This technology is thought to have been utilized in a string of nine robberies in Edina, according to the police.

In Edina, Minnesota, law enforcement officials suspect that a serial burglar has been utilizing a Wi-Fi jammer to disable the surveillance cameras linked to security systems. This tactic allows the burglar to successfully commit thefts and escape with the valuable possessions of their targeted individuals.The state of Minnesota is not commonly associated with being a center for technology advancements, hence it should not be surprising to discover that there have been reports of Wi-Fi jammers being utilized in burglaries across the U.S. for a number of years. It is a reminder that technology is being used by criminals as well, and more individuals are beginning to recognize this fact -- therefore, homeowners should consider implementing security measures.

Authorities in Edina have raised concerns that nine burglaries that occurred over the course of the last six months could have been carried out using Wi-Fi jammers to obstruct the retrieval of any video evidence that could implicate the perpetrators. The suspected burglars are believed to have a particular way of operating:

Dwellings are situated in wealthy districts.

Burglars meticulously observe the houses.

The intruders shun conflict, choosing to patiently wait for houses to be vacant.

Exploiting the absence of occupants, the intruders will utilize Wi-Fi jamming devices.

It is common for thieves to target valuable designer items such as safes, jewelry, and other high-end merchandise.

The source publication, KARE11, recently interviewed a security expert who shed light on the functioning of signal jammer. Contrary to popular belief, these devices do not block signals but instead create confusion among wireless devices. The expert elaborated that wifi jammer primarily operate by inundating wireless traffic, resulting in the obstruction of legitimate traffic.

Jamming wireless security devices is a growing trend

By delving into news archives, a significant amount of evidence emerges regarding burglaries that may have utilized Wi-Fi jammers. In January 2020, a post within the Ring community recounted an incident involving a wireless doorbell that thwarted a porch thief through a Wi-Fi deauthentication attack. Furthermore, an abundance of reports can be easily found, spanning from 2021 to 2023, which detail instances of burglars employing Wi-Fi jamming technology. Notably, these reports indicate a rising frequency of such occurrences over time.

Ring is cited as one of the companies that brought video doorbells to the forefront in addressing various home security issues, but other wireless smart home security products like those from Blink (Amazon) and Nest (Google) could also face vulnerabilities to wireless signal disruptions.

As we prepare to conclude, we would like to provide some suggestions for individuals who may be uncertain about the reliability of their home security systems with wireless components. Firstly, consider physically connecting certain devices that support wired connections and allow for local storage of recorded footage. Secondly, take advantage of smart home technology that can simulate the presence of someone being at home. Furthermore, your device may offer the option to send alerts in case of signal or connection interruptions, so it may be worthwhile to explore and adjust these settings.

I read a few of the news articles and it sounds like the thieves are jamming WiFi and the sensors. This prevents the system from even triggering. The thieves are walking around the homes without the glass break, door, and motion sensors going off it seems.

Not commonplace, but getting some exposure in the news recently - gangs of organized thieves in metro Detroit area are targeting upper scale homes for burglaries. They are purportedly using wifi jammer to circumvent alarms (like Ring).

What can millions of Ring (and customers from other wifi-dependent alarm companies) do about this? IS there a viable counter to these signal jammer? Maybe it's time to explore legacy, analog wired alarm solutions as backup instead of the reverse?

They're using a wifi jammer, according to this article. No obvious way to prevent this, so hardwired systems would be the only resistant option.

Most Wi-Fi jammers use disassociation flooding to kick the devices off the network. This attack is prevented with WPA3 which can use protected management frames. Unfortunately Ring still hasn’t got around to adding WPA3 support to its devices. It was requested via their feature request process a long time ago, so I’m not overly hopeful they’ll add it.

There are trade offs and risks with each security system. There’s also different types of burglars from opportune amateurs to seasoned pros.

If you’re concerned about this threat, there’s a raft of solutions out there with high definition footage without any reliance on Wi-Fi or internet.

