How were they blocking personal hot spots? The article doesn't get into details. Since they were providing their own wifi, they weren't using a jammer. Were they blasting deauth packets at any hotspot not on their whitelist? Were they using mdk3?
According to their response (cited in another comment) they were spoofing de-auth packets, and were only doing so for hotspots determined to be physically within their proprietary space. It's not hard to do that via triangulation.
You repeatedly and willfully ignore the invalidating part of this - that they -do not own the airwaves-, inside their 'proprietary space' or otherwise. It is unlicensed spectrum, anywhere, precisely because we can't control (easily) the transmission of radio waves.
They don't, and you don't either. The attitude that hotspots' use of unlicensed spectrum is sacrosanct, while failing to extend that same doctrine to venue owners, just reeks of entitlement. The attempt to put one group of unlicensed-spectrum users above another has no basis in law.
What does have basis in law is that, while on unlicensed spectrum, you can't willfully mess with other people's transmissions. Period, point blank, end of discussion. They were doing this. They violated the law. They got fined. This is not up for debate.
- On your property? Doesn't matter. Still illegal.
- They're using your SSID? Doesn't matter. Still illegal.
- You entered into a contract to block all other signals? Doesn't matter, you entered into a contract to do something expressly illegal.
- Too many radios will make the local spectrum unusable? Doesn't matter, the band is unlicensed. Still illegal.
We can talk all day about the should haves and the would haves, but the practical and legal facts of this case are quite clear.
> You entered into a contract to block all other signals? Doesn't matter, you entered into a contract to do something expressly illegal.
Incorrect. There are many things that are illegal without consent, but legal with it. Sex, for example. In this case, as soon as you enter into an appropriately worded contract, that de-auth packet stops being interference and starts being an agreed-to part of that contract. Therefore it's none of the FCC's business. It might be the subject of a civil suit, but that's a different matter.
That's why I've said repeatedly that Smart City's misdeed (and Marriott's before them) was not the mere sending of de-auth packets. Condemning de-auth packets is like condemning screwdrivers. The real problem is that they did not obtain consent for that use of the tool. They could have made that part of the convention registration, and they would have been OK (though they would almost certainly have faced an outcry). It's no different than a company forbidding the same thing within their corporate HQ building, which almost everybody here seems to believe is OK. I see a lot of people throwing words like "legitimate" and "illegitimate" around today, but nobody seems to have a realistic definition handy. I find it amazing that so many here want the government making technical distinctions for us, which they never do well, instead of relying on the simple notion of consent (or lack thereof) between parties.
>In this case, as soon as you enter into an appropriately worded contract, that de-auth packet stops being interference and starts being an agreed-to part of that contract.
Please point to the specific portion of case law or FCC law that shares this definition, because as far as I can tell, it doesn't exist.
I'm not sure why you insist on muddying what is a pretty clear law and also a pretty clear decision based on that law. The "permission" point you're stating has no basis in law.
You cannot willfully interfere with another user's lawful transmission on an unlicensed band.
It is that simple.
What they could do, and probably should have done, is post notices saying that unauthorized wifi is against the venue rules and will lead to ejection, and then go around with a laptop, find the people, and boot them out. That would have been perfectly okay and perfectly legal.
Your contract as a private party, with another private party, does not absolve either of you from your obligations under law. The FCC is a third party to this contract, and your 'sex' example is irrelevant (on many different levels).
So what is your solution, other than hoping the FCC will get the definitions right to allow the practices that are convenient for you and disallow those that are inconvenient - and not overreach into still more areas of communications, and not be generally corrupt, and so on? If rigorously applied, the precedent set here WOULD apply to corporate networks doing the same thing, with the FCC involved in deciding which rogue APs are or are not "legitimate" threats to security. Oh boy, they'll sure get that one right! As I said, consent is at least a clear and enforceable standard, plus it gets the FCC out of everyone's boardrooms and bedrooms.
> The attitude that hotspots' use of unlicensed spectrum is sacrosanct, while failing to extend that same doctrine to venue owners, just reeks of entitlement.
Then it's a good thing nobody here is expressing that attitude!
Everyone (venue owner, hotspot owner, mobile tethering user, etc) gets to use unlicensed spectrum as long as they follow the rules. One of the rules is no jamming / intentional interference. It's just not as complex as you seem to think.
Both groups are treated equally. Everyone is allowed to use the spectrum. No one is allowed to intentionally interfere with anyone's use of the unlicensed spectrum.
Who am I trying to put above someone else? I want the freedom to use the unlicensed spectrum, as I am -entitled- to do so, without some other party believing they can interfere with it.
If you think that my hotspot is interfering with their ability to do business/profit, well, I'm not sure where anyone is entitled to profit.
