Slashdot Mirror


Intentional GPS Jamming On the Increase

benst writes "Here's yet another way to measure the success of GPS: by the efforts to negate it. While unintentional jamming continues to rise, intentional jamming by both foreign military forces and at-home miscreants of various stripes has shown increased vigor in the past six months. Related here are recent instances of intentional jamming on each side of the border, and (briefly outlined) one initiative mounted by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) to counteract it. Also, here are some ways to detect and prevent jamming."

63 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This must be an urban legend by jessica_alba · · Score: 5, Funny

    How could they be jamming us if they don't know... that we're coming... Break off the attack, the shield is still up.

  2. Re:This must be an urban legend by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

    Raspberry...only one man would dare to give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  3. Ways to prevent jamming. by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The best way of jamming the signals will soon be to down the satellite.

    How hard is to hit a satellite right now?

    What's the best method? Microwaves? Laser? Missile? Or my preferred method, Killer satellite robot.

    1. Re:Ways to prevent jamming. by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shooting down a U.S. military satellite doesn't sound like a particularly well-thought out plan to me.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Ways to prevent jamming. by mbone · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anyone with the capacity to down multiple satellites (losing one wouldn't do much) 20,200 kilometers above the surface of the Earth is not going to be posting about it on slashdot.

    3. Re:Ways to prevent jamming. by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      So many lawyers, so few mad scientists...

    4. Re:Ways to prevent jamming. by kocsonya · · Score: 5, Informative

      > Just put loads of debris in the same orbit at a greatly different speed

      Unfortunately, the same orbit means the same speed - different speeds, different orbits.
      You need to create an orbit that crosses the satellite's orbit at some point and wait until your debris and the satellite meet at the crossing (since their orbiting times are different, they will, if you wait long enough).

  4. Good. by EdIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thank God. I think they should be jamming GPS in some places. Or more specifically, start jamming some people's GPS.

    It might start people actually thinking on their own. I know one bridge that has been hit 12 times in the last 3 years by trucks that were too tall. In the last 10 years before that, I was told only 2 people hit the bridge.

    Wanna take a guess how many of these new truckers are just listening to their GPS units blindly?

    1. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some people still think that GPS can select devices and that it sends the coordinates to the devices. But it's more like observing stars (or quasars): You calculate the position out of a timestamp from the satellites. And the only thing encrypted is the more accurate timestamp, reserved for military/people paying. The satellite doesn't really care if there are devices at all, it just sends everywhere.

    2. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think they should be jamming GPS in some places. Or more specifically, start jamming some people's GPS. [...] I know one bridge that has been hit 12 times in the last 3 years by trucks that were too tall.

      You don't need a GPS jammer.

      If your bridge is 8 feet high, you simply need a metal arch 9 feet high, and a 'low bridge' sign suspended from it by two one-foot pieces of chain.

      Hence, any driver approaching the bridge who should fail to notice the 'low bridge' sign will have their attention drawn to it when it collides with their vehicle, causing a loud noise but less danger than a vehicle-bridge collision.

    3. Re:Good. by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The GPS is not the problem here, it merely exposes an already-present problem. Stupid drivers who don't know the height/width of their vehicle (despite having driving qualifications that require them to do so). Stupid drivers who can't read signs. Stupid drivers who LOOK AT THEIR GPS while they are driving - every single GPS has a warning on it about this, some of them even announce it every time you turn them on. EYES ON THE ROAD. Then, using a GPS is no more dangerous than taking a driving test - you are following oral instructions from something within the car but your FULL attention is on the road. If your driving examiner tells you to mow the old lady down or speed up to 80 in a 30 area, you wouldn't do it, so don't follow what the GPS tells you blindly.

      It's like saying that speed cameras are at fault because people brake heavily before them. They are not, they are exposing the problem that stupid drivers have always existed and yet nothing is done about them. You should ALREADY be at the speed limit (in fact, significantly less than, in almost all circumstances). If you have to brake heavily, the problem is YOU. YOU have created the hazard yourself. In the same way, you can't "blame" a plastic bag flying in front of your car for the accident that meant you hit someone in front, who was not a safe distance away. YOU were too close. YOU shouldn't be. YOU did not have a safe braking distance between you and the car in front. The plastic bag didn't press the throttle for you or cut your brake lines.

