Intentional GPS Jamming On the Increase

benst writes "Here's yet another way to measure the success of GPS: by the efforts to negate it. While unintentional jamming continues to rise, intentional jamming by both foreign military forces and at-home miscreants of various stripes has shown increased vigor in the past six months. Related here are recent instances of intentional jamming on each side of the border, and (briefly outlined) one initiative mounted by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) to counteract it. Also, here are some ways to detect and prevent jamming."

North Korea rings China up on the phone

"Were jamming, jamming, and I hope you like jamming too"

a very un-slashdot-like article

That second link is seven pages. Normally anything posted to /. that's more than say, three pages, consists of 400k size pages of advertisements, banners, and otherwise obnoxious noise with maybe three paragraphs (4k or so) of actual content in the middle of the page, that you have to continuously click (NEXT PAGE) to read the next few sentences on.

Not that one. Actual, real content. Multiple pages of real information. What has the world come to? Someone's posting content for the purpose of actually informing us, rather than burying us in cheap banner hits.

The first link is possibly even better than that though. The same information density, in only ONE page. Normally they'd have spread that among at least five banner-whoring pages? Kudos to gpsworld.com for serving their readers. It's pages like that which make me wish I could leave my banner-blockers turned off all the time.

Re:This must be an urban legend

How could they be jamming us if they don't know... that we're coming... Break off the attack, the shield is still up.

Re:This must be an urban legend

Raspberry...only one man would dare to give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!

Re:This must be an urban legend

Not familiar? Oh, your /. account has SO been revoked. n00b. :)

Re:Ways to prevent jamming.

Shooting down a U.S. military satellite doesn't sound like a particularly well-thought out plan to me.

Hey, it may not be theirs

After all, they deny lots of junk up there.

Just shoot one of them down and see who complains and THEN you'll know whose it was.

Re:Ways to prevent jamming.

Anyone with the capacity to down multiple satellites (losing one wouldn't do much) 20,200 kilometers above the surface of the Earth is not going to be posting about it on slashdot.

Re:Ways to prevent jamming.

So many lawyers, so few mad scientists...

secret signals

I would say the obvious solution to jamming is to have secret signals from the satellites. If you use spread-spectrum techniques your signals become more resistant to jamming. It's possible you might even make your signal nearly undetectable, so that your enemies don't even know it exists.

This being a well-known technique in military radio communications, I would be a little surprised if (1) there weren't already "black" SS signals available to the military, or (2) there will be soon enough.

They may not be especially worried about this. It's not like it's hard to detect someone jamming you, and if you're in a war situation a HARM missile can take care of them for you. Generally a big radio signal is a bit of a liability in a war zone. Makes you stand out, more or less like an electromagnetic bull's-eye painted on your chest.

Re:secret signals

GPS already uses direct-sequence spread spectrum. The military-only signal uses a cryptographically secure spreading code. Even that will not protect you from a wideband jammer with enough power. Any signal can be jammed with a sufficiently large/near transmitter. The military usually solves that problem with high explosives.

Re:secret signals

I think the problem is that GPS is a commercially funded operation.

Um, no, it isn't. It's owned, lock, stock and barrel, by the US military. Civilian devices are allowed to access it, but the satellites are not commercially owned.

If the military wanted its own "secret" GPS system, it would have to launch a boatload of satellites up there to match the current configuration.

Or they could just ring up the CO of the US Air Force's 50th Space Wing, since that's who owns and maintains the current "boatload of satellites".

Re:Ways to prevent jamming.

> Just put loads of debris in the same orbit at a greatly different speed

Unfortunately, the same orbit means the same speed - different speeds, different orbits.
You need to create an orbit that crosses the satellite's orbit at some point and wait until your debris and the satellite meet at the crossing (since their orbiting times are different, they will, if you wait long enough).

Re:Good.

Some people still think that GPS can select devices and that it sends the coordinates to the devices. But it's more like observing stars (or quasars): You calculate the position out of a timestamp from the satellites. And the only thing encrypted is the more accurate timestamp, reserved for military/people paying. The satellite doesn't really care if there are devices at all, it just sends everywhere.

