Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Crime Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary considers criminalizing Wi‑Fi jammers; debate over right‑to‑repair exemption for alarm systems
Summary
Senate Bill 959 would classify signal jammers as burglary tools and prohibit possession with intent to commit theft; the bill also seeks to exempt alarm and life‑safety equipment from certain right‑to‑repair disclosure requirements, a provision that drew opposition from right‑to‑repair advocates.
The House Committee on Judiciary opened a public hearing April 22 on Senate Bill 959, which would categorize signal (Wi‑Fi) jammers as burglary tools and make it a crime to possess such a device with intent to break into a premises or commit theft. The measure also includes an exemption that would bar alarm‑system and life‑safety manufacturers from having to supply certain parts, tools or disclosure required under the state’s right‑to‑repair provisions.
John Eames, testifying for the Electronic Security Association, told the committee the bill would add signal jammers to the burglary statute and update state law to reflect model right‑to‑repair language that exempts life‑safety systems. Jake Bronger, vice president of advocacy and public affairs for the Electronic Security Association, said the devices are “often commonly referred to as WiFi jammers” and that they have been used in recent sophisticated robberies, making it “vital that Oregon reinforces the policy to better deter their usage.”
Holly, testifying for ADT, described jammers as inexpensive devices that can “override an alarm system” and argued the bill would give law enforcement an enforcement tool to deter criminals who use jammers to disable home and business security systems. Holly said Oregon’s right‑to‑repair statute currently contains language that could force disclosure of signals and channels used by alarm systems and that removing that disclosure would protect system integrity.
Charlie Fisher, state director of OSPIRG and a member of the right‑to‑repair coalition, opposed the alarm‑system exemption. “We’re here respectfully to oppose this bill, not because we like Wi Fi jammers, but because we think that exempting alarm systems categorically is not the right approach,” Fisher said. Fisher and other coalition members argued the right‑to‑repair law already includes broad exemptions to protect security and privacy and urged a narrowly tailored fix rather than a categorical exemption.
Committee members asked about the legislative history of right‑to‑repair and whether alarm systems were discussed in earlier debates. Proponents said the matter had been discussed previously and that the bill is intended to align Oregon’s statute with updated model language that clarifies life‑safety exemptions. OSPIRG said the coalition worked on Oregon’s right‑to‑repair bill and prefers a targeted approach to address security concerns.
The bill sponsor’s summary in the hearing noted a minimal fiscal and revenue impact and recorded on the transcript that the measure received “27 ayes and 0 nays” on the Senate floor. The committee closed the public hearing on SB 959 without a committee vote.
