Cell phone etiquette seems a quaint and unknown refinement in our era. We have all experienced the intrusiveness of cell phone users who have no regard for their unwilling audience. Perhaps we have also wished we could somehow put an end to the intrusion. Yes, there is a way, and, yes, it is illegal. The New York Times reports on cellphone jammers, a new technology which can be obtained for as little as $50.

One afternoon in early September, an architect boarded his commuter train and became a cellphone vigilante. He sat down next to a 20-something woman who he said was “blabbing away” into her phone.

“She was using the word ‘like’ all the time. She sounded like a Valley Girl,” said the architect, Andrew, who declined to give his last name because what he did next was illegal.

Andrew reached into his shirt pocket and pushed a button on a black device the size of a cigarette pack. It sent out a powerful radio signal that cut off the chatterer’s cellphone transmission — and any others in a 30-foot radius.

“She kept talking into her phone for about 30 seconds before she realized there was no one listening on the other end,” he said. His reaction when he first discovered he could wield such power? “Oh, holy moly! Deliverance.”

As cellphone use has skyrocketed, making it hard to avoid hearing half a conversation in many public places, a small but growing band of rebels is turning to a blunt countermeasure: the cellphone jammer, a gadget that renders nearby mobile devices impotent.

The technology is not new, but overseas exporters of jammers say demand is rising and they are sending hundreds of them a month into the United States — prompting scrutiny from federal regulators and new concern last week from the cellphone industry. The buyers include owners of cafes and hair salons, hoteliers, public speakers, theater operators, bus drivers and, increasingly, commuters on public transportation.

The development is creating a battle for control of the airspace within earshot. And the damage is collateral. Insensitive talkers impose their racket on the defenseless, while jammers punish not just the offender, but also more discreet chatterers.

“If anything characterizes the 21st century, it’s our inability to restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people,” said James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University. “The cellphone talker thinks his rights go above that of people around him, and the jammer thinks his are the more important rights.”

The jamming technology works by sending out a radio signal so powerful that phones are overwhelmed and cannot communicate with cell towers. The range varies from several feet to several yards, and the devices cost from $50 to several hundred dollars. Larger models can be left on to create a no-call zone.

Using the jammers is illegal in the United States. The radio frequencies used by cellphone carriers are protected, just like those used by television and radio broadcasters.

The article continues and discusses at length this nexus of privacy rights; the right of the cellphone user to talk unfettered in public places and the right of those to not be forced to eavesdrop.

Business owners, feeling they have no other recourse have also resorted to cellphone jammers:

The Federal Communication Commission says people who use cellphone jammers could be fined up to $11,000 for a first offense. Its enforcement bureau has prosecuted a handful of American companies for distributing the gadgets — and it also pursues their users.

Investigators from the F.C.C. and Verizon Wireless visited an upscale restaurant in Maryland over the last year, the restaurant owner said. The owner, who declined to be named, said he bought a powerful jammer for $1,000 because he was tired of his employees focusing on their phones rather than customers.

“I told them: put away your phones, put away your phones, put away your phones,” he said. They ignored him.

The owner said the F.C.C. investigator hung around for a week, using special equipment designed to detect jammers. But the owner had turned his off.

[...]

Gary, a therapist in Ohio who also declined to give his last name, citing the illegality of the devices, says jamming is necessary to do his job effectively. He runs group therapy sessions for sufferers of eating disorders. In one session, a woman’s confession was rudely interrupted.

“She was talking about sexual abuse,” Gary said. “Someone’s cellphone went off and they carried on a conversation.”

“There’s no etiquette,” he said. “It’s a pandemic.”

Gary said phone calls interrupted therapy all the time, despite a no-phones policy. Four months ago, he paid $200 for a jammer, which he placed surreptitiously on one side of the room. He tells patients that if they are expecting an emergency call, they should give out the front desk’s number. He has not told them about the jammer.

In an era of extensive security regulations at airports, the lengthy ritual of security checks we must undergo to fly, we surrender our privacy. How much privacy we should relinquish for the sake of security has been and will debated for years to come.

While on the surface, it may seem a trivial matter, this case of Kyla Ebbert, college student and Hooters waitress being told she could not fly on a Southwest Airline flight because of skimpy attire, (and later, a second woman, Setara Qassim was also told she could not fly for the same reason), there is a larger issue at hand.

