Chinese Vendor Could Pay $34.9M FCC Fine In Signal-Jammer Sting

alphadogg writes A Chinese electronics vendor accused of selling signal jammers to U.S. consumers could end up leading the market in one dubious measure: the largest fine ever imposed by the Federal Communications Commission. The agency wants to fine CTS Technology $34,912,500 for allegedly marketing 285 models of jammers over more than two years. CTS boldly—and falsely—claimed that some of its jammers were approved by the FCC, according to the agency's enforcement action released Thursday. Conveniently, CTS' product detail pages also include a button to "report suspicious activity." The proposed fine, which would be bigger than any the FCC has levied for anti-competitive behavior, or a wardrobe malfunction, comes from adding up the maximum fines for each model of jammer the company allegedly sold in the U.S. The agency also ordered CTS, based in Shenzhen, China, to stop marketing illegal jammers to U.S. consumers and identify the buyer of each jammer it sold in the U.S.

Comments

So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC doesn't have jurisdiction in China. Unless the company has assets and/or a legal presence in America, they will laugh and give the FCC the middle finger.

Re:So how is that going to work

[nurb432]

As they should.

Besides that, if i want a jammer i should be able to get one.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but no you can't. Devices that transmit are regulated by the FCC. You don't have authorization to operate radio equipment in those bands, thus, no you should not be able to get one.

Re:So how is that going to work

[ADRA]

If I wanted to block all telephone signals, I should have the right to. If I block emergency radio signals, I should have the right to. If I block all wireless communication signals on the planet, I should have the right to. Wahh wahh wahh. Oh my god, do you troglodytes live in a fucking bubble or what.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Casper0082]

They might not have jurisdiction, but they can block the company from exporting their goods to the US until they pay the fine.

Re:So how is that going to work

[msauve]

"If i want a jammer i should be able to get one."

By the same logic that I should be able to come to your house with spotlights and a sound truck.

Re:So how is that going to work

[ShanghaiBill]

Unless the company has assets and/or a legal presence in America, they will laugh and give the FCC the middle finger.

In that case they will no longer be able to sell anything in America. The US can also prohibit any bank doing business in the USA from doing business with them. That means pretty much every multinational bank in the world, which will prevent CTS Technology from engaging in any business outside of China. I doubt if there is a big domestic Chinese market for jammers.

Re:So how is that going to work

[silas_moeckel]

Yea because customs is going to inspect every package coming in from china looking for these.

Re:So how is that going to work

[LocalH]

What law gives you the right to flood the EM spectrum with noise?

Re:So how is that going to work

[msauve]

I'll bet it simple and cheap to form a new company, though.

Re:So how is that going to work

[nurb432]

The same right that you have to spew nonsensical compressed waves into the air when you open your mouth and vibrate your vocal cords.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Difficult to enforce. Example: thousands of foreign Internet pharmacies sell prescriptions to Americans through the mail by credit card. This is blatantly illegal, yet it goes on unabated for 15+ years.

Re:So how is that going to work

[nurb432]

Did i say the entire planet? No.

Re:So how is that going to work

[neminem]

That is not the same logic at all. By his logic, you should be able to *purchase* spotlights and a sound truck, which yes, yes you should. There are a lot of objects that make little sense to regulate merely owning, but a great deal of sense to regulate the *use* of. I'd put spotlights and sound trucks clearly in that category.

Objects that make sense to regulate merely owning, are those whose legitimate uses are much rarer than their illegitimate, and those where by the time someone has gotten in trouble for using it, it's far too late to do the person for whom it's been used *on* any good. GPS jammers are sort of in a grey area on that one - they probably do belong on the "regulate owning" side, but you can argue either way.

Re:So how is that going to work

[amicusNYCL]

What size of an area should you have the right to block all signals? Why should you not have the right to block all signals in a larger area?

Re:So how is that going to work

[viperidaenz]

Go for it. Don't complain when you get fined by the FCC.

Re:So how is that going to work

[viperidaenz]

They have jurisdiction at the US border and can block all shipments from the company, regardless of the content until they pay their fine.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Go for it. Don't complain when you get fined by the FCC.

Or just outright arrested.

Re:So how is that going to work

[viperidaenz]

Until your mouth can spew out radio waves, freedom of speech doesn't cover the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
It also doesn't cover shouting so loud nobody around you can exercise their own right to free speech.

The RF spectrum is a finite resource, you're free to use specific public bands as long as you don't go over the power limits defined.

Just like you're not free to speak so loud nobody in your entire town can hear anything else.

Re:So how is that going to work

[jklovanc]

Like this guy

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Impressive point.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

They should be able to make jammers and I should be able to purchase and own jammers. It is only against the law to use it in certain ways and in certain places. This is international anyway. Maybe these devices are OK in other countries, just not in USA. They should not be able to fine this company or get the names of purchasers. They should only prosecute the act of jamming in a non approved manner. Just like laser pointers.

Re:So how is that going to work

[viperidaenz]

If there is $35M to collect, somebody is going to care about enforcing it.
CTS Technology might be upset if Paypay. ebay, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, AMEX, etc. can no longer work with them.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Mister Liberty]

Maybe Dealextreme http://www.dx.com?

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

By the same logic that I should be able to come to your house with spotlights and a sound truck.

You can do whatever you like.

But you may not like the consequences of your actions if you go to the wrong house.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Em Adespoton]

Oh my god, do you troglodytes live in a fucking bubble or what.

No, the troglodytes live in the basement. However, comparing the earth to a bubble is somewhat apt, based on how radio waves bounce off the atmosphere.

Both you and the "I should have the right to do this" crowd are missing a few details.

1) Everyone has the right to block radiation. They have the right to do so inside any space they control.
2) Jamming is not blocking. Blocking is sticking a cone of silence around someone (yourself or the emitter) to keep from hearing their senseless yammering. Jamming is shouting louder then they are and attempting to confuse them so they can't talk anymore (more like this SoundJammer.

So you're both right, and you're both oh so wrong.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Wycliffe]

What size of an area should you have the right to block all signals? Why should you not have the right to block all signals in a larger area?

One example:
A movie theatre or restaurant should have the right to block all cell phone signals on their premise with proper testing
to make sure it stays within it's property lines and with proper signs stating that they do so.
Currently this is illegal so they sometimes go out of their way to passively block it at a much greater expense or
in some cases even require you to "check" your phone.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to block cell phone signals inside my home?
What if I want to test my home security system that relies on cell towers?
I could think of plenty of other "fair use" reasons that buying and using a cell jammer should be legal.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't I be allowed to block cell phone signals inside my home?

Depends. Can you guarantee that the emissions are limited only to your home and will in no way inconvenience others around you?

What if I want to test my home security system that relies on cell towers?

Then test it. You already know it relies on cell towers.

Re:So how is that going to work

[nurb432]

My property. From corner to corner.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't I be allowed to block cell phone signals inside my home?

You are allowed to block signals inside your home... but not jam them.

Paint your house with rf blocking paint, wear anti-rf pants (yes they exist) and be sure to put your tinfoil hat back on!

Re:So how is that going to work

[nurb432]

You always run the risk of customs grabbing it. I wonder if anyone has been tracked down because a box came to the border with their name on it, with something that wasn't allowed here. You didn't take receipt of said illegal item.. no proof you even asked for it really.

Re:So how is that going to work

[LifesABeach]

Ok, I just bought a Signal Jammer and I have it in my trembling fingers. Um, what's the point of buying it? What if I need to make a phone call? What if a Tornado is approaching my trailer park? What if 60 Minutes is outside my fortified compound? Before I even turn it on, its not working! Maybe I can exchange it for some really good looking rolex watches?