Re:Good.

I think they should be jamming GPS in some places. Or more specifically, start jamming some people's GPS. [...] I know one bridge that has been hit 12 times in the last 3 years by trucks that were too tall.

You don't need a GPS jammer.

If your bridge is 8 feet high, you simply need a metal arch 9 feet high, and a 'low bridge' sign suspended from it by two one-foot pieces of chain.

Hence, any driver approaching the bridge who should fail to notice the 'low bridge' sign will have their attention drawn to it when it collides with their vehicle, causing a loud noise but less danger than a vehicle-bridge collision.

Re:Good.

True Story - Some years back at the Telco Supplier that I worked for we had one of those Corporate awayday things at a Hotel in Bristol - We were all instructed to use the Multi-storey car park nearby. When I drove the 4x4 I had at the time into the car park I noticed one of those hanging signs notifying low headroom and drove slowly under it, relieved not to hear any scrapes..

Later, during the presentations from the PHB's, one of them confessed that he and another PHB had arrived in his new BMW X5 and when they saw the same sign he asked his passenger to get out and make sure they could pass beneath it safely.. He started edging forward as the passenger called out 'Ok, Ok, keep it coming etc.' And then they were through but he was quite disconcerted at how close the ceiling seemed to be as they drove up through the car park and he commented on this to the passenger and asked how much clearance there had been between the car roof and the hanging sign. The reply was something like "Oh none, so I just held the sign up a couple of inches.."

I think he was the Technical Services Manager...

Re:Good.

These already exist in shopping malls - like to the entrance of a top deck parking lot secondary to weight constraints. Implementing them on the roads would likely be as easy.

Re:Good.

Thanks for making my point. Shopping malls are on private property. That is at least ONE order of intelligence higher than federal, state, and local governments.

Re:Good.

They already do this for the bridges on Storrow Drive that runs along the Charles River in Boston (they would get jammed under the bridge). Problem was that truckers hit it so much they were regularly destroying the sign. You also need to place it in a spot where the truckers can take an exit instead of trying to reverse up a busy road.

Re:Good.

The GPS is not the problem here, it merely exposes an already-present problem. Stupid drivers who don't know the height/width of their vehicle (despite having driving qualifications that require them to do so). Stupid drivers who can't read signs. Stupid drivers who LOOK AT THEIR GPS while they are driving - every single GPS has a warning on it about this, some of them even announce it every time you turn them on. EYES ON THE ROAD. Then, using a GPS is no more dangerous than taking a driving test - you are following oral instructions from something within the car but your FULL attention is on the road. If your driving examiner tells you to mow the old lady down or speed up to 80 in a 30 area, you wouldn't do it, so don't follow what the GPS tells you blindly.

It's like saying that speed cameras are at fault because people brake heavily before them. They are not, they are exposing the problem that stupid drivers have always existed and yet nothing is done about them. You should ALREADY be at the speed limit (in fact, significantly less than, in almost all circumstances). If you have to brake heavily, the problem is YOU. YOU have created the hazard yourself. In the same way, you can't "blame" a plastic bag flying in front of your car for the accident that meant you hit someone in front, who was not a safe distance away. YOU were too close. YOU shouldn't be. YOU did not have a safe braking distance between you and the car in front. The plastic bag didn't press the throttle for you or cut your brake lines.

The solution to these problems is not to jam GPS or get rid of speed cameras, but to START TAKING PEOPLE'S LICENSES AWAY. If you do either of the above, you are NOT fit to drive. You would not pass the legally-required driving standard that you HAD to pass to get a license in the first place. We know you're CAPABLE of doing it because you have done it at some point in the past. So you have NO excuse. If a pilot crashed his plane because he was going too low, he'd not only have his license revoked, he'd be before a serious court very, very quickly. What makes you think a ton of solid metal on four wheels should be any different? Or worse, in the case of lorries, up to 18 tons in the hands of someone who can't tell they won't fit under a bridge! Do you want drivers like that on the road, who can't judge to within a foot or so whether they'll make contact?

Don't blame the GPS, blame the idiot who didn't read the signs.

