5 ms·

Hmm. What's interesting is MC Dean is an electrical/telecommunications contractor. They would be responsible for doing the actual work of installing and maintai

by imgabe 10y ago

Hmm. What's interesting is MC Dean is an electrical/telecommunications contractor. They would be responsible for doing the actual work of installing and maintaining the network equipment, but usually at the behest of someone else. How did they end up with the liability for this? Did they go off the reservation and decide to start blocking WiFi on their own, or did the BCC request for them to do so?

jahewson 10y ago
Contractors, especially licensed ones are usually liable for their work. So too is Marriot, for asking them in the first place, but they settled: > Marriott agreed to settle the investigation by paying a civil penalty of $600,000 and establishing operating procedures to ensure that it does not engage in further Wi-Fi blocking Presumably MC Dean did not.
- imgabe 10y ago
  Right, I just thought they would usually be liable to the owner, and the owner would be the one legally liable. Now, if the owner got fined because MC Dean screwed something up, they could turn around and sue MC Dean for the amount of the fine. But separately fining both the owner and the contractor for the same infraction seems like double dipping on the part of the government, unless they're being fined in proportion to culpability or something like that.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    IANAL, but "someone hired me" is not a defense for any crime. Perhaps Marriott could use ignorance as an excuse for hiring a wireless communication firm to break a wireless communication law (under the somewhat silly theory that they are only experts in hotel law), but the wireless communication firm itself certainly can't.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    "Double-dipping" is allowed in criminal cases. If two people cooperate to murder someone both can go to jail for the full sentence; they don't split up the sentence between them.
caseysoftware 10y ago
> On October 23, 2014, the Commission received an informal complaint from a company that provides private Wi-Fi networks for exhibitors at trade shows by shipping equipment to customers around the country. The complainant stated in part that it had "just spent all morning arguing with M.C. Dean company who provides wireless [at the BCC] until they finally ceased sending de-auth signals to our router." They were actively harming/disrupting others' equipment. It wasn't just "oh, your signal sucks, use ours!" but "we're going to knock you offline unless you pay." Disclosure: I used to work for MC Dean 10+ years ago.
- imgabe 10y ago
  Right, but I'm sure it wasn't someone at MC Dean who decided "hey let's jam everyone else's signal". They're just the contractor. Someone had to tell them "please install equipment to jam other people's signal". Now, they probably should have pushed back and advised the owner that what they wanted was illegal, but I'm sure it wasn't their idea. They don't own the building or host the conferences, so why would MC Dean care who uses which Wifi?
  - caseysoftware 10y ago
    In DC, the red light camera operators had a kickback deal with the city. They got a cut of every ticket issued. If there was a deal like that in place, it would be motivating to disrupt the alternatives.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    You aren't absolved of the consequences of committing a crime just because you were hired to do it.
sbov 10y ago
It is illegal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It's not much different than hiring someone to hack, rob or murder someone. We don't throw just the person doing the hiring in prison, we also pursue the person who performed the act. Believing that a company is not liable for an illegal act they are hired for shows just how far the rabbit hole modern society has gone with respect to business ethics.

by imgabe 10y ago

jahewson 10y ago

Contractors, especially licensed ones are usually liable for their work. So too is Marriot, for asking them in the first place, but they settled: > Marriott agreed to settle the investigation by paying a civil penalty of $600,000 and establishing operating procedures to ensure that it does not engage in further Wi-Fi blocking Presumably MC Dean did not.

imgabe 10y ago
Right, I just thought they would usually be liable to the owner, and the owner would be the one legally liable. Now, if the owner got fined because MC Dean screwed something up, they could turn around and sue MC Dean for the amount of the fine. But separately fining both the owner and the contractor for the same infraction seems like double dipping on the part of the government, unless they're being fined in proportion to culpability or something like that.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  IANAL, but "someone hired me" is not a defense for any crime. Perhaps Marriott could use ignorance as an excuse for hiring a wireless communication firm to break a wireless communication law (under the somewhat silly theory that they are only experts in hotel law), but the wireless communication firm itself certainly can't.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  "Double-dipping" is allowed in criminal cases. If two people cooperate to murder someone both can go to jail for the full sentence; they don't split up the sentence between them.

caseysoftware 10y ago

> On October 23, 2014, the Commission received an informal complaint from a company that provides private Wi-Fi networks for exhibitors at trade shows by shipping equipment to customers around the country. The complainant stated in part that it had "just spent all morning arguing with M.C. Dean company who provides wireless [at the BCC] until they finally ceased sending de-auth signals to our router." They were actively harming/disrupting others' equipment. It wasn't just "oh, your signal sucks, use ours!" but "we're going to knock you offline unless you pay." Disclosure: I used to work for MC Dean 10+ years ago.

imgabe 10y ago
Right, but I'm sure it wasn't someone at MC Dean who decided "hey let's jam everyone else's signal". They're just the contractor. Someone had to tell them "please install equipment to jam other people's signal". Now, they probably should have pushed back and advised the owner that what they wanted was illegal, but I'm sure it wasn't their idea. They don't own the building or host the conferences, so why would MC Dean care who uses which Wifi?
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  In DC, the red light camera operators had a kickback deal with the city. They got a cut of every ticket issued. If there was a deal like that in place, it would be motivating to disrupt the alternatives.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  You aren't absolved of the consequences of committing a crime just because you were hired to do it.

sbov 10y ago

It is illegal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It's not much different than hiring someone to hack, rob or murder someone. We don't throw just the person doing the hiring in prison, we also pursue the person who performed the act. Believing that a company is not liable for an illegal act they are hired for shows just how far the rabbit hole modern society has gone with respect to business ethics.