Signal Jammer Tech

Let's give credit to the teacher who destroyed the phone signal in the classroom. This is just a place that needs them.

The news that Fivay High School teacher (and former professional wrestler!) Dean Liptak is in trouble for blocking cell phone signals in his classroom is completely the wrong reaction from the school administration (and let’s be honest, the government).

Of course, what he was doing was technically illegal. The FCC says: "The use of 'cell phone jammers' or similar devices (signal blockers, GPS jammers or text message blockers, etc.) designed to intentionally block, interfere with, or disrupt authorized radio communications is a violation of federal law." Oops, It's not even illegal to sell jammers in the United States, but they're easy to buy overseas (as long as the retailer doesn't get caught). The only legal purchasers of such equipment are government employees.

Liptak is getting off light (five-day suspension without pay); a Florida man with a jammer in his car for months got fined $48,000. At least one priest has used a jammer after calls happened during sermons and even a funeral—and he supposedly got the go-ahead from the police.

Sure, the driver, and the priest, and the teacher may have used some questionable judgment since the signal blocker blocked more than just their limited locations. But they all jammed with the best of intentions, and perhaps Liptak had the best reason of all: to get the little brats we call our future to pay attention for once.

Back in the days of yore, in-class distractions were limited to things like seeing something out the window (SQUIRREL!), passing folded notes, or maybe sneaking in a comic book. Now, a student can do all that and a 1,000 other things on one screen. How does a teacher of any quality compete with YouTube, Snapchat, Trivia Crack, or even PornHub? Putting a filter on the local school Wi-Fi network doesn't mean squat to a kid with unlimited data from mommy and daddy's family plan.

Rather than condemn Liptak, society should look into ways to empower teachers who need this assist. The FCC and Congress should be creating exceptions to the Communications Act of 1934 upon which many of the cellphone jammers limitations are based. Businesses should be allowed to find new ways to make easily controlled jamming devices.

Because, let's face it, there are multiple places where it would be an excellent idea for jammers with limited, fine-tuned range, to be used judiciously:

At Home

Parents can try parental control and monitoring software all they like, but once a kid (or even the spouse or grandparents) gets the freedom of the smartphone with data plan, good luck trying to get them to talk during family dinner.

Just as a parent has the ability and right to cut off the Wi-Fi at home, they should have the option to cut the cellular signal if desired. Grabbing phones from hands to put them in airplane mode probably won't work, and making the house into a Faraday cage is an extreme only the tin-foil hat crowd should try. But an in-home cell jammer should be an option whenever desired or necessary. (Just keep that landline, folks.)

All of these examples are predicated on other lines being available for emergencies, or at the least someone having the expectation of mobility enough to get outside the jammer's range. For now, there's no way that even those with the best intentions could utilize the limited tech available in a way that wouldn't disrupt services well beyond the scope of their classroom, theater, office, or home, unfortunately. If you think there's an illegal jammer in use around you, visit the FCC online complaint portal or call 1-888-CALL-FCC (or 1-888-225-5322).

But before you do, consider if you really were harmed, or if maybe, just maybe, that hour without the cell signal was the best hour of your day. Besides, if your signal is jammed, you probably can't make the call anyway.

The Workplace

There's no question that in most offices, email and the Internet are absolute necessities. But are cell phones? In a survey by Pew Research, only 24 percent of adults with full- or part-time jobs listed a cell or smartphone as "very important" to getting their work done. In other research, 50 percent of bosses think a cell phone is a negative to workplace productivity.

There are plenty of places where it's actively dangerous to be using a cell phone—but the devices are probably snuck on to warehouse or assembly line floors all the time. If employers could jam signals but allow for emergency calls, no harm, no foul.

Restaurants

The sign should read: No short, No shoes, Using Phone, NO Service. Customers who can't bother to place an order with a server because they're in the middle of a call should get a 35 percent tip forced on their bill. Better yet, the bistro's jammer should cut this so-called customer off—if the call is so damn important, they can go outside.

Theaters

I've been on the wrong end of a couple of cell phone calls at movie theaters in the last few years. Namely, in the middle of a movie, people's phones not only went off, but the idiot in question answered, then proceeded to have a conversation, at normal volume, as if that's perfectly okay, and not grounds for justifiable homicide. (At one of those films—the execrable Land of the Lost, so perhaps I should have been grateful for the distraction—I actually stood up and said to the offender, "Are you kidding me?" I like to think the rest of the audience applauded, but I couldn't hear anything over the hate-blood pounding in my ears.)

Concert goers, Broadway aficionados, film buffs, and many more would not need to worry about such rudeness if theaters utilized jammers that kicked in the second the lights dim. Sure, there's always emergencies, or doctors on call, or parents who must be sure the baby-sitter can reach them, etc. But those people should find a different way to spend their night out.

Any car equipped with electronic locks is at risk from signal jammers.

There has been an appeal for South Africans to help identify the person seen in the video about the signal jammer and how it works.

The video was shared widely on social media and quickly went viral.

It is unclear who this person is, but Crime in SA on Twitter plagiarized a post from the South African Police Service (SAPS) and appealed to South Africans to come forward with information about the person.

"Unidentified individuals are showing off signal jammers on social media. These devices are used by criminals to block tracking devices and cell phone signals. Let's help police identify this person of interest."

While some comments on the post claim possessing the device is not a crime, crimes in South Australia suggest otherwise.

“Some people are saying that this man cannot be arrested because he has such a device, let us put their doubts to rest. Failure to provide satisfactory service under section 82 of Act 129 of the Third Amendment Act 1993 reports of possession of equipment or items.

