I dunno. If Marriott was using it to force people to buy access to
their own wifi, then that's a bit shifty.
If Lockheed Martin wants to deauth rogue AP's so nobody plugs in a wifi
AP in the engineering department and the file server containing plans
for the Joint Strike Fighter is suddenly exposed via wifi to somebody
sitting in the parking lot, then I think they're justified. I would say
the same about any company trying to protect trade secrets or other IP.
In the law firm example where they are hurting other tenants in the
building, that's probably not ok. The hypothetical law firm should have
to take steps to ensure that their wifi can't leave their own area, or
move their practice to a fenced in compound like Lockheed.
This is not me telling you what's legal....just me saying what I think
is fair and reasonable. On the other hand, I guess if I was Lockhead
Martin, I'd probably just write the FCC the $600,000 check and then send
a bill for it to the DOD.
So then those Enterprise security types are going to have to stick to
disabling Ethernet ports, I guess.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Chuck McCown via Af" <af@afmug.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, October 3, 2014 1:13:45 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600, 000 TO RESOLVE
WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION
“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 Act or operated by the United States
Government”
Wifi is authorized. You don’t have the legal right to deauth any AP
sessions but your own. I would think the manufacturer of equipment
that makes this possible would be just as liable as manufacturers of
RF jammers.
*From:* Eric Kuhnke via Af <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 12:03 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600,000 TO RESOLVE
WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION
Sounds like they're setting a precedent that a landlord can't operate
rogue AP detection/automatic deauth against tenants or customers.
Should still be fine in an enterprise environment.
Where it gets possibly weird is, let's say you're a major law firm
that is a tenant in a large office building. You occupy half a floor.
You operate your own enterprise wifi system and use cisco's rogue AP
deauth feature. The tenants in the other suite (a totally separate
business) on the other half of the same floor notice that wifi
tethering doesn't work on any of their phones, and their pocket wifi
hotspots don't work.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Hardy, Tim via Af <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
And the actual order has more detail
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1003/DA-14-1444A1.pdf
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Hardy, Tim via Af
*Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 1:46 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600, 000 TO RESOLVE
WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION
More information about impermissible Wi-Fi blocking or jamming
practices is available at
www.fcc.gov/jammers <http://www.fcc.gov/jammers>. If you would
like additional information about Wi-Fi blocking, you may email us at
jammeri...@fcc.gov <mailto:jammeri...@fcc.gov>.
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam
Moffett via Af
*Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 1:42 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600, 000 TO RESOLVE
WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION
being a hotel might be the thing that made it a problem. If an
enterprise or hospital does it as a security measure, I have
trouble believing that's illegal.
Marriott are dicks, but here's an interesting question...
broad spectrum 2.4 or 5 GHz jammers are illegal, yeah.
But is an 802.11-compliant device issuing deauth requests
illegal, if part-15 devices are supposed to accept any
unwanted interference and there's no recourse?
Provided that the device issuing deauth requests is operating
within spec for EIRP, channel plan, etc.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Hardy, Tim via Af
<af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-329743A1.docx
