DHS Warns of Sharp Rise in Chinese-Made Signal Jammers (theregister.com) 42
The Department of Homeland Security is concerned about the rate at which outlawed signal-jamming devices are being found across the US. From a report: In a warning issued on Wednesday, it said it has seen an 830 percent increase in seizures of these signal jammers since 2021, specifically those made in China. Signal-jamming devices are outlawed in the US, mainly because they can interfere with communications between emergency services and law enforcement.
While the Communications Act of 1934 effectively prohibits such devices, signal jammers of the type DHS is concerned about have only circulated in the last 20 to 30 years. Authorities have paid special attention to relay attack devices in recent years -- the types of hardware that can be used to clone signals used by systems such as remote car keys, although the first examples of these devices date back to the 1980s.
While the Communications Act of 1934 effectively prohibits such devices, signal jammers of the type DHS is concerned about have only circulated in the last 20 to 30 years. Authorities have paid special attention to relay attack devices in recent years -- the types of hardware that can be used to clone signals used by systems such as remote car keys, although the first examples of these devices date back to the 1980s.
Cheap camera jammers (Score:5, Insightful)
The rise in the use of signal jammers is due in no small part to the popularity of WiFi-connected security cameras. For example, signal jammers are very popular tools among professional burglary rings. They've hit multiple homes in the pricier areas of the county I live in.
Companies like Ring have been very successful in convincing consumers that "Ring = home security", when in fact Ring cameras are a terrible choice due to the fact that they must have a WiFi connection in order to operate. The burglars scout out pricey homes in neighborhoods where no one ever talks to their neighbors, and houses are isolated by distance, foliage, and fences. And it just so happens that the owners installed Ring cameras.
So the burglars drive up, activate their jammers to knock out both the Ring cameras and the cell connection for any burglar alarm, then clean the place out. Even if an alarm goes off, chances are that no one will hear it, or call the police if they do.
If you're truly serious about video security, you need hardwired cameras with onsite storage and battery backup. You might still get robbed, but at least you'll have something to show the police.
Re:Cheap camera jammers (Score:4, Funny)
Since wifi and bluetooth use the same frequency it would be great to fire up a jammer for when people walk by carrying those enormous bluetooth speakers.
Re: (Score:1)
I solve this problem by not having much at home that's worth stealing.
There's SOME stuff, but really, not that much. They'd get maybe $2000 selling my shit to someone. Not the end of the world for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a few landmines scattered around my house. A burglar robs me on his own risk. /s
Re: (Score:2)
My step mom has 11 acres, and my dad has 9.
I've never seen the neighbors.
In my condo, I quite literally see my neighbors every single day.
Re:Cheap camera jammers (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they may be security for other purposes, but all you're doing in the event of burgulary is capturing (often useless) evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
The main use for cameras is catching anti-social behaviour, like people hitting your car and then driving off, or kids vandalizing stuff in your garden.
It's wireless alarms that are really stupid. You have a wireless window alarm, but the alarm panel that is hard wired to the internet and which could alert you just ignores the fact that all the sensors went offline at the same time. The software seems to have been written in the 90s and never improved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All of this is true, but do keep in mind that such jammers are actually quite illegal in the US.
And so is burglary. Your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And the jammers will not go away. They are cheap, easy to make and basically can be one-time "throw away" gadgets.
Re: (Score:2)
"Signal jammers have been used by illegal aliens across the country to jam communications during police operations, bank robberies, burglaries, and other dangerous crimes. Under the vigilance of [Customs and Border Protection], national security begins at America's ports. As Chinese manufacturers attempt to smuggle signal jammers, we will continue to seize these tools of terrorism. President Trump and Secretary Noem will always protect America's critical infrastructure and law enforcement"
All these evil foreigners (not any US citizens, obviously) are being evil and terroristic and only DHS, nobly led by the Dear Leader, can protect you. Seems to have very little to do with any actual threat and more with peddling the current political line.
I want one soooo bad!! (Score:2, Interesting)
I really want one. But I fear my government ):
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Buy some tactical gear, a mask, and a fake ICE badge and you’re set. You can do whatever you want.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Deporting people without following due process is otherwise known as kidnapping. People can't simply be deported without a judge issuing a warrant. I guarantee all these people wearing masks to hide their faces were the biggest loudmouths during covid. You're law enforcement? Stop hiding your face and show me your badge. They're most likely unqualified cosplayers.