Whatever they're using for jamming must go beyond the WiFi frequencies to affect z-wave and whatever frequency Honeywell et al uses for their RF communications.

This makes sense because most alarm systems these days (even ADT/Brinx/etc) rely mostly on wireless sensors.

This is a huge vulnerability because it's pretty rare to find a security system that's been installed to use all hardwired sensors. To go hardwired you probably had to have it built-in as the house was built or did it while doing some major remodeling.

Cellular jammers are readily available. DSL, cable, or fiber are not jammable, but all devices need to be hardwired.

Zwave can be jammed just as easily as wifi. Cellular is great but if the door/window sensors are blocked and unable to report to the base station, the alarm won't think anything is wrong.

What I found when doing some simple research over the last couple of days is that different manufacturers use different frequencies for their devices so it might be a guessing game for the burglar, although my guess is that the professional burglars carry jammers for most of the common frequencies used by the big name brands like Ring, Simplisafe, Nest(ADT), etc.

To me it makes sense to have devices from different brands. Ring doorbell, ADT alarm, Wyze cameras, etc...

What's scary is that there are a bunch of videos on youtube demonstrating how easy it is to bypass these alarms AND with instructions telling you exactly how to do it and how to get the jammers.

Is this pervasive? If you watch the news, it’s pretty evident thieves aren’t concerned with cameras. They mask up and hood up and go. Be on alert, they have no fear.

Burglars can use wide-band jammers to jam all frequency bands : GSM, LTE, Wifi and Z-Wave. Some alarm systems are robust to such attacks (like Ajax Alarm System -- https://ajax.systems/blog/what-is-jamming/).

In short, the alarm hub must be hardwired with Ethernet to your router; And hub, router and modem on a battery backup. Then, only communications between sensors and hub can be jammed.

Then, alarm hub communicates frequently with sensors. If communication fails, it signals a jamming attack, notifying the user via hardwired Internet. With a working speaker on the hub, it can sound a siren and send a voice alert to the intruders.

SimpliSafe system is another system that offers some jamming protection, but lacks the Ethernet hardwired connection, so it must rely on a GSM/LTE link, which is still better than Wifi alone.

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has released a warning regarding the unauthorized use of cellular signal jammers, GPS blockers, or other signal jamming devices by individuals, stating that it is prohibited unless officially authorized by the government.

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) recently released a memorandum on July 1, addressing the public's interest. In this memorandum, it was explicitly stated that the government-approved jammers can only be procured and utilized by states, union territories, defense forces, and central police organizations.

The advisory indicated that private sector entities and individuals in the private sector are prohibited from purchasing or utilizing jammers in India.

Examination conducting bodies under the union/state government or union territories can utilize jammers procured from authorized vendors and approved models, following the necessary approval from the competent authority.

Additionally, the Department of Telecommunications has declared that promoting, selling, delivering, importing, or otherwise promoting jammers in India is illegal, unless authorized by government regulations.

The Department of Transportation (DoT) has declared the utilization of mobile signal repeaters and boosters by individuals as illegal, not limited to jammers. According to a memo, the unauthorized use of repeaters can have a negative impact on public telecommunication services by compromising their quality and coverage, leading to interference and disruption.

In January, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) issued a strong caution to e-commerce entities such as Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, Alibaba, Aliexpress, Ebay, and others regarding their involvement in enabling the trade of wireless jammer.

The Federal Communications Commission has imposed a $126,000 fine on an oilfield company for blocking cellphone calls. The company must contest this fine before the May deadline.

The FCC's notice of apparent liability against Taylor Oilfield Manufacturing Inc. of Broussard, issued on April 9, cited the company for allegedly employing four cellular phone jammers to hinder employees' cellphone usage.

Company executives disclosed to the FCC that the cell jammers, which obstruct cellphone signals, were utilized to discourage employees from using their cellphones in the workplace.

From April 9 onwards, Taylor had a 30-day window to either pay the penalty or submit a written response to the FCC outlining reasons for the cancellation or reduction of the fine.

