Slashdot Mirror


$30 GPS Jammer Can Wreak Havok

An anonymous reader writes "A simple $30 GPS jammer made in China can ruin your day. It doesn't just affect your car's navigation — ATM machines, cell phone towers, plane, boat, train navigation systems all depend upon GPS signals that are easily blocked. These devices fail badly — with no redundancy. These jammers can be used to defeat vehicle tracking products — but end up causing a moving cloud of chaos. The next wave of anti-GPS devices include GPS spoofers to trick or confuse nearby devices."

386 comments

  1. WANT! by Charliemopps · · Score: 0

    How do I get one?

    1. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can pick some up at DealExtreme.

    2. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just saw one of these products on Meritline's web site last week. It looks like it has been pulled already. From the google cache: link

    3. Re:WANT! by Halifax+Samuels · · Score: 1

      $20 for a GPS jammer? $25 for a cell phone jammer? I wish I would've caught these when they were on sale at Meritline - I would've got one of each. They're cheap enough that the range probably isn't that great (the GPS jammer claimed 10-15M and probably isn't even that) but for that price I wouldn't care.

    4. Re:WANT! by cvtan · · Score: 1

      How about this? http://www.jammer-store.com/gps-blockers-jammers.html Don't know if these are actually available in the US. Could be they are blocked like high-power laser pointers etc.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    5. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would you want one other than to just be an asshole?

    6. Re:WANT! by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      I don't see how GPS jammer can be positively useful, but a cell phone jammer is dream come true...

    7. Re:WANT! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You could also build your own. The Wave Bubble is a *bit* fancier than those devices, but since it closes the loop on jamming frequency, you're almost guaranteed it'll be dead on.

    8. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      aka the carjacker's toolkit

      What? Oh don't give me that indignant look. Post examples of perfectly non-questionable uses for these things instead. ('research' is a given and entirely too vague)

    9. Re:WANT! by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would people talk so loudly into their phones on public transport, etc, other than just to be an asshole? It works both ways.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:WANT! by lisaparratt · · Score: 2

      So they can be heard over the background noise of engines and whinging - HTH.

    11. Re:WANT! by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To exacerbate your innate frustration with only being able to hear one side of the conversation. That's right - the fault is yours for listening in the first place. :)

      --

      Long signatures suck.
    12. Re:WANT! by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but a GPS jammer won't help you with 66% of those problems.

      --

      Long signatures suck.
    13. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you're going to restrict my motivations..!

    14. Re:WANT! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      If you expect to be able to replace GPS with an Atlas, you won't get to your destination either way.
      If you're watching a movie or eating in a restaurant where people need GPS, you should probably go somewhere else.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    15. Re:WANT! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You probably don't want one. A few years ago I bought a cell phone jammer from a company in Hong Kong. The build quality was terrible and I was only able to jam phones within a 2 or 3 foot radius at best. Most of the time the phone would drop signal and then find its way back onto the network in 30 or so seconds. I managed just once to drop a stranger's loud call on the train after dozes on attempts.

      Turns out cell phones are designed to find ways around interference. Afterall, my jammer was just like having to deal with 100 nearby cell phones trying to make calls. Some phones have no problem with this.

      The real issue is that when you're dealing with potentially illegal items with no brands, there's no incentive to make the product work correctly. I wouldn't be surprised if these jammers sucked also.

    16. Re:WANT! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Just.. um... incidentally... if you want to simply jam GPS, your favorite dodgy Chinese drop-shipper should have what you are looking for by name.

      If you want to do anything more elegant or sophisticated in terms of spoofing, they probably won't. However "GPS Simulators" are entirely legitimate pieces of RF test equipment, for use by responsible engineers in closed test environments to evaluate the performance of their GPS-using products against an.. um... "variety of input situations"...

    17. Re:WANT! by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 5, Funny

      0) Teaching women to use maps. "Gee honey, looks like the GPS satellites are down again. Now look here at this Atlas".

      You must not be married.

      I gave my wife a GPS so she can yell at it instead of me when she's lost.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    18. Re:WANT! by tophermeyer · · Score: 2

      Speak for yourself. I just can't relax and enjoy a meal without making sure my restaurant isn't trying to sneak away with me.

    19. Re:WANT! by jrumney · · Score: 1
      1. Movie Theaters. I don't care if you're too retarded to shut off your phone. I want to enjoy the movie.
      2. 2) Restaurants. The same.

      And the doctor with his phone discretely on vibrate, who gets called to an emergency in the middle of the movie?

    20. Re:WANT! by mrops · · Score: 1

      Not news for Nerd Rant 1279:

      There are tons on DealExtreme. There is no way they are legal, I doubt they are FCC certified to "not interfere with other radio signals".

      To be honest a lot of things can cause chaos, IMO this isn't news, just someone realizing that something illegal can cause chaos, so can guns and a drunk behind a wheel. Just because this is powered by electricity doesn't make it news for nerds.

    21. Re:WANT! by penix1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shouldn't go to the theater while on call.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    22. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      jamming wireless signals in the US is a serious felony. even possession of a jammer is a serious offense.

    23. Re:WANT! by publiclurker · · Score: 2

      Doctors have been going to movies many years before cell phones were even invented. I think you need to come up with a better excuse.

    24. Re:WANT! by the_fat_kid · · Score: 2

      I got 99 problems but a GPS aint one

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    25. Re:WANT! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Yes, and back then they took pagers if they were on call. Before then, they'd leave the address of the cinema with the hospital - if they were needed, the cinema would be called and someone would come and get them from their seat.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We aren't talking about a cell phone jammer here, but a GPS jammer. Jamming a GPS isn't likely going to screw up someone's cell phone conversation, so it's not like you are fighting assholes by being an asshole. The worst GPS offense I can think of is not bothering to know your way around a place that should be familiar (I've heard of people who wouldn't be able to get to the office each day without their GPS), but that's hardly being an asshole, and certainly not deserving of someone being an asshole to them.

    27. Re:WANT! by bkpark · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm fairly sure it's illegal. FCC has some sort of regulations about devices even causing unintentional interference.

      Devices that are designed to have interference? Definitely not legal for civilian uses.

    28. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This argument is ridiculous. I'm a MD and never go to the cinema while on call. No doctor I know does.

    29. Re:WANT! by somersault · · Score: 2

      Really it isn't that at all. A lot of people do the same thing with land lines in quiet environments.. and in fact not all public transport is noisy.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    30. Re:WANT! by dave1791 · · Score: 2

      What does jamming GPSes have to do with mobile phone conversations? A GPS being use by someone else is not going to bother you, so jamming it really is just being a dick.

    31. Re:WANT! by DanTheStone · · Score: 3, Informative

      They continue to be extremely illegal. Tread softly.

    32. Re:WANT! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Sorry, was getting out of context with those above talking of wanting jammers that can jam GPS + cellphones + wi-fi, etc..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    33. Re:WANT! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Some comments above were talking about jamming basically everything, so I got a bit out of context and forgot this was GPS only. My bad.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    34. Re:WANT! by nospam007 · · Score: 0

      Put a couple of them before the intersection leading to your home, to reroute the commuters that make you crazy away from your house.

    35. Re:WANT! by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "Also, I'm fairly sure it's illegal. "

      The terrorists won't be impressed.

    36. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really it isn't that at all. A lot of people do the same thing with land lines in quiet environments.. and in fact not all public transport is noisy.

      Congrats, you just went from vapid Seinfeldianism to just plain uninterestingness in the space of two posts. Which is to say, from annoyingly stupid to not even interesting enough for me to respond as my real username. Thank you, please drive through.

    37. Re:WANT! by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      So, imagine you have this Electronic Tag which the local judge ordered to be strapped to your leg... if they can't tell where you are, how can they tell if you've broken the curfew restrictions?

    38. Re:WANT! by McGruber · · Score: 1

      Why would you want one other than to just be an asshole?

      To ensure that my mother-in-law gets lost on her way to visit us.

    39. Re:WANT! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Not sure what "Seinfeldianism" is as I don't watch Seinfeld, but thanks for trolling anyway.

      I was thinking specifically of when I was on a long bus ride to London last weekend and some girl was talking loudly to her mum on the phone for half an hour, in an otherwise relatively quiet environment. I put in my headphones. How my real world experience can qualify as beyond "annoyingly stupid", I'm not quite sure.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    40. Re:WANT! by The+Rizz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because this is powered by electricity doesn't make it news for nerds.

      No, but it being a high-tech subject with implications for a massive amount of existing and emerging technologies does.

    41. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....not even interesting enough for me to respond as my real username...

      Riiiight- I'm sure it has nothing to do at all with you being a douche.

    42. Re:WANT! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Its not the volume that bothers me. Its the content, or lack thereof. Always fucking "OH HEY, WHAT UP, JUST ON THE BUS" or "HEY, I'M ON MY WAY HOME... Oh no way, they said that?!"

      So boring. Talk about your sex lives (unless you're ugly.) Make something up if you don't have anything. At least offer your insight into, say, current political events. If it's actually insightful, good. If it's idiotic drivel, that gives me reason to feel superior, which is at least a little better than a boring conversation. Naturally it would be better for them to STFU, but I'm willing to compromise.

    43. Re:WANT! by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      That's nice and all, but I'm not the author of the comment you're replying to, so I don't know why you tacked this onto my post.

    44. Re:WANT! by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      And the doctor with his phone discretely on vibrate, who gets called to an emergency in the middle of the movie?

      No use calling him, apparently he doesn't know the way to the hospital.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    45. Re:WANT! by jonbryce · · Score: 2

      If you RTFA, it is likely to screw up the entire Cell Tower, your bank's ATM network at lots of other things you don't expect to rely on GPS. 90% of GPS receivers only use the time signal, and can't operate reliably without it.

    46. Re:WANT! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see how GPS jammer can be positively useful

      Rental Car companies often track your usage and bill you extra if you leave the state(s) you said you were going to use the rental car in. If you're being tracked by the <insert name of law enforcement agency here> you can render their tracking devices useless. I'm sure there are other opportunities to take advantage of the "stealth mode" offered by such a device.

    47. Re:WANT! by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Cell towers use the GPS time signal for hand-over and so on. Electric generators use it to synchronise frequency and phase across the grid. Jam that, and lots of nasty things will happen, not just peoples' sat navs.

    48. Re:WANT! by rednip · · Score: 2

      Lost people tend to cause accidents, and as one does 90% of their driving within a few miles of their home, you or your loved ones/neighbors would most likely to be the victims. Besides what are you going to do, run power out to it? Change the batteries all the time? I'm sure that these little revenge fantasies look much better in your minds eye.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    49. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My only experience with an in-car GPS was a robotic female voice incessantly repeat "turn left" when we accidentally missed a turn. I'd hate to see what happens when a nagging GPS meets a nagging wife.

    50. Re:WANT! by demonbug · · Score: 1

      What does jamming GPSes have to do with mobile phone conversations? A GPS being use by someone else is not going to bother you, so jamming it really is just being a dick.

      From what I've read, it is becoming more common for luxury cars (and other expensive vehicles) to come with GPS-based tracking devices that broadcast their location. Thieves are using the GPS jammers to interfere with these devices - much quicker and easier than hunting for the device and trying to disable it prior to driving away.

      I really can't think of a single legitimate reason to have a GPS jamming device.

    51. Re:WANT! by dave1791 · · Score: 2

      Cue the next generation LoJack, with a jammer detector, combined with a gyroscope and a good dead reckoning algorithm...

    52. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So boring. Talk about your sex lives (unless you're ugly.)

      No, talk about your sex lives especially if you are ugly, and fat.. I want to know how you got to have a sex life in the first place!

      Maybe I could get one too...

    53. Re:WANT! by cvtan · · Score: 2

      Well my wife is not a nagging sort, but she won't listen to the GPS directions for sure. If it says "Turn right.", she says, "No, that's wrong." and goes her own way. Never gets lost though. She won't go on any expressway or over any tall bridges so she can't follow directions that might take her someplace she won't go. GPS is useless even if I'm driving. By myself I use it all the time.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    54. Re:WANT! by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      then set the GPS preferences to not use major roads?

    55. Re:WANT! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Ah, my apologies, seems it was pure trollage.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    56. Re:WANT! by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Something tells me they aren't gonna just say "oh well" and leave it at that. They'll investigate why it isn't working, and if they find it isn't working because of intentional interference by you (via the GPS jammer), well, sucks to be you.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    57. Re:WANT! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      And for good reason. I'd like to see the book thrown at any asshole who gets caught using one.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    58. Re:WANT! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The problem is that, as the article points out, the jammer also cuts off everything nearby. If the jammer's radius was limited to a few feet so that it wouldn't affect anything outside of the car, that would be acceptable...but using a jammer where it can affect unwilling participants is, at best, a massive dick move that deserves harsh punishment.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    59. Re:WANT! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      But cutting that asshole off - even if it didn't affect many innocent bystanders, as jammers actually do - makes you an even bigger asshole.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    60. Re:WANT! by slick7 · · Score: 1

      So, imagine you have this Electronic Tag which the local judge ordered to be strapped to your leg... if they can't tell where you are, how can they tell if you've broken the curfew restrictions?

      If they can't tell where you are, you're in violation. Automatic incarceration at twice the original sentence. T,FTFY!

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    61. Re:WANT! by http · · Score: 1

      Oh, say, to delay hostile field artillery setting themselves up accurately when they invade my nation?

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    62. Re:WANT! by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Well, all you need then is a jammer detector detector, or perhaps just brute-force it with a jammer-detector-jammer.

    63. Re:WANT! by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Just tell her that you moved, and get a PO box in another county. That way, even the Google Maps she prints will be incorrect. ;)

    64. Re:WANT! by MrZilla · · Score: 1

      Cell towers use the GPS time signal for hand-over and so on.