Re:Good.

I was with you until the significantly-less-than-the=speedlimit part.

That's just ridiculous. Speed limits are almost as a rule too *low*, not too *high* -- and on a highway, traffic moving significantly slower than the majority of other vehicles presents a hazard. A car going 5mph under the speed limit is more of a hazard than a car going 5mph over -- why? Because the slow car causes ALL the traffic moving at the speed limit to pass it, while the fast car causes ONLY ITSELF to pass traffic moving at the speed limit.

Re:Good.

Good point. A state trooper once told me that the absolute safest speed to travel was the AVERAGE speed of the cars around you. Don't go slower than the rest of the cars, and don't go any faster either.

I won't call the parent of your post arrogant exactly, but his type reminds of the people who think it's okay to drive 61 mph in a 65 mph zone in the FAST LANE.

Yeah, sure they are technically correct but intentionally and more than a bit arrogantly lack any pragmatic approach to driving on the road.

It does not matter if the law says 65. If everybody is doing 74, and some people in the fast lane insist on doing 85, then getting in the fast lane and stubbornly insisting on doing 61 creates an unsafe environment for the rest of the drivers.

I have relatives that drive on the Autobahns tell me that if somebody got into the fast lane on the Autobahn and did not get up to speed that the police would pull them over immediately and cite them. If somebody stayed too long in the fast lane, they would be cited too. The leftmost lane is ONLY used for passing. Can you even imagine if that was enforced in the US?

Re:Good.

It's like saying that speed cameras are at fault because people brake heavily before them. They are not, they are exposing the problem that stupid drivers have always existed and yet nothing is done about them. You should ALREADY be at the speed limit (in fact, significantly less than, in almost all circumstances). If you have to brake heavily, the problem is YOU. YOU have created the hazard yourself. In the same way, you can't "blame" a plastic bag flying in front of your car for the accident that meant you hit someone in front, who was not a safe distance away. YOU were too close. YOU shouldn't be. YOU did not have a safe braking distance between you and the car in front. The plastic bag didn't press the throttle for you or cut your brake lines.

It is amazing how many people fail to understand that. However, maintaining a safe braking distance between yourself and the car in front can be almost as dangerous as going to close. People will abruptly change lanes, usually without using the indicator light to warn other drivers of their intention or only switching on the light after they have begun changing lanes, and then proceed to cut you off. The result is all to often that you have to slam down on the brakes to avoid slamming into the car that cut you off. And that is exactly what you were trying to avoid in the first place by maintaining a safe braking distance.

Re:Good.

Yeah, but honestly, a driver paying attention and maintaining a preference for a truly safe braking distance isn't jumping on the brakes the moment a car slips into the lane in front of them.

Slamming down on the brakes like you describe obviously increases your odds of getting rear ended in certain situations, especially if you're driving below the speed limit. But the reality is, you're a cautious driver, you see the person indicate to pull in front of you, often taking advantage of the fact that you're going under the limit - themselves wanting to drive on the limit or above it. You aren't going to hit them, so just maintain your speed. If you know you've got someone up _your_ arse, tap the brakes so the person behind you wakes up and realises you're behaving less predictably than earlier.

Most likely, the person in front is going to get further away as they ride the limit and stick right on the tail of the person in front, while you stay safe. Less likely, you have to ease your speed down to a distance you're comfortable with. Even _less_ likely is the car infront of you has to suddenly slam their brakes on - in the moments after switching lanes - to avoid killing someone, and you smash into them. But since you're so careful, I assume you had your eye on the road ahead anyway.

tl;dr, grandpa? drive defensively, drive smart, don't act unpredictably unless it serves your interests to draw attention to yourself on the road.

Re:Good.

If your driving examiner tells you to mow the old lady down or speed up to 80 in a 30 area, you wouldn't do it

Clearly you didn't get your license in Spain, where some people spend up to 3500e ($5514.95). Where each fail after the first four can cost you 1500e. Where some people offer money, sexual favors, etc to the examiners.

If the examiner tells you to mow down a lady, you ask "HOW HIGH!".