Chinese Vendor Could Pay $34.9M FCC Fine In Signal-Jammer Sting 188
alphadogg writes A Chinese electronics vendor accused of selling signal jammers to U.S. consumers could end up leading the market in one dubious measure: the largest fine ever imposed by the Federal Communications Commission. The agency wants to fine CTS Technology $34,912,500 for allegedly marketing 285 models of jammers over more than two years. CTS boldly—and falsely—claimed that some of its jammers were approved by the FCC, according to the agency's enforcement action released Thursday. Conveniently, CTS' product detail pages also include a button to "report suspicious activity." The proposed fine, which would be bigger than any the FCC has levied for anti-competitive behavior, or a wardrobe malfunction, comes from adding up the maximum fines for each model of jammer the company allegedly sold in the U.S. The agency also ordered CTS, based in Shenzhen, China, to stop marketing illegal jammers to U.S. consumers and identify the buyer of each jammer it sold in the U.S.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you forgotten all of the carve outs in various laws which make it legal for law enforcement to do/own things that your average civilian is prohibited from?
You and I can't legally run red lights or drive faster than the posted speed... but when a cop turns on his lights, they can.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a cartel... and you only get to join and enjoy the perks if they let you in.
Yes, you could go start "Em's Policing", but then the existing law enforcement folks might not take too kindly to the competition and charge you with imitating a police officer, as well as the other acts you committed while in their eyes, pretending.
It all goes back to the old line of "What is the difference between government and a band of highwaymen? Scale."
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing how, and who, to inquire with would be a little tricky, as it is with all matters of corruption; but I doubt that a civic-minded benefactor to the commu
Re: (Score:2)
Loving County, Texas, has a population of 82 or so. Buy enough land and move 83* voters into that county, and you can be elected sheriff, and become official law enforcement.
Simple as that.**
* Probably some of the 82 are kids, so you probably need fewer than this.
** This was tried. It didn't work. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The plan only failed because the guy never actually bought the land, and was only running a scam by claiming the land was his.
My guess is that his plan was to temporarily cripple local law enforcement and then sell off parts of "his" land before anyone figured out that it wasn't actually his. The whole libertarian-takeover thing was just a cover story for a real-estate scam.
If he had legitimately bought the land, things would have turned out much differently.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure even libertarianism doesn't allow you to lie about owning something that you don't actually own.
I get the feeling that a lot of libertarians aren't apposed to government because it's oppressive, they are opposed to it because it gets in the way of taking advantage of people. The Tea Party is a perfect example of this, wealthy people who are sick of the government getting in the way of even more wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
While there are some libertarians that support regulation of trade speech, many seem to prefer caveat emptor. Fraud, then, would be policed not through prevention but through litigation, or (for some libertarians) not at all, and instead be a life lesson.
What would that life lesson probably be? "This libertarian utopia sucks; I want regulation back." At least that's my guess.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary requirement is the ability and will to expend physical force to make you cooperate. All policing and judicial systems and prison systems work on this simple premise... they at one point have been granted enough power to build up their ranks and arsenals and manpower, and now have the threat of more force than you do in order to make you comply with what ever laws they want to enforce.
This is the ONLY thing it takes to become law enforc
Re: (Score:2)
What makes your think the police agencies are using radio receivers to listen to phone conversations?
Phones transmit with the least amount of power required to reach the cell tower. The cell tower uses directional antennas to transmit only in the required direction to get back to the cellphone.
You'd need to be very close to your subject to get anything.
Much easier to listen at the wire/fibre level. No FCC required there either.
Re: (Score:3)
Ever heard of a Stingray? The police have been using them like hotcakes all over the country. The feds even went as far as to raid a police station who was going to release a FOIA request about their use. Long story short, they emulate a cell phone tower and trick the "target" handset into connecting to it. It's a hardware MITM over the cell network. Highly illegal, violates a number of laws and FCC regulations. Of course, those are perfectly fine since it's the power elite using them against YOU. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't be illegal as far as the FCC is concerned if they got the permission of the cell carrier.
Re: (Score:3)
First, cellular frequency bands have mostly been "sold" to carriers, who are the only ones authorized to use those frequencies.
Second, the FCC itself, although not Google, certainly does have a license search [fcc.gov] (go to advanced if you want to search by frequency).
(and WTF is a "legislative amendment?" Cite something, if you can, instead of arguing by asking someone to prove a negative)
My aching back! (Score:2)
This means I have to go back to carrying around a microwave oven and a car battery doesn't it?