      They can, yes. Much more common is for the central node (RNC) to run on GPS time, and the nodes at the towers to synchronize to the ATM link they're hooked up to.

      And even if they do run on a straight GPS feed, the hold-over time for the timing circuits is good enough that you probably need to jam it for several days to see an effect, giving the operator time enough to take counter-measures.

      --
      mov ax, 4c00h
      int 21h
    65. Re:WANT! by said213 · · Score: 0

      Do you apologise every time someone challenges you?

      --
      help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
    66. Re:WANT! by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 1

      So, violate contracts and break the law. I don't know if that counts as "positively useful". In addition, you're kind of glossing over how this would go down. "Our suspect is no longer being tracked by his GPS tag, but his last position was right at the middle of what became a zone of GPS failures. Perhaps we might have to use the same methods we've been using for hundreds of years to find him instead of looking at the GPS readout."

      Re: 1984 -- if things were that bad a GPS jammer to fool with your tracking device is laughably token resistance. Re: things are already that bad, no, they're not.

    67. Re:WANT! by plover · · Score: 1

      So buy a pair of noise canceling headphones and set the volume on your MP3 player to "ignore humanity". Works great, unless there's a squalling kid next to you, in which case you have to set it to "ignore humanity loudly".

      I figure that it's much harder for other people to be d!cks to me if I don't even acknowledge that they exist. And while that may make me an arrogant jerk, at least I'm quiet about it.

      --
      John
    68. Re:WANT! by plover · · Score: 1

      jamming wireless signals in the US is a serious felony.

      OMG, tell me it's not a "serious" felony! Perhaps you have a counter example of a comedic felony? "Well, your Honor, there I was robbing this bank when in walks a priest, a rabbi, and Bill Gates. Oh, hey, stop me if you've convicted this one before..."

      --
      John
    69. Re:WANT! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that this is an ideal way to fuck with people you don't like if they happen to be under in-house arrest?

    70. Re:WANT! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't know about twice the sentence, but yes,. the entire concept of monitored release and house arrest is that they can reasonably know where you are. If that fails, then returning to incarceration is the next logical step. It most likely will not be one of those, "well, it didn't work, we will just forget he's out there" things like the GP suggested at all.

    71. Re:WANT! by HJED · · Score: 1

      Have you every considered that those people are simpily organisng people to pick them up, or trying to meet with people and that is why they are using there phone. If someone is callling out of necisity or non-social purpose it is far more resonable then disturbing the peace on public transport for social reasons.

      --
      null
    72. Re:WANT! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      They will start by getting very mad at you. Assuming you convince them it wasn't you that did it, they will probably replace the tag. If the tag continues to malfunction, your privileges will probably be revoked and you'll end up back in prison or on traditional parole.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    73. Re:WANT! by somersault · · Score: 1

      If it turns out that I'm wrong, and what I said was otherwise causing other people to be just as misinformed and ignorant as myself.. then yes, I apologise in those cases.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    74. Re:WANT! by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'd think that depends on the situation to be honest. If it was in a cinema for example, I'd really have no problem cutting them off immediately. On a bus, it would depend how loud they were being and how important the conversation was. I was happy just to put my headphones in.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    75. Re:WANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adjective
      serious (comparative more serious, superlative most serious)
      1. Without humor or expression of happiness; grave in manner or disposition; earnest; thoughtful; solemn.
      It was a surprise to see the captain, who had always seemed so serious, laugh so heartily.

      2. Important; weighty; not trifling; leaving no room for play; needing great attention; critical.
      This is a serious problem. We'll need our best experts.

      3. Really intending what is said; being in earnest; not jesting or deceiving; meaningful.
      After all these years, we're finally getting serious attention.

      Karma: exposer of wrong assumptions.

    76. Re:WANT! by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      How about this? http://www.jammer-store.com/gps-blockers-jammers.html Don't know if these are actually available in the US. Could be they are blocked like high-power laser pointers etc.

      What happened to electronics as a hobby thats how I made my first radar detector which were made illegal for sale in my country a while back and these days its easy to find the howto http://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gps+jammer+circuit+diagram&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=9a52TaixDoaxcbiG9P8E

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    77. Re:WANT! by Archwyrm · · Score: 1

      Maybe the volume isn't the problem, it's the music! Trade in your Chopin, Beatles, or [insert current popular artists here]* for Slayer, Cannibal Corpse, or Iron Maiden. You'll never hear anyone ever again!

      Just keep it heavy. \m/

      * I really have no clue about these. Really.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
    78. Re:WANT! by xelah · · Score: 1

      Because the speakers in phones are always inadequate and people respond to not being able to hear very well by talking louder. That's just fine for normal conversations, not so fine on a phone.

    79. Re:WANT! by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Some specialists in smaller hospitals are always on call.

    80. Re:WANT! by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      One causes essential infrastructure to malfunction. The other blocks cellphones.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    81. Re:WANT! by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Jesus those are expensive (and bulky) for what they do. Isn't there a free app for android?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    82. Re:WANT! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Have you every considered that those people are simpily organisng people to pick them up, or trying to meet with people and that is why they are using there phone

      Not on the bus to the college campus where I work.

    83. Re:WANT! by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Stick - Carrot, you be the judge.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    84. Re:WANT! by slick7 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that this is an ideal way to fuck with people you don't like if they happen to be under in-house arrest?

      I didn't put these people in prison. For the most part they did it to themselves. In a civilized society, whatever that means, you act civilized. If you act like like an animal, being treated like one is inevitable, isn't it? Upbringing is partly responsible as is society, however,the individual is also responsible. The idea of free will exists. A person has the opportunity within themselves to excel in spite of the odds. Respect for oneself means respect for others means respect for society. Sure, this is a bunch of flowery sophisms, yet, sometimes a person needs to rise above the mundane.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    85. Re:WANT! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      What's your point?

    86. Re:WANT! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      perfectly non-questionable uses:

      Keeping the ATF off your lawn
      Pissing people off
      ensuring your never get to your mother-in-laws house
      The most awesome geocache prank ever created
      etc... etc...

    87. Re:WANT! by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      Taking out GPS won't disrupt the frequency across the grid. It just makes it much easier to keep synchronized. Highly accurate time clocks are kept already at each location and keep time just fine. GPS just helps keep them synchronized. Even prior to GPS we had land-based methods such as WWVB and WWV before that in North America. Again, the time clocks are already highly accurate and mostly need the initial signal just to set the frequency and time and to calculate drift. Here's one such vendor. They'll run just fine for months (years?) without losing frequency synchronization.

    88. Re:WANT! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Every car thief who's into high end vehicles needs both, the GPS one to avoid the car's system knowing where you drive it, the phone one to avoid the car phoning home.

      Ditto for the cargo thieves, since lots of containers do the same as high end cars.

    89. Re:WANT! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Because they're unsure if the other person can hear them properly and it's easier to shout then the ask the simple question "can you hear me OK" - HTH.

      There, fixed that for you.

      I do ask if people can hear me because I like talking at a normal level, I'll also tell people when they are shouting at me and tell them to stop it, if they don't I hang up.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    90. Re:WANT! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      big difference between the 30$ ones, and yours, I believe he was asking for a reference, as am I, I don't believe that you can get some for 30$...else everyone and their dogs would have one....this is why I don't believe everything i read on /., not enough references...!

    91. Re:WANT! by Cartman's+Mom · · Score: 1

      ....Yes, that’s the device I have been craving, the portable cell phone jammer. Oh, the paintful conversations I have endured....

    92. Re:WANT! by logpoacher · · Score: 1
      Simple.

      People talk at a volume appropriate to their own surroundings, and they forget that the other person on the call isn't in the same environment. You usually have to talk loudly in noisy places - turns out it isn't necessary on the phone, but a lot of people don't realise that.

      Also, we are trained to treat "half-conversations" as high priority interrupts. If you hear "Hello!" ... followed by a silence ... it calls your "maybe they are talking to me?" handler. And even after you've suppressed the interrupt, it still wakes you up. Really annoying, but kind of interesting once you realize what's going on.

    93. Re:WANT! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Oh, the paintful conversations I have endured...

      Now that actually makes sense. Forget the jammer: everybody who's irritated at some loud-talking cell-phone user should just whip out their paintball guns and toss a few rounds his way.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Vulnerable by fnj · · Score: 0

    GPS guided ordnance seems absurdly vulnerable to jamming and interference to me.

    1. Re:Vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure... if you can get a missile into the air fast enough so that it can catch up to and closely follow the original missile, in order to jam its GPS.

      No mean feat.

    2. Re:Vulnerable by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      or just run your jammer at 100 watts

    3. Re:Vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Military has its own encrypted channels for GPS signals. Same satellites but not the same signal as consumer devices.

      However, all GPS guided ordnance will fall back to various other methods if the GPS fails (laser, optical, etc). For example, Tomahawk missiles also have an optical map following system. Most (if not all) GPS guided bombs will fall back to laser guidance if the GPS fails.

    4. Re:Vulnerable by flyneye · · Score: 2

      I want the next gen jammer with built in EMP, cell phone jammer, Universal tv/stereo remote and beer opener.
      Make it the Acme and not the Apple. The I-jam will have a per use fee and not work on I-phones.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    5. Re:Vulnerable by flyneye · · Score: 1

      EMP
      good at all frequencies, just not on vacuum tube technology.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    6. Re:Vulnerable by stu72 · · Score: 1

      They generally have a backup inertial navigation system to fall back on if GPS is unavailable.

    7. Re:Vulnerable by LordBmore · · Score: 2

      I was at a conference recently where Gen. Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff, brought up your point exactly. To combat jamming of a particular system, they are working to build redundant navigation systems into their weapons. So, for example, if GPS guidance fails maybe it switches over to laser guidance, if that fails maybe it switches over to INS.

    8. Re:Vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or just run your jammer at 100 watts

      Missile: Hey, GPS, where am I?
      Jammer: You're nowhere!
      Missile: Oh, then I guess I'll just aim for this big radio emitter instead.
      Jammer: Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that.

    9. Re:Vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, but so what? Unless you have long-range jamming capabilities, the missile is going to hit on-target regardless of the two seconds of jamming it endures on its final approach.

      If there were a simple, cheap *directional* jammer, I'd be more worried...

    10. Re:Vulnerable by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      I believe it was here on /. that is was mentioned that iRaqi insurgents are already using systems like that. Both to thwart attacks and to screw with deployments.

    11. Re:Vulnerable by iainl · · Score: 1

      Mind you, there are plenty of situations where you'd rather a missile hit your jamming tower than the intended target. Maybe that's not such a dead loss.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    12. Re:Vulnerable by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Then my next missile will be a 100KiloTon yield. Jam away at 1000 watts, I'll be close enough to vaporize you.

      Remember the answer to a technical foe is by being crude. They have a lot of tech to make your missile miss the target, make the missile big enough to include the target even at the widest miss.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Vulnerable by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      They jammed us!

      Jam? What type?

      Razzberry!

      Only one man dares to give me the razzberry........ LoneSTAR!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Vulnerable by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      GPS guided ordnance seems absurdly vulnerable to jamming and interference to me.

      It is. Which is why such ordnance generally doesn't depend upon GPS, if it uses it at all.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    15. Re:Vulnerable by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      or just run your jammer at 100 watts

      The FCC will appreciate that I'm sure.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    16. Re:Vulnerable by localman57 · · Score: 1

      The trick, then, seems to be to have ... wait for it... Two missles!

    17. Re:Vulnerable by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Plus let's forget that if you are close enough to jam it, then even a ballistic trajectory will bring it in close enough to the target on it's own.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:Vulnerable by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I suspect that there is (in addition to any device-specific fallbacks, inertial, optical, radar, dead reckoning, whateer) one major factor that helps that be less of an issue:

      Jamming/spoofing requires emitting an RF signal, typically one stronger than the legitimate one. There are weapons(such as the oh-so-cleverly named HARM missile that are specifically designed to lock on to RF sources and follow them back to their transmitters.

      A sufficiently clever opponent could(given the relative cheapness of GPS jammers) try something like spreading hundreds or thousands of low-power units(mandate their inclusion on utility poles and cell towers for activation in wartime, or produce a version consisting of the RF circuit, an antenna, and a couple of big sealed-lead-acid batteries in a cooler-sized unit that can be plunked anywhere), with each unit configured to turn itself on and off randomly and fairly rapidly, providing an overall storm of RF noise; but no terribly useful targets...

      Big jammers, though, would be among the top targets for anti-radiation missiles and small ones(say vehicle mounted) would likely be too short ranged to be effective until the weapon being jammed was already too close for comfort.

      Directional antennas might also come into play... Your basic consumer GPSes tend to have at least modestly omnidirectional antennas; because it isn't acceptable for a consumer product to require a plumb line and a knowledge of geometry just to get working and keep working. Something like a missile or drone aircraft, though, might well make use of the fact that(unless the enemy still has enough of an air force that they can afford to keep electronic warfare aircraft lofted...) GPS signals come from space, while jammers are on the ground...

    19. Re:Vulnerable by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Then my next missile will be a 100KiloTon yield. Jam away at 1000 watts, I'll be close enough to vaporize you.

      Remember the answer to a technical foe is by being crude. They have a lot of tech to make your missile miss the target, make the missile big enough to include the target even at the widest miss.

      OR, use guidance systems that are completely self-contained (inertial dead-reckoning, computer vision, etc.) so that GPS is completely irrelevant. Cruise missiles hit targets from substantial distances without having any need for GPS input.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    20. Re:Vulnerable by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Oh good. So the $200,000 weapon will become the $400,000 weapon. All to drop on a single idiot with an AK-47 hiding in a house.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    21. Re:Vulnerable by AlecC · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons for encrypting the accurate GPS and adding an error to the public version was that in order to take out a hardened silo, an offensive missile needs to strike the ground within two meters outside the hardened lid of the the silo. It then penetrates the ground and explodes alongside the body if the silo, which is softer than the lid. That accuracy might be hard to achieve purely ballistically,

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    22. Re:Vulnerable by nethenson · · Score: 2
      The I-Jam already exists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIqrB3bDy0M

      But i think that this is not what you were expecting.

