4 ms·
I believe the discussion should not be whether the Police should have the right to jam wireless signals or not, BUT under what conditions and what kind of jamme
by Rod 18y ago
I believe the discussion should not be whether the Police should have the right to jam wireless signals or not, BUT under what conditions and what kind of jammers should the Police have the right to operate.
Boundaries must be clearly defined. Jamming wireless signals in a small area may be a good idea. Jamming an entire city, for instance, would arguably be a blatant example of abuse of power.
On the other hand, it seems that all that potential terrorists would have to do would be to use spread spectrum techniques and operate on frequency bands not used by commercial devices. There's a lot of room for everyone in the EM spectrum.
- mattmcknight 18y agoGood point, the potential for it to be used to block innocent people from communicating is far greater than any real usefulness against people using cell phone bomb triggers- which isn't that common.
- Rod 18y agoAnyone who has the technical know-how to build a remote-triggered bomb has the technical know-how to build a jam-resistant system. RF jammers can't possibly jam all the EM spectrum, and any evil-doer would easily be able to break this "security" measure.
- evgen 18y ago_I_ can build a remote-triggered bomb, but I am not going to be building it using a spread-spectrum frequency-hopping or ultrawideband trigger because I am not a RF hacker. This does not make the distribution of jamming equipment to local law enforcement justifiable, but let's keep the discussion grounded in reality. Remote-triggers for bombs that use common off-the-shelf RF tools exist and are well-documented, ones that are jam-resistent are not common (if they exist at all...)
- thwarted 18y agoPerhaps the reason that jam-resistant triggers are uncommon is because there is no need for them. If signal jamming does become common, then jam-resistant triggers will be common, off-the-shelf, and well-documented.