"Any person who is in possession of a device or article which is reasonably suspected to have been used or intended to be used to break into or unlawfully enter a motor vehicle, but who is unable to do so; any person who can satisfactorily prove that possession of such device or article , that is, committing a criminal offence," he tweeted.

How signal jammers work

Any vehicle with electronic locks carries the risk of signal interference.

Since signal cell phone blocker are widely available on the Internet, this gadget prevents telematics devices from transmitting their location to vehicle tracking service providers.

Criminals buy illegal GSM and gps jamming devices on the black market and then use them to hijack vehicles and trucks.

These devices can be small handheld devices or large industrial jamming devices the size of a briefcase.

Most jamming devices simply plug into a vehicle's cigarette lighter to block all tracking signals.

"This results in the control center losing contact with the vehicle. The vehicle tracking system only shows the vehicle's last position before the signal was lost.

“Many different types of devices are susceptible to signal interference, including smartphones, remote controls and tracking devices.

“The signals these jamming devices emit on the GSM or GPS frequencies prevent tracking devices in the vehicle from receiving and transmitting messages, thereby blocking the positioning signal.

“The tracking device may be disabled without the driver even being aware”.

Four Ways to Prevent Long Range or Signal Interference

1. Physically check that your vehicle is locked, even if you locked it with the remote control.


2. Keep valuables out of sight and, if possible, in the trunk of your vehicle.


3. Please put away your valuables before parking. Put them in the trunk before you start your journey rather than putting them in the suitcase when you arrive at your destination where someone may be watching.


4. If you are unable to lock your vehicle for any reason, move to another location.

A signal jammer is a device that suppresses, interferes with or blocks radio frequencies, the use of which is generally illegal under the Communications Act 1934. This is primarily due to their ability to interfere with critical communications such as emergency communications, disrupt first responder communications, or interfere with maritime or aviation communications.

Under the law, it is unlawful for any person to "willfully or maliciously interfere with or disrupt the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under this chapter or operated by the United States Government." Additionally, the bill prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, transportation, or use of equipment that does not comply with the provisions of the bill.

Therefore, it is often impossible to authenticate or use jamming device because their real purpose is to disrupt the communications of authorized devices. Therefore, these devices do not comply with FCC standards and are illegal for use in the United States with few exceptions.

In this case, the FFC received an outage complaint from a telecommunications provider. In response, the agency's law enforcement division launched an investigation into the possible use of wifi signal jammer at a warehouse in Texas. The business owner admitted using such devices to prevent employees from using mobile phones in the workplace.

The company's owners said a telecommunications provider had previously warned their son that such devices were illegal, the FCC reported. Additionally, the owner of the device claimed that he had disposed of the device and would not retrieve it for agents or determine where it went. However, the owner reportedly offered to sell the unit to a broker, who rejected the offer.

The FCC Bureau of Enforcement has since issued $22,000 in fines, including $10,000 for operating an unauthorized device, $7,000 for interfering with authorized communications, and $5,000 for misconduct. The storage company appealed the decision, and in response, the FCC has now upheld the fine.

A Seffner man fined $48,000 by FCC for using cell phone jammer during daily commute

A Seffner man faced a $48,000 fine from the Federal Communications Commission Wednesday for using a cell phone jamming device during his daily commute to and from Tampa.

The FCC alleges that Jason R. Humphreys unlawfully interfered with cellphone service and police communications along Interstate 4 for two years.

"This case highlights the threat to public safety posed by the use of a single signal jamming device that could disrupt all wireless and public communications in the area," FCC Enforcement Bureau Director Travis LeBlanc said in a statement. Communications.” Secure Communications. "

In 2013, MetroPCS contacted the FCC saying its cell towers were experiencing interference between Seffna and Tampa in the morning and evening. Police monitored the route and determined Humphrey's sport utility vehicle was the source.

Hillsborough County Sheriff's deputies stopped Humphries and discovered that as they approached Humphries' car, their communications with the police dispatch center were lost. They found a cell phone jammer behind his passenger seat cover.

Hillsborough County employee Humphreys told authorities he has been using it for nearly two years to stop people from talking on the phone while driving.

The FCC proposed a $48,000 fine and gave Humphreys 30 days to respond, including paying in full, requesting payment in installments, or requesting a reduction or cancellation. The FCC said on Monday it had not yet responded and would now "identify and implement" the penalties.

The use or sale of mini gps jammer is against federal law. Jammers block radio communications by preventing devices such as cell phones from establishing and maintaining connections. They can also impact communications for first responders, police and other law enforcement agencies, as well as Wi-Fi and GPS devices, according to the FCC.

As drones rise, so does counter-drone technology. While a variety of potential counter-drone solutions exist, including surveillance equipment such as radars, radio frequency analyzers, or acoustic and optical sensors, as well as high-power microwave (HPM) equipment, drone networks, and lasers, there is another Solutions have been a hot topic for a recent problem in the drone industry: drone GPS interference.

Many drones rely on GPS (and other technologies like ships and cargo fleets, and even smartphones) for navigation and tracking. But some bad actors are trying to jam these GPS signals.

InfiniDome is an Israeli GPS security company founded in 2016 that makes a variety of products, but its focus area is building GPS signal protection systems. This summer, Infinidome published a white paper that clarified how drone gps jamming works and provided a very sobering demonstration of how GPS (GNSS) systems are vulnerable to jamming attacks.

Why does drone interference occur?

Why is it a problem?

There are many reasons why people would want to jam drone GPS signals, including defense applications, causing enemy drones to get lost or crash. While drones are used in systems such as aerial surveillance to catch drug traffickers, these drug cartel criminals are known to use drone jammers to prevent this from happening. In fact, Mexico reports that jammers were used in 85 percent of all recorded cargo truck thefts, according to the Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation, a science and education nonprofit in Virginia.

