Ensuring the safety and security of both staff and inmates within correctional facilities is of utmost importance. Implementing stringent security measures is crucial to maintain control and prevent dangerous situations from arising. Sadly, the presence of cellphones in prisons poses a significant threat to this goal.

 

One of the main challenges that correctional facilities face is preventing contraband items from entering the prison. Traditional security measures such as body scanners, metal detectors, and thorough searches often prove ineffective in detecting smaller items like cellphones. Inmates and their accomplices have become increasingly creative in concealing these devices, exploiting vulnerabilities in the system.

 

Once cellphones find their way into prisons, they become powerful tools for organizing criminal activities within and beyond the facility's walls. Gang leaders, drug dealers, and other inmates can use cellphones to coordinate illicit operations, intimidate others, and even continue conducting their illegal businesses from behind bars.

 

In response to the Greenville Veteran's Suicide Incident, correctional facilities are under immense pressure to strengthen security measures and address the issue of cellphone access within prisons. The incident demonstrated the urgent need for innovative solutions and strategies to combat this growing problem.

 

This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Subscribe to the newsletter or follow The Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter.

 

Shortly before noon on Sept. 11, 2018, a former Army soldier named Jared Johns lay in bed, turned on his iPhone camera, and said goodbye to his family.

 

Near the end of the two-minute video, Johns' eyes widened as a text message read on the screen: "She's calling the police and you're going to jail," it read.

 

Johns, who had served in Afghanistan, took a deep breath, placed a 9mm pistol under his chin, and pulled the trigger.

 

The 24-year-old veteran is one of hundreds of former and current service members who have fallen victim to a "sextortion" conspiracy. The scheme that led to his suicide involved scammers posing as underage girls on dating sites. Prosecutors said they sought to extort men who responded to their solicitations.

 

But the most startling aspect of the plot in Johns’ case was that it was allegedly carried out by inmates at Lee Correctional Institution, a maximum security prison in South Carolina about 150 miles east of Greenville. And the inmates did it using smartphones — banned devices that should have been blocked by the prison’s $1.7 million “managed access system.”

 

Now prison officials and some federal agencies have proposed purchasing an even more complex and potentially more expensive technology to stop illicit cellular and Wi-Fi messaging from contraband phones in prison: a jammer that will block all calls within its range.

 

“Inmates are incarcerated physically, but they’re still free, digitally,” said Bryan P. Stirling, the director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, who has been on a mission to get signal jammers in prisons since 2009.

 

But some experts warn that jamming technology, which the federal Bureau of Prisons recently tested in a South Carolina prison, could put the public at risk by interfering with 911 calls and other cellphone service nearby. For rural prisons, the concern focuses on drivers on local roads and highways. Plus, they say, the technology probably won’t work.

 

“They’re taking an internal problem and impacting people who are not involved,” said Richard Mirgon, a former executive at the Association for Public-Safety Communications Officials. “It’s tantamount to saying, ‘Why not jam up the freeway to keep people from speeding in the side streets?’ It’s just so extreme.”

 

 

Problems with the best solution

The best solution, according to telecommunications companies and advocates for prisoners’ rights, would be to stop the influx of cellphones into prisons. But that has proven difficult,

especially at a prison like Lee, which has a long history of serious phone-related incidents. Inmates there have used contraband cellphones, for example, to order a hit on a corrections officer who was shot almost to death in 2010 and to publicize prison riots twice in the past four years.

 

Sex, drugs and cellphones:Relationships between guards, inmates unravel SC prisons

 

Prison officials at Lee say they have tried to stem the tide. In 2017, the corrections department felled large trees that loomed over the prison to stop drones from dropping off packages of cellphones. That same year, the department spent $8.3 million to install 50-foot netting at the perimeter of its prisons, including Lee, in hopes of stopping couriers from throwing backpacks of cellphones over fences.

 

Corrections officials say these solutions reduced the number of cellphones in state prisons. In fiscal year 2017, prison guards confiscated 7,482 phones, batteries or chargers in the state’s facilities, which house more than 21,000 people. In the fiscal year that ended in June, officials collected 3,900. Chrysti Shain, a spokeswoman for the corrections department, said that inmates now must spend thousands of dollars to acquire a phone.