    23. Re:Vulnerable by somersault · · Score: 2

      Hah! I foresaw your childish trick, and have in fact installed ... wait for it ... two jamming towers!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    24. Re:Vulnerable by Hydian · · Score: 5, Informative

      Military has its own encrypted channels for GPS signals. Same satellites but not the same signal as consumer devices.

      While this is true, it just means that you need to jam a different frequency. Encryption has nothing to do with it as you aren't trying to access it, but DoS it. The reasons that the military runs its own separate GPS are for better accuracy (civilian GPS has inaccuracy built in while military GPS is accurate to within a meter) and so they can shut it down without hurting themselves within a theater.

    25. Re:Vulnerable by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it can't be helped. Empires are expensive, you know.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    26. Re:Vulnerable by kenj0418 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      or just run your jammer at 100 watts

      The FCC will appreciate that I'm sure.

      Considering this discussion was about jamming GPS on an incoming missile. I think I'll cope with whatever fine the FCC decides to charge.

    27. Re:Vulnerable by bheilig · · Score: 1

      Current military GPS users have an embedded module called SAASM. It decodes the P-code to prevent spoofing, which is the process of transmitting the code at a different delay to make the device believe it is in a different location. However the current GPS codes are susceptible to jamming where GPS just fails. The M-code, which is partially deployed and scheduled to be enabled in maybe 2014, will really help prevent jamming because of it's large spreading bandwidth.

    28. Re:Vulnerable by acklenx · · Score: 1

      where for art thou mod points

      --
      Never let a mediocre career stand in the way of a good time
    29. Re:Vulnerable by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      If it gets close enough for you to jam it, it won't matter much that you jam it.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    30. Re:Vulnerable by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly, no.

      During the first and second Iraq operations, Saddam's forces were using French GPS jammers. Our missiles still hit the target. You can choose a good enough trajectory that when you finally get to the target, and are jammed you're close enough. The distance you can jam for is not that large, and is governed by 1/r^2.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    31. Re:Vulnerable by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Missiles are probably smart enough not to use omnidirectional antennas (simply only "looking" up is a big help). Also they have inertial positioning as backup, which will do in a pinch.

      The cruise missiles can of course use ground imagery together with map data.

    32. Re:Vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...iRaqi insurgents are already using systems like that.

      GPS scrambling? There's an app for that.

    33. Re:Vulnerable by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      GPS weapons usually have an inertial guidance backup. They can "remember" their target if they lose GPS track, although depending on various factors, it may decrease their accuracy a little. That could be enough to save a bunker that requires a direct hit to destroy, but is unlikely to save your run of the mill terrorist in the shacks that they operate out of.

      For the most part, GPS is only an enhancement on top of previously existing guidance modes, like laser designation or pre-programmed terrain guidance. It adds to accuracy significantly, but disabling GPS by itself should not cause the weapons to cease to operate effectively.

    34. Re:Vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, that's why I said it will fall back to other methods if the GPS fails.

      Reading, do you comprehend it?!

    35. Re:Vulnerable by mcvos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With $30 jammers, who do you think will win that arms race?

    36. Re:Vulnerable by K10W · · Score: 1

      yes I imagine your testicles would appreciate it less than the FCC and I bet you care more about what they think than the FCC hehe

    37. Re:Vulnerable by Dishevel · · Score: 0

      There is an easy and cheap solution.
      Day 1: Flyers over the country explaining that bad guys will from now on be Carpet Bombed.
      Day 2: Take in some prisoners turned in by neighbors.
      Day 3: Carpet Bomb and entire city going after dickhead with AK-47.
      Day 4: Take in a shitload of prisoners turned in by neighbors.
      Day 5: War is over.

      Easy and unguided 2000lb iron bombs dropped from B-52's are cheap.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    38. Re:Vulnerable by DrXym · · Score: 1

      A single idiot with an AK-47 is unlikely to be jamming GPS. An enemy command and control centre might. The enemy might even have the resources to take out your satellites, severely degrading the service over a conflict area. It is an obvious that most guided weapons will need a failover if the GPS system is being jammed or simply isn't working for some reason.

    39. Re:Vulnerable by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because it's much cheaper to risk getting your soldiers killed in a house assault then spend the $400,000.

      It's only not worth it if you consider your soldiers lives to be valueless. If it were you, or one of your family/friends out there, you'd think it was $400,000 well spent.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    40. Re:Vulnerable by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Nearly every guided munition has weapon link radios which are accurate enough to be used for navigational purposes. As long as a certain number of nodes in the network know where they are the rest of the network can extrapolate off of them to get a decent fix. It isn't as accurate as GPS (since you can't put an atomic clock inside every missile and bomb) but it's accurate enough to get all but the most precise jobs done.

    41. Re:Vulnerable by sexconker · · Score: 0

      I want the next gen jammer with built in EMP, cell phone jammer, Universal tv/stereo remote and beer opener.
      Make it the Acme and not the Apple. The I-jam will have a per use fee and not work on I-phones.

      But will it open my garage door?
      Also, do you have an X-10 compatible version? Or do I have to go back to 1990 when people knew what that was?

    42. Re:Vulnerable by sexconker · · Score: 0

      Then my next missile will be a 100KiloTon yield. Jam away at 1000 watts, I'll be close enough to vaporize you.

      Remember the answer to a technical foe is by being crude. They have a lot of tech to make your missile miss the target, make the missile big enough to include the target even at the widest miss.

      Classic bully vs nerd scenario.
      In the end, the bully wins by punching you in the face and not giving a shit about the repercussions.
      Deal with it.

    43. Re:Vulnerable by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      $400,000 well spent. Yes because eventually the world will run out of idiots with AK-47s - oh wait... Hang on. You mean you seriously believe that, after over 9 years, the US is "winning" the "War on Terror"? Wikileaks did more to turn part of the world on its head in a matter of months than the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US "fighting terror" for a decade. No, it is you who are willing to risk soldier's lives by having them play "peace ambassador" in a nation historically hostile to all outsiders, Me, I would save the bombs for targets that are meant to be bombed - fuel depots, factories, refineries, military bases, communication centers and other strategic assets my enemy would have. Not play air support to a bunch of cowboys who don't even know which bush the shots came from, much less what the hell their strategic mission is.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    44. Re:Vulnerable by number11 · · Score: 1

      Big jammers, though, would be among the top targets for anti-radiation missiles and small ones(say vehicle mounted) would likely be too short ranged to be effective until the weapon being jammed was already too close for comfort.

      I dunno. I think you could pack quite a bit of power onto a truck that had an onboard or towed generator. Thousands of watts, easily. The antenna would probably be the most difficult bit, if you were going to operate while in motion.

    45. Re:Vulnerable by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      I'm as critical of the war on terror as you are, but you have to remember the military's role in a democracy. It's not their job to decide when to go to war, with whom, for what reason. It is their job to *assume* the country's elected representatives have good reasons to go to war, and to prosecute that war as efficiently (in terms of lives and dollars) as possible.

      Exceptions can be made for individual soldiers' conscientious objection, but that cannot apply to the military as an institution. If all it takes to start or stop a war is a hefty bribe to the Chiefs of Staff, we're screwed.

      So from a perspective that assumes the war must be fought -- a perspective I totally disagree with, but which the military *must* adopt -- $400,000 to avoid the death of a platoon of highly-trained soldiers *is* money well spent, even from a pure dollars-invested perspective. Adding in some measure of the innate value of human life makes it even more so.

      If you don't want that $400,000 to be spent, your beef is with your congressmen, not the generals.

    46. Re:Vulnerable by gknoy · · Score: 1

      That's bound to fail. They'd probably just crash into it or something, and then where would you be?

    47. Re:Vulnerable by russotto · · Score: 1

      While this is true, it just means that you need to jam a different frequency. Encryption has nothing to do with it as you aren't trying to access it, but DoS it. The reasons that the military runs its own separate GPS are for better accuracy (civilian GPS has inaccuracy built in while military GPS is accurate to within a meter) and so they can shut it down without hurting themselves within a theater.

      Better accuracy is part of it, but there's a reason the encryption is called A/S -- it stands for Anti Spoof. It's intended for use against more sophisticated things than simple jamming, though -- "spoofing" is transmitting signals which purport to be legitimate GPS signals, but provide false position readings.

      If you can put enough power on L1 and L2 you can still jam GPS with A/S... but I suspect you'll end up with a HARM up your ass in any sort of wartime situation.

    48. Re:Vulnerable by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      "A single idiot with an AK-47 is unlikely to be jamming GPS."

      Why would you say this? A single idiot truck driver was shutting down ATC for an International Airport!

      The devices are $30 on Ebay, I just checked, and are no more complicated than plugging nto a 12v source.

      So a single idiot with an AK-47 on his back and 8 AA batteries in his pocket could walk around with one of these on all day.

    49. Re:Vulnerable by justthisdude · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A quick GPS history lesson: GPS signals are spread-spectrum in order to make them harder to jam from a distance. The military goal was not to make it un-jammable, merely to force a functioning jammer to be so large that it could be found and (ahem) stopped. So GPS was built upon the assumption of radiation-seeking missiles to protect it. To deter jamming, they spread the main signal SO widely that it was hard for them to even acquire themselves (back in the day). For acquisition they built a less spread "finder" signal. This is spread over only about a MHz and can be easily acquired. It gives some accuracy, but also gives a timing code to find the second code which is spread over more bandwidth around the same frequency. As an afterthought, they released the first stage (the narrow one) to the public. This first stage is what we all use and love.

      --
      "I love his boyish charm, but I hate his childishness" - Leela
    50. Re:Vulnerable by SealBeater · · Score: 1


      Then my next missile will be a 100KiloTon yield. Jam away at 1000 watts, I'll be close enough to vaporize you.

      Remember the answer to a technical foe is by being crude. They have a lot of tech to make your missile miss the target, make the missile big enough to include the target even at the widest miss.

      That's the strength of crude solutions tho, for the amount of money it would take for you to make one missile, I could easily make 5000 jammers. Maybe even have enough left over to bury close enough to the missile's launch point to make the creator regret making such a big bomb.

      --
      -- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
    51. Re:Vulnerable by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      Actually, the reason for encrypting the signal is to circumvent the attack where a well funded enemy makes an intelligent jammer that emits a signal pushing the real coordinates just a little off path. Less sophisticated jammers can easily be detected and the GPS can rely on dead-reckoning, but it is much harder to detect clever active systems. By encrypting the signal, the system will naturally be resistant to this attack - while as an added bonus stop the enemy from using the system for its own location purposes.

      Before they turned it off, the GPS satellites added an intentional XYZ offset signal into the public stream called 'selective availability'. The purpose of this signal was to keep public (and by extension, 'enemy') receivers from being accurate enough to do as you're suggesting.

    52. Re:Vulnerable by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      The FCC will appreciate that I'm sure.

      Crank it up to 1500 watts, like LightSquared is doing, and the FCC will give you a license and a favorable press release.

    53. Re:Vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent's information is not accurate.

      All you have to do is jam L1 to piss off the military. Military receivers still depend on L1 for a fix. Higher frequency signals can be used, but often are not. This is why the DoD is furious at the FCC for granting a waiver to Lightsquared to transmit terrestrial signals in L1 and basically jam the band.

      Since Selective Availability was disabled by the DoD, consumer and military receivers share the same level of accuracy.

      Posting AC since I am an engineer at the largest supplier of GPS equipment in the world.

    54. Re:Vulnerable by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I'm as critical of the war on terror as you are, but you have to remember the military's role in a democracy. It's not their job to decide when to go to war, with whom, for what reason. It is their job to *assume* the country's elected representatives have good reasons to go to war, and to prosecute that war as efficiently (in terms of lives and dollars) as possible.

      Once upon a time,.

      It was an armies job to defend a nation, ensure that it is capable and ready to deal with threats and when war was unavoidable, to win that conflict at all costs for the society it was charged with defending..

      When did the army ever require efficiency?. Victory is their only real requirement.

      Whilst there are tenants of the total war philosophy I disagree with, it's right in the fact that you cant fight a partial war. If you are not willing to be in a war 100% you are guaranteed to lose. This is why the US lost Vietnam (it doesn't matter how many battles you declared won, or how superior you were on paper, it matters who controlled Saigon now), this is why the US has lost Iraq and ultimately will end up losing in Afghanistan. The vast majority of a population must be willing to submit to a total and prolonged war, regardless as to loss of life or material costs.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    55. Re:Vulnerable by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      When did the army ever require efficiency?. Victory is their only real requirement.

      King Pyrrhus would disagree.

  3. Ha ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My atlas is immune!

    1. Re:Ha ha! by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      So is Google Maps with WiFi/Cellular geolocation... GPS not working still sucks though.

      And GPS isn't about maps... it's about knowing exactly where on that map you are.

    2. Re:Ha ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boxes of matches are even cheaper!

    3. Re:Ha ha! by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      I already know I'm directly above the centre of the earth! Duh!

    4. Re:Ha ha! by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      So is Google Maps with WiFi/Cellular geolocation... GPS not working still sucks though.

      And GPS isn't about maps... it's about knowing exactly where on that map you are.

      RTFA - the cell towers go down if they can't sync their clocks.

      And they use GPS to sync the clocks.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    5. Re:Ha ha! by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      That leaves WiFi ;)

    6. Re:Ha ha! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Well I'm always at the center of the universe!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:Ha ha! by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      Ummm, ya wanna guess how that cell tower knows what it's own location is?

