We ought to commend the teacher who deliberately interrupted phone signals within his classroom, recognizing that it is a singular environment where this intervention is warranted.

The incident involving teacher Dean Liptak, who is also a former pro-wrestler, facing backlash for his decision to block cell phone signals in his classroom at Fivay High School, was an inappropriate response from both the administrators and, quite frankly, the government.

 

Without a doubt, his actions were unquestionably illegal. As per the Federal Communications Commission, the deliberate utilization of 'cell jammers' or comparable devices intended to intentionally obstruct, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications (such as signal blockers, GPS jammers, or text stoppers) is a direct violation of federal law. Moreover, it is important to note that the sale of jammers within the United States is strictly prohibited, although they can still be readily obtained from international sources, provided that the seller remains uncaught. It is crucial to highlight that only government employees are legally permitted to procure such equipment.

 

Liptak's punishment seems lenient, as he only received a five-day suspension without pay. In contrast, a Florida man who had a jammer in his car for several months was fined a staggering $48,000. It is worth noting that there have been instances where a priest resorted to using a jammer during sermons and even a funeral, allegedly with permission from the police.

 

Admittedly, the driver, the priest, and the teacher may have exercised questionable judgment when utilizing the jammers, as they inadvertently disrupted more than just their intended locations. However, their actions were driven by good intentions, and it could be contended that Liptak had the most compelling rationale of all: to compel the little troublemakers we affectionately call our future to finally pay heed.

 

In the days of yore, distractions within the classroom were limited to occurrences such as catching a glimpse of something outside the window (SQUIRREL!), passing folded notes, or perhaps sneaking in a comic book. However, in the present day, a student can partake in all of those activities and a thousand more on a single screen. How can a teacher, regardless of their proficiency, effectively compete with the allure of YouTube, Snapchat, Trivia Crack, or even PornHub? Merely implementing a filter on the local school Wi-Fi network holds no significance for a student who possesses unlimited data from their parents' family plan.

 

Instead of condemning Liptak, it is imperative for society to seek ways to empower teachers in need of assistance. The FCC and Congress should establish exceptions to the Communications Act of 1934, which serves as the basis for many restrictions on cell jammers. Enterprises should be permitted to explore new avenues for developing easily manageable jamming device.

It is an indisputable fact that there are various scenarios where the careful deployment of jammers with limited and precisely calibrated range would be an excellent decision.

 

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.)

 

Those who attend concerts, have a deep appreciation for Broadway productions, are avid film enthusiasts, and various others would be spared from such impoliteness if theaters made use of jammers that activated as soon as the lights dimmed. Granted, there may be occasional emergencies, doctors on call, or parents who need to ensure the babysitter can contact them, etc. Nevertheless, these individuals should explore alternative options for their night out.

 

Restaurants

 

The sign should display: No shorts, No shoes, No phone usage, No service. Customers who fail to place an order with a server because they are engrossed in a phone call should be subject to a 35 percent tip automatically added to their bill. Alternatively, the bistro's signal blocker should disconnect these supposed customers—if their call is truly that significant, they can go outside.

 

The Workplace

 

It is widely acknowledged that email and the Internet have become indispensable tools in most office settings. However, the significance of cell phones in the workplace is subject to debate. According to a survey conducted by Pew Research, only 24 percent of adults with full- or part-time jobs consider a cell or smartphone as "very important" for accomplishing their work tasks. Moreover, research indicates that 50 percent of employers perceive cell phones as detrimental to workplace productivity.

 

It is worth noting that there are plenty of locations where using a cell phone can be actively perilous. However, it is highly likely that cell phones are regularly brought onto warehouse or assembly line floors without detection. If employers had the ability to block signals while still permitting emergency calls, it would ensure the absence of any harm or wrongdoing.

 

At Home

 

No matter how much parents rely on parental control and monitoring software, it becomes an arduous task to encourage a child (or even the spouse or grandparents) to engage in conversation during family dinner once they have access to a smartphone with a data plan.

 

Just like how parents have the capability and authority to disable the Wi-Fi connection at home, they should also have the choice to disable the cellular signal if they wish to do so. Attempting to take phones from individuals' hands and putting them in airplane mode is unlikely to be effective, and transforming the entire house into a Faraday cage is an extreme measure that should only be considered by those who are overly paranoid. However, having an in-home cell jammer should be a viable option whenever it is desired or necessary. (Remember to keep that landline, everyone.)