 

Yet, the department acknowledges phones still get inside. Experts point to low-paid guards and prison workers who can augment their low pay by selling inmates contraband.

But even if cellphones get in, there should be no calls getting out. That’s because of the nearly $2 million in technology that Lee officials purchased to block calls from unauthorized phones.

 

 

Challenges with cellphone signal blocking

In 2017, after clearing the treeline and setting up the nets, the corrections department hired Tecore Networks, a communications company, to install the system that is supposed to detect and block all calls made from contraband phones. The technology is supposed to work like this: If someone makes a call, the system compares the cell number to a predetermined list of prison staff phone numbers — called a white list —and then either allows the call to go through, or blocks it.

 

The wireless telecommunications lobby group CTIA, which represents some of the country’s largest carriers and equipment manufacturers, has recommended that prisons use the managed access systems, as they are called. But it’s unclear how many facilities across the country actually do. Shawntech, another private company that sells managed access systems to correctional institutions, says it provides the multi-million dollar systems to close to 350 jails and prisons.

 

Even engineers who back the system as a solution warn that it’s not a silver bullet to stop all illicit calls, which can circumvent the system because of a very basic rule of how a cell tower works: If you can’t see it, it can’t see you.

 

When someone inside makes a phone call, the closest cell tower will pick up that signal. In a prison with a managed access system in place, the tower is usually located within the perimeter. But, for example, if an inmate stood behind a wall with water pipes, the cell signal would find the closest tower it could see, which would be outside the prison.

 

Also, cell companies often change the strength of a signal if customers in an area have bad reception. It’s like listening to two conversations happening at once in the same room; it’s easier for you to hear the loudest speaker. Whenever cell companies boost a signal, cellphones inside the prison will be able to find it more readily. It’s a problem that Tecore flagged in a 2018 press release.

 

That’s what South Carolina’s corrections officials say happened at Lee, and how the inmates contacted Johns in the first place.

 

Current and former prisoners at Lee said they could use cellphones easily, even with the managed access system in place. This year, inmates at Lee were caught live-streaming on Facebook.

“Walk into one room, and it’s fine; walk into another and you won’t be able to,” said a current inmate in the prison, who said he has used a prepaid Boost Mobile cellphone to make calls. His identity is not being revealed out of concern for his safety.

 

Tecore, which manages the prison’s system, did not respond to multiple emails or calls over several weeks seeking comment.

 

 

Jamming all calls, even to 911

These problems explain why corrections officials and federal agencies have proposed using technology long opposed by the communications industry: cellphone jammers to stop all calls, even from phones owned by staff or emergency workers.

 

Unlike managed access systems, which allow people to make calls if their numbers are on an approved list, a jammer is indiscriminate in its reach and power to block all frequencies, including data and Wi-Fi. That’s a problem for the nation’s 911 phone system, which operates on a frequency close to the one commercial carriers use.

 

Only federal authorities can legally use jammers, and only in limited circumstances involving national security. But with the blessing of the FCC’s Chairman Ajit Pai—appointed by President Trump in 2017— and the U.S. Department of Justice, prison jammers could become a possibility.

 

In September, the department and state officials put out news releases saying that a test at South Carolina’s Broad River Correctional Institution showed that a micro-jammer could block calls inside a cell block while allowing “legitimate calls” a foot outside its walls.

 

But a technical report on the same test by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration was squishier. It noted that the test involved only one of the 14 gsm jammer required to block calls in half the cellblock. And it found that jamming was detected at least 65 feet away, though it said it was unclear how significant that interference would be to regular cell-phone service.

 

The telecommunications agency would not comment on the study.

 

Precise jamming — limited to a specific distance and also only to cellphone frequencies— is prohibitively expensive, especially for larger correctional facilities, said Ben Levitan, a technical engineer who has worked with the South Carolina corrections department in the past and read the NTIA’s report.

 

That kind of jamming is “cool in theory, but it’s impractical,” he said.

 

A 2018 T-Mobile report also concluded that jammers with the precision to overpower only phone frequencies up to a certain distance would generally be too expensive for prisons.

