Tamper

Tamper (pronounced tam-per)

(1) To meddle, especially for the purpose of altering, damaging, or misusing (usually followed by with).

(2) To make changes in something, especially in order to falsify (usually followed by with).

(3) Secretly or improperly to engage in something; to engage in underhand or corrupt dealings, especially in order to influence improperly (usually followed by with); to use corrupt practices such as bribery or blackmail.

(4) In the profession of blasting, an employee who tamps (to fill a hole containing an explosive with dirt or clay before blasting) or a device used to tamp.

(5) As “jury tampering”, an attempt by various means to influence a member or members of a jury.

(6) A device used to pack down tobacco in a pipe.

(7) In the construction of thermo-nuclear weapons, a casing around the core to increase specific efficiency by reflecting neutrons and delaying the expansion.

(8) In rail transport, a railway vehicle used to tamp down ballast.

(9) In law, to attempt to practice or administer something (especially medicine) without sufficient knowledge or qualifications (obsolete).

(10) In North America, to discuss future contracts with a player, against the rules of various sanctioning bodies in professional sports.

1560–1570: From the Middle English tamper, From the Middle French temprer (to temper, mix, meddle) and a doublet of temper.  The word began in Middle English as a verb, a figurative use of tamper “to work in clay etc, mixing it thoroughly”, probably originally a variant of the verb temper (and that original spelling persisted in places as late as the late eighteenth century), the shift to “tamper” possibly influenced by the dialectal pronunciation of workmen engaged in the process.  The noun tamper (one employed to tamp) emerged circa 1865 as an agent noun from the verb and almost simultaneously was used also as a descriptor of devices used for tamping.  The adjective tamperproof (also tamper-proof) dates from 1886 and the related forms (anti-tampering, tamper-evident, tamper-resistant) were coined as technology evolved.  Tamper & tampering are nouns & verbs, tamperer is a noun, tamperproof is a noun & adjective and tampered & tamperest are verbs; the common noun plural is tamperers.

The (almost) tamper-proof SCRAM

Alcohol monitoring bracelets are claimed by the manufacturer to be tamper-proof (as opposed to the less confident “tamper-resistant” sometimes used) and on the basis of the findings of the last decade-odd they may be close to correct.  The devices used to be marketed as the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) but SCRAM Systems re-branded as Alcohol Monitoring Systems Inc (AMS) and change the product name to AMS bracelets although in real-world use, both AMS SCRAM bracelets and the old SCRAM remain commonly heard.  Quite why they’ve always been called bracelets when, being attached around the ankle, they should properly be called anklets, is one of the mysteries of modern English.  One reason a SCRAM is so hard successfully to tamper with is its very simplicity: It keeps track of the wearer's alcohol intake by a sample of their sweat.  When someone drinks liquor, some 1% of it is emitted through the skin's pores and when these molecules are detected by a SCRAM’s sensors, the content is measured and recorded.  The sensors pass the data to an analysis chip which is calibrated to gauge exactly how much alcohol was consumed, this information transmitted wirelessly to an AMS server which hourly passes the findings to whichever court (or their agent) ordered the fitting of the SCRAM.

Lindsay Lohan in AMS SCRAM bracelet.

The simplicity of the process means that even if the wearer tampers with it by plunging their foot into cold water (thereby stopping the sweating), even that would flag a waring because the reading would be recorded as aberrant in the hourly data transmission and the inconsistency would trigger a response from the court.  Apparently, offenders are informed of the efficiency of the device when fitted but the manufacturer has noted some innovative attempts to bluff the booze box.  Some have tried to place cellophane, aluminium foil, animal membrane or condoms between skin sensor, others attempting to emulate human skin by using baloney, salami, sliced ham or even chicken skin.  All attempts have been defeated however because SCRAMs include other sensors including one which monitors temperature and another which triggers an alarm if the strap is stretched beyond a certain point.  Human skin has specific properties and if variations on an acceptable range of those parameters are detected, there’s an infrared beam which measures the volume of light reflected by the skin.  Cellophane, foil and other surfaces all trip the infrared alarm as they reflect differently than human skin.

Another popular attempt at tampering turned out to be known as “spiking the bracelet”, the preferred technique being liberally to spray the ankle with a perfume or other topical substance known to have a high alcohol content.  What this does is induce the sensor to report an impossibly high alcohol level and although it certainly masks any actual alcoholic intake, such tampering is itself a violation of the terms imposed by the court and an offender can be brought before a judge who may revoke the order imposing the use of the SCRAM (regarded as a privilege) and impose an immediate custodial sentence.