Do Radar Jammers Work?
ak47
a conclusion. Does anyone have any good information, or strong
opinions one way or the other, on whether devices like Phaser II are
worth the money?
Bob Flaminio
There are two kinds of Radar Jammers:
1) Those that don't work at all, and
2) Those that are illegal.
Take your pick.
-Bob
DPH
wrote:
Yes, that's exactly right. If they work, then the necessarily emit
illegal radio waves since you don't have a license from the FCC to
operate on that band.
And... if you did have a license to operate a radio transmitter on
that band, you don't have permission to jam anything. Jamming in the
USA is absolutely, strictly illegal. Its a federal law. Its why we
don't have cell phone jammers in movie theaters and restaurants as
some other parts of the world do. The FCC enforces it, and they levy
fines with numbers that start in the neighborhood of $10,000 and go up
from there. You _might_ get it knocked down to less than $5,000 with
sufficient whining and promising never to do it again, but don't count
on it.
It just ain't worth it to avoid a $200 ticket.
Dave Head
Ricardo
wrote:
>And... if you did have a license to operate a radio transmitter on
>that band, you don't have permission to jam anything. Jamming in the
>USA is absolutely, strictly illegal. Its a federal law.
There is no law against jamming LiDAR per se, but you could get done
for "obstructing justice" or some such.
>The FCC enforces it, and they levy
>fines with numbers that start in the neighborhood of $10,000 and go up
>from there.
Also 5 years in jail. Definitely not worth it imho.
>It just ain't worth it to avoid a $200 ticket.
Well, some people are willing to risk incarceration for the sake of
shoplifting less than $200 worth of merchandise, so one must never
ever ever underestimate the powers of the irrational mind...
--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada
e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply
for liability purposes: I *always* obey the law.
P e t e F a g e r l i n
news:3e84d336.87760469@news...
| On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:13:31 -0500, DPH <rall...@compuserve.com>
| wrote:
|
| >And... if you did have a license to operate a radio transmitter on
| >that band, you don't have permission to jam anything. Jamming in the
| >USA is absolutely, strictly illegal. Its a federal law.
|
| There is no law against jamming LiDAR per se, but you could get done
| for "obstructing justice" or some such.
In California, and a few other States, there are laws against jamming
LIDAR.
Daniel J. Stern
> There is no law against jamming LiDAR per se, but you could get done
> for "obstructing justice" or some such.
And, of course, there's no law against jamming VASCAR.
DS
Ricardo
<das...@engin.umich> wrote:
>> There is no law against jamming LiDAR per se, but you could get done
>> for "obstructing justice" or some such.
>
>And, of course, there's no law against jamming VASCAR.
Other than some kind of time warp, I can't think of any viable ways
of achieving that! :)
Ricardo
<pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>| There is no law against jamming LiDAR per se, but you could get done
>| for "obstructing justice" or some such.
>
>In California, and a few other States, there are laws against jamming
>LIDAR.
Very true, but such legislation is absence in the majority of
jurisdictions. So the only logical means of prosecution would be a
criminal "obstructing justice" or similar charge. To my knowledge
there have been no successful prosecutions/court test cases to date.
Jim Yanik
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.030328...@alumni.engin.umich.edu:
Smoke screens are not illegal? ;-)
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove X to contact me
Matthew Hunt
Ricardo <sovietja...@spamfreezone.yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >And, of course, there's no law against jamming VASCAR.
>
> Other than some kind of time warp, I can't think of any viable ways
> of achieving that! :)
By analogy with RADAR and LIDAR jamming, I'd think you'd throw a bucket
of white paint.
Jim Yanik
news:3e84e594.92462790@news:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:39:42 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
><das...@engin.umich> wrote:
>
>>> There is no law against jamming LiDAR per se, but you could get done
>>> for "obstructing justice" or some such.
>>
>>And, of course, there's no law against jamming VASCAR.
>
> Other than some kind of time warp, I can't think of any viable ways
> of achieving that! :)
>
Blind/distract the VASCAR operator. Laser-flash him. If from the
rear,smoke-screen.Fire flares,Smoky Sams.
Now,building a VASCAR-detector is the real challenge!
For the humor-impaired;
disclaimer:
(this is all in jest,of course.)
Toastmaster
Ricardo wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:39:42 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> <das...@engin.umich> wrote:
>
>
>>>There is no law against jamming LiDAR per se, but you could get done
>>>for "obstructing justice" or some such.
>>
>>And, of course, there's no law against jamming VASCAR.
>
>
> Other than some kind of time warp, I can't think of any viable ways
> of achieving that! :)
>
Driving really, really, really fast.
Brandon Sommerville
<das...@engin.umich> wrote:
Yeah, it just take a LAW to remove the aircraft...
Damn that's a bad pun...