This isn't just big military or serious legal use cases. A drone light show over a shopping mall in Zhengzhou, China, went awry when a drone fell from the sky, endangering 5,000 onlookers, after a drone jammer was used.

In short, even if you don’t necessarily think there’s a clear enemy trying to take down your drone, it’s crucial to be prepared for a GPS jammer attack on your drone. This happens with drone light shows too.

Drone interference may not be all bad

This is not to say that all drone interference is necessarily bad or evil. In fact, sometimes it may be considered the opposite. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration turned to counter-drone companies to help research drone jammers to ensure that unwanted drones are not flying near airports and posing a safety risk to flights full of passengers. The Department of Defense also uses drones to protect classified areas or other locations that require security.

How does drone GPS jamming actually work?

Drone GPS jammers utilize GNSS receivers, which use GPS signals (along with GLONASS, Galileo and other constellations, hence the name "GNSS" - Global Navigation Satellite System), but it is known that these receivers, whether through deliberate jamming Receivers are all very fragile and susceptible to interference - but often even unintentional interference (like you might experience while driving through a mountain tunnel or even sometimes when you lose cell service in certain parts of your home).

Obtaining jamming equipment is very easy and cheap. You don’t need an entire mountain to block GPS signals—you can find GPS-jamming devices online for less than $100. As long as the signal jammers can emit a signal on the same frequency as yours but with a stronger signal, they will win and jam your drone.

Of course, it's not that simple. There are a variety of jamming attacks and signals, including continuous wavelengths, where a single frequency is jammed and anything transmitted on the same frequency will be blocked. With another method called narrowband, the power is spread out and diluted across different frequencies that make up a band (a range of about 2MHz). To carry out an attack, a cell phone jammer "attacks" the bad guys by creating a series of narrowband signals that are transmitted immediately after each other.

Drone interference solution

So while there are various ways to jam a drone GPS signal, there are also various ways to protect your GPS system. The challenge? These solutions can be expensive, heavy and bulky in order to process all those digital signals.

As a professional photographer and drone pilot, I've seen firsthand how drone technology has become mainstream (pun intended) in recent years.

But with great power comes great responsibility, and as our skies become increasingly filled with these high-tech devices, the need for regulatory and control measures becomes increasingly clear.

Enter the world of drone jammers.

In this article, we’ll explore the ins and outs of drone jammer, from basic functionality to legality. We will also discuss some practical applications of this technology.

Whether you're a drone enthusiast interested in the technology, a security professional looking to learn about drone defenses, or just someone concerned about privacy, this guide is for you.

Introduction to drone defense technology

Okay, guys, let’s get down to business. What exactly is a drone jammer? Why should we care?

What is a drone jammer?

• Imagine you are flying your drone and taking stunning aerial shots, and suddenly your drone starts to react. It doesn't respond to your controls and seems to have a mind of its own. My friend, you may have just encountered a drone jammer.


• Simply put, a drone jammer is a device designed to interrupt the control signal of a drone.


• It acts like a drone party killer, ruining the party by emitting electromagnetic noise on certain radio frequencies.


• These frequencies cover the same radio and GPS signals the drone uses to operate, effectively grounding it.

The development of drone technology

Now you might be asking yourself, "Why would anyone want to stop drones?" Well, like any technology, drones can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they've revolutionized industries from film production to agriculture, providing a bird's-eye view that was previously only possible via expensive helicopter flights.

On the other hand, they also found a whole lot of mess when it came to privacy and security issues. Imagine a drone hovering outside your window, or worse yet, a drone being used for illegal activity. Not that funny, right?

The need for drone jammers

This is where drone jammers come into play. They're essentially a way to keep drones away from places they're not supposed to go. Think of them as the gatekeepers of the sky, preventing unwanted drones from entering restricted airspace.

But it's not just a matter of privacy and security. Drone jammers also play a vital role in ensuring safety. Because the last thing you want is for a drone to collide with a passenger plane.

How drone jammers work

Picture this: you are attending a rock concert and trying to have a conversation with your friend. But the music is too loud and you can't hear each other. This is essentially how a gsm jammer works.

Drone jammers emit electromagnetic noise at certain radio frequencies, similar to loud music at a concert. This noise drowns out the radio and GPS signals the drones use to operate, effectively drowning them out.

The impact of drone jammers on drones

So what happens when a drone is hit by a jamming signal? Well, it's a bit like getting lost in a strange city without a map.

Most drones respond to jamming signals by returning to their starting point. This is their way of saying: "I'm lost and I'm going home." In some cases, a drone jammer can land a drone at a scene for forensic investigation.

How to jam drone signals

1. Now, before you get any ideas, I want to make one thing clear: jamming drone signals should not be attempted at home. This is a complex process that requires a deep understanding of radio frequencies and drone technology. Plus, it's illegal in a lot of places (but we'll get to that later).


2. However, it is still interesting to understand how this process works. The frequency of drone jammers is generally allocated at 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz. These are public frequencies and are not suitable for manned aircraft, public broadcasting or cell phone signals.


3. The phone jammer projects a signal in the form of a cone, and when the drone is hit by the signal, it typically returns to its origin or lands in place.

Legality of using drone jammers

It’s time to talk about the elephant in the room: the legality of drone jammers. As with any technology, there are rules and regulations that govern its use.

Let me tell you: the legal framework for gps blocker is as complicated as the flight path of a drone.

Legal restrictions on drone jammers

First things first, it’s important to understand that the use of drone jammers is heavily regulated. In the United States, for instance, the use of a drone jammer is generally prohibited by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The reason? Well, it’s because jammers interfere with authorized radio communications, which is a big no-no in the eyes of the FCC. Read more here.

