Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 160 posts

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#11

Post by matthewmcg »

superuser2 wrote: post #3

Does this make enterprise/university use of rouge AP mitigation mechanisms illegal? Are Cisco and other AP controller vendors going to remove this option from their software? (If they're shipping a checkbox that is always illegal to enable, why aren't they subject to enforcement action?)

Very interesting point. A Cisco page[1] discussing this feature says:

"Containment can have legal implications when launched against neighboring networks. Ensure that the rogue device is within your network and poses a security risk before you launch the containment."

[1]http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless/4400-seri...

Cisco seems to think this is perfectly fine to do to rouge APs connected to an organization's wired network, however.

Note that the Marriott enforcement action concerned the use of personal access points not connected to a Marriott network.

I don't see any basis in the Communication Act for making this distinction though. 47 U.S.C. Section 333, the law Marriott violated, says: "No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government." From the Cisco materials mentioned above, it seems the mitigation method involves sending fake de-authentication packets over the air. That also seems like intentional interference to me!

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#12

Post by dkokelley »

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement

It appears even the ownership of a device intended for WiFi jamming is not allowed. I wonder if there is a distinction between active jammers and passive blocking methods. Could WiFi-obstructing materials painted on my walls for the purpose of restricting the range of my WiFi to inside my house be considered illegal under some interpretations of these laws?

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#13

Post by seanp2k2 »

rbc wrote: post #2

This stuff has teeth. If you get identified by the FCC, they send you a cease and desist order. If you ignore that, they follow it up with a fine, $10,000 being common in some radio services. Marriott had to pay $600,000.

Considering that their net income for the past quarter was 192 million[1], I doubt $600k will dissuade them much.

1. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MAR

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#14

Post by matthewmcg »

superuser2 wrote: post #10
gramsey wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to know the answer to this question as well; my university purposefully blocks non-authorized networks.

It is possible/likely that this refers to what Mariott was specifically doing, which is attacking cellular modem/AP combo devices that were not connected to Marott's network in any way, just physically located in/near their hotels. University Wi-Fi blocking is usually targeted at APs that students have attached to University network drops without permission, which is a completely different thing. However, the FCC did…

Agreed. The university unquestionably has the right to prevent you from connecting a device to its wired network. The only question is whether it can use wireless "self-help" to prevent you from doing so.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#15

Post by placebo »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #13
rbc wrote: post #2

This stuff has teeth. If you get identified by the FCC, they send you a cease and desist order. If you ignore that, they follow it up with a fine, $10,000 being common in some radio services. Marriott had to pay $600,000.

Considering that their net income for the past quarter was 192 million[1], I doubt $600k will dissuade them much. 1. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MAR

true, but since the only way of making a dent in their income is for more people to stop using their services, the fact that this doesn't happen seems to imply that people who use their services don't really care about their WiFi blocking.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#16

Post by dsjoerg »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #13
rbc wrote: post #2

This stuff has teeth. If you get identified by the FCC, they send you a cease and desist order. If you ignore that, they follow it up with a fine, $10,000 being common in some radio services. Marriott had to pay $600,000.

Considering that their net income for the past quarter was 192 million[1], I doubt $600k will dissuade them much. 1. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MAR

the relevant number is not their net income, but the gains they think they are making by wi-fi blocking.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#17

Post by anextio »

placebo wrote: post #15
seanp2k2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that their net income for the past quarter was 192 million[1], I doubt $600k will dissuade them much. 1. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MAR

true, but since the only way of making a dent in their income is for more people to stop using their services, the fact that this doesn't happen seems to imply that people who use their services don't really care about their WiFi blocking.

> the fact that this doesn't happen seems to imply that people who use their services don't really care about their WiFi blocking.

This projection of supply-and-demand is uncalled for, I think. Maybe it would be valid if a) they were blocking wifi in all their hotels, which it seems that they aren't yet, and b) that consumers know it is the hotel that is blocking the wifi, and not just technology fucking up as usual.

It's not fair to characterize this as a "do nothing, the market has spoken" situation when it's clear that the scenario is not widely present and consumer information is low. The only people talking about this are tech people.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#18

Post by anextio »

matthewmcg wrote: post #11
superuser2 wrote: post #3

Does this make enterprise/university use of rouge AP mitigation mechanisms illegal? Are Cisco and other AP controller vendors going to remove this option from their software? (If they're shipping a checkbox that is always illegal to enable, why aren't they subject to enforcement action?)

Very interesting point. A Cisco page[1] discussing this feature says: "Containment can have legal implications when launched against neighboring networks. Ensure that the rogue device is within your network and poses a security risk before you launch the containment." [1] http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless/4400-seri... Cisco seems to think this is perfectly fine to do to rouge APs connected to an orga…

It's clear from the memo that the FCC considers security risks to be exempt from this requirement.

It sounds like the AP being on your network is what constitutes the security risk. I doubt the FCC would have a problem with a network administrator taking action like that. Unrelated APs are different.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#19

Post by akurtzhs »

dkokelley wrote: post #12

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement It appears even the ownership of a device intended for WiFi jamming is not allowed. I wonder if there is a distinction between active jammers and passive blocking methods. Could WiFi-obstructing materials painted on my walls for the purpose of restricting the range of my WiFi to inside my house be considered illegal under some interpretations of these laws?

Yes, there's a distinction between jamming and blocking. The FCC controls what you transmit, not what kind of walls you put up.
Post reply on HN