10 ms·

People aren't paying attention to what this is for. It's to prevent people from modifying RF devices, transmitters, from operating at power levels and frequenci

People aren't paying attention to what this is for. It's to prevent people from modifying RF devices, transmitters, from operating at power levels and frequencies, or other technical things, from interfering with other devices and outside the bounds of their intention. It's to protect devices from interference that was prevalent in the days when radio was first invented, and for decades afterwards. This is a good thing.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
That's not right. Look at this: https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869RsyQddPi5hpw%3D%3D&desc=594280%20D02%20U-NII%20Device%20Security%20v01r02&tracking_number=39498 https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869Rsy... One of the requirements for hardware vendors is "Describe in detail how the device is protected from 'flashing' and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT." They are explicitly trying to illegalize custom router firmware, even though all the things that need to be prevented could be handled by separate hardware lockouts that wouldn't affect the legitimate uses of DD-WRT.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  That page states that it's a set of general guidelines, not hard, definite rules. All of the examples, like flashing dd-wrt, are essentially asking, have you thought about x, y, and z? Tell how so. It's almost certainly perfectly acceptable to state, "we use a discrete chip for our wifi system without any way to upgrade the firmware, so if a user does flash their system, the wifi chip cannot be made to drive outside of legal parameters." A hardware lockout is definitely one way to comply with the guidelines.
kuschku 11y ago
And at the same time it locks down devices where radio and processor are connected – you won’t be able to modify the software on some Android devices at all anymore. This is NOT acceptable. Punishing people for sending on illegal frequencies: Okay. Restricting what people can do with devices they paid for: NOT OKAY.
- JoBrad 11y ago
  Why is restricting a device from interfering with emergency bands or bands used for medical devices unacceptable?
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Because in some devices, to restrict the baseband from interfering, you also have to lock down the OS to the point where the user can’t modify it. Also, another example: You recently saw the post on Hacker News how someone collected images from weather satellites by modifying a normal satellite receiver? This would not be possible under the new rules. People should be punished for doing illegal stuff, not for being able to do illegal stuff.
    - minthd 11y ago
      >>Because in some devices, to restrict the baseband from interfering, you also have to lock down the OS to the point where the user can’t modify it. Can you please give an example ? also couldn't be solved by designing the correct API for the communications processor ?
    - coddingtonbear 11y ago
      I'm fairly sure this applies only to SDR transmitters, not receivers.
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        There are just as many legal and legitimate applications of fully reprogrammable SDR transmitters.
        jrockway 11y ago
        What are these? Every transmitter I can think of requires FCC type certification. If you're a police department, you can't build your own radio to use on the spectrum you've obtained from the FCC, you have to buy something that's type-certified. Similarly, you can't just go ahead and transmit on the unlicensed bands, that also requires type certification. SDRs are sold as test equipment; using them as radio transmitters is generally illegal. Now if you're a licensed amateur radio operator, SDRs are great. You are completely allowed to use them to transmit on any frequency for which your license class allows. But there is a special provision in the laws for amateur radio operators; we are specifically licensed to build our own equipment. (And keep in mind that the use case for amateur radio service is limited by the same law; if you're not using it to establish 2-way communication with another amateur, you're doing something illegal. There are exceptions, though, and the FCC doesn't seem too picky. WSPR and other propagation beacons are strictly one-way affairs, but are tolerated.)
the_ancient 11y ago
Back here in the real world we understand that the most cost effective manner for device manufactuers to comply with this moronic regluation is to lock down the entire device. Phone, Routers, Tablets and even some Laptops will be shipped with out the ability to change the operating system, or firmware. As that will be the cheapest way to comply with the regulation and since less than 1% of the customers ever bother changing there will be no backlash This will be a nightmare for Computer security, and innovation. I hope you love botnets becuase the FCC is creating the next wave of them with this moronic regulation.
- gopowerranger 11y ago
  There is nothing in that FCC paper that says you won't be able to change the operating system and that is specifically mentioned in section 24.
  - gdwatson 11y ago
    The FCC doesn't require it directly, but since it's the cheapest way to achieve what the FCC does require it's what the manufacturers will all do. That's the point.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  Back here in the real world we understand that the most cost effective manner for device manufactuers to comply with this moronic regluation is to lock down the entire device. What real world do you live in? Because in the real world I live in, the kind of component and firmware we're really talking about here are probably bought in as a ready-made part by whoever makes that phone, laptop, router, etc. They might not have any access to reprogram it at all. What these kinds of regulations are effectively saying that if they do have that ability then for the device to remain properly certified for use as required by the regulatory authority there must be safeguards to prevent certain types of potentially harmful change or you "void the warranty" from a regulatory point of view. In that case, you revert to the default position you were in anyway, which is that you have to get the device and its software properly approved before you can lawfully use it.
- 11y ago
nickysielicki 11y ago
People aren't paying attention to what this is for. It's to prevent people from using encryption to obfuscate and share their illegal data, and other criminal things, and from interacting with other criminals outside the bounds of the manufacturers intention. It's to protect devices from crime that was prevalent in the days when the internet was first invented, and for decades afterwards. This is a good thing.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

That's not right. Look at this: https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869RsyQddPi5hpw%3D%3D&desc=594280%20D02%20U-NII%20Device%20Security%20v01r02&tracking_number=39498 https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869Rsy... One of the requirements for hardware vendors is "Describe in detail how the device is protected from 'flashing' and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT." They are explicitly trying to illegalize custom router firmware, even though all the things that need to be prevented could be handled by separate hardware lockouts that wouldn't affect the legitimate uses of DD-WRT.