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, but set
fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Jim Yanik
news:8fcd0dfb8160507a...@news.teranews.com:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:39:42 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
><das...@engin.umich> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Ricardo wrote:
>>
>>> There is no law against jamming LiDAR per se, but you could get done
>>> for "obstructing justice" or some such.
>>
>>And, of course, there's no law against jamming VASCAR.
>
> Yeah, it just take a LAW to remove the aircraft...
>
> Damn that's a bad pun...
Not a LAW(light anti-tank weapon,unguided), a Stinger missile.
But just firing Smoky Sams would freak out the pilot.
Ricardo
>Does anyone have any good information, or strong
>opinions one way or the other, on whether devices like Phaser II are
>worth the money?
They're not.
John David Galt
No. The one or two kinds that work are illegal in all 50 states. Phazer
is an example of the other kind, which are simply frauds taking advantage
of the fact that if you sue them, they can use the "dirty hands" principle
to escape any liability.
Ricardo
<b...@flaminio.com> wrote:
>1) Those that don't work at all, and
>
>2) Those that are illegal.
3) Both.
>Take your pick.
I elect to obey the speed limit; "Muggins" makes do with a V1 & CB.
John F. Carr
>illegal radio waves since you don't have a license from the FCC to
>operate on that band.
That isn't determinative. Lower power devices can be exempt from
licensing.
>The FCC enforces it, and they levy fines with numbers that start in
>the neighborhood of $10,000 and go up from there. You _might_ get it
>knocked down to less than $5,000 with sufficient whining and promising
>never to do it again, but don't count on it.
The chance of FCC enforcement action for a first jamming offense is not
meaningfully different from zero. If the federal government imposed the
death penalty for jamming that would not affect my decision whether to
use a jammer. State laws are the ones to watch out for.
TCS
Laws are irrelevent. What is real is that if caught the cop will
confiscate the equipment and the PD will make getting it back nearly
impossible. Couple that with a guarenteed stay in jail.
Jim Yanik
news:slrnb8mtrj.1edt.The...@turing.kaosol.net:
A "guaranteed stay in jail"? I do not believe so.I believe it's only a
misdemeanor charge,resulting in a ticket.
JFC is right,the FCC enforcement is very unlikely.
Alex Rodriguez
Real radar jammers do work, but they are illegal. Phaser II is crap. It is
not a radat jammer as much as it is a box with batteries and a couple of
LED's.
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Bob Flaminio
> Real radar jammers do work, but they are illegal. Phaser II is crap.
> It is not a radat jammer as much as it is a box with batteries and a
> couple of LED's.
About five bucks worth of parts, available at your local Radio Shack.
-Bob
TCS
You'll get arrested and charged with some bullshit like "obstructing
justice." Till you post bail, count on at least a 6 hour stay, possibly
the entire weekend if you have to wait for bail to set in court.
Call a cop a donut choking weasel and you can experience the same
treatment. Laws matter little when you're dealing with a pissed off cop
and operating a radar jammer will certainly achieve that.
Jim Yanik
news:slrnb8p08f.1hhd.The...@turing.kaosol.net:
Well,first,an officer would have to recognize that they were being
jammed,or recognize the device if the vehicle does get stopped.
Same for Laser speed guns.
TCS
>>
>> Call a cop a donut choking weasel and you can experience the same
>> treatment. Laws matter little when you're dealing with a pissed off
>> cop and operating a radar jammer will certainly achieve that.
>>
>
> Well,first,an officer would have to recognize that they were being
> jammed,or recognize the device if the vehicle does get stopped.
> Same for Laser speed guns.
Like noticing the "RADAR JAMMER" light on the gun?
Or noticing a car doing going by like a bullet and the run reading "55"?
Or watching a car go by and the gun never producing a readout?
Jim Yanik
news:slrnb8rcc1.1l29.The...@turing.kaosol.net:
Could mean some error,perhaps another car in the measurement area.An
officer decided to not write me a ticket for that reason.There's no telling
what makes the biggest radar reflection.Homes have been clocked at speed.
Besides,even with a jammer in use,it's very unwise to not slow before
closing with the police radar site.One reason radar detectors are still
used with jammers.
> Or watching a car go by and the gun never producing a readout?
>
Could mean an equipment failure,or a Glitch.
John F. Carr
TCS <The.Central...@p.o.b.o.x...c.o.m> wrote:
>In article <Xns9352ED90D2...@204.117.192.21>, Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>
>>> Call a cop a donut choking weasel and you can experience the same
>>> treatment. Laws matter little when you're dealing with a pissed off
>>> cop and operating a radar jammer will certainly achieve that.
>>>
>>
>> Well,first,an officer would have to recognize that they were being
>> jammed,or recognize the device if the vehicle does get stopped.
>> Same for Laser speed guns.