"Sting?" (Score:3)
They were advertising and selling openly. I fail to see how any kind of "sting" operation was required to trick them into selling the illegal hardware, or to catch them doing it.
Enforcement Bureau - 2013 Orders (Score:5, Interesting)
To see others the FCC has gone after, check out their website. Some of them are really interest; such as:
$49K for this guy: http://www.fcc.gov/document/48k-penalty-proposed-against-individual-cell-jammer-investigation-0 [fcc.gov]
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2014/FCC-14-26A1.html [fcc.gov] Thiscompany got dinged 29K for operating a cell phone jammer in their warehouse.
CTS is clueless... (Score:2)
Any large company with knowledge of how to do business in America would have known to invest a little in lobbying and campaign contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal to own? (Score:2)
Why do they need the names of everyone who bought one of these? Is it illegal to own one? What if I bought one because it was just the right size and weight for a doorstop?
FCC doesn't know much about the Chinese, do they? (Score:2)
When sued -
0. stall plaintiff
1. transfer assets to a new shell company
2. closed down old shell company
3. rinse and repeat
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure if you are joking but a doubt going sleeveless has anything to do with jammers. Also, jammers are not weapons as defined by law.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, jammers are not weapons as defined by law.
It depends on where you jam them.
That company could have made a fortune selling Google Glass jammers. But methinks some other dubious company will step up to the plate . . . for a while, anyway, until the FCC catches them, as well.
It will be like the illegal drug market . . . as long as someone wants to buy one, someone will be selling them . . .
Re: (Score:2)
It will be like the illegal drug market
The difference being that the drug market is very profitable. The jammer market? Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
A 'Google Glass' jammer?
You mean a cellphone jammer that can't discriminate between a Google Glass device and a phone trying to make an emergency call?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that anybody actually bothers, since they usually just want to jam (except law enforceme
Re: (Score:2)
Still won't stop you being caught on their camera, which records to local storage, except now you've broken the law on camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure if you are joking but a doubt going sleeveless has anything to do with jammers. Also, jammers are not weapons as defined by law.
To the best of my knowledge, they're not even illegal as defined by law. To possess, that is. It might be quite illegal to use them.
It's like the old cable TV descramblers. It was perfectly legal to build, sell, buy or own one. It was just illegal to use them to get free cable.
It's not the tool, it's the action. Just like how it's not illegal to own a gun. It's just (usually) illegal to shoot someone with it. Hell, it's illegal to kill someone with a garden rake, too.
Re: (Score:2)
To the best of my knowledge, they're not even illegal as defined by law
According to this [fcc.gov] "[f]ederal law prohibits the marketing, sale, or use of a transmitter (e.g., a jammer) designed to block, jam, or interfere with wireless communications". Section 203(b) prohibits making onefor use in the US too.
Section 302(b) of the Communications Act: “No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.”
Re: (Score:2)
According to this "[f]ederal law prohibits the marketing, sale, or use of a transmitter (e.g., a jammer) designed to block, jam, or interfere with wireless communications". Section 203(b) prohibits making onefor use in the US too.
It's a completely toothless law.
See, the whole flaw in the law is that there is no practical way of outlawing test equipment. Test equipment, that is, that does exactly the same thing. It just isn't intended to jam or block wireless communications! It's intended to test your new phone models' susceptibility to interference, for example.
So I repeat: it isn't against the law to own the equipment. It's only illegal if it was built, bought or sold with intent to use it illegally.
They aren't busting pe
Re: (Score:2)
It just isn't intended to jam or block wireless communications!
Do you see the word "intended" anywhere in the law? The law stated "designed" not "intended".
there is no practical way of outlawing test equipment.
There is a practical way and it is called licensing/certification. All RF transmitters must be certified to comply with FCC regulations. A jammer would not be certified if it put out enough noise to be effective as a jammer. So the FCC certifies the testing jammer and only allows sale to a person with a license to use that testing jammer.
Again, same analogy: it's illegal to sell your gun to somebody if you know or have reason to believe they intend to go commit murder with it.
The gun laws you are referring to pertain to the manufacture and sale by a priv
Re: (Score:2)
Do you see the word "intended" anywhere in the law? The law stated "designed" not "intended".
Do you have a logical cell or two in your brain? If it was designed and built to be test equipment, then it wasn't intended to be used "to jam communications". You are making a distinction with no real difference.
The gun laws you are referring to pertain to the manufacture and sale by a private individual. Manufacture and sale by a company is very different.
