Should Obama's and Biden's Teams bring short-range RF jammers to the next debates?

[tom_paine]

Think about it. I mean, look at what Bushler got away with in 2004. To think they haven't hidden it better this time around, but are still using it, is naivete.

What if Biden brought short-range RF jammers to the podium (or his team hid them beforehand or whatever) and turned them on as the debate started?

Sounds wacky, but if Palin and McCain ARE wearing earpieces...and they probably are (cheaters usually kep cheating when they keep getting away with it), it would effectively cut them off from help.

In an IDEAL situation, the jamming would cause a high-pitched wail to clast through the earpiece, exposing McPalinCheney on National TV as they tried to deal with THAT.

Now, speaking as a former electronics tech (though more than two decades out of date on the technology) this may not be feasible if the only way to jam signals still is with high-powered RF overwhemling the signal.

Exposure to such signals over the long-term might injure persons on or near the podia. Fried Biden testicles, anyone?

Of course, Biden could wait until the middle of the debate, when Palin was posed a tough question and she was obviously listening hard, to just have his Team turn the jammers on for a short-burst of a few seconds.

If it causes the static feedback, then the job is done.

And in either case, the Bushies dare not utter a word of complaint because it exposes THEM for cheating much worse than it does us for blasting McPalin's eardrums in order to expose them.

It's just that thinking of Bushler's Wireless Help in 2004 and the likelihood they are doing it again this time with better, more concealable technology, makes me wonder if this admittedly tinofilly idea makes good sense, knowing the Bushies deserve to be considered with a hat of tinfoil the same way the Nazis and Soviets needed to be viewed so.

Good idea? Bad idea? Dumb idea?

[2Design]

1. yes - must jam the wire this time n/t

[Warpy]

2. Somebody certainly should

but they'd have to make a deal with the people setting the venue up. I'm sure there are metal detectors all over the place.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. DHS would be all over anyone who had something like that.

[tom_paine]

9. Funny how they'd be all over THOSE illicit signals, yet somehow "missed"

the Rove-Bush illicit signal in 2004.

But you are correct. The Bushie HS Men would be all over that. Still, if one set it up but sent no signal until the moment that it was to be done, there would be no electronic way to detect the presence of the device.

[slampoet]

52. Exactly and the device needs to only operate for a few seconds. Triangulation usually takes longer.

[emulatorloo]

4. I would expect their microphones are wireless, so may not be a good idea EOM

[tom_paine]

7. VERY good point. You would have to KNOW the frequency (Kenneth).

Broadband jamming would be unacceptable.

[Liberal In Texas]

21. And illegal. n/t

[tom_paine]

23. How would it be illegal to jam someone who was attempting to cheat in a debate?

I ask legitimately, as law is not my field of expertise. Quite the opposite, i wish I knew more.

So please tell me what specific law it would break to do this, partcularly if the technology was available that made it a minimal health risk.

[onenote]

62. if they are using a legal device, willfully interfering with it is illegal

Assuming the "rules" of the debate barred the candidates from using a wireless device (and I don't know that the rules say anything about such matters), those rules would not have the force of law. So long as its a legal device, willfully interfering with it would be a violaiton of the Communications Act and/or FCC rules.

BTW, I don't believe she's going to use such a device.

[tom_paine]

66. That's one of those things where there's what's legal and what IS.

First off, I appreciate your civil reply.

Second, assuming that there was such a device (I am not certain it will be used either, but Chimp DID have something in 2004 and thus it can't be fully discounted, IMHO) it might be "legal", but probably, if they are using it to cheat in the debate, it is pretty safe to say it won't be registered with the FCC.

That makes sense, does it not?

Having said that, even IF it was registered with the FCC and even IF there was some legal danger here, the fact of the matter is whatever legal danger incurred is far outweighed by the benfit of exposing the Bushies in such a way before Ameriuca that they couldn;t wriggle out, even with their Bushiganda Noie and Smoke and Squid Ink machine.