      The solution to these problems is not to jam GPS or get rid of speed cameras, but to START TAKING PEOPLE'S LICENSES AWAY. If you do either of the above, you are NOT fit to drive. You would not pass the legally-required driving standard that you HAD to pass to get a license in the first place. We know you're CAPABLE of doing it because you have done it at some point in the past. So you have NO excuse. If a pilot crashed his plane because he was going too low, he'd not only have his license revoked, he'd be before a serious court very, very quickly. What makes you think a ton of solid metal on four wheels should be any different? Or worse, in the case of lorries, up to 18 tons in the hands of someone who can't tell they won't fit under a bridge! Do you want drivers like that on the road, who can't judge to within a foot or so whether they'll make contact?

      Don't blame the GPS, blame the idiot who didn't read the signs.

    4. Re:Good. by EdIII · · Score: 2, Funny

      LOL!

      That is such a great, simple, and elegant solution. You fail to mention that the sign would be placed a couple hundred feet away from the entrance to the bridge/tunnel, but I assume you meant to say that.

      However, this is probably too intelligent to be implemented anywhere. You're too smart to work for government buddy. Sorry :)

    5. Re:Good. by irtza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These already exist in shopping malls - like to the entrance of a top deck parking lot secondary to weight constraints. Implementing them on the roads would likely be as easy.

      --
      When all else fails, try.
    6. Re:Good. by Kreigaffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was with you until the significantly-less-than-the=speedlimit part.

      That's just ridiculous. Speed limits are almost as a rule too *low*, not too *high* -- and on a highway, traffic moving significantly slower than the majority of other vehicles presents a hazard. A car going 5mph under the speed limit is more of a hazard than a car going 5mph over -- why? Because the slow car causes ALL the traffic moving at the speed limit to pass it, while the fast car causes ONLY ITSELF to pass traffic moving at the speed limit.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    7. Re:Good. by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's like saying that speed cameras are at fault because people brake heavily before them. They are not, they are exposing the problem that stupid drivers have always existed and yet nothing is done about them. You should ALREADY be at the speed limit (in fact, significantly less than, in almost all circumstances). If you have to brake heavily, the problem is YOU. YOU have created the hazard yourself. In the same way, you can't "blame" a plastic bag flying in front of your car for the accident that meant you hit someone in front, who was not a safe distance away. YOU were too close. YOU shouldn't be. YOU did not have a safe braking distance between you and the car in front. The plastic bag didn't press the throttle for you or cut your brake lines.

      It is amazing how many people fail to understand that. However, maintaining a safe braking distance between yourself and the car in front can be almost as dangerous as going to close. People will abruptly change lanes, usually without using the indicator light to warn other drivers of their intention or only switching on the light after they have begun changing lanes, and then proceed to cut you off. The result is all to often that you have to slam down on the brakes to avoid slamming into the car that cut you off. And that is exactly what you were trying to avoid in the first place by maintaining a safe braking distance.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    8. Re:Good. by EdIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thanks for making my point. Shopping malls are on private property. That is at least ONE order of intelligence higher than federal, state, and local governments.

    9. Re:Good. by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah yes, let's continue to cater our lives to the lowest common denominator. After all, taking GPS away from people who use it responsibly is far better than other solutions that might be evident...like say increasing fines for asshats who are not paying attention and hit bridges.

    10. Re:Good. by Kentaree · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly you've never tried to navigate Irish roads using the road signs

    11. Re:Good. by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good point. A state trooper once told me that the absolute safest speed to travel was the AVERAGE speed of the cars around you. Don't go slower than the rest of the cars, and don't go any faster either.

      I won't call the parent of your post arrogant exactly, but his type reminds of the people who think it's okay to drive 61 mph in a 65 mph zone in the FAST LANE.

