Marriott wifi blocking

Sat Oct 4 02:25:22 UTC 2014

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman <mvn at ucla.edu> wrote:

>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.

My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the 
blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue APs 
are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in 
contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.

>
>/Mike
>
>

--
Hugo

>On 10/3/14 5:15 PM, "Mike Hale" <eyeronic.design at 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 at baylink.com> wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam at 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 at 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20141003/8069ad49/attachment.sig>