Personal Cell Phone Jammer, $27.41 | Hacker News Reader

Personal Cell Phone Jammer, $27.41

dealextreme.com

40 pointsfrisco52 comments

Probably beyond the abilities of a typical hobbyist: http://www.ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/index.html but since this is Hacker news.

Limor is a first-class hacker and this is a first-class hack. I was present when, a couple years back, she used her Wave Bubble to prevent interruptions to a wedding ceremony. It worked perfectly, and upon shutting off the jammer, there was the sound of voicemails arriving to a number of the guests. Bullseye.

I saw this demoed at SXSW, I was maybe 50 feet away and it didn't jam my cell.

These are apparently illegal to use in the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/technology/04jammer.html

And for good reason. Who wants to have their cell phone rendered useless just because they happen to be standing too close to someone who decided they're more important than everyone else around them.

While I don't disagree, I find the opposite idea amusing. Who wants to have their consciousness and conversations disrupted by a loud cell phone user who decided they're more important than everyone else around them?

No one. The rule generalizes to "Don't be an ass with regard to cell phones." It's really that simple.

This is especially true in emergencies.

Similarly, it's a good thing dangerous chemical kits are outlawed in the US. Who wants to have their house burned down just because they happen to be living too close to someone who decided they're more important than everyone else around them?

update: Hey, why am I being voted down? Not trying to be a douchebag here. I really do view EM freedom as strongly correlated with normal-speech freedom. "Pirate" radio stations anyone?

Clamping down on "rogue" EM radiators is like clamping down on "rogue" anything else. We need a broader definition for "freedom of speech". EM is speech, too.

1) Unless you're really trying, it's pretty difficult to burn down the neighborhood with a science kit. When using a cell phone jammer it's pretty hard not to affect all the people around you. That's kinda the point. Now, if you don't want cell phones used in some place that you own, then paint the walls with signal-blocking paint.

2) Have you tried to buy a chemical kit lately? They took out all the fun stuff years ago.

Unfortunately, declaring "EM freedom" is pretty much incompatible with the idea of using the EM spectrum for anything useful. If my freedom to actually use a cellphone or a wifi network conflicts with your freedom to make a 10 kW roving-frequency 24-hour bagpipe music transmission, how do we resolve that one?

This isn't really a hypothetical problem either -- if anyone could broadcast anything at any frequency at any time I'm pretty sure everything would fill up with ads of some kind.

Your rights end where mine begin. As a libertarian I believe that you should be able to do almost anything to yourself. Start monkeying other people's property/body/space and I'm against it.

Small bit of info from the FCC:

"The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b)."

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations_2&...

This is illegal but guns are not

It is in fact illegal to use a gun to interrupt cell phone conversations.

Not in self-defense.

I have this sitting on my desk right now. I got it a year ago. Unfortunately it doesn't work, or I'm too dumb to get it to work, but other people on the DX forum mention that you have to tweak it. Anyone want to buy mine and give it a shot? $20 shipped in the US. I'm serious.

Coincidentally, I received two envelopes from DX today! I love that site and would like to vouch for their legitimacy. However, do be careful - if it seems too cheap to be possible, it's probably fake, just like my "Sandisk" Micromates microSD USB adaptor which is rather different from the Australian-bought genuine article sitting next to it.

Way cooler: http://www.ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/index.html

Instead of jamming the signal, how about spoofing the various protocols (i.e. make a micro-cell), but one that will connect all calls with silence.

Would take much less energy, since all you need is to be slightly stronger than the cell tower, plus you don't need to transmit all the time, just when there is a call.

For extra points, detect and forward calls to 911.

Huh? How exactly did you conclude that it would take less energy to build a fully functional mobile cell phone tower that supports a variety of incompatible protocols, all of which are secured with non-trivial encryption?

Even without the encryption, it is extremely difficult to demodulate a GSM signal

Perhaps you have a different meaning of the word energy? It will certainly take less radio energy to do what I suggested.

And as for GSM, have a look at http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/08/17/0014235/Open-Sourc...

Perhaps he interpreted your comment to mean "less energy for the hacker to build" rather than "less battery power for the device to operate."

Indeed. And I'm not convinced it would take less battery power to build a working cell tower.

Does anyone know how to make a cellphone booster? I'd love to be able to get a bit more range out of my cell...

I bet a ton of highschool professors wish they had one of these.

Apparently they are in wide use in Chinese and Indian schools.

http://pcworld.about.com/od/wirelessphonesvoip/Should-Cell-P...

I went ahead about bought one right-away.

Does selling products on HN conform with the TOS?

It seems unlikely that the poster is the one selling this item. It seems more likely that the reason for posting this was to show that you can in fact now buy cell phone jammers for only a few dollars. This is quite interesting whether or not you actually want to buy one :)

While I'm not begrudging, it should be noted that DX links ending with ~r. and a number are affiliated to a particular user's account.

Oh -- sorry about that! I found it through stumbleupon and didn't realize there was an affiliate link at the end. It won't let me change the URL now though.

