FCC issues largest fine in history to company selling signal jammers - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 07:17:17 pm
content: http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/19/5824344/fcc-issues-signal-jammer-seller-largest-fine-ever-34-9-millionQuote from: .I find it amusing that the tone of the article is that the FCC's ruling is fait accompli and doesn't even note that there may be no legal impact of this ruling whatsoever on a Chinese company doing business in China. At most, I would think the FCC could ask customs control to keep a better lookout for these being imported. CTS might well be advised to change their name to FUFCC or something like that to avoid detection.Quote from: .This is what the dumb writer thinks. I think the downside is an unenforceable ruling and the upside is a lot of free advertisement. My judgment is CTS wins in the same way that Wicked Lasers did.What do you think?

author: DJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 07:29:47 pm
content: Wonder if they can fine certain outfits that use cell site spoofing...http://www.wired.com/2011/10/datong-surveillance/

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 07:47:19 pm
content: Quote from: DJ on June 19, 2014, 07:29:47 pmInteresting. Of course, proper end-to-end encryption like SSL will completely defeat this (at least capture of the message - capture of sender and receiver identity will succeed). I am not sure about strong encryption for calls or texts though, never researched it.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 07:53:59 pm
content: QuoteI agree. They have just better publicized that such devices exits, actually work, and to a larger population of people.Recall in Hollywood they coined the term "there is no such thing as bad publicity".

author: kolonelkadat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 09:36:42 pm
content: If the fcc wants to fine somebody so they can feel important, why not go after movie theaters? Every one ive been to in the last decade or thereabouts has had cellphone jammers so you cant call or even text during a movie.

author: Tinkerer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 10:33:00 pm
content: And we all know that the primary reason they are illegal isnt because of safety. Its because of government services that use radio, like the cops. I doubt jammers become illegal only after the prevalence of cell phones increased.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 10:42:27 pm
content: Quote from: kolonelkadat on June 19, 2014, 09:36:42 pmJammer, or RF blocking?Also, if I were an FCC enforcement guy, I think I would consider that a public service and look the other way.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 12:58:24 am
content: QuoteWhat's the point of doing that? Maybe they should go fine some X-ray emitting stars 5-galaxy away.A total waste of tax payer $$$.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 01:34:09 am
content: Quote from: JoeN on June 19, 2014, 07:47:19 pmAt least we thought...http://heartbleed.com/

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 01:47:15 am
content: Quote from: Stonent on June 20, 2014, 01:34:09 amHeartbleed is only one implementation of SSL. Just use 100% Microsoft software and you don't have to worry.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 01:55:21 am
content: Quote from: JoeN on June 20, 2014, 01:47:15 amYou never know where it may be, I was recently sent a vulnerability report at work because our corporate IT located a vulnerable system that was susceptible to heartbleed. It was on a vendor configured system that gathered data from a production line and hosted a report using Apache.Hell, nobody knew it was using OpenSSL or Apache, they just knew there was a link on the desktop of a few computers that displayed some data in a web browser.After we patched that computer we were requested to remove it because it was an unauthorized web service. Basically no rogue servers on the network, if you want the data, let it be hosted by IT.

author: liquibyte
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 02:23:42 am
content: Quote from: JoeN on June 20, 2014, 01:47:15 amDo you know what bootloader microsoft uses?

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 04:52:20 am
content: Quote from: Stonent on June 20, 2014, 01:55:21 amDoes your IT dept know pretty much every network printer has a web server on it?

