The hotel is being fined for blocking/jamming users setting up wifi via mobile technologies and such, not using the hotel's network. Hard for me to imagine how the hotel gets to insert itself into any applicable AUP in that scenario.
Owen > On Oct 3, 2014, at 19:25, Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> wrote: > >> On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman <m...@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. > >> >> /Mike >> >> > > -- > Hugo > >>> On 10/3/14 5:15 PM, "Mike Hale" <eyeronic.des...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> So does that mean the anti-rogue AP technologies by the various >>> vendors are illegal if used in the US? >>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Ricky Beam" <jfb...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and carries no >>>>> authentication. The 802.11 spec only requires a reason code be >>>>> provided. >>>> >>>> What's the code for E_GREEDY? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -- jra >>>> -- >>>> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink >>>> j...@baylink.com >>>> Designer The Things I Think >>>> RFC 2100 >>>> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land >>>> Rover DII >>>> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 >>>> 647 1274 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 >> >>
