4 ms·

How were they blocking personal hot spots? The article doesn't get into details. Since they were providing their own wifi, they weren't using a jammer. Were the

How were they blocking personal hot spots? The article doesn't get into details. Since they were providing their own wifi, they weren't using a jammer. Were they blasting deauth packets at any hotspot not on their whitelist? Were they using mdk3?

helper 11y ago
Most likely they were using a "rogue AP containment" feature found on most enterprise wireless equipment: - http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/mse/3350/5-2/wIPS/configuration/guide/msecg_wIPS/msecg_appB_wIPS.html http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/mse/3350/5-2/w... - http://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/InstantMobile/Advanced/Content/Instant%20User%20Guide%20-%20volumes/Rogue_AP_Detection_and_C.htm http://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/InstantMobile/Advanced...
notacoward 11y ago
According to their response (cited in another comment) they were spoofing de-auth packets, and were only doing so for hotspots determined to be physically within their proprietary space. It's not hard to do that via triangulation.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  You repeatedly and willfully ignore the invalidating part of this - that they -do not own the airwaves-, inside their 'proprietary space' or otherwise. It is unlicensed spectrum, anywhere, precisely because we can't control (easily) the transmission of radio waves.
  - notacoward 11y ago
    They don't, and you don't either. The attitude that hotspots' use of unlicensed spectrum is sacrosanct, while failing to extend that same doctrine to venue owners, just reeks of entitlement. The attempt to put one group of unlicensed-spectrum users above another has no basis in law.
    - bronson 11y ago
      > The attitude that hotspots' use of unlicensed spectrum is sacrosanct, while failing to extend that same doctrine to venue owners, just reeks of entitlement. Then it's a good thing nobody here is expressing that attitude! Everyone (venue owner, hotspot owner, mobile tethering user, etc) gets to use unlicensed spectrum as long as they follow the rules. One of the rules is no jamming / intentional interference. It's just not as complex as you seem to think.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      What does have basis in law is that, while on unlicensed spectrum, you can't willfully mess with other people's transmissions. Period, point blank, end of discussion. They were doing this. They violated the law. They got fined. This is not up for debate. - On your property? Doesn't matter. Still illegal. - They're using your SSID? Doesn't matter. Still illegal. - You entered into a contract to block all other signals? Doesn't matter, you entered into a contract to do something expressly illegal. - Too many radios will make the local spectrum unusable? Doesn't matter, the band is unlicensed. Still illegal. We can talk all day about the should haves and the would haves, but the practical and legal facts of this case are quite clear.
      - notacoward 11y ago
        > You entered into a contract to block all other signals? Doesn't matter, you entered into a contract to do something expressly illegal. Incorrect. There are many things that are illegal without consent, but legal with it. Sex, for example. In this case, as soon as you enter into an appropriately worded contract, that de-auth packet stops being interference and starts being an agreed-to part of that contract. Therefore it's none of the FCC's business. It might be the subject of a civil suit, but that's a different matter. That's why I've said repeatedly that Smart City's misdeed (and Marriott's before them) was not the mere sending of de-auth packets. Condemning de-auth packets is like condemning screwdrivers. The real problem is that they did not obtain consent for that use of the tool. They could have made that part of the convention registration, and they would have been OK (though they would almost certainly have faced an outcry). It's no different than a company forbidding the same thing within their corporate HQ building, which almost everybody here seems to believe is OK. I see a lot of people throwing words like "legitimate" and "illegitimate" around today, but nobody seems to have a realistic definition handy. I find it amazing that so many here want the government making technical distinctions for us, which they never do well, instead of relying on the simple notion of consent (or lack thereof) between parties.
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  There is no such thing as proprietary space vis the RF spectrum.
TD-Linux 11y ago
They had to be actively transmitting in some manner for the FCC to get involved. Sending disconnect packets would be considered jamming by the FCC.
PirateDave 11y ago
Yup, you're correct. In the attached pdf [1] it says the complainant alleged that Smart City transmitted deauthentication frames to prevent the complainant’s customers’ use of their Wi-Fi equipment [1] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0818/DA-15-917A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... edit: formatting
teh_klev 11y ago
See page 3, section 5: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1003/DA-14-1444A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014... They were sending deauthentication packets.