Re:So how is that going to work

[macpacheco]

No you don't. The airwaves aren't yours just because you own some land.
L1 GPS spectrum is FCC licensed to the DOD.
Cell Phone microwave spectrum is FCC licensed (after paying billions in fees) to the respective cell phone operators, so no, you can't operate a cell phone jammer pretty much nowhere in the world.
You can only do that if you own an island somewhere in the world where you are you own country.
You're just another idiot that pretends the federal govt doesn't exist, go doing that until you get arrested and jailed for years for doing what you claim is your right.

Re:So how is that going to work

[LifesABeach]

I heard that a someone bought a signal jammer. I tried calling this guy at his Meth Factory, but I couldn't get through.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't pay rent to the Government? I'll bet you do--they're called property taxes. If you don't pay them, the Government won't let you "own" your property.
Welcome to the Matrix

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Wiki:

In trigonometry and geometry, triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by measuring angles to it from known points at either end of a fixed baseline, rather than measuring distances to the point directly (trilateration). The point can then be fixed as the third point of a triangle with one known side and two known angles.

It's not going to be hard for them to find you at all.

Re:So how is that going to work

[hey!]

One example:
A movie theatre or restaurant should have the right to block all cell phone signals on their premise

Or... they could politely ask anyone using a cell phone to leave, pointing to the signs they have prominently posted.

Sure, some patrons will be upset, but not as upset as the parent who misses a call from the baby sitter telling them to get to the hospital right away.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

"Depends. Can you guarantee that the emissions are limited only to your home and will in no way inconvenience others around you?"

Perhaps someone should have asked the broadcasters that question before allowing them to transmit through my person and property?

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is $35M to collect, somebody is going to care about enforcing it.
CTS Technology might be upset if Paypay. ebay, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, AMEX, etc. can no longer work with them.

A shell company in Delaware is pretty cheap, I imagine one in Shanghai is cheaper.
CTS2 Inc, a distribution company legally distinct from CTS will have no problems with Paypal etc. Well, no more than anyone else has with Paypalsucks.com

Re:So how is that going to work

[Bing Tsher E]

And the law should be used to enforce against people who operate a device. Not because the device exists.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Obfuscant]

A movie theatre or restaurant should have the right to block all cell phone signals on their premise with proper testing to make sure it stays within it's property lines and with proper signs stating that they do so.

Why? What makes you think that a free-for-all radio frequency spectrum is in anyone's best interest?

I'm guessing from your selfish attitude that you've never been an emergency services volunteer who donates a large amount of his free time to training how to save the lives of other people and might want to be able to go to a movie or a restaurant every so often and not be unable to get the notification that someone needs help. That's just one kind of person who needs to have cell service while in a movie theater or restaurant.

I could think of plenty of other "fair use" reasons that buying and using a cell jammer should be legal.

I doubt it. You can think of reasons why you think you are important enough that nobody should ever interfere with your personal pleasure, but that attitude ignores the fact that other people have the same rights. You cannot produce one argument that shows that my cell phone in my pocket at a restaurant interferes with you in any way, shape or form, yet you'd happily jam it so I can't get messages or calls just because you want to.

I think the best use of a jammer would have been to block the call to your Mom's ob/gyn when she went into a difficult labor with you. Why don't you go upstairs and ask her?

Re:So how is that going to work

[Bing Tsher E]

Correct. So the law enforcement should focus on people who use equipment in unapproved way. Not in prohibiting equipment in the first place. I own an RF sweep generator, and it would be trivial to attach it to an RF amplifier and antenna and wreck havoc on the airwaves. It would be my doing so that would be illegal, not the fact that I own the RF sweep generator and the necessary skills to amplify and radiate the signal.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Arker]

"What size of an area should you have the right to block all signals?"

I think it's a good question, and one where law has gone a bit off it's logical wheels for commercial consideration.

Have you ever thought about the fact that at any given moment most of us have radio signals from hundreds of different sources beaming through across our property and even through our body, without anyone ever having to ask permission?

Now to a degree that makes sense. The benefit of having radio bandwidth available and the quite low levels of risk involved (at least as best we know) from exposure make it seem quite petty to attempt to block them completely, all the time. But it always seemed to me that at the very least, if someone is beaming a signal through my property without my permission, surely I then have a right to at least take a look at the signal. I mean, if they want it to be private, and they are sending it across my property without permission, surely at the very least it's their responsibility to encrypt and not my fault if they fail at that. I really am not the 'pirate tv' type - those people like tv - but among the few occasions when I have enjoyed it was when I used to pick up raw feeds, particularly the parts that never made it onto the regular broadcasts. The conversations people had while waiting for the signal that they were going on-air. Obviously I wasnt *intended* to see that, but it was broadcast through me and my property without my permission in a form I could read, so just how do they generate not only a right to penetrate me with radio waves as will, but even a right to force me to (figuratively, at least) close my eyes and not peek while they do it?

IIRC there was an early precedent or two supporting that outlook, but then someone started making money selling satellite TV and saw a threat to their system and eventually got precedents to the contrary, so you have no recognized right to read their signal, even though it's being broadcast through your property against your will, and even if it's so poorly encypted as to be transparent, am I correct?

And now this subject comes up. I know the ban on jammers is not new, of course, but this discussion of it is. And I really dont see why anyone else should have a say if I want to temporarily jam one of these signals, on my own property, for any number of reasons; as long as my jammer does not disrupt usage for those who are not on my property, how can this possibly be anyone elses concern?

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

They did, they are called the FCC. God, some anon's are really stupid.

Re:So how is that going to work

[rubycodez]

think harder.

it MAY be easy for them to find the jammer. if the person who plants one has any brains, it will be hard to impossible to find who owns it.

with some truly creative use of coax and multiple antennae, it is also possible to make it impossible to even find the source of the signal with triangulation

Re:So how is that going to work

[Obfuscant]

And the law should be used to enforce against people who operate a device. Not because the device exists.

It is much more efficient to enforce laws against illegal devices on the limited number of manufacturers and not on the billions of potential users.

I.e., if a device cannot legally be used, then stop before it is sold when you can get thousands of them at one time, instead of doing it one by one after tracking down the users.

Suppose the manufacturer in this case was a Chinese company making a cheap radio that emitted signals that interfered with the radio stations you wanted to listen to? Would you rather the FCC stop the manufacturer from making and selling such a piece of interfering garbage, or would it be better for you to have to call the FCC to have someone come out to track down the source and deal with it then? And then you have to call them again in a week because another neighbor bought the same piece of crap radio. And then again a week later...

Yes, I think you're right. Let the market be flooded with crap that creates interference for you all day, every day, and you can deal with tracking it down one by one by one ...

Re:So how is that going to work

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If i want it, i will get it. Do you think i care about authorization?

You do realize that this...er...'argument' can also be used by nation states, with a few modest differences in how much force they can put to the task of getting it?

Re:So how is that going to work

[garyebickford]

Not really. Under Franklin Roosevelt, eminent domain was expanded to the point where you don't really own your land, you own a license to use it from the government, which can be revoked at any time.

Re:So how is that going to work

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Depends on how you paid for it. Any US financial institution, credit card issuer, paypal, or equivalent would roll over, wag their tail, and corroborate your order in short order. If it were unsolicited, or paid for by some suitably byzantine money trail, they might try to treat it as probable cause for some sort of further investigation, if the goods were sufficiently juicy. If not, it'd probably sit around waiting for you to pick it up, then eventually get shredded.

Re:So how is that going to work

[dreamchaser]

The FCC doesn't have jurisdiction in China. Unless the company has assets and/or a legal presence in America, they will laugh and give the FCC the middle finger.

The FCC can stop them from selling any products at all in the US in that case. The US is still the largest market for many, if not most, Chinese companies.

Re: So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be very difficult to find actually. They are about the size of a pack of cigarettes and have a maximum range of about 15 meters. ( personal units )

Unless you own a higher powered unit designed to take out cell sites or very large areas, it's unlikely they'll ever even notice it.

