In Edina, a total of nine robberies are believed to have been committed using this technology, as per the police.

The authorities in Edina, Minnesota have reason to believe that a serial burglar has been using a Wi-Fi jammer to disable connected security cameras. By doing so, the burglar is able to successfully execute thefts and escape with the valuable belongings of their victims.The state of Minnesota is not typically associated with being at the forefront of technology, which is why it may not be surprising to hear that there have been reports of Wi-Fi jammers being employed in burglaries throughout the U.S. for a considerable amount of time. It is worth noting that even criminals are embracing technology, and more are beginning to understand its capabilities — therefore, homeowners should consider implementing security measures.

Law enforcement officials in Edina have reason to suspect that nine burglaries that took place within the last six months may have been executed with the aid of Wi-Fi jammers to hinder the availability of any video evidence that could implicate the culprits. The suspected thieves are thought to have a particular method of operation:

• Residences can be spotted in upscale areas.
• Burglars keep a close eye on the residences.
• The criminals eschew confrontation, seemingly opting to wait until houses are devoid of occupants.
• Leveraging the opportunity presented by an uninhabited dwelling, the burglars will deploy Wi-Fi jamming equipment.
• Valuable designer items, including safes, jewelry, and other high-end products, are commonly stolen.

The source publication, KARE11, consulted a security expert who explained the functionality of jammers. Contrary to common perception, these devices do not block signals but rather induce confusion among wireless devices. The expert revealed that signal jammer achieve this by overloading wireless traffic, thereby preventing the transmission of legitimate data.

Jamming wireless security devices is a growing trend

Extensive scrutiny of news articles uncovers a wealth of evidence pointing towards the use of wifi jammer in burglaries. In January 2020, a post on the Ring community forum detailed an incident involving a wireless doorbell that effectively thwarted a porch thief through a Wi-Fi deauthentication attack. Furthermore, reports abound from 2021 to 2023, documenting cases where burglars employed Wi-Fi jamming technology. Notably, these reports indicate a progressive increase in the frequency of such incidents over time.

Ring is mentioned as one of the firms that helped popularize video doorbells to tackle various home security issues, but other wireless smart home security products from Blink (Amazon) and Nest (Google) could also be susceptible to wireless signal jamming.

Prior to concluding, we would like to provide some suggestions for individuals who may be questioning the efficiency of their home security systems with wireless components. Firstly, consider physically connecting certain devices that support wired connections and allow for local storage of recorded footage. Secondly, utilize smart home technology that can give the impression that someone is present at home. Moreover, your device may have the ability to send alerts in case of signal or connection disruptions, so it could be worthwhile to experiment with these settings.

I read a few of the news articles and it sounds like the thieves are jamming WiFi and the sensors. This prevents the system from even triggering. The thieves are walking around the homes without the glass break, door, and motion sensors going off it seems.

Not commonplace, but getting some exposure in the news recently – gangs of organized thieves in metro Detroit area are targeting upper scale homes for burglaries. They are purportedly using wifi jammer to circumvent alarms (like Ring).

What can millions of Ring (and customers from other wifi-dependent alarm companies) do about this? IS there a viable counter to these signal jammer? Maybe it’s time to explore legacy, analog wired alarm solutions as backup instead of the reverse?

They’re using a wifi jammer, according to this article. No obvious way to prevent this, so hardwired systems would be the only resistant option.

Most Wi-Fi jammers use disassociation flooding to kick the devices off the network. This attack is prevented with WPA3 which can use protected management frames. Unfortunately Ring still hasn’t got around to adding WPA3 support to its devices. It was requested via their feature request process a long time ago, so I’m not overly hopeful they’ll add it.

There are trade offs and risks with each security system. There’s also different types of burglars from opportune amateurs to seasoned pros.

If you’re concerned about this threat, there’s a raft of solutions out there with high definition footage without any reliance on Wi-Fi or internet.