 

 

How SC prisoners have used cellphones

 

In Johns’ case, inmates at Lee used smartphones to pose as girls on the dating app Plenty of Fish. After they got a response, the inmates impersonated the girls’ parents, saying the girls were underage, asking for money or threatening to go to the cops.

 

The scammers demanded just over $1,100 from Johns. A single father who was already struggling with mental-health issues, Johns couldn’t afford that.

 

Three weeks after his suicide, Johns’s mother, Kathy Payne-Bowling, got a Facebook message asking her to contact an inmate at Lee. She told her ex-husband, Kevin, who talked to the inmate and was told that other prisoners had called their son.

 

“I couldn’t believe it when I found out,” Payne-Bowling said. “These guys, they’re not supposed to have phones in the first place!”

 

Read between the lines:Transcripts of text, Facebook messages between Jared Johns, his mom and alleged scammers

 

The family contacted the police, and within a month the local district attorney’s office charged two inmates with blackmail in relation to Johns’ death. They have pleaded not guilty. No trial date has been set.

 

The U.S. attorney in South Carolina also charged 15 people, including five Lee inmates, in a similar scam in 2018. Prosecutors say the alleged perpetrators extorted nearly $560,000 from 442 service members. Three inmates pleaded guilty earlier this year, as did seven people on the outside who helped to orchestrate the scheme.

 

The Johns family plans to testify in favor of legalizing jammers at a Senate hearing later this year.

 

But the family blames corrections officials for not doing more to prevent inmates from getting phones in the first place.

 

“If these guys in the prison just kept the phones out like they’re supposed to, this wouldn’t have happened,” said Johns’ twin brother, Jacob. “I would still have my brother. I would still have my family. I’d still have our life.”

Cell phone jammers in the country's prisons are not enough to stop criminals inside from sending messages to others outside the prison.

 

That's the view of senior prison officials, and while network jammers (which they say can be used) are used to block cell phone signals in prisons, other interception techniques are needed for the system to be effective.

 

"Cellphone jammers are being used. However, to be truly effective they must be used in conjunction with other technologies such as WiFi jammers. We can see this happening in other jurisdictions. But it still needs to be used correctly here.

 

"So some prisoners have mobile phones and tablets but are unable to make calls. However, you can use your phone's data allowance or if you have access to a hotspot device or WiFi box, you can also make calls through social media apps. This includes WhatsApp , Facebook and Instagram etc. So the problem of communicating with the outside world remains. Communication is still a work in progress.

 

"In other jurisdictions, you'll see cell phone jammers used in conjunction with other interception devices to determine what frequencies those devices are using and then target those specific frequencies." If it doesn't, it's almost like a dreidel in the mud, "a senior prison Service source explained yesterday.

 

Acting Commissioner of Prisons Deopersad Ramoutar did not directly answer questions put to him recently about the function of mobile phone jammer, saying it was confidential information and not within the purview of the Prison Service.

 

On July 5, several contraband items were found and seized at Aruka Maximum Security Prison, including a Wi-Fi box.

 

The officer received the information and went to the cell block B of the prison.

 

Police conducted a search and found and seized a bag containing 53 grams of cannabis, mobile phones and Wi-Fi boxes in a cell near the toilet.

 

In another cell, police found and seized a bag containing 104 packs of cigarettes and marijuana weighing a total of 241 grams.

Two prisoners said they were in possession of the seized items.

 

On Friday, prison officials expressed concern about the use of drones over prisons, with one senior officer saying it was a "ticking time bomb" that needed to be addressed.

 

"All it takes is a drone, we can't catch it, it could drop knives or even guns and we could have a very serious situation." Everything we've seized so far has been contraband - cigarettes, marijuana, cell phones, chargers, etc. But if we miss even one, it could be a very dangerous situation for the prison and for the country."

 

Ramutar said the prison service had noticed an increase in the number of drones being used around prisons, especially in the last year, and had taken action.

 

He said that with the help of various branches of the state security services, most of the items dropped from the prison walls were confiscated before they reached the prisoners.

Let's give credit to the teacher who destroyed the phone signal in the classroom. This is just a place that needs them.

 

The news that Fivay High School teacher (and former professional wrestler!) Dean Liptak is in trouble for blocking cell phone signals in his classroom is completely the wrong reaction from the school administration (and let’s be honest, the government).

