Why Are Cell Phone Jammers Illegal?

Yes... very similar, but expressed with a degree of refinement

Touche'

Interesting? What was he broadcasting?

You name it, he did it. He even went on public service bands and the police department frequencies. One thing that he did was to falsify a report of a small plane crash on the police frequencies, which started this massive land and air search for a downed plane.

Finally, his home was raided (he lived at his parents) by police and the FCC. They went in SWAT style. For some strange reason the only issued a citation, electrically fingerprinted all his equipment, and left him in his home.

When the regional FCC agent got in his van, all of a sudden this guy went right back on the air an began his antics again. The enraged FCC agent just screamed and said he was going to nail this guy. Ultimately, they did seize his equipment, but it had to be done under court order, so it took time. That led to another caper altogether.

Yes, he racked up record fines for a private individual, I think it was close to 1 million dollars, but I can't remember for sure. The FCC reduced that to $10,000. I know his lawyer (a personal friend of mine) and I think the fine was further reduced and no jail time. Amazing outcome for how much grief he caused.

Jeez, I am SUCH a rule-following schmuck.

I'd assume that kind of behavior would get you strung up

I can only respond for my legal environment, but no.

Here we are busily converting the common TV to digital transmission at a sacrifice of range simply to free up bandwidth for the Gov't to auction off to private users (mostly cell providers).

The only free access airwaves are those reserved for Citizen Band or Family Radio Service and the HAM bands. HAM bands are controlled access through technical licenses - but otherwise free access.

CB frequency band - 26.965 to 27.405

FRS frequencies - 462.5625 to 467.7125

HAM frequencies - 3 to 30

All frequencies in MHz - power limitations may also apply.

So the implication would be that within the US, the airwaves are owned by the Federal government.

Thanks, I may have been out dated on this, There there was a dispute about people pirating cable (15-20 years ago) using that as a loophole for the defense.

I think your presumption would be correct.

So we need to carry cell DF equipment, then we can just stomp on the perp before he causes problems? Oh, wait - I think DF as well as decoders and such are illegal, too.

"I think DF as well as decoders and such are illegal, too."

Nope. Not so. See this thread http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/76543#comment834235 where I posted an answer to this, from my youth. And yep, I did build decoders, for my own use. Also built DF'ers, also from Popular Electronics articles. Also legally, and for much the same reasons, as stated by the Supreme Court. This is an instance of it being legal for a private citizen to do things that even Law Enforcement can't do, AS LONG AS THE PRIVATE CITIZEN STAYS PRIVATE ABOUT IT.

Think about it. If you never tell anyone, anywhere, what you know, how can anyone object, or CONTROL YOUR LISTENING? And unenforceable law can't be enforced. And it only becomes enforceable when you a)overstep legal bounds, (in this case in your use of information gained), and b) make it known that you did (usually, the act of doing a), DOES b), or it isn't a successful use, anyway).

Thus, if I use a DFer, and only find where a signal is coming from, but don't tell anyone where it came from, then listen to the signal, even employing my own, home-built decoders, but don't share it with anyone for gain, I've broken no laws.\

And the folks we all love to hate, because only slime-bags would listen to scanners and such, are in fact doing NOTHING ILLEGAL, unless they use the information gained in some way that exposes the sender or receiver to unwanted breach of privacy.

Cell phones are NOT private, and listening to them is legal and easy. But DON'T publicize what you learn, and DON'T record them, as there is a legal assumption that recording them can ONLY be for illicit use (Which is, in itself a fallacy, but one that is hard to prove, since the courts can only become aware that someone recorded the signal if the recorder makes it known, him/herself).

By the same token, and under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, I can read anything I want (as long as the writing of it doesn't fall under the laws that govern such things as incitement to riot, or inducement to a criminal act, or a list of other such "public safety" clauses) but it often is detrimental to my health (or at least freedom) to publish the fact that I have read, and thus know, the information discussed.

Case in point. My sons, when they were smaller, wished to know how much I knew about subjects that make law enforcement professional suspicious (I won't discuss here what those subjects might be, so don't ask) and I provided them books on the subject. But I also pointed out that in the event that a catastrophic occurrence eventuated in our neighborhood, and they'd told friends about their newly gained knowledge, a friend might well say, in the hearing of investigators of the occurrence "well, my friend Johnny knows how to do such-and-such", which would immediately make Johnny a person of interest to such professionally suspicious types.

Note, under the US First Amendment, Johnny cannot be assumed to be guilty of anything, but he can bring down all kinds of suspicion on himself by bragging about, or otherwise publicizing what he does know.

So, while it is often not very wise to publish the fruits of enjoyment of our rights, here in the US, the fact is that our Constitution provides us with a great many misunderstood freedoms, precisely because of those defined rights. And just keeping our mouths shut often lets us enjoy those freedoms without having to hire a lawyer just to keep life simple.

But many people mistakenly assume (often because of media distortion, and the jury is still out on how intentional this may be, or on whose part it might be intentional) that protected activities are in fact illegal, because celebrated or publicized cases mistakenly give that impression.

But it isn't illegal to either DF a signal or to listen to an otherwise encoded signal as long as you don't infringe the privacy rights of others, or the commercial rights that accrue to someone because of their labor.

In short, in America, I can build and use anything I want, as long as I do so without endangering others, or infringing on ownership rights of others.

Note, here, and in closing. If you are a lawyer, I already know that you can find many objections to what I've said above, by nitpicking about terminology, specific cases, and so on Ad Nauseum. Of course you can. That is what lawyers are trained to do, and if they didn't want to do it, they wouldn't be lawyers. So go ahead. Or go away. In either case, I'll ignore you. Fair warning.

I always learn the most when being wrong.

They actually commercially market them to churches and such down here. Dead legal.

Sorry, spoke too soon:

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/160420/should_cell_phone_jamming_be_legal.html

Jamming a cell phone is illegal in the U.S. Very illegal. And not just by ordinary citizens. It's illegal for theater and restaurant owners to jam (block) calls, and even state and local police or prison officials. The U.S., in fact, has the strictest laws in the world against jamming cell calls.