FCC seeks $48K fine from mobile phone-jamming driver

'Alright... we're jammin'... I think the feds gonna sue'


The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is asking for a $48,000 fine to be levied against a man who allegedly kept a phone jammer in his car.

The FCC said that it would be seeking to impose three counts of a $16,000 penalty against Florida resident Jason Humphreys for illegally operating a mobile phone jamming device and causing interference intentionally.

According to the FCC complaint (PDF), Humphreys kept the jammer in truck and activated during his daily commute in order to prevent other drivers from using their mobile devices behind the wheel. The result, say authorities, was the creation of interference along a length of Interstate 4 outside the city of Tampa as he traveled.

The interference caught the attention of Metro PCS network operators in Tampa who reported the issue to local FCC agents. In May of last year, Humphreys was stopped by Sheriff deputies who noted that the truck's jammer also interfered with their two-way radios.

The FCC notes that in addition to the intended effect of keeping other drivers off their phones, Humphreys also created a safety hazard by potentially crippling phone service for those trying to call emergency responders in the area. The commission noted that as mobile jammers interfere with radio communications, they are not certified for use by consumers and are all considered to be illegal to own and operate.

"Jammers are designed to impede authorized communications, thereby interfering with the rights of the general public and legitimate spectrum users," the FCC says in its complaint.

"They may also disrupt critical emergency communications between first responders, such as public safety, law enforcement, emergency medical, and emergency response personnel."

The case is not the first in which the FCC has come down on someone for the use of a mobile phone jammer. Earlier this year the FCC proposed a $29,000 fine against a manufacturing company who used a jamming device to keep workers from making calls while on the job and last August a New Jersey truck driver was arrested and slapped with a $32,000 fine for operating a mobile jammer in his vehicle. ®

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022