor has developed a new kind of building material which is permeated with

magnetized particles of nickel-zinc ferrite. Tests show it deflects 97% of cellphone

signals. He hopes that someday his material will be commonly available in home

improvement stores. (Bennahum, 2003)

IV. Public Policies

“In our society, we excuse invasive technologies as long as they are

‘required’, no matter how ludicrous or invasive such technologies may be.

However, as soon as the technologies proliferate to the general population,

authorities seek to control individual use (pharmaceuticals and firearms,

for example).” (Mann, Cyborg, pg 27)

IV. Public Policies – A. Courtrooms

I could not find any laws regarding cellphones in court. It seems to be simply a matter of

policy. On the other hand, judges are allowed a great deal of leeway in their courts and it

would be a simple matter to find someone guilty of contempt of court and issue either a

fine or a jail sentence. From the point of view of the person so indicted, the difference

between policy and law is academic. A few anecdotes to indicate why such courtroom

policies exist:

“Lawrence F. Clark, a Dauphin County PA., judge, recently ordered a

bailiff to drop a ringing cellphone out of a five-story window onto a roof

below. Fortunately, the bailiff had taken it away from its owner first.”

(Lin Joint, 2004)

“Florida’s Walker [Billy Walker, deputy U.S. marshal] has seen a stun

gun that masquerades as a cellphone, and another cellphone that fires

a .22-caliber long-rifle bullet, but so far no one has tried to smuggle either

through security.” (Lin Joint, 2004)

“Anchorage Alaska’s Chief Deputy U.S. Marshall Wanda Phillips has

seen what happens when new technology meets new technology and it’s

not pretty. It turned out that a cellphone in the silent mode or one that

vibrated disrupted the court’s new recording system. Thus the ban. No

checking them in with marshals either.” (Lin Joint, 2004)

IV. Public Policies – B. Medical Centers

Disrupting technology is a courtroom is a major annoyance. In a hospital environment, it

could be deadly. From the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists 2003 Annual

Meeting: The Cell-phone in the Cardiac Operating Room: A Presentation of the Evidence

“The Technology: Cellular phones and their base stations transmit and

receive signals using electromagnetic waves or radiation. In North

America, analogue TACS (Total Access Communication System) is being

replaced by digital GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications).

This operates in the 900 or 1800 MHz band. Digital telephones have

stronger peak electromagnetic fields than older analogue models.

Electromagnetic radiation is produced even when the phone is in the

stand-by mode, but power increases when an incoming call or other

communication from the base station is received. Fluctuating signals are

produced as rapid two-way communication continues, whether the call is

answered or not.

Any length of wire in a circuit or integrated chip can act as an antenna

when exposed to electromagnetic waves, leading to abnormal currents and

potential interference.”

“Interaction with equipment: Pacemakers: interference with pacemakers

is a phenomenon of digital phones only, causing inhibition of pacing,

reversion to asynchronous or other pacing mode, or changes in the rate

delivered. The cellular phone should be kept at least 15 cm away from the

pacemaker and used at the contra lateral ear to the pacemaker implantation

site. EMI may cause external or temporary pacing devices to sense false

pulses in the demand mode leading to no paced output, or switch

modes(1).

Ventilators: digital phones affect mechanical ventilators within a one-

meter radius (2). Monitor and alarm system malfunction is common,

including changing set limits and parameter display errors. However

ventilator settings are also frequently altered, with significant changes in

delivered minute volume and inspiratory peak pressure. Some ventilators

are completely shut off and reset (3).

Monitoring: particularly at risk as very low-level signals are measured and

device to patient wiring may act as an antenna. Laboratory testing has

found that EMI affects 40-60% of monitors within a 1.5 meter radius of

the phone. Baseline noise and movement may occur, interfering with ECG

monitoring and function of different devices, including intra-aortic balloon

pumps, defibrillators, bedside and portable monitors (3, 4). Units using

telemetry have found that cell-phone use in the immediate area disrupts

monitoring and alarm functions.