helper 11y ago

Most likely they were using a "rogue AP containment" feature found on most enterprise wireless equipment: - http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/mse/3350/5-2/wIPS/configuration/guide/msecg_wIPS/msecg_appB_wIPS.html http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/mse/3350/5-2/w... - http://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/InstantMobile/Advanced/Content/Instant%20User%20Guide%20-%20volumes/Rogue_AP_Detection_and_C.htm http://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/InstantMobile/Advanced...

notacoward 11y ago

According to their response (cited in another comment) they were spoofing de-auth packets, and were only doing so for hotspots determined to be physically within their proprietary space. It's not hard to do that via triangulation.

FireBeyond 11y ago
You repeatedly and willfully ignore the invalidating part of this - that they -do not own the airwaves-, inside their 'proprietary space' or otherwise. It is unlicensed spectrum, anywhere, precisely because we can't control (easily) the transmission of radio waves.
- notacoward 11y ago
  They don't, and you don't either. The attitude that hotspots' use of unlicensed spectrum is sacrosanct, while failing to extend that same doctrine to venue owners, just reeks of entitlement. The attempt to put one group of unlicensed-spectrum users above another has no basis in law.
  - bronson 11y ago
    > The attitude that hotspots' use of unlicensed spectrum is sacrosanct, while failing to extend that same doctrine to venue owners, just reeks of entitlement. Then it's a good thing nobody here is expressing that attitude! Everyone (venue owner, hotspot owner, mobile tethering user, etc) gets to use unlicensed spectrum as long as they follow the rules. One of the rules is no jamming / intentional interference. It's just not as complex as you seem to think.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    What does have basis in law is that, while on unlicensed spectrum, you can't willfully mess with other people's transmissions. Period, point blank, end of discussion. They were doing this. They violated the law. They got fined. This is not up for debate. - On your property? Doesn't matter. Still illegal. - They're using your SSID? Doesn't matter. Still illegal. - You entered into a contract to block all other signals? Doesn't matter, you entered into a contract to do something expressly illegal. - Too many radios will make the local spectrum unusable? Doesn't matter, the band is unlicensed. Still illegal. We can talk all day about the should haves and the would haves, but the practical and legal facts of this case are quite clear.
    - notacoward 11y ago
      > You entered into a contract to block all other signals? Doesn't matter, you entered into a contract to do something expressly illegal. Incorrect. There are many things that are illegal without consent, but legal with it. Sex, for example. In this case, as soon as you enter into an appropriately worded contract, that de-auth packet stops being interference and starts being an agreed-to part of that contract. Therefore it's none of the FCC's business. It might be the subject of a civil suit, but that's a different matter. That's why I've said repeatedly that Smart City's misdeed (and Marriott's before them) was not the mere sending of de-auth packets. Condemning de-auth packets is like condemning screwdrivers. The real problem is that they did not obtain consent for that use of the tool. They could have made that part of the convention registration, and they would have been OK (though they would almost certainly have faced an outcry). It's no different than a company forbidding the same thing within their corporate HQ building, which almost everybody here seems to believe is OK. I see a lot of people throwing words like "legitimate" and "illegitimate" around today, but nobody seems to have a realistic definition handy. I find it amazing that so many here want the government making technical distinctions for us, which they never do well, instead of relying on the simple notion of consent (or lack thereof) between parties.
Gibbon1 11y ago
There is no such thing as proprietary space vis the RF spectrum.

TD-Linux 11y ago

They had to be actively transmitting in some manner for the FCC to get involved. Sending disconnect packets would be considered jamming by the FCC.

PirateDave 11y ago

Yup, you're correct. In the attached pdf [1] it says the complainant alleged that Smart City transmitted deauthentication frames to prevent the complainant’s customers’ use of their Wi-Fi equipment [1] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0818/DA-15-917A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... edit: formatting

teh_klev 11y ago

See page 3, section 5: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1003/DA-14-1444A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014... They were sending deauthentication packets.