It doesn't jam the spectrum in the traditional sense. Instead it transmits packets telling the AP and client to disconnect from one another for WiFi networks it doesn't "own." That within itself isn't technically "jamming" and is also likely legal in some cases.
The whole point of the tech is: If you own a network called "CorpWiFi," someone can come along, set up their own AP, and call their WiFi "CorpWiFi" to try and trick clients into connecting to it with the goal of stealing information. Cisco's anti-rogue AP tech attacks these hotspots and causes continuous disconnects. That is likely legal.
What is not legal is using this same tech' to disconnect ALL WiFi hotspots within range. So instead of using it to go after "CorpWiFi" you also disconnect "MyWiFi" and "FreeWiFi" which are networks you don't run. That's what has got these guys into trouble.
The technology itself is legal. Using the technology in the US is also legal in some cases. Using it to effectively corner the market for WiFi in certain areas is illegal.
Why would it be legal to order your computing device to disrupt someone else's computing services?
Just for reference here, under US Federal law:
> knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
> the term “damage” means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;
A protected computer is any computer connected to the internet.
Taking any action to impair the availability of data, a program, or a system to any computer connected to the internet is a felony in the United States.
There's probably a way to use the CFAA against someone setting up a fake AP, too.
What gives you, company xyz, the right to essentially DoS an AP just because they share the SSID? Just because you call something CorpWiFi, doesn't really make it legal to DoS someone else's SSID that is also called CorpWiFi. There does not seem to be any kind of legal framework that would allow you do so, but inversely, you are essentially then not only committing multiple types of crimes, but you are also violating free speech.
I get the reason, but the solution really needs to be something else, even if that something else is some sort of change to the WIFI spec and inclusion of some kind of authentication or security layer.
"Within the bounds" - so their walls are RF shielded, then?
Nobody has a legal claim to any wifi SSID. They don't have an exclusive claim to the conference SSID, and you don't have a legal claim to your hotspot's SSID (the one that's actually at issue here). Conflicts can occur, and the law has nothing to say about them.
> Also, there are trespass statutes for people behaving as you don't wish within private property.
Yes, there are, but it's not the FCC's role to enforce those particular statutes (nor should it be). The real question is whether the FCC should be unilaterally setting policy regarding interference at the MAC level where things like de-auth packets come into play. That's being discussed in another sub-thread, so I won't repeat the points here.
> Within the bounds" - so their walls are RF shielded, then?
No more that the average corporate HQ, but there seems to be a consensus here that doing the same thing in that context would be A-OK. Why the different treatment for two situations that are equal under the law?
I never said the FCC was involved in enforcing trespass statutes. If there are people on your private property behaving in a way you deem unacceptable (even if legal), then the solution is to remove them from your property, not for you to illegally interfere with the use of the spectrum. That's vigilantism.
The Corp HQ example seems to work because there are clauses that surround intentional deception and the risk to security that could come there-from. When CorpHQSSID access points de-auth packets to an unauthorized access point using the same SSID.
That -wasn't- what was happening here. The convention center was saying "I don't care what your use of the wireless spectrum is, your hotspot, whatever, I'm going to interfere with it so that my SSID is the only one usable (oh, enter your credit card number here)".
Your contortion of logic, willful and disingenous ignorance of contradictions and interpretations don't change these facts. The issue was discussed many times, many lawyers were involved, and the outcome was decided - whether you think it should be or not (your perfect right), it -is- illegal.
Of course, since the example you described is an interaction between two private parties, there is no legal notion of free speech to violate.
PS: Random noise is one thing; hacking someone’s Wi-Fi even using such a simplistic approach is very different.
You can't just use air raid sirens to disrupt a public protest
I'm not 100% up on my civil rights/protest law, but if you are a private party, I suspect you could. It is, for example, 100% legal to surround a protest with other people holding sheets to block them & their signs from view.
This can include creating loud noise
Of note: A violation of a noise ordinance is in most jurisdictions not considered a disturbance of the peace unless the perpetrator has disregarded an affirmative request that he or she reduce the noise to a reasonable level. However, that would be implied in the air raid siren case.
Anyway, I agree it's not the 4th that's the issue. But, it's still unlawful conduct.
I'll concede the possibility that my understanding is incorrect but jamming is flat out illegal(for non-government entities). It's illegal to even sell jamming devices. I remember a few years ago, the FCC started threatening movie theaters that had been jamming cell phones.
Broadcasting white noise on wifi frequencies to drown out communications is the sort of jamming that is clearly illegal, this likely isn't jamming under current laws.
Then contact law enforcement. Building out some vigilante feature into AP's is completely asinine. This is like me seeing someone speed on the expressway and trying to pull them over myself. Of course, we'll abuse that power if given to us!