So, I believe that while you have made a good case for your side of this discussion, I believe that certain realities still override your logic...not that you rlogic is necessarily wrong here, but wrong for this specific time and place.

Of course, it's all speculative and academic, since nothing like this is likely to happen, and since down the thread an actual currently qualified engineer has explained that apparently digitally modulated signals are much more diifcult to detect that older RF transmission and modulation methods.

[anigbrowl]

26. The frequencies are divided into narrow blocks

I have such radio mics (I work in film). You could just use the same block and cycle through the frequencies with random chatter, no need for jamming. They couldn't complain about it ;-)

[ProgressiveFool]

29. I'd like them to broadcast a series of noxious and wet fart noises into her ear. /nt

[wtmusic]

12. IMO they would use plain old wired ones for a presidential debate

too easy for someone to interfere with the debate itself.

[anigbrowl]

27. They use both, actually.

[Justyce]

18. Might also interfere with security's communication, but they

should definitely do something to ensure she doesn't use an earpiece.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. I think McCain will probably go in w/o cheating, but there is NO WAY they're letting Churchy Spice

out there without some technological assistance.

It would be beautiful if she started repeating air traffic control directions or something some trucker was saying on the CB radio, wouldn't it?

[Howardx]

8. hahaha!

"churchy spice" thats awesome

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

13. ......

:rofl:

[foxfeet]

24. "Breaker, breaker. I'm out on the Interstate looking for some three-legged beaver.

Thanks, good buddy. That's a 10-4."

The base would think she's speaking in tongues. Even so, we know the Bushies are going to try something to get the info to her.

[JDPriestly]

6. Some precaution should be taken. I don't understand the

technology you are talking about. You don't want to use technology that could hurt someone.

[BulletproofLandshark]

15. They're used to jam radio signals. There is no way they could hurt someone. n/t

[tom_paine]

22. Not true. Signals are often jammed by overwhelming them with a more powerful signal.

And I have personally spoken with someone who was harmed by beng to close to jamming emissions.

I didn't witness it. It was before I arrived at the USAF base. But I got the story from the guy it happened to firsthand.

They were running a check of the electronic warfare equipment of the aircraft and it is supposed to be locked in such a way that even though the plane has power, you still can't turn shit ON on.

However, without the safety locks and hooked up to a huge-ass power supply, you can do just about everything in an aircraft except take off. And the plane's engines aren't even running.

Anyway, fella was outside the plane and the tech inside was playing around toggling the switches idly (just a lazy-brained dumbass maneuver), thinking they were saefty-pinned.

Wups. No safety pin. The tech in the cockpit toggles the jammer, which blasts 1500W or more of microwave energy straight into the tech outside.

I imagine it must be what those new Bushie microwave weapons feels like. Guy said he just keeled over out cold and woke up in the Base Hospital. And that was from a couple seconds of exposure, at worst.

Long story short: yes indeed, being near "old school" jammers can hurt people.

[JDPriestly]

34. I'm wary of these things because the tasers were supposed

to be harmless but they have injured people and sometimes seriously.

At the same time, I don't trust the Republicans to put Palin into the debate without some kind of cuing system.

[BulletproofLandshark]

36. Thanks for the information.

And please pardon my ignorance on the subject.

[slampoet]

38. 1500watts is enough to range 300+ miles. The range needed at the debate is 100 METERS.

The power used would be less than 100th of 1% of the signal you were talking about.


PLEASE. If you don't know how to do the math on this, don't make irresponsible alarm posts about this.

[tom_paine]

42. I am well aware of how jamming orks, and I mentioned this above: lower power for shorter range

I might remind you that cellphones are VERY low power, and yet at close enough range, people are concerned they add cancer risk.

I know my math...do you?

[slampoet]

48. Cell phone cancer risk is due to thousands of hours of exposure at a distance of one inch.

Also the power of these portable jamming devices is about the level of a cell phone

BUT The debate will be less than two hours and any exposed flesh will be at least 100 feet away.


