https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement clearly states "Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with ... wireless networking services (Wi-Fi)."
For example, consider Amazon, who didn't turn a profit for decades:
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/20...
Also, maybe you could tone down the drama? Even if you were right, which you aren't, the comment you're replying to was clearly well meant.
If we're talking about the discrepancy between punishments for individuals and punishments for companies, then we should absolutely be looking at revenues, not profits. Or alternately, punishments for individuals should look at savings, not income.
Is this true? Can someone cite examples of this happening?
http://www.eham.net/articles/3908
This guy got seven years, but he was interfering with public safety radios operated by police and the like, so that's not the same:
http://www.eham.net/articles/14858
Looking at other convictions, it seems that the more usual punishment is arrest, probation, and a massive fine. Even compared to that, fining a big hotel $600,000 is a joke.
Suddenly, there will be a lot more care about ethical behavior..
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/12/john_oliver_e...
These people are financially motivated, so the punishment should be financial. Most criminals don't think they are going to be caught anyway, so prison isn't a disincentive. Financial punishment may not be a disincentive either (but I suspect for most shareholders it would), but it has the effect of reducing the efficacy of bad actors, leading to better outcomes overall.
The real problem is the fines are usually far outweighed by the profits from acting in this manner. Make the punishment an audit at the end of which they must pay the costs of the independent audit (whether done by private third party or government) as well as a multiplier on whatever profits were determined to stem from the elicit activity.
Many of the people I found while searching got fines that probably equated to something like a year's salary. Fine these companies an amount comparable to a year's revenue and I bet things would change in a hurry.
While I agree with you about prison not working, fining a multibillion dollar company the equivalent of a few day's profits aren't good enough. The fines need to be much more strident, along the lines of administrative dissolution or something else that would motivate the top brass via angry shareholders.
Should we consider the economic impact to the neighborhood, city, state, or nation when levying fines?
Do you think VW shareholders are angry? I think not. They know management did what it had to do. I'm just mad that they threw the programmers under the bus.
I think the complication comes here from the fact that they were charging for internet and then preventing people from using their own. If there were hotspots trying to mimic the network, I don't think there would be any problem with deauthing them since that's a security risk but it seems like in this case it was just a money grab.
I guess the question becomes for other companies not doing it for the money grab, if you are offering wifi, do you have a duty to protect your customers from rogue hotspots or is it their problem?
There are exceptions, prisons can operate cellphone jammers for example. I don't think there are any for private enterprises.
You're not indiscriminately preventing wifi from working. If your network is broadcasting with enough power to reach the AP, and therefore customers besides yourself, they would be preventing that.
If someone sets up a wifi access point outside your building with the same name as your wifi, you should be able to prevent people from accidentally connecting to that rogue access point. That's why basically every enterprise AP comes with that ability. I can't imagine if this were actually illegal the FCC would allow the sale of systems with the ability to do that.
The distinction here is that it was done as a money grab and not for security reasons.
I am saying that using deauth packets to prevent wifi from operating does not seem to be outright illegal and there are valid reasons to be able to do it. Considering basically every high end AP has the ability to target rogue APs and the FCC takes a dim view on people selling jammers, it seems like the context of the application of this determines whether you are jamming or not and not the use of deauth packets by itself.
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless-mobility/...
As someone who has experienced the fallout firsthand from a neighboring tenant in a downtown Seattle office building who used it, I'd challenge the idea that there are valid reasons to do this.
If you control the physical network - don't allow rogue APs on your network.
If you control the client and care about them connecting to access points that aren't under your control, then manage that instead.
The legal principle here is remarkably clear cut.
Are you willfully interfering with another user of the band? Yes? You're breaking the law.
The method used to accomplish the interference isn't germane to the question of whether you're interfering or not.
It is not legal for prisons to jam cell phones.
"The Communications Act prohibits non-Federal entities from using cell jammers. The FCC cannot waive this statutory prohibition absent a change in the law by Congress." [1]
There was an attempt to add an exception for prisons, but it was never passed (Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009[2]).
[1] http://www2.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/summits/Combating-Contraband-C... [2] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s251
"(c) Exceptions
The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to carriers transporting such devices or home electronic equipment and systems without trading in them, to devices or home electronic equipment and systems manufactured solely for export, to the manufacture, assembly, or installation of devices or home electronic equipment and systems for its own use by a public utility engaged in providing electric service, or to devices or home electronic equipment and systems for use by the Government of the United States or any agency thereof. Devices and home electronic equipment and systems for use by the Government of the United States or any agency thereof shall be developed, procured, or otherwise acquired, including offshore procurement, under United States Government criteria, standards, or specifications designed to achieve the objectives of reducing interference to radio reception and to home electronic equipment and systems, taking into account the unique needs of national defense and security."
(Emphasis mine)
That's a very clear exception.
"under United States Government criteria, standards, or specifications designed to achieve the objectives of reducing interference to radio reception and to home electronic equipment and systems, taking into account the unique needs of national defense and security."
Sorry about that.
Section 333 of the Communications Act : “No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under [the Communications] Act or operated by the United States Government.” 47 U.S.C. § 333.
If you're willfully screwing with other people's transmissions, you're breaking the law. It's that simple. The method being used doesn't really enter into it.
</devilsadvocate>
...I suppose it does say "authorized" there, and 2.4 and 5Ghz transmitters are authorized.
The requirement on receiving interference means that you don't get to gripe to the FCC about other users of the band that are otherwise being nice.
So?!?
That's not even implicit, but an explicit part of the use of the 2.4 and 5GHz spectrums. "There may be interference. Wear a helmet."
So your devil's advocate is unnecessary.
- Devices operating there have to be approved
- There are rules about how the devices work
- There are rules about how the _operator_ is allowed to operate the approved devices ("Operation is subject to the following conditions" sticker on most equipment).
(all of this under FCC part 15 rules)
Intentionally preventing a radio communication from occurring is interfering with it.
Interference is, and it is illegal.
Using deauth packets, versus actual jamming, sounds like it wouldn't even violate unlicensed band requirements. Last I checked nothing in the FCC regs requires you to respect 802.11 or other protocols while operating in the unlicensed band. You're supposed to abide by power limits and things like that, which the hotels were doing.
The term “radio station” or “station” means a station
equipped to engage in radio communication or radio
transmission of energy.It's a very interesting question, but there is a very good argument that it is.
Have a look at pages 3-6 of this for a taste: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011985