But it’s not just the U.S. Many other countries also have strict regulations on the use of drone jammers. So, if you’re thinking of getting your hands on one, it’s crucial to understand the laws in your country.

Consequences Of Illegal Use Of Drone Jammers

Now, you might be wondering, “What happens if I use a drone jammer illegally?” Well, let’s just say it’s not a path you want to go down.

In the U.S., for example, the penalties for illegal use of a jammer can be severe. We’re talking hefty fines, and in some cases, even jail time. So, it’s safe to say that using a drone jammer without proper authorization is a risky business.

When used legally and ethically, wifi blocker can play a crucial role in maintaining safety and privacy.

Drone Jamming Techniques

Understanding Drone Jamming And Spoofing

First things first, let’s clear up some terminology. You’ve probably heard the terms “drone jamming” and “drone spoofing” used interchangeably. But they’re actually two different techniques.

Drone jamming, as we’ve discussed, involves disrupting a drone’s control signals, effectively grounding it.

Drone spoofing, on the other hand, is a bit more sneaky. It involves sending false information to a drone, tricking it into thinking it’s somewhere it’s not. It’s like giving someone wrong directions to a party.

Techniques For Effective Drone Jamming

Drone jamming can be done in a few different ways, depending on the type of drone and the situation. Here are a few common techniques:

Signal Jamming: This is the most common technique, and it involves sending out a stronger signal to override the drone’s control signals.

GPS Spoofing: This involves sending false GPS signals to the drone, tricking it into thinking it’s in a different location.

RFID Tagging: This involves attaching a small device to the drone that emits a signal, allowing the drone to be tracked and jammed.

Remember, these techniques should only be used by authorized personnel and in accordance with local laws and regulations.

Real-World Applications Of Drone Jammers

Use Of Drone Jammers In Military And Security Operations

First up, the big leagues: the military. In the world of defense and security, jammers are a crucial tool. They’re used to protect sensitive areas from unwanted drone activity, whether it’s a military base, a government building, or a critical infrastructure site.

For instance, during military operations, drone jammers can be used to prevent enemy drones from gathering intelligence. They can also be used to protect convoys from drone attacks. It’s like having a high-tech shield that keeps the skies clear of unwanted drones.

Use Of Drone Jammers In High-Profile Events

But it’s not just the military that uses jammers. They’re also used to protect high-profile events, like the Super Bowl or the Olympics.

Imagine you’re at the Super Bowl, enjoying the game, when suddenly a drone flies overhead. Not only is it a nuisance, but it could also be a security threat. That’s where drone jammers come in. They can be used to create a “no-fly zone” over the event, ensuring that the only thing flying is the football.

So, whether it’s a military operation or a high-profile event, drone jammers play a crucial role in maintaining safety and security.

Up next, we’ll take a look at the future of drone jammers. Stay tuned!

The Future Of Drone Jammers

Alright, folks, we’ve reached the final leg of our journey: the future of drone jammers. As with any technology, drone jammers are constantly evolving. So, let’s take a peek into the crystal ball and see what the future might hold.

Advancements In Drone Jamming Technology

First up, the technology itself. As drones become more advanced, so too do the techniques to jam them. We’re seeing the development of more sophisticated jammers that can target specific drones, disrupt multiple frequencies at once, and even take control of rogue drones. It’s like a high-tech game of cat and mouse, and it’s fascinating to watch.

The Rise Of Anti-Drone Technology

But it’s not just about jamming drones. We’re also seeing the rise of anti-drone technology. This includes things like drone detection systems, drone shields, and even drone-hunting eagles (yes, you read that right!).

The goal of these technologies is not just to disrupt drones, but to detect and neutralize them before they become a threat. It’s a proactive approach to drone security, and it’s an exciting area of development.

The Legal Landscape Of Drone Jammers

Finally, there’s the legal landscape. As drone technology evolves, so too do the laws and regulations that govern it. We’re likely to see more clarity and guidance on the use of drone jammers in the coming years, which will be crucial for individuals and organizations looking to use this technology responsibly.

Conclusion: The Sky’s The Limit

We’ve reached the end of our journey through the world of jammers. We’ve covered a lot of ground, from the basics of jammers to their legality, how to choose one, jamming techniques, real-world applications, and even a glimpse into the future.

Remember, drone jammers are powerful tools, but they should be used responsibly. Always respect the privacy and safety of others, and make sure you’re familiar with the laws and regulations in your area before using a jammer.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

As we wrap up our journey through the world of drone jammers, I thought it would be helpful to address some of the most common questions I’ve heard from folks like you. So, let’s dive into the FAQs!

Are Drone Jammers Legal?

The legality of jammers varies from country to country, and even within different regions of the same country. In many places, the use of drone jammers is restricted to military, law enforcement, and other authorized entities. Always check your local laws and regulations before using a drone jammer.

Can I Build My Own Drone Jammer?

Technically, yes, you could build your own jammer. There are even tutorials online that show you how. However, I would strongly advise against it. Not only is it likely illegal, but it could also be dangerous. It’s always best to leave this kind of thing to the professionals.

How Far Can A Jammer Reach?

The range of a drone jammer depends on the specific model and the environment in which it’s used. Some jammers can reach drones up to several kilometers away, while others have a more limited range. Always check the specifications of the jammer before using it.

Can A Drone Jammer Take Down Any Drone?

Not necessarily. Different drones operate on different frequencies, and some drones have anti-jamming features. A jammer needs to be able to disrupt the specific frequencies used by the drone in order to be effective.

The purpose of these homemade devices was to jam the signals from kamikaze drones, but the radio transmissions protecting the tanks could also reveal the tank's location.

