The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has published on their blog a clarification on their previous request for comments regarding modifications by end users of the firmware inside WiFi routers.
In short: the FCC does not intend to force device manufacturers to intentionally disable updates or modifications to the operating system. They do maintain that changes to the radio device firmware must be controlled to enforce spectrum requirements. The exact details have also been made available as a PDF. As a seasoned IT professional, open source community member, and amateur radio operator I'm glad to see the FCC issue this clarification and I personally think the compromise is sound and reasonable. The FCC publications can tell you why this is important so here is some info on what is likely to happen.
Heads up: the majority of manufacturers will probably lock the entire router down including the operating system because this will be the least cost mechanism available. It is quite likely that the average consumer WiFi routers will not meet the needs of high technology individuals but it also does not mean that these needs cannot be met at all. Some manufacturers will create routers without arbitrary restrictions on the operating system, and it is still possible to construct a modular WiFi solution using distinct components such as dedicated access points. This will certainly cost more but it is the reality of being an outlier in consumer markets.
In the interest of full disclosure: I am impacted because the proposed regulations don't protect ham radio operators in the 2.4GHz part of the spectrum, where there is overlap in usage with consumer (part 15) WiFi gear. I'm also impacted because I enjoy cheap hardware as much as the next person.
Related Stories
The Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) rules on Wi-Fi router firmware are having an effect on the market:
Network gear maker TP-Link will no longer allow people to install customized firmware on its Wi-Fi routers in the US – and the FCC is to blame. In a brief statement and FAQ posted this week, TP-Link – which is based in Shenzhen, China – said the FCC's revised rules on radio-based equipment makes user reprogrammable firmware illegal in America, and therefore it cannot sell in the US routers that can be re-flashed by their owners.
"Devices sold in the United States will have firmware and wireless settings that ensure compliance with local laws and regulations related to transmission power," TP-Link said. "As a result of these necessary changes, users are not able to flash the current generation of open-source, third-party firmware."
[...] The FCC earlier backed off a bit on the matter, but maintains it will not allow devices that can be re-flashed to operate outside authorized radio frequency bands. TP-Link, however, said that the FCC rules as they stand will not allow it to offer people the ability to reprogram their router firmware.
"The FCC requires all manufacturers to prevent users from having any direct ability to change RF [radio frequency] parameters (frequency limits, output power, country codes, etc)," TP-Link stated. "In order to keep our products compliant with these implemented regulations, TP-LINK is distributing devices that feature country-specific firmware."
Previously: New FCC Rules Could Ban WiFi Router Firmware Modification
FCC Clarifies Position on WiFi Routers: Okay to Modify OS but Not Radio Firmware
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 16 2015, @10:11AM
It's been awhile since I flashed with Tomato - I'm running DD-WRT now. But, I know that I had a dial with which to change the strength of the radio with Tomato. I don't have that on my current version of DD-WRT. So, what they are saying is, the version of Tomato that I was running would be illegal?
Ehh - not sure that I agree with that. Apartment dwellers might want the radio turned down to minimum strength, so as to prevent neighbors stealing bandwidth. Here, in Outback, Nowhere, I might want to turn the signal strength up, so that I can take the laptop or tablet outside, to the garden, the picnic table, or even to work on the car.
How about the FCC just establish what maximum strength should be, and leave it at that?
Who has used CB radio? 2 watts is legal output, but a lot of people turn them up to 4 watts, and some even have "kickers". Some of them are a pain in the ass - you just report them. The rest, no one worries about them.
Let the people do whatever the hell they want, unless and until they get under people's skin. THEN you enforce the law.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @10:27AM
More importantly, this basically amounts to, "X could be abused, so this functionality must be banned." That is incredibly unjust and that sort of reasoning shouldn't even exist in supposedly free countries, especially when it comes to petty matters such as this.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday November 16 2015, @03:25PM
especially when it comes to petty matters such as this.
