月別アーカイブ: 2024年6月

Searching on Google’s shopping site showed dozens of links to devices that are advertised as signal jammers, including anti-drone devices. Google itself does not sell them, but instead directs shoppers to third-party sellers, such as electronics retailers in China. These retailers typically say they can ship to the United States, and their marketing materials are not specifically for military or law enforcement use. One Chinese seller posted a video on YouTube, which is owned by Google, demonstrating how its product blocks cell phone signals.

A Google spokesperson said the company has reviewed the cases shared by NBC News and is removing listings that violate its policy prohibiting the sale or promotion of such devices.

Sometimes it’s unclear who is behind the online sellers. One retailer called itself “Professional Global Signal Jammer Manufacturer Online Jammer Store” but did not disclose its location. The company did not respond to a request for comment. The FAQ section of its website includes the following dialogue:

“Will customs confiscate my package?”

“So far, we have not encountered this situation.”

It is unclear how many people may have illegally purchased radio frequency drone jammers from the various websites reviewed by NBC News. At least some of the companies said they sell their products to customers outside the United States, where the FCC’s strict rules don’t apply.

At the other end of the radio signal jammer market are military suppliers, government contractors and other companies that don’t generally target their products at consumers. Many of these companies have websites marketing their products, but they don’t list prices or offer options to buy them immediately. Instead, they list options to “request a consultation” or “contact an expert.”

An FCC spokesman pointed to the commission’s standing advisory on law enforcement and a 2020 federal interagency advisory on drone defense.

On Wednesday, after NBC News published the report, the FCC said it had received several investigations related to jammer marketing, including one involving Amazon.

“We are conducting several investigations into retailers, including Amazon, for possible violations of the commission’s rules by marketing and selling devices without proper FCC authorization,” FCC spokesman Jonathan Uriarte said in a statement.

Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigations on Wednesday.

The FCC has cracked down on radio frequency jammers and their online sales. In 2016, the commission said it had fined a Chinese online retailer, CTS Technology, $34.9 million for selling hundreds of illegal jammers over two years and selling some to undercover FCC agents.

There have been no similar fines in the U.S. since then, though other Chinese retailers still market radio jammers to Americans online, an NBC News review of their websites shows. NBC News could not determine if any of them have shipped products to the U.S.

The FCC has also targeted buyers in past years. In 2018, the FCC said it fined the operator of a Dallas warehouse $22,000 for using a jammer to prevent employees from using their cell phones while working. In 2016, the commission said it fined a Florida man $48,000 for using a jamming device to prevent people in other vehicles from talking on their cell phones during his daily commute. In 2014, Marriott agreed to pay $600,000 to settle allegations that one of its properties in Nashville, Tennessee, interfered with Wi-Fi signals at non-Marriott hotels.

Over the years, the FCC’s focus has shifted to other topics, such as combating robocalls, said Dale Hatfield, a former chief engineer at the commission.

“Their enforcement activity seems to be more targeted at things that are more directly visible to consumers,” he said.

It’s hard to determine how big a problem illegal jammers are because signal interference is often brief and hard to document, said Hatfield, an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. For the same reason, he said, interference cases are difficult for the FCC to handle.

“It can be very intermittent,” he said. “How do you go back and figure out why?”

Former FCC Commissioner McDowell said the commission’s enforcement efforts are largely determined by the types of complaints it receives.

“Typically, the enforcement process comes into play when an outside agency notifies the FCC of a situation,” he said.

Jamming devices have many potential uses, from disrupting unwanted drones to disrupting Wi-Fi networks to disabling doorbell cameras. On a Reddit message board dedicated to Ring doorbell cameras, some posters complained about people using jammers to disrupt the cameras and avoid detection during thefts. One Reddit poster said the irony was that Amazon seemed to be profiting from both sides: Ring is a division of Amazon, and Amazon is also a marketplace for buying devices that can disable Ring cameras.