Infusion pumps: particularly prone to EMI; rate of delivery and alarm

settings can be altered, with or without display changes. In laboratory

testing, pumps are stopped requiring manual reset before normal function

can be restored.

Discussion: Published evidence shows EMI is a real phenomenon within a

2-meter radius; changing to digital technology has increased the incidence

of EMI. Devices affected are vital to patient care, and considerable harm

may be caused if immediate action is not taken. The cardiac operating

room and intensive care contains many such devices and hospital policies

banning cellular phone use in these areas are justified. Phones may not be

left in the stand-by or silent mode either.

Cellular phone detection devices are commercially available and designed

to sense radiofrequency energy in the 400 to 2000 MHz range. These may

have a place to help enforce bans in sensitive areas of the hospital. Third

generation cellular technology that operates at higher frequencies will

soon be introduced, and safety profiles have yet to be determined.

Anesthesiologists may play a key role in enforcing phone bans and should

have a high index of suspicion for EMI when electronic devices

malfunction.”(Klein; Djaiani; Shayan; Karski, 2003)

I’m astonished that I could find laws prohibiting cellphones in theaters, but not in

hospitals. I’m assuming that is some sort of oversight, or that lawmakers are finding it

difficult to propose a law which is fair to everyone.

After seeing the “No Cellphones” sign in his waiting room, I asked my dentist if the

devices interfered with his equipment. He said it was a distraction. When he’s using a

1,000 rpm drill in someone’s mouth, he doesn’t want to be suddenly startled. I can see

his point. My doctor cited similar reasons.

IV. Public Policies – C. Airplanes

Cellphones are forbidden on airplanes in flight, not by the Federal Aviation

Administration (F.A.A.), but by the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.)

which passed the regulation back in 1991. The F.C.C. was concerned that cellphones

would interfere with navigation and communications equipment in the cockpit. Multiple

studies by the F.A.A., starting in 1996 have failed to find a single instance of cellphone

interference with airline equipment. (Hester, 2001)

I’ve included airplane regulations under Public Policies for two reasons. First, the

decision as to whether or not cellphones can be used while the plane is on the ground is

left strictly up to the airlines. Second, while the F.C.C. forbids the use of cellphones, it

doesn’t specify any penalty, leaving enforcement strictly up to the airlines. In other

countries, the situation is vastly different. Great Britain can sentence up to a year in jail.

Saudi Arabia has actually sentenced an offender to 70 lashes. (Hester, 2001)

IV. Public Policies – D. Schools

In the 1980’s cellphones were nearly universally banned on high-school and college

campuses. “The devices were expensive, and teenagers using them were presumed to be

engaged in criminal activity, such as drug dealing.” (Ponsky, 2004) However, in a post-

Columbine, post-9/11 world, parents want their children to be no more than a phone call

away. With many cellphone companies offering cheap family plans, it’s possible for

parents to give a cellphone to every child old enough to be taught how to use one.

(Ponsky, 2004)

This is somewhat in conflict with most schools who find students calling students

disruptive to the class. Even when the phone ringer is off and text messaging is used, this

is the high-tech equivalent of passing notes in class. The students are not paying

attention to the lessons. Compromises are usually made. Students are allowed to keep

cellphones on their person, but they must be kept off and out of sight.

IV. Public Policies – E. Public Places

In February 2003, New York City banned the use of cellphones in Broadway theaters,

movie houses, museums, libraries, and art galleries but not sports arenas. The fine is $50

per infraction. But most of those ticketed, weren’t even aware of the law. (Levinson,

2004)

As time passes, cellphones are coming out with more and more features and utilities.

Current cellphones can offer text messaging, picture messaging, video messaging, voice

mail, caller ID, a recorder, a rolodex, a calendar date book, current time, a stopwatch, an

alarm clock, a countdown timer, e-mail, internet connectivity and computer games.