Seems fair. Are there any serious consequences for over-powered wi-fi networks?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @10:32PM
Welcome to the war on general-purpose computing:
http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html [boingboing.net]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @04:04PM
CB radios are allowed up to 4 watts on AM, and up to 16 watts on SSB. I had (in the late 70s) a Gemtronics PLL CB that could be cranked up to 12 watts AM just by taking the cover off and turning a screw. The PLL CBs could also have extra channels added by modifying the PLL circuit with the addition of a switch. Of course, there were also 100 watt amplifiers you could add to shoot skip or annoy your neighbors. As far as routers, I think the FCC wants you to not use the EU channels which are hidden in stock firmware but exposed in DDWRT.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 16 2015, @05:42PM
Are you sure that your power numbers are current? In the '70's, CB radios were all 4 watt, or more. FCC re-wrote the rules, and made them 2 watts. It's been awhile since I've messed with them, so FCC could have re-written the rules again. Ehhhh - I'll just look for it -
http://www.cbradiomemories.com/fcc_rules_cb.htm [cbradiomemories.com]
Rule 10 says that you are right. I stand corrected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:42AM
I was wrong on the SSB... it's 12 watts, not 16. But yes, 4 watts on the AM. My rig was tweaked so much I could talk interstate and even global once in a while. It doesn't really require a lot of power, just a finely matched antenna and coax.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 17 2015, @04:13PM
Yeah, I was always amused at those truck drivers who would spend $300 to $700 on a nice radio, carry it out to the truck, and plug in a $10 antenna, mounted on an ancient rusty steel mount. As often as not, the coax would be frayed, kinked, and battered, especially where it passed through the fin window. They would come back into the CB shop, and pay more money to have it turned up, maybe even buy a kicker for another $200 to $1000. But, all their signal was lost before it ever even reached the antenna!
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Monday November 16 2015, @05:57PM
FCC maxmimums for the unlicensed ISM bands are well established.
Of course I can't find it on the FCC website, but this should help.
http://www.afar.net/tutorials/fcc-rules [afar.net]
What it seems they are saying is that you can't modify the radio firmware to make it transmit over the legal limit at the time of production, and that you can't screw with the radio firmware to make the unit transmit in a band that is not of the unlicensed spectrum.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday November 18 2015, @04:25PM
But, I know that I had a dial with which to change the strength of the radio with Tomato. I don't have that on my current version of DD-WRT. So, what they are saying is, the version of Tomato that I was running would be illegal?
It is not that clear cut - it has much more to do with the hardware of the device and how the OS interacts with the radio module and the radio module's capabilities.
How about the FCC just establish what maximum strength should be, and leave it at that?
That is exactly how it has always worked for a part 15 (consumer level gear) device and it is exactly what they are trying to enforce. The FCC worries about the entire physical system configuration when it comes to emissions requirements: max capable power output because of amplifiers and the antennas if they have gain/loss. It is a complete analysis of a system and the output of the system is validated. If a system can be reconfigured it needs to be either locked down when delivered to the user so it can not change or any change must be inside requirements and not be possible to exceed them with out a physical modification.
Apartment dwellers might want the radio turned down to minimum strength, so as to prevent neighbors stealing bandwidth.
Amusingly enough you can also turn down your power to resolve some types of reception problems and if you have those problems and increase power it makes your problems worse and also impacts everyone else around you more. Humans were not designed to understand electromagnetic radiation, it is anything but intuitive.
Back to your signal power dial. Being able to adjust the power output is a good thing, everyone should always use the minimum power required because it is just a good idea and a polite thing to do to everyone else trying to use the air. No one but radio professionals or hobbyists really cares about this stuff so the FCC makes sure if you get a knob it can only be set to good positions or it is glued in place. When SDR (software defined radio) came around the knob went under full software control and one device shipped to every country, each of them with their own unique requirements.
The glue on the knob is implemented in the OS, for certain hardware configurations, by the device manufacturer. If the OS can be modified and the knob unglued and the radio operational parameters can be adjusted to operate outside of the FCC rules, then the device is not ok. Its never been ok but the FCC let this stuff slide until now.
Let the people do whatever the hell they want, unless and until they get under people's skin. THEN you enforce the law.
Most people seem to take the idea that this is an assault on general purpose computing devices. If you look at what the FCC has done though it is limited to one specific place: 5.8ghz band emissions where consumer gear lives alongside weather radar for airports. Consumer WiFi gear operating outside of spec in 5.8ghz is actually a human safety problem.
