I need to be able to interfere with or jam a certain FM radio signal within a few meters from my place.
Anyone got good information on a DIY jammer device?
And don't worry about legality, that's my problem.
Just broadcast noise in that range with more power than the signal you want to block.
1. build FM transmitter
2. pump power into it
3. ????
4. FCC
>>896217
I'm dealing with a concrete ceiling. What sort of power would I need to disrupt a popular radio station in the unit above me? This is in a city, but not in the US, so don't worry about any FCC.
>>896217
I was thinking of getting like a 0.5 W transmitter and rigging up a dipole antenna, but I don't want to spend $100 only to find out it has a range of a few feet LOS.
>>896218
~ 5 or 6 MW
>>896211
Is there a landlord or some shit you can talk to?
>>896211
Didn't we tell you to get fucked last week?
Still being a pussy and tell your neighbors to turn that shit down.
>>896269
Yeah no shit you gaylord.
You are what's wrong with apartment life, not people who go on about their business listening to their music, assuming it's not bothering anyone because no one bothered to tell them.
Hopefully if your chickenshit plan works, your neighbor just starts cranking the Lynert Skynert Box Set with the CD player, or better yet buys a subwoofer and start streaming the shit directly from the radio station.
>>896211
thats a funny looking dishwasher
>>896337
smaller apartments have limited water hookups = washing machines are sometimes in the kitchen.
>>896480
Just ask them autist
>>896337
wow fucking sexist
Great its this fucking autistic retard posting again.
I've actually built one before with a hex chip, I think it was a 4049. Works ok, but it's unstable and impossible to tune correctly.
>>896593
(She is standing next to a clothes washer)
>>896618
(it was a joke)
>>896593
I laughed
>>896211
> fucking with someone else's band
shiggy
diggy
>>896211
>And don't worry about legality, that's my problem.
Aiding and abetting a felony is our problem, douchebag.
>>896679
If you think you can get into any trouble whatsoever for telling someone how to build a simple FM frequency jammer, go the fuck back to reddit.
Fuck this board is full of God damn kids.
Why do you want to jam them? Are they a lawful FM station? Do they cause any form of nuisance for you?
>If they're an illegal station
Just call your equivalent of the FCC on them, tell them how their illegal high-powered badly tuner rig is fuxkin with your electronics, WiFi and thermostat
>if they are a lawful Licensed station
Lol don't go fuck with them if they are your upper neighbors. At least by jamming their frequency. If they have a license, you bet your ass they have a transmitter of at least 200 watts or more. You'd need more than that to push them off air.
Anything less will give you some interference but they'll call in an RF engineer to find the source of the interference and take it out (=calling FCC on ya ass)
I'd think of another attack vector to get to them. Since you're in the same building as them you have a big advantage.
>Put up a big reflector in front of their transmitting antenna at night (assuming some sort of broadcast is at night). The reflected RF power will return into the amp rig. Do it long enough and it will melt or get fucked with
>cut antenna wires (I'd prefer the pin-in-the-coax, which is much, much less noticable and zaps their power amp if you are lucky)
>disrupt utilities
>be creative
>>896769
Naw man, he's too pervy to speak to his neighbours and ask them to turn down their radio.
Thinks that if their radio stops working they won't just switch to an mp3 player or turn on the TV radio-over-cable.
Don't mind him
>>896763
I didn't say that you'd get into trouble, I said that you'd be aiding and abetting a felony.
You're just too stupid to talk to.
>>896796
Joke's on you. It's not a felony here to instruct some guy somewhere else on how to break some law that doesn't apply here.
You might as well say I'm away to jail for saying that the king of Thailand gobbles cocks.
>>896796
It was implied that you cold get into trouble. That's the entire point of your earlier post.
>>896823
>>896821
>Joke's on you. It's not a felony here to instruct some guy somewhere else on how to break some law that doesn't apply here.
You're a dumbshit, and it's completely illegal. Under US law, you can be prosecuted for actions that take place in other countries when those actions violate US law.
If you go to Japan and jerk off to a bunch of child porn, and leave the porn there, you can still be found guilty of possession under US law. If you go to Spain and have sex with prostitutes, you can still be found guilty under US law.
If OP uses his FM radio jammer in another country, that can still be a felony under US law if he harms a US citizen while doing so, or if such country has agreements for extradition or extraterritorial jurisdiction.
That's even assuming that OP is truthful when he says that he resides and intends to use his jammer in a foreign country. Jammers are probably regarded as weapons in your local legal jurisdiction, so in the eyes of the law there's not much difference (jurisdictionally) between giving a guy a gun and giving him a jammer, regardless of where he tells you he's going to use it. When you tell someone how to make and use a dangerous item, the assumption is that they're going to use it and that you can be responsible for their ultimate actions.