The FCC needs to up its game. Either allow us to do whatever the hell we want or stop the bad guys. You either have police or you don't. This middle ground of outsourcing enforcement to Cisco and Aruba and other deep pocketed enterprise players was, predictably, abused by terrible corporate citizens and puts home users as a disadvantage as their equipment doesn't have these features.
Or heaven forbid the FCC get off the big donors/money train and strongarm some spectrum so we have more for wifi in the ISM band. How much spectrum is wasted right now on analog radio or other dinosaur services that can be downsampled into bandwidth efficient digital transmissions? Its incredible we have so few bands for our most used infrastructure. Hell, give us channel 14 at least. Figure out a safe way to do this here. We're dying for spectrum yet deep pocketed players buy all they need (mobile networks, clear channel, etc). That's the core problem hereand until we get more wifi spectrum, these shenanigans will continue in one form or another. Smart City isn't knocking you offline because you're some kind of wifi pirate, they're doing it because they want to hog the limited spectrum for their convention customers.
If pirating ssid's were a real problem, we'd all be proposing an ssl-cert like system to verify identities or at least some kind of web of trust to avoid rogue AP's. But its not, its a complete red herring. The real issue is the stingy amount of spectrum allocated to us.
No, it's like any corporation's private security asking you to leave. (Which they absolutely will.)
Similarly, you don't have any rights over the airspace above your land - the FAA does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_47_CFR_Part_15 (see: subpart .5)
In places where the public goes (hotels, convention centers) they are absolutely wrong but they're still important to enterprise security on corporate campuses.
Where I think Smart City's argument falls down is not that managing the network within their private space is generally wrong or illegal. Their failure seems to have been that the users whose hotspots they were killing had entered into no agreement not to bring or use those devices. Had that been a part of the event registration, I for one might have declined to attend, but I also think the FCC might then have been right - per the law - to have decided differently.
> No evidence exists that the Wi-Fi blocking occurred in response to a specific security threat to Smart City’s network or the users of its network.
A corporate network could probably meet that hurdle, it's not clear however they'd get away with it if it also shut down the neighbor's wifi...
I've been in plenty of buildings with terrible-to-nonexistent cell reception. I somehow doubt that they'd be held liable if I wasn't able to get reception to make a 911 call. I can't see that the large Faraday cage example is appreciably different.
A purely passive barrier to electronic signals is a completely different thing. There are no rules against Faraday cages, and the FCC is perfectly aware of them and what they are for; it OKs the use of Faraday cages for use with experimental radio technology that would otherwise require a special permit.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibit...
It doesn't matter if you own the land. Land ownership does not confer rights to the airwaves, the air space, and often things like mineral rights.
Wifi spectrum is shared with other services. I am aware of at least the following services that use all or part of the same spectrum that 2.4 GHz wifi uses:
1. Radiolocation services (e.g., radar).
2. Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) devices operating under Part 18 of the FCC regulations.
3. Amateur radio (ham) operators operating under Part 97 of the FCC regulations.
4. Wifi, RF remote controls, Bluetooth, microwave ovens, cordless phones, wireless microphones, and many other things, operating under Part 15 of the FCC regulations. (Note: note all instances of all of these devices will be in the 2.4 GHz band. For instance. There are other bands available for most of these, and which a particular device uses is up to the manufacturer).
There may be other services operating under other parts of the FCC rules that I did not list (because I don't know about them).
The above are listed in order of priority. The rules are simple:
• You cannot interfere with users of services above yours the list. For instance, if a ham radio operator interferes with an ISM user, the ham has to stop the interference. How he does that is up to the ham...he could reduce power, or use a directional antenna aimed away from the ISM device, or move to a different frequency, but if he can't stop the interference by such means, then he has to stop transmitting.
• If a user of a service above you on the list interferes with you, it's entirely your problem, not theirs. They have no obligation whatsoever to take any steps to reduce or eliminate their interference with you.
So here is the hack. Get some part 18 certified ISM device that is very sensitive to interference from wifi--so sensitive that it is pretty much impossible to operate wifi near it without interfering--and operate it on site. Now anyone who fires up wifi will interfere, and you can ask them to stop and if they do not they are violating FCC regulations.
47 CFR 97.301 says that the sharing requirements for hams in 2.390-2.450 GHz are given by 97.303(d), (e), and (p).
97.303(e) says: "Amateur stations receiving in the 33 cm band, the 2400-2450 MHz segment, the 5.725-5.875 GHz segment, the 1.2 cm band, the 2.5 mm band, or the 244-246 GHz segment must accept interference from industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) equipment".
So, hams must accept interference from ISM in that band, which would put hams equal or below ISM on my list...BUT I cannot find anything that says hams must not interfere with ISM, which would indicate hams should be equal or above ISM.
I'd put big signs up announcing that fact, and it would be awesome to see the kinds of people that actively want to hangout where cell phones don't work.