FCC Formalizes Massive Fines For Selling, Using Cell-Phone Jammers (networkworld.com) 135
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Network World: Two years ago the FCC announced its intention to fine a Chinese electronics maker $34.9 million and a Florida man $48,000 for respectively selling and using illegal cell-phone jammers. Today the agency has issued press releases telling us that those fines have finally been made official, without either of the offending parties having bothered to mount a formal defense of their actions. From the press release announcing the fine against CTS. Technology: "[...] The company's website falsely claimed that some jammers had been approved by the FCC, and advertised that the company could ship signal jammers to consumers in the United States." The company did not respond to the FCC's allegations, although the agency does report that changes were made to its website that appear to be aimed at complying with U.S. law. Next up is Florida man, Jason R. Humphreys, who is alleged to have used a jammer on his commute: "Mr. Humphreys' illegal operation of the jammer continued for up to two years, caused interference to cellular service along Interstate 4, and disrupted police communications." Last Fall, a Chicagoan was arrested for using a cell-phone jammer to make his subway commute more tolerable.
Do EMP (Score:2)
Re:Do EMP (Score:4, Funny)
Have you never seen The Core? [wikipedia.org] You're going to kill people with an EMP.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you never seen The Core? [wikipedia.org] You're going to kill people with an EMP.
Maybe that's just their DESTINI
One thing (Score:2)
Re:One thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Stingray use by the government falls under the auspices of the NTIA, not the FCC. The FCC has no jurisdiction in this matter.
Re: (Score:3)
So what does the use of WiFi devices which are already approved by the FCC fall under when they are used to spoof or deauthenticate other WiFi devices?
Re: (Score:1)
You are confusing wifi and cellular signals.
Wifi is 2.4 GHz or 5.3 Ghz band low power transmission for computer data. With the power kept low, no FCC license is required.
Cellular uses several different radio frequencies from wife and are licensed to the cellular carriers. Completely different type of radio from "wifi". It is unlawful to interfere with licensed transmission frequencies. So, NO, you can't jam cell frequencies. Wifi, on the other hand, is on a limited power no license required permit to t
Re: (Score:2)
I am aware of the differences. My point is that the FCC is enforcing rules against non-interference with WiFi which it is not enforcing against cellular.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Note that they were blocking WiFi via interception or deauthentication and not jamming in the sense of capturing the receiver using a stronger signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading. It's what's for dinner!
Re: (Score:1)
That is indeed a pretty steep fine, especially if he was mislead by the company website claiming it was legal and FCC approved.
On the other hand, it's not like he was using it on his own property, he was actually using it during his commute. Kind of hard to claim that you didn't know there was anything wrong with that. Still, $48,000?
Re:One thing (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing was knocking police radio off air, and no doubt ambulance comms and so on. He got off lightly.
Re: (Score:1)
If you buy something which, according to the company website, is "FCC approved", you shouldn't be on the hook for such a ridiculous amount of money just because you got scammed by that company.
If I buy a lawnmower robot and it has an unadvertised feature that makes it sneak out at night and kill cops, will I be convicted for that? If it has all the legal labels and no mention of any features other than cutting grass?
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy something which, according to the company website, is "FCC approved", you shouldn't be on the hook for such a ridiculous amount of money just because you got scammed by that company.
The problem is that a person needs to know a little bit about this stuff. And ignorance of the law has never been much of a defense. And this defense adds stupidity as a kicker.Just because you want to eliminate phone calls from anywhere around you, it doesn't mean that you have the right to do that. Jammers have never been legal in the US, no matter what some Chinese manufacturer tells you.
Clearly the asshat that was doing this wasn't a rocket scientist, apparently being content to interfere with polic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I buy a lawnmower robot and it has an unadvertised feature that makes it sneak out at night and kill cops, will I be convicted for that?
Failed analogy.
If you buy a lawnmower that the seller tells you has the specific purpose of sneaking out at night and killing cops, but he says that it is legal to do that, YES, you will be convicted for the deaths your "lawnmower" causes.
If it has all the legal labels and no mention of any features other than cutting grass?
How can you possibly claim that a device that is sold as a "cellphone jammer" includes no mention of the jamming of cellular telephone systems?
Don't be silly. People buy cellphone jammers for the specific purpose of jamming other people's licensed use of public airwave
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it could be that he just thought it jammed other people's cell phones (possibly trying to make the road safer by keeping people from using their phones) but had no idea it also jammed cops and emergency services?
Misguided, ignorant, stupid, sure, I agree. But maybe not quite as malevolent as to deserve a $48k fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it could be that he just thought it jammed other people's cell phones
Which a violation of federal law. It was icing on the criminal cake that it also jammed public safety users.
