1.As the U.S. government continues to uphold its ban on signal jamming, it’s clear that society has drastically evolved in the years that followed. The advancement of communication technology has led to a pervasive need for constant network connectivity, resulting in a multitude of negative consequences for individuals and society at large.
2.The reasons behind the longstanding ban on signal jamming have become less compelling as technology has advanced. The constant use of connected devices is contributing to rising mental health issues, while also compromising property rights, privacy interests, and free speech privileges.
3.In order to effectively address these issues, signal jamming technology presents a viable solution. It can offer greater control over personal space, allowing individuals to create designated areas free from the intrusion of mobile signals.
4.Given the conflicts that exist between technology, society, and the law, it is time for Congress and the FCC to reevaluate their stance on signal jamming. A limited right to block mobile signals within private areas during specific times could promote a healthier and more secure environment.
5.By rethinking the prohibition on signal jamming, we could reclaim zones of privacy and create safer spaces in our hyperconnected world. It is time to acknowledge the potential benefits of signal jamming technolo
Over half a century ago, the FCC enacted regulations prohibiting the use of signal
jammers, which block mobile signals. At the time, personal mobile devices were simply science fiction and were not yet a part of our daily lives as they are today.
Now, mobile communication devices are not only ubiquitous but have also become an essential part of our daily routine. Mobile signals can penetrate almost every place where humans go, from our homes and offices to our bedrooms, bathrooms, streets, subways, cars, trains, planes, and even space-ships. In this “always on” world, there are virtually no sanctuaries where we can disconnect from our digital lives.
I used to relish my time on an airplane (or even on the subway, if you can believe that). I knew for the duration of the trip, I was unreachable. I could try to clear my head without bombardment, or fear of bombardment, by mobile communications and the ever-growing psychological – perhaps neurotic – compulsion to check my phone. Now that we are expected to be “always on,” there are profound and growing privacy and mental health issues at stake. At least the French, with a nod towards a balanced, sane existence, recognize the growing problem and preclude businesses from emailing employees after working hours.[1]
It’s time for the FCC (and Congress to the extent the FCC thinks it may need more statutory authority for more regulatory latitude) to revisit its signal jamming rules, to provide exceptions to, and waivers of, the outright ban on signal jammers, and to allow for a limited right to block mobile signals at least within specific private areas at specific times (e.g., the dinner table at dinner time).
While the consistency of connectivity would not have been possible without the rapid growth of communications technology over the past few decades, the foundation of its stability comes from FCC regulation. In particular, the FCC set forth regulations that effectively require those with access to the network to refrain from interfering with that access. More specifically, under the current legal framework, the operation, manufacturing, and sale of devices that interfere with licensed radio communications is strictly prohibited. Thus, those connected to the network are prohibited from interfering with their connectivity, regardless of whether there is any legitimate or virtuous reason for that interference.
As the use of cellphones and the Internet began to rise in the 1990s, and with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “96 Act”), the FCC received enough inquiries to issue a warning in 1999 that interfering with licensed radio spectrum is a violation of federal law.[2] The FCC’s most recent signal jamming warning emphasizes that “federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of equipment that interferes with authorized radio communications,” and that there are “no exceptions for use in a business, classroom, residence or vehicle.”[3]
Since the adoption of the signal jamming prohibitions, society has changed so dramatically, and communications technology has become so advanced that constant connectivity to the network has produced, and continues to produce, a slew of negative externalities that are beginning to have serious impacts on public health, individual rights, and free speech privileges. In addition, while numerous methods to control connectivity other than signal jamming have been and continue to be researched and developed, none of these alternatives are an effective method of controlling connectivity in our increasingly Internet-enabled world. Although there are many alternatives to signal jamming thought to be legitimate methods of controlling connectivity, like signal blocking bags or even simply manually disconnecting devices, none have proven truly successful in alleviating the many issues caused by constant, unrestrained connectivity to the network in the 21st Century.
American deserve the right to operate limited-range signal jamming devices on their own private property so that homeowners may employ a legitimately effective method of controlling their connectivity to communications networks. Although statutory and regulatory prohibition on operating signal jamming devices has principled rationales, the prohibition cannot be reconciled with the continually developing nature of communications technology and its impact on individual privacy rights. Consequently, regulation should concede to societal change.