Sanddancer 11y ago
That page states that it's a set of general guidelines, not hard, definite rules. All of the examples, like flashing dd-wrt, are essentially asking, have you thought about x, y, and z? Tell how so. It's almost certainly perfectly acceptable to state, "we use a discrete chip for our wifi system without any way to upgrade the firmware, so if a user does flash their system, the wifi chip cannot be made to drive outside of legal parameters." A hardware lockout is definitely one way to comply with the guidelines.

kuschku 11y ago

And at the same time it locks down devices where radio and processor are connected – you won’t be able to modify the software on some Android devices at all anymore. This is NOT acceptable. Punishing people for sending on illegal frequencies: Okay. Restricting what people can do with devices they paid for: NOT OKAY.

JoBrad 11y ago
Why is restricting a device from interfering with emergency bands or bands used for medical devices unacceptable?
- kuschku 11y ago
  Because in some devices, to restrict the baseband from interfering, you also have to lock down the OS to the point where the user can’t modify it. Also, another example: You recently saw the post on Hacker News how someone collected images from weather satellites by modifying a normal satellite receiver? This would not be possible under the new rules. People should be punished for doing illegal stuff, not for being able to do illegal stuff.
  - minthd 11y ago
    >>Because in some devices, to restrict the baseband from interfering, you also have to lock down the OS to the point where the user can’t modify it. Can you please give an example ? also couldn't be solved by designing the correct API for the communications processor ?
  - coddingtonbear 11y ago
    I'm fairly sure this applies only to SDR transmitters, not receivers.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      There are just as many legal and legitimate applications of fully reprogrammable SDR transmitters.
      - jrockway 11y ago
        What are these? Every transmitter I can think of requires FCC type certification. If you're a police department, you can't build your own radio to use on the spectrum you've obtained from the FCC, you have to buy something that's type-certified. Similarly, you can't just go ahead and transmit on the unlicensed bands, that also requires type certification. SDRs are sold as test equipment; using them as radio transmitters is generally illegal. Now if you're a licensed amateur radio operator, SDRs are great. You are completely allowed to use them to transmit on any frequency for which your license class allows. But there is a special provision in the laws for amateur radio operators; we are specifically licensed to build our own equipment. (And keep in mind that the use case for amateur radio service is limited by the same law; if you're not using it to establish 2-way communication with another amateur, you're doing something illegal. There are exceptions, though, and the FCC doesn't seem too picky. WSPR and other propagation beacons are strictly one-way affairs, but are tolerated.)

the_ancient 11y ago

Back here in the real world we understand that the most cost effective manner for device manufactuers to comply with this moronic regluation is to lock down the entire device. Phone, Routers, Tablets and even some Laptops will be shipped with out the ability to change the operating system, or firmware. As that will be the cheapest way to comply with the regulation and since less than 1% of the customers ever bother changing there will be no backlash This will be a nightmare for Computer security, and innovation. I hope you love botnets becuase the FCC is creating the next wave of them with this moronic regulation.

gopowerranger 11y ago
There is nothing in that FCC paper that says you won't be able to change the operating system and that is specifically mentioned in section 24.
- gdwatson 11y ago
  The FCC doesn't require it directly, but since it's the cheapest way to achieve what the FCC does require it's what the manufacturers will all do. That's the point.
Silhouette 11y ago
Back here in the real world we understand that the most cost effective manner for device manufactuers to comply with this moronic regluation is to lock down the entire device. What real world do you live in? Because in the real world I live in, the kind of component and firmware we're really talking about here are probably bought in as a ready-made part by whoever makes that phone, laptop, router, etc. They might not have any access to reprogram it at all. What these kinds of regulations are effectively saying that if they do have that ability then for the device to remain properly certified for use as required by the regulatory authority there must be safeguards to prevent certain types of potentially harmful change or you "void the warranty" from a regulatory point of view. In that case, you revert to the default position you were in anyway, which is that you have to get the device and its software properly approved before you can lawfully use it.
11y ago

nickysielicki 11y ago

People aren't paying attention to what this is for. It's to prevent people from using encryption to obfuscate and share their illegal data, and other criminal things, and from interacting with other criminals outside the bounds of the manufacturers intention. It's to protect devices from crime that was prevalent in the days when the internet was first invented, and for decades afterwards. This is a good thing.