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 06:20:43 am
content: Quote from: JoeN on June 19, 2014, 07:17:17 pmIt's "a shot across their bows" to let them know that the FCC is aware of their presence,which is about all theycando.Unfortunately,as with most countries,it is extremely difficult to stop these things entering,as a ban may be regarded as a "Non-Tariff barrier to trade",& be against various trade agreements signed by that country.Back in the day,Australia had strict regulatory provisions about such things as baby cots,Strollers,etc.These were all washed away in the name of "Free Trade",& are only now slowly & laboriously being reintroduced.

author: jlmoon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 02:24:12 pm
content: Quote from: DJ on June 19, 2014, 07:29:47 pmAnother one, wonder if they can fine the airline carriers for jamming cell phones while in flight? Yes, I know we're supposed to turn off all electronic devices while in flight (takeoff & landing), but you know there are so many that break the rules. They do enable their aircraft phone support system for our convenience

author: jlmoon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 02:36:08 pm
content: Oh the wonders of technology, reminds me of the 70's when radar jammers became popular and the law-enforcement agencies were having a fit. Then out came the Laser.

author: DJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 03:07:11 pm
content: Do we have a thread on laser radar? (Wavelength, pulse rate, etc?)Fair number of vids on general testing, countermeasures, etc...UK is quite upsethttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2627357/Driver-accused-having-laser-jammer-installed-Aston-Martin-help-dodge-police-speed-guns-stands-trial.htmlWonder if the jammer simply detects the ir laser, then turns on a (constant? Time delayed? Frequency altered?) source.

author: jlmoon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 03:18:48 pm
content: Quote from: DJ on June 20, 2014, 03:07:11 pmNot sure, but I know they are some very interesting physical devices....I would think the response time ie: speed of light - return path would be so fast 983, 571, 056 feet / second it would be pretty hard to capture, process and return a modified envelope before the officers dsp tagged you. Just think of the electronics pulse risetimes, filters and such that would be required to modify the originating pulse.The jammer technology might be a IR flooding situation too..like broadband lightnoise generator not sure.

author: DJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 04:25:55 pm
content: Is it (velocity derived from sequential) time of flight or frequency shift for laser radar? Am guessing the former, and if so, a one-way source could swamp a reflected signal as you suggest. That would also make jamming readily detectable. On the other hand, mimicking a return pulse with some noise injected might make the window of detection call it as an invalid signal. Not sure of just what might work best...ETA: maybe a generated return pulse could upset the laser radar receiver agc, and dithering the pulse delay would prevent a lock. Just WAGging it..

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 04:45:34 pm
content: He claimed ignorance of what it actually did and the jury&judge bought it BTW.

author: DJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 05:01:08 pm
content: LOL. Good!

author: FrankenPC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 05:12:58 pm
content: Quote from: jlmoon on June 20, 2014, 02:24:12 pmThat would be hilarious if that were true. The claim is that some cellphones can interfere with avionics. So, a jammer would have to operate in the very same frequency region that causes avionics problems

author: jlmoon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 05:15:59 pm
content: Quote from: FrankenPC on June 20, 2014, 05:12:58 pmyes, that would be true.. but then the masses are so confused!easy to pull the wool over the sheeples eyes.. --they say!

author: jlmoon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 05:23:40 pm
content: QuoteI just might have to get one of those devices and take a peek at the transmitted and reflected signatures just to see how it is done.regarding the jamming effect, I'm leaning towards the "flooding/agc"effect. I wonder if a new case for litigation regarding "excessive illumination emissions" will come up and a smart lawyer could bring before the jury.. the interesting questions.. such as . .does my defendant have to have a license to emit light?.. or could it be the prosecution might bring up the subject "interference of a appointed officers duty, or obstruction of justice".. such an interesting topic.. indeed!

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 05:26:42 pm
content: Quote from: jlmoon on June 20, 2014, 02:24:12 pmI don't believe airline carriers DO "jam" cell phones (or any other radio) in flight or at any other phase of travel. Do you have any evidence of this?Why bother to "jam" cell phones when by the time they reach altitude (10s of thousands of feet) you are way out of range of any cell coverage. And the antennas are not designed to cover high-angle reception, anyway. In-flight communication services (WiFi, etc.) are typically provisioned over satellite links, not with ground-station connections (for obvious reasons).

