Re:DNS-over-HTTPS Policy Requirements for Resolvers
by LinuxBender on Wednesday April 10, 2019 @01:25PM
(#19626863)
You can use special paint on the buildings that blocks RF. There are also cell phone jammers. They require a license and approval from the FCC and have legal implications / risks.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:DNS-over-HTTPS Policy Requirements for Resolvers
by CydeWeys on Wednesday April 10, 2019 @01:47PM
(#19627074)
This use case wouldn't get approved. It's very hard getting an exception and this doesn't come close to meriting it.
Preventing cell phone calls could have dire consequences in an emergency, and stopping kids from looking at porn doesn't remotely merit taking that risk.
Re:DNS-over-HTTPS Policy Requirements for Resolvers
by LinuxBender on Wednesday April 10, 2019 @01:50PM
(#19627098)
I completely agree.
Re:DNS-over-HTTPS Policy Requirements for Resolvers
by Spivak on Wednesday April 10, 2019 @03:30PM
(#19627981)
Blocking RF is illegal if it's done with the intent you describe. It's fine if your building gets terrible or no reception but if you purposely design it that way you're not protected.
Re:DNS-over-HTTPS Policy Requirements for Resolvers
by LinuxBender on Wednesday April 10, 2019 @03:57PM
(#19628220)
There are a number of organizations and businesses that block RF. Their legal team review the local statutes and the employees sign acceptance in the AUP onboarding documentation.
To your point, there are certainly countries and jurisdictions that do not permit blocking RF or have strict exceptions.
Re:DNS-over-HTTPS Policy Requirements for Resolvers
by JohnFen on Wednesday April 10, 2019 @06:09PM
(#19629262)
> Their legal team review the local statutes
In the US, local statutes and AUPs don't enter into it. This is federal law. You're right, there have been a number of organizations that have done this -- and enough of them have been fined for it that the number is much smaller than it used to be.