      Yeah, sure they are technically correct but intentionally and more than a bit arrogantly lack any pragmatic approach to driving on the road.

      It does not matter if the law says 65. If everybody is doing 74, and some people in the fast lane insist on doing 85, then getting in the fast lane and stubbornly insisting on doing 61 creates an unsafe environment for the rest of the drivers.

      I have relatives that drive on the Autobahns tell me that if somebody got into the fast lane on the Autobahn and did not get up to speed that the police would pull them over immediately and cite them. If somebody stayed too long in the fast lane, they would be cited too. The leftmost lane is ONLY used for passing. Can you even imagine if that was enforced in the US?

    12. Re:Good. by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      If your driving examiner tells you to mow the old lady down or speed up to 80 in a 30 area, you wouldn't do it

      Clearly you didn't get your license in Spain, where some people spend up to 3500e ($5514.95). Where each fail after the first four can cost you 1500e. Where some people offer money, sexual favors, etc to the examiners.

      If the examiner tells you to mow down a lady, you ask "HOW HIGH!".

    13. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      True Story - Some years back at the Telco Supplier that I worked for we had one of those Corporate awayday things at a Hotel in Bristol - We were all instructed to use the Multi-storey car park nearby. When I drove the 4x4 I had at the time into the car park I noticed one of those hanging signs notifying low headroom and drove slowly under it, relieved not to hear any scrapes..

      Later, during the presentations from the PHB's, one of them confessed that he and another PHB had arrived in his new BMW X5 and when they saw the same sign he asked his passenger to get out and make sure they could pass beneath it safely.. He started edging forward as the passenger called out 'Ok, Ok, keep it coming etc.' And then they were through but he was quite disconcerted at how close the ceiling seemed to be as they drove up through the car park and he commented on this to the passenger and asked how much clearance there had been between the car roof and the hanging sign. The reply was something like "Oh none, so I just held the sign up a couple of inches.."

      I think he was the Technical Services Manager...

    14. Re:Good. by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even better: My father thinks that the GPS receiver actually makes a transmission to the satellite, and that the 'guvmint' is monitoring these transmissions. (His paranoia would probably make him a good /.er, actually...)

      --
      <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
    15. Re:Good. by FelixGordon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, but honestly, a driver paying attention and maintaining a preference for a truly safe braking distance isn't jumping on the brakes the moment a car slips into the lane in front of them.

      Slamming down on the brakes like you describe obviously increases your odds of getting rear ended in certain situations, especially if you're driving below the speed limit. But the reality is, you're a cautious driver, you see the person indicate to pull in front of you, often taking advantage of the fact that you're going under the limit - themselves wanting to drive on the limit or above it. You aren't going to hit them, so just maintain your speed. If you know you've got someone up _your_ arse, tap the brakes so the person behind you wakes up and realises you're behaving less predictably than earlier.

      Most likely, the person in front is going to get further away as they ride the limit and stick right on the tail of the person in front, while you stay safe. Less likely, you have to ease your speed down to a distance you're comfortable with. Even _less_ likely is the car infront of you has to suddenly slam their brakes on - in the moments after switching lanes - to avoid killing someone, and you smash into them. But since you're so careful, I assume you had your eye on the road ahead anyway.

      tl;dr, grandpa? drive defensively, drive smart, don't act unpredictably unless it serves your interests to draw attention to yourself on the road.

    16. Re:Good. by databyss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It kinda makes sense.

      McD's is a mega-corp who makes more money by being convenient. It's convenient for a trucker to know whether or not they're going to damage their ride, and it's convenient for McD to not have to kill their profits by constantly repairing smashed buildings.

      Bridges OTOH are lowest-bidder type contracting (I'm assuming). The contractor gets no benefit if they're never called back for repairs and overhauls.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    17. Re:Good. by databyss · · Score: 2, Funny

      Interesting..... sexual favors you say?

      Is it a requirement to speak Spanish to be an examiner in Spain? Would pig-latin pass?