 

Of course, what he was doing was technically illegal. The FCC says: "The use of 'cell phone jammers' or similar devices (signal blockers, GPS jammers or text message blockers, etc.) designed to intentionally block, interfere with, or disrupt authorized radio communications is a violation of federal law." Oops, It's not even illegal to sell jammers in the United States, but they're easy to buy overseas (as long as the retailer doesn't get caught). The only legal purchasers of such equipment are government employees.

 

Liptak is getting off light (five-day suspension without pay); a Florida man with a jammer in his car for months got fined $48,000. At least one priest has used a jammer after calls happened during sermons and even a funeral—and he supposedly got the go-ahead from the police.

 

Sure, the driver, and the priest, and the teacher may have used some questionable judgment since the signal blocker blocked more than just their limited locations. But they all jammed with the best of intentions, and perhaps Liptak had the best reason of all: to get the little brats we call our future to pay attention for once.

 

Back in the days of yore, in-class distractions were limited to things like seeing something out the window (SQUIRREL!), passing folded notes, or maybe sneaking in a comic book. Now, a student can do all that and a 1,000 other things on one screen. How does a teacher of any quality compete with YouTube, Snapchat, Trivia Crack, or even PornHub? Putting a filter on the local school Wi-Fi network doesn't mean squat to a kid with unlimited data from mommy and daddy's family plan.

 

Rather than condemn Liptak, society should look into ways to empower teachers who need this assist. The FCC and Congress should be creating exceptions to the Communications Act of 1934 upon which many of the cellphone jammers limitations are based. Businesses should be allowed to find new ways to make easily controlled jamming devices.

 

Because, let's face it, there are multiple places where it would be an excellent idea for jammers with limited, fine-tuned range, to be used judiciously:

 

At Home

Parents can try parental control and monitoring software all they like, but once a kid (or even the spouse or grandparents) gets the freedom of the smartphone with data plan, good luck trying to get them to talk during family dinner.

Just as a parent has the ability and right to cut off the Wi-Fi at home, they should have the option to cut the cellular signal if desired. Grabbing phones from hands to put them in airplane mode probably won't work, and making the house into a Faraday cage is an extreme only the tin-foil hat crowd should try. But an in-home cell jammer should be an option whenever desired or necessary. (Just keep that landline, folks.)

All of these examples are predicated on other lines being available for emergencies, or at the least someone having the expectation of mobility enough to get outside the jammer's range. For now, there's no way that even those with the best intentions could utilize the limited tech available in a way that wouldn't disrupt services well beyond the scope of their classroom, theater, office, or home, unfortunately. If you think there's an illegal jammer in use around you, visit the FCC online complaint portal or call 1-888-CALL-FCC (or 1-888-225-5322).

But before you do, consider if you really were harmed, or if maybe, just maybe, that hour without the cell signal was the best hour of your day. Besides, if your signal is jammed, you probably can't make the call anyway.

 

The Workplace

There's no question that in most offices, email and the Internet are absolute necessities. But are cell phones? In a survey by Pew Research, only 24 percent of adults with full- or part-time jobs listed a cell or smartphone as "very important" to getting their work done. In other research, 50 percent of bosses think a cell phone is a negative to workplace productivity.

There are plenty of places where it's actively dangerous to be using a cell phone—but the devices are probably snuck on to warehouse or assembly line floors all the time. If employers could jam signals but allow for emergency calls, no harm, no foul.

 

Restaurants

The sign should read: No short, No shoes, Using Phone, NO Service. Customers who can't bother to place an order with a server because they're in the middle of a call should get a 35 percent tip forced on their bill. Better yet, the bistro's jammer should cut this so-called customer off—if the call is so damn important, they can go outside.

 

Theaters

I've been on the wrong end of a couple of cell phone calls at movie theaters in the last few years. Namely, in the middle of a movie, people's phones not only went off, but the idiot in question answered, then proceeded to have a conversation, at normal volume, as if that's perfectly okay, and not grounds for justifiable homicide. (At one of those films—the execrable Land of the Lost, so perhaps I should have been grateful for the distraction—I actually stood up and said to the offender, "Are you kidding me?" I like to think the rest of the audience applauded, but I couldn't hear anything over the hate-blood pounding in my ears.)