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    8. Re:Ha ha! by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Probably programmed into a database somewhere... it's not like the towers are mobile ;)

    9. Re:Ha ha! by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Ok if you want to use Google maps in Starbucks or MacDo.

      Not so good on the road.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    10. Re:Ha ha! by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      WiFi geolocation, not internet access via WiFi. Should work with pretty much any app that does WiFi geolocation a la Google Maps, but with offline maps. I'm sure there are quite a few OSM candidates available... as long as you're in more or less densely populated areas, WiFi geolocation should be quite accurate (accurate to about 50m here in a small German town)...

      In rural areas you're screwed, of course ;)

  4. What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's next? Anti-anti GPS devices?

    1. Re:What's next? by skids · · Score: 1

      A good question. I dread someone coming up with a reason to jam WiFi personally. If that becomes popular, there are a lot of institutions that have (unwisely IMO) elected to shave costs by allowing their wired infrastructure to crumble, and in some cases decommissioning it entirely. Not to mention the slew of applications which only WiFi and 3G are good for.

    2. Re:What's next? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Most people I know have a +/- 1KW Wifi jammer. Since it works at about the frequency of a microwave oven you could dismantle one and not only jam a 1 to 2 km radius (guess), but also destroy them in a 200 meter radius (guess aswell).
      You could even mount it on a parabolic reflector and aim it properly for more range.
      Of course, you wouldn't want to be near it to switch it on. The radiation would probably mess with your cells.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    3. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the pre-N wifi gear first came out some of it would drown out the older A/B/G stuff.

    4. Re:What's next? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      While Microwaves are, indeed, quite excellent fun(It'd be downright unpatriotic to not like cavity magnetrons: they helped defeat Hitler and provide us with nourishing instant popcorn); but caution is advised.

      Shockingly enough, microwaves heat moist things. Like Humans. Now, your body has some degree of liquid cooling built in, handily provided by your bloodstream. However, your Corneas are, shall we say, a bit under-vascularized... Unless you really know what you are doing or don't mind having cataracts like your great grandparents before you graduate from high school Do. Not. Fuck. With. Microwaves.(The fact that the magnetron circuit requires a capacitor that stands a very good chance of killing your punk ass if disrespected is just icing on the cake...)

      In all seriousness, microwaves are quite possibly the worst commonly available appliances to play junior tinkerer with.

    5. Re:What's next? by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      In all seriousness, microwaves are quite possibly the worst commonly available appliances to play junior tinkerer with.

      Quoted for truth. Do. Not. Fuck. With. Microwaves.

      The fact that the magnetron circuit requires a capacitor that stands a very good chance of killing your punk ass if disrespected is just icing on the cake...)

      If I was designing a microwave oven, I'd probably stick a big capacitor on top of the magnetron even if it wasn't necessary. Nothing says "you're too ignorant to be playing with this thing" like getting thrown across the room by a couple thousand volts. All things considered, a really nasty electrical shock is far safer for everyone involved -- tinkerer, bystanders, and EMTs -- than letting a kilowatt of microwaves loose in the world.

    6. Re:What's next? by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Au contraire! They are a wonderfully cheap supply of large mains transformers which can be used as-is or rewound for every occasion.

    7. Re:What's next? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Do. Not. Fuck. With. Microwaves.

      True. But I think that's evolution at work. In my defense, I said:

      Of course, you wouldn't want to be near it to switch it on. The radiation would probably mess with your cells.

      Which is an understatement, but a warning nonetheless. Your description of what may happen with your eyes is more descriptive, assuming the casual reader knows what a cornea is.
      For junior tinkerer I'd like to advise a Lego Mindstorms set. Not as cheap, but even more fun.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    8. Re:What's next? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I wasn't warning or flaming you, just doing a little PSA(god, I feel so old...)

      There are lots of electronics, chemistry, mechanics, etc. tinkering projects that are good, clean, educational fun. There are a lot more that might piss of the neighbors, give you a whiff of exactly why getting chlorine gassed would suck, or potentially give you a scary little jolt. A few might even piss off the authorities enough that you should really do them while you are still a minor, or in the sticks in some relatively laid-back state.

      I am wholly in favor of people doing these things. Burning a few chips, causing enough minor property damage to get your allowance docked for ages, maybe picking up a scar or two, all good fun. Bring back the good chemistry sets, the model rockets, and the Van de Graff generators, etc.

      I just wanted to note, though, that of all devices that you can pick up used but working on craigslist for $10, microwaves are among the very few that can end a young tinkerer's career good and hard, even just screwdrivering the thing open. If you get past that, you'd better actually know something about RF antenna design and non-ionizing radiation safety before you fuck around with the magnetron.

      Like an "Do not Enter" sign, the people to which it does not apply should know who they are. I just wanted to warn the aspiring enthusiast that(unlike, say, the "touching this cord has been demonstrated by the state of california to cause flipper babies and death cancer" warning on extension cords) the warnings about microwaves are Very. Much. Not. Joking. Virtually all other household gear(not currently plugged in to the wall or attached to an active gas line) is safer to play with.

  5. Death by GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the "Death by GPS" will be a lot more common now.

  6. It's "havoc" you moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot "editor": no dictionary required

    1. Re:It's "havoc" you moron by JustOK · · Score: 2

      mebbe it affects spellcheckers too.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:It's "havoc" you moron by airfoobar · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's the X-men character...

    3. Re:It's "havoc" you moron by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Havok is a semi acceptable spelling of the word. It is the source of the word Havoc.

      That or the editor plays too many video games.

    4. Re:It's "havoc" you moron by nullifi · · Score: 1

      I'll bet on the latter. It seemed perfect normal until someone pointed it out.

  7. Redundant by nenya · · Score: 1, Funny

    Such a device already exists. It's called "Indianapolis." I swear, I can never get good GPS signal in that damn town.

    1. Re:Redundant by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      At Indy, all you need to know is "Turn Left"

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but that didn't work out too well for Donna...

    3. Re:Redundant by jbeaupre · · Score: 3, Funny

      Destination in 500 miles.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    4. Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of redundancy, what does the M in ATM stand for, again?

    5. Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of redundancy, what does the M in ATM stand for, again?

      Speaking of retard, the S in GPS stands for System, not Signal.

    6. Re:Redundant by PiSkyHi · · Score: 1
      Oh No!! Its a horror pile up of twisted metal as the lead car veered straight into the wall spinning off and taking several followers with it!

      GPS jammer at Indy.

    7. Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn left NOW HOOSIER!

    8. Re:Redundant by rvw · · Score: 1

      At Indy, all you need to know is "Turn Left"

      Yeah right!

  8. legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these are illegal i guess?

    1. Re:legal? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Very, very FCC non-compliant. Possibly other crimes as well, if used with specific intents(skimming tracked goods, shutting down airports, etc.)

      Because they are relatively simple to build, and pretty cheap to buy, and virtually impossible to detect unless operating, enforcement of that fact is pretty spotty...

  9. News at eleven.. by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

    a device jamming technology X doesnt just disturb one type of device dependent on that technology, no, it jams ALL devices depending on X

    News at eleven..

    --
    People, what a bunch of bastards
    1. Re:News at eleven.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not quite fair.

      There's a lot of uses of GPS satellites outlined in the article that many people probably don't know about.

      Please, leave your ego to yourself. It's of no use to us.

  10. Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's even more disturbing is that the FAA is currently looking to move away from traditional radar and even human air traffic controllers, as part of their "NextGen" system. GPS is just fine as long as there is a redundancy in the system. But the idea of abandoning radar as if GPS were a time-tested system is a little scary.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the idea of abandoning radar as if GPS were a time-tested system is a little scary.

      It is time tested. It works very well. It's just more vulnerable.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by todrules · · Score: 2

      I wonder how this would affect a plane landing if somebody set one off while flying on a plane right before touch down. Anybody know? Would the plane automatically abort? Would the pilot have enough time to manually take over? Would it crash?

    3. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fallback system for aircraft is not radar, but radio navigation stations like NDBs and VORs. These have been in service for decades, they are still the basic navigation aids for all aircraft and cannot easily be blocked (at least not by jammers for 30 bucks). As long as the FAA does not decide to shut down those stations, I feel pretty safe.

    4. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by kaiser423 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Modern INS is good enough that even if you lose GPS lock, you'll be able to get where you're going very precisely. You can dead reckon very, very well with modern equipment.

      I was recently flying a fairly expensive INS, and broke GPS lock in the middle of a flight. 3 hours of jet flight later, that INS showed me on the runway with the same 6-DOF (position, yaw, pitch, roll) within a couple of meters of what a still locked system was doing.

    5. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by colinnwn · · Score: 4, Informative

      It would affect nothing. Pilots have a "decision height" at which point they must go around if they can't see the runway. GPS, along with several other technologies, allows 2 things, a lower decision height, and automated landings. Rules that regulate pilots and avionics require that the pilot is always able to identify a failure, and to be reasonably able to safely recover from a failure using alternative instruments or procedures. If the plane's GPS were to loose a fix, it would set off an alarm, and the pilot would either immediately start a go-around, or s/he would choose to land manually.

      Planes also have an IRU (internal reference unit) or laser gyroscope that is able to dead reckon where the plane is based on the fact of knowing where an aircraft was at some previous point, and summing up all of the movements of the aircraft since that point. Before GPS, using IRUs were the primary automated navigation tool for commercial aircraft. So even in the event of a loss of GPS fix, the aircraft still knows exactly where it is for a long period of time. I don't know if the IRU can feed its location fix back into the NextGen aircraft transponder (which normally uses GPS) that reports to air traffic control computers where the aircraft is.

    6. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by bheilig · · Score: 1

      The next generation of GPS, block III, will provide several new codes in different bands, and is designed for safety of life concerns such as airplane navigation. With up to 5 signals in five different bands, and some with large bandwidths and higher power, it will be significantly more difficult to jam. In such cases only a ground-based military jammer will work.

    7. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny
    8. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't planes land by some other system than GPS, already? A ground-based transponder of some kind.

    9. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by timeOday · · Score: 1
      It's not like they're ignorant of any of this.

      Don't you think it's interesting that the anecdote used to introduce the article - the largest example of a GPS outage they could find - was caused by jamming devices the US Navy was intentionally using against itself in a training exercise for electronic warfare? I find that somewhat reassuring.

    10. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by jasmak · · Score: 1
      I work on this system and as it says in the article you quoted, they are not actually "replacing" traditional radar. We still very much use Radar but the GPS-like system (it is not the same as the GPS in your car) allows us to position planes even closer to each other to allow more planes to share the same amount of space.

      In addition, the current plans (including about the next 10 years) are all about making the current human air traffic controllers more efficient and reliable and the systems are all still based around human interactions which I really don't see changing anytime soon.

      --
      It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    11. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by sznupi · · Score: 2

      Autoland (or, more generally, glide slope guiding) systems aren't build around GPS.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    12. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wrong, or right solar flare will take GPS out in ~8 minutes!

      Time tested? Sorry, but the clock is ticking down on that one!

    13. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC traditional radar is largely not used anymore anyway as "skin paints" have been replaced with systems that respond primarily to transponder signals. At least to a considerable extent.

    14. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are current backups. For Navigation it's DME/DME/INS (large aircraft) and VOR (small aircraft). For surveillance it's SSR. In the NextGen time frame we're working on an "Alternate, Position, Navigation and Time" (APNT) system. While the perfect APNT would have been an enhanced LORAN system, that option is looking like a long shot right now and we have some other ideas we're perusing. A simple, but not very accurate one is to just provide DME/DME for small aircraft as well. Right now, there's no real demand for a DME/DME backup for GA, but when the VORs get turned off we're hoping the GA community will be more interested in a future navigation box that will include a scanning DME to backup GPS. I've spend a LOT of time on this for the last four years of my life so please don't say no one is considering a backup for GPS for aviation, it's just not true, there's a whole bunch of us working the issue. If we could just get a bit of funding to install a handful of new DMEs where there are existing gaps in coverage, it would really help.
       

    15. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Autoland use ILS radio aproaches. While ILS isn't going to be replaced any time soon at big airports, smaller ports are starting to prefer GPS approaches. Currently, GPS approaches exist at many small airport that could never afford ILS, now ILS is starting to fade since there is no equipment maintenance costs for GPS.

      Better results and lower costs: why wouldn't they?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    16. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to imagine what would happen if some evil terrorist acquired a device that didn't just randomly jam the signal, but fed it a stream of seemingly real coordinates to push the navigation system a couple of hundred metres off course (for example in the direction of the airport terminal). Or, even more subtly, coordinates to make it look like the ground is 20 metres lower than it really is.

      This is where it is critical for a pilot (or machine vision system) to be verifying the data from the other external transponders and overriding anything that is clearly out-of-whack.

      To improve the present situation, GPS should be augmented to provide some kind of cryptographic authentication (which is how the secondary military signal works). It is far easier to create a failover system that can 'route around' obvious failure/jamming, than to create one that has to reliably decide that a signal input has become unreliable while avoiding false positives.

    17. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by deadweight · · Score: 1

      As a pilot, I can say that right before touchdown I am looking out the windshield, not at the GPS. Also note that GPS units certified for aircraft use have RAIM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_Autonomous_Integrity_Monitoring), which makes it hard to spoof the GPS. It would alert you promptly it had gone offline.

    18. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd ... all of hte INS's I've spec'ed and used drift between 1-6 km/hr. You were probably using an FMS that updated the position with DME-DME fixes. I'm sure that was not the free-intertial solution.

      eLORAN is a good approach to dealing with this.

