Comment 2T7C Re: I see a couple things here

Story

Marriott fined $600,000 by FCC for interfering with customer WiFi hotspots

Preview

I see a couple things here (Score: 1)

by codemachine@pipedot.org on 2014-10-09 18:06 (#2T6R)

On one hand, it might protect some of their customers who would otherwise foolishly connect to unsecured rouge access points run by some scammers. I could see a little bit of validity to the security argument.

On the other hand, if there is a law that makes it illegal to purposefully jam a WiFi signal, shouldn't a denial of service attack that takes out the WiFi be similarly illegal?

Re: I see a couple things here (Score: 1)

by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-10 17:32 (#2T7C)

if there is a law that makes it illegal to purposefully jam a WiFi signal, shouldn't a denial of service attack that takes out the WiFi be similarly illegal?
My thoughts exactly. The technical mechanism they used is only of interest to us readers as a technical curiosity. I don't know that 'jam' and 'DoS' are really exclusive, anyway: it seems reasonable to say that they used DoS as a means of achieving a jam.

Junk Status

Not marked as junk