Concert goers, Broadway aficionados, film buffs, and many more would not need to worry about such rudeness if theaters utilized jammers that kicked in the second the lights dim. Sure, there's always emergencies, or doctors on call, or parents who must be sure the baby-sitter can reach them, etc. But those people should find a different way to spend their night out.

A signal jammer is a device that suppresses, interferes with or blocks radio frequencies, the use of which is generally illegal under the Communications Act 1934. This is primarily due to their ability to interfere with critical communications such as emergency communications, disrupt first responder communications, or interfere with maritime or aviation communications.

 

Under the law, it is unlawful for any person to "willfully or maliciously interfere with or disrupt the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under this chapter or operated by the United States Government." Additionally, the bill prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, transportation, or use of equipment that does not comply with the provisions of the bill.

 

Therefore, it is often impossible to authenticate or use jamming device because their real purpose is to disrupt the communications of authorized devices. Therefore, these devices do not comply with FCC standards and are illegal for use in the United States with few exceptions.

 

In this case, the FFC received an outage complaint from a telecommunications provider. In response, the agency's law enforcement division launched an investigation into the possible use of wifi signal jammer at a warehouse in Texas. The business owner admitted using such devices to prevent employees from using mobile phones in the workplace.

 

The company's owners said a telecommunications provider had previously warned their son that such devices were illegal, the FCC reported. Additionally, the owner of the device claimed that he had disposed of the device and would not retrieve it for agents or determine where it went. However, the owner reportedly offered to sell the unit to a broker, who rejected the offer.

 

The FCC Bureau of Enforcement has since issued $22,000 in fines, including $10,000 for operating an unauthorized device, $7,000 for interfering with authorized communications, and $5,000 for misconduct. The storage company appealed the decision, and in response, the FCC has now upheld the fine.

 

A Seffner man fined $48,000 by FCC for using cell phone jammer during daily commute

 

A Seffner man faced a $48,000 fine from the Federal Communications Commission Wednesday for using a cell phone jamming device during his daily commute to and from Tampa.

 

The FCC alleges that Jason R. Humphreys unlawfully interfered with cellphone service and police communications along Interstate 4 for two years.

 

"This case highlights the threat to public safety posed by the use of a single signal jamming device that could disrupt all wireless and public communications in the area," FCC Enforcement Bureau Director Travis LeBlanc said in a statement. Communications.” Secure Communications. "

 

In 2013, MetroPCS contacted the FCC saying its cell towers were experiencing interference between Seffna and Tampa in the morning and evening. Police monitored the route and determined Humphrey's sport utility vehicle was the source.

 

Hillsborough County Sheriff's deputies stopped Humphries and discovered that as they approached Humphries' car, their communications with the police dispatch center were lost. They found a cell phone jammer behind his passenger seat cover.

 

Hillsborough County employee Humphreys told authorities he has been using it for nearly two years to stop people from talking on the phone while driving.

 

The FCC proposed a $48,000 fine and gave Humphreys 30 days to respond, including paying in full, requesting payment in installments, or requesting a reduction or cancellation. The FCC said on Monday it had not yet responded and would now "identify and implement" the penalties.

 

The use or sale of mini gps jammer is against federal law. Jammers block radio communications by preventing devices such as cell phones from establishing and maintaining connections. They can also impact communications for first responders, police and other law enforcement agencies, as well as Wi-Fi and GPS devices, according to the FCC.

We are convinced that this was an act of pure, unadulterated charity, uninfluenced by self-interest. Cellphone jammer maker CellAntenna Corp. is calling on U.S. lawmakers to change federal law to allow law enforcement officers to use cellphone jammers more broadly. We bet you can guess why too – and yes, it’s helpful in the fight against terrorism. Because as we all know, there are a lot of cell phone terrorists out there (in fact, for us, anyone we see with a cell phone is automatically suspect). CellAntenna said in a statement that adding cell phone jamming is "the first step in increasing profits to prevent IED attacks in the United States." How refreshing - a company with a social conscience.

 

The company is challenging FCC rules on cell phone jamming devices

 

A small Florida company is asking the Federal Communications Commission to change a rule that bans the sale of cell phone signal encryption equipment to local and state governments.

