3 ms·
> If someone has a cell phone and needs to call 911, would you be held liable for their inability to make that call? I've been in plenty of buildings with ter
by meepmorp 11y ago
> If someone has a cell phone and needs to call 911, would you be held liable for their inability to make that call?
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.
- RogerL 11y agoThe FCC begs to differ: https://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited https://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibit...
- radisb 11y agoSo it is illegal. So basically I am not free to block hot spots in my own area if I use it for public access, which essentially amounts to "Even if you own an area, whenever it is publicly accessible, you do not own its 'air'". I find it a bit too restrictive.
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoA lot of people want land ownership to mean that they have absolute dictatorial power over everyone and everything on their land. We, as a society, have decided that this is silly, and that most crimes outside your land remain crimes inside your land. I can't really disagree.
- anigbrowl 11y agoNo it doesn't. That ruling is about the illegality of deploying a wi-fi protocol that's meant to interfere with other communication. 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.