[174870] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Van Norman)
Fri Oct 3 20:28:03 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 17:21:08 -0700
From: Michael Van Norman <mvn@ucla.edu>
To: Mike Hale <eyeronic.design@gmail.com>, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN3um4xONXespfUKxnb1eRcdZpKG2FNZQi6e4S=EnV3HF-UoUw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
IANAL, but I believe they are. State laws may also apply (e.g. California
Code - Section 502). In California, it is illegal to "knowingly and
without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services
or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user
of a computer, computer system, or computer network." Blocking access to
somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.
/Mike
On 10/3/14 5:15 PM, "Mike Hale" <eyeronic.design@gmail.com> wrote:
>So does that mean the anti-rogue AP technologies by the various
>vendors are illegal if used in the US?
>
>On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
>>
>>> It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and carries no
>>> authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be
>>> provided.
>>
>> What's the code for E_GREEDY?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- jra
>> --
>> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
>>jra@baylink.com
>> Designer The Things I Think
>>RFC 2100
>> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land
>>Rover DII
>> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727
>>647 1274
>
>
>
>--
>09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
