Re: Marriott wifi blocking
My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC regulations. Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 'interference', which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally interfere. I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be acceptable. What constitutes defensive purposes? Since this is unlicensed spectrum, I don't think there is anything one has a right to defend :) /Mike
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
On 10/3/14 3:44 PM, Lyle Giese l...@lcrcomputer.net wrote: On 10/03/14 17:34, Michael Van Norman wrote: My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC regulations. Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 'interference', which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally interfere. I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be acceptable. What constitutes defensive purposes? Since this is unlicensed spectrum, I don't think there is anything one has a right to defend :) /Mike If you charge for access and one person pays and sets up a rogue AP offering free WiFi to anyone in range. I can see a defensive angle there. Lyle Giese LCR Computer Services, Inc. In that case turn off the offenders access. No FCC violation doing that. In any case, that was not what was happening here. /Mike
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
IANAL, but I believe they are. State laws may also apply (e.g. California Code - Section 502). In California, it is illegal to knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network. Blocking access to somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies. /Mike On 10/3/14 5:15 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote: So does that mean the anti-rogue AP technologies by the various vendors are illegal if used in the US? On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and carries no authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be provided. What's the code for E_GREEDY? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
On 10/3/14 7:25 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote: On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu wrote: IANAL, but I believe they are. State laws may also apply (e.g. California Code - Section 502). In California, it is illegal to knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network. Blocking access to somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies. My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue APs are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network. They can say anything they want, it does not make it legal. There's no such thing as a rogue AP in this context. I can run an access point almost anywhere I want (there are limits established by the FCC in some areas) and it does not matter who owns the land underneath. They have no authority to decide whether or not my access point is authorized. They can certainly refuse to connect me to their wired network; and they can disconnect me if they decide I am making inappropriate use of their network -- but they have no legal authority to interfere with my wireless transmissions on my own network (be it my personal hotspot, WiFi router, etc.). FWIW, the same is true in almost all corporate environments as well. /Mike
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
One of the reasons I pointed to the California law is that it covers above L1 even if FCC authority does not. The state law also provides for criminal penalties. I do not know if other states have similar laws. /Mike On 10/3/14 7:42 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote: On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -0700, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote: The question here is what is authorized and what is not. Was this to protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive customers. I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized, outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the spectrum. I think that depends on the terms of your lease agreement. Could not a hotel or conference center operate reserve the right to employ active devices to disable any unauthorized wireless systems? Perhaps because they want to charge to provide that service, because they don't want errant signals leaking from their building, a rogue device could be considered an intruder and represent a risk to the network, or because they don't want someone setting up a system that would interfere with their wireless gear and take down other clients who are on premesis... Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there? You may consider it appropriate from a financial or moral perspective, but it is absolutely wrong under the communications act of 1934 as amended. The following is an oversimplification and IANAL, but generally: You are _NOT_ allowed to intentionally cause harmful interference with a signal for any reason. If you are the primary user on a frequency, you are allowed to conduct your normal operations without undue concern for other users of the same spectrum, but you are not allowed to deliberately interfere with any secondary user just for the sake of interfering with them. The kind of active devices being discussed and the activities of the hotel in question appear to have run well afoul of these regulations. As someone else said, owning the property does not constitute ownership of the airwaves within the boundaries of the property, at least in the US (and I suspect in most if not all ITU countries). Owen Serious question: do the FCC regulations on RF spectrum interference extend beyond layer 1? I would assume that blasting a bunch of RF noise would be pretty obviously out of bounds, but my understanding is that the mechanisms described for rogue AP squashing operate at L2. The *effect* is to render the wireless medium pretty much useless for its intended purpose, but that's accomplished by the use (abuse?) of higher layer control mechanisms. I'm not condoning this, but do the FCC regulations RF interference apply? Do they have authority above L1 in this case? -- Hugo
