Personal Cell Phone Jammer, $27.41

Re:Personal Cell Phone Jammer, $27.41 by ars on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @07:34AM (#770212)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Personal Cell Phone Jammer, $27.41 by eli on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @08:33AM (#770287)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Personal Cell Phone Jammer, $27.41 by ars on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @08:42AM (#770296)

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...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Personal Cell Phone Jammer, $27.41 by dhimes on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @09:22AM (#770357)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Personal Cell Phone Jammer, $27.41 by eli on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @09:30AM (#770384)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]