 

All these illustrations rely on the availability of alternative communication lines during emergencies, or at least on individuals having enough mobility to move outside the range of the signal jammer. Unfortunately, at present, even those with the best intentions cannot utilize the limited technology available without significantly disrupting services beyond the boundaries of their classrooms, theaters, offices, or homes. If you suspect the use of an illegal jammer in your vicinity, please access the FCC online complaint portal or dial 1-888-CALL-FCC (or 1-888-225-5322).

 

Prior to taking any action, it is important to consider whether you have genuinely encountered any adverse effects, or if perhaps, that hour without cell signal was the most enjoyable hour of your day. Additionally, if your signal is disrupted, it is unlikely that you will be able to place the call anyway.

In response to the grave danger posed by pursuing explosive drones, Russia seems to be implementing jamming technology on its tanks as a defensive measure.

 

On August 2, 2022, DJI Matrice 300 reconnaissance drones were observed conducting test flights in the vicinity of Kyiv. These drones were being prepared for deployment to the front line. The test flights were captured in a photograph taken by SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP and depict the advanced capabilities of these drones.

SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty Images captured the test flights of DJI Matrice 300 reconnaissance drones near Kyiv on August 2, 2022, before they were sent to the front line for deployment.

 

The visual evidence suggests that Russia is outfitting its tanks and vehicles with jammers designed to disrupt the operation of Ukraine's drones.

 

The signal jammers are showcased in a video advertisement, while Russian Telegram channels rally together to raise funds for procuring more of these devices for the Russian troops.

 

Both parties engaged in the Ukrainian war are making concerted efforts to address the challenge presented by drone technology.

 

Russia seems to be taking measures against the persistent risk of drones exploding by installing cell phone jammer on its tanks and vehicles.

 

This maneuver serves as the most recent illustration of electronic warfare tactics employed on the battlefield. Both sides are now escalating their defensive strategies to shield their troops from the ever-increasing threat posed by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). These UAVs pose a significant danger as they relentlessly track and attack main battle tanks, armored vehicles, supply trucks, infantry squads, and even individual soldiers.

 

This week, a camouflaged tank equipped with a GPS jammers on its roof screen was featured in a photo shared on a Russian Telegram channel. The tank also had a cage designed to shield against first-person view (FPV) drone attacks.

 

The cone-shaped system has been identified by observers as a Volnorez C-UAS EW jammer. This particular channel had previously posted several pictures showcasing the unboxing and installation of the same drone jammer system on different vehicles, including tanks and pickup trucks.

 

In addition, a video was shared to promote the system, shedding light on its production process and demonstrating its ability to effectively neutralize Ukrainian drones. It has been reported that Russian Telegram channels have initiated crowdfunding efforts to procure more jammers for utilization by Russian units.

 

The decision of Russia to equip vehicles with jammers highlights their growing apprehension about the threat of FPV drone attacks. However, the effectiveness of these systems and the number of jammers in use remain uncertain. In the past, tank and armored crews have been seen welding cages onto their vehicles as a crude defense.

 

Nevertheless, while armed forces strive to implement electronic warfare defenses, both adversaries in the conflict have been actively pursuing the development of jamming-resistant drones. Such cutting-edge technologies may compel apprehensive vehicle crews to explore alternative resolutions.

Unveiling its latest technological achievement, Ukraine has presented a state-of-the-art drone that possesses exceptional capabilities to operate covertly in enemy territories. Furthermore, this advanced drone has been designed to withstand and counter Russian interference attempts, ensuring uninterrupted communication and successful missions.

 

As per Ukraine's statement, the Backfire is fitted with a GPS antenna to facilitate navigation and has a maximum range of 20 miles.

 

The prevalence of UAVs in the battlefield has prompted Ukraine and Russia to enhance their drone technology significantly.

 

A brand-new drone has been unveiled by Ukraine, claiming that this particular model possesses the capacity to fly well into enemy territory and withstand relentless Russian attempts to interfere with its signals.

 

The drone war between Russia and Ukraine has reached a new phase, propelled by constant technological advancements and the enduring significance of drones on the battlefield and in the skies above. This represents the latest development in the conflict.

 

On Monday, Mykhailo Fedorov, the Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine for Innovation, Education, Science, and Technology, made public the development of the Backfire drone, which he described as a "potent UAV" that can travel up to 20 miles and inflict "colossal damage" on the enemy's rear positions.