Once again you fail to scare anyone with a grasp of science and math.





PS- Jamming orks? where to you live New Zealand?

[tom_paine]

60. How many times do I have to say it? I UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLES.

Not sure how I can say it differently. You are set on a rhetorical course and no amount of facts will change your tack, your ego is enjoying it so much it seems.

#1) I AM NOT TRYING TO SCARE ANYONE. WHY WOULD I BE THE ONE WHO SUGGESTED THIS IDEA, WROTE THE OP AND THEN TRY TO SCARE PEOPLE OUT OF IT?

What are you, an idiot? Sorry, but what else can I say to your pathetic commentary and dumb ad hominems, which as far as I can tell are attacking someone who does not exist, except in your mind?

I am bringing up an aspect of the dangers of jamming as I understand it.

I also freely admit that my knowledge of jamming technology is 20 years out of date.

Which leads me to...

#2) I BOTH KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT AND I KNOW THERE IS STILL MUCH I DO NOT KNOW

Too bad you seem to have neither of those qualities. You spout a basic scientific principle I and most people in electronics, now or ever, had learned a half-dozen times in HS Physics, Technical School, University, and on the job trainings.

The three principles that effect risk from exposure to a radiation or transmission source are Time, Intensity and Distance. Well, DUH!

So, you bleat out a principle that intelligent 12-year-olds now likely know, while failing to give it any context, and then act as if you have uttered brilliant Delphic oratory.

What are you, an idiot? Are you a real idiot or just pretending for the purposes of this conversation? Please do tell.

=======================================================================================

I could go on, but what's the point? Never try teaching calculus to pigs. You just get dirty and the pig still doesn't understand.

Bye now.

:hi:

[tom_paine]

16. Absolutely you don't want to use technology that might hurt someone.

As I said, my knowledge of this technology is more than 20 years old. That's why I am wondering aloud if new methods have been developed that would not pose a health risk.

One last thing, even using the "old" technology, if it wasn't constantly on, but just a short burst to blow static in McPalin's ears at an opportune moment, then such a short burst probably wouldn't pose much of a health risk, considering the relative weakness of the signal you are trying to jam so therefore you wouldn't need a "microwave-hot" signal to jam it, I think.

Again, someone with more recent technical experience in thes matters might be able to enlighten us with what we don't know.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. Yes! That would definitely eliminate her life line!

[nebenaube]

11. well

considering that it's most likely a cell phone perhaps just a scanner and recorder?

[O.M.B.inOhio]

14. Yes. At least moderators should state outright that it's a violation to get assistance inthe debate.

I remember the Whitehouse Press Secty -- was it still Fleisher in 2004? -- asked if Bush was getting prompts from an earpiece. He say with feigned solemnity, "I'll admit it here: Georg W. Bush is an alien." Naturally, the reporter did not repeat the question and insist on a yes/no answer.

[ThomWV]

17. Do you have any idea how hard it is to jam a radio broadcast if you don't know the frequency?

Contrary to TV there is no magic black box that continiously disrupts all radio frequencies. You can block a frequency easily enough, but you have to know what it is - Oh, and by the way, its illegal to do to a properly licensed station.

[anigbrowl]

28. Wireless mics operate over a narrow frequency block

I know, I have some right next to me.

[tom_paine]

32. Yes, I do. Former USAF Electronics Tech here.

As I said in my OP and aobve, this whole thing would be postulated that a whole new level of technology exists from the "old school" jammers that we know of.

I mean, I was redaing a book about mid-1990s FBI Mafia surveillance and the Mafia guys were regularly sweeping for bugs while the FBI guys were listening to them do it.

The journalist who wrote the book, "The GoodFellas Tapes" I think it was, asked the FBI guys if they were worried the goodfellas would find their bugs.

The FBI guys laughed and said some new surveillance technology which they didn't decribe made them proof from the mob's efforts and they said it with 100% assuredness.