Taylor officials refrained from responding to phone calls seeking comment.

The commencement of the case took place after the FCC was tipped off and dispatched an agent to the company's premises in Broussard in May 2012. According to the FCC notice, company representatives acknowledged the use of four cell jammer and the possession of a fifth cell jammer, which was not currently in use.

The United States has a strict prohibition on the use of cell jammers, and the FCC has explicitly forbidden companies from importing these devices from foreign nations. According to the FCC, the Broussard company confessed to purchasing its cell jammers from overseas sources.

The FCC's notice to the company underlines the concrete risk to public safety resulting from the unlawful operation of signal blockers. This risk includes the possibility of blocking authorized communications, including emergency calls to 911 and law enforcement communications. Additionally, the use of cell jammers can negatively impact global positioning system signals.

As per FCC documents, Taylor's officials disclosed that the company sought to block employee cellphone use after a near accident that was said to be partially caused by an employee using a cellphone.

All cellphone jammers have been discreetly eliminated from prisons by Corrections.

The technology implemented in 2008-09 to deter inmates from using smuggled mobile phones has incurred expenses exceeding $17 million.

However, the utilization of jammers ceased in June due to their interference with newly implemented safety systems for prison guards.

Upon unveiling this initiative, Corrections Minister Phil Goff emphasized that the implementation of cellphone blocking in New Zealand prisons marks a significant advancement in preventing inmates from engaging in further criminal activities during their incarceration.

The Official Information Act was used to acquire recent information regarding the quantity of cellphones confiscated from the 18 prisons managed by Corrections in the last three years.

The Corrections staff discovered 626 cellphones and over 750 cellphone-related items, including batteries, chargers, SIM cards, and more, between January 2020 and November of the current year.

The removal of the cellphone jammer in June was the reason why inmates were found smuggling cellphones, according to Neil Beales, the Corrections chief custodial officer.

He stated that the jammers were discovered to disrupt recently implemented safety systems, including alarms designed for the safety of corrections officers.

Progress in mobile technology has led to jammers becoming more and more outdated.

According to Beales, the mentioned tool was just one among several others employed to prevent the use of cellphones in prisons. He further stated that there are still several more effective tools in use.

Cellsense devices are equipped with advanced technology to identify various metals commonly found in cellphones. Additionally, these devices possess screening and x-ray capabilities, along with the ability to detect metals using specially trained dogs.

Beale mentioned that certain individuals incarcerated resort to extreme and intricate measures to smuggle contraband into prisons, and we are consistently striving to outsmart the latest tactics employed for smuggling contraband into our correctional facilities.

Corrections has been exploring new and emerging technology to enhance existing systems, according to the statement. They have begun implementing full body imaging technology at various locations to identify hidden contraband on or inside individuals.

In 2018, the Corrections department acknowledged that cellphone jamming technology had caused a communication blackout near Rimutaka Prison, resulting in the inability to track residents of a child sex offender unit located outside the prison walls.

Inmates may utilize cellphones to exert influence on individuals beyond the prison walls, as well as to organize illicit activities such as drug transactions. Recently, nine prison employees at Rimutaka were suspended in May for suspected misconduct, which involved the smuggling of cellphones into the facility.

It comes as no surprise that Corrections has decided to abandon the use of signal blockers, as stated by Roger Brooking, a drug and alcohol counsellor and criminologist who has consistently voiced his concerns about the expenditure on this technology.

He stated that their functionality is nonexistent, and it has always been that way.

In my conversations with prisoners, they have mentioned that there are certain spots within the prison where the jamming devices do not work effectively. This has allowed inmates to make unauthorized phone calls for various purposes such as drug trafficking or communicating with their families.

Cell phone jammers are devices designed to block the reception or transmission of cell phone signals by producing interference within the frequency ranges used by cell phones. This interference causes a lack of signal or a notable reduction in signal strength. While cell phone jammers can be employed in various settings, they are predominantly utilized in locations where quietness is essential.

Techopedia offers insights into cell phone jammers.

