[Tfug] Questions regarding Linux and Bluetooth...

[Bexley Hall]

> > Rather than trying to *watch* for this (presumably illegal?)
> > activity, why not just lobby to make it DEFINITELY illegal
> > and then deploy a Wave Bubble?
> >
> > (then no one needs to sit and *watch* for activity -- or, get
> > paid for doing so!)
>
> That's probably the best/easiest solution...But
> doesn't federal law make signal jamming illegal?

Yes.  Hence the point of lobbying to make BT, etc. illegal
in the polling place (just like it is illegal to campaign
within 75 feet).  Then, with such a law in place, you
can pursue technologies that will "automatically enforce it".

E.g., law enforcement uses jammers to enforce existing laws
so why not another?

> Jim, do the voting boxes have bluetooth on them, or are you
> tracking
> communications from poll workers and the like?  The former
> is scary;
> can't you ban cell phones and such from the election
> center to handle the latter?

You can *ban* anything!  But, if you can't enforce that ban,
what good is it?  Note the quality of poll workers presently
(at least in the dozens of elections I've voted) seems to be
questionable.  Could they recognize a BT transceiver tucked
behind your ear "like a hearing aid"?

"Excuse me, Sir.  Is that an illegal BT transceiver you are
wearing?  Or, are you just DEAF??"  :<  (cochlear implant?)

The bigger fear, IMO, is active radiators interfering with
electronic voting devices -- since I suspect they don't
go to a lot of trouble to harden them against this!  :-/

Personally, I think the ban on jammers is wrong.  I think
businesses should be able to offer "cell-phone free environments"
to their customers.  E.g., before the cell-phone, when you went to
a movie theatre, you *implicitly* gave up the ability to
make and receive phone calls.  You knew that going in the
door.  So, why would "cell-phone free" environments in
which that "freedom" was created by artificial means be any
different?