No, it isn't. It's just as illegal for a manufacturer to sell a gun to someone with the knowledge that they intend to use it for murder, as it is for anyone else. You need to take a law 101 course.
It is Federal law that requires a company that wants to manufacture and/or sell firearms to hold a Federal Firearms License.
So? That is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. Guess what? Makers of telecommunications
The right to bare arms. (Score:3)
Re:So how is that going to work (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless the company has assets and/or a legal presence in America, they will laugh and give the FCC the middle finger.
In that case they will no longer be able to sell anything in America. The US can also prohibit any bank doing business in the USA from doing business with them. That means pretty much every multinational bank in the world, which will prevent CTS Technology from engaging in any business outside of China. I doubt if there is a big domestic Chinese market for jammers.
Re: (Score:3)
There are more countries next to USA and China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is $35M to collect, somebody is going to care about enforcing it.
CTS Technology might be upset if Paypay. ebay, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, AMEX, etc. can no longer work with them.
Re: (Score:2)
They have jurisdiction at the US border and can block all shipments from the company, regardless of the content until they pay their fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC doesn't have jurisdiction in China. Unless the company has assets and/or a legal presence in America, they will laugh and give the FCC the middle finger.
The FCC can stop them from selling any products at all in the US in that case. The US is still the largest market for many, if not most, Chinese companies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I wanted to block all telephone signals, I should have the right to. If I block emergency radio signals, I should have the right to. If I block all wireless communication signals on the planet, I should have the right to. Wahh wahh wahh. Oh my god, do you troglodytes live in a fucking bubble or what.
Re: (Score:2)
Did i say the entire planet? No.
Re: (Score:3)
What size of an area should you have the right to block all signals? Why should you not have the right to block all signals in a larger area?
Re:So how is that going to work (Score:5, Interesting)
What size of an area should you have the right to block all signals? Why should you not have the right to block all signals in a larger area?
One example:
A movie theatre or restaurant should have the right to block all cell phone signals on their premise with proper testing
to make sure it stays within it's property lines and with proper signs stating that they do so.
Currently this is illegal so they sometimes go out of their way to passively block it at a much greater expense or
in some cases even require you to "check" your phone.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to block cell phone signals inside my home?
What if I want to test my home security system that relies on cell towers?
I could think of plenty of other "fair use" reasons that buying and using a cell jammer should be legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
One example:
A movie theatre or restaurant should have the right to block all cell phone signals on their premise
Or... they could politely ask anyone using a cell phone to leave, pointing to the signs they have prominently posted.
Sure, some patrons will be upset, but not as upset as the parent who misses a call from the baby sitter telling them to get to the hospital right away.
Re: (Score:2)
If I ever bought a personal jammer I wouldn't leave it on. I would just press it when needed so that the
targetted call got dropped. 5 seconds should be plenty of time.
And an active jammer is actually safer than the passive jammers some theatres are putting in.
A passive jammer can't be turned on and off. It's permanently on so calling 911, etc.. is impossible.
Honestly, as a movie theatre I think the correct solution is to just install a small tower right on top
of your building (or a micro tower inside each
Re: (Score:2)
If I ever bought a personal jammer I wouldn't leave it on. I would just press it when needed
When do you ever really NEED to jam someone else's personal communications? Because you are selfish enough that you think your right to silence when you are out in public supersedes everyone else's right to be out in public and enjoy themselves, too?
Honestly, as a movie theatre I think the correct solution is to just install a small tower right on top of your building (or a micro tower inside each theatre) then charge $5 per minute for all calls not to 911.
So you truly do believe that the parents who are seeking a night out away from the kids so they can keep their relationship fresh and active, who need to be reachable by the baby sitter if there is an emergency, should just fuck off because they might inconve
Re: (Score:2)
So you truly do believe that the parents who are seeking a night out away from the kids so they can keep their relationship fresh and active, who need to be reachable by the baby sitter if there is an emergency, should just fuck off because they might inconvenience you for a few seconds?
Too bad that's not what it usually is. I've been in a theatre where there were multiple people on their phones for the entire duration of the movie.
I truly believe that the movie theatre should immediately escort anyone talking on a phone out of the building if they aren't curtious enough to
leave on their own accord when they receive a phone call. I understand that someone might have an emergency but is your emergency important
enough to disturb the other 200 parents in the theatre that want a night away f
Re:So how is that going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
A movie theatre or restaurant should have the right to block all cell phone signals on their premise with proper testing to make sure it stays within it's property lines and with proper signs stating that they do so.