No need to apologize even if you did do it yourself. I checked your previous submissions and it is obvious you are not spamming HN. There is no shame in linking to a interesting product using an affiliate program. You are technically advertising for them after all and deserve a payment.

I do wonder how much you earned the Stumbleupon user though. A quick google search on the affiliate suffix shows he links to a few other DX products on SU and elsewhere. Today I'm sure he saw a boost in profits.

> Selling products?

If they're interesting products, I think that's cool. We're capitalists here:-) No spam, though, of course.

Affiliate links?

Why not, if it's an interesting product? I don't begrudge one of us making a bit of cash for showing us something cool. On the other hand, if someone's spamming, throw the book at them! It's pretty clear that 'frisco' is a user who participates in this site and is not a spammer, though.

Because once you start to allow affiliate spam you might as well open the floodgates. Do you have any idea how fragile the submit page is vs the number of would be spammers that you'd have to defend against if you let it through ?

I think it's one of those things were it's not that hard to figure out. If you or I post a link to something with a link in it, it's likely to be as part of something else. I occasionally post a book link, for instance, but it's not something I do often or regularly for the sake of making money. Real spammers are unlikely to really participate in the community enough to not be completely obvious spammers. One glance at frisco's page, for instance, tells you that he's not.

I just don't really see the problem.

Ok, what's your call on these then:

http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=ravindra1982

http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=insomniamedia

From a low wage country it doesn't take much to get someone to spend a few minutes / day to 'participate', and then to drop the 'payload'.

First one is a gray area, second one is a spammer. This is why we have human moderators and the flag button.

Anyway, it's sort of a moot point, as it's not really possible to automate elimination of those sorts of links.

the first one only started including other domains after being called out as a spammer, the second one is a clear case to me as well.

There are plenty more these two are only a small sample.

This is more badass:

http://www.amazon.com/Uranium-Ore/dp/B000796XXM/ref=cm_cr_pr...

This product is called "Uranium Ore"... There is an interesting/funny comment, though.

Kyle J. Von Bose says:

I bought this to power a home-made submarine that I use to look for prehistoric-era life forms in land-locked lakes around my home town in Alaska. At first I wasn't sure if this item would (or could) arrive via mail, but I was glad to see it showed up with no problems. Well, almost no problems.

Unfortuantly my mom opened my mail, because she does not respect people's privacy. She was pretty upset to see Uranium Ore. After a long argument and me running away from home again, she finaly stopped being such an idiot and I was able to get back to work.

The quality of this Uranium is on par with the stuff I was bying from the Libyans over at the mall parking lot, but at half the price! I just hope the seller does not run out, because I have many projects on my list including a night vision sasquatch radar, an electromagnetic chupakabra cage, a high velocity, aerial, weighted Mothman net and super heated, instant grill cheese sandwhich maker.

he has two more:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2BC94DUL2FII7

I laughed at some of the "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" items:

* Forbidden LEGO: Build the Models Your Parents Warned You Against!

* Hasbro Nerf N-Strike Firefly REV-8

* Balls of Fury (Widescreen Edition)

* Dremel 3956-02 MultiPro Super 1.15 Amp 5,000 to 35,000 RPM Variable Speed Rotary Tool with 77 Accessories

* Art of Computer Programming, Volume 4, Fascicle 4,The: Generating All Trees--History of Combinatorial Generation

* (a bunch more programing books)

The "Customers Who Viewed This Item Also Viewed" section is also great. A side-effect of Amazon's recommendation engine is that it groups all the unlikely products and humorous reviews together. Here's a gem of a review on the page for the (discontinued) gallon of Tuscan Milk:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RXXPVOUH9NLL3/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?...

I liked the negative reviews of sara lee yellow cake mix: "total rip off, would not enrich to weapons grade!"

"Did not make my canoe go any faster, December 13, 2007

By Lex10

Ungainly shape and small size proved to cause wet hands and canoe actually seemed to go slower. I'm not sure if there's any connection, but there were a lot dead fish floating on the way back. Very bad ore."

Interesting pricing:

1 new from $29.95 1 used from $2,499.00

Wait until you own up to having this thing and using it, you'll find yourself waking up in hospital wondering why.

What do you mean? That the device will make you sick or somebody else will beat you up?

You are interfering with the ability of others to communicate, it is the same as gagging everybody around you, which is about as rude as you could possibly get.

When somebody wonders out loud why their cell doesn't work, especially if the call they need to make is an urgent one and you whip out your 'gadget' be prepared for nasty stuff to happen to you.

Interfering with any kind of communication is about as low as you can go in my book (other than doing violence to other people), doing it on the sly makes it one step worse.

Talking loudly on a cell phone, oblivious to the tranquility you destroy around you -- that will come pretty close.

I'd like to think restaurant patrons and mass transit commuters had consideration for others (and the presence of mind to talk quietly) but they often don't. Jamming is probably not a good solution, though.

Society is about playing nice. To talk loudly on a cell phone is not nice, jamming isn't either (and illegal besides).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com