As technology changes rapidly, policies lag too far behind
In other words, to enforce anti-jamming rules, the person jamming has to be caught in the act of jamming a signal, not just holding a jamming device. In addition, enforcing anti-jamming rules is the FCC’s jurisdiction, so local law enforcement lacks the authority to take action, even if it catches someone in the act of jamming, according to Rolli.
Jamming is illegal, but they reportedly have been used in classrooms, churches, taverns and movie theaters in an effort to prevent distractions to attendees and/or opportunities to cheat during tests or trivia games. They also are used by people who do not want their whereabouts monitored via GPS-based AVL or personnel tracking, even though one such effort inadvertently brought operations at an East Coast port to a halt for six hours, Rolli said.
I have been told of other stories where people using jammers were caught, but the penalty was a small fine, because the person did not intend to harm others. Hopefully, someone using a jammer that turns a busy thoroughfare in a bumper-car showcase of driverless cars would be punished more severely, but it’s not clear that current laws would let that happen.
Such policies need to be revisited. Maybe we could start with a simple question: If it is illegal to buy or use a jammer, why is it OK for people to possess them? I assume there is a reason, but it escapes me at the moment (I’m sure readers can enlighten me with their comments). Of course, there are many other issues that need to be addressed that promise to be much more complicated.
Society increasingly depends on software-based solutions and wireless technology—not just for entertainment or luxury items but to enable functions that are critical to our safety and livelihoods. But our policies associated with these industries largely reflect an era when they were merely conveniences, not critical tools. Instead, modern laws and policies need to be developed that recognize this new reality.
Unfortunately, the comprehensive decisions that need to be made often do not fit neatly into the silos created of 20th Century government and economic structure, so it often is unclear who is responsible for addressing these issues and who has the jurisdiction to do anything about it. It is incumbent upon leadership at the highest levels to forge a path that allows for the creation of sensible policies for such important technologies that do not create regulatory burdens that stifle innovation.
It is not an easy task, but it is something that needs to be done, before too many unintended consequences enter the market that cannot be undone.
