Not long ago, I bought an Alpine Swiss RFID-blocking wallet from Amazon. I've not, to my knowledge, been the victim of card skimmers. But I'd kind of like to keep it that way.

Anyway, I left a 5-star review of the product. But I also mentioned that I believe in the axiom, "The best DEfense is a good OFfense." And I also indicated my desire to acquire and use a high-powered portable RFID transmitter that might "fry" skimmer curcuits. And once the review was published, I added a comment to it here:

http://amzn.to/1VqoRdB (a shortened URL)

Hehehe. Just using my Naval Radioman experience to do my civic duty to empower consumers (wink). Here's hoping Amazon doesn't delete the comment before it helps someone. As the Klingon proverb says, "Revenge is a dish that is best served cold."

We also need a cell phone jammer that blocks the signal in the vicinity of the driver's seat of a motor vehicle when the vehicle is moving.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I watched a show the other day about people getting "chipped". I'm sure there's a whole other realm of fraud waiting to happen in that respect.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Is it not the best defense not to store data on RFID tags that everyone can read?
Only identifiers that a specific application knows where you can get additional data from a database.
A database are normaly protected from unautherized use.

https://www.rfidjournal.com/faq/show?66

Bob DeWoody wrote:

We also need a cell phone jammer that blocks the signal in the vicinity of the driver's seat of a motor vehicle when the vehicle is moving.

Not sure if I agree with that completely. I don't have any issues with talking on a hands-free cellphone. If anything, there's a worse distraction - talking to a passenger. When talking with a passenger, it's human nature to "look" in their direction (away from the road) especially if you're making a point or are angry. With a hands-free cellphone, there's no reason to look anywhere but at the traffic - regardless of whether you're making a point or are angry.

Another worse distraction are those "boom-boom-bass" audio systems playing music at volume levels that would wake the dead - especially if the driver is "boogying" to the music. Eating/drinking while driving are also right up there with putting on makeup or otherwise "preening" appearance as distractions while driving.

This isn't safety-related. But, while I was riding mass-transit, I often wished for a portable cellphone jammer to stop the "yaba-yaba-yaba" chattering while I was trying to read a book. FWIW, I know a theater manager in Portland, Oregon who uses a base-station-sized jammer on the property. He says it works like a charm.

FWIW, I know a theater manager in Portland, Oregon who uses a base-station-sized jammer on the property. He says it works like a charm.

You may want to let him know that it's quite illegal.

The use of "cell jammers" or similar devices designed to intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications (signal blockers, GPS jammers, or text stoppers, etc.) is a violation of federal law. Also, it is unlawful to advertise, sell, distribute, or otherwise market these devices to consumers in the United States. These devices pose serious risks to critical public safety communications, and can prevent you and others from making 9-1-1 and other emergency calls. Jammers can also interfere with law enforcement communications. Operation of a jammer in the United States may subject you to substantial monetary penalties, seizure of the unlawful equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment.

A highly populated public place such as a cinema increases the odds of a 911 call requirement ie for a medical emergency. When this eventually happens and several bystanders find their cell. phones can't call 911...

What cinemas I've been to do is simply run a short PSA before the show reminding people to mute their ringer and don't talk or text during the show. Anyone doesn't follow this gets shown the door and no refund. Works, and without causing any issues.

---

And they will go after him
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/27/technology/fcc-wifi-hotel/

---

And they will go after him

I don't get it .

If the hotels choice to block Wi-Fi so what it's there building .It's not like you can't call 000(911) they would have landlines and if there was a problem with the building you would expect the blocking system to turn off .

Go to a Hospital and your phone is blocked totally !!!

Talk about over the top ......

---

And they will go after him

(Chicago) Man jams “annoying” fellow commuters’ phone signals, gets charged with felony

---

And they will go after him

I don't get it .

If the hotels choice to block Wi-Fi so what it's there building .It's not like you can't call 000(911) they would have landlines and if there was a problem with the building you would expect the blocking system to turn off .

Go to a Hospital and your phone is blocked totally !!!

Talk about over the top ......

I don't get it either.
A hotel is not a public space.
All hotels have there rules and policies.
If you don't like them go elsewhere.

The network they were blocking is the one created by your cell phone so your laptop sitting on the same table could connect to it! The reason was so they could charge you $5.99/day to access their network.

---

The network they were blocking is the one created by your cell phone so your laptop sitting on the same table could connect to it! The reason was so they could charge you $5.99/day to access their network.

I see. I thought it was about to connect to a WiFi network outside the hotel.
So at that hotel if you want to connect your cell phone to your own private network they will charge you even though the hotel network is not involved?
Geeez.
I wonder if they charge you for toothbrushes as well even if you bring your own.

The network they were blocking is the one created by your cell phone so your laptop sitting on the same table could connect to it! The reason was so they could charge you $5.99/day to access their network.