Why? What makes you think that a free-for-all radio frequency spectrum is in anyone's best interest?
I'm guessing from your selfish attitude that you've never been an emergency services volunteer who donates a large amount of his free time to training how to save the lives of other people and might want to be able to go to a movie or a restaurant every so often and not be unable to get the notification that someone needs help. That's just one kind of person who needs to have cell service while in a movie theater or restaurant.
I could think of plenty of other "fair use" reasons that buying and using a cell jammer should be legal.
I doubt it. You can think of reasons why you think you are important enough that nobody should ever interfere with your personal pleasure, but that attitude ignores the fact that other people have the same rights. You cannot produce one argument that shows that my cell phone in my pocket at a restaurant interferes with you in any way, shape or form, yet you'd happily jam it so I can't get messages or calls just because you want to.
I think the best use of a jammer would have been to block the call to your Mom's ob/gyn when she went into a difficult labor with you. Why don't you go upstairs and ask her?
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, this situation is what contributed to the end of pirate radio boats off the coast of Britain.
The boats would broadcast and interfere with the emergency signals from commercial boating traffic; so when an accident happened and people needed rescue, no one could hear them over the pirate radio broadcasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What makes you think that a free-for-all radio frequency spectrum is in anyone's best interest?
I'm guessing from your selfish attitude that you've never been an emergency services volunteer who donates a large amount of his free time to training how to save the lives of other people and might want to be able to go to a movie or a restaurant every so often and not be unable to get the notification that someone needs help.
So you think passively blocking them like many theatres are doing now is better?
Passively blocking signals is worse as there is no ability to turn it off at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think passively blocking them like many theatres are doing now is better?
Do you see anyplace where I've said anything like that? You see a comment about people who volunteer their time still being allowed to have a night out while being on call and you think I would support any system that keeps them from being able to have one?
Passively blocking signals is worse as there is no ability to turn it off at all.
Yes, it is bad for that reason, a fact that is not in dispute. It is, however, LEGAL, despite being selfish and stupid, and and pandering to selfish, stupid people. I think it would be just as appropriate for the ob/gyn to be unreachable for the person
Re: (Score:2)
Let's ask the FCC!
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/j... [fcc.gov]
"Signal jammers do not respect property lines, and federal law provides no exception that allows for the private or commercial use of a jammer."
Maybe you could "passively block it", exactly as you said a few lines up.
How in the world do you know that nobody nearby is making an emergency call, when you want to test y
Re: (Score:2)
What if I want to test my home security system that relies on cell towers?
Maybe you could "passively block it", exactly as you said a few lines up.
I needed to test a 4G data device and change settings on it without it connecting to a 4G service and incurring data charges. I could have bought a jammer and broadcast an illegal signal, but it was much cheaper and easier to just put it in an anti-static bag (portable Faraday cage). That didn't interfere with anyone.
But then, I'm not selfish enough to think that my use of the spectrum shared by so many other people is paramount to theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
You **can't** physically do this. RF doesn't magically just stop at a boundary. Even miles away there's still some signal, it's just in the noise.
You can block signals easily - just build a faraday cage (or elementary school - all of the ones around here seem to sap signal to the point that my battery lasts only an hour) into your building design for your [ house | business | theatre | whatever ]. That's passive, and completely legal (I'm not your lawyer, nor is this legal advise, it's purely my personal op
Re: (Score:2)
"Depends. Can you guarantee that the emissions are limited only to your home and will in no way inconvenience others around you?" Perhaps someone should have asked the broadcasters that question before allowing them to transmit through my person and property?
Common good right to broadcast >> faux right to insulate your organs from faux transgressions. Damn, I should have a right to block someone's anus before he/she releases a silent fart that might contaminate the atmosphere near my own personal space :/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that rationale will be a great consolation when one of your neighbours dies of a heart attack because his family couldn't call for an ambulance.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this theory is that a signal jammer is trivial to make. I accidently built one when I was 12.
I put it in a small box with a button and thought it was a great parlor trick at the time. A simple google search
turns up dozens of links with instructions if someone is not smart enough to come up with one by themself.
Heck, even a microwave or tesla coil works pretty decent as a jammer.
Re: (Score:2)
My property. From corner to corner.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Under Franklin Roosevelt, eminent domain was expanded to the point where you don't really own your land, you own a license to use it from the government, which can be revoked at any time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's a good question, and one where law has gone a bit off it's logical wheels for commercial consideration.