However, for each feature or utility offered, there’s a time and a place where that utility is

not wanted.

“But the soaring popularity of cam phones, which became widely

available in the United States during the past year, has been accompanied

by growing concerns:

* Privacy advocates fear that the devices would lead to abuse. Such

concerns have prompted some health clubs to ban camera phones in locker

rooms.

* Businesses worry that corporate spies would use the tiny cameras to

steal intellectual property, and some firms, even cell phone manufacturers,

ban the devices on their premises. One company is even developing

technology to disable the cameras in sensitive areas such as corporate labs.

* The music business has similar concerns, and concertgoers are often

required to check their camera phones at the door.

* The seemingly omnipresent camera phones are leading to a sort of

home-brewed photojournalism.

Some professional photographers are concerned that amateur shutterbugs

will put themselves at risk documenting crimes or natural disasters. Cam

phone owners snapped shots of the October wildfires in Southern

California as well as the recent East Coast blackout.

’It's creating everyday photojournalism sensibilities,’ said University of

Southern California anthropologist Mizuko Ito, who studies technology

and culture. ‘People have always told stories about events that happen in

their everyday lives,’ she said. ‘Now they're adding visual information to

that storytelling.’” (Sidener, 2003)

Levinson offers the theory that while there are some places where a ringing cellphone or

talking on one is always wrong, such as hospitals, libraries, funerals and theaters; and

some places where it is never wrong, such as alone in the woods, or in a crowded

downtown square; there are some places such as eating establishments where it is

sometimes acceptable and sometimes not. For example, a ringing cellphone in an elegant

five-star restaurant would attract angry glares, but that same cellphone going off in a fast-

food joint wouldn’t rate a second glance. The difference is not one of place, but of

atmosphere and societal expectations. (Levinson, 2004)

As part of my research for this paper, I asked various managers of take-out food

businesses what percentages of their orders come from cellphones. They don’t keep

statistics on such things, but not surprisingly, their estimates ranged from over a third to

over half.

The surprising information came from the local police department. Several of the local

police departments are not set up to receive cellphone calls. Any cellphone call to 911 in

Chautauqua County is relayed to the county seat in Mayville where the call is taken and

the information forwarded to the local police station via radio. A regular landline call to

911 will go directly to the town. The police officer that I spoke to estimated that only

10% of 911 calls are from cellphones. I thought this highly unusual. If an emergency

were to suddenly break out, a cellphone is more likely to be on the scene than a regular

landline.

V. Developments – A. Current Developments

“While it took hundreds of years for guns to make their way out of the

army and into closets and trunks and behind the counters of mini-marts

everywhere, the spread of computer technology must be measured in

computer years. We are entering an era in which consumer electronics is

surpassing the technological sophistication of some military electronics.

Since technology now develops at a much faster rate than typical military

hardware, the military has lost its edge.” (Mann, Cyborg, pg. 62)

Not only are more and more people subscribing to cellphones, but young adults are using

the cellphone as their only phone service.

“From 1985 to 2002, the number of cellular telephone subscribers in the

United States grew from under 350,000 to nearly 150 million. This

represents about two-thirds of American adults, a 41,000% increase.”

(Levinson, 2004)

“Men and women between the ages of 18 and 24 are driving the trend

toward wireless. They make up more than one-third of the people who use

cellphones as their primary phones, according to a survey by InStat/MDR,

which provides research on the wireless industry.” (Levinson, 2004)

“University of Colorado law student Zachary Lange, 27, moved from

Portland Ore., to a one-bedroom apartment in Boulder two years ago and

never thought of getting a wire-line telephone. With his $39-per-month

cellular plan, he gets services such as voice mail and caller ID that would

cost extra on a traditional phone plan, along with free long-distance and

free weekend calling. For young people weaned on video games, Internet

chat rooms and text messaging, the wire line can seem as quaint and

unnecessary as a record turntable.” (McGhee, 2004)

