7 ms·

How could they possibly think that jamming public frequency bands would not be illegal? https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement https://www.fcc.gov

• facetube 11y ago
  I'd fully support criminal charges. If I jammed public spectrum in order to profit, I'd be in prison.
  • mikeash 11y ago
    They're getting fined minutes of revenue, that's practically the same as prison!
    • bicknergseng 11y ago
      Approximately 24.67 minutes for what it's worth. Marriott made > $12 billion last year and was fined $600k. I'm curious how much revenue the wifi fees bring in and whether that fine even makes a dent in income from that alone.
      • facetube 11y ago
        The article says they were charging meetings up to $30,000 for internet access alone. I'd guess it was probably profitable.
      • saurik 11y ago
        ... revenue is absolutely meaningless in this conversation. You should be looking at profit. It doesn't matter what Marriott charges, it matters what they make, and saying they "made > $12 billion" is totally false: they made at the high end something like $2 billion (which is still high enough that you could have used those numbers as an honest ratio instead of distorting the discussion by looking at revenue).
        • wpietri 11y ago
          I'd say revenue's probably the better number. Profit varies by quite a number of factors, but revenue is a reasonably reliable yardstick for the size of the business. For example, consider Amazon, who didn't turn a profit for decades: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2013/10/25/amazon_earnings_jeff_bezos_is_like_king_midas_in_reverse_chart/1382736441.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/20... Also, maybe you could tone down the drama? Even if you were right, which you aren't, the comment you're replying to was clearly well meant.
        • mikeash 11y ago
          Nobody uses profit when determining the appropriate fines for an individual. A court doesn't look at an offender making $100,000/year and say, well, they're only saving $5/month, so we'll only fine them $60. If we're talking about the discrepancy between punishments for individuals and punishments for companies, then we should absolutely be looking at revenues, not profits. Or alternately, punishments for individuals should look at savings, not income.
  • hackuser 11y ago
    > If I jammed public spectrum in order to profit, I'd be in prison. Is this true? Can someone cite examples of this happening?
    • mikeash 11y ago
      Here's a fellow who spent 15 months in prison for jamming ham radio, so not even for profit: http://www.eham.net/articles/3908 http://www.eham.net/articles/3908 This guy got seven years, but he was interfering with public safety radios operated by police and the like, so that's not the same: http://www.eham.net/articles/14858 http://www.eham.net/articles/14858 Looking at other convictions, it seems that the more usual punishment is arrest, probation, and a massive fine. Even compared to that, fining a big hotel $600,000 is a joke.
      • newjersey 11y ago
        I want the board to go to jail, not some low level janitor. Or do we only go as high as the paper trail takes us? This lets companies erect firewalls and appear innocent like the vw CEO...
        • AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
          The alternative is imprisoning people without evidence. I'll take guilty people going free anyday.
          • Karunamon 11y ago
            Or, tweaking the law along the lines that corporate executives are vicariously liable for the job related misdeeds of their underlings, if it can be shown they did or should have known about the goings on and did nothing to stop it. Suddenly, there will be a lot more care about ethical behavior..
            • newjersey 11y ago
              Owners and board members of companies should be liable not just for the action of their employees but also the actions of their subcontractors. Otherwise, we will have situations like the one John Oliver mocked in the North Dakota petroleum industry. http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/12/john_oliver_exposes_the_dark_side_of_north_dakota_s_oil_boom_on_last_week.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/12/john_oliver_e...
  • Shivetya 11y ago
    Well the odd thing is, in prison where you are not permitted a cell phone if you "had" one the authorities are not permitted to jam it.
    • noobermin 11y ago
      They could take it since you're a prisoner.
  • rayiner 11y ago
    Only if you jammed US government communications or satellite communications: https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement (scroll down to criminal enforcement section). The FCC doesn't even have authority to prosecute criminally. But you know don't let that get in the way of your narrative.
    • CamperBob2 11y ago
      The FCC doesn't even have authority to prosecute criminally. Well, there's a novel legal theory. Try running an unlicensed broadcast transmitter, and let us know how that goes for you.
    • chris_wot 11y ago
      This is novel. You scrolled to the bottom without reading the top. The top of that page is very clear: "ALERT 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)" Then it references The Communications Act of 1934: "The Communications Act of 1934 Section 301 - requires persons operating or using radio transmitters to be licensed or authorized under the Commission’s rules (47 U.S.C. § 301)" But wait, there's more! 47 U.S.C. 302b. reads: "(b) Restrictions No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section" (Emphasis mine). Have a read of the Communications Act before you get into trouble.