      I think this is a job I could do.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    18. Re:Good. by badfish99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lots of things are advertised as "GPS tracking devices", so it's easy to see how the technically naive would come to the conclusion that the GPS system somehow keeps track of these "tracking devices".

    19. Re:Good. by Cytotoxic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Holy crap, I gotta agree with that. I had a great vacation in Ireland (doing a B&B tour) but I would have been dead in the water without GPS. Most places there have no signs, and the signs that do exist require you to stop and carefully read. But what a great place - I highly recommend a getaway to Ireland. Just make sure you rent a good handling compact with a GPS - the roads are tiny, bumpy, closely bordered by stone walls and driven at breakneck speeds. (Ok, breakneck on these roads is ~100km/hr, maybe even only 60Km/hr).

      Many of the best landmarks would be extremely difficult to find with a map. I visited some of the ancient dolmen in the Burren and the GPS took me right there. Even with GPS they were tough to spot - a pile of rocks in a field that is nothing but a bunch of rocks. With a map - wow, that would be tough.

    20. Re:Good. by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

      The reply was something like "Oh none, so I just held the sign up a couple of inches.."

      I think he was the Technical Services Manager...


      I'm hoping that "was" is the key word here.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    21. Re:Good. by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Informative

      They already do this for the bridges on Storrow Drive that runs along the Charles River in Boston (they would get jammed under the bridge). Problem was that truckers hit it so much they were regularly destroying the sign. You also need to place it in a spot where the truckers can take an exit instead of trying to reverse up a busy road.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    22. Re:Good. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Funny

      If your bridge is 8 feet high, you simply need a metal arch 9 feet high, and a 'low bridge' sign suspended from it by two one-foot pieces of chain.

      (It's called a "tell-tale").

      I've seen better. In Toronto, underpasses have a photocell (and light source) setup 200 feet from it, and a flashing light "too high truck" is fitted on the underpass. The flasher kicks-in whenever the light beam is interrupted.

      And, yes, kids *DO* take a plank and cut the light beam whenever a truck goes by...

    23. Re:Good. by jdschulteis · · Score: 4, Informative

      his type reminds of the people who think it's okay to drive 61 mph in a 65 mph zone in the FAST LANE.

      Yeah, sure they are technically correct but intentionally and more than a bit arrogantly lack any pragmatic approach to driving on the road.

      In Wisconsin at least, left lane squatters are not "technically correct". The statute requires vehicles traveling "at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions" to be driven in the right-hand lane. It doesn't matter what the speed limit is. Since this behavior tends to provoke unsafe driving by others if not outright road rage, I think citing more people for it would definitely make the roads safer.

    24. Re:Good. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Informative

      there is a so called "rechtsfahrgebot" in germany. it is a rule of the german road traffic regulations that (more or less) states that on the roads out of a town you always have to drive at the rightmost lane possible.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    25. Re:Good. by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Interesting


      Bridges OTOH are lowest-bidder type contracting (I'm assuming).

      Not in Minnesota at least.

      After the bridge collapse there were several bids to replace the 35W bridge by different contractors. The DOT eventually picked one of the more expensive, and slightly slower proposals because they preferred the construction techniques. The low price bidder even threatened to sue because they thought it was all based on price. So no, price isn't always the only factor in bridge construction.

      --
      AccountKiller
    26. Re:Good. by PachmanP · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Many of the best landmarks would be extremely difficult to find with a map. I visited some of the ancient dolmen in the Burren and the GPS took me right there. Even with GPS they were tough to spot - a pile of rocks in a field that is nothing but a bunch of rocks. With a map - wow, that would be tough.


      Well actually you seemed to have only found a pile of rocks in a field. The dolmen in Burren is really really impressive. There are some rock piles just down the road though. Seems like GPS kinda failed you.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    27. Re:Good. by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely that would be the safest. People could also drive in the right most lane except for passing as well. Nobody would drive right next to each other in the lanes either. Everybody spread out finding their position on the road all doing 65 mph.

      Only if all the cars were driven by robots.