That is why FCC is trying to put stronger guards on operation of 5.8ghz wifi equipment. On 2.4ghz the only people that will be interfered with are other consumers and possibly some ham radio operators. Hams are not generally doing life critical things and they are capable of finding stations that are causing interference. Though it is annoying we can fend for ourselves. Airports shouldn't have to find what are effectively accidental jammers for their weather radar if someone turns the knob to 11 in Tomato and lives next to an airport.
Here, in Outback, Nowhere, I might want to turn the signal strength up,
I hope no one really cares what goes on out there because if you can't even cause measurable interference to any other party around you because none exist in reception range no harm no foul. No one to report you in the first place and no problems created. Impact is minimal.
Who has used CB radio? 2 watts is legal output, but a lot of people turn them up to 4 watts, and some even have "kickers". Some of them are a pain in the ass - you just report them. The rest, no one worries about them.
Its not that simple either. It is easy to polute part of the electromagnetic spectrum you have no intention of because radio hardware is extremely picky and if poorly constructed, operated imperfectly, modified and not tested, or even operating with antenna feedline problems the transmitter can cause interference to other stations that aren't on a frequency anywhere near the transmitter's. This stuff is actually crazy weird. I don't really expect most people to understand it but there are rules here for specific reasons even if people with out experience with radio absolutely give near zero or exactly zero fucks about it. Even if fucks are given understanding what exactly needs to be cared about requires domain expertise.
Cheers and thanks for having a discussion on the topic!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 16 2015, @10:37AM
Heads up: the majority of manufacturers will probably lock the entire router down including the operating system because this will be the least cost mechanism available.
So not an acceptable "compromise" at all, but I could have told you that. The problem with "compromise" in cases like these is that they demonstrably decrease our liberties; that is still a loss, even if it's less of a loss than it could be. We should not accept this. Banning something like this merely because it could be abused is simply not acceptable. I have a better idea: If 'abuse' is such a problem, then take care of it when it happens and deal with the individuals involved. Enforcement might be difficult, but our freedoms don't vanish simply to make the government's job easier.
We must reject things locked-down devices, as well as non-free proprietary user-subjugating software. There is no "compromise" to be had here. Thanks to the FCC's stance against private property rights, this will inevitably result in more devices that simply do not respect the users' freedoms. That's a net loss for freedom, and it's all for a problem the FCC hasn't even demonstrated to exist on any significant scale.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 16 2015, @11:15AM
+1 On The Fucking Nose
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by theluggage on Monday November 16 2015, @11:44AM
The problem with "compromise" in cases like these is that they demonstrably decrease our liberties;
Not sure what the law is where you live, but in most countries you haven't been at liberty to build and operate a radio transmitter (or at least certain types) without licensing and testing - and for very good reasons (it doesn't take many irresponsible jerks to render vast chunks of the radio spectrum unusable). Unfortunately, the problem doesn't go away just because you prefix "radio" with "software defined" - in fact, it lowers the bar for irresponsible jerks, who can just download broke firmware from the interwebs and no longer need the basic smarts needed to follow a circuit diagram.
Enforcement might be difficult
Yeah, effective enforcement that doesn't also "demonstrably decrease our liberties" is particularly difficult, and if enforcement is difficult your choices are "war on drugs^H^H^H^H^H illegal radios" or no enforcement unless someone interferes with the mayors garage door opener.
If manufacturers respond by totally locking-down hardware when the law only requires them to lock the radio firmware, won't produce drivers for your favorite operating system, don't adopt standard interface protocols or won't sell you cheap wireless access ponts perhaps you should address your complaint to the Invisible Hand of the Free Market rather than the Government.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 16 2015, @12:16PM
Not sure what the law is where you live, but in most countries you haven't been at liberty to build and operate a radio transmitter (or at least certain types) without licensing and testing
I had a feeling someone would say this. But the fact is, the government needs to justify every single law and restriction, and regardless of what the government thinks is a right or not (which is irrelevant), saying that something should be banned because it could be abused is not something any free country should accept. Collective punishment is bad, and if rules are written that prevent you from doing something you were allowed to do before, then your freedoms have been reduced, regardless of any authoritarian views about what qualifies as a right that you may have. To pretend that these rules have no effect on your liberties is being extremely dishonest and/or ignorant.
