“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: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hardy, Tim via Af Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 1:46 PM To: [email protected] 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 [email protected]. From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett via Af Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 1:42 PM To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> wrote: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-329743A1.docx