Russia's Lancet kamikaze drones, designed to locate targets and then crash, have become a serious problem for the Ukrainian military.

Drones buzz over the battlefield, flown by pilots on the ground and guided by radio signals.

Jammers mounted on tanks or other vehicles can interfere with the signal and cause the drone to miss its target.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has intensified the drone arms race, with both sides using increasingly sophisticated drones for a variety of missions. The latest salvo is a repeating jammer that forms an invisible protective dome over the tank and jams the signals of any kamikaze drones trying to attack it.

Kamikaze Drone

The Lancet was made by Kalashnikov...yes, that Kalashnikov

One of the most dangerous types of drones on the Ukrainian battlefield is the kamikaze drone, which is designed for one-way flight and is launched over the battlefield. The pilot sits on the ground at the control station and must rely on the drone's camera to locate the target. When he does so, he flies a drone to attack the target and detonates explosives and sometimes anti-tank charges.

Russian "Lancet" drones pose a serious threat to Ukrainian troops searching for tank and artillery targets in the open air. The new signal jammers, first reported by Ukrainian defense blog Militarnyi, is a radio device operating in the 900 MHz band and transmitting 50 watts of power. When a kamikaze drone falls from the sky in a suicide attempt, the jammer interrupts the signal, causing the drone operator to lose control and miss.

The explosives carried by the Lancet drone can penetrate 200 millimeters of armor; this is enough to penetrate the thin upper armor of many tanks and even the turret. Most Ukrainian tanks have reactive armor tiles on their roofs designed to weaken the plasma jet of shaped charges, but Ukrainian artillery has no such protection. As a result, there are multiple videos on social media showing the Lancet targeting Ukrainian field artillery.

Jammer in Box

Without jammers, Ukrainian tanks can only hide under camouflage nets. Tree cover also prevents kamikaze drone operators from noticing tanks and other equipment

The cell phone jammer is mounted on top of the tank's turret, behind the commander's hatch at the highest point of the tank. The electronic equipment is encased in a waterproof casing and then enclosed in a sealed metal box to protect it from enemy fire. The antenna sticks out of the box and sends an interfering signal.

It's unclear whether the gps jammer runs on batteries or is connected to the tank itself, but the 50-watt power consumption and the fact that the box is just centimeters from the open tank hatch suggests that cables from the tank's electrical system are exiting. Although this requires the hatch to be open while the jammer is firing, the crew will mostly use it when the tank is stationary. Ukrainian tanks keep their hatches closed under their armor during combat, and moving tanks are generally harder to hit.

The 900 MHz band the jammer emits is a common band used by long-range civilian drones. It is also the same wavelength that the Lancet drone operates on. It is understood that the Russian military also uses civilian drones as reconnaissance systems and purchases them in large quantities on the global market.

Wireless jammers have some disadvantages. The 900 MHz band is also commonly used for voice communications, so all vehicle transmissions must use a different band or else be cut off by other devices. This can result in a loss of combat coordination between jammer-equipped vehicles. The signal can also interfere with friendly drones and reduce troops' situational awareness.

Another problem is that the drone jammer itself emits a 50-watt radio signal announcing the presence of the tank to anyone capable of listening. If an enemy force could detect and locate jammers, it could actually count the number of tanks and other combat vehicles deploying jammers and learn their locations.

Despite these disadvantages, using a disruptor is better than blasting from above with shaped charges. But the advent of radio-controlled drones means military commanders now have to know when to mask and reveal their electromagnetic signatures. Has the enemy turned on their own jammers? If so, they may not be using drones, but they may be moving and preparing to attack.

"The U.S. military has invested a lot of work over the past decade to improve the security of GPS," said James Lewis, a technology expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

Lewis said Russia has deployed "powerful" jammers in Syria since 2015, disrupting much of the electromagnetic spectrum. These phone jammer are powerful enough to disrupt aircraft landing in Tel Aviv, Israel.

“The problem with these large, powerful jammers is that they are vulnerable,” Lewis told Mission & Purpose. "It sends a strong signal, 'I'm here.' Target me." That's attractive when you don't have to worry about someone fighting back. I think that's one of the reasons it's used in Syria. "

Russia also has more advanced jammers that can jam certain frequencies, Lewis said, and they have invested time and effort in developing the ability to spoof GPS signals and throw navigation systems off course. To this end, the Chinese military, whose electronic warfare capabilities lag behind Russia's, is purchasing Russian-made jammer device.

The United States also helped Ukraine find and destroy Russian jammers, a "high priority" mission, according to a secret Pentagon document that was part of a secret document allegedly leaked by pilot Jack Teixeira .

"We will continue to advocate/recommend disrupting/destroying these jammers wherever possible," the document said.

Criminal gang uses GPS jammer to steal cars

Criminal gangs are importing GPS jammers from China to steal expensive cars or car transporters carrying valuable cargo. However, they believe that a terrible accident will soon happen to the gang.

Tracking devices have become an important part of vehicle safety, often using GPS. However, GPS systems are susceptible to a technique called "jamming," which blocks the signal between GPS satellites and their receivers.

Introducing a more advanced tracking device that combines GSM, GPS and VHF technology in one device. The result is a solution that is more resilient to criminals using jamming devices. All 52 police forces in the UK use a stolen vehicle tracking and recovery system, which tells police the original location of a stolen vehicle.

Many people don’t realize how dependent our lives are on GPS. It’s not just car owners who face growing risks of disruption. “With criminals increasingly importing jammers from China or manufacturing their own in the UK, air traffic control or other critical networks could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks if countermeasures are not taken.”