So again, what you say may be true...in which case this is a bad idea. OTOH, the Dems could just sit and scan frequencies until they locked in on the signal (if there is one...maybe that's why Bush's in 2004 was so bulky...the need to NOT transmit over the air, risking discovery).

But, for this idea to work, some advance like what the FBI described would have to have taken place that I and presumably you don't know about.

Do you still work in electronics?

[ddeclue]

41. Unless you really knew a hell of a lot about the system you would never detect it

if it were digital, spread spectrum, CDMA, used directional antennas/mm wave frequencies and employed frequency hopping you'd never find it much less jam it. This is what the state of the art in military systems are. Google "low probability of detection" + "CDMA" + "radio"

You wouldn't even know what to look for, there wouldn't be an obvious carrier wave and side bands on a SpecAn like you would expect to see for traditional analog modulation systems like AM and FM. You'd need a vector signal analyzer at the very least (HP89441A) just to get started looking for a signal and even then I doubt you'd find it.

Doug D.
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering
Georgia Tech

I've done a lot of RF test and systems engineering with Scientific Atlanta, Motorola, Tantivy, DME, and other companies and have dealt with a lot of digital radio work since 1995.

On edit: The system involved could even use modulated infrared laser and would create such a narrowly propagated signal in an auditorium that you couldn't physically intercept it!

[tom_paine]

44. Thanks for the knowledgable info. I knew there has been much advance in the two decades

since I have worked in this field.

Could there be some sort of similar advnace in the science of signal detection, as there was in transmission.

Again, I ask because I simply do not know. You describe these new advances in transmission (likely the kind of thing the FBI mentioned in that book I was describing "The GoodFellas Tapes"), but could there be equal advances in detection you don't know about? Because you make it sound like signa detection is is the same place it was technologically, twenty years ago.

[ddeclue]

46. Well yes and no...

Modern systems use ADC's (analog to digital converters) to more or less directly convert the RF signal into a binary data stream of frequency domain data and then perform complex mathematical manipulation of that stream using what are known as FFT's (fast Fourier transforms) and other complicated mathematical algorithms to demodulate or measure the signal in software.

A lot can be done with software to analyze signals but a lot depends on knowing something about the other guy's system to have a good starting point. It's one thing to set up a signals intelligence monitoring station and sit there for weeks or months and try to reverse engineer the other guys signals - it's quite another to do it in an hour or two in a debate hall.

A good tool to start with when hunting digital signals in the wild would be a vector signal analyzer (VSA) like Agilent HP89441A or similar but this would be just one of the tools you would need.

If you want to get caught up on the state of technology in digital communications find and read

(budget warning!!! expensive books):

Digital Communications, Fundamentals and Applications by Sklar.
Wireless Digital Communications Modulation and Spread Spectrum Applications by Feher
Complete Wireless Design by Cotter W. Sayre

Also see:

Digital Video and HDTV by Poynton
Principles of Digital Audio by Pohlman

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[tom_paine]

61. Good stuff. Thanks again!

If I do decide to delve further into this field of study, and after all this was only an idle idea floated out there, I will certainly refer back to these sources you have recommended.

Thanks. :hi:

[DeschutesRiver]

19. Don't know if it is a good idea, but that is the same thing my DH thought should be done

by whoever is running this event. Just take the possibility of illicit help out of the equation.

[nickinSTL]

20. I don't think the official team should...

but, it would be a good idea for someone not connected to the campaign to do so...

[trashcanistanista]

25. Can this be done from outside the building?

Is the technology advanced enough? That way, the metal detectors at the entrances would be avoided.

[ThomWV]

30. Sure - you might be able to do it from miles away, but you gotta know the frequency.

Some radio waves can easily penetrate buildings, some can barely make it through a piece of paper. One way or another you need to know the frequency to do anything about it.

[trashcanistanista]

33. But if you didn't know the exact frequency, could you make an

educated guess on several frequencies and send out a team? Is there a small enough pool of possible frequencies that could be used to say equip maybe thirty people with appropriate devices scattered outside the building? Then I am all for it.