“This tectonic shift in telephone service – by 2008 an estimated one-third

of existing phone customers won’t have land lines in their homes –

threatens the customer base and future profitability of regional phone

companies.” (McGhee, 2004)

“Mobility, cheap rates, increasingly trouble-free technology and the ability

to keep a telephone number even after switching phone companies have

contributed to consumers’ decision to give up wire-line service, said Erin

McGee, a spokeswoman for the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet

Association in Washington D.C.” (McGhee, 2004)

Relatively few websites are designed with Americans with Disabilities Act (A.D.A.)

compatibility in mind. Instead of focusing on such issues as picture captioning, audio

transcripts, or alternatives to inaccessible features, businesses have focused instead on

presentation and flash, luring the customer in to make an online sale.

However, now that cellphones are connected to the Internet, merchants are focused on

making their websites deliver content to small cellphone screen displays. This has the

added benefit of making their website more accessible to the disabled. What could not be

forced by regulation is now being driven by marketing pressure alone.

“Who would have thought that a PDA [Personal Data Assistant] or a

cellphone might make the best ally for those seeking ADA compliance on

the Web? While some of us wished away for faster speed, bigger

monitors, more CPU speed, and an end to the battle between Netscape and

Internet Explorer, we got wireless access, tiny displays, minuscule

computer memory, and new text-only Web interfaces. Whether we buried

our heads in the sand when ADA compliance was mentioned, or thought

the burden of Lynx access was finally off our shoulders, we have come

full circle back to both. Remember that single constant, but remember the

circle, too.

Suddenly, users for whom the advertising-driven Internet was seemingly

being developed are demanding less glitz and more content. The frenzy to

create graphically inviting Web sites is quickly replaced with sites

outpacing themselves to create content for wireless PDA and Web phones.

The argument that the Web just isn’t intended for devices with displays

that small has rapidly become a market-driven refocusing on the original

intent of the Web as a medium for delivering content in hypertext format.”

(Pace, 2001)

V. Developments – B. Future Developments

While it’s nearly impossible to reasonable predict future developments, that doesn’t stop

people from trying. Computers in Libraries magazine recently gave it an attempt with

thought provoking results:

“The first issue is that cellphones and PDAs and wireless are merging into

a single digital appliance. At a certain point you will not be carrying

around a PDA and a cellphone and a camera and an MP3 player, all with

wireless Internet access. It will be one piece of equipment, very small,

without even a keyboard. It won’t need even a stylus because you will

talk to it, and it will talk back. If you want to see what the first generation

of one of these looks like, albeit still with a keyboard and without

language skills, go to http://www.danger.com and look at the ‘Hiptop’.

The Big Thing comes about as your PDA gains intelligence, going from a

mere conduit to smart searching engines and advancing to being an

assistant in every sense of the word. It will be your first line of defense in

the world. It will have hooks to your bank account, your stock broker,

your bookie, and your medical history. It will know your blood pressure,

your heart rate, and whether or not you’ve taken your pill. It will make

your dinner reservations or your airline reservations, and schedule any

meetings in between. It will be capable of translating any of the world’s

major languages in real time. Its GPS (Global Positioning System)

module will know where you are. It will call the cops if you need them, or

tell you what to do if the cops stop you. Your lawyer, if it’s not the PDA

itself, could be there by the time the car stops rolling. It will nag you to

get places on time, and you’ll probably argue with it.” (Schuyler, 2002)

I believe that elements of the above prediction are correct. ‘Cellphone’ is going to

become an obsolete term because it will no longer be descriptive of all of its functions.

Even now, the distinction between cellphone and PDA is becoming blurred as more and

more features are added to each. Everyone will own a PDA that they would no more

leave the house without than they would leave without their car keys.