But maybe not quite as malevolent as to deserve a $48k fine.
Yes, sir. It does. Deliberate, random jamming of other people's use of licensed radio frequencies is a serious crime. You can't wave off the public safety jamming as inconsequential.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but he didn't buy a lawmower robot. He bought a copkiller robot. Advertised as a copkiller robot. Whether or not the company made it out to be legal, clearly he knew what he was doing.
And he almost got away with it. It wasn't Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint that caught on to the problem. Instead, MetroPCS eventually noticed that reception was flatlining along the same point of I-4 twice each day.
Exactly. As paranoid as some slashdotters are, I'm surprised they use telephones at all. The underlying bedrock principle of the cellular system is tracking, as you zip along, the towers hand you off to other towers, and they keep logs. So you have the basis of a low resolution tracking system. After the pattern is revealed - gotchya!
When officers finally pulled him over, it didn't take long to confirm their suspicions. As they approached Humphreys' car, officers immediately noticed that their radios lost all contact with dispatch. The FCC is using the unfortunate case to remind consumers that using a jammer is "illegal under any circumstances" and can also result in jail time — though it seems Humphreys only needs to worry about the damage to his bank account.
Despite some of the protests, they are cutting the guy some major slack. Keeping this as an F.C.C. action is doing just that. The good Mr Humphrey is fortunate that they di
Re: (Score:2)
As paranoid as some slashdotters are, I'm surprised they use telephones at all. The underlying bedrock principle of the cellular system is tracking, as you zip along, the towers hand you off to other towers, and they keep logs. So you have the basis of a low resolution tracking system. After the pattern is revealed - gotchya!
Some of us don't use cellular phones for exactly this reason.
Don't think you are normal though. Cellular tracking is much more likely to vindicate you than implcate you. I can pretty much prove where I'm at at all times. Given that overzealous DA's are more worried about getting someoneanyone behind bars, I figure that I might as well use the system to my advantage. It's like my buying habits show where I'm at at a particular time. I track myself with Amateur radio aprs, and anyone in the world with a web connection can see exactly where I am at on the road. You can
Re: (Score:2)
Cellular tracking is much more likely to vindicate you than implcate you. I can pretty much prove where I'm at at all times.
Unless you're in pretty sparsely populated areas, I bet there is some crime taking place within the positional accuracy of the cellphone tracking.
I track myself with Amateur radio aprs, and anyone in the world with a web connection can see exactly where I am at on the road.
If your APRS unit is in your car, then they can tell where your car is. You aren't necessarily in your car.
And, of course, it is ridiculously trivial to spoof the NMEA string most APRS TNCs take and report any location you want. An Arduino can have you driving around Burbank while you are actually in Berwyn. (Berrrrwynnn?)
Re: (Score:1)
He was using it in his car? OK, that's kind of hard to find an excuse for. I thought it was during his commute on a train or something like that, so he wouldn't get bothered by people using their cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Dynamaite? (Score:2)
And why would The Drug Enforcement Agency approve something like that?
Well, at least the ads would be great:
Arrr, smoke yerself some new Dynamaite, It'll blow yer mind!
Re: (Score:2)
Kilowatt linears are FCC approved. Until I hook it up to my cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
At least buy the dynamaite that is fake-approved by ATF.
Yes, good job FCC!!! (Score:2, Informative)
These people didn't argue so the fine becomes formal. That's how the process works,
but it neither makes the fine appropriate nor does it set followable precedent.
You can rest easy that "CTS" (the Chinese firm -- not its real name) will continue to sell
the jammers under many many other names and the amount they will pay the FCC will
be somewhere around $0.
You can rest easy that just like prisons want to use cellphone jammers https://gcn.com/articles/2013/... [gcn.com]
so too do beat cops who stop a motorist on the roa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(The FCC really hates that kind of stuff.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Yes, good job FCC!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Stingrays, (aka Cell-site simulators, IMSI catchers) also violate these FCC regulations and ARE in WIDE use by law enforcement in the US from the federal level all the way down to small town police departments and many misc. state and federal agencies. And I'd argue that intercepting, monitoring, and recording all cell activity in an area, almost always without a warrant, is a far more egregious crime than just jamming cell devices nearby. But its been made pretty clear the laws no longer apply to those who "enforce them" on the plebes...
Re: (Score:2)
The laws still apply fully. Sometimes it can be challenging to get them enforced properly.
Two of the problems in the United States, are (1) The unduly high cost of lawyers and pursuing actions, And (2) The high requirements to obtain "standing" in court to actually sue --- It is not enough that someone's legal rights are infringed.... In order to be heard in court, you actually have to have evidence that not only were YOU personally and directly affected, BUT a Real material financial loss or othe
Re: (Score:2)
"In order to be heard in court, you actually have to have evidence that not only were YOU personally and directly affected, BUT a Real material financial loss or other damage resulted."
