Re: Marriott wifi blocking

[Michael Van Norman <mvn () ucla edu>]

On 10/3/14 7:25 PM, "Hugo Slabbert" <hugo () slabnet com> wrote:

> On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman <mvn () 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.

They can say anything they want, it does not make it legal.

There's no such thing as a "rogue" AP in this context.  I can run an
access point almost anywhere I want (there are limits established by the
FCC in some areas) and it does not matter who owns the land underneath.
They have no authority to decide whether or not my access point is
"authorized."  They can certainly refuse to connect me to their wired
network; and they can disconnect me if they decide I am making
inappropriate use of their network -- but they have no legal authority to
interfere with my wireless transmissions on my own network (be it my
personal hotspot, WiFi router, etc.).  FWIW, the same is true in almost
all corporate environments as well.

/Mike