Besides, my understanding is the units simply mask some of the bits in the stream. You certainly don't need a high powered transmitter to accomplish this. Hell, if you have AT&T as your carrier, they damn near do it for you unless your're standing directly under a tower :)

Re: So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

" Can you guarantee that the emissions are limited only to your home and will in no way inconvenience others around you? "

And I'll make it a point to start worrying about inconveniencing others when they start doing the same for me. After all, if folks would actually think about everyone around them that they're pissing off when they fire up that phone in ( insert any number of inappropriate places here ) then the rest of us wouldn't NEED a jammer now would we ?

Since it's illegal to club them to death with their phone, we resort to more gentlemanly methods to modify their behavior.

If you have issues with this line of thinking, then YOU are likely the target audience for every " Don't text / talk and drive " PSA. YOU are why the movie theater has to play the " please turn off your phone " commercials before every show. YOU are the bane of every driver on the freeway who has ever got stuck behind your dumb ass while trying to text / talk at 70 mph and failing miserably.

You are why the FCC won't allow in flight cell phone use because the number of full blown riots in flight would go right off the fucking chart the first time we had to listen to your dumb ass non-stop for hours on end.

In short, learn to recognize when and where to STFU and cell jamming goes away on its own.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

The flip side of this is, you do not have the right to stay connected 24/7.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

One example:
A movie theatre or restaurant should have the right to block all cell phone signals on their premise

Or... they could politely ask anyone using a cell phone to leave, pointing to the signs they have prominently posted.

Sure, some patrons will be upset, but not as upset as the parent who misses a call from the baby sitter telling them to get to the hospital right away.

And not upset as the patrons that are maimed or killed because the police couldn't be told that a madman had started shooting people in the theater.

Re:So how is that going to work

[viperidaenz]

In a perfect world yes. but to make things easier to enforce, they've banned the sale and import of products that do not meet FCC regulations.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Very few things should be illegal merely to own. Explosives that are unstable, so much so that the possession of them endangers your neighbors, is one example. A box with electronic parts, by itself, does not represent a danger to others around you.

Re:So how is that going to work

[amxcoder]

Owning one should not be illegal. If the FCC wants to regulate usage, that's fine, unless you actually USE it, it's not transmitting anything, and thus shouldn't be banned.

The same principle goes for amateur Radio equipment (HAM). I own several handheld transceivers, capable of transmitting in VHF/UHF even though I don't have a my HAM license yet (plan on it here one day when I have some free time). The equipment is not illegal for me to purchase or own just because I don't have a valid license. Only transmitting becomes illegal without a license. For instance, I can fire up my VHF/UHF and tune in an receive signals and listen to other 'Elmers' rag-chew all day long without a license. It isn't until the moment I "Press that PTT button" and 'key up' that it becomes illegal without a license.

The FCC has powers to regulate EMF and radio transmissions and by extension, regulate people and electronics that ARE transmitting radio freqs...however, they don't have authority over the actual electronics (or people) that have not transmitted anything over radio freqs.

Re:So how is that going to work

[firex726]

Yea, this situation is what contributed to the end of pirate radio boats off the coast of Britain.

The boats would broadcast and interfere with the emergency signals from commercial boating traffic; so when an accident happened and people needed rescue, no one could hear them over the pirate radio broadcasts.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Bing Tsher E]

Any device can be 'legally used' in some fashion. It can be used as a decoration. The existence of a device does not imply it will be used to break the law.

It's called Prior Restraint, and it's a well established legal principle.

Law enforcement needs to focus on instances where a crime has occurred, not chasing after hypothetical cases.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Re:So how is that going to work

[macpacheco]

Except where there is the risk for loss of life associated with jammer equipment. An airplane could crash due to GPS jammers !
Sometimes government does overstep and creates unnecessary burden, but in this case the idea of preventing people from getting GPS jammers is a very proper and necessary step. Jammers / Spoofers should only be available for military usage, no exceptions.
You need to go out and study how much we depend all the time from the electromagnetic spectrum. Then come back and discuss wisely.
Not that I would expect a libertarian nut to show such wisdom. Your right is more important than mine after all in your silly little mind.

Re:So how is that going to work

[evilviper]

Why shouldn't I be allowed to block cell phone signals inside my home?

Let's ask the FCC!

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/j...

"Signal jammers do not respect property lines, and federal law provides no exception that allows for the private or commercial use of a jammer."

What if I want to test my home security system that relies on cell towers?

Maybe you could "passively block it", exactly as you said a few lines up.

How in the world do you know that nobody nearby is making an emergency call, when you want to test your home security system? You're opening a can of worms, for no actual benefit.

I could think of plenty of other "fair use" reasons that buying and using a cell jammer should be legal.

Again, from the FCC:

"Jammers are more than just a nuisance; they pose an unacceptable risk to public safety by potentially preventing the transmission of emergency communications. Cell phone jammers do not distinguish between social or other cell phone conversations and an emergency call to a family member or a 9-1-1 emergency responder. Similarly, GPS and Wi-Fi jammers maliciously disrupt both routine and critical communications services. Jammers could also block more than just cell phone calls; these devices could disrupt important communications services that operate on adjacent frequencies, or worse, they could disrupt all communications within a broad frequency range."

Re:So how is that going to work

[evilviper]

The equipment is not illegal for me to purchase or own just because I don't have a valid license. Only transmitting becomes illegal without a license.

Ham radio equipment has valid and legal uses. You can get a license for ham radio. You can't get a license for a jammer. There is no scenario in which it can be used, legally.

It makes no sense to claim companies should be able to market and sell a device, which has NO POSSIBLE legal use. If nothing else, devices that can emit RF have to be approved by the FCC before they can be sold, and there is their authority to ban jammers, just by another name.

Re:So how is that going to work

[crimson tsunami]

The FCC can stop them from selling any products at all in the US in that case.

Wow it's so simple.
Why didn't the FCC just stop them from selling the jammers in the first place then if it had that magical power???

Re:So how is that going to work

[Archfeld]

I throw people out of the theatre all day long for using their cell phones...
There are places it should be legal and my business or home is one of them.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Garble Snarky]

I saw the "they can find the jammer but not me" angle pretty easily, but not the next thing you said. Just curious, how might you make it truly impossible to find the source of the signal, with multiple antennae? Do you think it would still be impossible if the searchers considered the possibility of multiple antennae? If that's an impossible problem to solve, the reason isn't obvious to me, I wonder if you could explain why?

Re:So how is that going to work

[Garble Snarky]

I think he meant "ask that question and also verify that the answer is yes", but in the case of broadcasters, it's clearly no. I don't think any modern citizen has any say over what is transmitted through their property. Seems like probably a good thing to me, though...

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why shouldn't I be allowed to block cell phone signals inside my home?

You can, if you get approval for and thorough testing of your installation. Contact the FCC. They manage all usage of licensed spectrum. Don't expect the process to be easy or cheap.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, more likely, they won't, since the customer has all the leverage (they can make a scene which pisses off the other customers even more).

Jammers have a much higher probability of actually working.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Curious why you took the "Re" off of the reply. Is it because of beta or because you're special?

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be stupid, they were banned because they were infringing on media cartel profits.

Re:So how is that going to work

[evilviper]

I addressed these questions in another thread:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:So how is that going to work

[Sylak]

I'm sorry, you seem to be forgetting why the guy in Florida was fined. It wasn't solely the cell phone communications, it was more because he was jamming the 800MHz Public Safety band on either side of the 850MHz GSM allocations, because it's not really possible to make a "neat magical jammer" that only gets the cell bands. it's going to spill onto adjacent public safety and land mobile allocations.

Re:So how is that going to work

[GNious]

You don't have authorization to operate radio equipment in those bands, thus, no you should not be able to get one.

Technically, "operate" and "own" are two different concepts, no?