Have you ever thought about the fact that at any given moment most of us have radio signals from hundreds of different sources beaming through across our property and even through our body, without anyone ever having to ask permission?
Now to a degree that makes sense. The benefit of having radio bandwidth available and the q
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't. The airwaves aren't yours just because you own some land.
L1 GPS spectrum is FCC licensed to the DOD.
Cell Phone microwave spectrum is FCC licensed (after paying billions in fees) to the respective cell phone operators, so no, you can't operate a cell phone jammer pretty much nowhere in the world.
You can only do that if you own an island somewhere in the world where you are you own country.
You're just another idiot that pretends the federal govt doesn't exist, go doing that until you get arreste
Re: (Score:3)
And the law should be used to enforce against people who operate a device. Not because the device exists.
It is much more efficient to enforce laws against illegal devices on the limited number of manufacturers and not on the billions of potential users.
I.e., if a device cannot legally be used, then stop before it is sold when you can get thousands of them at one time, instead of doing it one by one after tracking down the users.
Suppose the manufacturer in this case was a Chinese company making a cheap radio that emitted signals that interfered with the radio stations you wanted to listen to? Would you rath
Re: (Score:2)
Except where there is the risk for loss of life associated with jammer equipment. An airplane could crash due to GPS jammers !
Sometimes government does overstep and creates unnecessary burden, but in this case the idea of preventing people from getting GPS jammers is a very proper and necessary step. Jammers / Spoofers should only be available for military usage, no exceptions.
You need to go out and study how much we depend all the time from the electromagnetic spectrum. Then come back and discuss wisely.
No
Re: (Score:2)
Any device can be 'legally used' in some fashion. It can be used as a decoration.
What a ridiculous argument. A jammer is sold to be used for illegal purposes. There is no legal use of a jammer, because no serious argument tries to claim that "planting flowers in a jamming device" is actually using the jammer. The simple question to ask is, who would buy the device if it did not perform as a jammer? People buy antiques that are non-functional because they are antiques or look cool, but nobody buys a jammer that won't jam. It's called "suitability of purpose" or something like that in th
Re: (Score:2)
By the same logic that I should be able to come to your house with spotlights and a sound truck.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not the same logic at all. By his logic, you should be able to *purchase* spotlights and a sound truck, which yes, yes you should. There are a lot of objects that make little sense to regulate merely owning, but a great deal of sense to regulate the *use* of. I'd put spotlights and sound trucks clearly in that category.
Objects that make sense to regulate merely owning, are those whose legitimate uses are much rarer than their illegitimate, and those where by the time someone has gotten in trouble fo
Re: (Score:2)
What law gives you the right to flood the EM spectrum with noise?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The same right that you have to spew nonsensical compressed waves into the air when you open your mouth and vibrate your vocal cords.
Re: (Score:2)
Until your mouth can spew out radio waves, freedom of speech doesn't cover the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
It also doesn't cover shouting so loud nobody around you can exercise their own right to free speech.
The RF spectrum is a finite resource, you're free to use specific public bands as long as you don't go over the power limits defined.
Just like you're not free to speak so loud nobody in your entire town can hear anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
In a perfect world yes. but to make things easier to enforce, they've banned the sale and import of products that do not meet FCC regulations.
Re:So how is that going to work (Score:5, Interesting)
Owning one should not be illegal. If the FCC wants to regulate usage, that's fine, unless you actually USE it, it's not transmitting anything, and thus shouldn't be banned.
The same principle goes for amateur Radio equipment (HAM). I own several handheld transceivers, capable of transmitting in VHF/UHF even though I don't have a my HAM license yet (plan on it here one day when I have some free time). The equipment is not illegal for me to purchase or own just because I don't have a valid license. Only transmitting becomes illegal without a license. For instance, I can fire up my VHF/UHF and tune in an receive signals and listen to other 'Elmers' rag-chew all day long without a license. It isn't until the moment I "Press that PTT button" and 'key up' that it becomes illegal without a license.
The FCC has powers to regulate EMF and radio transmissions and by extension, regulate people and electronics that ARE transmitting radio freqs...however, they don't have authority over the actual electronics (or people) that have not transmitted anything over radio freqs.
Re: (Score:3)
Ham radio equipment has valid and legal uses. You can get a license for ham radio. You can't get a license for a jammer. There is no scenario in which it can be used, legally.
It makes no sense to claim companies should be able to market and sell a device, which has NO POSSIBLE legal use. If nothing else, devices that can emit RF have to be approved by the
Re: (Score:2)
I throw people out of the theatre all day long for using their cell phones...