The US constitution is also *not* a list of rights, but a list of things the government is allowed to do. Does the constitution say that people do not have a right to build and operate a radio transmitter without licensing and testing, or anything similar? I would imagine not, because of the technology involved, but if you've found some hidden text, you will have to inform me about it. Otherwise, in order to get such a power, the government would have to amend the constitution. But violating the constitution and having courts come up with absolutely absurd interpretations of it to justify the violations is the cool thing to do, apparently. Some 'freedom-loving' people will even accept that sort of treacherous nonsense because they like the idea of the government having those specific powers, so any constitutional violations must be okay.
Or are you so dense that you believe the only rights you have are those the government claims you have? Are you capable of having an opinion of your own regarding liberty?
Yeah, effective enforcement that doesn't also "demonstrably decrease our liberties" is particularly difficult, and if enforcement is difficult your choices are "war on drugs^H^H^H^H^H illegal radios" or no enforcement unless someone interferes with the mayors garage door opener.
I would rather have no enforcement. Maybe we should put everyone in prison because some people are murderers. Collective punishment isn't exactly something "free" countries should be engaging in.
And the war on drugs is disgusting, so you're not exactly helping your case here. You seem to have chosen 'safety' over freedom, making you an authoritarian.
perhaps you should address your complaint to the Invisible Hand of the Free Market rather than the Government.
What does the "invisible hand of the free market" have to do with anything? You can't say that the government has no hand in these events; they're just as much at fault as the companies who respond to this by infringing upon the users' freedoms. If software freedom and private property rights are something you care about, then rules that result in a net decrease of those things should be considered bad.
(Score: 3, Funny) by VortexCortex on Monday November 16 2015, @12:23PM
A better response: This is a Radio Gun, and as a weapon it's protected under the 2nd Amendment.
(Score: 1) by Chromium_One on Monday November 16 2015, @12:40PM
Yeah, HERF guns are always a fun time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herf [wikipedia.org]
When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NCommander on Monday November 16 2015, @04:08PM
Ok, I had to pull over and get my laptop out to write a proper response to this because this is so wrong on so many levels and shows a fundamental lack of understanding about wireless and radio technologies.
First, some context, I'm a licensed ham radio operator (KD2JRT if you wish to look it up on the FCC database). In the course of my life, I've worked on both ambulances, and as an interior firefighter; I'm a certified EMT in the state of New York.
Radio spectrum is a very finite resource to begin with; radio signals dy default are omnidirectional, and can be received by anything that is not insultated; its very easy with a radio set operating at higher powers to cause interference with TVs, phones, and all sorts other electronics. This is why there's a label on almost every commerically sold device that it complies with FCC Part 15 regulations on the type of RF interference a device can generate. Wifi operated in the 2.4 and 5Ghz unlicensed band; which is more or less a free for all under a specific power rating (I want to say 1W? but that seems to low). When you increase above that, anything that isn't properly shielded (which is the *vast* majority of elctronics; i.e., how a stereo set may sputter when you put a phone next to it and it rings).
Devices can not have freely tunable bands because if you were to take a wifi radio, change it to operate on the 80-160 kHz band, you've now interfered with FM radio. Doesn't sound so bad? Tune it to the correct frequencies and you can willingly block out fire, EMS, police bands (which are usually UHF or VHF), and/or cell phone etc. These hardware interlocks exist to make it MUCH more difficult to cause willful interference. Whenever you turn up the power on a router pass the normal limit, you can easy cause other RF users to loose the capability to use their radios. People have been fined for taking CB radios (which operate in the 11m band) and juicing it far beyond their legal linmits because of the QRM they cause to other services.
If radio was a freefall, whoever had the most power would win, and everyone else would loose. Regulation is required to seperate and share the spectrum for all and international organizations (ITU) work to cooridinate these efforts around the world. If you want to play with radio, get your ham radio license, then use your Part 97 privelleges to play in the areas of the spectrum set aside from us.
Still always moving
(Score: 2, Redundant) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 16 2015, @04:39PM
Ok, I had to pull over and get my laptop out to write a proper response to this because this is so wrong on so many levels and shows a fundamental lack of understanding about wireless and radio technologies.