      Please also note that I agreed that ALL people doing the same speed would be the safest. It is not the 65 mph that creates the safe environment, but all the cars going nearly the same speed.

      That is why I said some people lacked a pragmatic approach to driving. Sometimes the real conditions in life are not ideal and you have to be practical and adapt accordingly. Drivers that absolutely insist on doing 65 mph on the highway in the fast lane cannot accept the reality around them. That is just being stubborn. These people have an attitude that they are correct and the rest of the world has to adapt to them.

      They may be correct when it comes to the law, but the reality is that they will have other people slammed up their butts all day long. These other people will get frustrated, honk their horns, get aggressive. Eventually, these people will then pass them on the right, which is not the safest thing to do.

  5. Re:This must be an urban legend by buchner.johannes · · Score: 3, Informative

    I didn't get this at first, so here. Its from space balls

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  6. North Korea rings China up on the phone by Kamineko · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Were jamming, jamming, and I hope you like jamming too"

  7. GPS satellites are hard to hit by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's one thing hitting a LEO sat. It's quite another trying to hit a GPS satellite which is 26000 km up.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:GPS satellites are hard to hit by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      GPS satellites are between LEO and GEO. Communications satellites are in GEO.

      Since you need your GPS constellation to have birds over higher latitudes than "0, all the time" there's no advantage to GEO, and a very important benefit to reception and payload mass in using lower orbits.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:GPS satellites are hard to hit by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would you miss it?

      With my unsteady rifle hand? Most likely.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  8. Re:Domestic jammers by jrmcferren · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fines from the FCC range from $7,000 to $10,000 dollars per offense for such illegal operations. There may be other laws on this due to the fact that people rely on these things heavily.

    --
    sudo mod me up
  9. secret signals by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would say the obvious solution to jamming is to have secret signals from the satellites. If you use spread-spectrum techniques your signals become more resistant to jamming. It's possible you might even make your signal nearly undetectable, so that your enemies don't even know it exists.

    This being a well-known technique in military radio communications, I would be a little surprised if (1) there weren't already "black" SS signals available to the military, or (2) there will be soon enough.

    They may not be especially worried about this. It's not like it's hard to detect someone jamming you, and if you're in a war situation a HARM missile can take care of them for you. Generally a big radio signal is a bit of a liability in a war zone. Makes you stand out, more or less like an electromagnetic bull's-eye painted on your chest.

    1. Re:secret signals by greyblack · · Score: 3, Informative

      Joke?

      Check Wikipedia on GPS.

      GPS signals are currently using direct sequence spread spectrum signals to enable every sattelite to transmit on the same frequency. There are two signals, the "free-to-everyone" C/A code, and the military-only P-code (transmitted on two frequencies). The C/A code has a relatively short ss-word and the P-code has a very long ss-word, making it hard to jam...

      I would guess most of the jamming mentioned in TFA is aimed at commercial GPS receivers. Now if the Chinese make something that can jam the military GPS receivers, that is something worth writing about, but TFA doesn't mention it.

      --
      Everybody uses broad generalizations.
    2. Re:secret signals by Detritus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      GPS already uses direct-sequence spread spectrum. The military-only signal uses a cryptographically secure spreading code. Even that will not protect you from a wideband jammer with enough power. Any signal can be jammed with a sufficiently large/near transmitter. The military usually solves that problem with high explosives.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:secret signals by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think the problem is that GPS is a commercially funded operation.

      Um, no, it isn't. It's owned, lock, stock and barrel, by the US military. Civilian devices are allowed to access it, but the satellites are not commercially owned.

      If the military wanted its own "secret" GPS system, it would have to launch a boatload of satellites up there to match the current configuration.

      Or they could just ring up the CO of the US Air Force's 50th Space Wing, since that's who owns and maintains the current "boatload of satellites".