Revisiting the Prohibition on Signal Jamming: Legal Considerations and Justifications.
The FCC’s ultimate mission to ensure all Americans have access to communication services serves as the foundation for most of their regulations and actions. However, two specific justifications support the prohibition of signal jamming. Firstly, signal jamming poses a threat to public health and safety as it can prevent people from calling emergency services in times of crisis. Secondly, signal jamming may be considered “theft” as licensed service providers pay for the right to operate on specific frequencies, and interference with their services violates their licensing rights. It is important to note that using limited-range signal jammers within a single-family residence does not conflict with these justifications.
Despite this, the FCC’s recent warning on signal jamming highlights the various statutes and regulations that constitute the body of law prohibiting signal jamming in the US. According to Section 302a of the Communications Act of 1934 (the “34 Act”), the FCC has the authority to enact reasonable regulations on devices that emit radio frequency energy that can potentially cause harmful interference with radio communications. These regulations aim to govern the interference potential of these devices, which includes signal jammers.
The FCC has warned that there is no exception to the signal jamming prohibition for use in a business, classroom, residence, or vehicle. The FCC has notably enforced the prohibition against operators of signal jamming devices in these exact contexts, regardless of the purpose of the jamming. For example, when the FCC received an anonymous complaint that an oil drilling equipment manufacturer was operating signal jammers to prevent its employees from using their cellphones during the workday following “a near-miss industrial accident that allegedly was partially attributable to an employee’s cell phone use,” the FCC imposed a fine of $126,000 on the company for violations of Sec. 302a and Rule 2.803.[7] Similarly, when a commuter in the Tampa Bay area of Florida was found to have been operating a signal jammer in his car on his commute to and from Tampa because of concerns that other drivers on his commute were using their cell phones while driving, he was fined $48,000 for violations of Sec. 302a and Rule 2.803.[8]
As we can see, the signal jamming prohibition in the United States is not only broad, but rigorously enforced. Nonetheless, there are several compelling reasons why people have begun to demand and/or use signal jamming devices and technologies as a method to control their own connectivity.
People Want to Use Signal Jamming Devices Because Constant Connectivity Invades Privacy Interests
The Bill of Rights and its guarantees establish “zones of privacy” for individuals.[9] This zone has previously been interpreted by the Supreme Court as including “the sanctity of a man’s (sic) home and the privacies of life.”[10] In an increasingly digitally connected world where individual privacy rights are threatened and impeded constantly, the physical spaces we call home take on an even more sacred meaning.[11] Our homes are, in many ways, the only truly private physical space we have. In the worlds of Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, “recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the, individual what Judge Cooley calls the right ‘to be let alone.’”[12]
Engagement with digital communications networks is necessary for participation in modern life. Nonetheless, the enormity and ubiquity of data collection practices has generated mass criticism from scholars, the government, private businesses, and individuals alike, most of whom primarily take issue with concerns for individual privacy interests.[13] More specifically, commentators have expressed concerns not only with the types and volume of data available due to constant engagement with digital communications networks, but also with how that data is collected and how it is used. And while it would be nearly impossible to summarize every issue raised by the conflicts between individual privacy interests and engagement with digital communications networks, there can be no doubt that the threat to privacy becomes real as soon as one engages with a connected device.
While there are considerable efforts being made to protect individual privacy interests from the nefarious and intrusive data practices of “big data,” perhaps one of the most effective methods of protecting individual digital privacy is to allow consumers to cut off access to digital information at their discretion, i.e., to jam their signals. In so doing, signal jamming may become cybersecurity, as a signal jammer can stop data transfers by creating a constant storm of “white noise,” thereby giving consumers the freedom to temporarily “opt-out” of constant surveillance and data collection. It is worthwhile noting that since the FCC issued its prohibition on signal jamming decades ago in 2000, the risks to individual digital privacy have substantially increased and continue to do so. Nonetheless, because signal jamming is strictly` forbidden in the United States, invasions of individual privacy interests will continue to persist as data collection practices evolve at a rate that regulators and concerned individuals alike simply cannot keep up with. Therefore, the prohibition of signal jammers harms individual privacy rights because it strips away any agency one has about how connected they remain in the confines of their own home.