People are overly reliant on GPS as a safety and recovery system, especially when used alone. As more and more U.S. motorists become vulnerable to jamming devices, we believe no one technology is strong enough.

We are convinced that this was an act of pure, unadulterated charity, uninfluenced by self-interest. Cellphone jammer maker CellAntenna Corp. is calling on U.S. lawmakers to change federal law to allow law enforcement officers to use cellphone jammers more broadly. We bet you can guess why too – and yes, it’s helpful in the fight against terrorism. Because as we all know, there are a lot of cell phone terrorists out there (in fact, for us, anyone we see with a cell phone is automatically suspect). CellAntenna said in a statement that adding cell phone jamming is "the first step in increasing profits to prevent IED attacks in the United States." How refreshing - a company with a social conscience.

The company is challenging FCC rules on cell phone jamming devices

A small Florida company is asking the Federal Communications Commission to change a rule that bans the sale of cell phone signal encryption equipment to local and state governments.

CellAntenna filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta on Nov. 22 challenging the Communications Act of 1934, which is enforced by the FCC. The 1934 Act and related FCC regulations prohibit the use of cellular and radio frequency jamming devices except by federal agencies. That means local and state officials are prohibited from using such devices, which could be used to prevent terrorist attacks.

CellAntenna contends that the Communications Act and the FCC's interpretation of the law's provisions are unconstitutional because they conflict with the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which Congress passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It is well known in intelligence and law enforcement circles that cell phones can be used to remotely detonate certain types of bombs. The electrical properties of most batteries used in today's cell phones provide enough energy to produce the necessary spark or energy to ignite detonators or modified electric matches typically used for plastic explosives. In addition, even low-end mobile phones can use built-in alarm and timing mechanisms, and even the simplest and cheapest mobile devices can be used as bomb detonation tools.

Mobile phones are believed to have been used in the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Insurgents have used them effectively to trigger street bombings in Iraq in recent years. U.S. troops in Iraq are using devices made by companies like CellAntenna that jam or block cellphone signals to protect convoys traveling through known trouble spots.

But in the United States, only federal agencies are allowed to use phone encryption devices. The law prohibits local and state law enforcement agencies from obtaining such devices as first responders to domestic terrorist attacks.

"It simply doesn't make sense that the FBI can use these devices but local and state governments, which are considered an important part of counterterrorism under the Homeland Security Act, cannot," said Howard Melamed, CEO of CellAntenna. That makes sense." "We provide weapons and other equipment to local police to protect the public, but we can't trust them to have cell phone wifi jammers devices? It doesn't make sense."

This point is a key element of CellAntenna's case against the FCC

"Whereas the FCC prohibits the sale of radio frequency and cellular jammers to state and local police departments, the Homeland Security Act consistently and repeatedly directs the Department of Homeland Security to take whatever measures are necessary to empower local law enforcement agencies and first responders in the fight against global terrorism."

The DroneGun interferes with robotic aircraft at a very safe distance

There are a number of systems that can be used to shoot down wayward or dangerous drones, but they tend to have one big problem: You need to be relatively close to the drone, which can be scary if the robotic plane is packing explosives. DroneGun, a jammer gps that disables drone signals (including GPS and GLONASS positioning) from up to 1.2 miles away. Like most of its competitors, it doesn't destroy the target drone - it simply forces the vehicle to land or return to its starting point. Counter-drone teams can not only eliminate threats from a safe distance, but also locate their pilots.

It's not the lightest machine, but it's portable enough for one person to use. You also don't need technical training, so it's easy for security personnel to use.

Whether you see DroneGun running or not is another matter. It's not yet FCC certified, so you can't legally operate it in the United States unless you work for the government. If approved, though, it could help shoot down drones at airports, protect soldiers from drone bombs and help in situations where they simply can't get close.

Drones can use anti-laser jammers to protect themselves

There have been many efforts to build lasers that destroy drones. But how to protect these drones? Adsys Controls thinks it can help. It's making Helios, a passive jammer that confuses laser weapons. If it detects an incoming laser beam, it detects the characteristics of that beam (such as its pulse and wavelength) and interferes with it to prevent the laser from locking on and baking the drone. The company did not specify how the jamming works, although it could be an anti-laser. The only certainty is that it's reliable - it's "permanent protection" against subsequent lock attempts, not just a brief interruption.

You may have to wait a while to see Helios in action, as there is currently no mention of a contract. Moreover, it is uncertain how effective it will be. Can a laser be aimed at part of a drone without being caught by a jammer? Is the system fast enough to stop the highest power laser from burning up the drone in seconds? Still, drones do not yet have true anti-laser defense capabilities. Any protection is bound to help, and if Adsys' solution lives up to its hype, it could be very effective.

The FCC is pursuing cell phone jammer that could leave users in the lurch

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has put a bounty on the head of any vigilante who hates cell phones. These GPS and signal jammers are especially popular in theaters, quiet restaurants and many school systems that struggle with sexting in the classroom. The FCC is calling on people to stop using the devices and report them to neighbors because they pose a serious health and safety risk by interfering with 911 calls and other emergencies nearby. Therefore, if you recognize a so-called "jammer," don't hesitate to file a complaint with the FCC, information can be found in the source link below.

Twenty years after the worst attack to ever occur on U.S. soil, it's not just large, populated passenger planes that keep officials and experts up at night, but also the threat of smaller, readily available unmanned aerial systems capable of carrying deadly payloads through the skies of an unsuspecting nation.

Drones are not tomorrow's weapons of mass destruction. They're here today, and the technology required to fashion such a device is only getting cheaper, smarter and more accessible.

One U.S. military official who requested anonymity paints a potential nightmare scenario involving small drones, referred to as unmanned aerial systems, unmanned aircraft systems, or simply, UAS.