    4. Re:secret signals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The GPS satellites already use spread-spectrum signals. Each satellite is given a unique Pseudo-random Noise (PRN) code (along with a Space Vehicle number). The PRN code allows each satellite to generate a unique code for the spread-spectrum signals. This both puts the signal below the noise floor and increases jamming difficulty. The civil code generation procedure is well known, and will allow you to build a single-frequency receiver. The military P/Y code generation is classified or restricted information (only a few receiver manufacturers can make true dual-frequency receivers).

      The "black" signal available to the military is the P/Y code on L2. This is theoretically unknown to non-military users, but it can still be tracked with by some very fancy receivers.

      There are a couple new signals (BOC encoded this time) that Block 2RMs and Block 3 satellites will be transmitting, including improved military and civil codes, and a code expressly for safety-of-life purposes (i.e. aircraft landing). These new signals have a spectral shape (because of the BOC encoding, which gives 2 large peaks side by side, rather than 1 large peak and sidelobes). This will improve anti-jam properties as well.

      The nice thing about spread-spectrum signals and jamming is that the jammer has to put out a HUGE amount of power across several MHz of spectrum to wipe out just one of the GPS signals, and either or both can used for > 5 m positioning in civil applications. It would certainly degrade the targeting solution for a missile to the point where it might hit the right building, but certainly not the window. (High rate kinematic solutions of this type would need a dual-frequency measurement, IMHO.)

      See "Global Positions System Signals Measurements and Performance" by Misra and Enge for more information. It is an excellent text for an introduction to the GPS system.

    5. Re:secret signals by thegameiam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      High explosives can be pretty convincing.

      This basically shows that all security, at some point, boils down to heavily armed people.

      --
      Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
    6. Re:secret signals by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm, I thought the inertial guidance was better on JDAM, but wiki says it's only accurate to ~30m with inertial guidance vs ~10m with GPS. That's the difference between hitting the room you want vs not hitting the building at all.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  10. GPS not critical to JDAM delivery by EmagGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

    GPS is only necessary to obtain current location of the JDAM once along the flight path. Once the position is known to a reasonable degree of accuracy, the on-board AHRS can take over and still deliver the payload to within about 1mm/km of distance traveled.

  11. Re:Domestic jammers by johanw · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just to be sure it works on the receiver your boss or the police put on your car? In some European countries the government wants to use GPS modules to tax car traffic: an excellent reason to jam them.

  12. Good, where can I buy a 50cm rad jammer. by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Given the continued insistence my government has on collaborating with my mobile carrier, I want to buy a jammer I can hook into the power source on my phone to jam it off their radar. 40-50cm range should do it.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  13. Re:This must be an urban legend by autocracy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not familiar? Oh, your /. account has SO been revoked. n00b. :)

    --
    SIG: HUP
  14. Hey, it may not be theirs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    After all, they deny lots of junk up there.

    Just shoot one of them down and see who complains and THEN you'll know whose it was.

  15. Galileo by chrb · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't forget the huge disagreement between the US and Europe over the Galileo satellite system. The EU intended to use the GPS military band carrier frequencies for Galileo, so that the US couldn't jam it without also jamming the signal used by their own armed forces. Eventually the EU backed down and agreed to use separate frequencies.

  16. a very un-slashdot-like article by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That second link is seven pages. Normally anything posted to /. that's more than say, three pages, consists of 400k size pages of advertisements, banners, and otherwise obnoxious noise with maybe three paragraphs (4k or so) of actual content in the middle of the page, that you have to continuously click (NEXT PAGE) to read the next few sentences on.

    Not that one. Actual, real content. Multiple pages of real information. What has the world come to? Someone's posting content for the purpose of actually informing us, rather than burying us in cheap banner hits.

    The first link is possibly even better than that though. The same information density, in only ONE page. Normally they'd have spread that among at least five banner-whoring pages? Kudos to gpsworld.com for serving their readers. It's pages like that which make me wish I could leave my banner-blockers turned off all the time.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  17. Re:Domestic jammers by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can blame AF Space Command. This was accomplished years ago as a challenge project by a team of young AF officers under a "fresh ideas" program. Teams are formed from selected applicants and given a small budget and few weeks to develop and execute a proposed space related project using off-the-shelf, commercially available items. One of these teams was concerned about GPS jamming and built a jammer. Range was limited, of course, but the threat was proven to be real.