    19. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by colinnwn · · Score: 1

      I'm not a GPS expert, but I believe the GPS spoofers they speak of couldn't push the navigation fix off by hundreds of meters unless the GPS receiver wasn't receiving any other satellites. If a spoofer was active, it would degrade the GPS receivers's own calculated navigational accuracy. At some relatively low point, probably measured in the single digit meters, an aviation certified GPS receiver would treat it as a navigation fix lost and all normal alternative safety procedures would apply.

      Aircraft also have barometric altimeters and most commercial aircraft have laser altimeters. If the GPS altimeter diverged enough, the altimeter reading would be flagged as potentially in error. The pilot would know to turn off the autopilot and proceed to an airport with a visual approach. In current aircraft regulation policy, when you are landing, the pilot is treated as the final failover system and "machine vision system" that permits the automated process to proceed.

      I didn't follow the difference you think between a failover system that can route around obvious jamming, vs a system that reliably decides a signal input is unreliable. GPS is treated as one navigation input (granted the primary one since it is also the most accurate when working correctly). Aircraft that rely on it must have methods to determine when it is not operating to the required accuracy and manage around that situation safely. I don't see an alternative philosophical method to that. The only difference would be having even more navigation methods with more equal weight and more complicated voting schemes.

      The situation brought up in the article and this thread isn't even the most concerning problem in my opinion for NextGen navigation. The real problem that may come back to bite us in the butt is the transponders on the plane. In a pure NextGen system, there is no radar on the ground that can independently verify planes are where they say they are. Only the aircraft's onboard transponder reports its location to air traffic control computers. There is nothing to prevent a rogue actor from spoofing many thousands of airplanes airborne in a small area (in effect DDoSing the system) or creating a transponder that misrepresents where the aircraft really is.

    20. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern INS is good enough that even if you lose GPS lock.

      Which is fine, except a INS of that quality is in the order of a million dollars vs $10K for a aviation-grade GPS receiver. Is an owner of an old Cessna 172 worth $50K going to put a $1M INS in their system? I think not.

    21. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Automated landings do not require GPS. They merely require ILS and radio altimeters or equivalent. My understanding is that most autoland systems will utilize GPS only for the early part of the approach if at all.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    22. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by colinnwn · · Score: 1

      I didn't say, and didn't mean to imply GPS was required for autoland. I could have been more clear by saying GPS, along with several other technologies (such as instrument landing system and autopilots and radio or laser altimeters), allows 2 things, a lower decision height to land during reduced visibility conditions, and automated approach through to landing. If I had re-read the question, maybe I would have noticed the author's emphasis on "right before touchdown." As it was I answered based on approach through landing and gave a lot of information he didn't ask for.

    23. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      I'm not a GPS expert, but I believe the GPS spoofers they speak of couldn't push the navigation fix off by hundreds of meters unless the GPS receiver wasn't receiving any other satellites. If a spoofer was active, it would degrade the GPS receivers's own calculated navigational accuracy. At some relatively low point, probably measured in the single digit meters, an aviation certified GPS receiver would treat it as a navigation fix lost and all normal alternative safety procedures would apply.

      This is correct. With a standard random noise or continuous wave jammer the GPS will just degrade accuracy until it stops working - but it knows that the accuracy is bad and the DOP (dillution of precision) increases. This DOP can be used by the rest of the system to determine how accurate the GPS position information is.

      I didn't follow the difference you think between a failover system that can route around obvious jamming, vs a system that reliably decides a signal input is unreliable.

      I didn't mean the system could actually route around the jamming. Just that the decision to route data from other systems (eg. dead reckoning, radar, IRU, etc) could better be made if it always knew that the information was unreliable. Where a 'dumb' jammer is used, the determination is easy, but when the 'jammer' is designed to provide falsified positioning information, this process becomes much harder. Obviously once you have half a dozen independant/orthoganal nav systems on board, it is not that difficult to detect one or two slightly errant systems.

      However, if you have only two systems (or more systems where some systems share a common susceptibility), you may know that something somewhere is wrong, but you don't know which system to trust. If the GPS system came up saying that it has failed, well you know that you definitely can't rely on it, but may still be able to rely on the altimeter. Obviously, there is always the old eye-ball out the window. But in this day and age, flying without any instruments at all is generally considered to be flying blind, and otherwise would be the choice of last resort.

      It's sort of like the old adage that a man with one watch always knows what time it is, whereas a man with two is never quite sure.

      The situation brought up in the article and this thread isn't even the most concerning problem in my opinion for NextGen navigation. The real problem that may come back to bite us in the butt is the transponders on the plane. In a pure NextGen system, there is no radar on the ground that can independently verify planes are where they say they are. Only the aircraft's onboard transponder reports its location to air traffic control computers. There is nothing to prevent a rogue actor from spoofing many thousands of airplanes airborne in a small area (in effect DDoSing the system) or creating a transponder that misrepresents where the aircraft really is.

      I agree with you 100%. Hopefully, this is properly considered when they start implementing any NextGen systems.

    24. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      They can still do it, but they'd have to shift all of their ground-based gear off GPS, and go back to good olde fashioned Cesium or Rubidium.

      The only problem with that, is that those devices are frightfully expensive compared to GPS.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    25. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by colinnwn · · Score: 1

      Where a 'dumb' jammer is used, the determination is easy, but when the 'jammer' is designed to provide falsified positioning information, this process becomes much harder.

      Possibly I don't understand the math. But I would think if an active jammer tried to provide incorrect timebase or ephemeris to create the error, that the GPS receiver would either interpret it as a calculatable DOP, or so far outside the limits that the navigation fix would be lost. I'm sure there are theoretical active attacks on GPS, but it seems for it to work, you'd have to obscure all authentic satellite signals, because any spoofed satellite either wouldn't appear in the almanac of the authentic satellite signals, or the spoofed satellite would appear to be in the wrong orbit of the authentic satellites' almanacs.

      Obviously once you have half a dozen independant/orthoganal nav systems on board, it is not that difficult to detect one or two slightly errant systems.

      True, but with the exception of IRU and radio/laser altimeters, building, maintaining, and validating independent nav-aids becomes hideously expensive. Currently I am pretty sure IRU and altimeters are used at various phases of flight to sanity check or provide redundancy to the GPS fix.

      Hopefully, this is properly considered when they start implementing any NextGen systems.

      I think the NextGen transponder design is pretty much nailed down and being installed in a significant test fleet of planes. I'm not aware of any resolution to this question. I doubt there will be a change unless something pushes the FAA to that.

    26. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      Possibly I don't understand the math. But I would think if an active jammer tried to provide incorrect timebase or ephemeris to create the error, that the GPS receiver would either interpret it as a calculatable DOP, or so far outside the limits that the navigation fix would be lost. I'm sure there are theoretical active attacks on GPS, but it seems for it to work, you'd have to obscure all authentic satellite signals, because any spoofed satellite either wouldn't appear in the almanac of the authentic satellite signals, or the spoofed satellite would appear to be in the wrong orbit of the authentic satellites' almanacs.

      Yes, you'd have to over-power the existing satellite signals (ie. you can't just add a few random satellites to the mix). I've used some GPS emulators that do exactly that (of course, we use them in a shielded room and directly feed the antennas (as opposed to openly broadcasting).

    27. Re:Weak spot in FAA's "NextGen" system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of planes out there *without* INS including commercial. Most flying state side and particularly the shorter range flights are unlikely to have INS. The hazard exists mainly when landing as that is where the highways run close to the flight path. Newark already had one incident that took some tracking to find. It was one of those "privacy devices" in a car driving by the airport. You don't want the GPS lying to you on the ILS and parking the airliner in the shopping mall off the end of the runway. Aviation devices have enough redundancy that they should not lie to us, but just lose signal. Still I'd have to lose signal just prior to the middle marker coming up on minimums.

      However the higher powered devices can block GPS up to 10 or 15 miles. That would affect planes above 25,000 feet flying at reduced separation. That could easily put two planes in the same place at the same time. Head on, see and avoid at those speeds is almost impossible. Airliners are not exactly agile monsters. The dangers extend far beyond being able to find your destination and can involve many lives in the air and on the ground.

      You did note they said *no backup*
      I'd be quite surprised if INS has become good enough to shoot an Instrument approach after three hours of flight. A few years back I believe it was good for either a quarter or half mile at the destination airport. That's pushing it for a non precision approach let alone putting it on the runway.

  11. Remember those by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anti-satellite lasers they have over in China? Scary. Now we need anti-proliferation treaties for laser tech too. Scary.

  12. Multiple possible comments by dtmos · · Score: 2

    $30 GPS Jammer Can Wreak Havok[sic]

    (Technical): ...which is why they are illegal in nearly every regulatory environment.

    (Snide): Gee, I didn't realize a GPS jammer could break an Intel SDK! Oh -- you meant havoc?

    1. Re:Multiple possible comments by Joe+U · · Score: 3, Informative

      (Technical): ...which is why they are illegal in nearly every regulatory environment.

      Like drugs and guns, which we now have none of.

    2. Re:Multiple possible comments by biodata · · Score: 1

      unless you are the Navy in which case you can wipe out vital civilian services without a second thought, which is what the original article is actually about, not a $30 box from the evil empire.

      --
      Korma: Good
    3. Re:Multiple possible comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If jammers are outlawed, then only outlaws will have jammers!

    4. Re:Multiple possible comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but guns are not illegal

    5. Re:Multiple possible comments by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Guns are illegal? Didnt get that memo.

    6. Re:Multiple possible comments by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      If in-laws are outlawed, then only outlaws will have in-laws.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    7. Re:Multiple possible comments by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Guns are illegal? Didnt get that memo.

      Neither are drugs, both are controlled.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  13. Re:OUR wmd; gifts of the gods to defeat ALL enemie by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

    ok.... who fed the timecube site into a chatbot ?

  14. ATMs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would ATMs need GPS for accurate timing?

    1. Re:ATMs by vlm · · Score: 1

      Why would ATMs need GPS for accurate timing?

      They don't. Article is wrong.

      There is a strong trend recently to install GPS-based trackers inside the unit, and if they start moving, call the cops on the included cellphone.

      Assuming you're not using the jammer to steal the unit, the only other use for jamming the GPS, is as a denial of service.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:ATMs by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Correct ink colors to print on the money as it's dispensed DUH!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:ATMs by Halo- · · Score: 1

      Why would ATMs need GPS for accurate timing?

      They don't. Article is wrong.

      There is a strong trend recently to install GPS-based trackers inside the unit, and if they start moving, call the cops on the included cellphone.

      Assuming you're not using the jammer to steal the unit, the only other use for jamming the GPS, is as a denial of service.

      Actually, if you read the article, they do need accurate timing:

      "And ATMs sometimes communicate wirelessly, using a time-based encrypted code that requires synchronisation."

      Using a cryptographically secure PRNG seeded from a known time as an authentication token is a well-known, and frequently used technique. For example, many of the "keyfob" type tokens such as the RSA SecureID things. (Which didn't use GPS, and instead used an internal clock and server-based skew tracking if I recall correctly, but the the principle is the same.) I don't know enough about ATMs to weigh in on what schemes they actually use for authentication and encryption, but it certainly is plausible some could use a time-based, GPS-driven scheme. And, as a bonus, you then have a GPS in the machine for tracking. :)

    4. Re:ATMs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crypto key schedule may depend on accurate time. Instead of periodically renegotiating a key with the server, the ATM just generates a new one. The ATM and server have to agree on the time for them to agree on the key.

  15. Old news by GPSguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The ability to white-noise (or pink-noise) jam GPS has been around and employed for, literally, years. And, most of the first of these I saw came from China, too. GPS is a relatively fragile system, at least n the L1-C/A world: GPS satellites have limited power budgets so signal levels are low on the ground. Receivers have high gain. Multipath in urban environments can confuse receivers. Emitting a random noise signal over the range of L1 frequencies isn't that hard, and doesn't take much power... or antenna height... to cause problems.

    The article makes all of these points. Read it and take note of the fragility of the system. That's its downfall, not a $30 device.

    --
    Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by tenure.
    1. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately aviation GPS receivers use three frequencies and at least 9 satellites. We also employ what is called WASS which corrects for those multipath problems, sends a correction signal back to the satellites and the resultant can put you within a few feet of the desired point. Good enough to shoot a precision approach. Unfortunately the signal can still be blocked and Obama killed the LORAN or rather ELORAN (for enhanced loran) system that was designated to be the backup to save 50 million dollars out of a 1.5 trillion over run.

      As to the illegality of using PPD or personal privacy devices. They are illegal to sell. When they caught the one at Newark the only thing they were able to do was confiscate the device. Yes, they make $30 devices, but they also make them with much more power. The current laws are for "Intentional interference" not accidental. That is likely to change soon.

  16. messing with air-traffic controllers get some hard by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    messing with air-traffic controllers can get you some hard time. I think it's federal pound you in the ass time.

  17. the spoofers are more dangerous by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Insightful

    they can be used to trick china and great britain to the brink of war by fooling the royal navy into invading chinese waters. then a stealth boat can make the other side think someone is shooting missiles at them. all of course, so rupert murdoch, i mean, uh, elliot carver, can sell... newspapers!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the spoofers are more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to bone Michelle Yeoh on the wreckage.

    2. Re:the spoofers are more dangerous by nametaken · · Score: 1

      I bet you never thought you'd get to reference that movie and have it come up "insightful". Amirite?

    3. Re:the spoofers are more dangerous by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      You'd start world war 3 just to bang a 50 year old woman? I must be on slashdot.

    4. Re:the spoofers are more dangerous by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      MY=MILF

      not just a slashdot geek opinion

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:the spoofers are more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you used capitals. Where is the real CTS?

  18. AHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is being used against my Galaxy S all the time!

    1. Re:AHA! by Clay1985 · · Score: 1

      Yes! My GPS constantly thinks I'm in South America or somewhere in Europe when I'm in the United States! Uhg! Directions: 1.) rent a canoe 2.) canoe across the pacific ocean...