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

What you should have, is the right to do whatever you want, so long as it does not interfere with everyone else's right to do whatever they want.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Wycliffe]

If I ever bought a personal jammer I wouldn't leave it on. I would just press it when needed so that the
targetted call got dropped. 5 seconds should be plenty of time.
And an active jammer is actually safer than the passive jammers some theatres are putting in.
A passive jammer can't be turned on and off. It's permanently on so calling 911, etc.. is impossible.
Honestly, as a movie theatre I think the correct solution is to just install a small tower right on top
of your building (or a micro tower inside each theatre) then charge $5 per minute for all calls not to 911.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Phreakiture]

I agree with Garble Snarky. Further, if there is coax involved, finding one antenna will enable you to follow the cable back to the device.

In all seriousness, though, FCC fines or not, and regardless what you think of the FCC, don't fuck with this stuff. If you prevent an emergency call from going through, someone could die. Just don't mess with comms.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Wycliffe]

Why? What makes you think that a free-for-all radio frequency spectrum is in anyone's best interest?

I'm guessing from your selfish attitude that you've never been an emergency services volunteer who donates a large amount of his free time to training how to save the lives of other people and might want to be able to go to a movie or a restaurant every so often and not be unable to get the notification that someone needs help.

So you think passively blocking them like many theatres are doing now is better?
Passively blocking signals is worse as there is no ability to turn it off at all.

Re: So how is that going to work

[Phreakiture]

And I'll make it a point to start worrying about inconveniencing others when they start doing the same for me. After all, if folks would actually think about everyone around them that they're pissing off when they fire up that phone in ( insert any number of inappropriate places here ) then the rest of us wouldn't NEED a jammer now would we ?

I am sure that rationale will be a great consolation when one of your neighbours dies of a heart attack because his family couldn't call for an ambulance.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Rhipf]

I could be wrong but based on the summery it looks to me like one of the big problems with this device is that they said it had FCC approval when it didn't. It may have been fine for them to sell the jammer (i.e. the FCC wouldn't have gotten involved) if they hadn't labeled it as FCC approved.

Re: So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

My opinion is if they can broadcast without my permission, I can broadcast without theirs.

Re:So how is that going to work

[sageres]

What prevents Shenzhen Anonymous Corporation to change their name to something else like Shenzhen Nameless Corporation and go back to Alibaba and continue trading like nothing happened after FCC fine is imposed?

Re:So how is that going to work

[cdwiegand]

Yay! Hope you never invite a doctor over to your house. Or a policeman. They need to be available 24/7.

Re:So how is that going to work

[luis_a_espinal]

"Depends. Can you guarantee that the emissions are limited only to your home and will in no way inconvenience others around you?" Perhaps someone should have asked the broadcasters that question before allowing them to transmit through my person and property?

Common good right to broadcast >> faux right to insulate your organs from faux transgressions. Damn, I should have a right to block someone's anus before he/she releases a silent fart that might contaminate the atmosphere near my own personal space :/

Re:So how is that going to work

[cdwiegand]

You **can't** physically do this. RF doesn't magically just stop at a boundary. Even miles away there's still some signal, it's just in the noise.

You can block signals easily - just build a faraday cage (or elementary school - all of the ones around here seem to sap signal to the point that my battery lasts only an hour) into your building design for your [ house | business | theatre | whatever ]. That's passive, and completely legal (I'm not your lawyer, nor is this legal advise, it's purely my personal opinion). But transmitting, that's when it becomes the FCC's business because **airwaves are public - they don't stop at your front door, they continue for quite some distance, so they're all on public "property"**.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

A jammer does have a legal use. I can "use" one as a paperweight all day long and the FCC can go fuck themselves. Maybe I like paperweights that look like shoddy chinese electronic shit. Perfectly legal, in every way, just as long as I don't transmit without a license.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

If you stop and think about why..

1. A movie theater or restaurant? Anyone can dial 911 on a cell phone whether it has service or not by law. Blocking the signal means in an emergency someone has to find an employee, say dial 911, wait for the employee to get to a land-line and dial 911. Probably 90% of the people in the theater have a cell phone and could dial 911 in a fraction of the time.

2. Blocking Cell signals in your home? If you can legally buy a signal jammer then so can a home invader. For many people a cell phone is the only phone they have.

3. Security System relies on cell towers? Really? Your security system is useless if a burglar has a signal jammer now isn't it.

Signal Jammers are bit of a double edged sword. I would take the lesser of 2 evils and make it illegal for anyone to have one. In the wrong hands; "which in today's world is more than you would probably like to know about" they can be used to do all kinds of unspeakable acts against people by just removing their ability to call for help.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll just move shop, pick a new business name. Take Phishing sites for instance.. Once they are discovered they haul anchor and move to a new domain under a new name. Business is back up in a day.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Wycliffe]

The problem with this theory is that a signal jammer is trivial to make. I accidently built one when I was 12.
I put it in a small box with a button and thought it was a great parlor trick at the time. A simple google search
turns up dozens of links with instructions if someone is not smart enough to come up with one by themself.
Heck, even a microwave or tesla coil works pretty decent as a jammer.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Archfeld]

Individuals who are on call need to make sure they go places they are open to cell phones, much the same way they need to remain within a certain distance of their work. Why should the rest of the world suffer for these few special needs individuals ??
My house is an AT&T black-hole anyways. I had to switch carriers after many complaints because I couldn't receive call in the back of my house. Verizon has NO SUCH problem in this area apparently.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Signal Jammers in the wrong hands; "which in today's world is more than you would probably like to think or know about" can be responsible for all kinds of unspeakable acts being perpetrated against people by just either passively or intentionally removing their ability to call for help, and because of this; they're illegal. It's the until it happens to me mentality I see so often here. Example: Posting under a user name that is tracking everything you say on here and conveniently gives you MOD points as a reward for keeping all of your thoughts and opinions neatly organised for later review. I stay anonymous and will remain that way because I don't want my thoughts an opinions tracked/collected/reviewed by anyone, even Slashdot.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Obfuscant]

So you think passively blocking them like many theatres are doing now is better?

Do you see anyplace where I've said anything like that? You see a comment about people who volunteer their time still being allowed to have a night out while being on call and you think I would support any system that keeps them from being able to have one?

Passively blocking signals is worse as there is no ability to turn it off at all.

Yes, it is bad for that reason, a fact that is not in dispute. It is, however, LEGAL, despite being selfish and stupid, and and pandering to selfish, stupid people. I think it would be just as appropriate for the ob/gyn to be unreachable for the person who supports both active and passive disabling of communications systems other people, who are required for the good of the public, rely on.

And there is no intention for any active jammer to turn off his jammer because there is a doctor in the room who is about to receive an emergency phone call, so the difference you point out between active and passive is effectively moot. The only difference is legality.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the billions lost and spent from China's military hacking U.S government entities was money well spent. Right? They're still doing it, and responded with a threat of war if we tried to prosecute.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Obfuscant]

If I ever bought a personal jammer I wouldn't leave it on. I would just press it when needed

When do you ever really NEED to jam someone else's personal communications? Because you are selfish enough that you think your right to silence when you are out in public supersedes everyone else's right to be out in public and enjoy themselves, too?

Honestly, as a movie theatre I think the correct solution is to just install a small tower right on top of your building (or a micro tower inside each theatre) then charge $5 per minute for all calls not to 911.

So you truly do believe that the parents who are seeking a night out away from the kids so they can keep their relationship fresh and active, who need to be reachable by the baby sitter if there is an emergency, should just fuck off because they might inconvenience you for a few seconds? Because the phone in his pocket might vibrate from a text message that says "Billy broke his arm, meet us at the hospital" and that cannot be allowed to happen because it might detract from your pleasure?