Most of the people being deported are working and I can't fault them for trying to make a living. If the powers that be really cared about the flo
Re:I want one soooo bad!! (Score:4, Insightful)
You are insinuating that most people being deported had no due process, and that is factually incorrect.
Actually, for a while, nearly 100% of them were deported without due process.
A Trump appointed judge put a stop to that bullshit.
The situation is now better, for sure, but let's not forget he literally raced to get people on planes out of the country before they could see a Judge.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I want one soooo bad!! (Score:5, Informative)
The law he was trying to leverage doesn't require due process.
That's not how it works.
Due process isn't something granted by law, it is a constitutional right.
There are cases where that right may not apply, however. Trump weighed that calling these people "enemies" or "invaders" would put them into that category. He was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>"Actually, for a while, nearly 100% of them were deported without due process."
Not sure I believe that. Some number already had a deport order issued by a judge; that *was* their due process. In some other cases it could be expedited removal which is generally within 2 years of entry by sea or 14 days/100 miles of the land border. In those cases they can be deported immediately. And also in many other cases without being able to attend a hearing in immigration court when one of these occur: Comes t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>"I think the question is who determines the factual situation and legal basis for deportation. In at least one case, there was no legal basis because they made a "mistake".
That case there was a legal deport order already. The mistake was that he wasn't to be deported to his country of origin, but to any OTHER country. And the reasons for that turned out to be bogus (like 99+% of "asylum" claims).
>"You might want to start carrying your passport when you visit those areas."
A government ID/driver's li
Re: (Score:3)
Some number already had a deport order issued by a judge
Some, yes.
that *was* their due process.
Correct.
In some other cases it could be expedited removal which is generally within 2 years of entry by sea or 14 days/100 miles of the land border.
Sure could.
But it wasn't, and I think you know that.
These guys were picking people up after court hearings without a deport order.
They were going for the low-hanging fruit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I want one soooo bad!! (Score:2)
Okay, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure why it's relevant that they're made in China, except to further a political agenda.
I mean, wouldn't signal blockers made anywhere work the same and be just as bad?
Would DHS prefer people use U.S. made signal jammers?
Upside - It would bring that manufacturing back, etc... and they'd be tariff-free!
Re: (Score:2)
>"Not sure why it's relevant that they're made in China"
Probably because the observations support that they are, in fact, coming from China. China has a track record of not really caring about our laws, you know. The implication is that they are feeding an illegal market. Is there a political agenda on their part (as is likely with the whole Fentanyl precursor stuff)? Possibly. But it is more likely just happily making money on a consumer demand.
We have two converging issues- over-reliance on wirele
Re: (Score:2)
I do wonder how much of jammer use is for ... wanting to disrupt the constant, incredibly rude/annoying/selfish behavior of many mobile phone/device users.
I was in a doctor's office a little while ago and there was this (much) older guy watching YouTube videos on his phone with the volume up, while literally sitting across from a sign that asked people not to do things like that. His wife nudged him after a few minutes and he turned it down. It was annoying, but the guy was clearly a little hard of hearing, though don't know why he didn't have ear buds...
Re: (Score:2)
know why he didn't have ear buds...
Because like all such people who listen to their shit in public without headphones, he's A FUCKING ASSHOLE.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should China care about your laws? Does the USA care about Chinese laws?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>"Why should China care about your laws?"
Because they are on the world stage? Because it is required when considered a favored nation? Because they will build less trust and have less business when companies believe their are going to rip off their intellectual property or produce their products in a way that does violate our laws?
>"Does the USA care about Chinese laws?"
As far as I am aware, yes.
Re: Okay, but ... (Score:3)
>>"Does the USA care about Chinese laws?"
>As far as I am aware, yes.
Rofl. I suggest you become more aware. The USA cares nothing for the laws in other countries, except that they should change to be the same as the US ones.
If these devices are illegal in the USA, then they should be confiscated at customs. They don't seem to have much problem charging a tariff, so it shouldn't take much to reject anything illegal.
Re: Okay, but ... (Score:2, Redundant)
It's not relevant. It's click bait and promoting an anti-China agenda...simple as that.
Where is ... (Score:3)