5 ms·

This is fascinating that some manufacturers may have gone down this Darwinian path in "improving" their products. Is there any such law against this or any eff

This is fascinating that some manufacturers may have gone down this Darwinian path in "improving" their products. Is there any such law against this or any efforts in introducing such laws, either in Norway or elsewhere?

gumby 7y ago
The WiFi frequencies are unlicensed in afaik every jurisdiction (note that the precise frequencies aren’t de jure the same in every country) so it’s legal to send whatever packets you like within certain power constraints.
- gumby 7y ago
  I just want to comment that this is who HN is great. I posted what turned out to be a misunderstanding (or incomplete if you are more generous) understanding of spectrum rules. My comment was correctly downvoted to 0, but more importantly I got a response that simply explained where I was (utterly) wrong. No flames, no further conjecture, just references. There's a little bit of following discussion. This is the way it's supposed to work!!
  - joeraut 7y ago
    From the perspective of a relatively new HNer, this sort of comment further reinforces how great the community can be, in a meta-sort of way!
- gruez 7y ago
  >so it’s legal to send whatever packets you like within certain power constraints. No. https://boingboing.net/2014/10/03/fcc-fines-marriott-for-jamming.html https://boingboing.net/2014/10/03/fcc-fines-marriott-for-jam... >No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    That law seems to explicitly apply to transmissions on FCC licensed spectrum, where FCC authorizes operations and ensures that you don't get interference. Wifi happens on unlicensed spectrum, wifi is not "radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter".
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      Unlicensed spectrum is, as I understand it, spectrum whose use without a license is authorized (but, obviously, not licensed) by that chapter, and so is within the scope of the “authorized or licensed” language; certainly, the FCC has been consistently treated it as within the scope of that rule and hasn't been successfully challenged on it in the courts where, if it wasn't authorized or licensed by the chapter at issue, it would be an easy slam-dunk case against any FCC enforcement action treating it as such.
  - akersten 7y ago
    I really disagree with that ruling and interpretation of that quoted part of the law. Jamming to me means radio interference via indiscriminate analog noise. If we expand the definition of jamming to the protocol level like exemplified here, the law gains broad authority to interpret any online interaction that makes your experience worse as "jamming." The law should really should stick to radio frequency enforcement, and stay out of protocol-level concerns - it's just too big a can of worms.
    - gruez 7y ago
      >Jamming to me means radio interference via indiscriminate analog noise So according to you, denying everyone usage is worse than denying everyone else usage to improve your usage? >If we expand the definition of jamming to the protocol level like exemplified here, the law gains broad authority to interpret any online interaction that makes your experience worse as "jamming." The law should really should stick to radio frequency enforcement, and stay out of protocol-level concerns - it's just too big a can of worms. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system works. It's not an algorithm. Intent matters. Going back to the originally quoted text, it says "willfully or maliciously", so maxing out your WLAN to transfer files 24/7 is probably not going to get a knock on the door by the FCC. Intentionally jamming your neighbor's wifi (deauth packets or otherwise) is.

gumby 7y ago

The WiFi frequencies are unlicensed in afaik every jurisdiction (note that the precise frequencies aren’t de jure the same in every country) so it’s legal to send whatever packets you like within certain power constraints.

gumby 7y ago
I just want to comment that this is who HN is great. I posted what turned out to be a misunderstanding (or incomplete if you are more generous) understanding of spectrum rules. My comment was correctly downvoted to 0, but more importantly I got a response that simply explained where I was (utterly) wrong. No flames, no further conjecture, just references. There's a little bit of following discussion. This is the way it's supposed to work!!
- joeraut 7y ago
  From the perspective of a relatively new HNer, this sort of comment further reinforces how great the community can be, in a meta-sort of way!
gruez 7y ago
>so it’s legal to send whatever packets you like within certain power constraints. No. https://boingboing.net/2014/10/03/fcc-fines-marriott-for-jamming.html https://boingboing.net/2014/10/03/fcc-fines-marriott-for-jam... >No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333
- PeterisP 7y ago
  That law seems to explicitly apply to transmissions on FCC licensed spectrum, where FCC authorizes operations and ensures that you don't get interference. Wifi happens on unlicensed spectrum, wifi is not "radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter".
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    Unlicensed spectrum is, as I understand it, spectrum whose use without a license is authorized (but, obviously, not licensed) by that chapter, and so is within the scope of the “authorized or licensed” language; certainly, the FCC has been consistently treated it as within the scope of that rule and hasn't been successfully challenged on it in the courts where, if it wasn't authorized or licensed by the chapter at issue, it would be an easy slam-dunk case against any FCC enforcement action treating it as such.
- akersten 7y ago
  I really disagree with that ruling and interpretation of that quoted part of the law. Jamming to me means radio interference via indiscriminate analog noise. If we expand the definition of jamming to the protocol level like exemplified here, the law gains broad authority to interpret any online interaction that makes your experience worse as "jamming." The law should really should stick to radio frequency enforcement, and stay out of protocol-level concerns - it's just too big a can of worms.
  - gruez 7y ago
    >Jamming to me means radio interference via indiscriminate analog noise So according to you, denying everyone usage is worse than denying everyone else usage to improve your usage? >If we expand the definition of jamming to the protocol level like exemplified here, the law gains broad authority to interpret any online interaction that makes your experience worse as "jamming." The law should really should stick to radio frequency enforcement, and stay out of protocol-level concerns - it's just too big a can of worms. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system works. It's not an algorithm. Intent matters. Going back to the originally quoted text, it says "willfully or maliciously", so maxing out your WLAN to transfer files 24/7 is probably not going to get a knock on the door by the FCC. Intentionally jamming your neighbor's wifi (deauth packets or otherwise) is.