Oh, I'd say enterprises should be able to deploy these measures all day long, but I believe the FCC's statement covers all uses.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Moffett via Af" <af@afmug.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, October 3, 2014 2:08:07 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600, 000 TO RESOLVE WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION 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 ----- Original Message ----- 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 Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 12:03 PM To: 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 > wrote: <blockquote> 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 ] On Behalf Of Hardy, Tim via Af Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 1:46 PM To: 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 . If you would like additional information about Wi-Fi blocking, you may email us at 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 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. <blockquote> 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 > wrote: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-329743A1.docx </blockquote> </blockquote>