      --
      You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. -Plato
    2. Re:AHA! by colinnwn · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Samsung is the manufacturer of this GPS jammer, and the Galaxy S was the test unit.

  19. Re:OUR wmd; gifts of the gods to defeat ALL enemie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's frozen pizzas on sale down at the store.

  20. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya but it can also disable your "theoretical" enemy's comms long enough to get in a nasty sneak attack. (Fuzzing GPS in general not just air traffic controllers.)

  21. Just $30! by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

    The article just highlights why radio/microwave interference is taken so seriously by authorities. The fact a jammer costs $30 is moot, buying a jammer is illegal and stupid.

    How much gunpowder could you buy for $30 (or just raw ingredients for bombs)?

    1. Re:Just $30! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      How can it be illegal if a single 4G WiFi device blocks GPS in a radius of several kilometers?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Just $30! by Sparrow1492 · · Score: 1

      It's illegal (in the US and Europe at a minumum) because you are running an unlicensed transmitter in a frequency spectrum you are not authorized. The issue from the 4G article was that the devices were built poorly and frequency overlap would block it out. Not the same as intentional jamming.

    3. Re:Just $30! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      And how can drugs be illegal if there's a guy that sells them in the local park. Just because they're out there doesn't change the legality. In this case the testing hasn't been completed, most likely it either doesn't have that impact or the devices will be yanked. The FCC doesn't allow devices to interfere in that way, so I'm guessing that somebody screwed up in evaluating them.

    4. Re:Just $30! by colinnwn · · Score: 1

      Because properly operating 4G product is a FCC licensed technology, radio interference by definition is not. The better question may be, why did the FCC license a technology that can interfere with another critical product?

    5. Re:Just $30! by heypete · · Score: 1

      How much gunpowder could you buy for $30 (or just raw ingredients for bombs)?

      About a pound and a half.

    6. Re:Just $30! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but a $30 jammer could potentially wreak much more havoc (submission spells this wrong) than $30 worth of explosives.

  22. The actual story by biodata · · Score: 1

    says that the Navy did this by accident and wiped out vital systems in a whole metropolitan region. Who would have thought that armed groups with very little regulatory control would be such a risk to the civilian population? The $30 device from China story just seems to be some spin to make it sound as though hackers and criminals who buy this sort of thing, and the Chinese government, who don't regulate properly, are the real dangers. In fact it is our own armed forces.

    --
    Korma: Good
  23. Oh, bad form... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not surprised by how many devices would use GPS(the ability to get a fairly accurate location fix and a damn accurate timebase for peanuts and an OK view of the sky is certainly attractive...); but I am surprised, a bit, at how many "serious" systems(even ones where hostile action is to be expected, like ATMs, or where failure Just Isn't Acceptable, like air traffic control) wouldn't have some degree of redundancy, if only because of the risk of a cheap GPS module burning some sensitive RF chip because the local arc-welder user fired up again...

    Your basic RTC, say, isn't as accurate as GPS time; especially in the long term, or if not temperature compensated and subject to variable conditions; but it should still deviate by less than a second over a day or two of lost GPS(never mind 10-60 minutes of jamming) and can, if needed, retain reasonably accurate time for as long as power holds out, and they don't need much power.

    Similarly, today's MEMS accelerometers and on-chip magnetometers/compasses, while you might not want to dead-reckon your way around the world with them, can easily enough compensate for losses in GPS fix over the short term, and can 'sanity-check' abrupt changes in GPS readings.

    For static objects(like radar towers) you can basically treat position as a constant(possibly with recalibration from time to time if there are structural shifts) and calculate dish position based on a simple rotary encoder or the like.

    Obviously, for space, power, and cost reasons, Joe Consumer's $50 cellphone or $80 dash-nav isn't necessarily going to incorporate multiple layers of GPS failsafe. If the GPS stops working, Joe can just use the meat-coprocessor he stores in his skull to suck it up and figure it out until GPS comes back online.

    For more important systems, though, I would honestly have hoped for better, especially in situations(like cell towers and most ATMs) where the equipment itself isn't exactly inexpensive, so $50 or $100 worth of accelerometer and RTC failsafe would be reasonable, and where they usually have a network hard-line. NTP isn't perfect; but it certainly is handy(if necessary, users of dedicated circuits, rather than those who rely on public internet, might be able to achieve even greater accuracy by comparing their GPS time with the GPS time reported by the hardware on the other end of the circuit, to determine the round-trip time fairly exactly...)

    Also, the "backup" gyrocompass mentioned in TFA, that failed to act as a backup to GPS because it crashed when it lost GPS signal is just sad. Perhaps it was purchased from the same company who provides emergency generators that can only be started by mains-powered control systems?

    1. Re:Oh, bad form... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Not dispensing money isn't really that dire a failure mode. Sure, people will get irritated, but most people that visit an out of order ATM don't come back tomorrow, they go somewhere else right away.

      I guess it still speaks to the mindset of the people designing the machine, but it doesn't seem that important.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Oh, bad form... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is one other factor to think about. ATMs and the financial institutions that run them all use the GPS time keeping to stamp transactions world wide. Putting a GPS jammer in the path of their receiver could cause major problems for a firm , say a stock or commodities trader. Put enough of them in the financial district of a large city and you will get a fair amount of chaos.

      But also, as was commented elsewhere, the FCC will be looking for you for running the jammer (20 years and/or $20k first offense, last I looked at the regulation). Then there is the FBI. Attacking a financial institution, could get you sent to Gitmo.

    3. Re:Oh, bad form... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I was thinking less in terms of "not dispensing money"(though inconveniencing your customer's customers is bad) and more in terms of "I'm assuming that the GPS is there, in part, as a theft deterrent".

      Location awareness along with the ability to phone home, would be pretty useful for something that may be filled with a substantial amount of cash; but cannot be breached fast enough(in most cases) in its installed location. Since jammers are so cheap and common, I would have expected a backup system to detect movement/tampering, and provide an internal timebase, to try to exclude false positives(you can't call the cops every time some trucker trying to evade "fleet management" drives by) and false negatives(if a reasonably sophisticated team with an ebay-ed GPS simulator dials in the correct static coordinates and then trucks the ATM away to be cut open, you want to know about that).

    4. Re:Oh, bad form... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Maybe. I expect the machines usually cost more than the money that they hold, so in that scenario, actual physical security would be a bigger concern than speeding up recovery (and indeed, the machines are often built into walls or inside of staffed buildings).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Oh, bad form... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not surprised by how many devices would use GPS(the ability to get a fairly accurate location fix and a damn accurate timebase for peanuts and an OK view of the sky is certainly attractive...); but I am surprised, a bit, at how many "serious" systems(even ones where hostile action is to be expected, like ATMs, or where failure Just Isn't Acceptable, like air traffic control) wouldn't have some degree of redundancy

      I don't know about air traffic control, but in ATMs I'd say failure isn't just an option, sometimes it's the best option.

      There's a history of ATMs getting bodily stolen to later crack them open for the cash inside. It wouldn't be too far fetched for one to be stolen and hooked up to another phone line for someone to take a crack at it, messing with the card reader to try out hundreds of cards, for example. Not something you'd do out in the open.

      If I were a bank, I'd put in the failsafe of not allowing an outdoor ATM to make a transaction unless its GPS is active, and showing both good time and correct location. It at least raises the bar, making wannabe hackers have to spoof the GPS device while still providing accurate time.

    6. Re:Oh, bad form... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it should still deviate by less than a second over a day or two of lost GPS

      A second or two may not seem like a big deal to a human, but to a system that triangulates position by measuring the difference between the reception of multiple signals, a second is hugely important. Unless you only need your position within a radius of a couple hundred miles .

    7. Re:Oh, bad form... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CDMA cell towers and perhaps ATMs need nanoseconds to microseconds level of synchronization with GPS. For example, if a CDMA cell tower's clock is off by more than 10 microseconds from GPS time, network performance can degrade significantly (handoff problems, etc.). Typically, cell towers have clocks driven by low-drift oven-controlled crystal oscillators which have a holdover mode when GPS is lost. In holdover mode, an OCXO clock will probably be more than 10 microseconds from GPS after a day.

    8. Re:Oh, bad form... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that the motivation to steal an ATM is in getting the cash held within, not in order to resell said stolen ATM. I could be wrong, as I don't visit pawn shops, but I imagine you can't find ATMs for sale there.

    9. Re:Oh, bad form... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure. But the owner is going to have to replace both the ATM and the cash (or claim insurance on them, whatever), so they are going to factor the value of both into their security decisions.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Oh, bad form... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 second in a day is 11.6 ppm. Most oscillators have a rated frequency accuracy of 50 or 100ppm.

    11. Re:Oh, bad form... by plover · · Score: 1

      Even with security in mind, ATMs are still built cheaply, and sold by the lowest bidders. Let's say that some GPS-jamming-related losses could be prevented by including a fifty dollar module to provide backup location services. If they can save money by excluding the module, that could mean an extra ten million dollars in profits from that model. But what impact does the module really have? The cost of unavailability is something like the projected lost revenue divided by the percentage of time that GPS is down, which is primarily only when idiots with illegal GPS jammers are abusing them. If that's less than ten million dollars saved, the fifty dollar module isn't worth it.

      But it leads down another cheaper route. Let's say you could add a GPS-jammer-detector circuit for one dollar. You could use that to generate security events that are precursors to actual abuses, possibly enabling early response by security forces. As a bonus they yield direct evidence of a felony, because you can ask the police to haul a guy away for five years just for using a GPS jammer, even if you can't prove he was going to rob your ATM. Again, the payback depends on how many GPS-jamming criminals there are out there, but the cost difference might mean you only need two criminal convictions to make it worth it.

      --
      John
  24. My mailbox by killmenow · · Score: 1

    I want to just mount one of these on my mailbox so I can give my address to people using GPS to find me and say "when your GPS freaks out, you're here."

  25. creators schedule intervention on evile et al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we're guessing they probably do not have to bother with endless time stealing 'meetings', PR blitzkriegs, increasing feign of indecision crap, like we do. remember, they knew we might get stuck/end badly, like this, & they DO plan ahead...... since/until forever (by any 'calendar' we're familiar with?) there's some notion that we could delay/prevent our rescue? there are provisions?

  26. ATM's??? by zoomshorts · · Score: 1

    Why would an ATM need GPS? Isn't their IP address sufficient? How idiotic to think an ATM
    needs anything else other than a secure, encrypted connection.

    Oh wait, there must be many ATM thieves who take the machines from their original location
      and reconnect them to the grid. LOL

    1. Re:ATM's??? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 3, Informative

      ATMs (and many other things) use GPS as a highly accurate master clock.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    2. Re:ATM's??? by codegen · · Score: 1

      The GPS is used to determine the exact time of the transaction. If the time of the transaction at the ATM and the time of the transaction at the Bank differ, then the transaction is refused. I'm not exactly sure why NTP would not be enough, but ATMs using GPS don't use it to find their location.

      --
      Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    3. Re:ATM's??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the cellular device inside it has a semi-long life battery ( upwards of two hours maybe ) that calls for an amber alert when it moves more than the tolerable error distance, assuming it does use a cellular device?

    4. Re:ATM's??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GPS is used to determine the exact time of the transaction. If the time of the transaction at the ATM and the time of the transaction at the Bank differ, then the transaction is refused. I'm not exactly sure why NTP would not be enough, but ATMs using GPS don't use it to find their location.

      That's pretty reasonable, but it's not like the ATM needs to update its internal clock more than once a month or so.

    5. Re:ATM's??? by seanonymous · · Score: 1

      I like how you say 'ATM' and not 'ATM machine' like the op.

  27. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically equivalent to the thing where you shine a pointed laser in somebody's cockpit. Retards find it hilarious, and we have another hidden danger we shouldn't have to worry about.

  28. Get em while they are hot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?SearchText=gps+jammer&catId=0

  29. So how well do they do against military GPS? by cf18 · · Score: 1
    I guess they are very hard to spoof but still easy to jam?

    Last week South Korea believes North Korea was testing their new GPS jammer from Russia.

    http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/03/07/2011030700567.html

    1. Re:So how well do they do against military GPS? by Tridus · · Score: 1

      The Navy ship the test was run on lost navigation, backup navigation, and communication.

      So it seems to work pretty well against millitay GPS.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  30. $30 box from evil empire by codegen · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you bothered to read past the first page, you would have found out that the $30 box from the evil empire was shutting down Newark Airport twice a day because a truck driver was using it to defeat the toll transponder on the NJ Turnpike next door.

    --
    Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    1. Re:$30 box from evil empire by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      the $30 box from the evil empire was shutting down Newark Airport twice a day because a truck driver was using it to defeat the toll transponder on the NJ Turnpike next door.

      Which, incidentally, is another reason why all of these plans to replace gasoline taxes by levying road-use taxes based on in-car GPS monitoring devices are a really bad idea. It will create a massive demand for such jammers and they will get a lot more sophisticated than the current ones - coverage will be limited to a few feet, or even inches, and be essentially undetectable without physical inspection.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  31. Loran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article mentions LORAN and eLORAN. The USG in it's infinite wisdom decommissioned the LORAN system. So that option is out.

    1. Re:Loran by colinnwn · · Score: 1

      LORAN is just as susceptible to jamming as GPS signals. You can also create GPS ground stations (much like Loran) that emulate satellites for at least a 2D fix. Add one satellite or a laser altimeter and you have a 3D fix. I think it was reasonable to decommission Loran and standardize on 1 technology, even if we should have ramped up replacement technology like GPS ground stations instead of treating them as a redundant cost savings opp.

    2. Re:Loran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually no LORAN is not as susceptible as GPS. The LORAN signals are several orders of magnitude stronger at the receiver than GPS. So, it will take more RF energy to interfere with them. Said another way, it will take a transmitter with significantly more power to block LORAN in the same area as GPS.

