Teenage criminals should wear Wi-Fi jamming anklets says top cop(arstechnica.co.uk)
arstechnica.co.uk
Teenage criminals should wear Wi-Fi jamming anklets says top cop
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/01/teenage-criminals-should-wear-wi-fi-jamming-anklets-says-top-cop/
7 comments
Spends a long time postulating on something and reveals the obvious counteraction in the last line.
> Plus, what's to stop those tenacious teens from plugging in via Ethernet, anyway?
> Plus, what's to stop those tenacious teens from plugging in via Ethernet, anyway?
I'd venture if you asked a bunch of teens what an ethernet cable is I imagine it'd be similar to the number that knows what a rotary phone looks like.
> I'd venture if you asked a bunch of teens what an ethernet cable is I imagine it'd be similar to the number that knows what a rotary phone looks like.
Not if they participate in the "PC master race" (i.e. are passionate PC gamers). These people typically strongly prefer ethernet over WiFi for the lower ping and insensitivity with respect to disturbances (also from microwave ovens; cf. https://xkcd.com/654/).
Not if they participate in the "PC master race" (i.e. are passionate PC gamers). These people typically strongly prefer ethernet over WiFi for the lower ping and insensitivity with respect to disturbances (also from microwave ovens; cf. https://xkcd.com/654/).
This would be absolutely illegal in the U.S. Does anyone know if the U.K. has similar anti-jamming laws?
Edit: Yes. For those of you, like me, who didn't get beyond the first few paragraphs, the article itself makes clear that this is illegal in the U.K. as well. Thanks k1t.
Edit: Yes. For those of you, like me, who didn't get beyond the first few paragraphs, the article itself makes clear that this is illegal in the U.K. as well. Thanks k1t.
It says so in the article and even provides a supporting link: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/radio-spectrum-and-the-law...
Reading (beyond the first few paragraphs) is good!
From the article:
> The problem is, radio jammers are very illegal in the UK. Deliberate interference—even in a theatre, cinema, library, or examination hall—is an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and can land you in jail for a couple of years, and/or an unlimited fine.
Specific policy page from Ofcom: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/radio-spectrum-and-the-law...
They are legal to use in prisons and have been since the passage of the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012. https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/prisonsinterfer...
There's also an issue of EU law. 1999/5/EC, aka. "R&TTE", the Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive, makes it illegal to sell a mobile phone jammer in the EU marketplace. See the last section of https://web.archive.org/web/20140312031150/http://ec.europa....
I'm presuming that this rather ridiculous chief superintendent is suggesting that the law ought to be amended so that wi-fi (and perhaps cellular network) blockers affixed to those convicted of hacking-related offences would be permitted.
There's no reason Parliament couldn't do that if it decided to, even if the likelihood of Parliament and Ofcom agreeing to such an arrangement is highly improbable.
Also, a magical wi-fi and cell blocker that stops some teenage hacker hooking up to the Internet without affecting the people they run in to is going to be impossible to build. Good luck when someone co-opts said blocker to block police AirWave TETRA radio while doing their nefarious deeds over a long piece of Cat 5.
> The problem is, radio jammers are very illegal in the UK. Deliberate interference—even in a theatre, cinema, library, or examination hall—is an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and can land you in jail for a couple of years, and/or an unlimited fine.
Specific policy page from Ofcom: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/radio-spectrum-and-the-law...
They are legal to use in prisons and have been since the passage of the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012. https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/prisonsinterfer...
There's also an issue of EU law. 1999/5/EC, aka. "R&TTE", the Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive, makes it illegal to sell a mobile phone jammer in the EU marketplace. See the last section of https://web.archive.org/web/20140312031150/http://ec.europa....
I'm presuming that this rather ridiculous chief superintendent is suggesting that the law ought to be amended so that wi-fi (and perhaps cellular network) blockers affixed to those convicted of hacking-related offences would be permitted.
There's no reason Parliament couldn't do that if it decided to, even if the likelihood of Parliament and Ofcom agreeing to such an arrangement is highly improbable.
Also, a magical wi-fi and cell blocker that stops some teenage hacker hooking up to the Internet without affecting the people they run in to is going to be impossible to build. Good luck when someone co-opts said blocker to block police AirWave TETRA radio while doing their nefarious deeds over a long piece of Cat 5.
> The cop admits that there might be some practical or human rights issues, but that shouldn't stop the ministry of justice from considering body-worn Wi-Fi jammers.
...what?
...what?
Quote from article:
> 'In addition to wearing a Wi-Fi jammer, Thomas suggests that teen offenders "could be required to go on an ethics and value programme about how you behave online, which is an area that I think is absent at the moment."'
Just two words: Hacker ethic.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
> 'In addition to wearing a Wi-Fi jammer, Thomas suggests that teen offenders "could be required to go on an ethics and value programme about how you behave online, which is an area that I think is absent at the moment."'
Just two words: Hacker ethic.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
Yes this makes as much sense as the proposal to develop a mobile technology whereby a cell phone can magically determine which of the passengers in a moving vehicle is the driver, and disable itself.
Would the government be liable, if long term, short range jamming signals could cause health problems to those wearing them for extended amounts of time?
Doesn't this warrant a spot in the humor section rather than a fully serious article like this?