"I kind of wonder what could you do if you had a couple of small UAS and you flew into a crowded stadium," the U.S. military official told Newsweek. "That could cause a lot of damage and it's a scenario that could potentially be in play."

While "no specific knowledge" of an active threat was discussed, the U.S. military official said that "there is concern given the proliferation of small, portable drones, that explosive drones could cause a mass casualty event."

It wouldn't be the first time the nation had been caught off guard by a possible danger looming right in front of authorities.

"It's just like I had no specific knowledge before 9/11 that people could hijack planes and crash into buildings, but Tom Clancy wrote a book about it," the U.S. military official said.

When the political thriller "Debt of Honor" was released in 1994 depicting a hijacked airliner targeting the U.S. Capitol, the concept of an aerial suicide raid had largely been confined in the national consciousness to the experience of Japanese kamikaze pilots in World War II. It wasn't until nearly 3,000 were killed on September 11, 2001 that what had been an eventuality became a reality.

But when it comes to UAS, the age of tactical drone warfare is already upon us. Shortly after 9/11, the United States became the first country to truly weaponize drones, fitting them with precision missiles that became a staple of the "War on Terror."

In the years since, drones have evolved from a high-end military technology to a commercial hobby flown by enthusiasts across the globe and sold by a multitude of companies on the civilian market. With the explosion of this seemingly innocent innovation has come a rise in nefarious usage that the U.S. military official with whom Newsweek spoke described as "an emergent threat" already demonstrated in several high-profile events.

One such event came just last weekend when three explosive-laden UAS, believed to be simple quadcopter models, targeted the residence of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in an assassination attempt. Kadhimi lived, but photos released of his home revealed the destructive capabilities of such devices.

Kadhimi was not the first world leader to be preyed upon by bomb-rigged UAS. In August 2018, two drones carrying explosives detonated in an apparent failed attempt to take out Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during a military parade in Caracas. He also escaped with his life.

Prior to these incidents, militants and militias had already managed to utilize such technology, giving non-state actors a sort of rudimentary yet deadly air force to take on better-equipped foes. In Iraq and Syria, U.S. troops have been targeted from above by both the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) and Iran-aligned paramilitary forces.

Even more destructive platforms have seen action on the battlefield in the form of what's known as loitering munitions, or suicide drones. Last year, Azerbaijani forces demonstrated a deadly edge over Armenian rivals during a brief but bloody war over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh territory through their use.

"They're relatively small, inexpensive drones, but they kind of cross that boundary between a drone and guided missile," the U.S. military official said.

This point was echoed by a security official from Israel, a country that produced some of the loitering munitions employed by Azerbaijani forces with substantial effect and now prove a potential concern for Iran as tensions simmer between the neighbors.

"This tool today is so easy, and small drones, you just really order them in and you've got yourself like a guided precision missile," the Israeli security official told Newsweek.

The Israeli security official noted that even with their current destructive potential, the munitions attached to such UAS today are in their relative infancy, not yet on a scale that any one of them alone could replicate a 9/11-style attack.

But their potential is already rapidly growing

"They are becoming much more accurate in their capabilities of navigation," the Israeli security official said. "I think where we will be seeing things is that the amount of explosives will get bigger now."

Smaller commercial UAS have another unique advantage over traditional aircraft and missile platforms: They have no launch signature, making them far more difficult to detect. Used in greater numbers, known as a swarm, they're also harder to intercept.

"If you need to intercept a dozen, an F-16 payload, if it's only doing air-to-air would be about six different air-to-air missiles, or similar to an F-35," the Israeli security official said. "So that already means that you need a few airplanes, and you need the time if you're looking at interception."

Israel was among the first nations to refine wartime drone technology, and it continues to field various platforms for covert missions. But its rivals have also demonstrated an early prowess for such technology, as proven by the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Palestinian Hamas, and their supporter, Iran.

Iran has developed an extensive arsenal of drones, including suicide drones capable of flying beyond 2,000 kilometers, exceeding 1,240 miles. Israel and the U.S. have both accused Iran of directly supplying UAS technology to partnered militias across the region, an allegation denied by the Islamic Republic.

"I think Tehran has its own independent defense program based on its defense needs and can define its efforts to counter the threats by strengthening its defense capabilities," an Iranian official told Newsweek.

China has also excelled in UAS technology, and Russia has developed high-end systems of its own as well.

The Israeli security official noted another trend that could prove deeply problematic to the safety of the region and beyond, a trend linked to Israel's ally, the U.S., and the withdrawal from a 20-year war in Afghanistan, where ISIS has sought to stage a comeback in a country the U.S. first entered in response to 9/11.

"We see another rise of terror, and I'll say, being both humble and appreciative to the U.S., but after Afghanistan, we do see a rise in what potentially could come again with the terror activities and the kind of backing that some of the terror organizations feel stronger and maybe even more courageous," the Israeli security official said. "This tool of drones can definitely be something that we might be seeing more."

One man who has written and spoken extensively on the potential impact of drones in the wrong hands is Zachary Kallenborn.

Kallenborn is a policy fellow at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government and a research affiliate with the University of Maryland's Unconventional Weapons and Technology Division of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. He has also served as a national security consultant and contributed to the U.S. Army as part of its Mad Scientist Laboratory.

"Drones are definitely capable of causing mass casualties," Kallenborn told Newsweek.

Echoing the example put forth by the U.S. military official with whom Newsweek spoke, he imagines a crowded event as a potential target.

"Growing drone technology also increasingly allows drones to be flown autonomously or in collaborative swarms," Kallenborn said. "That increases the damage potential significantly. Imagine a terrorist air raid: a group of drones dropping bombs on a concert or stadium crowd."