>
>Like noticing the "RADAR JAMMER" light on the gun?
A jam alarm might get some response. That's why you should use a
jammer that doesn't set off alarms, if you use a jammer.
>Or noticing a car doing going by like a bullet and the run reading "55"?
>Or watching a car go by and the gun never producing a readout?
Only if the police officer is expecting to be jammed will he treat a
low reading or no reading as cause to stop a car. Jammers are very
rare. Innocent explanations are far more likely.
TCS
>In article <slrnb8rcc1.1l29.The...@turing.kaosol.net>,
>TCS <The.Central...@p.o.b.o.x...c.o.m> wrote:
>>In article <Xns9352ED90D2...@204.117.192.21>, Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Call a cop a donut choking weasel and you can experience the same
>>>> treatment. Laws matter little when you're dealing with a pissed off
>>>> cop and operating a radar jammer will certainly achieve that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well,first,an officer would have to recognize that they were being
>>> jammed,or recognize the device if the vehicle does get stopped.
>>> Same for Laser speed guns.
>>
>>Like noticing the "RADAR JAMMER" light on the gun?
>A jam alarm might get some response. That's why you should use a
>jammer that doesn't set off alarms, if you use a jammer.
It's very easy for a radar gun designer to detect a jammer. Pulse the signal;
check if the supposed bounce back keeps going after the signal has been pulsed
off.
Jim Yanik
news:slrnb8u138.726.The....@linux.adamf625.kaosol.net:
What if it's a white-noise jammer? Just raise the noise floor high enough
that the return pulse is lost. I doubt that is going to set off a JAM LIGHT
indicator,either.
John F. Carr
TCS <The.Central...@p.o.b.o.x...c.o.m> wrote:
>In article <b6mhe1$nnd$1...@pcls4.std.com>, John F Carr wrote:
>>In article <slrnb8rcc1.1l29.The...@turing.kaosol.net>,
>>>>
>>>> jammed,or recognize the device if the vehicle does get stopped.
>>>> Same for Laser speed guns.
>>>
>>>Like noticing the "RADAR JAMMER" light on the gun?
>
>>A jam alarm might get some response. That's why you should use a
>>jammer that doesn't set off alarms, if you use a jammer.
>
>It's very easy for a radar gun designer to detect a jammer. Pulse the signal;
>check if the supposed bounce back keeps going after the signal has been pulsed
>off.
So use a jammer that doesn't transmit a signal when the radar isn't
on. (The easiest way to do this is not to use a transmitter at all.)
TCS
Then it isn't a jammer. Areyou one of those fools who thinks those
"passive" devices do anything against radar?
TCS
The cop will still notice the car go by with no readout.
If you feel risking a jail stay is reasonable then by all means go out
and get a jammer.
Ricardo
<The.Central...@p.o.b.o.x...c.o.m> wrote:
>> So use a jammer that doesn't transmit a signal when the radar isn't
>> on. (The easiest way to do this is not to use a transmitter at all.)
>
>Then it isn't a jammer.
It can be. Some "active" LiDAR jammers, such as the LE20, are
"active" only when they detect a LiDAR signal being fired at them,
as I recall.
>Areyou one of those fools who thinks those
>"passive" devices do anything against radar?
Nope!
Jim Yanik
news:slrnb8udp3.1sev.The...@turing.kaosol.net:
You only trigger the jammer when radar is detected,then cut it off once
you've slowed to legal speeds.You don't blanket-transmit.
(besides,I don't know of anyone marketing a white-noise jammer with enough
power to do the job,you'd have to make your own.)
John F. Carr
TCS <The.Central...@p.o.b.o.x...c.o.m> wrote:
>>>>>> Well,first,an officer would have to recognize that they were being
>>>>>> jammed,or recognize the device if the vehicle does get stopped.
>>>>>> Same for Laser speed guns.
>>>>>
>>>>>Like noticing the "RADAR JAMMER" light on the gun?
>>>
>>>>A jam alarm might get some response. That's why you should use a
>>>>jammer that doesn't set off alarms, if you use a jammer.
>>>
>>>It's very easy for a radar gun designer to detect a jammer. Pulse the signal;
>>>check if the supposed bounce back keeps going after the signal has been pulsed
>>>off.
>>
>> So use a jammer that doesn't transmit a signal when the radar isn't
>> on. (The easiest way to do this is not to use a transmitter at all.)
>>
>
>Then it isn't a jammer. Areyou one of those fools who thinks those
>"passive" devices do anything against radar?
Yes. I've seen one work in a lab and I understand the principle well
enough to believe I could make one that would work in real life, at
least against older radars.
(I'm not talking about the Rocky Mountain Radar product. I wouldn't
trust one of those.)
If you don't want to call non-emitting devices "jammers" then we've
been talking about different things. In this case I classify by
function.