Whatever they’re using for jamming must go beyond the WiFi frequencies to affect z-wave and whatever frequency Honeywell et al uses for their RF communications.

This makes sense because most alarm systems these days (even ADT/Brinx/etc) rely mostly on wireless sensors.

This is a huge vulnerability because it’s pretty rare to find a security system that’s been installed to use all hardwired sensors. To go hardwired you probably had to have it built-in as the house was built or did it while doing some major remodeling.

Cellular jammers are readily available. DSL, cable, or fiber are not jammable, but all devices need to be hardwired.

Zwave can be jammed just as easily as wifi. Cellular is great but if the door/window sensors are blocked and unable to report to the base station, the alarm won’t think anything is wrong.

What I found when doing some simple research over the last couple of days is that different manufacturers use different frequencies for their devices so it might be a guessing game for the burglar, although my guess is that the professional burglars carry jammers for most of the common frequencies used by the big name brands like Ring, Simplisafe, Nest(ADT), etc.

To me it makes sense to have devices from different brands. Ring doorbell, ADT alarm, Wyze cameras, etc…

What’s scary is that there are a bunch of videos on youtube demonstrating how easy it is to bypass these alarms AND with instructions telling you exactly how to do it and how to get the jammers.

Is this pervasive? If you watch the news, it’s pretty evident thieves aren’t concerned with cameras. They mask up and hood up and go. Be on alert, they have no fear.

Burglars can use wide-band jammers to jam all frequency bands : GSM, LTE, Wifi and Z-Wave. Some alarm systems are robust to such attacks (like Ajax Alarm System — https://ajax.systems/blog/what-is-jamming/).

In short, the alarm hub must be hardwired with Ethernet to your router; And hub, router and modem on a battery backup. Then, only communications between sensors and hub can be jammed.

Then, alarm hub communicates frequently with sensors. If communication fails, it signals a jamming attack, notifying the user via hardwired Internet. With a working speaker on the hub, it can sound a siren and send a voice alert to the intruders.

SimpliSafe system is another system that offers some jamming protection, but lacks the Ethernet hardwired connection, so it must rely on a GSM/LTE link, which is still better than Wifi alone.

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has issued a notice advising against the use of cellular signal jammers, GPS blockers, or other signal jamming devices by the general public, stating that it is illegal unless specifically authorized by the government.

A memorandum was publicly released by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) on July 1, aiming to address public concerns. Within this memorandum, it was made clear that the government-approved jammers can only be obtained and utilized by states, union territories, defense forces, and central police organizations.

The advisory mentioned that private sector organizations and private individuals are not permitted to obtain or employ jammers in India.

Jammers approved by the competent authority can be employed by examination conducting bodies under the union/state government or union territories, sourced from authorized vendors and approved models.

Furthermore, it has been emphasized by the Department of Telecommunications that the advertisement, sale, distribution, importation, or any other marketing of jammers in India is against the law, unless specifically allowed by government regulations.

The Department of Transportation (DoT) has classified the use of mobile signal repeaters and boosters by individuals as illegal, not just limited to jammers. A memo released by the DoT emphasizes that the unauthorized use of repeaters can have adverse consequences on public telecommunication services by compromising their quality and coverage, leading to interference and disruption.

Back in January, the DoT had sent out a strict warning to e-commerce giants like Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, Alibaba, Aliexpress, Ebay, and others, advising them against aiding in the sale of wireless jammer.

A deadline in May looms for the oilfield company to contest a $126,000 fine imposed by the Federal Communications Commission. This fine was assessed against the company for its disruption of cellphone calls.

Taylor Oilfield Manufacturing Inc. of Broussard was accused of utilizing four cellular phone jammers to restrict cellphone use by employees, leading to the FCC adopting a notice of apparent liability on April 9.

The FCC was informed by company officials that the cell jammers, intended to disrupt cellphone signals, were utilized to prevent employees from using their cellphones while at work.