Amazon did not respond to questions about jamming Ring devices.

Jammers, or radio frequency “blocking,” are also a frequent topic of discussion in online forums dedicated to people who believe that the government or others are conducting deep surveillance on them, a belief or phenomenon sometimes referred to as “gang stalking.”

Potential markets for anti-drone systems such as RF jammers include large businesses and organizations that are concerned about drone terrorism but are not legally allowed to use jammers. Last year, four major sports leagues, including the NFL, urged Congress in a letter to congressional leaders to allow state and local law enforcement to use anti-drone capabilities.

Prison officials in some states have said they want legal authority to use jammers to prevent prisoners from using their phones.

But under current law, the list of government agencies authorized to buy and use radio frequency jammers is short, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the Departments of Energy and Defense.

Companies that specialize in drone countermeasures often focus on foreign buyers.

Drone defense company IXI Electronic Warfare warns on its website that drones pose a potential threat to stadiums, prisons and airports, and says drones can help “eliminate threats in seconds,” including using a radio frequency jammer called a “Dronekiller.” But overall, stadium operators, prisons and airport authorities do not have the legal authority to buy such products in the U.S.

So now that thief’s are using WiFi jammers that apparently can be bought for $40, what is everyone turning to to protect your property?

News of break-ins these days show quite a few security camera captures, but in many of them the perpetrator is covering their face. So ultimately I’m not so sure how much security cameras (even wired ones that capture clear images) can really protect a property.

It appears even traditional alarm systems would be disabled by a signal blockers since all the sensors’ signal would be blocked as well.

I have NEVER considered a WiFi connected device to be any sort of serious security device. For a serious security device, it needs to be wired (power and data), and the video recorded locally with serious backup power (no, a 15 minute UPS does not qualify). I do have what would likely be considered a Pro-sumer level video camera system, with hours of backup power.

With that said, I have over 40 Wyze cameras, and I do use them regularly as they are quite a bit less expensive than my wired system, and the software is more convenient for a quick look remotely.

Two of the most common attacks are a simple broadband signal generator and a specific WiFi De-Authentication. In the case of the first, the jammer simply broadcasts a strong enough signal that the intended signals are covered in noise. An audio example would be trying to talk back and forth with someone 100 feet away in an empty stadium. That would likely work fine, but now add 50,000 other people and there is so much noise that the person 100 feet away can not be heard. A broadband jammer is a quite simple device.

A De-Authentication attack is an smart device that to keep this simple, impersonates the WiFi client and sends a command to the WiFi access point telling it that the client is disconnecting. Note that WPA-3 prevents that by encrypting the management packets. However although the WPA-3 standard has been out for quite a few years, most IoT devices do not support it.

Both of these attacks happen between the WiFi client and access point, so a firewall or anti-virus never get involved.

What’s the context?

US prison officials harness new technology to crack down on contraband cellphones but some still want powers to jam signals

• South Carolina programme shuts off more than 800 phones
• Federal action on broader signal jamming tech seen as unlikely
• Activists raise privacy, rights concerns for prisoners

Digital privacy rights advocates and tech experts say even solutions less far-reaching than full-blown signal jamming – like the South Carolina pilot – threaten to trample on the rights of prisoners by, for example, sharing legally protected information with private phone companies or carriers.

Digital rights groups have long raised concerns over the push for cellphone jamming systems in prisons, describing them as overreach.

Under federal law, state and local facilities are not allowed to use jamming technology, which is opposed by the telecommunications industry amid concerns that it could knock out signals in areas surrounding prisons.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates communications technology in the U.S., has been wary of signing off on full-blown signal jamming but cleared the way within the last few years for states like South Carolina to implement so-called “contraband interdiction systems.”

Stirling is convinced signal jamming is a solid option but does not think it will be authorised in state prisons. It is already allowed in federal institutions.

“I would love to get jamming – I don’t see it happening, unfortunately,” he said.