[HughMoran]

31. Earpieces would make the debater do even worse

Can you imagine trying to coordinate listening and then speaking in some coherent fashion?

This is just bizarre tinfoil stuff - though it is fun to talk about - assuming you were tongue in cheek.

[slampoet]

39. Newscasters do this EVERY DAY on the air. It is not a problem.

[HughMoran]

45. Not in the way you describe

They get "go here", "go to that guy" in the headset, but you notice how utterly distracting it is.

Humans cannot listen and talk simultaneously like that - their presentation would be so stunted, never mind the fact that it really can't be hidden from the people around you.

This is a red herring if I ever saw one.

[slampoet]

49. Sorry but you really haven't witnessed a network newscast from behind the scenes have you?

I suggest you watch the movie "BROADCAST NEWS" for a good example of Exactly how this works.

[HughMoran]

56. Nah

She wont use an earpiece and it would me moronic for her to - this is a pathetic red herring.

[slampoet]

59. First you say no one can then you say SHE won't.

Nice tactic of changing the question.

[onenote]

65. One of my colleague's wife is a newscaster

Hard core Democrats. We talked about this when the rumors came up about chimpy wearing a earpiece. She said there was no way, for two reasons.

First, someone would notice. There are techs all over the place and the odds that someone would see it are considerable.

Second, you can't talk and listen at the same time. She said much the same as the poster upthread -- the information she gets through the wireless is short bursts of information that she doesn't have to repeat -- instructions about time to commercial, cut aways. Any more significant information is provided during breaks when one of the other on-air announcers (weather, sports, etc) is talking.

I suppose in theory an earpiece could be useful in providing information when the question goes to the other candidate first. But that would mean that we should see a significant difference in the qualtiy of the answers 50 percent of them time, following a distinct pattern.

[spanone]

35. i'm sure that would thrill the secret service folks

[deaniac21]

37. I'd bring strawberry jam and buttered toast.

[ddeclue]

40. Assumptions are wrong folks!

As an engineer who has done a lot of RF test and systems integration work:

1) We don't even know that Bush wore a radio receiver in the 2004 debates. What appeared in the pictures could have easily been a steel/ceramic breast-plate for his bulletproof vest to protect his heart/aorta.

2) Radios are much more sophisticated these days than most people know and jamming becomes all but impossible if you are willing to spend the money for good gear:

That means spread spectrum, frequency hopping, orthogonal coded CDMA (P-N), digitally modulated (QPSK, DQPSK, QAM, etc.) based radios using mm wave frequencies and higly directional antennas. These LPOD (low probability of detection) systems become almost impossible to jam without a wealth of inside information about the specifications of the system being used or for that matter even be detected without a huge amount of gear and a lot of experts like me and a lot of time.

Focus on what we can prove and what we can change, not on conspiracy theory stuff.

My own observation is that if Bush really DID have a "handler" coaching him in 2004, he really sucked badly. Kerry kicked his ass twice, especially in the first debate. I thought Bush's head was either going to explode or that he was going to go over and punch (or at least try to) Kerry in the face.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

On edit: If such a system existed, if could even be using a modulated infra-red laser that would create such a narrowly propagated signal that you couldn't even physically intercept it!

[slampoet]

51. Thanks for bringing up how hard digital modulated signals are to jam.,..

But the last part of your statement intrigues me.


Interception of these radio signals is not difficult but decoding them is.


Therefore maybe someone should make an effort to record as much bandwidth as possible with the idea that it could later be decoded.

if we can't stop it, then maybe we could at least expose it later.

[ddeclue]

57. Actually no interception is hard...

You have to know what to look for and where to look... it is NOT a trivial matter and governments spend fortunes trying to hide their radio signals and find other governments radio signals... what do you think the NSA exists for?

Not trivial at all even to find much less decode.