People Want to Use Signal Jamming Devices Because Constant Connectivity Chills Protected Speech
Today, when you go into someone’s home, you will likely encounter numerous connected devices with voice-activated microphones: smart phones, laptops, desktops and speakers such as the Amazon Echo or Google Home. This increased connectivity raises a specific privacy concern – that someone else might be listening to our most intimate conversations within our homes. This concern is not unfounded. One study shows voice-activated devices are frequently activated accidentally, and individuals hired by device manufacturers to review recorded audio content report hearing content that was likely accidentally captured.[14] The public’s well-earned skepticism towards devices with voice-activated microphones, particularly uncertainty about when you will be heard and by whom, may chill free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The signal jamming prohibition applies not only to malicious, but also to willful signal interference. Therefore, it prohibits an individual from willfully interfering with the radio signals connecting their smart devices with voice-activated microphones to the manufacturer’s network despite the individual not having malicious intent. Thus, the prohibition could be subject to an overbreadth challenge, arguing that the prohibition is overbroad such that it not only limits unprotected speech but also protected speech. The prohibition takes away an individual’s ability to interfere with their own smart device in their own home. Without certainty that one’s private conversations will not be recorded and/or heard by someone else, one might not rather say anything at all. In this way, the signal jamming prohibition has the potential to chill free speech. And, while there are devices available to consumers that jam voice-activated microphones from picking up audio signals, these devices are focused on jamming the audio signals of only one specific device (an Amazon Echo in the case of the Alexgate, for example)[15] and cannot jam audio signals for all devices with voice-activated microphones in someone’s home, like smartphones, smart TVs, laptops, and desktops.
People Want to Use Signal Jamming Devices Because Constant Connectivity Chills Protected Speech
Today, when you go into someone’s home, you will likely encounter numerous connected devices with voice-activated microphones: smart phones, laptops, desktops and speakers such as the Amazon Echo or Google Home. This increased connectivity raises a specific privacy concern – that someone else might be listening to our most intimate conversations within our homes. This concern is not unfounded. One study shows voice-activated devices are frequently activated accidentally, and individuals hired by device manufacturers to review recorded audio content report hearing content that was likely accidentally captured.[14] The public’s well-earned skepticism towards devices with voice-activated microphones, particularly uncertainty about when you will be heard and by whom, may chill free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The signal jamming prohibition applies not only to malicious, but also to willful signal interference. Therefore, it prohibits an individual from willfully interfering with the radio signals connecting their smart devices with voice-activated microphones to the manufacturer’s network despite the individual not having malicious intent. Thus, the prohibition could be subject to an overbreadth challenge, arguing that the prohibition is overbroad such that it not only limits unprotected speech but also protected speech. The prohibition takes away an individual’s ability to interfere with their own smart device in their own home. Without certainty that one’s private conversations will not be recorded and/or heard by someone else, one might not rather say anything at all. In this way, the signal jamming prohibition has the potential to chill free speech. And, while there are devices available to consumers that jam voice-activated microphones from picking up audio signals, these devices are focused on jamming the audio signals of only one specific device (an Amazon Echo in the case of the Alexgate, for example)[15] and cannot jam audio signals for all devices with voice-activated microphones in someone’s home, like smartphones, smart TVs, laptops, and desktops.
Understanding the Basis and Importance of Prohibiting Signal Jamming in the US.
The current prohibition on signal jamming in the US is based on a rigid body of statutory and case law that fails to address the need for balance between accessibility to a stable communications network and people’s desire to control their connectivity. While access to the network has become a necessity in the 21st century, excessive engagement with connected devices has led to negative externalities, including mental health issues and violations of property, privacy, and free speech rights. Despite society’s search for methods to control connectivity, including signal jamming technology, it remains strictly prohibited.
To address these conflicts, Congress and the FCC should consider amending the prohibition on signal jamming to permit the operation of limited-range signal jamming devices in single-family residences. This would allow people to have more control over their connectivity while also minimizing potential harm to public health and safety or interference with licensed service providers. By striking a balance between accessibility and control, society can better manage the negative externalities of communications technology, and individuals can enjoy greater autonomy over their connected lives.
Professor Jonathan Askin, who holds the DCI Innovation Law and Policy Fellowship and teaches at Brooklyn Law School in New York, has provided his perspective on the topic discussed in this article. It is important to note that the opinions expressed by Professor Askin in this text do not necessarily represent those of the Data Catalyst Institute.