author: DJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 05:28:42 pm
content: Years ago (crap, I say that a lot) I requested a letter from some airlines stating my gps would not interfere with avionics. Got the letter and flight attendants still insisted I turn it off.Was handy to see if pilots were dogging it or in a hurry to get home. Best recorded was 597MPH (groundspeed, as per garmin gpsIII). Good tailwind I guess, plane nearly empty. Everyone got free champagne. Best flight ever. (circa 1993, or thereabouts)ETA. I thought the cell ban was from hitting too many towers?As for IR flooding, am curious about spectral emission of various lighting (sealed beam, xenon, hid, led etc) and if there is overlap into whatever wavelength laser radar uses.I really need to order one of those public lab spectrometershttp://publiclab.org/tools

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 05:36:57 pm
content: A lot of the jammers act to spoil the camera image, either by flooding the digital imager with IR light from a flash so that AGC will drop the image detail to a single bit level with a black image with a white centre, or for film cameras to fog the film totally with light, as the camera relies on the flash it fires providing the flash illumination to get a clear image, with a slow mechanical shutter to remove the ambient light. the shutter in any case is slower than the flood lighting so hopelessly overexposes the sense medium, either a CMOS or CDD sensor or film. Film is still used by older cameras, as it is cheaper for a small municipality to handle developing a few dozen rolls of film a month for speed camera use, using cheap cameras they bought from a large municipality that upgraded. After all if the cost of the film is $10 per photo, and you are charging $100 per pic, and the court is in the town to club the passing motorists, who will rather pay than spend a travel day and another day in court to get a reduction or dismissal. The $90 is profit, and the operator will set it up to get the greatest revenue, even if it means you set up a camera 20km outside town just on the boundary, and drop the speed limit from 120 to 60kph, then set up 300m inside the boundary where you are legal. Open road, a single sign and then the flash. I got to know those slow go places very well, for some reason.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 05:44:40 pm
content: Quote from: DJ on June 20, 2014, 05:28:42 pmIt probably is for general aviation (small, private planes that have much bigger windows and much lower altitudes).But I can't imagine that sitting inside a flying Faraday Cage with tiny windows at 35,000 ft with your flea-power cell phone will hit many (any?) cell sites.And when you are in a metro area with lots of cells, you typically hit several anyway, but the system sorts it out based on signal strength (=proximity).

author: DJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 05:56:10 pm
content: Makes sense. I guess cell tower antennas would be optimized for horizontal coverage.Planes I would think are not terribly effective cages @cell frequencies, as people yack quite a bit before takeoff. They do pretty well with lightning, as I once found out whilst flying out of Philadelphia

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 06:13:23 pm
content: Quote from: DJ on June 20, 2014, 05:56:10 pmThat is why they are deployed in a vertical plane. Like "column speakers", they have broad horizontal coverage but control vertical angle coverage to not waste power where it isn't needed.QuoteBut down on the ground is a very different matter. And typically airports have excellent cell coverage with multiple cell sites on-property.

author: jlmoon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 06:28:24 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on June 20, 2014, 05:26:42 pmgreat points Richard. Come to think of it I have never given it much thought. I can wait until I'm in private to use my cell phone, never was too keen on the idea of sitting next to someone who decided to talk to their long lost friend, lover.. or Grandma.. or whoever.. I think that can wait..

author: jlmoon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 06:39:55 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on June 20, 2014, 06:13:23 pmAs we progress with increasing amounts of cell system density and users.. the wireless carriers are continuously increasing the cell site antennas down-tilt patterns to reduce the overlapping locate receivers and setup channels. So the chance of setting up on a cell clear across town while flying in low altitude are much less than they used to be. The rural (RSA sites) at times still employ omni styled antennas for both the data and localize/setups.This discussion has flown way off the thread topic, sorry!

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2014, 09:39:03 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on June 20, 2014, 04:45:34 pmI tell you, a good 80% of the people out there who are found guilty at trial are found guilty because of incriminating statements that they made themselves. Be Sgt. Schultz - I see nothing. I know nothing. I hear nothing.