Georgia | Flipper Zero

While owning the device is legal, using it to gain unauthorized access to computer systems, bypass security gates, or intercept private signals is already criminal under existing computer trespass and theft laws.

In Georgia, the Flipper Zero is subject to regional frequency restrictions Flipper Zero Georgia

offer compatible accessories, including protective silicone cases. While owning the device is legal, using it

In response to these anxieties, Georgia lawmakers moved to criminalize the possession and use of such devices. In early 2024, State Senator Jason Anavitarte introduced Senate Bill 440, colloquially dubbed the “Flipper Zero Bill.” The legislation sought to amend Georgia Code Title 16, making it a felony to possess, manufacture, or distribute a “digital scanning or intercepting device” with the intent to use it in the commission of a crime. While the bill’s language was ostensibly device-agnostic, its timing and the public discourse surrounding it left little doubt that the Flipper Zero was the target. The proposed law attempted to shift the legal framework from punishing the act of unauthorized access (computer trespass, theft) to punishing the potential for access—a significant and controversial expansion of criminal intent. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia and cybersecurity professionals at Georgia Tech, argued that the bill was dangerously vague. Under its broad wording, they contended, a security researcher testing their own apartment’s key fob or a hobbyist programming a universal remote could technically be in possession of a “scanning device” with a nebulous “intent,” risking felony charges. In early 2024, State Senator Jason Anavitarte introduced

This comprehensive guide covers everything you need to know about —from its legal standing under state and federal law to practical applications, buying tips, and ethical considerations.

The legislative debate over SB 440 laid bare a fundamental tension between two competing visions of security. On one side stood law enforcement and victims of tech-enabled property crime, who argued that proactive deterrence is necessary because reactive investigation is often futile. An Atlanta police commander testified that a car thief using a Flipper Zero leaves no broken window, no physical sign of forced entry, making the crime nearly invisible and unsolvable. From this perspective, banning or tightly restricting the device is a logical, preemptive strike. On the other side stood technologists, ethical hackers, and civil libertarians, who argued that the bill amounted to banning a screwdriver because it could be used to pick a lock. They pointed out that the underlying vulnerabilities—insecure rolling codes, unencrypted RFID, and fixed garage door frequencies—are design flaws of legacy systems, not inventions of the Flipper Zero. Punishing the tool, they argued, provides a false sense of security while doing nothing to compel manufacturers to upgrade their security standards. As one Georgia Tech cybersecurity professor noted in legislative hearings, “The Flipper Zero is the symptom, not the disease.”