3 ms·

Given the FCC's argument against Marriott, wouldn't it be illegal for Cisco to sell this now? (I'm not a lawyer, but 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b) makes it illegal to ma

by kens 12y ago

Given the FCC's argument against Marriott, wouldn't it be illegal for Cisco to sell this now? (I'm not a lawyer, but 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b) makes it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship noncompliant devices, and that document describes a feature whose specific purpose is to interfere with WiFi.)

Someone1234 12y ago
IANAL but, it is kind of a grey area. That functionality is only designed to be used on a device which is attempting to spoof you (i.e. a device already disrupting WiFi). So is it a disruption feature if in effect it neutralises disruption when used correctly? As I said, it is a grey area.
- tjohns 12y ago
  Interestingly enough, Cisco's own docs mention that there are some legal issues, especially when used against neighboring networks: > "Containment can have legal implications when launched against neighboring networks. Ensure that the rogue device is within your network and poses a security risk before you launch the containment." The wording in the FCC Consent Decree in this case suggests that this feature would actually have been okay if it was being used against actively hostile networks: > "Specifically, such employees had used this capability to prevent users from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks when these users did not pose a threat to the security of the Gaylord Opryland network or its guests."
dedward 12y ago
Keep in mind the FCC isn't regulating the specifics of the WIFI protocols.. just the use of the spectrum. It's not a technical limitation on a certain type of packets, but about the results. The problem is only when the end result is that you are deliberately stopping other people from making valid use of the spectrum. There are valid cases for doing what they are doing (preventing spoofing).. this just wasn't one of those valid use cases.

by kens 12y ago

Someone1234 12y ago

IANAL but, it is kind of a grey area. That functionality is only designed to be used on a device which is attempting to spoof you (i.e. a device already disrupting WiFi). So is it a disruption feature if in effect it neutralises disruption when used correctly? As I said, it is a grey area.

tjohns 12y ago
Interestingly enough, Cisco's own docs mention that there are some legal issues, especially when used against neighboring networks: > "Containment can have legal implications when launched against neighboring networks. Ensure that the rogue device is within your network and poses a security risk before you launch the containment." The wording in the FCC Consent Decree in this case suggests that this feature would actually have been okay if it was being used against actively hostile networks: > "Specifically, such employees had used this capability to prevent users from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks when these users did not pose a threat to the security of the Gaylord Opryland network or its guests."

dedward 12y ago

Keep in mind the FCC isn't regulating the specifics of the WIFI protocols.. just the use of the spectrum. It's not a technical limitation on a certain type of packets, but about the results. The problem is only when the end result is that you are deliberately stopping other people from making valid use of the spectrum. There are valid cases for doing what they are doing (preventing spoofing).. this just wasn't one of those valid use cases.