I believe that the Internet will grow to become all-encompassing and the PDA will be our

means of accessing it. There’s a scene in the movie Minority Report, where Tom

Cruise’s character is walking through a mall and the storefronts are identifying him by his

retina patterns and asking how he enjoyed his last purchase and telling him about their

next special. I think, in the future, storefronts won’t ID us by our retinas, but by our

cellphones. A company called GeoVector is currently developing part of such a system.

“Here’s how it works: A cellular carrier uses global positioning system

technology to identify a mobile phone’s location. The phone contains a

tiny electronic compass sensor from GeoVector that determines the

direction it is pointing in.

The carrier then takes all that information and relays it to a GeoVector

search engine. GeoVector matches the directional data with the locations

of restaurants, hotels, real estate or other places of interest in databases

produced by companies such as Cybermaps Japan and Microsoft’s

Mappoint.

The technology will let you point your cell phone at a building and have it

tell you, for instance, that there’s a hairdressing salon on the third floor.

The salon might list its phone number which you can then click on and

make an appointment. The salon might even send an ad to your phone

giving you a discount.”(Marshall, 2004)

“Standing near a San Francisco shopping center, Peter pointed the iPaq

toward the Bay Bridge and it told him the name of the structure. The iPaq

also pulled in information from a 10-degree arc around his indicated

direction, listing for example, the restaurant hidden behind a construction

site to his right. Turning to his left, several more listings appeared. One

was for the Golden Gateway Tennis and Swim Club, under which was a

phone number that he could click on and call.” (Marshall, 2004)

“Ellenby said GeoVector also can help you keep track of the exact

location of family members while you’re traveling. If everyone carries

phones, GeoVector can provide directions to find anyone who gets lost.”

(Marshall, 2004)

John Ellenby, the founder of GeoVector, was asked to speculate on leisure activities that

could be created with the system.

“Equip your buddies with a phone and you can play a real-life version of

the computer game DOOM, chasing each other down alleys, targeting

your nemesis in your phone screen and shooting fake bullets. GeoVector

will tell if your line of fire results in a hit.

Or there’s the treasure hunt. You leave a message on a marked spot – say,

under a tree – and when the other player arrives at the spot, GeoVector

sends a message with more directions.” (Marshall, 2004)

Steve Mann, a professor at the University of Toronto, is a self-proclaimed cyborg and has

been experimenting with wearable computers for the last twenty years. His current set-up

is almost completely unobtrusive and it takes a long look to realize that there’s anything

different about him. With nothing but ‘the clothes on his back’, he can take photographs,

write letters, or answer his e-mail. As technology progresses, he incorporates more and

more functionality into his clothing. Is this the future of the Internet and us? Only time

will tell.

Hal Niedzviecki with Steve Mann

In my opinion, market driven technological change will bring people closer to their goals

than laws and policies. Market incentive has already proven to be a stronger drive than

penalty avoidance. More websites will become ADA compatible out of a need to be

displayed on a cellphone screen rather a desire to serve the disabled public. Hospitals

and factories will rely upon passive jamming of cellphones instead of regulations to

minimize disruption of equipment and loss to espionage. When a need develops, it will

be business solution rather than a new regulation that resolves it.

VI. References and Bibliography – A. Newspaper and Journal Articles

Anderson, Troy. L.A. Considers Anti-Terrorism Cellphone Jam, Los Angeles Times

(May 10, 2004)

Baldas, Tresa. High-Tech Evidence: A Lawyer's Friend or Foe?, NY Law Journal (Aug.

