
Driver caught using cell phone jamming device - WritelyDesigned
http://www.myfoxny.com/story/25392761/driver-caught-using-cell-phone-jamming-device
======
michh
My guess would be driving around with a relatively short-range jammer actually
increases the odds of being hit by a distracted driver. Rather than people
driving near you being distracted by conversations on their phones, they're
going to be even more distracted because their call just got dropped,
prompting them to look at the display waiting for the bars to come back so
they can re-dial.

~~~
harrystone
I agree. Most people aren't smart enough to put down their phone even to save
their own life. The guy has good intentions but some people just can't be
saved.

~~~
Fuxy
Not to mention it's plain stupid.

What if there's actually a legitimate need to use a cell phone like a big car
accident.

Or all the data connectivity some devices need for navigation.

If you want to jam signals jam it on your farm/house but keep it out of public
range.

------
alexkus
One of the last things I'd want is lots of drivers near me to be even more
distracted saying "Hello? Hello?" into their phone and repeatedly looking at
it to see if they're still connected or still have a signal.

Also, good luck if you're in an accident as no-one nearby can call the
emergency services.

~~~
mhurron
I would add someone going around blocking emergency radios to that last things
list.

[http://tbo.com/news/business/fcc-seffner-man-was-using-
cell-...](http://tbo.com/news/business/fcc-seffner-man-was-using-cell-phone-
jammer-20140429/)

"When Hillsborough County Sheriffs deputies stopped the SUV, their own two-way
radios were jammed."

~~~
mikestew
By default I assume law enforcement is exaggerating for effect, but lot of
emergency radios are on 800Mhz, AT&T (as one example) uses 850Mhz, so it
wouldn't be hard to imagine a radio transmitter that cuts a wide swath (e. g.,
jammer) and interferes with other radios.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Do you not understand how jammers work? They are not narrow-band devices.

~~~
rcxdude
This depends on the jammer. They range from jam-almost-everything, to jamming
only specific wavelengths (configurable or not), to jamming only specific
protocols (which is more technically a DOS attack, but still functions like
jamming).

Assuming the driver was using a wavebubble, it's likely that it would jam
police radios as well (depending on configuration).

------
incision
Certainly a terrible idea on every level, but I can't help but sympathize with
the intent.

Too much of the public simply aren't responsible about driving and there
doesn't seem to be any good way to identify and prevent or penalize them for
it.

~~~
Bluestrike2
I can't.

There are accidents where even seconds matter and the effects of the jamming
can mean the difference between life and death or even simply a shift in the a
victim's odds. Or consider emergency services whose radios were affected:
maybe paramedics were radioing in status updates to a hospital, or perhaps
police officers were in the middle of receiving an Amber alert. Or, imagine
that he's injured in an accident himself. He, and anyone else potentially
injured in such an accident, are potentially at risk because people can't
notify 911. If he's lucky, he's able to turn it off. If he's unlucky, and is
incapacitated or otherwise unable to turn it off, well, that's quite the
problem now, isn't it?

I hate dreaming up hypotheticals, but this story practically demands it. His
actions were no less selfish than someone else's texting while driving.

~~~
Jtsummers
A friend of mine used to rant about cellphones in theaters, and thought
theaters should install jammers (as in, he was actually surprised that none
had done this yet). The fact is, they're a primary communication device for
many people. Who knows when you might receive a call that you _have_ to take
(for certain jobs or with situations concerning family or friends), or when
you _need_ to make a phone call (see the Aurora shooting or the recent one in
FL for violent examples, but even a heart attack or some other medical
emergency). Jammers just aren't a good idea for 99.999% of the situations
people suggest using them.

~~~
ryandrake
Somehow, back before cell phones were invented, we all miraculously managed to
live our lives without having constant access to a telephone. If you needed to
call someone, you stepped away from whatever you were doing and called them.
If Aunt Mabel had a heart attack, you'd find out about it, just not 500ms
after it happened. If someone wasn't happy with how you filled out your TPS
report at work, you'd go into the office in the morning and fix it.

~~~
lotu
The problem is we are dismantling our land line network. So if you don't have
cell phone there might not by any phone in the building that works. Next what
about emergency workers? They need to be able to be contacted. Or what about
people on call for their jobs? All of these things could be blocked by jammers
and the idea that we survived once without it unconvincing we survived once
without vacancies and antibiotics too.