It's important here that OP came on the board and specifically said that he wanted to build a jammer to disrupt his neighbor's radio. He came on here and said that he wants to commit a crime (and it is a crime in most countries on earth). Therefore, anyone helping him is knowingly abetting a crime.
If he had come on and said that he's a student and really wants to know how jammers work because they're super interesting then we could while the night away with neat jammer facts, but that's not what happened. OP said he wants to commit a crime.
>>896918
Your understanding of the law and how jurisdiction works is comical
>>896918
Did you hallucinate all that bullshit, or imagine it?
>>896821
It's not even illegal to tell someone here how to break a law, I mean providing you're not violating state secrets or putting anyone in specific danger. Phrack Magazine has shit like bomb plans, things a lot more serious than this, and it's in the library of goddam Congress.
>>896928
> helping people commit crimes on an FBI hotpot website
>ever
Yall posting in a bait thread
>>896918
>Under US law
Great speech. Top notch.
Thing is, the guy not in the US isn't OP, but me. I know, I know, it's hard to believe anyone even exists outside of the US, let alone has electricity, plumbing, or basic literacy*, but turns out it's more likely than you'd imagine.
I'm shocked to hear that I'm violating US laws. Aghast, even.
Frankly, I'm rather concerned now, as last Christmas I put a 5p in my Christmas Pudding.
I expect the extradition squad forthwith, which frankly is a bit of a bother.
Should I pack? I guess leave the Kinder Eggs**?
* after all, no-one seems to have any /inside/ the US
** http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/2012-04-05-040000/dont-be-surprised-kinder-eggs-seizures-double
>>896938
>hotpot
gb2 /a/
>>896943
You seem to be missing the deeper point, which is that most all 1st world countries have extensive extraterritorial jurisdictional agreements. That includes the foggy, wet hellhole you call home.
If anything, Europeans are 10 times more anal about radio communications law because y'all have such tiny (penises) countries.
As a UK citizen, you can be prosecuted under Section 38 of the 2006 Wireless Telegraphy Act, which forbids-
"rendering any other service to a person knowing, or having reasonable suspicion to believe that the rendering of the service to the person will facilitate the operation or day-to-day running of the (unauthorized) broadcasting station"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/38
You'll notice if you read the broader context of the law that there is nothing there that says that an illegal broadcaster has to reside within the UK in order to be subject to the law. What this means is exactly what I said before- if you aid and abet a crime in another country you can be prosecuted for it in your own.
>>897057
rekt
britbongs get kek'd
US has a law forbidding "providing comfort" to certain criminals. I'm sure education in direct furtherance of criminal activity would not go over well.
>>897057
Great armchair lawyering.
Let's delve deeper, shall we?
First-up, good selective quoting. Section 38 has a list of definitions that you just chopped off because it made you look bad:
>(8)In this section—
>“broadcast” has the same meaning as in Part 5;
>“broadcasting station” means a business or other operation (whether or not in the nature of a commercial venture) that is engaged in the making of broadcasts;
>“unauthorised broadcast” means a broadcast made by means of the use of a wireless telegraphy station or wireless telegraphy apparatus in contravention of section 8.
>in contravention of section 8.
Oooh, that looks interesting! I wonder what section 8 says?
>8 Licences and exemptions
>(1)It is unlawful—
> (a)to establish or use a wireless telegraphy station, or
> (b)to instal or use wireless telegraphy apparatus,
> except under and in accordance with a licence (a “wireless telegraphy licence”) granted under this section by OFCOM.
Well, shit, I hope Fox has a license from OFCOM, or everyone's looking at decades in the pokey!
Well that doesn't sounds right. After all, if *everyone working for every broadcasting station in the entire world outside of the UK* got arrested, it would be in the news. Or maybe it wouldn't, seeing as all the news in the entire world just got arrested.
Let's see if there's anything else he's left out because it damages his argument. Oh, shucks, there is.
>119 Territorial application
> (1) The provisions mentioned in subsection (2) apply to—
> (a)all stations and apparatus in or over, or for the time being in or over, the United Kingdom or UK territorial sea;
> ...
> (2)The provisions are—
> (a)sections ... 35 to 38 ...
tl;dr: it's illegal to help out a pirate radio station, pirate radio stations are defined as "radio stations that are operating in the UK without OFCOM's permission", >>897057 hid all the bits that contradicted his argument.
>>896211
Why is there a clothes dryer in the kitchen?
>>897219
>First-up, good selective quoting. Section 38 has a list of definitions that you just chopped off because it made you look bad:
It's not selective quoting, anyone who broadcasts on regulated frequencies without being issued a license is an unauthorized broadcaster. That includes a pocket FM jammer.
>>897219
>Well, shit, I hope Fox has a license from OFCOM, or everyone's looking at decades in the pokey!
