[Xenon]

...so in theory it should work in both directions.

I stopped trying to apply 2019 knowledge on Shadowrun Matrix rules years ago.

In this edition you are also not really hacking individual devices anymore.
Rather you seem to be hacking the entire 'network' the device is attached to to.

[Ghost Rigger]

A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.

But not so much if there are holes opened up in the smoke cloud so certain people inside can see out just fine...

If you happened to be perfectly aligned with the small holes that constantly change alignment depending on where the people are looking; there's no logical reason you should be immune to the noise penalty unless you're operating on the same frequency as the exempted user, and what are the odds of that? Alternatively, if the rigger has enough noise cancellation on their RCC, they don't even need to use their jammer in wireless mode. Br'er Rabbit the rigger scurries into the briar patch of noise and laughs as Br'er Fox the decker gets pricked and tangled up trying to follow him.

[penllawen]

...so in theory it should work in both directions.

I stopped trying to apply 2019 knowledge on Shadowrun Matrix rules years ago.

The fact that the Matrix doesn't resemble current-day computer systems much doesn't mean the Matrix rules shouldn't be internally consistent. Which is Hephaestus's point - the rules aren't consistent if noise at one end of a connection doesn't effect the other end. As has been repeatedly pointed out by the "the decker walks up the road and magically he can hack again" scenario, which I've yet to see any refutation of.

[penllawen]

If you happened to be perfectly aligned with the small holes that constantly change alignment depending on where the people are looking; there's no logical reason you should be immune to the noise penalty unless you're operating on the same frequency as the exempted user, and what are the odds of that?

I'm not a fan of this approach, as I think the wireless Matrix is presented (consciously so) as more abstract than I'm about to write, and it's broadly better not to get bogged down in details. But if you want some fluff to justify it, here goes: most wireless devices (both today and in SR) will be frequency agile, hopping from one channel to another. The jammer could be set up in such a way as it leaves tiny, shifting holes in the frequency space un-jammed, and it broadcasts the sequence of those holes to "friendly" devices so they can still communicate by dancing through the clear, un-jammed air. The sequence of holes would need to be very long and unguessable, so "foe" devices couldn't figure out how to jump onto them, but that's a solvable problem.

Source: I have a PhD in frequency hopping network design from my dark and misguided past.

[tequila]

Yep. Jamming the site's sensors and comms IS the SIGINT equivalent of going in guns-a-blazing.  (edit: It's probably a very reasonable assumption that when QRF and/or HTR shows up, they're showing up with benefit of a top of the line, maybe even milspec, jammer...)

So if that's your plan, then by all means jam the opposition.  But if your plan ISN'T "kick the door in", then remember that's essentially what you're doing anyway on the Matrix frequencies when you have an active Jammer going...

Stop! Jammer time.

[skalchemist]

The jammer could be set up in such a way as it leaves tiny, shifting holes in the frequency space un-jammed, and it broadcasts the sequence of those holes to "friendly" devices so they can still communicate by dancing through the clear, un-jammed air. The sequence of holes would need to be very long and unguessable, so "foe" devices couldn't figure out how to jump onto them, but that's a solvable problem.

I like this. 

Conceivably the sequence wouldn't even need to be broadcast.  One could have an algorithm that generates the hopping sequence from a key similarly to a hashing function (e.g. easy to calculate in one direction, incredibly hard to reverse calculate).  As long as all devices shared that key, they would know when to "hop" and only the communication of the key at some point earlier would be necessary to make that happen.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

SR6 p. 270 Jammer
...The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them...

...Part of the debate happening here is if a jamming field should cause some sort of interference for devices outside of its radius attempting to interact with things inside or through the radius

It seem as if a jammer will not affect devices that are outside the jamming area.

Put a jammer next to a turret. Put a decker next to the jammer. The decker tries to hack the turret. The jammer imposes a noise penalty. The decker fails the hack.

The decker walks away, out of range of the jammer. He tries to hack the turret again. The jammer no longer has any effect. The hack succeeds.

Forget the letter of the rules for the moment. Does that seem reasonable to you?

As I wrote in a post earlier in this thread Noise doesn't make much sense.  While it is dressed up to kind of look legit, it really isn't for a multitude of reasons.

If the simplest "use local Noise + Distance Noise" doesn't work for you, then the next simplest idea - that others have posted - is "use the higher of Source Noise or Target Noise + Distance Noise."

This posses it's own issues, namely adding steps, yet keeps things relatively simple.
The Local + Distance has the strange situation of a Rigger sitting in the clear being able to pilot his/her Device Rating 2 or 3 drone into an area of 12 Noise without any penalty over Distance Noise.
The Source or Target + Distance adds in the steps of checking to make sure both devices are legit able to connect to the Matrix, and then compare two values before adding Distance.  On the other hand, it makes a bit more sense.  Whether or not that sensibility is worth the extra effort...

[Hephaestus]

...so in theory it should work in both directions.

I stopped trying to apply 2019 knowledge on Shadowrun Matrix rules years ago.

