Dictators also have access to radio jamming tools. The relatively narrow 2.4 and 5GHz bands would be easy to jam.
Alternatively, one could transmit GSM and G3/GPRS signals, masquerading as legitimate mobile providers.
What's interesting is that the US didn't use radio jamming during the Iraq or Afghanistan campaigns. Have capabilities improved to such a point that an entire country could be blanketed by radio-frequency jamming signals?
While technically possible to blanket an area with RF jamming signals, I think both sides depend on the signals so much that the nuisance of jamming the signals outweighs the benefits.
Kind of like with GPS signals - our military could (and occasionally does) jam those signals during a conflict, but we rely on it so much that it's more useful to keep it working.
This is nothing but propaganda to repair the U.S' image after it was caught with its pants down for supporting Mubarak and opposing the democratic movement.
The whole article is phrased with the assumption that the U.S. government is unquestionably on the side of democracy and free speech: it's benevolence implicit and accepted.
But that's hardly true, specially in light of recent events: when it comes to dictatorships and internet freedom, the U.S. is the first to hand them pliers and wire cutters.
Alternatively, one could transmit GSM and G3/GPRS signals, masquerading as legitimate mobile providers.
What's interesting is that the US didn't use radio jamming during the Iraq or Afghanistan campaigns. Have capabilities improved to such a point that an entire country could be blanketed by radio-frequency jamming signals?
reply