Do you really not realize how selfish that is? Do you really not realize that that kind of obnoxiously selfish attitude on your part could be a reason that people who want YOU to fuck off might deliberately do things to annoy you? I don't even know who you are and you make me want to go to a movie right now and change ringtone settings so I can annoy all the people like you.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Lord Lemur]

Jammers / Spoofers should only be available for military usage, no exceptions.

Careful, any Libertarian nut worth his tin foil hat is now going to claim that ownership and operation should now be protected by the 2nd Amendment, so they can pretend that they have the ability to rise up in rebellion.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Obfuscant]

What if I want to test my home security system that relies on cell towers?

Maybe you could "passively block it", exactly as you said a few lines up.

I needed to test a 4G data device and change settings on it without it connecting to a 4G service and incurring data charges. I could have bought a jammer and broadcast an illegal signal, but it was much cheaper and easier to just put it in an anti-static bag (portable Faraday cage). That didn't interfere with anyone.

But then, I'm not selfish enough to think that my use of the spectrum shared by so many other people is paramount to theirs.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Lord Lemur]

But you see how you owning the indivdual parts that each have many legitimate uses is a seperate thing from owning a single use product that only has the ability to function in an illegal manner?

Re:So how is that going to work

[Lord Lemur]

One would imagine that drugs have a much higher margin then jammers. They certainly have a much more valuable market. The Juice is worth the Squeeze there. With Jammers, idk, but probably not so much.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Lord Lemur]

Due process?

Re:So how is that going to work

[Obfuscant]

Any device can be 'legally used' in some fashion. It can be used as a decoration.

What a ridiculous argument. A jammer is sold to be used for illegal purposes. There is no legal use of a jammer, because no serious argument tries to claim that "planting flowers in a jamming device" is actually using the jammer. The simple question to ask is, who would buy the device if it did not perform as a jammer? People buy antiques that are non-functional because they are antiques or look cool, but nobody buys a jammer that won't jam. It's called "suitability of purpose" or something like that in the implied warranty laws.

It's called Prior Restraint, and it's a well established legal principle.

Stopping a manufacturer from importing a device that cannot legally be imported into the US is not "prior restraint", it is enforcing the law.

Law enforcement needs to focus on instances where a crime has occurred,

They did, and they are. It is a crime to import and sell such devices, and that's what they enforced. As for "hypothetical cases", it is not a hypothesis that someone who buys a jamming device cannot legally use it, it is a fact.

Re:So how is that going to work

[knorthern knight]

> I throw people out of the theatre all day long for using
> their cell phones... There are places it should be legal
> and my business or home is one of them.

Try covering the walls of the theatre room with aluminum foil or tin foil. It's not exactly a new idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
> In 1836, Michael Faraday observed that the excess charge on a charged conductor
> resided only on its exterior and had no influence on anything enclosed within it.
> To demonstrate this fact, he built a room coated with metal foil and allowed
> high-voltage discharges from an electrostatic generator to strike the outside of
> the room. He used an electroscope to show that there was no electric charge
> present on the inside of the room's walls.

Re:So how is that going to work

[Wycliffe]

So you truly do believe that the parents who are seeking a night out away from the kids so they can keep their relationship fresh and active, who need to be reachable by the baby sitter if there is an emergency, should just fuck off because they might inconvenience you for a few seconds?

Too bad that's not what it usually is. I've been in a theatre where there were multiple people on their phones for the entire duration of the movie.
I truly believe that the movie theatre should immediately escort anyone talking on a phone out of the building if they aren't curtious enough to
leave on their own accord when they receive a phone call. I understand that someone might have an emergency but is your emergency important
enough to disturb the other 200 parents in the theatre that want a night away from the kids and paid to watch the movie?
How does the parent who wants a night away from the kids rights trump the other 200 patrons that might want the same thing?
And the real problem is that most if not all of the phone calls that happen in a theatre are NOT emergencies.
I think having an inside tower which intercepts calls and charges $5/minute would be a good solution that address both the emergency situations
and the "other 200 patrons" problem. If you can't pay $5 to answer your call it's not an emergency. Heck, the fee should probably be AT LEAST
as much as 2-3 tickets if not 50 tickets.

Re:So how is that going to work

[rubycodez]

not an impossible problem in the absolute sense, but impossible problem with the usual tools of directional antenna and filtered signal strength meter if lobes of far field patterns crafted by cunning E&M student

Re:So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you missed the sarcasm, or missed the fact the FCC isn't going to be able to open every piece of mail/package to every American just to check if it's got a jammer inside. Otherwise they would already be doing it, searching for all the other jammers ever made and sold.

Re:So how is that going to work

[ToddInSF]

There's no reason to be an asshole, he had at least one example where it's not infringing on anybody.

But that doesn't suit your agenda does it ?

Making owning something illegal based solely on your own fears about how it might be used, and on your own ignorance isn't something to be proud of.

Particularly in this case, where people who really want one will simply build one anyway. What you should be advocating for, but are not, because you're a totalitarian asshole, is proper regulation of the device, not making it outright illegal to even own.

People like you are why we don't have really cool chemistry sets anymore. I have to admit, I really hate people like you, you turn the world into shit.

Re:So how is that going to work

[ToddInSF]

If you were trying for sarcasm, big fail there.

If you were serious, you're an idiot.

In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news the US legal system finds it has no jurisdiction in China

FCC Violating Second Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Jammers are a weapon and US citizens have the right to bare arms.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[jklovanc]

I am not sure if you are joking but a doubt going sleeveless has anything to do with jammers. Also, jammers are not weapons as defined by law.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you have a bridge to jump off of?

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought I would shove a few people first.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Also, jammers are not weapons as defined by law.

It depends on where you jam them.

That company could have made a fortune selling Google Glass jammers. But methinks some other dubious company will step up to the plate . . . for a while, anyway, until the FCC catches them, as well.

It will be like the illegal drug market . . . as long as someone wants to buy one, someone will be selling them . . .

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[jklovanc]

It will be like the illegal drug market

The difference being that the drug market is very profitable. The jammer market? Not so much.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[viperidaenz]

A 'Google Glass' jammer?
You mean a cellphone jammer that can't discriminate between a Google Glass device and a phone trying to make an emergency call?

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want to destroy the Sun with my Higgs-Suppression Warhead, that's my 2nd Amendment right, libtard! Next thing you know, they'll want to take away our Vacuum-Metastability Tunnel-Inducer Arrays. I need that for hunting: to eliminate the concept of a duck from existence.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be like the illegal drug market

The difference being that the drug market is very profitable. The jammer market? Not so much.

And so amazingly trivial to find the jammer. Ham radio operators make a sport of direction finding. And in this case trivial to do. This would be the strongest signal in the area, on for long enough to disrupt phone service. Silently guiding law enforcement to your front door.

Really, when Internet guvmint hating tough guys bray about their right to own and use such things, and they "Don't care 'bout no regulations". This might be the dumbest thing to hang their hopes of stickin' it to the man on. Piss off all those regular citizens using their smartphones, maybe even blocking GPS signals. Yeah, that will bring people to your cause - probably with pitchforks. An unlawful activity that provides it's own "Here I Am!" finder service.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Jammers are a weapon and US citizens have the right to bare arms.

And once again, a comment rating proving that in Slashdot Newspeak, "Insightful" actually means "Idiotic."

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Jammers usually go for 'cheap and loud' because that's a lot easier than anything more sophisticated; but unless your glasshole has been doing some serious tinkering, the TAC portion of his IMEI (which goes out in the clear) should make him readily identifiable. At that point you could go loud and dumb; but on a narrowly directional antenna, or try a more sophisticated stingray-style tower impersonation.

I don't think that anybody actually bothers, since they usually just want to jam (except law enforcement customers, they apparently just can't get enough of stingrays); but identifying phones by model type is not the hard part.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[Jane Q. Public]

I am not sure if you are joking but a doubt going sleeveless has anything to do with jammers. Also, jammers are not weapons as defined by law.

