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

31–40 of 160 posts

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#31

Post by grecy »

itake wrote: post #29
grecy wrote: post #27

Does this apply on private property, or on property with sufficient signage? I've often thought about opening a bar (or movie) theater where all wireless communications are blocked, to force people to not use their phones. Obviously I'd put up extremely big and obvious signs stating that, and I'd only be blocking if you were inside my building. Legal? EDIT: I wouldn't be blocking anyone from setting up a wi-fi hotspo…

If it was legal, I wouldn't want to go there, since it prevents you from dialing emergency response. I would think you could passively block it (via paint). But probably can't actively block it (jamming).

>If it was legal, I wouldn't want to go there, since it prevents you from dialing emergency response.

...Just like you couldn't prior to about 1995 when cell phones were not a thing.

And let's be perfectly honest, if you really need to dial emergency response in a bar, there's a damn good chance the bar tender will do it on the wall phone, or someone can step outside the door and do it.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#32

Post by asavadatti »

matthewmcg wrote: post #22
akurtzhs wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wonder if hotels are going to start sporting Faraday cages soon? "We shield you from potentially harmful EM radiation so you can enjoy a safe and comfortable night's sleep."

That would block cell phone signals as well. Their customers will get angry pretty quickly..

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#33

Post by fletchowns »

grecy wrote: post #27

Does this apply on private property, or on property with sufficient signage? I've often thought about opening a bar (or movie) theater where all wireless communications are blocked, to force people to not use their phones. Obviously I'd put up extremely big and obvious signs stating that, and I'd only be blocking if you were inside my building. Legal? EDIT: I wouldn't be blocking anyone from setting up a wi-fi hotspo…

Not such a good idea when the firefighters are inside and trying to communicate with the fire chief in the parking lot via wireless comms.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#34

Post by SoftwareMaven »

Kenji wrote: post #26

"In addition, we reiterate that Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with Wi-Fi, cellular, or public safety communications." Can't every device that has an appropriate antenna be a potential jamming device? What a weird law.

In law, intention matters. Capable of being modified to do so and marketed to do so are very different in the eyes of the law.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#35

Post by placebo »

anextio wrote: post #17
placebo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> The only people talking about this are tech people

If that is the case then I stand corrected. One can only hope then that this information will find it's way outside the tech circles.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#36

Post by ianlevesque »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #34
Kenji wrote: post #26

"In addition, we reiterate that Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with Wi-Fi, cellular, or public safety communications." Can't every device that has an appropriate antenna be a potential jamming device? What a weird law.

In law, intention matters. Capable of being modified to do so and marketed to do so are very different in the eyes of the law.

Thank you. This kind of legal blindness gets annoying around here.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#37

Post by [deleted] »

Kenji wrote: post #26

"In addition, we reiterate that Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with Wi-Fi, cellular, or public safety communications." Can't every device that has an appropriate antenna be a potential jamming device? What a weird law.

[deleted]

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#38

Post by shagie »

matthewmcg wrote: post #22
akurtzhs wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wonder if hotels are going to start sporting Faraday cages soon? "We shield you from potentially harmful EM radiation so you can enjoy a safe and comfortable night's sleep."

Just need to repaint the walls. http://www.lessemf.com/paint.html or appropriately tuned wallpaper http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/anti-w...

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#39

Post by wmf »

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?)

There are different definitions of "rogue AP". Originally, a rogue AP was defined as an unauthorized AP connected to the corporate wired network inside the firewall; these should ideally be blocked by turning off the wired port but that's probably too complex so they resort to spoofed disassociate frames. An unauthorized AP that uses the corporate SSID is also rogue because it could be used for MITMing. Recently some people have started calling "any AP that's not ours" rogue, which is taking it too far IMO and is likely to lead to some FCC smackdown.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#40

Post by kelnos »

itake wrote: post #29
grecy wrote: post #27

Does this apply on private property, or on property with sufficient signage? I've often thought about opening a bar (or movie) theater where all wireless communications are blocked, to force people to not use their phones. Obviously I'd put up extremely big and obvious signs stating that, and I'd only be blocking if you were inside my building. Legal? EDIT: I wouldn't be blocking anyone from setting up a wi-fi hotspo…

If it was legal, I wouldn't want to go there, since it prevents you from dialing emergency response. I would think you could passively block it (via paint). But probably can't actively block it (jamming).

If it was legal, I wouldn't want to go there

Which is fine, and kinda the intention. An establishment that would construct a Faraday cage around itself (or at the very least have "turn your phone off" policy) essentially wants to cater to people who are not like you, and it's perfectly within your rights to vote with your wallet and not patronize a place like that.

People who would enjoy that sort of atmosphere would perhaps be happy to know they're among like-minded people.

Post reply on HN