In 2011, the Payson Police Department mistakenly assumed they were acquiring a cell phone jammers from a government program that provides surplus military equipment to law enforcement agencies. Instead, they were given a smokescreen device from a U.S. Navy ship.
“The ‘Electronic Countermeasures’ were supposed to be cell phone jamming devices. However, what was sent were smoke machines off of a naval ship,” Chief of Police Ronald Tischer said in an email to Arizona Mirror. “So, we are in the process of sending them back. They were never used and have been in storage since 2011.”
The Mirror reached out to the Payson Police Department after analyzing data published by the Defense Logistics Agency about military equipment sent to local law enforcement agencies across the country. The department obtained two items listed as “electronic countermeasures” in 2011 both valued at roughly $4,800.
Company offering cell, drone and other jammers is fined $35 million
The Federal Communications Commission's penalty forfeiture order of $34.9 million against Chinese electronics manufacturer and online retailer C.T.S. Technology for marketing and selling signal jamming devices to American consumers was announced yesterday, with the acknowledgment that the fine may not be fully recouped.
Radio frequency transmitters, commonly referred to as "jammers," are deliberately used to impede, disrupt, or interfere with wireless communications, encompassing cell phone calls, GPS systems, Wi-Fi networks, and emergency communications.
C.T.S. Technology has been issued a proposed fine of $34,912,500 by the FCC's Enforcement Bureau following an investigation. This penalty is a consequence of the company's marketing of 285 jammer models within the United States.
In order to comply with federal law, the company was directed by the FCC to ensure that its marketing activities are in line with regulations. Although the company did not respond to the proposed fine, which is officially referred to as a "Notice of Apparent Liability," it has since implemented various measures to ensure its marketing practices align with U.S. laws that prohibit the marketing, sale, and importation of signal jammers.
Because C.T.S. Technology did not provide any evidence to contradict the findings of the proposed fine, the Commission's decision yesterday, which was a formal forfeiture order, upheld the full proposed fine against the company.
But collecting that money may be difficult.
As per international law, the FCC contacted the Chinese government to issue the NAL because C.T.S. did not acknowledge its receipt.
In spite of the agency's request, China's designated service affairs agency opted to ignore it and deemed a forfeiture filing to be the appropriate measure.
Payment is required from C.T.S. within 30 days. The FCC has not detailed any repercussions for non-payment at this time.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has underscored the security risks associated with the presence of illegal devices that can interfere with cell phone signals.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has become aware of an increasing number of individuals selling "signal jammer" - devices that can interfere with cell phone calls, text messages, Wi-Fi networks, and GPS systems - raising alarms about potential disruptions in public environments.
The small, battery-powered devices can be used to create "dead zones" within a small area, usually 30 feet or so, and have been used by movie theaters, restaurants, and schools to keep people off their cell phones. But they also cut off 911 calls, can disrupt navigation near airports, and have been used near police stations to interrupt radio communications. Officials at the FCC say they've noticed an increasing number of cell phone jammer, which are banned by federal law, coming into the country. Many cheaper versions, which sell for as little as $25, are imported from Asia, according to the agency.
It is illegal to sell, advertise, use, or import jammers under the Communications Act of 1934, which prohibits the blocking of radio communications in public areas.
The Federal Communications Commission announced that jammers were advertised on the website in Orlando, Philadelphia, Austin, Mississippi, Charlotte, N.C., Washington, D.C., Cincinnati, and Corpus Christi, Texas. Authorities have indicated that they do not believe the cases are related.
Michele Ellison, the FCC's enforcement bureau chief, highlighted that merely advertising a signal jammer on sites like Craigslist.org is a violation of federal law. Signal jammers are prohibited for a specific purpose.
According to the references, the primary focus of sellers was on marketing jammers as a tool for achieving a peaceful nap during bus journeys, fostering a quiet classroom environment, or maintaining a hassle-free space, all while neglecting to mention the potential for illicit activities involving the device.
One of the citations highlights the mounting concern over the inadequate awareness of individual consumers who engage in the use of jamming devices, failing to grasp the potentially grave outcomes of their actions. These operators incorrectly assume that their illegal operation is justified based on personal convenience or should be excused.
According to the FCC, it has been revealed that there was a seller who seemed to be cognizant of the fact that jammers were considered illegal.
Allegedly, Keith Grabowski placed an advertisement on the Philadelphia Craigslist, offering a "cell phone jammer, wifi jammer" for $300. Within the ad, he acknowledges the limited information provided about the item due to its nature. He emphasizes that the jammer is not a toy and expresses his urgency to swiftly get rid of it.
According to the citation, it can be inferred that Mr. Grabowski was aware of the sensitive and/or illegal nature of the device he was offering for sale on Craigslist based on the content of his ad.
A dedicated reporting channel, referred to as the "Jammer Tip Line," has been set up by the FCC to encourage the public to report any instances of jammer sales or usage, enabling the bureau to take appropriate action.
Ellison made it clear that our objective is to take stronger enforcement measures against those who break the rules. If caught selling or operating a jammer, individuals will face substantial financial penalties.