The Government has launched a four week call for evidence on radiofrequency jammers, devices designed or modified to block or interfere with wireless communications. The announcement says they can disable video doorbells, interfere with vehicle tracking, defeat shop security and disrupt emergency networks. At last, the nation’s doorbells have been invited to explain why they have been so nervous.
The consultation will examine the harms caused by jammers, the operation of current law, enforcement difficulties, possible controls on possession and legitimate uses. It is not a new ban. It is an official invitation to discuss whether a ban might be useful, which is the Government’s preferred method of making urgency sit quietly in a meeting room.
The devices can be disguised as ordinary objects, including digital watches. A gadget that appears ready to count your steps may instead be preparing to make your satnav lose the plot. Somewhere, a procurement form is trying to decide whether this belongs under personal technology, criminal equipment or accessories for people who dislike being tracked.
The Government says the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 already bans the use and possession of non compliant equipment. The difficulty is proving that someone used a jammer to cause interference. This leaves enforcement facing the familiar modern puzzle of establishing that the suspicious object which made every alarm stop working may have been involved in the alarms stopping working.
The call also asks about legitimate uses, including secure settings such as prisons and military exercises. That is a necessary distinction. A device that blocks communications can be a security tool in one setting and a burglar’s accessory in another, depending on whether it is being handled by trained personnel or someone who has just discovered online shopping.
Officials want views from mobile operators, law enforcement, transport bodies and infrastructure specialists. The public is invited too, although the form may need to explain that my doorbell has gone silent is useful evidence but not yet a complete legislative framework. The doorbell, meanwhile, has prepared a submission arguing that anything capable of stopping it from reporting suspicious activity should be treated with suspicion.
The serious point is that interference can affect homes, businesses, public services and emergency response. The comic absurdity is that the Government has asked the country to gather evidence about machines whose principal talent is preventing other machines from producing it.
When the four weeks end, the doorbell will submit its final recommendation. It will support clearer rules, stronger protection and the immediate confiscation of any digital watch that looks smug. The watch will appeal, but its signal will be mysteriously unavailable.
Source: GOV.UK.