 

CellAntenna filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta on Nov. 22 challenging the Communications Act of 1934, which is enforced by the FCC. The 1934 Act and related FCC regulations prohibit the use of cellular and radio frequency jamming devices except by federal agencies. That means local and state officials are prohibited from using such devices, which could be used to prevent terrorist attacks.

 

CellAntenna contends that the Communications Act and the FCC's interpretation of the law's provisions are unconstitutional because they conflict with the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which Congress passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

 

It is well known in intelligence and law enforcement circles that cell phones can be used to remotely detonate certain types of bombs. The electrical properties of most batteries used in today's cell phones provide enough energy to produce the necessary spark or energy to ignite detonators or modified electric matches typically used for plastic explosives. In addition, even low-end mobile phones can use built-in alarm and timing mechanisms, and even the simplest and cheapest mobile devices can be used as bomb detonation tools.

 

Mobile phones are believed to have been used in the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Insurgents have used them effectively to trigger street bombings in Iraq in recent years. U.S. troops in Iraq are using devices made by companies like CellAntenna that jam or block cellphone signals to protect convoys traveling through known trouble spots.

 

But in the United States, only federal agencies are allowed to use phone encryption devices. The law prohibits local and state law enforcement agencies from obtaining such devices as first responders to domestic terrorist attacks.

 

"It simply doesn't make sense that the FBI can use these devices but local and state governments, which are considered an important part of counterterrorism under the Homeland Security Act, cannot," said Howard Melamed, CEO of CellAntenna. That makes sense." "We provide weapons and other equipment to local police to protect the public, but we can't trust them to have cell phone wifi jammers devices? It doesn't make sense."

 

This point is a key element of CellAntenna's case against the FCC

 

"Whereas the FCC prohibits the sale of radio frequency and cellular jammers to state and local police departments, the Homeland Security Act consistently and repeatedly directs the Department of Homeland Security to take whatever measures are necessary to empower local law enforcement agencies and first responders in the fight against global terrorism."

A resident of the town of Messanges in southwestern France could spend six months behind bars after unwittingly taking down telephony and mobile internet services in his neighborhood with a signal jammers.

 

Surprisingly, though, his actions were not malicious. He only wanted to prevent his teenage kids from using their mobile devices to go online after bedtime.

 

Are you a parent struggling to manage your kids creen time?

 

Bitdefender’s Parental Control feature offers digital help to parents and guardians who wish to ensure extra online safety for children who use internet-enabled devices. The software filters out inappropriate digital content while allowing the parent to limit screen time and keep up with the child’s online activities.

 

The Parental Control feature can be found in our Total Security product, allowing you to manage and restrict access to the internet and specific apps, especially after bedtime. Check it now for free for up to 90 days with our extended Total Security trial.

According to the French planning and radio frequency management agency (ANFR), a local mobile phone operator filed an unusual complaint this month – just before midnight and until 3 AM every of the week, the residents of Messanges could not use their cellular and mobile internet services.

 

Following an investigation, the ANFR determined that a signal phone jammer, a device prohibited in many European countries including France, was blocking radio frequencies in the area.

 

Around 1:30 am, a technician traced the source of the signal to a residence in the coastal town. The next day investigators, accompanied by police, knocked on the door of the man, who immediately admitted he was using a multi-band jammer.

 

“The gps blocker had been installed by the father of the family to prevent his teenagers from accessing the internet with their smartphone instead of going to bed,” the ANFR explained. “His children had indeed become addicted to social networks and other applications, in particular since the confinement imposed due to Covid-19. After consulting forums on the internet, the father decided that a jammer was the best solution to put an end to his kids’ excessive screen time.”

 

On top of possible jail time, the illicit possession and use of a jammer bring a financial penalty of up to €30,000.

 

“The ANFR agent, in addition to demanding that he turn off the wifi blocker and no longer use it, reminded the owner of the equipment of the regulatory framework,” the agency added.

 

The man also had to pay an intervention fee of 450 euros.

Don let phone notifications stress you out

 

With all those smartphone notifications, it's no wonder you lose focus on whatever you're trying to do.