Asked if the FCC was contemplating changes, a spokesperson pointed to the federal law banning jamming devices.

Albert Fox Cahn, founder of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.), says both jamming and interdiction systems like the one used in South Carolina are “chilling options” that could have unintended consequences.

Glendale police issue warning about burglars using WiFi signal jammers to disable alarms, security cameras

GLENDALE, Calif. (KABC) — Glendale police have issued a warning about residential burglars who use WIFI jammers to disable security alarms and surveillance cameras.

As described by police Sgt. Victor Jackson, the devices used by thieves block the signal or scramble the WiFi. “So if you have a Ring camera, a Nest camera — any kind of alarm system that is WiFi-based or a camera that’s WiFi-based — it blocks the signal and knocks it out,” he said.

A disproportionate surge in residential burglaries plagued Glendale and Southern California in the fall, leading investigators to the crime trend.

“As our detectives started going into these cases, that’s when they realized what was happening,” Jackson said. “In some cases, because of the way the device works, it made it look like when you went back and rewound your tape and looked, it wasn’t a black screen — it was seamless. It didn’t exist there, so there was no evidence.”

Police recommend that residents increase security by:

• hardwiring alarm systems and cameras,
• using back-up batteries in those security devices,
• installing sturdy locks on security gates,
• enhancing exterior lighting,
• securing windows and balconies,
• and having a trusted neighbor or housesitter look after your home, when away.

The Glendale Police Department’s residential burglary task force has been working to lower the number of break-ins, officials said.

“Our patrol officers, our motor officers, our special enforcement detail, and detectives — we have them undercover in the area — and we saturated the area,” Jackson said.

Nora Alabi, a Glendale resident, told ABC7: “I feel like there’s no part of the city that you can be in and not run into a cop or not run into a police car.

“If I stand here for five minutes, I might see like three cop cars drive by,” she said. “So, because of that, I feel like it’s a safe city.”

In a statement by the Los Angeles Police Department, officers warn that a group in Wilshire is using wifi jamming technology to disarm surveillance cameras and alarm systems that rely on Wi-Fi.

(TNS) — A group of thieves have been outsmarting smart devices across the Los Angeles area, authorities said.

In a March 4 statement by the Los Angeles Police Department, officers warn that a group in Wilshire is using Wi-Fi jamming technology to disarm surveillance cameras and alarm systems that rely on Wi-Fi.

This swarm of tech-savvy robberies in California is part of a larger “smart” crime wave happening nationwide. Last year, police in Minnesota and Connecticut issued similar warnings to residents when groups of Wi-Fi jamming thieves made their rounds. And those are just two examples of many.

While the Federal Communications Commission has banned Wi-Fi jamming devices, this doesn’t stop criminals from buying them cheaply, KARE11 reported. Wi-Fi jamming devices don’t necessarily deactivate devices, but work by overloading the network the devices are connected to.

“These (signal jamming) devices create traffic jams for the radio transmitter so that real traffic cannot get through,” cybersecurity expert Mark Lanterman told the outlet.

“If you are going to use a Wi-Fi camera for your front door, perhaps consider using a hardline camera inside your home,” he said. Wired cameras connected via Ethernet cables do not rely on Wi-Fi networks and would not be disrupted by a Wi-Fi jammer.

Los Angeles police also recommends hard wiring burglary alarm systems

While “smart” technology may be part of the problem, it may also have a hand in the solution, according to Tom’s Hardware. Officials recommend using timers or smart home devices to make it look like someone is home while you are away. Some smart home technology also comes with the ability to alert users if the signal or connection has been interrupted.

Tom’s Hardware also recommends connecting surveillance devices that store camera footage directly on your device, and not just to a cloud storage system. By having a camera that records to itself, you’ll have footage saved during a Wi-Fi disruption.

The LAPD also encourages people to stay vigilant by locking their doors, relying on neighbors to check on things when away and reporting any strange activity, including suspicious vehicles with temporary or dealer plates.