    • enraged_camel 11y ago
      Excuse me, aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Please read item number 8 here and stop spreading misinformation that can get others in serious trouble: https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf "What are the penalties for using a jammer? Can I go to prison? Yes. The unlawful use of a jammer is a criminal offense and can result in various sanctions, including a jail sentence."
• wmf 11y ago
  There is a debate here about whether syntactically valid 802.11 frames count as "jamming".
  • Karunamon 11y ago
    From the horse's mouth: https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf Section 333 of the Communications Act : “No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under [the Communications] Act or operated by the United States Government.” 47 U.S.C. § 333. If you're willfully screwing with other people's transmissions, you're breaking the law. It's that simple. The method being used doesn't really enter into it.
    • yellowbkpk 11y ago
      Wifi operates in unlicensed spectrum and transmitters and receivers are required to handle interference in this space. Is it still jamming if it's not a licensed station doing the broadcasting? </devilsadvocate> ...I suppose it does say "authorized" there, and 2.4 and 5Ghz transmitters are authorized.
      • ryandrake 11y ago
        Understood you're playing devil's advocate, but the response would be: Why don't I stand outside with a WiFi antenna pointed at your house, doing the same thing, causing your WiFi devices to drop connections over and over, and then you tell me that I'm not jamming you.
        • facetube 11y ago
          Even further, denial of service attacks can be performed using totally valid and normal HTTP or HTTPS requests. In that case, it's the volume and the intent that matter.
      • extrapickles 11y ago
• pjc50 11y ago
  They're a large business. Regulatory compliance is a question of whether they can get away with it, and no individual will be prosecuted.
• thomaskcr 11y ago
  The AP needs to know your network exists to send deauth packets - if you lower the power on your device so that your network is only accessible to you, you'll end up fine. So the argument for the other side would basically be that you're not operating a private device if it's broadcasting so their customers may attempt to connect to it. I think many companies' security groups would have a problem with you saying that someone needs to be able to run a publicly accessible access point in their building. I think the complication comes here from the fact that they were charging for internet and then preventing people from using their own. If there were hotspots trying to mimic the network, I don't think there would be any problem with deauthing them since that's a security risk but it seems like in this case it was just a money grab. I guess the question becomes for other companies not doing it for the money grab, if you are offering wifi, do you have a duty to protect your customers from rogue hotspots or is it their problem?
  • revelation 11y ago
    That is not a distinction the law makes. You are not allowed to operate a GPS jammer for your home safety, either. There are exceptions, prisons can operate cellphone jammers for example. I don't think there are any for private enterprises.
    • thomaskcr 11y ago
      Why would you need to? I'm not sure I understand the point. You're not indiscriminately preventing wifi from working. If your network is broadcasting with enough power to reach the AP, and therefore customers besides yourself, they would be preventing that. If someone sets up a wifi access point outside your building with the same name as your wifi, you should be able to prevent people from accidentally connecting to that rogue access point. That's why basically every enterprise AP comes with that ability. I can't imagine if this were actually illegal the FCC would allow the sale of systems with the ability to do that. The distinction here is that it was done as a money grab and not for security reasons.
      • mikeash 11y ago
• rayiner 11y ago
  So that blurb on the FCC site isn't the law. The fines are issued under 47 USC 333, but on its face that only prohibits interfering with any "station licensed or authorized" under that chapter: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333. Is a WiFi hotspot a "station?" It's not licensed either. Though it is "authorized" to operate in the unlicensed band. Using deauth packets, versus actual jamming, sounds like it wouldn't even violate unlicensed band requirements. Last I checked nothing in the FCC regs requires you to respect 802.11 or other protocols while operating in the unlicensed band. You're supposed to abide by power limits and things like that, which the hotels were doing.
  • caf 11y ago
    Yes, a WiFi hotspot is a station: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153. The term “radio station” or “station” means a station equipped to engage in radio communication or radio transmission of energy.
    • rayiner 11y ago
      That begs the question of whether it is a "station."
  • pdabbadabba 11y ago
    > Is a WiFi hotspot a "station?" It's not licensed either. Though it is "authorized" to operate in the unlicensed band. It's a very interesting question, but there is a very good argument that it is. Have a look at pages 3-6 of this for a taste: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011985 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011985