~~~
frandroid
Huh? Where are "we" dismantling our landline network?

~~~
superuser2
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Every payphone I've ever seen in my lifetime has been removed.

~~~
frandroid
Payphones are endpoints, the network is much more than that. Except for the
few examples listed in another answer, most of the infrastructure is still
intact, i.e. you can get a landline in your home if you want one.

------
jlgaddis
About 20 years ago, an electrical engineer friend of mine had built himself a
small (~10 GHz, IIRC?) transmitter about the size of a garage door opener. It
had a single red button on it that, when pressed, emitted a signal in one of
the frequency bands that radar detectors picked up.

As a teenager, it was amusing to watch another car go zipping past us on the
highway and then see their brake lights come on right after Nathan would hit
the button.

------
primitivesuave
My mom's SUV was totaled by a woman who was on her iPad while driving. I
really don't think we'll be fixing the idiots-on-the-road epidemic anytime
soon.

~~~
jablan
The solution is not only logical, but also an answer to lots of other
problems: ditch the car-centric culture and move these people out from their
cars to buses, trains, trams, bicycles and other forms of sustainable
transport. It's not that hard, takes some time getting used to, but will do
good to all of us.

~~~
zo1
Here's another non-obvious solution to the problem:

Start making sure that insurance companies have no payouts if the driver's
phone was on X amount of time before the accident. That way they pay for their
own damage, and the damage done to everyone around them. Regardless if they
were "at fault" using conventional reasoning.

How about another one: Require all vehicles to install cell phone tethers that
have the driver's registered sim card in it. Disable it during the drive.
Mandate it's installation, and penalize people that break it, even more so if
they were in an accident.

Almost ALL problems have a technical/legislative solution for them. The only
real problem is that no one has either the resolve, balls, lawyers, political
backing, or money to implement/require those technical/legislative solutions.
So all we get are half-asses solutions with selective (and sometimes biased)
enforcement by the police/courts.

~~~
georgemcbay
"Almost ALL problems have a technical/legislative solution for them"

Still waiting to hear practical solutions, because the ones you gave thus far
don't cut it in the real world, IMO.

I like using my phone (responsibly, in a dashboard mount) as a network-
connected mapping/GPS device. If I'm heading to an event with a guest and
running late, I like being able to ask a passenger to quickly use my phone to
call ahead and let them know, etc, etc.

I'm all for attempts to keep people off their phones while they are driving
(even when using a hands-free system, because there is quite a bit of evidence
that just removing the button-pushing part doesn't help), but there are a lot
of perfectly valid use cases that would be destroyed by either of your
solutions.

~~~
marcosdumay
> Still waiting to hear practical solutions, because the ones you gave thus
> far don't cut it in the real world, IMO.

That's because the real world is developing self driving cars, and they are
relatively boring: there is no revenge in that, and they won't save the world.

------
xacaxulu
I got to play with these in Afghanistan. They were installed in our SUVs but
they were so huge and unwieldy. I'd be interested in seeing what setup he had.
Unless the traffic was very dense and slow, I'd imagine him just forcing calls
to be dropped as he passed by which doesn't really seem helpful.
Restaurants/theaters/anywhere-there-be-tweens, yeah bring it on in those
locales!

~~~
toomuchtodo
They're (cellular frequency jammers) down to the size of a cigarette pack, and
can run off 12V aux power in your car. Range isn't terribly great (~100ft).

Examples:
[http://www.phonejammer.com/home.php?cat=249](http://www.phonejammer.com/home.php?cat=249)

Mods: I posted the link (which was the first google result for "cell phone
jammer") just to show what the size and cost was. If it needs to be removed,
please feel free to remove my comment in its entirety.