In this edition you are also not really hacking individual devices anymore.
Rather you seem to be hacking the entire 'network' the device is attached to to.

I forget, could you select/exempt devices in 5th, or is this new to 6th?

[Xenon]

Stop! Jammer time.

Relevant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_wS0Kw6k9c

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I forget, could you select/exempt devices in 5th, or is this new to 6th?

The wireless bonus for a Jammer was the same in 5e.  What's new is it's explicit that Jamming (well, all Noise now) knocks you offline rather than just removing wireless bonuses.

As for the local area "wireless negation"... I think it passes muster to add the Jamming Noise as a penalty to hacking a device inside the field.  But only if the device is being Jammed...  As I opined before: If the device is not being affected by the Noise, then there is no Noise affecting that device.

[Ghost Rigger]

As for the local area "wireless negation"... I think it passes muster to add the Jamming Noise as a penalty to hacking a device inside the field.  But only if the device is being Jammed...  As I opined before: If the device is not being affected by the Noise, then there is no Noise affecting that device.

Next you'll argue that the guy trying to shoot me doesn't take darkness penalties because my goggles have lowlight and thermographic vision.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

As for the local area "wireless negation"... I think it passes muster to add the Jamming Noise as a penalty to hacking a device inside the field.  But only if the device is being Jammed...  As I opined before: If the device is not being affected by the Noise, then there is no Noise affecting that device.

Next you'll argue that the guy trying to shoot me doesn't take darkness penalties because my goggles have lowlight and thermographic vision.

Well, if it were a hypothetical magical darkness that allowed certain exceptions to people inside its area to not be enveloped by said darkness: then yes, yes I would. Or, a more accurate analogy would be this: Since the magical darkness isn't affecting the thermographic wavelengths and that's what you're using to see the rest of the world with, then yes you're susceptible to an illusion cast by a hostile mage broadcasting a thermographic image outside the magical darkness.

Jamming is making Noise. It can exempt certain devices.  Now this is bringing real life into game mechanics, but devices communicate wirelessly on things called radio frequencies.  I have zero doubts that since I'm saying this you'll disagree with me because it's me saying this, but hopefully this makes sense to other people: Jammers don't exempt devices based on where they're located relative to the jammer but rather by which radio frequencies they're using to communicate with the rest of the Matrix... so the Jammer doesn't scream on THOSE frequencies.  That is how everything around them is overwhelmed with RF noise but they are not.  Now, since those exempted devices have clean frequencies to use to talk to other devices, it certainly stands to reason other unaffected devices can talk back, whether they're inside or outside the Jammer's field.  Because if they couldn't, the exempted devices would be suffering Matrix interruptions.  Since the MeFeed host can beam you Cat videos without Noise interference, then so too can hackers contact the device without Noise interference.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

Jammers don't exempt devices based on where they're located relative to the jammer but rather by which radio frequencies they're using to communicate with the rest of the Matrix... so the Jammer doesn't scream on THOSE frequencies.

That is one hell of an assumption.  One that is completely unfounded, by the way.

It is jut as likely, and more so frankly, that the Jammer is a mobile ARP Poisoning platform that allows the user to whitelist the Matrix equivalent of MAC addresses.

Which, by the way, would completely pop your "poking holes in the shield" argument for devices whitelisted and inside the Jammers AOE being vulnerable from the outside.

[ZeroSum]

All real-world considerations aside; if you exempt a device from jamming by using the jammer's wireless bonus, then mechanically speaking the exempted device does not suffer the penalty of noise being output by the jammer.

Are we at least in agreement on this simple game mechanic?

It would seem that logically, then, if the device does not suffer noise from the jammer then only the usual noise applies. If the hacker is far away, distance and local noise may apply. If the hacker is in range of the jammer, his device suffers noise from the jammer as well as potentially local noise and distance.

Again, separate the game world and the real world and only consider the rules. If you do not agree with the above logic feel free to elaborate on how and why, but let's try to keep it related to the pure mechanics without dragging the real world into the discussion.

[penllawen]

All real-world considerations aside; if you exempt a device from jamming by using the jammer's wireless bonus, then mechanically speaking the exempted device does not suffer the penalty of noise being output by the jammer.
...
Again, separate the game world and the real world and only consider the rules. If you do not agree with the above logic feel free to elaborate on how and why, but let's try to keep it related to the pure mechanics without dragging the real world into the discussion.

Strongly agree with this conclusion and this approach (even though I started in with the real-world stuff a few posts back.)

For questions like this, I think one should
(a) determine the most desirable game outcome
(b) check this is coherent / consistent with other rules and the game's internal logic
(c) write some fluff that makes some degree of sense to explain it

To my mind, if you want the "wireless bonus: jammers magically don't jam friendly devices" mechanic, then the ideas above about how the jammer might work explain it. But I think if the jammer is running but you aren't being jammed, you have to be vulnerable to incoming hackers; otherwise I think it violates (b) above. If you don't want that bonus to exist at your table -- which I think has merit as a houserule, if only for simplicity -- then it's even easier to explain.

But start from the mechanics and use that to write the fluff, not the other way around.