Unless you are law enforcement (prosecutor, FCC, etc.). The question is: why doesn't the FCC take action against stingrays?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is another way to say that the innocent have no civil rights.
Re: (Score:2)
I would add to this that the FCC does apparently regulate the use of WiFi devices which obey all regulations as far as RF emissions but spoof or deauthenticate other WiFi devices. Stingrays do the same thing for cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever civics classes you may have had in the course of your education, you obviously failed them because governments have always had powers not available to regular citizens.
And that's precisely what the authors of the US Constitution did with that document that was so radically different from every other nation and nation-state that ever existed. It started with the idea that *the people* were the ones in power, and they grudgingly agree to lend a small portion of that power to the government while retaining all other powers not specifically loaned to the government.
Today it seems like many US citizens can't be bothered with dealing with all these rights and responsibilities a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Point of order; it is NOT illegal for citizens to own fully automatic weapons or armor piercing ammunition. To own them you must pay for a special transfer permission which is prohibitively expensive for the average person. Taxing the crap out of machine gun ownership permits is legal but outright prohibiting is against the 2nd amendment.
Go check www.atf.gov and look for "Class 3" firearms license. You will get links to downloadable PDF files with forms and requirements for Class 3 dealers and owners.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the Stingray devices have a jam mode? It would be trivial to include it.
Re: (Score:3)
Or at least, add a complementary toast mode.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not super hip on everything, but I thought that they jammed signals so the phones drop to a 3g connection because 4g was harder to break or something. Though I could be thinking of a earlier predecessor to the stingray system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do not need to jam in the traditional RF sense but since they are capable of impersonating a cell tower, all they have to do is accept calls and not forward them. The "legal" WiFi jammers do this yet the FCC went after them.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't prove you aren't an alien (of the space kind) or aren't retarded. However the indications available would make both of those things very unlikely just as law enforcement using jammers is unlikely as it would be easily detected.
Re: (Score:2)
Law enforcement does not need jammers although they have them; they have the power to shut down cell phone service as needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We have spent years studying wireless signals, and in the last 50 years we went from radios the size of a book, to small pocket and ear bud sized devices.
What is needed is for jamming tech to evolve too, and banning all research, study, and thinking into it doesn't help.Places likes prisons, etc should be able to monitor communications inside their area and jam them. Prisons should be able to block cell phones in their own area. Why can't prisons have 6-12 stingray type devices with directional antenna's
Re: (Score:2)
Prisons should be able to block cell phones in their own area.
They can. It's not that hard to block cell signals. On the scale of a cost of a prison, it's minor.
Re: (Score:2)
Places likes prisons, etc should be able to monitor communications inside their area and jam them.
No they should not, because this can interfere with communications unrelated to the prison as well.
Besides, they have perfectly viable means to address the issue of unauthorized transmitters.
Guards could quickly track down contraband phones.
"Stingray" devices and deceptive communications are not necessary for this. A small sensor network with a few software-defined radios scanning all the frequency r
Re:Yes, good job FCC!!! (Score:4, Informative)
When law-enforcement plays with these toys, that means they too are interfering with legitimate signals and communication.
Law enforcement officers are Not exempt from the FCC regulations, regarding usage and respect of spectrum allocations. For example, their radios are not allowed to transmit outside their assigned or frequencies licensed for that purpose, with a radio that is approved for the service it is operating in.
Cops are prohibited from transmitting a jamming signal, just like you are, even if they believe that they might have some legitimate cause to pursue that course, they could still be subject personally to FCC fines, penalties, or imprisonment with a felony charge, even if their local chief of police asked them to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Jammers are banned ... and stay banned (Score:2)
Doing so will infringe more on others' rights to operate a cellphone than can be justified by allowing any individual the right to jam. That's built into the technology.
This sort of assessment is built into the structure of the laws, and now it has emerged in the form of an administrative measure (backed up by laws that grant the FCC authority to manage wireless spectrum issues),.
You as an individual m
So when.... (Score:2, Troll)
Do they start fining Law enforcement?
Oh wait, the law doesn't apply to them...
Regulatory punishment (Score:2)
This incident reminds us why Congress is supposed to make laws and determine penalties for breaking them, not unelected regulators.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
At THIS point, Vermin Supreme [facebook.com] is looking good. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Congress DID make a law determining penalties. It's the Communications act of 1934.... 47 USC S 503 Forfeitures, https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
And the FCC is specifically assigned the responsibility of determining the forfeiture amounts, within certian limits
Re: (Score:2)
How, precisely, does this remind us?