Even more damaging, attackers could vastly multiply casualties by employing weapons of mass destruction, Kallenborn warned.

"Drones would be highly effective delivery systems for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons," he said. "Drones could, say, spray the agent right over a crowded area."

Kallenborn said he was "also quite concerned about drone attacks on airplanes, because aircraft engines and wings are not designed to survive drone strikes."

But he notes that "who the attacker is matters a lot," adding that "a big limiter" for the worst-case scenarios "is the ability of terrorists to acquire the chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agent, which they have historically struggled with."

He pointed out the difficulty of a militant group acquiring both the material and manpower to fly a larger swarm-sized fleet while avoiding detection.

"But that limitation is not an issue for state militaries," Kallenborn said. "Militaries have the resources and technology to make truly massive swarms that could rival the harm of traditional weapons of mass destruction, including small nuclear weapons."

"Not only is such a weapon massively powerful, it would be quite difficult to control," he added. "If you have 1,000 drones working together without human control, that's 1,000 opportunities for failure. And even more, because in a true drone swarm, the drones talk. As we've seen with COVID vaccine paranoia, misinformation can spread easily even among beings far smarter than an algorithm-guided drone."

As humans and machines are wont to err, so are defenses, and drones add a new level of difficulty in their ability to conduct random, difficult-to-detect operations. The U.S. military official with whom Newsweek spoke expressed a level of skepticism regarding existing defenses being acquired by the Department of Defense.

"The DOD is pouring a lot of money and effort into counter-UAS technology, but I think the DOD's PR exceeds the actual capability of these devices," the U.S. military official said.

One of the agencies keeping an eye out for UAS and drone activity on the domestic side is the Federal Aviation Authority. An FAA spokesperson told Newsweek that "the FAA is tasked with ensuring the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS) as well as people and property on the ground."

"When criminal activity is suspected, we work with our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners by providing them assistance with their investigations and prosecutions," the spokesperson said.

One way in which the FAA is seeking to improve the ability for authorities to determine potential problems posed by UAS is by enforcing remote identification, through which drones would be required to provide key information such as identity, altitude and current location as well as the location of its operator and take-off point.

"Remote identification requirements for all UAS operators, when combined with our current registration requirement, will enable more effective detection and identification," the FAA spokesperson said. "This will also help law enforcement to connect an unauthorized drone with its operator. Remote identification will help law enforcement determine if a drone poses an actual threat that needs to be mitigated, or if it's an errant drone that got away from someone but means no harm."

The rise of the drone threat has given birth to a booming new industry of counter-drone technologies. Among the leading companies in this field is DroneShield, an Australian firm that has supplied cutting-edge tools to the likes of the NATO military alliance and the United Nations.

DroneShield CEO Oleg Vornik shared Kallenborn's concerns about WMD-strapped UAS in large numbers.

"Small UAS can be seen as a highly effective and cheap platform for surveillance and payload delivery," Vornik told Newsweek. "For payload delivery, a small UAS can easily carry up to a few pounds of weight — this is a lot of explosive or biological or chemical weapons."

"What's more," he added, "at $1,000-$2,000 per UAS, and swarming technologies available today (think of giant figures in the sky or fireworks, all generated by choreographed drones), this can be easily in 100s of drones, each carrying a dangerous substance."

These figures may seem high, but Vornik argued that the general lack of oversight would make it hard to track acquisition. And even if suggested controls were put in place, he said, the threat would only partially be addressed.

"UAS can be purchased today in a completely unrestricted way, being considered toys, essentially. Registration would solve some of the issue, but consider how many unregistered firearms get used for terrorism," Vornik said. "The pilot of the drone would also be invisible/difficult to catch in an attack, making it more appealing to use"

In addition to the kinetic threat, he warned of potential cyber attacks employing UAS

"Call it a conspiracy, but we received reports that the Ever Given container ship (yes, the one that blocked Suez Canal and stopped much of sea traffic) was due to a cyber hacking from a drone, when a request for ransom was denied," Vornik said. "We are now hearing of this commonly from ship customers, especially in areas close to the better-known rogue states."

Last week, DroneShield released the 6th edition of its C-UAS, or counter-UAS, factbook, which details the scope of potential threats posed by small drones.

The guide covers recent events in drone warfare, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the 2019 attacks on Saudi Aramco oil sites, claimed by Yemen's Ansar Allah, or Houthi, movement but blamed by Saudi Arabia and the U.S. on Iran. It also gives examples of the latest innovations by China and Russia, and identifies some of the most popular heavy-lifting UAS that could be used even more discretely than their larger cousins.

The report provides potential solutions as well, including a range of detection capabilities such as radio frequency, radar, acoustic, optics and multi-sensor systems. It also lists neutralizing assets including drone radio frequency jammer, GPS jammers, cyber tactics, directed energy attacks, counter-UAS drones and kinetic systems capable of blasting UAS out of the sky.

"Without dedicated C-UAS system (for detection and defeat of such UAS)," Vornik said, "there would be no warning and no time to react, until it is too late and the damage is done."

As to whether such tools and methods would be employed before the next attack, he has expressed a note of skepticism.

"We live in a reactive society," Vornik said. "Boulders across the pathways have only started to be placed after terrorists used vehicles to bulldoze through crowds, as an example."

He warned that governments and their law enforcement and security agencies must start setting up systems now to defend against UAS attacks.

"We need to be more proactive in setting up UAS detection and defeat systems across areas where large gatherings of people are likely, the high profile places, sort of areas which would be terror sweet spots," Vornik said. "Law enforcement and homeland security personnel need to be trained for this threat, much like more conventional attacks."