  32. Ruins the whole new road toll system in Finland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Finland has had plans to introduce a road toll system based on GPS. If that happens, spoofing/jamming GPS will save you a lot of money. As a side-effect of everyone using blocking devices, nobody will be able to navigate anymore :)

    1. Re:Ruins the whole new road toll system in Finland by Sparrow1492 · · Score: 1

      Or, you could learn to read a map which is apparently too difficulut these days. Somehow the world used to function without GPS and we still got from point A to point B OK.

  33. No this is wrong by biodata · · Score: 1

    it says that it was causing one particular software application to shut down, not the airport itself.

    --
    Korma: Good
  34. worse, lightsquared.com will wipe out most of GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes.. those thousands of "fill in" auxiliary transmitters for broadband access in the same general band as GPS will effectively jam most consumer GPS receivers.

    testing conducted by LightSquared seems not to see any problems, testing conducted by Garmin does.

    THis is also a big deal for the zillions of systems using GPS for time distribution and synchronization.

  35. And jammers are even more vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jammers have to broadcast a relatively large amount of power in order to work. More than enough to attract passive-homing ordnance...

  36. Who needs jammers? We have the sun. by oneiros27 · · Score: 2

    People forgot about it due to the ong solar minimum, but if this many things are dependant upon GPS, they're going to want to find some contingency plans:

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  37. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    If you really want to mess with ATC, you can do it far easier than a $30.00 short range jammer.

    Go to hobby shop, buy a few large model rockets. build them.

    Go to grocery store, buy a roll of aluminum foil.

    feed aluminum foil into a crosscut paper shredder to create "chaff". (I can tell you how to do this successfully, but wont to keep the complete idiots from trying it.)

    Load the chaff into the ejection chute tube for the model rockets. (again, there is more to this, but idiots will never figure this step out as well.)

    Launch. laugh with your buddies and get ready to enjoy your time being anally raped by big bad bubba in a federal prison.

    This will screw with ATC in a big BIG way. they will find you, they will taze you about 900 times on the way to the jail, then they will taze you just for fun, and the judge will taze you out of spite in the courtroom, your lawyer will also probably taze you as well, before you go to a big bad prison.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  38. Lousy engineering by bradley13 · · Score: 2

    What competent engineer would design an important system that depends on GPS, with no backup? The satellite signals are very faint, and can be disrupted for seconds or hours by lots of different causes, including entirely natural causes like solar flares.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Lousy engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about?

      All planes have backups, heck 3 other methods. GPS is actually a bonus feature that's been quite recent. Same for shipping - ships have backups, like you know, maps. Important ships have radar for close up threats (like icebergs).

      If people with their car GPS are too stupid to find or use a backup (eg. a map), then it's their problems.

    2. Re:Lousy engineering by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What competent engineer would design an important system that depends on GPS, with no backup? The satellite signals are very faint, and can be disrupted for seconds or hours by lots of different causes, including entirely natural causes like solar flares.

      The competent engineer with the incompetent boss.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Lousy engineering by trevc · · Score: 1

      On Time and on budget, thats what is important these days...

    4. Re:Lousy engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What competent engineer would design an important system that depends on GPS, with no backup?

      What backup do you recommend?

    5. Re:Lousy engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What competent engineer would design an important system that depends on GPS, with no backup?

      That engineer is still better than nature, which came up with:

      - a system that depends on a minimum concentration of oxygen, with no backup.
      - an oxygen supply pipe and food supply pipe which share the same intake manifold, with a clumsy valve.

      The stupidity of creationism ...

    6. Re:Lousy engineering by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about?

      It's possible OP read TFA. It's likely you didn't.

      "In 2010, he conducted an experiment in the North Sea, aboard the THV Galatea, a 500-tonne ship. The Galatea is the pride of its fleet, with all the latest navigation equipment. Last wanted to find out how it would cope without GPS. So he used a simple jamming device that overwhelmed the GPS signal by broadcasting noise on the same frequency as the satellites.

      When Last activated the jammer, the ship went haywire. According to the electronic display on the ship's bridge, the Galatea was suddenly flying at Mach speeds over northern Europe and Ireland. Then alarms sounded. The ship's navigation backup – its gyrocompass – crashed, because it uses GPS to provide corrections. The radar did the same. Even the ship's satellite communications failed, because GPS points the antenna in the right direction."

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    7. Re:Lousy engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twasn't the engineers or engineering:
      GPS is a *military* *stand alone* system. Only when GPS was made available to the civilian population and its use skyrocketed around the world and particularly in aviation did the idea of a "generally available" backup even come up.

      LORAN and ELORAN were candidates for a back up, but LORAN was scheduled to be shut down (decommissioned) January 21, 2010 by the present administration.
      As far as I know the equipment and towers were dismantled. Unless something has changed there is no LORAN. A lot of the locals were complaining about now having expensive paper weights in their planes.

  39. OpenStreetMap trolls? by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

    This is just what we need, a cheap way for idiots to troll OpenStreetMap surveyors...

    --
    Furries make the internet go.
  40. Re:Whut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd ask if you were new here, but your low ID gives it away.

  41. Re:Whut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're dumb if you couldnt understand the blurb. I hate english majors claiming they cant understand english just because it isnt written according to a rigid set of rules that are, in fact, NOT needed to understand what is written. Some are needed. All are not. Learn to adapt.

  42. Re:Whut? by Tridus · · Score: 1

    Nobody at Slashdot reads these things. That's why the Dance with Dragons story from a few days ago had a summary that was proven completely wrong by the very first line of TFA.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  43. I read GSM instead of GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect this would not change the outcome of the story at all, as many systems also depend on working GSM modems. IIRC there was a story about people stealing SIM cards from traffic lights not long ago.

  44. Re:Whut? by Sparrow1492 · · Score: 1

    Actually this one was pretty clear to me and actually seemed to at least be related to the article, which seems to be the hard part these days with the editors.

  45. On the bright side by nethenson · · Score: 1

    The GPS spoofer could also be used for lawful purposes, like providing GPS signal in tunnels and similar places.

    1. Re:On the bright side by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The term among lawful users is "GPS Simulator"; but yeah, those are over-the-counter RF test equipment. Not even close to being as cheap as the jammers; but very much out there.

  46. Real people use by zoomshorts · · Score: 1

    World Time clocks, usually provided by some standards institute. Duh!

  47. NOTE : by zoomshorts · · Score: 1

    GPS is NOT a clock. It MAY include one, but that is not the main function of GPS,
    it is an aside issue. "yeah, we include realtime data in our GPS system".

    1. Re:NOTE : by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      GPS is NOT a clock. It MAY include one, but that is not the main function of GPS,
      it is an aside issue. "yeah, we include realtime data in our GPS system".

      GPS is a set of clocks in orbit. That's how it works. No clocks, no GPS.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  48. Anti-Spoofing should be easy, anti-jamming hard by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Future versions of position-detection-systems can be cryptographically authenticated to prevent spoofing.

    I don't see any reasonable way to totally prevent jamming though. About the best you can do is use accelerometers and the like to guess where you are related to your last known position, and/or have the computer alert the user that it is no longer certain of its location.

    As far as ATM machines and the like go, if the ATM machine "phones home" with its authenticated location once a minute, and the phone-home stops, "home" can raise an alarm.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  49. Not an asshole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could want one to be a terrorist instead.
    That's several orders of magnitude worse, and a "whole 'nuther category", than just merely being an asshole.

  50. GPS is by zoomshorts · · Score: 1

    GPS is a Global POSITIONING SYSTEM. It may have a clock associated with it...but it is not a clock per se.

    1. Re:GPS is by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

      A highly accurate clock is at the very heart of GPS. Consequently, it's used quite extensively as a time-keeping system, frequently as a stratum-0 NTP device.

    2. Re:GPS is by plover · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no. GPS is a set of perfectly synchronized clocks attached to radio transmitters, and they are continually broadcasting their time and location - not yours. If you listen to one transmitter, it's telling you exactly what time it is. If you are smart enough to listen to four of them at once, and measure the time delay differences between their signals, then you get the added bonus of being able to figure out where your receiving antenna is.

      Sure, most people think the benefit is knowing where they are. But that doesn't invalidate their primary mode of operation, which is that of a very, very accurate clock.

      --
      John
  51. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  52. Wrong OSI layer by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    These jammers attack Layer 1 of the OSI. Encryption takes place at Layer 6.

    In other words, encrypting GPS would be a wasted effort against these jamming devices.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Wrong OSI layer by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Your point is absolutely correct, but I just wanted to nitpick: since GPS isn't a 2-way general-purpose communications network, it's not really described by the OSI system. Or if you insist, GPS doesn't really have layers 3 through 5, and layer 2 (physical addressing, aka satellite identity) is folded into the application datastream.

      Me, I just go for a simple analogy: you don't have to be able to read a book to be able to burn it.

  53. I have a Scientology Brain Implant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they jam that too plox

  54. Misleading heading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA talks about disruption caused by a US Navy communications jamming exercise. Naval electronic warfare devices can be hardly compared to "30$ chinese GPS jammer".

  55. Department of Redundancy Department by edraven · · Score: 1

    I for one find it impossible to believe that an ATM machine could fail with no redundancy!

    1. Re:Department of Redundancy Department by omnibit · · Score: 1

      Is parent the only other one here who recognises a tautology when it smacks them between the eyes?

      Clearly the editors don't.

      -Englishmonger

    2. Re:Department of Redundancy Department by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Well, so long as the automated ATM machines are OK...

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  56. Re:OUR wmd; gifts of the gods to defeat ALL enemie by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

    Not me, but, ohhh the possibilities. World domination... The humiliation of my enemies...

    Well, you've certainly given me a lot to think about!

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  57. Re:Whut? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    six? moran

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  58. There is no jam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People keep forgetting something very important in these articles. The interference occurs on the radio antenna NOT with the signal itself. Airborne (or spaceborn) radio frequency energy does NOT interact with other signals on the same frequency. Therefore it is possible to receive the original signal free of jamming. The problem is the induction reception method. The radio reads the induction from the antenna. A second signal causes a "false induction" at the antenna which effectively "jams" the receiver even though the original signal exists, unmolested. The solution is a non induction method of radio reception and a smart receiver that can distinguish the original signal from the other ones being broadcast.

    1. Re:There is no jam by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      You fail electromagnetics forever.

  59. Alex Summers??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're telling me that, for thirty dollars, I can own a device that will loose a mutant capable of controlling powerful plasma blasts???

    'Cause, see....HavoK is Cyclops' brother, as opposed to, y'know...havoC. Like general disarray.

  60. You see by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

    This is why we can't have nice things.

  61. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 2

    All that is "far easier" than spending $30?

  62. Terrestrial GPS, then? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Do these GPS transmitters be really up in space? Would it be possible to set up terrestrial transmitters, on mountain tops, tall buildings etc and increase the signal strength?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Terrestrial GPS, then? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes it could work. There are problems with it.
      1. You really want the signal to be line of sight. You need to know how far you are from the transmitter. With lower frequencies you have bounce so depending on the sun the signal travels different distances even if you are staying still.
      2. Cost. The clocks they use in the GPS system are not cheap.
      So you would need lots of high frequency transmitters which would cost a lot of money.

      If the cost of the clocks came down then yes. You could add a GPS like signal to every FM station, TV station, VOR, beacon, and every cell tower. This would work just fine for aircraft but not as well for small devices and cars. I am no expert but I am willing to bet that a lot of cell companies share towers. You might have 4 carriers in your area but they may all be one the same tower. You need more than one points to get your fix. Add in that FM, TV, and VOR all use a longer wave length than is really practical on a cell phone so it would be of very limited help to cell phone navigation.
      Now for aviation or a port it would be great. In flight things would probably be great. Odds are you will have no trouble seeing at least one VOR, one cell tower, and or one FM or TV station. When you are near the airport they could have multiple transmitters set up and spaced apart for landing. Same for Harbors,
      The only place that an aircraft would have issues would be over a wilderness area or the sea. Odds are you will not have amateurs playing with jammers there.
      But until the costs of the clocks comes down it will not happen. But to answer your question yes it can. And it can even be more accurite.

      Frankly I do wonder if not funding the ELoran system isn't being penny wise and pound foolish.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  63. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is basically an 'ooooh scary' bullshit article by a guy that doesn't really know anything. All systems that use GPS have some form of redundancy.

  64. Read The Fine Article by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

    How about reading the fine article instead of making a fool out of yourself?
    Oh wait, this is Slashdot, one can just throw crap out and expect other to explain. Open the text, search for the second time ATM pops up and you get an idea of what it used the GPS for.

  65. DGPS, it is then by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

    The system from which the idea came in order to make the GPS was terrestrial, but it has its own limitations.

    Nowadays there is something called Differential GPS which improves the error margin of GPS, but it's not an independent system on itself.

  66. Loran-C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should do some research on this low-tech navigational system. More and more stations with these senders are being shut down. How expensive could it be to have these senders broadcasting? Russia actually had to persuade Norway to leave this system operational.

  67. Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These jammers can be used to defeat vehicle tracking products — but end up causing a moving cloud of chaos

    Ah, unintended consequences. This is also why you don't want to just jam any technology that annoys you. Think about that the next time you're gritting your teeth over a ringing phone.

  68. A simple solution by sjames · · Score: 1

    A simple solution exists that would prevent these problems, but our government won't fund it (even at 1/24th the cost of GPS) because it's military uses are more limited. Again, billions for blowing up brown people and bailing out fat bankers, not a penny for the general welfare.

  69. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $30.00 jammer will do absolutely nothing unless you get past security with it and get near the tower or other aviation gear or in the plane. Spend $30.00 get device, tress pass and sneak it past security, contrary to your video game experience, it's a whole lot harder to do in real life.