Such controversies as these bring to our attention the constantly fluctuating standards of our world. On the one hand, we salute individualism and freedom and, in a culture awash with sexuality and sexual displays, one can argue that such salutation has become excessive. On the other hand, we affirm family values and traditions and modesty; perhaps, too, some would argue that women should not be “sexy” and that such outward “sexiness” devalues them as persons.

Kyla Ebbert appeared on The Today Show wearing the same attire which drew ire from the Southwest flight attendant who attempted to disallow her from flying.

Later, Setara Qassim, also made a television appearance.

Some historical perspective is in order. A YouTube user has posted a video which illustrates Southwest’s history of hiring women in sexy attire as flight attendants (or stewardesses as they were called in those days).

Southwest Airlines, in the “history” page of their website, state their intention to set themselves apart from other airlines.

Time flies when you’re having fun!

More than 36 years ago, Rollin King and Herb Kelleher got together and decided to start a different kind of airline. They began with one simple notion: If you get your passengers to their destinations when they want to get there, on time, at the lowest possible fares, and make darn sure they have a good time doing it, people will fly your airline. And you know what? They were right.

As witnessed in this photograph, from the 1970s.

However, Southwest had not strayed very far from standard practices in the airline industry in that day. According to Joshua Zeitz, in his review of Kathleen M. Barry’s book, Femininity in Flight: A History of Flight Attendants

Until well into the 1970s, airlines enforced strict physical and age standards on stewardesses. In the 1930s they were expected to be about five-foot-four and weigh no more than 115 pounds; later, these numbers rose to five-foot-eight and 130 pounds, tops. They were also expected to be extraordinarily attractive. In the 1960s, Eastern Air Lines ran an advertisement with the headline “Presenting the Losers.” It showed 19 frowning all-American beauties who were “probably good enough to get a job practically anywhere they want.” But they hadn’t passed muster at Eastern, which demanded the very highest level of poise, intelligence, and good looks. “Sure, we want her to be pretty . . . don’t you? That’s why we look at her face, her make-up, her complexion, her figure, her weight, her legs, her grooming, her nails and her hair.”

In keeping with such standards, the airlines didn’t allow women who were married or older than 32 (35 at a few liberal carriers) to keep working as stewardesses. Therefore the turnover rate among cabin crews was amazingly high. In 1955 the average career of a flight attendant lasted just 27 months.

At the heart of Barry’s story is a tension between labor and glamour. Stewardesses were supposed to provide passengers with a sense of calm and security. Many in the early days were trained nurses, and in all eras they were responsible for ensuring passenger safety, especially in emergencies. When Boeing 707 jets came along, airlines went deep into debt to buy them and expand their routes. To boost their ticket sales, they began to explicitly market their stewardesses’ sex appeal.

We have become accustomed to the contemporary appearance of flight attendants.

News reports released today indicate that Southwest has apologized:

[ Southwest CEO Gary] Kelly didn’t say Southwest was wrong for its actions, but in a statement issued Friday said the airline could have handled the incident better.

“… the true issue here is that you are a valued customer, and you did not get an adequate apology,” Kelly said in the statement. “Kyla, we could have handled this better, and on behalf of Southwest Airlines, I am truly sorry. We hope you continue to fly Southwest Airlines. Our company is based on freedom even if our actions may have not appeared that way. It was never our intention to treat you unfairly and again, we apologize.”

And in the company’s press release, we find an acknowledgement of the company’s past innovations in flight attendant fashions:

“From a Company who really loves PR, touche to you Kyla! Some have said we’ve gone from wearing our famous hot pants to having hot flashes at Southwest, but nothing could be further from the truth. As we both know, this story has great legs, but the true issue here is that you are a valued Customer, and you did not get an adequate apology. Kyla, we could have handled this better, and on behalf of Southwest Airlines, I am truly sorry. We hope you continue to fly Southwest Airlines. Our Company is based on freedom even if our actions may have not appeared that way. It was never our intention to treat you unfairly and again, we apologize.”

Kelly took an additional step and is sharing his direct comments about the incident by recording ads for national radio. Those comments detail a national fare sale launched today featuring “mini-skirt” fares.

This comes after many days of notable silence from Southwest, with the exception of a noncommittal post on the Southwest blog, which, as of this writing, has 900+ reader comments. Today, Southwest, in a new post, reiterated today’s apology.

We are encouraged to see Southwest regain a sense of levity and freedom.