The technical details matter little to me. What really matters to me are freedom, justice, and a government that actually follows the highest law of the land.
You seem to think that my response had anything to do with the specific details of the technology itself, which just isn't true. I don't hold the position I have because I think this will increase safety or because I think it's convenient for the government. There are far more important things than safety.
If radio was a freefall, whoever had the most power would win, and everyone else would loose.
Whether or not you think these or other regulations are a good idea has nothing to do with whether or not the government currently has the constitutional authority to actually implement them.
But I am against the idea of collective punishment (banning certain functionalities because they could be abused). The only thing I could conceivably accept, were the government to have the constitutional authority to do so, would be to find and punish the individuals responsible for the supposed abuses. Tackle it on a case-by-case basis. Again, I don't think this would be easy, but that is irrelevant to me. Oftentimes the easy way is also the wrong way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Monday November 16 2015, @05:14PM
Whether or not you think these or other regulations are a good idea has nothing to do with whether or not the government currently has the constitutional authority to actually implement them.
Of course the government has the authority to regulate radios that are sold across state lines. How could that not be interstate commerce? And, if you crank up the power of a radio so that it interferes with a business in a nearby state, that would affect interstate commerce as well.
We can have a reasonable debate about things like prohibiting individual, private, non-commercial marijuana cultivation on one's own land for personal use. That may be reasonably viewed as stretching the interstate commerce clause past its limits. Regulating radios really doesn't, though.
And, even if it did, random articles on the FCC aren't an appropriate place to be discussing your unusual judicial interpretations of the US constitution. This is off-topic. Let's stick to the matter at hand.
Turning to that, I think we'll all be okay as long as the FCC provides an exception for allowing manufacturers to not have to block off the European channels, and not have to block off power regulations within some limits. You could still require they block off tuning to FM radio stations in software. That's basically what we have now, and manufacturers tend not to lock things up unless they have to, because it costs more to do so. I don't see this "compromise" as preserving the status quo, at least as it was described in the summary. I still see a problem here.
I also see that the worst case scenario is just that we start having to buy our routers from AliExpress.com. So this isn't the end of the world, or the end of dd-wrt. Any damage will be routed around.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 16 2015, @05:28PM
Of course the government has the authority to regulate radios that are sold across state lines.
Yes, to some extent. But the FCC goes far beyond that to the point of regulating things even when they are not interstate commerce. This is what I refer to.
And, if you crank up the power of a radio so that it interferes with a business in a nearby state, that would affect interstate commerce as well.
We both know, or should both know, that the interstate commerce clause was never intended to apply to this. That action itself is not necessarily both interstate *and* commerce.
Just because some activity could conceivably be interstate commerce in some situations doesn't mean every instance of that activity is. The commerce clause only applies to situation where it actually is interstate commerce, and any regulation must not violate other parts of the constitution.
We can have a reasonable debate about things like prohibiting individual, private, non-commercial marijuana cultivation on one's own land for personal use.
I would say that it's fine even if you sell it to others. The federal government has no constitutional authority to do anything unless it is interstate commerce, which it often isn't.
This is off-topic. Let's stick to the matter at hand.
Discussing the merits and legality of a specific regulation in an article about said regulation is not off-topic.
The constitutionality of some aspects of this wasn't my only objection, either.
I also see that the worst case scenario is just that we start having to buy our routers from AliExpress.com. So this isn't the end of the world, or the end of dd-wrt. Any damage will be routed around.
I agree, but that shouldn't be necessary in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @08:30PM
I'm going to be rather blunt here, but you do realize you're being a social justice warrior who is ignoring the forest for the trees? If you divorce the context of an action and just blindly apply the Constitution, you'll end up with results far from what you desire. Lack of radio legislation was part of what caused the Titanic disaster. The FCC is stepping in now because radio interference from these out-of-spec wifi routers is causing real world problems.
First off, "commutative technologies" has been ruled as commerce by the Supreme Court in 1914 in Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States. Other such suites have upheld that standing over the years, but radio by definition is a communicative technology, and by both the judgement of the supreme court, and the commence clause, within the justification for the federal government to regulate. The FCC was created as part of the Communication Act of 1934, and born from the original Federal Radio Commission which predated it.