 

Your phone doesn't even need to ping to distract you. It's well-documented that just the presence of your phone, silent or not, is enough to distract you.

 

what happens? More importantly, how can you refocus your attention without missing out on what’s important?

Is it really such a big deal?

 

While estimates vary, the average person checks their phone about 85 times a day, about once every 15 minutes.

 

In other words, every 15 minutes or so, your attention may drift away from what you're doing. The problem is, it can take a few minutes to fully regain your focus after being interrupted by your phone.

 

If you're watching TV, getting distracted (and refocused) is no big deal. But if you're driving, trying to study, work, or spend time with loved ones, it can cause some pretty serious problems.

 

Cellphone Jammer, a DIY endeavor for the darker crowd. I'm pretty sure we've all considered having one at some point: whether the obnoxiously loud woman next to you is announcing private bedroom stories to a crowd on the subway, or your kids are grounded from using the phone (and consequently snagged a hidden prepaid phone), sometimes having a cell phone signal jammer comes in handy.

What do all these disruptions mean for cognition and well-being?

 

There is growing evidence that push notifications are associated with reduced productivity, poor concentration, and distraction at work and school.

 

But is there evidence that our brains are working harder to handle the frequent switches of attention?

 

A study of people's brainwaves found that those who described themselves as heavy smartphone users were more sensitive to push notifications than those who described themselves as light users.

 

Heavy users were significantly worse than light users at regaining focus on the task after hearing a push notification. Although push notifications interrupted the concentration of both groups, heavy users took longer to refocus.

 

Frequent interruptions from your phone can also make you feel stressed out by the need to respond. Frequent smartphone interruptions have also been linked to increased FOMO (fear of missing out).

 

If you get distracted by your phone after responding to a notification, any subsequent delays in getting back to the task can also make you feel guilty or frustrated.

 

There is certainly evidence that the longer you use your phone in an unproductive way, the lower your rating of your own happiness is.

 

Mr. Larson of the cellular industry group said that while the industry objected to imposed controls on cellphone ringing, it did not oppose measures left to the customers' discretion. ''They are certainly less odious than gps blocker,'' he said.

How can I stop?

 

We know that turning your phone to silent won't magically solve the problem, especially if you're already checking it frequently.

What is needed is behavior change, but it is difficult. It may take several attempts to see lasting changes. If you've ever tried to quit smoking, lose weight, or start an exercise program, you know what I mean.

 

An company Perfectjammer, makes a detector called Wireless Signal Detector Prevents Monitoring, a hand-held device that is used to monitor and detect cellular communication activity in a given area. (It is offered at www.perfectjammer.com for $100-$380.) Other smaller detector models include the RF Signal Detector from TG-007B, about the size of a beeper, which costs less than $100. As with wifi jammers, the larger the detector, the greater its range.

 

Start by turning off all unnecessary notifications. If you want to check your phone less often, here are some things you can try:

In that moment, interrupt the urge to check and actively decide whether it will work in your favor. For example, when you turn to reach for your phone, stop and ask yourself if this action serves a purpose other than to distract.

The EMP generator generates an electromagnetic pulse to disrupt electronics

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in Wisconsin recently seized a slot jammer device while inspecting a shipment from Hong Kong.

CBP officers made the discovery at the Milwaukee port of entry on Feb. 4, CBP said in a press release.

Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) devices are banned by the Federal Communications Commission and are used to "interfere" with the inner workings of slot machines.

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an EMP generator generates an electromagnetic pulse that can disrupt electronic devices at a range of about one meter. These devices typically send an electric current through a magnetic field via a magnetic copper wire.

Border Patrol agents in Arizona have shot dead Mexican migrants at the US border

CBP said the shipment was a car adapter from an electronics supplier in Hong Kong and was headed to a home in Mossini, about 175 miles northwest of Milwaukee.

"There are a variety of ways these tools can be used," LaFonda D. Sutton-Burke, Chicago's director of field operations, said in a statement. "Federal law prohibits such cellphone jammer because they can be used to interfere with radio communications, cellular phones, GPS and other communications devices."

CBP officers at the Port of Milwaukee Express Consignment Operations facility examined the shipment and sent it to the Mechanical Engineering Division at FBI Headquarters for further analysis.