~~~
dublinben
A friend has one of these compact models from China, and it works just as
you'd expect. It will completely kill any and all cell phone connections (or
WiFi, or Bluetooth) within a large room. Apparently it can run for several
hours on battery, or the length of a long movie.

------
staunch
Any solution that tries to pry people from their amazing magic boxes is going
to fail. They're too damn good and only getting better. We just need self-
driving cars and VR(/AR).

~~~
fixermark
There's also a lot of room for improvement on the UI-side of things. Ideally,
drivers shouldn't need to touch their phones to access the data or service
they want; everything I want to do in the car ought to be voice-accessible.

------
cheeseprocedure
Does anyone here work for a wireless service provider? It would be interesting
to hear how major sources of interference are identified and dealt with.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Causing interference is generally covered by regulation, and the FCC enforces
it. See some examples for violation of amateur radio misuse:
[http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/Welcome.html](http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/Welcome.html)

edit: I don't work for a wireless service provider, but I'm into amateur
radio.

~~~
mikestew
And to follow up on what TallGuyShort says, they most likely triangulate just
as for amateur radio when looking for transmissions that violate regulations.

Or, come to think of it, if you know the transmitter goes down I-4 everyday,
just sit by the side of the road with a receiver and watch signal strength.
I-4 can be pretty crowded, but it shouldn't be hard to narrow it down as the
signal gets stronger then starts to tail off.

~~~
gkop
I learned from another HN comment that the correct word for this is
trilaterate, not triangulate.

~~~
TallGuyShort
No it isn't - in this case triangulation is the correct technique.
Trilateration is when you measure distances. For instance, locating the
epicenter of an earthquake is done by comparing the time at which various
waves arrive, and making calculations based on the known speeds of those
waves. Doing that with the speed of light at terrestrial distances is very
tough and will be prone to inaccuracies and large errors. Instead, you measure
the angles at which the signal is strongest, and that is triangulation.

------
nkozyra
I've dreamed of doing this for a decade, even found some sources in the U.K.
to purchase a few and looked up schematics for building wideband jammers.

Ultimately it was the very serious approach the FCC takes that stopped me from
really exploring it, even for fun. Everthing I'd read indicated that you'd be
caught and fast, so I'm sort of surprised it took two years, even if it was on
a highway.

But lord I still might push it whenever I'm at the grocery store and someone's
doing a remote, live shopping list with their wife down every aisle.

~~~
skygazer
Why is a husband and wife talking to each other in a grocery store so vexing?
Is it only if one is remote, or have you also looked into the ramifications of
muzzling fellow shoppers? Is it that you prefer to hear both sides of
stranger's conversations?

I ask in a flippant way, just to highlight the incongruence, but I'm sincerely
curious.

~~~
sukuriant
I think the image here in this person's mind is of someone bumbling around an
isle, not looking where they're going (2 people tend to look around more and
be more cogniscent of their environment, especially when the sounds they're
listening to are coming from the environment (human voice, 3 feet away) and
not a small box a few inches away)... and then occasionally yelling,
"WHAT?!!?" into the phone when they can't hear.

------
wsh
There are a few more details in the FCC's official “Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture,” which was released yesterday:

    
    
      On June 14, 2013, agents from the Tampa Office tested the seized cell phone
      jammer and confirmed that it was capable of jamming cellular and PCS
      communications in at least three frequency bands: 821-968 MHz, 1800-2006 MHz,
      and 2091-2180 MHz.
    

—
[http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0429/FCC-14-55A1.pdf)

------
monksy
The real surprise here is that MetroPCS noticed the lack of service.

As someone who has used Cricket [they bundle Sprint and MetroPCS together] ...
they couldn't care less about spotty reception within their given coverage
map.

------
pjc50
Note from Europe: fairly soon all cars will be _required_ to include a mobile
system with GPS that will automatically call the emergency services if the car
is involved in an accident. This system is called "eCall".

[http://www.heero-
pilot.eu/ressource/static/files/2013_12_09_...](http://www.heero-
pilot.eu/ressource/static/files/2013_12_09_ecall-implementation-for-psaps.pdf)

It's not just humans that need to make emergency phone calls without being
jammed.