A cell phone jammer is composed of:

Antenna

Voltage-controlled oscillator

Tuning circuit

Noise generator

Power supply

RF amplification

The activation of a cell phone jammer results in the absence of network signal on most cell phones, while deactivating the jammer restores their connectivity. Cell phones employ specific frequencies for transmitting and receiving information. By blocking one or both of these frequencies, cell phone jammers indirectly impede communication on both ends, effectively preventing any form of interaction.The operation of cell phone jammers is based on the same principles as those of jammers employed to hinder radio communication. These devices disrupt either the frequencies from the cell phone to the base station or from the base station to the cell phone.

Law enforcement agencies and the military make use of cell phone jammers to restrict and disrupt communication in various situations. Certain organizations employ these jammers to safeguard against corporate espionage by blocking communication within sensitive areas. Moreover, some individuals opt for portable cell phone jammers to prevent others from using their phones in immediate vicinity.

With the exception of military and law enforcement applications, the use of cell phone jammers is illegal in many countries, including the United States. The United States has enacted some of the most stringent laws globally, prohibiting the sale and purchase of cell phone jammers and imposing strict regulations on their usage. However, in countries like Mexico, the use of cell phone jammers is permitted in certain public areas such as hospitals. It is crucial to recognize that laws governing the use of cell phone jammers differ from country to country.

There are three key reasons why cell phone jammers are considered illegal

The use of cell phone jammers can hinder your ability, as well as that of others, to contact 911 and other emergency services. Additionally, they present serious risks to public safety communications and disrupt regular forms of communication.

The following article delves into the mechanics of signal jammers , the legal implications of using them in the United States, protocols to follow in case of interference with authorized communication, and the services offered by Cellbusters for inquiries related to cell phone jammers.

Actions to Consider When Authorized Communication is Being Jammed

Have you considered the possibility of a signal jammer causing the interference? There are several factors, including signal jammers, that can result in unreliable network connections:

faulty equipment

physical obstructions that block the signal

lawful devices that are operating on the same frequencies

It is recommended to troubleshoot equipment and connectivity problems based on the manufacturer and service provider recommendations before lodging an interference complaint via the FCC Consumer Complaint Center. Along with reviewing the owner's manual and seeking assistance from the company's technical support, utilizing online resources to search for your device/model and the specific issue may aid in identifying or excluding potential causes.

The purpose of a cell phone jammer is to hinder the reception or transmission of cell phone signals by creating interference within the operating frequency ranges of mobile phones. By emitting signals on the same radio frequencies as cell phones, the jammer disrupts the communication between the phone and the cell phone base station, rendering the phones within its vicinity unable to receive signals.

When deciding on a cell phone jammer, various aspects can be considered:

How large of an area should the cell phone jammer be able to cover?

Are you looking for a pocket-sized cell phone jammer that ensures complete discretion?

Utilizing cell phone jammers can bring about several benefits, whether you aim to minimize disturbances caused by people nearby in public settings or to silence the usage of mobile phones within your organization or educational facility. Nevertheless, it is essential to conduct adequate research beforehand to ensure the acquisition of a signal jammer that precisely caters to your intended purpose.

When searching for cell phone jammers for sale, you should take the following into consideration…

For how many years has the vendor been conducting business?

Does the vendor stock a diverse selection of products, or do they specialize exclusively in signal jammers?

How large of an area should the cell phone jammer be able to cover?

Do you require a discreet (compact) handheld device that can block cell phone signals?

Are you searching for a cell phone jammer suitable for your application, whether it be portable, fixed, or vehicle-based?

Are you looking for a novelty gadget or a genuine cell phone jamming device?

Congressman David Kustoff (TN-08) has reintroduced the Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2022, which targets the problem of contraband cell phone use in federal and state prison facilities. This bill would authorize state and federal prisons to utilize cell phone jamming systems in order to protect inmates, guards, and the public.

The companion bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), with support from Representatives William Timmons (SC-04), Tom Rice (SC-07), Ralph Norman (SC-05), and Jeff Duncan (SC-03) as co-sponsors.

