4 ms·

While I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak for how the law looks like, there is a clear difference in intent. The many users wifi interfering with eachother is not

by retSava 10y ago

While I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak for how the law looks like, there is a clear difference in intent. The many users wifi interfering with eachother is not by intent, the de-auth packets is nothing but intent to interfere.

VLM 10y ago
The legal phrase is harmful interference. 47CFR15.5(b) talks about transmit and receive. People intentionally mis-interpret the receive section as somehow referencing transmission. The transmit side is as follows: "Operation of an intentional ... radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused" 47CFR15.3(m) Harmful interference. Any emission ... that ... seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter. It is true that on the receive side you have no legal protection according to 15.5(b). However transmitting a jamming signal is quite illegal. Its very strange, like imagine two laws, one says its illegal to shoot at people, the other says you have no legal protection if you stand in front of a bullet. Then everyone exclusively quotes the latter stating its perfectly legal to shoot people, despite the former explicitly prohibiting that specific act. The FCC doesn't send men in black in vans when people interfere with aircraft navigation for fun or because they're nice guys, although they are, but because they're legally obligated to do so because those parts don't have "too bad so sad" written into the legal code. All the "you're screwed if you're interfered with" in part 15 means is the FCC is not legally obligated to send in the men in black suits and vans solely for part 15 complaint issues. It doesn't mean interference is legal under part 15 rules, in fact the line right next to it explicitly states it is not legal and if by some miracle you're caught you are in big trouble.

by retSava 10y ago

VLM 10y ago

The legal phrase is harmful interference. 47CFR15.5(b) talks about transmit and receive. People intentionally mis-interpret the receive section as somehow referencing transmission. The transmit side is as follows: "Operation of an intentional ... radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused" 47CFR15.3(m) Harmful interference. Any emission ... that ... seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter. It is true that on the receive side you have no legal protection according to 15.5(b). However transmitting a jamming signal is quite illegal. Its very strange, like imagine two laws, one says its illegal to shoot at people, the other says you have no legal protection if you stand in front of a bullet. Then everyone exclusively quotes the latter stating its perfectly legal to shoot people, despite the former explicitly prohibiting that specific act. The FCC doesn't send men in black in vans when people interfere with aircraft navigation for fun or because they're nice guys, although they are, but because they're legally obligated to do so because those parts don't have "too bad so sad" written into the legal code. All the "you're screwed if you're interfered with" in part 15 means is the FCC is not legally obligated to send in the men in black suits and vans solely for part 15 complaint issues. It doesn't mean interference is legal under part 15 rules, in fact the line right next to it explicitly states it is not legal and if by some miracle you're caught you are in big trouble.