------
TheCapn
"Agents from the FCC used direction finding techniques to find that strong
wideband emissions were coming out of a blue Toyota Highlander SUV driven by
Humphreys."

This I find interesting and am curious what devices they had to obtain in
order to accomplish this.

I used to work for a telco that, to this day, continues to have this very
issue with _someone_ in a remote rural location. By the time the NOC can
inform local law enforcement the jammer has left the area, seemingly
impossible to track.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Tracking radio signals with two spectrum analyzers, two Yagi type directional
antennas is pretty trivial. If you know the probable location set up two (or
more for a faster fix) people with gps units and their hand held antennas.
Tell them the frequency and they can read back their headings (you know their
position from GPS). After about 3 minutes of this you have the transmitter
location to a precision of less than 12" if it isn't moving.

------
evanb
Does anyone know if it is illegal for the military to operate these within the
United States? I'm not sure they're in use, but I did notice that an
unreasonably high percentage of my phone calls were (perhaps coincidentally)
dropped when I was on I-395 near the Pentagon.

------
grecy
Does anyone know if it would be legal to use something like this if it was
sufficiently clear with big signs?

I'm thinking movie theaters or coffee shops that have huge signs "Your cell
phone will not work in there. If you don't agree, don't come in", etc.

~~~
mikestew
Putting a sign up is not the equivalent to an FCC license. And if you're going
to transmit radio waves, you'll need an FCC license (yes, there are exceptions
and I'm vastly simplifying for this specific topic). Good luck with getting
the FCC to grant you that license.

That's not to say that a movie theater or coffee shop couldn't passively
attenuate cell phone signals with metallic paint or other equivalents to a
giant Faraday cage. But ensuring that you're not being an ass with your radio
transmissions is the FCC's specific task.

~~~
baddox
If you could ensure that the interference didn't extend pass your own
property, I don't think there should be a problem. That's probably not how the
FCC works though.

~~~
drewcrawford
This is like trying to exert control over the airspace (e.g. for airplanes) on
your property. It is completely unworkable.

~~~
baddox
I don't see why it's like that at all. Am I not allowed to create a small
faraday cage in my garage, and inside that test out a cell phone jamming
device? Why does it matter if there's literally no measurable effect on the
surrounding property?

~~~
drewcrawford
I'm not a lawyer but I do read FCC regs for fun...

A passive faraday cage on your own property that's not open to the public
probably isn't an issue. As far as size goes you would be subject to local
building codes of course.

Once you get into active jamming however that requires you to transmit and to
transmit you need a license from the FCC. The right to transmit anywhere in
the US is under the FCC's jurisdiction and doesn't have anything to do with
the landowner. It may seem strange to divorce airwave rights from property
rights but it's not that different from water rights or mineral rights or
airspace rights, which have a long legal history of being divorced from
landowner rights.

When you open your faraday cage to the public it gets a little tricky too,
because if a "licensee" has the legal right to be somewhere according to you
and the legal right to transmit or receive according to the FCC then you can't
really legally prevent them from doing both at the same time. This idea, which
is called the "OTARD rule" in some situations, is interpreted to force
landlords to allow tenants to install WiFi and satellite equipment on rented
property for example.

There probably is an FCC rule that would prevent stores or movie theaters or
similar public places from jamming via a Faraday cage, but since actively
jamming is cheaper I am not aware of any actual instances of this type. So in
that sense it's a test case, but I'm reasonably certain which way it would go.

