Paul
Thanks. I think five years old is more recent than mine :-) But good to hear that my suspicion that CMA might apply isn't completely mad.
Cheers
Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wireless Issues in the JANET community [mailto:WIRELESS-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Hill (phill)
> Sent: 25 March 2015 13:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-ADMIN] Interference from other wifi devices
>
> The last time I looked into this issue for the UK, the advice I
> received from Cisco's in-house QC was:
>
> * If the DoS is caused as a spectrum-level jam or interference by
> something outside of permitted radio equipment and transmission
> regulations, that’s in OFCOM's remit to investigate and prosecute -
> with the laws and powers as Scott mentioned.
>
> * But if it's a protocol level DoS (so all radio transmitters are
> being operated legally) then it comes under the Computer Misuse Act's
> remit for investigation and action by the police as Andrew mentions.
>
> However, I do not speak for Cisco on this area and this isn’t legal
> advice given out by Cisco either as we don't give that out. I just
> mention it for what it's worth as it’s five years old information that
> may have changed by now for all I know. i.e. please don't quote me
> as this being the definitive stance right now as I could now be wrong.
>
> Regards,
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wireless Issues in the JANET community [mailto:WIRELESS-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrew Cormack
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Interference from other wifi devices
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wireless Issues in the JANET community [mailto:WIRELESS-
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Armitage
> > Sent: 25 March 2015 12:25
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-ADMIN] Interference from other wifi devices
> >
> >
> > > On 25 Mar 2015, at 11:45, Guy Morrell <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Where possible, there is good success with band steering away from
> 2Ghz
> > >> as there are always free channels on the 5GHz band. Even modern
> > printers
> > >> etc seem to still use older technology wireless and commonly use the
> > >> lowest 2Ghz channel. However, 5Ghz requires a denser AP placement.
> > We are
> > >> taking this into consideration for new builds but struggle with
> > >> retro-fitting.
> > >
> > > I think this is a good answer, for now. I would expect more and more MiFi
> > > devices to start offering the 5Ghz band at maximum power. Certainly
> their
> > > coverage will be less and there are more non-overlapping channels to
> play
> > > with, but I suspect we’ll always need a combination of user-awareness
> > > campaigns and technology [1].
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Guy
> > >
> > > [1] Probably the ‘adapt my network to cope with the noise’ kind rather
> > > than ‘kill the rogues’ kind if the recent Marriott / FCC case in the US
> > > sets any kind of precedent here…
> > >
> >
> >
> > I would suspect mitigating other peoples APs is illegal under UK law:
> >
> > Ofcom say:
> >
> > “
> > Deliberate Interference
> > The use of any apparatus, whether or not wireless telegraphy apparatus,
> for
> > the purpose of interfering with any wireless telegraphy, is an offence
> under
> > the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. It is an indictable offence that on
> > conviction in Crown Court carries a maximum penalty of two years
> > imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The courts can also order forfeit of
> > any apparatus used in the commission of the offence. “
> >
> >
> > The question is whether wifi is covered under the act. Probably, as the act
> > says:
> >
> > “
> > “Wireless telegraphy”
> > (1)In this Act “wireless telegraphy” means the emitting or receiving, over
> > paths that are not provided by any material substance constructed or
> > arranged for the purpose, of energy to which subsection (2) applies.
> > "
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Scott
>
> Also at least arguable that it's an offence under s3 of the (amended)
> Computer Misuse Act, as an unauthorised act with the intention of impairing
> the function of a computer. The amendment was introduced in 2006 to deal
> with DoS attacks over wires, but as far as I can see the definition doesn't
> depend on there being any physical connection between you and the target
> device.
>
> We did a factsheet on rogue suppression when it was first introduced:
> https://community.ja.net/library/advisory-services/rogue-wireless-
> suppression. I'd be interested to know whether it's still
> a) accurate, and
> b) useful?
>
> If (b) then feel free to suggest updates that can improve (a)!
>
> Cheers
> Andrew
>
>
|