    Or are you simply an idio,t and think it's a magical $30.00 device and all you have to do is switch it on?

    Yeah lumpy's outline is far easier as it can be done within a few miles of the airport at leisure.

  70. So what about a big solar flare, then? by Spudley · · Score: 1

    This article deals with what happens when GPS is disrupted due to a localised jammer. Sounds like some serious chaos.

    So... what happens when we have a major solar flare that disables a few GPS satellites entirely? Can we expect entire nations to suddenly lose their ATM networks, shipping navigation and air traffic control?

    Oh goody. I can't wait for the solar cycle to get going again. And there was me thinking the only thing we had to look forward to were better aurora. :-/

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
  71. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by K10W · · Score: 1

    the post isn't about how to best mess with ATC systems it is about how overreliance on GPS without paying attention to the fact it is failure prone in rl situations and pointing out drawbacks predicated to get worse since. It is feasable people could have jammers such as truckers but when it comes to chaff launchers, floating clusters of foil balloons around runways, explosives etc etc there isn't any reason significant number of Joe Public's are going to be packing them in their car for some other minor infringement such as avoiding tolls. Such things are not uncommon and are thought of as being as "heavy" as stealing cable TV in the minds of many people, the consequences people are oblivious to and completely ignorant of which is more the point of the article. I mean as far as major disruption to cost ratio goes you can shut down an entire airport for the price of a phone call and all you need is to speak a few magic words to get your ass deservedly I may add locked up hopefully in state prison.

  72. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

    My video game experience? Really? I have *actually* been in restricted areas of an international airport. I guarantee you I could have brought that device with me.

  73. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    they will taze you about 900 times on the way to the jail, then they will taze you just for fun, and the judge will taze you out of spite in the courtroom, your lawyer will also probably taze you as well, before you go to a big bad prison.

    Another bad day, eh, Lumpy?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  74. FCC action on these in the past few months by leighklotz · · Score: 1

    http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/143089-fcc-cracks-down-on-cell-phone-a-gps-jamming-devices

    and more here
    http://www.google.com/search?q=fcc+cell+phone+jammer+letter
    http://www.google.com/search?q=fcc+gps+phone+jammer+letter

    So if you're a theater owner or office manager and think one of these at $50 is a good bargain, think about $10,000 and two years in jail instead.

  75. Re:Vulnerable Signal source shield by Technician · · Score: 1

    Remember that GPS is high frequency and relatively easily shielded. An aircraft can easily be shielded from terrestrial signals and signals from the ground. Many sports bars in the heyday of C band satellite TV put the dishes on the roof, often exposing them to terrestrial microwave links. This is why it was common to see a chain link fence lined with screening on the roof of many downtown buildings.

    Normal windshield mount devices are a sitting duck for ground based transmitters. Some Onstar vehicles have upward facing antennas with reasonable side shielding.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  76. Gas taxes vs road-use taxes by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

    The problem with gas taxes is the differences in gas mileage. And if you have an electric car, you wouldn't be paying a gas tax.

    You could, however, avoid having to use GPS monitoring and simply report the total miles traveled based on odometer readings. I believe that there are laws in place that prohibit tinkering with odometer readings, especially if you are reselling a vehicle. And odds are that a road-use tax would have provisions to handle possible cheating, with penalties that make it unprofitable.

    There are other tax options available, but gas taxes and road-use taxes tend to be a bit more fair than most because they are based on usage and the actual wear and tear on the road, especially if the road-use taxes take into consideration the weight of the vehicle.

    1. Re:Gas taxes vs road-use taxes by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Easily solved by the odometer reading at your biannual inspection.

      The gas tax at 22 mpg works out to be $160 per 10,000 miles driven.

      A more rational tax would be based on vehicle weight and annual mileage.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    2. Re:Gas taxes vs road-use taxes by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Easily solved by the odometer reading at your biannual inspection.

      Bingo. Simple, Elegant and Obvious.

      The problem with that is it doesn't put any money into the pockets of political cronies that own companies which make GPS-based trackers.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Gas taxes vs road-use taxes by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Were I live it costs more to register a heavy vehicle than it does to register a car. Also all trailers need to be registered and they are done by class also. With a tax on fuel, the more you drive the more you pay. Seems like they have it well covered already.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    4. Re:Gas taxes vs road-use taxes by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

      If all vehicles had the same gas mileage per unit of weight, the tax on fuel is reasonably fair. But pure electric cars don't pay fuel taxes and hybrids don't pay as much.

      Right now the difference isn't much of a problem because there aren't that many pure electric cars or hybrids on the road, relatively speaking. In years to come that is likely to change.

    5. Re:Gas taxes vs road-use taxes by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

      Having a road use tax based on vehicle weight and annual mileage would be fair enough, though there might be some fudging when dealing with loads and high capacity vehicles. It could even be modified by taking into consideration the number of pounds per square inch a vehicle puts on the road, which can also affect wear and tear.

    6. Re:Gas taxes vs road-use taxes by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      However they will still have to pay to register the vehicle, and that will depend on the weight.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  77. URGENT! Important followup by Joe+U · · Score: 0

    but guns are not illegal

    It has been brought to my attention that guns are not illegal, therefore I need to issue an emergency update to my last message.

    So, for now, until proper studies are done l will change the statement:

    'Like drugs and guns, which we now have none of.'

    to

    Like unprescribed narcotics and types of guns that are not legal without a permit in some jurisdictions, of which there is a bustling underground criminal economy, which is why making devices like the above illegal may not have a remediable effect on the problem listed in the original story.

    I'll follow up with a list of sources later on, I do hope I get an A+ on this paper.

    PS: You are an idiot.

    PPS: Since I didn't actually sign the message, the PS above isn't really a PS and shouldn't be viewed as one for the purpose of proper letter writing standards. Your mental abilities, however may still lack, and my further suggestion of 'go play in traffic' should be viewed as a colorful metaphor and not as an actual request complete with directions to the nearest Interstate highway.

  78. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by werfele · · Score: 1

    Or are you simply an idio,t and think it's a magical $30.00 device and all you have to do is switch it on?

    OK, sure, it's not enough to switch it on. According to FA, you then have to drive past the airport on the New Jersey Turnpike.

  79. Re:Lousy engineering; no, penneywise politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until Feb 2010 we had a less accurate but still, for many purposes useful, backup system called LORAN C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN . In order to save the princely sum of 35 million a year, the system was turned off. Substantial effort was then made to render it impractical and expensive to bring the LORAN system back online (e.g. the destruction of transmit antennas). . To answer the parent question,: NO competent engineer (or navigator) would willingly design a or use known-unreliable system without for life- or mission- critical functions without backup. This decision was made politicians, not by engineers --- or navigators.
       

  80. Learn by doing by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

    Figure that the Navy exercise was one that uncovered some of the flaws in the overall GPS system. They just happened to be using a jammer that was more powerful than the Chinese made $30 jammers. They learned, the hard way, that jammers affect civilian life too, in ways that people don't understand unless they are intimately involved in the field.

    I suspect that all military forces are now aware of such things and are adapting their tactics to deal with it. The Navy just happened to be unlucky in the fact that they did the test in the harbor and not further out at sea. Similar testing done by the Army, Air Force or Marines would likely be done in a more isolated environment, where you can simulate battlefield conditions and not be right next door to a major metropolitan area.

  81. okokok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but where can I buy it??

  82. Don't laugh too loud by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

    When listening to half of a conversation, just remember not to laugh too loud when the person says something really stupid. They are likely to accuse you of eavesdropping on what they consider to be a private conversation, oblivious to the fact that half the world can hear them.

    If you want to protect yourself from said accusations, carry along a book of jokes or access a jokes website. That way, if they accuse you of invading their privacy in a public place, you can 'prove' that you were doing something else and accuse THEM of invading your privacy.

    Alas, there are undoubtedly people out there that are self centered enough to think they they have a right to privacy in a public place while you don't.

    1. Re:Don't laugh too loud by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      When listening to half of a conversation, just remember not to laugh too loud when the person says something really stupid. They are likely to accuse you of eavesdropping on what they consider to be a private conversation, oblivious to the fact that half the world can hear them.

      Screw that! If I'm trapped with some idiot that insists on making/receiving a call while riding public transportation, inflicting their one-sided conversation loudly upon everyone else, I'm hauling out a scratchpad and scribbling down notes while looking then straight in the eyes!

      If the police are called, I simply tell them I'm only following the DHS recommendations I saw in Walmart (if you see something, say something), since I didn't have any choice in whether I overheard the idiot with the phone or not.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Don't laugh too loud by secretcurse · · Score: 1

      Why would they call the cops? I doubt that "This guy is listening to a conversation I'm having in public!" would go over very well with a 911 dispatcher...

      --
      I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
    3. Re:Don't laugh too loud by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Might be better served to pick up your phone, pretend to be calling someone, then after a few quicky improvised sentences say, "but doc, are you sure it's contagious? I'm on a train with lots of people around me, can't you hear that ass talking so loud right next to me?" Am I going to die? Should I want them?

      I bet that not only does the loud talking guy get quiet, he won't bother doing anything about you calling him a loudmouth asshole either.

  83. Sounds familar ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Carver Media Group had a GPS spoofer and managed to steer a British warship into Chinese waters. James Bond already cleaned that mess up.

  84. Good!! by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1
    If the world is as dependant on GPS coverage as TFA would have us believe then we need more GPS jammers out there causing disruptions to force everyone to fix their bugs before there is an outage and shit really hits the fan.

    It is NOT acceptable for lack of GPS to cause havoc. Especially in San Diego of all places... Where Navy ships have a habbit of continuously emitting harmful interference.

  85. Scary by snookiex · · Score: 1

    Not for the jammer itself, but considering that a fair portion of the synchronization networks around the world depends on GPS this is kind of scary.

    --
    Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
  86. THANK YOU!!! by Joe+U · · Score: 0

    OMG THANK YOU!

    I'm so glad that some people pointed this out, I have directly addressed your concerns in an emergency update post above. Feel free to read it as if it was addressed directly to you.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2027768&cid=35421260

    In the future, I will strive to increase the technical accuracy of any one line quips. I promise I'll get to it, right after I rewind my DVD's before returning them to the video store.

    1. Re:THANK YOU!!! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im pretty certain that if you found a seller, and had a place to keep them, you could own an M1 Abrahms, a flamethrower, and an M16. You probably wouldnt want to take them off of your private property, and would likely be partially liable if someone stole your Abrahms and started wrecking downtown, but there are a lot of people who collect the types of guns that you seem to think are illegal.

      Regardless, the 2nd amendment doesnt guarentee that every type of gun must be available to you ANYWAYS. Guns as a category are NOT illegal as you stated.

    2. Re:THANK YOU!!! by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      Guns as a category are NOT illegal as you stated.

      A one line quip designed to make a point by using humor are not supposed to be dissected for 100% accuracy either. I'm going to assume, that unless you're a complete idiot, you knew what I meant in the first place.

      I'm sorry I didn't go into exact details on illegal gun use when trying to make a point that just because something is illegal doesn't mean people don't have and use them.

      Do you spend hours researching the lives of road crossing chickens in your spare time?

    3. Re:THANK YOU!!! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Guns can be used illegally just as speech can. That does not mean either the first or second amendments have been violated, nor that we live in a police state. My criticism is that your comment was misleading and innacurate, and not in some trivial way-- the Supreme Court just smacked down DCs attempt to restrict firearm ownership, which makes your statement all the more irritating.

  87. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    messing with air-traffic controllers can get you some hard time. I think it's federal pound you in the ass time.

    So your going to put the Sun in the federal pound. Sun spot max is going to be interesting

  88. It's worse than that, actually by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

    Thanks to cronyism at the FCC, we're about to start jamming GPS everywhere, on a perfectly legal basis.

    This is what happens when you hire politicians to do engineering work.

  89. Spelled HAVOC. by toby · · Score: 1

    Nothing a $30 dictionary couldn't have prevented.

    --
    you had me at #!
  90. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    State prisons are where all the murders, bank robbers, and rapists go. Federal Prisons have a larger percentage of White Collar Criminals, I think.

    I've always been annoyed by that mistake that Office Space only compounded.

  91. Re:messing with air-traffic controllers get some h by CompMD · · Score: 1

    Their radar isn't that sensitive. If you aren't running a transponder (which screams out "YO DAWG I'M N545CF HERE I AM!!!!" and "HEY HEY HEY HEY MR. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER LOOK AT MEEEEEE" when you ident) they can't see you. They can't see a King Air, they aren't going to see a few strips of aluminum foil.

  92. multi-path, multi-antenna. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    I though systems that can separate signals by direction were fairly standard engineering these days? And GPS is a weak signal at a frequency easily blocked in built up areas, so wouldn't multi-path ability help improve reception? I can understand why this would affect old systems, but why are modern GPS receivers so... primitive?

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  93. So FCC says to Part 15, but not for GPS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If GPS units are manufactured and designed to Part 15 of the FCC's regulatory code to accept all interference, then shouldn't the GPS just be relocated out of harm's way until it start's working again?

    There might be a nearby transmitting utility that simply was licensed by a competitor the FCC, and the FCC should consider that there are existing transmitters that have been using those frequencies longer before FCC ever arrived. I think FCC should relocate to Port-Parah-Salin, Alaska.

    Or send all GPS receivers there at-least. If you can't use a map, you got probrems. |-]

  94. Got it. by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    Ok, there's this chicken crossing a road, and without going into detail on avian thought, most people believe it wanted to get to the other side.

    In our upcoming 12 part series on road crossing chickens, we can delve into this in detail.

  95. Cell phone jammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These mobile jammers are so popular today!!! And it is so hard to choose one!

    James
    http://www.jammer-store.com/