23, 2004)

Black, Jane. A Federal Privacy Commission? That's Right, Business Week (Oct. 18,

2001)

Butterfield, Fox. Inmates Keep Tie to Outside with Smuggled Cellphones, New York

Times (June 21, 2004)

Hester, Elliot Neal. Air Rage: The Real Reason You Can’t Use Cellphones on Airplanes,

San Francisco Chronicle (July 22, 2001)

Howlett, Debbie. Americans Driving to Distraction, USA Today (Mar. 5 2004)

Johnson, Doug. Techno Intelligence, School Library Journal, Vol.49, No.3, pg 38-39

(Mar. 2003)

Klein, A.A.; Djaiani G.N.; Shayan C.; Karski J. The Cell-phone in the Cardiac Operating

Room: A Presentation of the Evidence, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists 2003

Annual Meeting. www.scahq.org/sca3/events/2003/annual/abstracts/A87.pdf

Levinson, Paul. The Amish Get Wired. The Amish?, Wired Magazine, (Dec. 1993)

http://wired.com/wired/archive/1.06/1.6_amish.html

Lin Joint, Anthony. Disconnected: Lawyers and the Public Learn to Live without

Cellphones in the Courthouse, Broward Daily Business Review (Apr. 30, 2004)

Republished: National Law Journal, Vol. 26, No.34

Marshall, Matt. Need Directions? Just point your phone!, The Buffalo News (Nov. 15,

2004) [GeoVenture]

Mathieson, Rick. The Future According to Spielberg: Minority Report and the World of

Ubiquitous Computing, Impulse Magazine, (Aug. 2002)

http://cooltown.hp.com/cooltown/mpulse/0802-minorityreport.asp

Mathieson, Rick. Talking History: The Father of the Cellphone Speaks Out on 30 Years

of Wirefree Calling Mpulse Magazine (Oct. 2003)

McGhee, Tom. More and More Cellphone Users are Finding Land Lines to be

Redundan, Denver Post, (Oct.17, 2004)

McGregor, Glen. Guidelines Needed for Camera Cellphones, Windsor Star (Ontario)

(Jan. 31, 2004)

Pace, Andrew K. Be Careful What You Wish For, Computers in Libraries, Vol.21, No.9,

pg.64-66, (Oct. 2001)

Pogue, David. State of the Art; Another Try at Inventing Superphone, New York Times

(Aug. 5, 2004)

Ponsky, Paul. Back to School: Cellphones, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (July 29, 2004)

Salley, David. Privacy from Government Surveillance lecture notes, given Nov. 2, 2004

Schuyler, Michael. The Next Big Thing: Super-PDAs Do It All, Computers in Libraries,

Vol.22, No.6, pg. 28-29 (June 2002)

Seifert, Jeffrey W. The Effects of September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks on Public and

Private Information Infrastructures: A Preliminary Assessment of Lessons Learned,

Government Information Quarterly, Vol.19, No.3 pg.225-242, 2002 [911]

Sidener, Jonathan. Say Hello, Say Cheese, The San Diego Union-Tribune (December 4,

2003)

Sun Media Corporation. Cellphone Bans Ineffective, Times Journal [St. Thomas, Ontario]

(Feb. 4, 2004)

VI. References and Bibliography – B. Websites

Bennahum, David S., Hope You Like Jamming, Too: Cell-phone Jammers May Soon Be

All Over. Posted Dec. 5, 2003 http://slate.msn.com/id/2092059/

Cellular News: List of countries that ban cellphone use while driving

http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans [country]

GeoVenture Information Services, http://www.geoventure.com

The History of the Cordless Phone

http://www.uniden.com/press/Cordless_Phone_Timeline.pdf

McCullagh, Declan and Charny, Ben. FBI Adds to Wiretap Wish List. Posted March 12,

2004 http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Webb & Associates: Telecommunications History.

http://www.webbconsult.com/history.html

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia: Cellphones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellphones

VI. References and Bibliography – C. Books

Levinson, Paul. Cellphone: The Story of the World’s Most Mobile Medium and How It

Has Transformed Everything!, New York, MacMillan, c2004

Mann, Steve; Niedzviecki, Hal. Cyborg : Digital Destiny and Human Possibility in the

Age of the Wearable Computer, Toronto: Doubleday Canada, c2001.

http://wearcam.org/cyborg.htm