 

Federov reportedly stated that the drone would be instrumental in enabling Ukrainian troops to hit Russian artillery, logistics centers, enemy storage facilities, and command posts, as per Ukrainska Pravda.

 

Fedorov pointed out on X, the social media platform previously known as Twitter, that the Backfire's primary feature is its "powerful GPS antenna, resistant to Russian jamming signal" and electronic warfare. Ukrainska Pravda reported that Fedorov further mentioned that this antenna is "extremely difficult to jam," and due to the drone's "complete autonomy, the Russians are unable to track its coordinates and ground crew."

 

As Ukraine prepares to mass produce the Backfire drone, it will soon become part of the country's extensive fleet of UAVs in combat. Fedorov confirmed that it has already successfully completed 50 or more missions over the past few months.

 

The Backfire serves as Ukraine's most recent achievement in the relentless drone warfare, where both factions are compelled to stay vigilant and adapt due to the ever-evolving technological landscape. Drones have become a crucial asset for soldiers in combat, as highlighted by a Ukrainian service member who revealed in September that his unit had refrained from utilizing rifles for an extended period of six months, relying heavily on drones for their combat operations.

 

Throughout the course of the conflict, relatively affordable UAVs have been remarkably successful in neutralizing tanks and armored vehicles, which are predominantly asymmetrical targets, as well as any moving element on the battlefield. Consistently captured in war footage, first-person view (FPV) drones are seen colliding with tanks, infiltrating open hatches in armored vehicles, stealthily approaching troops in trenches, and causing explosions upon impact.

 

The persistent buzzing sound overhead serves as an unceasing reminder of the potential threat, indicating that an unsuspecting target could be targeted by a detonating UAV at any given moment. Ukraine and Russia are actively participating in a competition to enhance their drone capabilities, compelling them to explore new technologies in their pursuit to outperform each other.

As Ukraine and Russia continue to enhance their specific flight and control capabilities, operators have emerged as indispensable assets alongside autonomous drones. However, their value also makes them prime targets for adversaries, resulting in operators engaging in drone-based confrontations.

 

As the influence of drones continues to expand, measures to counter them have also escalated. The battlefront is now inundated with cutting-edge gps jamming technology that disrupts the navigation controls of drones. Although operator-controlled drones are generally less vulnerable to this interference and offer cost advantages in case of loss or destruction during combat, drone jamming remains a major challenge. This underscores the critical significance of Ukraine's new Backfire system in obstructing Russian interference, providing Ukraine with a strategic advantage to operate alongside and behind enemy lines.

PENTAGON: The United States Army is straining to phone fund the increasingly important electronic warfare wifi capabilities it has developed since the gps fall of the Soviet Union. The Army possesses over 32,000 short-range defensive jammer device to block roadside explosives, but an offensive handheld jammer will not be available until 2023, according to current plans.

 

"Can that be sped up?" "Yes," replied Col. Jeffrey Church, the Army's Pentagon staff's chief of electronic warfare. "Technology exists today that does a lot of things that we would like MFEW [the Multi-Function Electronic Warfare system] to do," he said, adding that some of it might even phone be purchased commercially by the Army.

 

However, with the Army decreasing faster than any other service and sequestration looming, "there's no money tree," Church told me in an interview. "So if you're going to grow a robust electronic warfare program, who's going to pay for that?"

where is the Army's electronic warfare today?

 

"I have a theory. I've got folks. "I have facilities," Church explained. "What we lack is equipment."

 

"If you go to a unit gps today in the Army and phone you say, let me see your 'electronic warfare equipment,' and you go to the EWO (Electronic Warfare Officer) and he opens up his wall locker, it's empty," Church went on to explain. "Right now, the Army relies on borrowing assets from other people," such as the Growler aircraft from the Navy.

 

"Our senior army leaders have known and continue to know that electronic warfare is something the Army must have," said Church, the Army's senior electronic warfare specialist. (The fact that the highest senior EWO is a colonel rather than a general demonstrates how nascent the field is). "It's a matter of resource prioritization and wifi where do you fall in those priorities."

 

What category does electronic warfare fit under? The Pentagon's fiscal 2016 budget contains $2.5 million for something called the Electronic Warfare Planning & Management Tool, which is a rounding error for a significant weapons program. EWPMT, which went into service in September 2016, is much-needed software that will allow electronic warfare forces to gather data from sensors such as Navy Growlers and the Army's DCGS-A intelligence network.