~~~
baddox
> It may seem strange to divorce airwave rights from property rights but it's
> not that different from water rights or mineral rights or airspace rights

It seems very much different to me, because all of those things have very
obvious externalities for your neighbors. My example, where you build a
faraday cage and test a signal jammer inside that cage, has no externalities
(assuming a hypothetical perfect faraday cage). There would be no measurable
signal an inch outside the faraday cage, and certainly none at your neighbor's
property.

~~~
drewcrawford
Well like I said, I don't think anybody's coming after you for building a
faraday cage for yourself.

If you do it in a movie theater though, it presents a safety issue, and that's
a negative externality.

------
chrisBob
If you don't like people driving and talking on their cell phones while
driving near you then there is on easy solution. It is hard to find many good
tech jobs near the radio observatory though, so this option might not be good
for the HN crowd.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Qu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone)

------
maresca
My opinion is probably in the minority on this issue, but I think cell phones
should be disabled by default near vehicles(Except for emergency services). As
a stick-driver and motorcyclist, I see way too many distracted drivers. People
will miss lights, swerve, and worse because of their cell phones.

The one thing that will help reverse this trend will be self-driving cars.

~~~
hueving
This completely ignores everyone considerate enough to car pool. One of the
major advantages is being able to read emails, check news, etc. If you can't
do anything on your phone, it kind of wrecks one of the major perks.

~~~
maresca
A very valid point. I wonder what people did before all of these wonderful
gadgets. Enjoy the scenery?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Read books, papers, do some noting/writing work if the ride is smooth.

That's actually another good argument for self-driving cars. The used-to-be-
driver doesn't have to waste his/her time anymore during commute.

------
galuggus
I wonder if he was jamming or doing something else

There has recently been a crackdown in China on people driving around with a
device that can hack and spam cellphones.

I think the way it works is by spoofing a basestation.

It's range is short and it has to be kept on the move to avoid detection so
the scammers drive it around busy areas all day.

I'll try to find more info if anyone is interested.

------
zacinbusiness
I can understand the desire. But at the same time, I use Spotify while I'm
driving and it would be really annoying to me that a crazy spacebat with a
jammer blocked my tunes. But as is pointed out already, I feel certain this
would actually increase distracted driving.

------
neil_s
On a related note, anyone know why cinemas don't have some form of
shielding/Faraday caging to prevent people from making calls? You could shield
just the movie halls themselves, so people can still make emergency calls from
the lobbies.

~~~
elwell
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7676514](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7676514)

------
bdg
Great way to prevent people you drive around from calling 911...

------
bradchoate
"A Florida man..." \-- should be disclosed in the article title (kinda how the
link domain is shown).

------
TheRealWatson
If only the police was that determined to also find and punish the
irresponsible drivers.

------
harrystone
I appreciate this guy's intent but he doesn't need to do this. Texting while
driving is the leading cause of death for teens. The problem is fixing itself.

~~~
TeMPOraL
If only they killed/permanently injured _just themselves_ , not innocent
people...

------
leephillips
My impression that the biggest domestic market for these is hotel operators,
who secret them around the premises to force their customers to be gouged by
the hotel phone.

EDIT: reference:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/business/07jamming.html?_r...](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/business/07jamming.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all)

There is disagreement about whether this actually happens in the US; seems to
be more evidence for it in the UK.

~~~
lostlogin
I know of a dentist who has one to stop patients using their phones. As
someone who works in a hospital, I can see his point. People answer their
phones in the middle of procedures. Some even make calls during them.

~~~
massysett
Did he ever consider asking his patients to stop?

~~~
lostlogin
I don't know, but we have several signs and yet I have still needed to ask
patients to stop. It probably happens once or twice a month. Not quite as
frequent is those who try to video their procedure. While I get irritated, I'd
get more bothered by not being able to make or receive calls myself if a
jammer was installed. A good compromise is to have patients seated near an MRI
Faraday cage - it works just as well and doesn't break laws.

------
msoad
I don't know if you noticed this but in my area most of retail stores have
terrible cellphone reception. I'm assuming they put cell jammers in their
store too

~~~
mahart
There are building materials that naturally block/reflect/absorb mobile
frequencies which is perfectly legal.

That is different from transmitting a signal to jam which is highly illegal.

~~~
dingaling
One other trick is to advertise as a cell and accept connections, then just
black-hole them.

Full signal strength but no calls.

Edit: may be illegal in your jurisdiction if you require a license to transmit
on cell frequencies.