To the best of my knowledge, they're not even illegal as defined by law. To possess, that is. It might be quite illegal to use them.

It's like the old cable TV descramblers. It was perfectly legal to build, sell, buy or own one. It was just illegal to use them to get free cable.

It's not the tool, it's the action. Just like how it's not illegal to own a gun. It's just (usually) illegal to shoot someone with it. Hell, it's illegal to kill someone with a garden rake, too.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[viperidaenz]

Still won't stop you being caught on their camera, which records to local storage, except now you've broken the law on camera.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[Bing Tsher E]

You want a powerful HERF blast, that fries the electronics in the Glass, not something that just interferes. Destroy the evidence.

But this is just conjecture.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[jklovanc]

To the best of my knowledge, they're not even illegal as defined by law

According to this "[f]ederal law prohibits the marketing, sale, or use of a transmitter (e.g., a jammer) designed to block, jam, or interfere with wireless communications". Section 203(b) prohibits making onefor use in the US too.

Section 302(b) of the Communications Act: “No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.”

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Oh, I don't disagree that it's a terrible idea (were I so motivated, I'd take advantage of the fact that cheap silicon sensors almost always have terrible IR filters and ample IR sensitivity, and there's absolutely nothing illegal about pretty much any IR level that doesn't cause permanent sensor damage or retinal harm), merely wished to point out that identifying cellular devices, down to a fairly precise level of detail(unlike, say, MACs which give the vendor and not much else barring specific knowledge of a given vendor's assignment practices) is not the hard part.

Basically any RF-based tampering is going to be illegal, and may be challenging depending on how elegant you want it to be.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[Jane Q. Public]

According to this "[f]ederal law prohibits the marketing, sale, or use of a transmitter (e.g., a jammer) designed to block, jam, or interfere with wireless communications". Section 203(b) prohibits making onefor use in the US too.

It's a completely toothless law.

See, the whole flaw in the law is that there is no practical way of outlawing test equipment. Test equipment, that is, that does exactly the same thing. It just isn't intended to jam or block wireless communications! It's intended to test your new phone models' susceptibility to interference, for example.

So I repeat: it isn't against the law to own the equipment. It's only illegal if it was built, bought or sold with intent to use it illegally.

They aren't busting people for selling illegal equipment. They're busting them for selling equipment that was intended to be used illegally. Again, same analogy: it's illegal to sell your gun to somebody if you know or have reason to believe they intend to go commit murder with it.

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[jklovanc]

It just isn't intended to jam or block wireless communications!

Do you see the word "intended" anywhere in the law? The law stated "designed" not "intended".

there is no practical way of outlawing test equipment.

There is a practical way and it is called licensing/certification. All RF transmitters must be certified to comply with FCC regulations. A jammer would not be certified if it put out enough noise to be effective as a jammer. So the FCC certifies the testing jammer and only allows sale to a person with a license to use that testing jammer.

Again, same analogy: it's illegal to sell your gun to somebody if you know or have reason to believe they intend to go commit murder with it.

The gun laws you are referring to pertain to the manufacture and sale by a private individual. Manufacture and sale by a company is very different. It is Federal law that requires a company that wants to manufacture and/or sell firearms to hold a Federal Firearms License. It is also illegal for private individuals to knowingly sell guns to certain categories or people (EG felons, mentally disable, etc).

Re:FCC Violating Second Amendment

[Jane Q. Public]

Do you see the word "intended" anywhere in the law? The law stated "designed" not "intended".

Do you have a logical cell or two in your brain? If it was designed and built to be test equipment, then it wasn't intended to be used "to jam communications". You are making a distinction with no real difference.

The gun laws you are referring to pertain to the manufacture and sale by a private individual. Manufacture and sale by a company is very different.

No, it isn't. It's just as illegal for a manufacturer to sell a gun to someone with the knowledge that they intend to use it for murder, as it is for anyone else. You need to take a law 101 course.

It is Federal law that requires a company that wants to manufacture and/or sell firearms to hold a Federal Firearms License.

So? That is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. Guess what? Makers of telecommunications equipment need to get licenses too.

It is also illegal for private individuals to knowingly sell guns to certain categories or people (EG felons, mentally disable, etc).

Those are State laws, not Federal, and they vary from State to State. For example: in some States, felons who have served their sentences can apply to get their firearms rights restored. In some States that is not allowed. Etc. Again, I suggest you look up some basic information on these things.

Banning Knowledge next?

[nurb432]

So will they also ban the knowledge of howto make your own? Call you a terrorist just for knowing how.. or telling others?

Aside from being braindead simple for an EE to do it in their sleep:

http://www.instructables.com/i...

Re:Banning Knowledge next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you can build a jammer, doesn't mean it's legal to operate one. It's certainly not legal to import them, that's for damn certain. http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-i...

Re:Banning Knowledge next?

[slimjim8094]

It's even easier than that - a spark gap radio transmitter will jam most things.

But you should expect to get your ass handed to you for using them regardless of how you got one. They're an unlicensed radio transmitter transmitting on licensed spectrum. If you piss off the FCC enough to come find you, they won't fuck around - I'd post a citation, but funnily enough there's one at the top of the article.

Re:Banning Knowledge next?

[Anonymous Coward]

So will they also ban the knowledge of howto make your own? Call you a terrorist just for knowing how.. or telling others?

The slippery slope authority called, they said that you've won the award this year.

Yes, it is a trivial matter. And yes, I could build one in a few minutes.

Also yeah, if cell phone service suddenly dropped out in my area, it would be really quick to find out it's coming from me, and my little single purpose device will go away as evidence at my trial.

Because there's no legitimate use for the jammers, either home-brew or bought. They have one purpose.

This is hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

China can do what they want. The US govt sold their soul to China a while ago. They hold the cards, and if we get bitchy, they quit holding the dollar. The US govt will give them what they want to keep doing whatever they want. And O-boy will back whatever the powers to be tell him to.

Re:This is hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking moron, just fyi...

Re:This is hilarious

[viperidaenz]

That's right, because CTS Technology is the Chinese Government and $35M is a significant amount of money to their $8T GDP

Good.

[msauve]

Now, go after all the police agencies using Stingray/Hailstorm/Triggerfish/Kingfish/etc. devices to listen to cell phone conversations without warrants. They do, of course, transmit on licensed frequencies, and the cops don't have a license. They also violate anti-cellular reception laws, and are themselves illegal according to the FCC:

The Communications Act also contains provisions that affect the manufacture of equipment used for listening to or receiving radio transmissions, such as "scanners." The FCC cannot authorize scanning equipment that:
can receive transmissions in the frequencies allocated to domestic cellular services; can readily be altered by the user to intercept cellular communications; or may be equipped with decoders that convert digital transmissions to analog voice audio. In addition, these receivers may not be manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States. FCC regulations also prohibit the sale or lease of scanning equipment that is not authorized by the FCC.

Re:Good.

[DaHat]

Have you forgotten all of the carve outs in various laws which make it legal for law enforcement to do/own things that your average civilian is prohibited from?

You and I can't legally run red lights or drive faster than the posted speed... but when a cop turns on his lights, they can.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your most likely incorrect assumptions are:

1) The FCC doesn't know of and condone usage of these devices.

2) You don't know that the police DON'T have a license. They very well could. It isn't like you can look up license status through Google.

3) You don't know that there isn't a legislative amendment, rider bill, loophole, or actual law that gives the cops a bypass of those other requirements.

Re:Good.

[msauve]

"It isn't like you can look up license status through Google"

First, cellular frequency bands have mostly been "sold" to carriers, who are the only ones authorized to use those frequencies.

Second, the FCC itself, although not Google, certainly does have a license search (go to advanced if you want to search by frequency).

