3 ms·

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

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.
stefan_ 7y ago
That's because you are ignorant of radio frequency technology, circa 1940. The only reason a shared frequency band like 2.4 GHz works at all is because we have invented technology that can implicitly synchronize with other senders through avoiding collisions with ongoing transmissions, e.g. through CSMA/CA. Obviously a band like 2.4 GHz will simply not work if devices were allowed to transmit permanently like an analog radio. And so out of simple necessity the regulation for shared bands has very broad language to the effect that you can not interfere in any way with others operating on the same band.
- akersten 7y ago
  So, is Cisco breaking the law by making rogue de-auth available? Is there then any circumstance where it is acceptable to use?
sokoloff 7y ago
The law does not prohibit “jamming”; it prohibits “willfully or maliciously interfere with...radio communications of any station...authorized by or under this chapter”. If you’re objecting to the phrasing in the boingboing article (which called it “jamming”), ok, but the law seems clear to me and the interpretation thereof I think was correct.

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.

stefan_ 7y ago

That's because you are ignorant of radio frequency technology, circa 1940. The only reason a shared frequency band like 2.4 GHz works at all is because we have invented technology that can implicitly synchronize with other senders through avoiding collisions with ongoing transmissions, e.g. through CSMA/CA. Obviously a band like 2.4 GHz will simply not work if devices were allowed to transmit permanently like an analog radio. And so out of simple necessity the regulation for shared bands has very broad language to the effect that you can not interfere in any way with others operating on the same band.

akersten 7y ago
So, is Cisco breaking the law by making rogue de-auth available? Is there then any circumstance where it is acceptable to use?

sokoloff 7y ago

The law does not prohibit “jamming”; it prohibits “willfully or maliciously interfere with...radio communications of any station...authorized by or under this chapter”. If you’re objecting to the phrasing in the boingboing article (which called it “jamming”), ok, but the law seems clear to me and the interpretation thereof I think was correct.