Taylor has been allotted 30 days starting from April 9 to either remit the penalty or present a written argument to the FCC as to why the fine should be annulled or lessened.

Taylor officials chose not to answer phone calls asking for a response.

The case was instigated following a tip received by the FCC, prompting them to send an agent to the company site in Broussard in May 2012. As stated in the FCC notice, company officials confirmed the usage of four cell jammers and the possession of a fifth cell jammer, which was not operational at the time.

Cell jammers are not allowed to be used within the United States, and the FCC has imposed a ban on companies importing these devices from outside the country. The FCC stated that the Broussard company admitted to acquiring its cell jammer from overseas suppliers.

In its notice to the company, the FCC emphasized the tangible danger to public safety posed by the illegal use of signal blockers. This hazard includes the potential blocking of authorized communications, such as emergency calls to 911 and law enforcement communications. Moreover, the use of cell jammers can have adverse effects on global positioning system signals.

According to FCC records, Taylor’s representatives reported that the company endeavored to prohibit employee cellphone use following a near accident that was partly associated with an employee using a cellphone.

Prisons no longer possess any cellphone jammer as Corrections has quietly removed them all.

The technology that was introduced in 2008-09 to stop inmates from using smuggled mobile phones has led to expenditures exceeding $17 million.

Following their discovery of causing interference with the newly implemented safety systems for prison guards, the use of jammers has been discontinued since June.

The announcement of cellphone blocking in New Zealand prisons was accompanied by Corrections Minister Phil Goff’s assertion that this measure represents a crucial progression in deterring prisoners from perpetrating further crimes while confined.

Recent information obtained under the Official Information Act discloses the number of cellphones confiscated from the 18 prisons under the management of Corrections over the past three years.

Corrections staff found 626 cellphones and over 750 cellphone-related items, which included batteries, chargers, and SIM cards, between January 2020 and November of the current year.

In response to the question of why inmates were smuggling cellphones despite the presence of cellphone jammers in the prison, Neil Beales, the Corrections chief custodial officer, stated that the jammers were removed in June.

The discovery was made that the jammers were causing disruptions to newly installed safety systems, particularly impacting the effectiveness of alarms used to ensure the safety of corrections officers.

The evolution of cellular technology has rendered jammers progressively obsolete.

Beales pointed out that the tool mentioned was just one of several methods employed to deter the use of cellphones in prisons. He emphasized that there are still several other more effective tools in place.

The array of features offered by Cellsense devices sets them apart in the field of cellphone detection. These devices are capable of detecting a diverse range of metals commonly found in cellphones, while also incorporating screening and x-ray functionalities. Furthermore, they employ the assistance of detection dogs to further enhance their metal detection capabilities.

Beale pointed out that some prisoners are willing to take extreme and elaborate measures to bring contraband into prisons, and we are always striving to be one step ahead of the new methods used for smuggling contraband into our correctional facilities.

In order to enhance their existing systems, Corrections has been evaluating new and emerging technology, as stated by the spokesperson. They have already started implementing full body imaging technology at multiple locations to identify contraband that may be hidden on or inside a person’s body.

Corrections authorities in 2018 recognized that cellphone jamming technology had caused a communications blind spot near Rimutaka Prison, preventing the tracking of residents in a child sex offender unit located outside the prison perimeter.

Cellphones have the potential to enable inmates to exert pressure on individuals outside the prison, as well as to coordinate criminal activities such as drug deals. In May of this year, nine prison employees at Rimutaka were suspended for suspected misconduct, which involved the smuggling of cellphones into the facility.

The decision made by Corrections to discontinue the use of jammers is in line with the concerns expressed by Roger Brooking, a criminologist and drug and alcohol counsellor, who has consistently questioned the effectiveness and cost of this technology.

He expressed that their performance is inadequate and has consistently been so.

Prisoners have shared with me that they have identified specific areas in the prison where the signal blockers does not work as intended. This loophole has enabled inmates to make illicit phone calls for activities like drug transactions or personal conversations.