(and WTF is a "legislative amendment?" Cite something, if you can, instead of arguing by asking someone to prove a negative)

Re:Good.

[viperidaenz]

What makes your think the police agencies are using radio receivers to listen to phone conversations?
Phones transmit with the least amount of power required to reach the cell tower. The cell tower uses directional antennas to transmit only in the required direction to get back to the cellphone.

You'd need to be very close to your subject to get anything.

Much easier to listen at the wire/fibre level. No FCC required there either.

Re:Good.

[Em Adespoton]

Hmm... what does it take to become official law enforcement? I don't mean joining some current force, but if I set up my own "Em's Policing" and hired myself ut to some farmer in Nebraska, would I then be "law enforcement" and thus allowed to do all these things?

I'm serious: it seem that in some areas, the barrier to entry for becoming and continuing to be law enforcement isn't all that high.

Since Law Enforcement doesn't need any official/legal paperwork to use these things, that means they can use them however they like, as long as the general public doesn't find out and get upset enough to do something.

Re:Good.

[clonehappy]

Ever heard of a Stingray? The police have been using them like hotcakes all over the country. The feds even went as far as to raid a police station who was going to release a FOIA request about their use. Long story short, they emulate a cell phone tower and trick the "target" handset into connecting to it. It's a hardware MITM over the cell network. Highly illegal, violates a number of laws and FCC regulations. Of course, those are perfectly fine since it's the power elite using them against YOU. You want a cell-phone free zone in your museum or church? PIRATERRORISM, of course.

Re:Good.

[viperidaenz]

It wouldn't be illegal as far as the FCC is concerned if they got the permission of the cell carrier.

Re:Good.

[DaHat]

It's a cartel... and you only get to join and enjoy the perks if they let you in.

Yes, you could go start "Em's Policing", but then the existing law enforcement folks might not take too kindly to the competition and charge you with imitating a police officer, as well as the other acts you committed while in their eyes, pretending.

It all goes back to the old line of "What is the difference between government and a band of highwaymen? Scale."

Re:Good.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Mere impersonation would definitely not go over well; but it wouldn't exactly surprise me if the (unpublished) going rate to become an authentic, official, deputyized-and-whatnot officer of the law in some shithole backwater town (that is, nevertheless, sufficiently established as an entity to have a police force, at least on paper) is pretty low.

Knowing how, and who, to inquire with would be a little tricky, as it is with all matters of corruption; but I doubt that a civic-minded benefactor to the community and donor to the correct worthy causes would be denied the chance to experience a little of the excitement of law enforcement for himself, especially so long as he didn't cause any stir while doing so...

Re:Good.

[SydShamino]

Loving County, Texas, has a population of 82 or so. Buy enough land and move 83* voters into that county, and you can be elected sheriff, and become official law enforcement.

Simple as that.**

* Probably some of the 82 are kids, so you probably need fewer than this.

** This was tried. It didn't work. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Re:Good.

[sir-gold]

The plan only failed because the guy never actually bought the land, and was only running a scam by claiming the land was his.
My guess is that his plan was to temporarily cripple local law enforcement and then sell off parts of "his" land before anyone figured out that it wasn't actually his. The whole libertarian-takeover thing was just a cover story for a real-estate scam.

If he had legitimately bought the land, things would have turned out much differently.

Re:Good.

[amxcoder]

Hmm... what does it take to become official law enforcement?

The primary requirement is the ability and will to expend physical force to make you cooperate. All policing and judicial systems and prison systems work on this simple premise... they at one point have been granted enough power to build up their ranks and arsenals and manpower, and now have the threat of more force than you do in order to make you comply with what ever laws they want to enforce.

This is the ONLY thing it takes to become law enforcement on your own. Once a group a people have enough of a force to equal a legitimate police force, they are then not under the authority of that legitimate police force anymore... For example the cartels in Mexico have built up enough people, money and weapons, and have exerted enough force of their own on the people and other police/military personel, that they are now they're own entity and don't answer to anyone but themselves. This is because the legitimate police forces do not have any more threat of force against them than the cartels do to the police.

to illustrate this principle, suppose a lone person meets a lone LEO and wishes to not comply with the LEO's demands. Since it's a 1-on-1 stalemate, the police officer will usually resort to a weapon of some kind. Now suppose the lone civilian also has a similar weapon and is as inclined to use it to get his way as the LEO is. The next step is build-up of manpower to overcome the civilian, the LEO calls for backup, so that his numbers out number the single person to force compliance. Suppose the civilian does the same, and calls in his armed buddy's to equally match the police backup. The police will just call in more people. It's a stalemate until one side builds up more people (ie force) than the other side, this is usually the LEO's as they have an entire police force to call upon and other agencies if needed as well. If a show of force by manpower cannot be made by the LEO's that's greater than the opposing side, then they usually call in other forms of force as required, such as "air superiority" (helicopters), and ground superiority (SWAT tanks/and armored vehicles, and snipers with vantage points). At some point, usually the LEO's will have enough show of force that they have the upper hand against an uncooperative person or group.

Some cases where LEO's had a hard time obtaining the upper hand are shown in recent history, such as Waco, TX stand-off, and more recently the Bundy Ranch, where enough armed people showed up in defense of the person that LEO retreated. This is because they either didn't have the man-power to show dominant force anymore, or they didn't have the will/desire to go "all out" in that show of force by having an all out gun-fight.

Re:Good.

[Lord Lemur]

Yeah, a Libertarian, not conforming with those pesky laws that society agreed upon. Who could have imagined that?

Re:Good.

[sir-gold]

I'm pretty sure even libertarianism doesn't allow you to lie about owning something that you don't actually own.

I get the feeling that a lot of libertarians aren't apposed to government because it's oppressive, they are opposed to it because it gets in the way of taking advantage of people. The Tea Party is a perfect example of this, wealthy people who are sick of the government getting in the way of even more wealth.

Re:Good.

[Em Adespoton]

Thanks, you half answered my question, but not quite in the way I think you meant to.

The answer lies in

It's a stalemate until one side builds up more people (ie force) than the other side, this is usually the LEO's as they have an entire police force to call upon and other agencies if needed as well. If a show of force by manpower cannot be made by the LEO's that's greater than the opposing side, then they usually call in other forms of force as required, such as "air superiority" (helicopters), and ground superiority (SWAT tanks/and armored vehicles, and snipers with vantage points).

This means that if I want to get into law enforcement, I have to negotiate some sort of a deal with the existing structure, or provide a superior force.

So the question remains: how difficult is it to negotiate the deal? Some have suggested that all it takes is buying some land and then buying the votes of the surrounding people to elect you sheriff (in some US states). I don't think you even have to be a US citizen in the US to become a Sheriff -- definitely not to become a deputy (who also gets to play with the toys).

So probably the easiest way to become an LEO is to find some small-town department and get the Sheriff to deputize you. Then convince the FBI to further deputize you by using classified equipment and get someone to pull a FOIA. Suddenly, you move from being a foreign national to being a deputized member of the FBI with their resources at your back.

Re:Good.

[SydShamino]

While there are some libertarians that support regulation of trade speech, many seem to prefer caveat emptor. Fraud, then, would be policed not through prevention but through litigation, or (for some libertarians) not at all, and instead be a life lesson.

What would that life lesson probably be? "This libertarian utopia sucks; I want regulation back." At least that's my guess.

Invade China ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So we are going to invade China then ? Thats the only way i can see us collecting a fine from a company based in Shenzen.

Re:Invade China ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or forbid them from ever selling a damn good in the US ever again...that might hurt just a wee bit.

Re:Invade China ?

[viperidaenz]

Or forbid any banks who do business in US to do business with them. Good bye credit card payments.

Re:Invade China ?

[Lord Lemur]

Or seize assets within reach of the Government.