There are places it should be legal and my business or home is one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I addressed these questions in another thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yay! Hope you never invite a doctor over to your house. Or a policeman. They need to be available 24/7.
Re: (Score:2)
Individuals who are on call need to make sure they go places they are open to cell phones, much the same way they need to remain within a certain distance of their work. Why should the rest of the world suffer for these few special needs individuals ??
My house is an AT&T black-hole anyways. I had to switch carriers after many complaints because I couldn't receive call in the back of my house. Verizon has NO SUCH problem in this area apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
> I throw people out of the theatre all day long for using
> their cell phones... There are places it should be legal
> and my business or home is one of them.
Try covering the walls of the theatre room with aluminum foil or tin foil. It's not exactly a new idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
> In 1836, Michael Faraday observed that the excess charge on a charged conductor
> resided only on its exterior and had no influence on anything enclosed within it.
> To demonstrate this fact, he built
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have authorization to operate radio equipment in those bands, thus, no you should not be able to get one.
Technically, "operate" and "own" are two different concepts, no?
Re:So how is that going to work (Score:4, Insightful)
Go for it. Don't complain when you get fined by the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
Like this guy [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
think harder.
it MAY be easy for them to find the jammer. if the person who plants one has any brains, it will be hard to impossible to find who owns it.
with some truly creative use of coax and multiple antennae, it is also possible to make it impossible to even find the source of the signal with triangulation
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with Garble Snarky. Further, if there is coax involved, finding one antenna will enable you to follow the cable back to the device.
In all seriousness, though, FCC fines or not, and regardless what you think of the FCC, don't fuck with this stuff. If you prevent an emergency call from going through, someone could die. Just don't mess with comms.
Re: (Score:2)
not an impossible problem in the absolute sense, but impossible problem with the usual tools of directional antenna and filtered signal strength meter if lobes of far field patterns crafted by cunning E&M student
Re: (Score:2)
If i want it, i will get it. Do you think i care about authorization?
You do realize that this...er...'argument' can also be used by nation states, with a few modest differences in how much force they can put to the task of getting it?
Re: (Score:2)
You always run the risk of customs grabbing it. I wonder if anyone has been tracked down because a box came to the border with their name on it, with something that wasn't allowed here. You didn't take receipt of said illegal item.. no proof you even asked for it really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea because customs is going to inspect every package coming in from china looking for these.
Re: (Score:3)
It's even easier than that - a spark gap radio transmitter will jam most things.
But you should expect to get your ass handed to you for using them regardless of how you got one. They're an unlicensed radio transmitter transmitting on licensed spectrum. If you piss off the FCC enough to come find you, they won't fuck around - I'd post a citation, but funnily enough there's one at the top of the article.
Re:FCC wants to preserve the monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
You seriously equate jammers with the "right not to be killed by some idiot on the road who decides that his right to text supersedes the fact that he's supposed to operate his vehicle in a safe manner"? What, are you jamming from your mobile vehicle? Great, so when you're passing a wreck, your jammer floods out the call they're currently making to 911, requiring a redial, costing precious seconds which could quite literally cost that person their life. All in your quest to stamp out texting and driving. News flash - all it takes is a single packet to make it through for a text to send.
Re:FCC wants to preserve the monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
All it takes is a single jammed packet for the texter to look down at their phone again and re-send the message that failed to send.
They now took their eyes off the road a second time, because someone jammed their text message.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, because CTS Technology is the Chinese Government and $35M is a significant amount of money to their $8T GDP
Re: (Score:2)
Or forbid any banks who do business in US to do business with them. Good bye credit card payments.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even attempt to apply for a license from the FCC?
Re: (Score:2)
So now I guess I can expect a knock on my door from a couple guys with no sense of humor that drive a nondescript sedan with black wall tires.
Nondescript sedan with blackwall tires? Weren't those the days...
Howabouts a no-knock raid on your next door neighbor's house (since the jackboots can't be assed to get the house number right in most cases) where they shoot his dog and break his grandma's nose with the butt of the rifle for telling them to fuck off?
Re: (Score:2)
To the non-US citizen anti gun troll: In the US we own arms to protect our families from thugs, and to remind our government that they work for us, not the other way around.
That will change with the use of drones by law enforcement thugs and homeland security and possibly the drug cartels. Too bad you won't have signal jammers to use against the drones.
Remote controlled threats are going to be huge in the next few years. You need signal jammers against those threats in your own home. Though I presume you'll say you will shoot the drones.