Secondly, part of the reason the Titanic disaster was such a horrid losing at s of life is that its radio distress messages were not received. The SS Californian was relatively close to the Titantic while it was sinking, but its radio was unmanned and thus didn't hear the distress call. Because of this, Congress passed the Communication Act of 1914, which created the Federal Radio Commission, which regulated both land-based broadcast stations, and sea-based mobile transmitters, the training radio operators (both commercial and amauter (aka ham), and other similar prospects. As part of this work, they also have to make sure that a radio works within the frequency bands its designed to, and does not cause interference. If a radio, when used, blasted static across the wireless spectrum effecting other users, its a danger to anyone who depends on radios for communication. Like police, fire, and EMS services as I said above. In disasters such as Katrina, ham radio operators create nets to help coordinate rescue efforts (Google both RACES and ARES for more information).
In your world where it is trivial to modify a radio to operate out of license, that's a disaster waiting to happen. Imagine that you have a modified router that's broadcast 100W, and eating a good chunk of the 2.4Ghz band, and bleeding from 2.0 to 2.8 Ghz (not unreasonable when you're using that much power with a rig not designed for it). That means that entire section of the spectrum would be unusable to anyone but your router since it can overpower just about any portable or handheld rig. Now let's throw in a disaster. You're router is in one of the pockets that still has power, and is still operational. Rescuers, ham radio coordinators (who may be out of the area) now have to work around you blasting you're overpowered wifi rig. We may or may not be able to do depending on our equipment, and many other factors.
I can't stop an idiot from creating willful interference, but I can stop John Doe from tuning a parameter on their router that "makes it work better" at the cost of affecting everyone else. If every radio was easy to change its power settings, radio itself would be victim of anyone turning that power dial too high. If want to use wifi at higher power, fine, get a license, build the equipment that meets the requirements (no encryption, broadcasts it ID regularly, etc), and do it. That's perfectly legal to do if you're licensed, or have a frequency grant from the FCC with certified equipment. Wifi routers are not certified for use except at low power in 2.4Ghz.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Monday November 16 2015, @08:30PM
Accidentally failed to log in, previous post is mine -^
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 16 2015, @09:03PM
I'm going to be rather blunt here, but you do realize you're being a social justice warrior who is ignoring the forest for the trees?
I'm not ignoring anything except things that are irrelevant to me. You simply do not share my values and desire for freedom. So while the safety aspect may be important for you, it isn't as important for me.
Since the US is supposedly "the land of the free and the home of the brave", it seems like more people should agree with this.
If you divorce the context of an action and just blindly apply the Constitution
Desiring that the government follow the highest law of the land is not a bad thing. This is correctly applying the constitution. But it seems some would rather ignore the constitution when it is convenient.
And as someone else pointed out, the federal government seemingly has some wiggle room for regulations thanks to the commerce clause in certain situations (actual interstate commerce), but that doesn't always apply. The FCC often goes beyond this.
you'll end up with results far from what you desire.
But what I desire are things like freedom and justice, so no.
First off, "commutative technologies" has been ruled as commerce by the Supreme Court in 1914 in Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States.
Well then, the Supreme Court is (and was) simply insane, because it's not necessarily interstate commerce. You'll find that merely appealing to the courts won't get you very far. This reminds me of how the courts have justified the drug war by using utterly preposterous logic so they can simply apply the commerce clause to drugs so the government can regulate them in almost any situation. But the courts are incorrect there, too. They often do whatever is most convenient for the government, to the detriment of our constitutional form of government.
As for the Titanic and other safety issues: I don't care about them, so you're wasting your time with that.
(Score: 1) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday November 18 2015, @04:41PM
The technical details matter little to me.
Thank you, sincerely, for stating that fact so clearly. I don't agree with ignoring absolutely every single technical detail and merit of a problem in favor of a solution based entirely on politics but I honestly do appreciate the fact that you will clearly point out that you are doing that here.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday November 16 2015, @12:45PM
(ummmm... either iPhone users are non-persons or they are "previous persons" rather than next ones)
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford