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

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by halomru on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @10:12AM (#13318853)

That's easy enough to solve: you are only allowed to defend your SSID if you have taken reasonable steps to minimise the chance of a random name collision, and if this is really the most reasonable answer given your threat model.

For example you can't block all "Netgear WLAN" hotspots, but you can block all "Hotel Sunrise NY Guests" networks. And you can not block SSIDs similar to your private network simply because you are too lazy to specify the routers MAC in all your five devices.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by darkarmani on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @12:17PM (#13320059)

> Hotel Sunrise NY Guests

But what if we are "Hotel Sunrise NY Guests"? Why wouldn't i use that name as a guest? I think if you want defensible randomization, you actually randomize it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by nucleardog on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @02:32PM (#13321307)

No. Because these are realistic rules enforced by real and reasonable people.

If you walk into Hotel Sunrise and start walking up to people and saying "I'm with Hotel Sunrise Guest Satisfaction, can I ask you some questions?" the defense "Well, I'm a Hotel Sunrise Guest and it was for my Satisfaction!" is not going to absolve you of any consequences that arise.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by jessaustin on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @02:44PM (#13321400)

Hotel Sunrise guests would certainly connect to APs advertising that SSID. It would be pretty shady for them to set up their own APs with that SSID however.

[ Parent | on HN ]