"Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with cellular and Personal Communication Services (PCS), police radar, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and wireless networking services (Wi-Fi)."
If that disconnect is disabling wifi aps then technically it is "intefering" with wifi services and thus illegal?
If you DDOS my website, which is for some reason attached to the internet via wireless, you're not jamming anyone. You're doing a DDOS. The regulatory body or laws surrounding that are going to be different than a proper old fashioned RF jam.
"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[.]" [1]
And in fact their explanation specifically states that jammers "prevent targeted devices from establishing or maintaining a connection". [2]
To put the same actions in a different context - if two radio amateurs are trying to communicate over a digital mode and I broadcast "disconnect" packets to shut them down, I am clearly jamming their communications. The fact that this jamming occurs on the 2.4GHz band instead of the 20-meter band is irrelevant.
What it comes down to - your laptop wifi is a device licensed by the FCC for radio operation, two parties (you and the router) are communicating, and a smart jammer interferes with these communications.
As for your DDOS example - jamming is usually used in the context of the low-level layers of the OSI model, not the application layer. However, there are analogous actions that would be actionable in amateur radio. If you get a dozen of your buddies to deliberately pile-up on someone's CQ/QRZ without actually trying to communicate, you can bet the FCC's gonna look at that as de facto jamming too.
You can get away with a lot as long as you do it on private wires - but when you get public airwaves involved then an additional set of much stricter rules apply.
[1] http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-29k-fine-employer-j...
[2] http://www.fcc.gov/document/consumer-alert-using-or-importin...
In support of its motion for summary judgment on the monetary forfeiture, the Government presented FCC transcripts of recordings made on November 27, 2004, December 8, 2004, and March 31, 2005 that it alleges show K1MAN beginning to transmit on top of existing communications by other users. [...] The Government also provided the declarations of several FCC personnel who monitored and observed interference between K1MAN and other amateur operators. [...] [1]
Chief US District Judge John A. Woodcock Jr, in writing for the Court, agreed with the FCC on the first two counts -- willful or repeated failure to respond to FCC requests for information, and willful or malicious interference -- and granted summary judgments to the FCC in the amount of $3000 and $7000, respectively. [2]
As for more targeted attacks, see the Notices of Apparently Liability for KZ8O [3] and K3VR [4].
Once public airwaves are involved (as opposed to wires) you're on the FCC's turf, and the FCC takes radio communications VERY seriously.
[1] http://www.arrl.org/files/media/News/Baxter_Summary_Judgment...
[2] http://www.arrl.org/news/us-district-court-for-maine-issues-...
[3] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014...
[4] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014...