Cell-Phone Jammers (Score:1)
Can't we 3D print [voxel8.co] these things by now?
Just go Oldschool (Score:2)
Hey, if other people on the bus or train are annoying you with their chatter or cell phones, just go with a totally legal, oldschool jammer: http://ajournalofmusicalthings... [ajournalof...things.com]
obligatory.... (Score:1)
Oceanians live in a constant state of being monitored by the Party, through the use of advanced, invasive technology.
Forget cell phone jammers (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a way to stop idiots blasting terrible music from their phones and annoying everyone else on the train/bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Ear plugs seems to be an easy, cost effective measure.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand it either, but sometimes it's just easier to ignore it and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
We call that having a vigilant driver/conductor booting passengers off that break the rules.
Re: Forget cell phone jammers (Score:2)
As if that's going to happen.
How long for smart jammers that are hard to detect (Score:4, Insightful)
These two stories about jammers seem to indicate that the only reason these people got caught is that they had dumb jammers that just continuously broadcast, making their triangulation easy.
Where are the smart jammers that operate at low power thresholds and operate intermittently -- some pattern of briefly on, then off, then on again, in a kind of random backoff cycle before going off? Or have some kind of passive radio detection to not transmit unless there is a nearby handset in use signature?
The idea would be a jammer that produced enough interference to disrupt and discourage use in a narrow local window, but with a limited on profile such that it was much harder to detect.
Re: (Score:1)
Smart jammers have been designed and built for decades. Simple barrage or swept frequency jammers are cheap, cheap, cheap and work well if you have a good power advantage over the victim. That's why that's what you're seeing.
Clearly, there *are* people making better jammers - there are a variety of companies that do this mostly for defense dept type applications. There is no legitimate large market for smart jammers, so the jammer makers (e.g. in China) aren't going to invest much money and time in develo
What if you use one in your car (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
to make your commute more dangerous by keeping everyone focused on figuring out why their phone isn't working instead of paying any attention at all to the road?
FIFY
Good luck with that... (Score:2)
try collecting on that...
Meanwhile (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish there was a black list phone app that would block (as in not even trigger the phone circuitry) any phone number I flag, but I'm sure such a thing would ironically (or regulatory captured) be expressly forbidden by said FCC.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of Android dialers (alternative or built-in) have this. It's of limited use with scam telemarketers as they usually use fake caller ids seeming local to the target (only differing from the target number by the last four digits). My carrier seems to have started to defeat that by prefixing those caller ids with 011.
But yeah, we're at the point where the technology to report scam
Re: (Score:1)
How will the carrier know? Especially with a internationally originated call they mostly have to believe what the other carrier tells them.
Re: (Score:2)
They could let the owner block international calls or at least mark them as international but why would the carrier care? They make money from unsolicited calls.
Re: (Score:2)
My prepaid dumb phone lets me set the ring tone to "none," so I just have all the repeat spammers in my book. You have to do it in the phone contacts, not in the carrier interface.
Re: (Score:2)
Truecaller [truecaller.com] comes close. It has a crowdsourced blacklist of spammers (both telemarketing calls and bulk SMS senders) and can silently block incoming calls/divert spam SMSes. When you get a spam call, you can mark it as such and it will be added to their global blacklist.
Still the problem remains... (Score:2)
I see a increase in sales of jammers (Score:2)
Meanwhile 2 (Score:1)
So how come the FCC (and other Gov't TLAs) haven't cracked down on email spammers and telephone scammers as well? Also disruptive to communication. Maybe it will take a real weirdo president to put things into perspective. A couple candidates come to mind. And one of them thinks running one's own email system should be just a secure as what the feds can offer. How did Hillary avoid junk mails?
Re: (Score:1)
A HAM radio station is an FCC licensed station. They have the right to transmit, and your equipment (and person) must continue to operate properly in the presence of this transmission an FCC part B device. A HAM radio is *not* a part B device, so this clause does not apply to the equipment at the HAM station.
Sorry, buddy. You're SOL.
Re: (Score:2)
The cell phone companies also have the ability to determine who was near the jammer when it was turned on- they can, have, and will correlate this data to find the jammer & operator. When a device with a strong signal suddenly drops off the network, that's a giant red flag.
Re: (Score:1)
Operating a radio transmitter without a license is a violation of federal law and international treaty. Certain frequency bands are opened to the general public by licenses, with power restrictions, to the manufacturers who must demonstrate their products comply with FCC specifications.
Common low power devices which have a manufacturer's license and require no personal license:
CB radios
Wireless computer hubs
Radio controlled toys (drones, planes, etc)
RF key fobs
RF remote controls
RFID readers