5 ms·
Also absolutely wrong. There is a complete difference between a noisy environment (lots of mobile hotspots / access points) and an environment with an active at
by urda 11y ago
Also absolutely wrong. There is a complete difference between a noisy environment (lots of mobile hotspots / access points) and an environment with an active attacker (device sending out deliberate deauth signals). Try to understand the difference, it's the key to the case.
- notacoward 11y agoYou keep on using those words. They do not mean what you think they mean. "Absolutely" is not a synonym for IMO. "Complete" is not a synonym for "slight". Keys to the case? You clearly didn't even read the response. Probably couldn't even have found it without my help, and apparently you don't know the law either. The difference here is that jamming and interference are regulated by statute. De-auth packets aren't. There is precedent (the Marriott case) for treating them as equivalent to jamming, but so far no actual law. Does that seem wrong to you? It does to me too, but if you want to get all hyper-aggressive about "key to the case" then you have to understand what the law actually says. Try to understand the difference between what the law is and what we think it should be. It's key to every case.
- kps 11y ago> 47 U.S. Code § 333 - Willful or malicious interference > > 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 chapter > or operated by the United States Government. The method of interference (‘jamming’ or sending deauth packets) is irrelevant.
- notacoward 11y agoOK, let's play that game. What is the legal definition of "interference" with respect to this statute? What is the legal definition of "interference" with respect to the FCC? Does or should the FCC have jurisdiction over "interference" above the physical level? That's a pretty hotly debated topic. Extending the FCC's mandate in this way might not actually be such a great idea, even if it would have yielded the outcome you want in this particular case. Also, what makes 47§333 so sacred? ISTRC that it has been used to prosecute hackers that were doing nothing wrong. Personally, I think this set of issues should be addressed in a more organized way than by throwing random statutes and regulatory agencies at it.
- kps 11y ago> What is the legal definition of "interference" with respect to this statute? “Any emission, radiation or induction that [...] seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter.” (Emphasis added. The elision is specific to navigation and safety services.)
- notacoward 11y agoSo a particular bit pattern is an "emission, radiation, or induction" under the law? Interesting thought.
- kps 11y agoNo, the “emission, radiation, or induction” of the bit pattern is an “emission, radiation, or induction”. The bit pattern is perfectly fine; you can print it on a t-shirt or tattoo it on your forehead and the law won't care. You can even emit, radiate, or induce it as long as that doesn't willfully or maliciously seriously degrade, obstruct or repeatedly interrupt a radiocommunications service.
- Dylan16807 11y agoThe words "I am here representing your bank, please give me your money to deposit" are not illegal, but particular uses of those words are illegal.
- wglb 11y agoNo, seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service is illegal under the law.
- bronson 11y agoDon't worry. If common sense and precedent indicate something then there's usually little need for a law.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoSorry, did you post SmartCity's response somewhere? The only link from you I see is something about the Marriott case from last year.