 

"EWPMT is what allows them to see the phone battlefield in the electromagnetic environment," Church explained, "so you can tell your commander, 'this is where we have interference.'" This is the situation. This is where the adversary is. I'm not sure what it is, but gps I'm getting some sort of signal."

EWPMT, on the other hand, is now a command-and-control system with nothing to command and control. The 32,000 CREWS gps blocker that defend wifi Army vehicles from roadside explosives are strong at short range, but they aren't connected to any type of network, so EWPMT can't utilize them as a data source, much alone manage them. For the particular circumstances of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army possesses just a few longer-range systems purchased using emergency funding and/or quick equipping authorities.

 

"We got good technology into wifi the field to save soldiers' lives," he remarked. "We didn't get any programs of record, so we phone don't have budgets, we don't have base dollars."

 

The Multi-Function Electronic Warfare system is designed to address this issue. MFEW will be a network of sensors and wifi blocker deployed on various sized drones, ground vehicles ranging from Humvees to heavy trucks, stationary locations, troops' backpacks, and maybe helicopters.

 

Church underlined that, unlike Cold War electronic warfare units, MFEW will not require a specialized vehicle to carry it: "The Army can't afford it," he stated, and current miniaturized electronics don't require it. Instead, MFEW will ride on ground vehicles while they go about their regular tasks, giving data to and receiving commands from Army electronic warfare experts at the gps command post. MFEW will be another plug-and-play module on drones, to be used or not depending on the task, as many specialized sensors already are.

 

How near is this vision to becoming a reality? "Right now, MFEW is not a program," Church explained, limiting the Army's capacity to support it. MFEW is now a "concept" in the arduous process of becoming a formal Army requirement. "We're on about the fifth rewrite of the MFEW CDD (Capabilities Development Document)," Church stated in a statement. MFEW can become a program of record and receive base budget money after thephone CDD is completed and authorized.

 

The MFEW is expected to start service in 2023 and achieve full operational capability (FOC) in 2027. We're still playing catch-up till then.

 

"Guys like the Russians, guys like the Chinese, their surrogates, they've spent the last 20 years continuing the development and acquisition of an electronic warfare capability, whereas… the Army got out of the business," he stated. When the battlefield was brought back to life, he stated, "Army electronic warfare started from nothing, and it started from nothing in a combat environment where a lot of US soldiers were being killed or wounded due to the radio-controlled IED."

 

Church stated, "Now we have to take this to the phone next level, and MFEW is the next level."

 

Of course, all of this is taking place as the Pentagon's senior leadership assesses its electronic warfare portfolio. The newly formed Electronic Warfare Programs Council is the place to be; it is led by Frank Kendall, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics, and Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Electronic Jamming Tactics

 

Jamming has increased in sophistication as electronic warfare gps has developed and phone includes an array of tactics. Barrage jamming is performed against two or more frequencies phone. This can be useful when the aggressor does not know exactly which radio or radar frequencies their adversary is using. Nonetheless, they may know with reasonable gps certainty which phone waveband of frequencies they may be using. Spot jamming is performed against specific frequencies known to gps be in use.

 

The advent of solid-state electronics in the 1960s revolutionized jamming technology. It facilitates the development of complex phone digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) systems. These are particularly useful for jamming radar equipment. DRFM detects incoming radar signals, samples the signal, and then cleverly sounds an alert before retransmitting it to phone the radar. This new false signal could confuse radar by showing two or gps more targets where there used to be only one. The target may move faster or slower than its actual speed. This strategy is called deception gps jamming.

 

Likewise, DRFM can collect and send false signals to trick the radar into believing there is a more prominent or attractive target in its field of view than the one initially detected. This strategy is called temptation interference. In the long term, the emergence of artificial intelligence will make interference tactics and techniques increasingly sophisticated.

Jamming is the basis of the electronic attack mission. Electronic attack is a subset of the broader discipline of gps electronic warfare (EW), which is discussed in more detail elsewhere. Jamming was first used during World War II to attack radar and radio phone equipment. Both latter systems transmit phone radio signals. Radar does this to detect and track objects, radio does this to send and receive voice and data traffic.

 

In the simplest case, the purpose of cell phone jamming is to impair a radar or radio's ability to perform its mission, or even prevent them from completing it entirely. The jamming process also uses radio signals, but in a way that attacks these systems. Simply put, jamming is gps an attack using artificially generated radio interference. An example of how interference works can be seen when a car drives under power lines with the radio on. The sound of the radio was suddenly drowned out by interference. This is caused by electromagnetic radiation from power lines.