FCC wants to preserve the monopoly

[Virtucon]

The Feds via the FCC don't want spectrum ;that they've sold to be jammed in any way. They'd rather have obtuse rules and regulations to protect the "public" airwaves. The way I see it, I should also have the right not to be killed by some idiot on the road who decides that his right to text supersedes the fact that he's supposed to operate his vehicle in a safe manner. Now if this company does give them a list of customers, the knock on your door will be coming with a nice hefty fine. All of course in the name of keeping the airwaves clutter free so Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint can basically charge you an arm and a leg for it.

Re:FCC wants to preserve the monopoly

[LocalH]

You seriously equate jammers with the "right not to be killed by some idiot on the road who decides that his right to text supersedes the fact that he's supposed to operate his vehicle in a safe manner"? What, are you jamming from your mobile vehicle? Great, so when you're passing a wreck, your jammer floods out the call they're currently making to 911, requiring a redial, costing precious seconds which could quite literally cost that person their life. All in your quest to stamp out texting and driving. News flash - all it takes is a single packet to make it through for a text to send.

Re:FCC wants to preserve the monopoly

[viperidaenz]

All it takes is a single jammed packet for the texter to look down at their phone again and re-send the message that failed to send.

They now took their eyes off the road a second time, because someone jammed their text message.

About Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Signal jammers are a serious problem and anyone operating one is looking at a whopper fine and/or jail time. If you like to be able to call 911 and have emergency services show up and do their job, if you like GPS/Cell phone/WiFi to work reliably, we can't have jammers being used by civilians. Period. That's why it's illegal in the US. Your rights end where mine begin, and use of the RF spectrum is a right that we all share together and abide by rules so all can benefit.

To the non-US citizen anti gun troll: In the US we own arms to protect our families from thugs, and to remind our government that they work for us, not the other way around. Fun fact: after Pearl Harbor, Japan chose not to invade the west coast of the US because they feared catastrophic losses from armed civilians, not the resistance of what was left of the US navy. Another tidbit: The most heavily armed areas actually have the lowest crime rates, while areas with the strictest gun laws are also the highest crime zones. It is a lot more dangerous to be a mugger or rapist when your target (or another citizen) might blow your head off.

Re:About Time

[m00sh]

To the non-US citizen anti gun troll: In the US we own arms to protect our families from thugs, and to remind our government that they work for us, not the other way around.

That will change with the use of drones by law enforcement thugs and homeland security and possibly the drug cartels. Too bad you won't have signal jammers to use against the drones.

Remote controlled threats are going to be huge in the next few years. You need signal jammers against those threats in your own home. Though I presume you'll say you will shoot the drones.

Re:About Time

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the US we own arms to protect our families from thugs, and to remind our government that they work for us, not the other way around. "

First, I thought the police and legal system protects you from thugs?

Next, not sure how even a match is with joe citizen and their gun vs a trained army with better body armor and equipment.
As for the "Thugs" they also have guns so it would be an even match. Factor in most of the time the "bad guy" shoots first, often against unarmed citizens and that argument doesn't hold up well either.

Please list some examples of armed citizens successfully foiling "thugs with guns".

"The most heavily armed areas actually have the lowest crime rates, while areas with the strictest gun laws are also the highest crime zones."
Citation as most stats don't prove this.

Lets look at Canada vs the US (they are neighbors but the population density is vastly different. Fortunately many of these stats are normalized).

US Murder rate 4.8 (per 100K)
Canada Murder rate 1.6 (per 100K)

Canada guns per 100 citizens - 30.8
US guns per 100 citizens - 97.0

Hmmm....

Re:About Time

[Anonymous Coward]

We certainly do kill alot of people here. Not sure why this is -1. /shrug

My aching back!

[synthesizerpatel]

This means I have to go back to carrying around a microwave oven and a car battery doesn't it?

There are legit uses

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a GSM jammer and a GPS jammer a few years ago to test the jamming detection capabilities of GPS trackers.

I have only used them a couple times in an area where there are no people at all for miles around.

At first, I tried them in a shielded quiet room but that was pretty much useless as the trackers needed to be live with an active SIM and GPS lock for the tests to mean anything.

So now I guess I can expect a knock on my door from a couple guys with no sense of humor that drive a nondescript sedan with black wall tires.

Joy

Re:There are legit uses

[viperidaenz]

Did you even attempt to apply for a license from the FCC?

Re:There are legit uses

[clonehappy]

So now I guess I can expect a knock on my door from a couple guys with no sense of humor that drive a nondescript sedan with black wall tires.

Nondescript sedan with blackwall tires? Weren't those the days...

Howabouts a no-knock raid on your next door neighbor's house (since the jackboots can't be assed to get the house number right in most cases) where they shoot his dog and break his grandma's nose with the butt of the rifle for telling them to fuck off?

Re:There are legit uses

[Anonymous Coward]

Needs more MRAP.

"Sting?"

[msobkow]

They were advertising and selling openly. I fail to see how any kind of "sting" operation was required to trick them into selling the illegal hardware, or to catch them doing it.

Re:"Sting?"

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds a lot better when they say we performed a sting operation, rather than we finally pulled our thumbs out of our arses and did something about the blatent shit that's been happening right under our noses for the over 2 years and everyone knew about but we were too stupid and lazy to notice.

Enforcement Bureau - 2013 Orders

[Xenolith0]

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/

To see others the FCC has gone after, check out their website. Some of them are really interest; such as:

$49K for this guy: http://www.fcc.gov/document/48k-penalty-proposed-against-individual-cell-jammer-investigation-0

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2014/FCC-14-26A1.html Thiscompany got dinged 29K for operating a cell phone jammer in their warehouse.

CTS is clueless...

[NoKaOi]

Any large company with knowledge of how to do business in America would have known to invest a little in lobbying and campaign contributions.

Re:CTS is clueless...

[ruir]

Best comment I have read on this thread! Pity I have already spent my mod points...

Just charge it against their US treasury bonds

[Anonymous Coward]

They already know we are going to default on them anyway.

Industrial strength US BS

[Anonymous Coward]

That firm will never pay a dime. They don't have to and will never be required to by the Chinese government. They will close shop and come back as another black market company. What an amazing load of Bovine Excrement.

Re:Industrial strength US BS

[Anonymous Coward]

That probably means the best possible thing to do was nothing?

Laws are not laws if they are not enforced.

The right to bare arms.

[westlake]

Someone has been out in the sun too long.

Illegal to own?

[marciot]

Why do they need the names of everyone who bought one of these? Is it illegal to own one? What if I bought one because it was just the right size and weight for a doorstop?

Re:Illegal to own?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is illegal to own one in the United States. They are legal in Europe and most of the world however. I almost bought one in Spain where they are available over the counter, and looked into the rules in the US and decided I did not want to take my chances having it confiscated by Customs even though Customs is notoriously poor about knowing electronics.

Recent case of a Florida resident being caught with one of these:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/a-florida-resident-drove-around-with-a-cellphone-jammer-84369099229.html
He was fined $48,000.

God bless the FCC...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and all of the other wonderful three-letter-acronym agencies with which our beneficent Washington overlords have enriched our lives.

So how is that going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

CTS does have a new york office

Are these even allowed in China?

[coffecup]

I would imagine the world's biggest Track'n'Trace regime outside the US would not want their citizens to have the ability to create a tracking fog.. well, I guess they could just switch off that damn thing. Their mobile, that is.

There are more countries next to USA and China

[dutchwhizzman]

It will be a minor annoyance for this company to not be able to directly deal with the USA, but there are plenty of companies, banks and countries outside of the USA that will be happy to provide a way around the FCC.

Price

[Dripdry]

I knew Sting concert tickets had gotten expensive, but this?

FCC doesn't know much about the Chinese, do they?

[Lead Butthead]

When sued -

0. stall plaintiff
1. transfer assets to a new shell company
2. closed down old shell company
3. rinse and repeat