The statement made by Congressman Kustoff emphasized that inmates in correctional facilities nationwide are utilizing contraband cell phones to conduct illegal activities, such as running drug operations, facilitating sex trafficking, and coordinating escapes.Congress must take decisive action to address the problem of contraband cell phones, as they enable dangerous criminals to perpetuate illegal activities from within prison walls, posing a threat to public safety.It brings me great pleasure to team up with Senators Cotton and Graham in reintroducing this essential bill that will safeguard our communities in West Tennessee and the United States.

Inmates have employed illicit cell phones to coordinate illegal activities beyond the confines of correctional facilities, such as orchestrating attacks on adversaries, engaging in sex trafficking, running drug enterprises, and conducting business deals.Despite the potential of cellphone signal jamming devices to stop this, the Federal Communications Act prohibits facilities from implementing this technology. The proposed bill seeks to remedy this situation, ensuring that criminals can serve their sentences without posing a threat to public safety.

The Correctional Leaders Association, the Council of Prison Locals, the American Correctional Association, the National Sheriff's Association, and the Major County Sheriffs of America stand behind this legislation.

In both federal and state prison facilities, the prevalence of contraband cell phones is widespread. Inmates have exploited these unauthorized devices to engage in a range of illegal activities, such as orchestrating targeted attacks on individuals beyond prison confines, operating illicit drug networks, conducting unlawful business transactions, facilitating sex trafficking, and organizing escapes that pose risks to correctional staff, fellow inmates, and members of the public.

The South Carolina Prison Incident was ignited by the presence of cell phones and contraband. A brawl ensued inside the Lee Correctional Institution near Bishopville, South Carolina, as rival gangs clashed over territorial control. The use of cell phones to trade contraband further fueled the intensity of the confrontation. Tragically, this violent incident resulted in the deaths of seven inmates and left 20 others injured.

In 2013, Lt. Osvaldo Albarati, a correctional officer at the Bureau of Prisons, was killed for disrupting an illicit contraband cell phone business. The inmate responsible for his assassination used a contraband cell phone to contact the gunman, as detailed in the indictment.

In 2018, a report exposed how an FCI Fort Dix inmate in New Jersey orchestrated a murder and assault through a smuggled phone within the prison. Another inmate at the same facility faced charges for possessing and disseminating child pornography using a contraband phone. Additionally, six other inmates confessed to their involvement in criminal activities.

Contraband cell phones not only enable violent criminals to carry out their illicit activities but also have wider implications. The Wall Street Journal reported that Martin Shkreli, the disgraced pharmaceutical executive sentenced to seven years for securities fraud, managed to make decisions at Phoenixus AG by using a contraband cell phone.

The ability to communicate with others at all times is truly advantageous. Nevertheless, the excessive use of cell phones in restaurants, movie theaters, concerts, shopping centers, and churches has led to disruptions, as some individuals do not know when to cease their conversations.Is there anyone who hasn't felt annoyed by being privy to a conversation about a very personal issue, where the speaker discloses intimate details to their friend and the people nearby?

Despite most people merely grumbling and moving forward, there are those who resort to extreme measures for retribution. Cell phones, essentially functioning as portable two-way radios, are susceptible to signal disruption or jamming, much like any other radio device.

The function of jamming devices is to overpower cell phones by transmitting a signal on the same frequency and with enough power to cause the two signals to collide and negate each other. Cell phones are equipped to enhance their power in the presence of low-level interference, therefore the signal jammer must be capable of identifying and matching the power increment from the phone.

Cell phones are designed as full-duplex devices, utilizing two distinct frequencies for talking and listening simultaneously. Certain jammers disrupt one of the frequencies used by cell phones, causing both frequencies to be blocked. This results in the phone being misled into thinking there is no service available, as it can only receive one frequency.