    As others have pointed out, brute force jamming is easily discovered when one knows what to look for. Fortunately, that was the second part of the project, development of methods for detection and location of a GPS jammer.

    Sadly, it seems they weren't the only ones with the idea.

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
  18. Re:This must be an urban legend by databyss · · Score: 2, Informative

    NVM... i'm a moran.

    it looked like the slashdot ad was in your sig.

    --
    Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
  19. You'd think so, wouldn't you? by supercrisp · · Score: 2, Funny

    I used to work in a an office in the English-Philosophy Building at the University of Iowa. The street in front of our window, Iowa Avenue, had a low bridge accompanied by a warning side about a 100 feet away with chains that dangled down to hit the roof or window of vehicles too tall to make it under the bridge. I'd say about twice a summer, when all the students were moving, moving trucks would ignore the horrible crash of the chains to next produce the extremely loud boom of a truck smashing off the first three to ten feet of the cargo box. Sometimes commercial trucks hit it too, but moving time was the real season to see this. I think I saw one truck in my whole eight years or so there that actually backed up and went around. Of course, I probably missed quite a few doing that, as what really made you take notice was the collision with the bridge.

  20. Tomahawk Jamming / LGB by s31523 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is worth noting that the Tomahawk missile is equipped with a precision INS and Terrain Contour Matching systems. By the time a Tomahawk nears its target GPS is not really being used. The GPS is used heavily right after launch to correct errors in the INS, once within 30 minutes TOT the weapon doesn't need GPS to hit its target with precision. Jamming of GPS usually is going to occur within a limited range of targets, so jamming is basically useless at that point

    Also, don't forget that SEALs usually are the first on the scene to paint targets with a laser so LGBs can be deployed from high altitude aircraft to take things like jamming equipment out.

    There is a definite threat, but rest assured, our ability to blow stuff up is not greatly hindered by GPS jamming.

  21. Re:Left lane passing ONLY by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Besides on the autobahn going 75 mph feels like you are in a traffic jam. 125 mph is pretty normal on the autobahn and 185 mph is not unheard of, of course you should not go those speed when the roads are busy.

    Just a reminder: If you are involved in an accident going at 80mph (130 km/h) or more, it is deemed to be your fault unless you can prove that the accident was unavoidable even at lower speed. So if you go at 125 mph, passing other cars, and you crash into someone who pulls out without realizing you were coming, it is _your_ fault. Most likely it will be considered "gross negligence" instead of just negligence, which means your insurance doesn't pay. So you'll pay for the damage to your car out of your own pocket, and the insurance will do whatever they can to recover the damage to the other car from you.

  22. This has implications for CDMA service by KeithH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    CDMA relies on GPS for its timing. Every cell tower has a GPS receiver so that it can synchronize its time with other cells (and the RNC at the centre of the cell network). Timing accuracy is a fundamental part of CDMA's hand-off design.

    This problem was encountered in China caused by their military. They literally had a truck driving around jamming the GPS signal making for intermittent problems - always the most difficult to investigate.

  23. Re:Very worrisome by anorlunda · · Score: 2, Informative

    IMHO, neither WAAS nor DGPS are solutions to the jamming problem.


    WAAS signals are uploaded to the GPS satellites and broadcast as part of the GPS signals. Thus, when GPS is jammed, WAAS is jammed too.


    DGPS ground based transmitters send signals that are potentially strong enough to overcome jamming. However, DGPS transmits the difference between local and GPS estimates. If neither the DGPS, nor your local GPS can receive the GPS signals due to jamming, then DGPS is no help.

  24. Some may prefer to jam their own GPS by howardd21 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Considering that GPS is often used to monitor fleets or even driving patterns by insurance companies, it may be helpful to jam my own GPS. It would allow me to go to the corner bar and hang out for awhile, and then resume my route. I do not need to jam the whole system, just my little corner of the world, corner bar that is...

    --
    no comment