Be wary of cell phone jammers, as criminals may soon employ them for illicit activities. These portable devices, capable of initiating a "denial of service" or "DOS attack," are being sold through numerous online stores for $1,000 to $2,000. However, the penalty for possession could surpass $10,000. Despite their small size - with one model purportedly able to "fit into any empty cigarette pack" - these devices are highly effective. Once activated, they disrupt wireless signals within a radius of about 100 feet.

Devices that illegally silence cell phones

The issue of cell phone jammers in Canada has become a matter of national concern, as highlighted by the Ottawa Sun. In response to an incident where two Quebec police officers encountered two suspects on a dimly lit highway, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has issued a nationwide warning to all police agencies regarding the use of cell phone jammer. The interference caused disruption to the officers' walkie-talkies.

The Mount Spokane incident underscored the fact that these jammers can effectively interfere with police radio communications. In light of this, a number of safety alerts have been issued in recent weeks to warn officers about the potential compromise to their safety caused by these devices.

While Section 333 of the FCC Rules explicitly forbids any deliberate or malicious interference with radio communication, the agency encounters practical limitations when it comes to enforcing this particular rule.

According to the proprietor of a luxurious Maryland restaurant, FCC and Verizon Wireless investigators conducted a visit to the establishment last year. The owner, who opted not to disclose their identity, shared that they bought a $1,000 jammer to discourage employees from neglecting customers in favor of their phones.

He recounted how he persistently advised them, emphasizing, "Kindly place your mobile phones down, kindly place your mobile phones down, kindly place your mobile phones down." Unfortunately, they paid no heed to his instructions. The owner disclosed that FCC investigators meticulously patrolled the area for a week, utilizing specialized equipment capable of detecting signal jammers. Nonetheless, the owner had deactivated the equipment.

Similarly, the Verizon investigators were unable to achieve their desired outcome. The owner revealed that the individual went to great lengths by contacting every resident in the town, providing them with his personal phone number, and emphasizing the importance of immediate communication if any issues arose. Nevertheless, the owner has now chosen to discontinue the use of the jammer.