News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on $718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi devices (2015). Parent comment

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by nickodell on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @02:41AM (#13316441)
I think this is the exception that swallows the rule.

Let's say I observe two ham radio operators having a morse code communication. I decide to stop them from communicating, so I transmit "<callsign 1> QRT DE <callsign 2>", where callsign 1 and callsign 2 are the callsigns of the two ham radio operators.

Is this harmful interference, or did one of the ham radio operators just misinterpret my signal?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by manarth on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @07:30AM (#13317690) 

  I decide to stop them from communicating, so I transmit "<callsign 1> QRT DE <callsign 2>"
  Is this harmful interference?
On amateur radio, you're obliged to identify yourself, so this would be a breach of licence: failing to identify your station, or misrepresenting your station.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by nickodell on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @01:27PM (#13320746)
True. But let's say that didn't apply. Would this be harmful interference?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by genkaos on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @01:50PM (#13320977)
Let's suppose that the Earth is flat... :)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by punnerud on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @02:51AM (#13316488)
I wouldn't trust the "<callsign 1> QRT DE <callsign 2>" if it didn't contain a secret message, that couldn't be produced by a 3. party
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by Sanddancer on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:41AM (#13316672)
In Ham radio, you can't use any sort of secret message like that. Everything needs to be plaintext.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by ryan-c on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @08:37AM (#13318106)
I don't think that's correct. Cryptographic authentication of messages should be allowed (ARRL agrees with me[0]), the language specifies you cannot "obscure the meaning" of the communication.

0. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520928844.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by nickodell on Thursday January 05, 2017 @03:35PM (#13331113)
That's correct. There's one exception to the encryption rule, which is when sending commands to a space station. (That does not allow you to encrypt the responses, though.) See 47 CFR 97.211, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.211
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by ptaipale on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:30AM (#13316623)
Well, I think then you'd be breaking protocol, because afaik, in ham code you must obey procedure, and QRT tells you to stop transmitting.
[ Parent | on HN ]