That doesn't even make sense. The analogy you were trying to make is that if someone from the UK helps FOX broadcast without an OFCOM license then that person could be subject to penalty.
Fox Broadcasting Company, being headquartered in the USA, is not subject to UK law. If they help an unauthorized broadcaster, then OFCOM can't do anything about it (the US version, the FCC, could though).
You, being in the UK, are subject to UK law. If you help an unauthorized broadcaster, OFCOM does have jurisdiction to fuck you up.
>>897219
>Let's see if there's anything else he's left out because it damages his argument. Oh, shucks, there is.
You're looking at the wrong passage. Section 118 right above reads:
"The provisions capable of being extended outside the United Kingdom under—
(b)section 204(6) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42),
(c)section 12(4) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13),
(d)section 315(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21),
(e)section 150(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (c. 55), or
(f)section 411(6) of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21),
include any amendment of those provisions made by this Act."
These are the laws that grant extraterritorial jurisdiction. The passage that you cite merely states that anyone broadcasting from within the UK is subject to the licensing regime. Of course they are, that's not the problem at hand. The issue is whether or not you can be held liable for helping an unauthorized broadcaster commit a crime outside of the UK.
>>897235
>That doesn't even make sense. The analogy you were trying to make is that if someone from the UK helps FOX broadcast without an OFCOM license then that person could be subject to penalty.
It's not an analogy, it's a direct application of the act.
Read the definitions: under the WTA, "unauthorised" does not mean "not authorised by a legally-recognised regulatory body", it means "not authorised by OFCOM".
OFCOM is the only body that can make you an "authorised broadcaster".
OFCOM has not authorised FOX.
Thus, if you help FOX, you are (according to your incorrect interpretation of the WTA) helping an unauthorised broadcaster.
>>897235
Mate you're being a Fuckin idiot.
You'll only get prosecuted for this shit in your own country, for doing it in your own country. They couldn't give a shit otherwise
>>896211
Get an FM radio transmitter. You can buy short range transmitters for 'legal' uses. Because of the short range, whatever FCC equivalent exists will have a difficult time triangulating you.
Plus you have plausible deniability, you accidentally set it to the same radio station of your loud neighbor so you could listen to your tunes on your stereo.
Here's a simple transmitter that will play tunes from your ipod:
http://makezine.com/projects/super-simple-fm-transmitter/
>>897264
And UK will catch you
You could just use a raspberry pi, make it into a radio, and broadcast white noise
>>896211
Couple magnetrons from microwaves in a old DISH network sat dish.
???
Profit
>>898972
Couple magnetrons from microwaves in a old DISH network sat dish.
???
P̶r̶o̶f̶i̶t̶ ̶ Cancer
>>898858
Not before it's caught every single broadcaster in every country isn't the UK.
>Guy asks for a DIY FM jammer
>Spergs, autists, masturbators and virgins with nothing to life for explore legal implications
Literally worse than Reddit.
>>896211
>So the F-C-C won't let me be or let me be me so let me see
>>899334
>this
If someone posted this on 4chan. Some guy would inevitably find a good way to jam signals extremely well and in a week or 2 we'd read an article about someone being arrested for jamming radio signals.
>>899334
Agreed, it's lame.
OP did you make one yet?
Obviously the solution is not to jam their radio by broadcasting EM noise, but to drown it out with your own acoustic noise. Buy a 500W guitar amplifier, cheap guitar and DON'T learn how to play it.
Or play gay porn through it.
Id jam my attenna into her axillary port
>>899792
>play gay porn on your guitar
>>896302
nah I'm with OP, people should just stop being worthless shits and being loud.
>you're just mad someone blast music
I have my own house, it's nice and quiet :3
Find something that can blast 50 watts on said frequency with white noise.
Actually excuse me just look up Ipod DIY FM transmitter. Just get a stronger resistor in line from the antenna to the signal source. I believe that should increase the power coming out of the unit.
![car-fm-transmittersupport-sdmmc-card-803[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/mr2ryqi.jpg "car-fm-transmittersupport-sdmmc-card-803[1].jpg")
>>896211
tl;dr
i did succesfully jam fm radio in work using this
transmitter. Sitting inside my car, which was parked in distance of around 30 feet from my job. It was playing audio ripped from gay porn and jamming one particular annoying techno station.
>>899361
Heard it in my head
10/10
>>900631
And now get the joy of paying the fcc a couple thousand
>>901361
FCC can't do shit
You think they're magic?
>>901579
FCC will show up near instantaneously if the on off button on your radio transmitter is finnicky.
>>901579
Yeah, actually, they are.
The FCC, IRS, and USDA are the only non-police agencies you do not want to fuck with, because they can, and will, fuck your shit up astronomically.
>>901677
If you are in burger land.