Basic devices are capable of blocking a single group of frequencies, whereas advanced wifi jammer can simultaneously block multiple types of networks. This prevents dual-mode or tri-mode phones from automatically switching between different network types in search of an available signal. Certain high-end devices have the ability to block all frequencies simultaneously, while others can be adjusted to target specific frequencies.

To disrupt a cell phone signal, one only needs a device that can broadcast on the right frequencies. Despite differences in signal processing among various cellular systems, all cell phone networks utilize radio signals that are susceptible to interruption.Europe and Asia employ GSM in digital cellular and PCS-based systems, utilizing the 900-MHz and 1800-MHz bands, while in the United States it operates within the 1900-MHz (sometimes referred to as 1.9-GHz) band.Jammers have the ability to transmit signals on various frequencies, enabling them to effectively disrupt AMPS, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, PCS, DCS, iDEN, and Nextel systems. Regardless of whether it is an old-fashioned analog cell phone or a modern digital device, both types are equally prone to being affected by jamming.

The actual range of the gps jammer depends on its power and the local environment, which may include hills or walls of a building that block the jamming signal. Low-powered jammers block calls in a range of about 30 feet (9 m). Higher-powered units create a cell-free zone as large as a football field. Units used by law enforcement can shut down service up to 1 mile (1.6 km) from the device.

I'll give you a serious answer since many others won't. I know from experience that, yes, your neighbor COULD have such a device. They're rather inexpensive. $150 can get someone a cell phone jammer conveniently delivered to their door.

Is it likely though? Anything is possible. You never really know who your neighbors are. I move around a lot & after all the awful neighbors I have had, I put nothing past anyone.

FCC probably won't take your claim seriously without proof. Just repeat the performance a few times & record the results. However, if the guy has a gsm jammer it would probably be best not to talk about your test out loud.

Reason being, when someone has a jammer, they usually also have a listening device. No, I am not joking. Every person in this would be paranoid if they knew the number of people who buy listening devices so they can spy on their neighbors for shits & giggles....or worse more malicious reasons.They're easy to acquire & work wonderfully. Don't talk about your plan to test him so you can record it. If he has a jammer, chances are that he's the type to have such a device to listen to you in your home.

A French father finds himself in a predicament as he faces a considerable penalty and the prospect of incarceration for his noble attempt to restrict his children's access to the internet and mobile phones during late hours. The signal jammers he employed proved to be highly effective, not only deterring his kids from going online, but also disrupting the connectivity of individuals residing in a nearby town.

An unusual occurrence affecting internet and cellular service in the town of Messanges, France, was reported to the Agence Nationale Des Frequences (ANFR). The perplexing disruption, which took place every weeknight between midnight and 3 AM, became even more peculiar upon investigation. It was determined that a signal jammer was being utilized to block radio frequencies.

According to the report, the Touluse Regional Service of the ANFR initiated its investigation in the middle of the night. What could have caused such a disruption at a time when the entire city is typically asleep?

As the agency delved deeper into the matter, they stumbled upon a distinctive shape on a graph (depicted below) that left the investigator with no uncertainty. It was undoubtedly the unmistakable signature of a wave cell phone jammer, an illegal device in France. In their quest to uncover the origin of this jamming activity, the investigator tracked it down to a house located in close proximity to the coast. Following a polite knock on the door and a confrontation with the father, he openly admitted to employing the signal jammer to prevent his teenage children from using their smartphones to surf the internet instead of getting adequate rest.

ANFR's report highlights that his children have become addicted to social networks and other applications, especially since the confinement measures were implemented as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Despite not intending to block an entire town's internet access, the father's use of a signal jamming device is against the law in France. Consequently, he may be subject to a penalty of up to approximately $34,000 (30,000 Euros) and six months of imprisonment.

Individuals residing in the United States should be aware that employing similar technology to prevent their children from accessing the internet is against the law. Similar to France, if found guilty, one may face significant fines and imprisonment in America.

In France, the case remains ongoing as ANFR has transferred all its findings to the relevant local authorities. However, the father is no longer in possession of his signal jammer, which he previously utilized to restrict his children's access to their beloved social media sites.