 

Interfering signals, called waveforms, are sent to the radar or radio's antenna. The antenna should detect the gps signal. To ensure this, the signal is sent at a frequency that the antenna can gps detect and that matches the phone frequency of the interfering target signal: If the radar sends a signal at a frequency of 3.6 GHz/GHz, the signal must be the same in the event of a malfunction.

 

However, successful radar or radio jamming depends on more than just the frequency of phone the interfering signal. Signal amplitude is also important. Let's consider a radio that receives amplitude traffic at a specific wattage. If the interfering signal is weaker than the signal received by the radio, these signals will remain uninterrupted. Interference signals were also detected, but were too weak to have a noticeable effect.

 

If the interfering signal is stronger than the traffic received by the gps radio, the former will be "washed away." In electronic warfare, jamming is effective when a radio or radar device is receiving rather than transmitting. This is because the incoming radio signal is already relatively weak. This reduces the power required for the signal jammers to be effective. To explain how improvisation works, imagine a violin soloist and a heavy rock band on the same stage. The solo violinist begins to play, but their music immediately becomes inaudible as the rock band begins. This does not mean that the phone violinist's music has stopped, just that the volume of the orchestra drowns out the soloist's voice.

In today's fast-paced world, high-speed Internet and mobile services have become necessities rather than luxuries. But as data services continue to evolve and mature, requiring higher Internet speeds, and as operating systems need protection, hackers and adversaries continue to interfere. For some, this involves hacking into wireless connections in homes and offices for the purpose of extracting personal or business data.

 

But whether they're targeting government agencies, private companies, or individual users, these attackers typically use high-power signal jamming devices - wireless portable devices that block communication between devices. Such jammers are also a means of defense for users seeking to escape these attacks.

With this dichotomy in mind, former Khoury doctoral student Hai Nguyen and his advisor Guevara Noubir, both members of the Institute for Cybersecurity and Privacy at Khoury College, have pioneered a novel approach that can essentially eliminate these high-performance cellphone jammer in the event that traditional techniques fail. This failure occurs because traditional technologies are designed for non-malicious interference, require mechanical moving parts that are slow to respond to interference, or require additional radio frequency bands to achieve resilience. Their technique, known as JaX, can circumvent these scenarios.

 

"When you use wireless communication, you want to make it as robust and reliable as possible. As researchers, we like to solve difficult problems, and this problem has always been there, "Nubier said. "We want to approach this problem from a unique perspective, which is to develop secure communication technologies for GPS and Wi-Fi."

 

Nguyen and Noubir started working on this machine learning-driven idea about a year ago, when signal jamming played a major role in the Russia-Ukraine war. As they built up large amounts of synthetic data and collected experimental materials, their goal was to build a kind of black box that could be placed in front of the network and seamlessly protect users. The solution does not require complex machinery, thus simplifying the process of eliminating high-power signal gps jammer.

 

"For data collection, we set up a test bench, and for transmitters, we used software radios, and for jammers and receivers, we used other radios," explains Nubier. "We sent a legitimate signal, and then we also sent interference. We receive them through two antennas that store data, so we know what we are sending and what is interfering.

 

"The cool thing about our work," he added, "is that we can get an adversary's jammer to emit a more powerful signal than a legitimate one, and we can eliminate the interference as if it never existed!"

 

Nubier believes the paper's findings could be useful for a wide range of individual and organizational users who want to avoid malicious attacks on their data.

 

"The fact that we were able to achieve a very low bit error rate shows that we can outperform an adversary that can transmit a hundred times faster than a legitimate signal," he said. "There can be an extremely noisy signal in the environment, but because we have JaX, we can estimate what the gsm jammer is really transmitting, subtract it, and just leave the legitimate signal."

 

While this process sounds promising, the benefits only matter if the technology is logically sound and affordable - two barriers that often prevent innovative technologies from becoming ubiquitous. But Noubier believes he and Nguyen have cleared that hurdle, too.

 

"Our machine learning model is compact, so if you're designing any new system, you can easily incorporate it," he says. "Again, if the Department of Defense wanted to integrate JaX, the cost would be negligible compared to other models, and the model would be much more efficient."

 

Noubir and Nguyen, who recently defended their dissertation and joined Meta as a research scientist, acknowledge that new approaches to old problems always need tweaking and fixing. Still, they expect JaX to solve long-standing network problems and want to bring it to market.