As for bandwidth there is simply too much of it to "capture it all" and sort it out later. Consider that commercial products use frequencies as high as 5.8 GHz and that to sample the data in any meaningful way for reconstruction you'd have to do fairly narrow samples in the low MHz bandwidth. No, if someone wants to hide a radio signal with digital techniques it's far too hard to unhide it, especially when there's just an hour of debating going on.


Doug D.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Good lord, no.

What they should do is try to intercept the messages, to prove they're cheating.

[ddeclue]

47. Oh and P.S. the FCC will fine you for operating an unlicensed transmitter

if your "jammer" exceeds 100mW....which it most likely would...

Doug D.

[slampoet]

50. 100mw is all you need to defeat the signal. REMEMBER Palin would have to register with the FCC too.

And her transmitter would need to exceed 100mw if yours was at 100mw.


Also the FCC would need to call their triangulation trucks out for the incident.

As someone who has operated a pirate radio station in the 80's I can tell you that the FCC NEVER catches portable transmitters that function less than two hours continuously.


Besides.....you only need to jam the signal for 3 seconds here and 15 seconds there in order to neutralize the earpiece.

[ddeclue]

55. You are SO totally wrong about this...

I do RF test engineering work for a living...read my other posts in this thread...

It is nearly impossible to detect much less jam a signal with modern digital modulation based radios.


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[tom_paine]

64. So the core issue here is the fact that it's now "digital modulation"

I am trying to understand.

Please say again, and try to phrase it for a layperson, which after 20+ years out of the electronics biz, is almost what I am nowadays.

Why are digitally modulated signals, if broadast over the air, much more difficult to detect than old-school HF, UHF or SATCOMM stuff? Is the reason because of encryption or is it something intrinsic to the nature of the transmission method?

Please leave out equipment nomenclatures. They do no good. But if you could restate the answer to my italicized questions above, I would much appreciate it.

Now I am going to go back and reread your other posts to see if I missed anything.

[ddeclue]

58. What you don't know about modern RF engineering would fill books...

As an engineer who has done a lot of RF test and systems integration work:

1) We don't even know that Bush wore a radio receiver in the 2004 debates. What appeared in the pictures could have easily been a steel/ceramic breast-plate for his bulletproof vest to protect his heart/aorta.

2) Radios are much more sophisticated these days than most people know and jamming becomes all but impossible if you are willing to spend the money for good gear:

That means spread spectrum, frequency hopping, orthogonal coded CDMA (P-N), digitally modulated (QPSK, DQPSK, QAM, etc.) based radios using mm wave frequencies and higly directional antennas. These LPOD (low probability of detection) systems become almost impossible to jam without a wealth of inside information about the specifications of the system being used or for that matter even be detected without a huge amount of gear and a lot of experts like me and a lot of time.

Focus on what we can prove and what we can change, not on conspiracy theory stuff.

My own observation is that if Bush really DID have a "handler" coaching him in 2004, he really sucked badly. Kerry kicked his ass twice, especially in the first debate. I thought Bush's head was either going to explode or that he was going to go over and punch (or at least try to) Kerry in the face.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

On edit: If such a system existed, if could even be using a modulated infra-red laser that would create such a narrowly propagated signal that you couldn't even physically intercept it!

[onenote]

63. thank you

at least there's one bit of sanity on this thread

[tom_paine]

67. Once again, thank you for your knowledgable input to this thread.

So, I had an idea, and it wasn't the greatest one.

They can't all be winners.

So sue me. :rofl:

But thanks again for all the info.

[jmowreader]

53. No, they should bring intercept hardware

Instead of trying to jam Palin's earphone, it would be more profitable to do this:

find three Watkins-Johnson 8617 receivers, a time code generator set to the current time, a panoramic tuner and a few really good stereo tape decks.
park someone in a van outside the debate hall to search for Palin's earphone frequency.
when it's found, hard-tape the transmissions, with time code on one channel and Palin's earphone on the other.
after the debate, turn the tape over to Keith Olbermann.

Jamming would be fun. Broadcasting proof the Republicans cheated would give Obama at least a ten-point uptick.

[jpertello]

54. Frisk her.