Some people fear that cell phone jammers could disrupt phone service for law-abiding people close to prisons. However, modern jamming technology can be narrowly targeted to minimize disruption to people outside of prison walls.

 

It’s time to fix the federal regulations that prohibit jamming device technology and give prisons the tools they need to fight contraband.

 

Installing jammers in prisons would turn inmates’ cell phones into paperweights, disrupting their criminal networks and drying up a major source of contraband.

 

Risks of GPS Dependence

 

Overreliance on GPS signals is rampant in day-to-day life from data networks, financial systems, health networks, rail, road, aviation and marine transport, to shipping and agriculture. Military platforms commonly use GPS to find their position, navigate and execute missions.

With different systems sharing GPS dependency, a loss of signal could cause the simultaneous failure of many things people rely on daily.

 

The European Commission estimated that six to seven percent of its countries' GDP, representing a whopping $1 trillion, is already dependent on satellite radio navigation in Europe alone.

 

BAE and Lockheed are not alone in their efforts to develop better, more robust systems. Other countries have developed their systems, including Russia's GLONASS, the European Union's Galileo system, and China's COMPASS.

 

Another related issue is the use of GPS. The FAA has been working to upgrade aging radar-based systems with GPS networks for air traffic control and positioning. It should improve safety and pilot awareness. But GPS signals are notoriously vulnerable to disruption: They're relatively weak to begin with, using just 25 watts to send signals from satellites that are roughly 12,500 miles above the Earth. It's so easy to block such signals that GPS jammers are sold online for $30.

 

Simply allocating specific radio spectrum to particular devices does not entirely solve the problem either. A recent example is LightSquared, a company that wants to build a network of 40,000 towers across the country to deliver broadband Internet access using the 4G LTE (Long-Term Evolution) wireless data protocols. The company wants to use a frequency spectrum near the existing GPS L1 band. (Consumer GPS devices typically rely on L1 signals, in the 1575.42 MHz wavelength.)

Protecting Your Privacy: A Guide to Avoiding Drone Surveillance

It's hard to know who owns a drone; some cars have a visible registration number, usually in case the owner forgets.

I watch the drones in the sky with my eyes

I was swimming in the backyard pool one day when I heard a familiar hum. Sure enough, a drone was circling overhead, which disappeared shortly after I flicked it away with my hands. This is where my idea for writing this article came from.

The legality of drone surveillance varies by country and state, but if a drone is flying over your private property and recording you without your consent, call the police. This is an invasion of your privacy.

It's hard to know who owns a drone. In my case, it flew out of sight within seconds. If I had my iPhone within arm's reach, I'd snap a photo of the drone. Some drones have a visible registration number, usually to prevent the owner from forgetting it.

Things You Should Never Do to Drones

 

There are some effective and perfectly legal ways to avoid surveillance. There are also ways that are illegal for ordinary citizens.

The FAA legally protects drones from:

Shooting: Shooting into the sky is dangerous and illegal. Just don't do it.

Physical Interference: This includes lasers and other objects.

Disable or otherwise tamper: Using blockers and hacking is a crime.

 

Now that we've got that out of the way, here's what you can do.

Use your surroundings as cover

Own a drone or know someone who has one? I bet you've been in a situation where someone threw something at it. This is not the right way to avoid drones.

You should take a more reactive approach. In bad weather — heavy rain, fog, and high winds — it can be difficult for drones to fly or get great footage. To rate you.

When the weather is nice and you see drones buzzing overhead, find a place where they are less likely to spot you. Trees, alcoves, awnings, and tunnels are all great places to hide when drones pass by.

 

The Jalisco, Mexico-based CJNG, led by drug lord Nemesio Osegra Cervantes, wears cell phone jammer on its uniform and "employs Middle Eastern terror tactics" by targeting crowds with drones .

They are using drones "to drop bombs on rival cartels and the Mexican Armed Forces."

"They use cell phone wifi jammers to stop these attacks. They use them to stop people from calling for help or calling family when they're kidnapped. They also use them to conduct very sophisticated maneuvers on the battlefield, where they can cover up," Logan said. "They can cover their lines, they can cover their attacks, they can cover their exits -- the way they exit the situation. It takes a lot of training and it's a real threat."