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

51–60 of 160 posts

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#51

Post by dedward »

anextio wrote: post #18
matthewmcg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's also arguably not "harmful interference"... it's a legitimate operation within your network.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#52

Post by HCIdivision17 »

jerf wrote: post #21
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

It's also a shot across their bow. If they keep doing it after being made to pony up $600K (plus legal expenses which stand a decent chance of being higher than that themselves), the next time they are found infringing they're going to pay quite a lot more, if they don't stop. This isn't about running around beating people with sticks, no matter how fun that may sound to us. This is chess; they want to make a move, t…

I would imagine that the FCC could escalate hard, too. Ignore the fines, and I understand they can disable the device. That is, they actually can enter and physically disable the equipment (like a raid). It's a shocking power that I have never heard abused, but is sort of the nuclear option for "stop that!"

(Looking around, it seems the FCC really does try to work things out first via paperwork before barging in. Prolly some good pirate radio station stories out there on this...)

Edit: here's the link they provide that summarizes the laws affecting jammers. No doubt that rbc is right: this has teeth, and they're sharp.

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

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#53

Post by pacificmint »

delbel wrote: post #5

Of course stringray is (quasi) legal. Wifi blocking, well son that's a $600,000 fine.

Using a stingray would be just as illegal as the Wifi jamming for you, me and the Marriot.

Whether law enforcement or other government agencies have the right to use a stingray (or wifi jamming for that matter) is a totally different debate. (One that we should have, ideally before they start using it, but a different one nonetheless)

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#54

Post by astrojetsonjr »

What is interesting is that they have a request in for a rule change http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737

So even with the fine, etc. they are still moving forward on trying to get the rule changed. As the say "It's not over until the fat lady gets paid off to sing a different song"

Here is their petition http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000986872

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#55

Post by ims »

Kenji wrote: post #43
ianlevesque wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hey, don't be angry about my ignorance, it was genuine curiosity. I have little knowledge about law, but I've never seen a law in our country that could criminalize the entire population depending on how you interpret it.

If you want to know more, check out "Three Felonies a Day" by Harvey Silvergate[1]. (I don't necessarily agree with his take on everything, but it's still eye opening and worth a read.)

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#56

Post by cortesoft »

astrojetsonjr wrote: post #54

What is interesting is that they have a request in for a rule change http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737 So even with the fine, etc. they are still moving forward on trying to get the rule changed. As the say "It's not over until the fat lady gets paid off to sing a different song" Here is their petition http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000986872

Eh, it makes sense that they would do that, and I don't think it is fundamentally wrong to try to get a rule changed that you disagree with. While I disagree with their disagreement, I am not bothered that they are working to change the rule... I just think we should work to make sure it ISN'T changed.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#57

Post by pb2au »

gramsey wrote: post #24
matthewmcg wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, of course they have the right to prevent me from connecting to their network. But as I understand the FCC advisory, they do not have the right to stop me from using my own personal cellular hotspot, for example.

Does your university actually block all other wireless networks near / on campus? This is prohibited by the FCC.

At my university, the wireless APs would scan for others and try to detect if they were on-network using a student's auth. They'd tell the student to remove the AP if they wanted to continue to have access to the school network. Wireless, off-network hotspots were allowed, provided they weren't impersonating the school network.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#58

Post by anigbrowl »

ims wrote: post #55
Kenji wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, don't be angry about my ignorance, it was genuine curiosity. I have little knowledge about law, but I've never seen a law in our country that could criminalize the entire population depending on how you interpret it.

If you want to know more, check out "Three Felonies a Day" by Harvey Silvergate[1]. (I don't necessarily agree with his take on everything, but it's still eye opening and worth a read.) [1] http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...

Please don't. If you study the cases he cites in detail (ie by reading the verdicts or appeals) you'll find that he leaves out all sorts of critical information - not surprising, since many of the cases he talks about are ones where he represented the defendant. He's a bullshit artist. You are almost certainly not committing three felonies a day.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#59

Post by akira2501 »

HCIdivision17 wrote: post #52
jerf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a shot across their bow. If they keep doing it after being made to pony up $600K (plus legal expenses which stand a decent chance of being higher than that themselves), the next time they are found infringing they're going to pay quite a lot more, if they don't stop. This isn't about running around beating people with sticks, no matter how fun that may sound to us. This is chess; they want to make a move, t…

I would imagine that the FCC could escalate hard, too. Ignore the fines, and I understand they can disable the device. That is, they actually can enter and physically disable the equipment (like a raid). It's a shocking power that I have never heard abused, but is sort of the nuclear option for "stop that!" (Looking around, it seems the FCC really does try to work things out first via paperwork before barging in. Pro…

If you ignore their enforcement letters, then yes, they can come and just confiscate your equipment; not an uncommon end for a "pirate" FM station operator.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#60

Post by jsprogrammer »

dsjoerg wrote: post #16
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

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

How is net income irrelevant? Net income represents the organization's ability to 1) absorb fines 2) purchase communication blocking equipment 3) employ and contract with persons to deploy blocking equipment 4) lobby (and potentially strongarm) law and rule making bodies to accept their will.
Post reply on HN