I see. I thought it was about to connect to a WiFi network outside the hotel.
So at that hotel if you want to connect your cell phone to your own private network they will charge you even though the hotel network is not involved?
Geeez.
I wonder if they charge you for toothbrushes as well even if you bring your own.

They would if they could!

---

Dr Who Fan wrote:

(Chicago) Man jams “annoying” fellow commuters’ phone signals, gets charged with felony

The only reason he (or any other person) gets caught is because people can "see" the jamming device. There are effective jammers that can fit inside a briefcase or attache case. Using such a jammer, how could anyone get caught - without violating a person's Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure to "find" such a device? Only people who are "obvious" get caught. A properly hidden jammer will just leave jammer-victims scratching their heads (grin).

Dr Who Fan wrote:

(Chicago) Man jams “annoying” fellow commuters’ phone signals, gets charged with felony

The only reason he (or any other person) gets caught is because people can "see" the jamming device. There are effective jammers that can fit inside a briefcase or attache case. Using such a jammer, how could anyone get caught - without violating a person's Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure to "find" such a device? Only people who are "obvious" get caught. A properly hidden jammer will just leave jammer-victims scratching their heads (grin).

Well, as soon as you turn the jamming device on it emits photons so everyone can see it, if they have a photon direction finder.

---

Gary Charpentier wrote:

Well, as soon as you turn the jamming device on it emits photons so everyone can see it, if they have a photon direction finder.

How many cellphone users do you know of who board a mass-transit vehicle with a "photon direction finder?" FWIW, I just did a brief search and found a few offshore sites selling cellphone jammers but no sites (offshore or otherwise) selling photon direction finders. Also, I can find no articles where the police have used photon direction finders to apprehend people using jammers.

I'm pretty sure that "seeing" the jamming hardware results in more (if not "all") arrests than seeing photons (grin).

You could buy the new RFID jammer that is on sale . The makers say it stop people skimming you r details as it produces a small jamming area around your wallet up to 1 foot .

It's the size of a card fits in your wallet and looks like any other card you have .

One catch thou there selling it for a whopping $49 .

It shorely would not cost anywhere near that much to make and get to market .

Talk about a rip off but I spose there's plenty of suckers that will watch the add and buy it

You can just get a fridge magnet and put that in your wallet to stop RFID skimming cost nada zip zero as they give them away as junk mail in your letter box .

---

Gary Charpentier wrote:

Well, as soon as you turn the jamming device on it emits photons so everyone can see it, if they have a photon direction finder.

How many cellphone users do you know of who board a mass-transit vehicle with a "photon direction finder?" FWIW, I just did a brief search and found a few offshore sites selling cellphone jammers but no sites (offshore or otherwise) selling photon direction finders. Also, I can find no articles where the police have used photon direction finders to apprehend people using jammers.

I'm pretty sure that "seeing" the jamming hardware results in more (if not "all") arrests than seeing photons (grin).

Police? Don't you mean FCC agent! After all local yokels don't make arrests for federal crimes.

Finding pictures of undercover ops can be hard but ...
http://picasaweb.google.com/115644415071735974072/ClearChannelSanDiego?gsessionid=tKH1CCXNp1kwtkOSqHcMig#5371821900975172450
and the next three pictures.

---

Gary Charpentier wrote:

Finding pictures of undercover ops can be hard but ...
http://picasaweb.google.com/115644415071735974072/ClearChannelSanDiego?gsessionid=tKH1CCXNp1kwtkOSqHcMig#5371821900975172450
and the next three pictures.

Notice in that link the words "ClearChannelSanDiego." I see nothing in that photo that would lead me to believe anyone is searching for cellphone jammers - especially out in the desert area depicted in the photos. Likely, these are photos of FCC monitors looking for high-power signals meant to interfere with clear-channel radio or television broadcasters.

Now, there was a case last year in Florida where a person drove around in an SUV emitting "high power" jamming signals that affected cellphone antennas. They caught him:

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/a-florida-resident-drove-around-with-a-cellphone-jammer-84369099229.html

And even though it affected cellphone "providers" more than "users," it still took over 2 years to catch him. And, it was a county sheriff (not the Feds) that did it. Anyway, what I'm referring to is smaller and could be slipped into a pocket, purse, or briefcase - affecting only cellphone "users" within a five-meter area:



Heck, I could even hold it in my hand (grin). It looks a lot like my TracFone cellphone I only use in emergencies on the road. Hehe, in a bus, I could even hold it up to my face and act frustrated like I myself was a victim (grin).

Bottom line? The FCC might take notice if a cellphone provider like T-Mobile (MetroPCS) complains about wide-area disruptions. But I doubt if they'd send out G-Men to hunt down culprits if Aunt Tillie complained she couldn't jabber away with Cousin Lottie on a bus or light-rail trip.

The network they were blocking is the one created by your cell phone so your laptop sitting on the same table could connect to it! The reason was so they could charge you $5.99/day to access their network.

Could be a good business, designing hotels that are faraday cages.