Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday September 03 2015, @03:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the from-my-cold-dead-hands dept.

Hackaday sounds the alarm and along with ThinkPenguin, the EFF, FSF, Software Freedom Law Center, Software Freedom Conservancy, OpenWRT, LibreCMC, Qualcomm, and others have created the SaveWiFi campaign (archive.is capture, real link is at this overloaded server) , providing instructions on how to submit a formal complaint to the FCC regarding this proposed rule. The comment period is closing on September 8, 2015.

From Hackaday:

Under the rule proposed by the FCC, devices with radios may be required to prevent modifications to firmware. All devices operating in the 5GHz WiFi spectrum will be forced to implement security features to ensure the radios cannot be modified. While prohibiting the modification of transmitters has been a mainstay of FCC regulation for 80 years, the law of unintended consequences will inevitably show up in full force: because of the incredible integration of electronic devices, this proposed regulation may apply to everything from WiFi routers to cell phones. The proposed regulation would specifically ban router firmwares such as DD-WRT, and may go so far as to include custom firmware on your Android smartphone.

A lot is on the line. The freedom to modify devices you own is a concern, but the proposed rules prohibiting new device firmware would do much more damage. The economic impact would be dire, the security implications would be extreme, and emergency preparedness would be greatly hindered by the proposed restrictions on router firmware. The FCC is taking complaints and suggestions until September 8th.

Leave a comment for the FCC via this link to the Federal Register


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday September 03 2015, @03:32PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 03 2015, @03:32PM (#231796) Journal

    But it's still shitty for those of us who don't want to abuse the spectrum.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Thursday September 03 2015, @04:18PM

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday September 03 2015, @04:18PM (#231830) Journal

    That's the problem with the new trend toward software defined radios.

    The FCC is mandated to regulate spectrum usage, both in wifi devices and cell phones.

    But because hardware developers are so figgin lazy and cheap they increasingly will not separate radio management from packet handling. So the programmer can control frequencies, transmitter power, transmitter mode, etc, of a licensed device.

    Most people just want to fix the bugs in the manufacturer's software, or add new software protocols or security. But there are those that realize they can get a stronger signal by just boosting the power a little bit. Surely the FCC will never find out.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @04:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @04:34PM (#231841)

      I own the hardware. Any 'restrictions' will prove useless and will be removed, even if I don't necessarily take advantage of the added functionality.

      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 03 2015, @04:36PM

        by Francis (5544) on Thursday September 03 2015, @04:36PM (#231843)

        Which is fine unless somebody complains and you wind up with a massive fine. Even with devices that are operating within the FCC's regulations are a problem due to congestion. There's probably a dozen or more WAP within range here and I shudder to think how bad it is for people who live in apartments or condos.

        I don't object to them restricting modifications, but they should draft the rule so that firmware that doesn't change the wireless component is OK.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:48PM (#231960)

          I do object to them restricting modifications. It's my property. If I don't control it, it cannot be trusted.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday September 03 2015, @11:22PM

            by Francis (5544) on Thursday September 03 2015, @11:22PM (#232030)

            But, you don't own the spectrum and for that you require a certified piece of equipment.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @11:25AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @11:25AM (#232196)

              for that you require a certified piece of equipment

              screw the feds' certification! Also, fed hunting drones require custom firmware!

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @04:41PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @04:41PM (#232328)

              I own the property, so it's mine. They can't force restrictions on my private property merely because it could potentially be abused. Fuck you.

              No one owns the spectrum. Where in the US constitution does it say the government has the power to take control of the spectrum? Nowhere. Therefore, the federal government simply has no such power.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday September 04 2015, @06:24PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday September 04 2015, @06:24PM (#232367) Journal

        You own the hardware, but you don't own the frequency space it emits into.

        It's like owning the gun, but not owning the target you fire it at. You cannot shoot at anything you like just because you own the gun. Similarly, you cannot emit any radio waves you like just because you own the emitter.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @07:34PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @07:34PM (#232394)

          See this [soylentnews.org] post. Where in the constitution does it specifically give the federal government the power to regulate the airwaves? That would require a constitutional amendment. No, despite some nonsensical interpretations of the constitution, the commerce clause does not (and was not meant to) apply to everything in existence. You would need to prove that these radio waves are necessarily always interstate and related to commerce. Otherwise, the federal can only regulate what is actual interstate commerce. State governments might be able to do something, depending on their laws and constitutions.

          The same nonsensical reasoning was used to justify the federal drug war. Drugs sometimes cross state borders. Therefore, they always will. Therefore, the federal government can regulate them no matter whether they do or not. This is simply not how the commerce clause is supposed to work.

          But really, the fundamental point here is that banning something merely because it could be abused is almost always inherently unethical and unjust.

    • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday September 03 2015, @06:43PM

      by opinionated_science (4031) on Thursday September 03 2015, @06:43PM (#231893)

      I wish I could mod-up more. This is spot on.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @04:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @04:30PM (#231839)

    It's shitty for those who care the slightest about software freedom or freedom in general. Instead of punishing abuses when they happen, they've chosen to ban something entirely merely because abuses could happen. Basically, what you said.

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday September 03 2015, @09:33PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday September 03 2015, @09:33PM (#231980) Homepage

      CTRL+F NSA

      It would ensure that somebody always had the master key to your router, and is another NSA end-run around that annoying privacy and warrant thing.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Thursday September 03 2015, @04:47PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday September 03 2015, @04:47PM (#231848)

    That's the thing. This is like banning cars that can exceed the speed limit rather than ticketing people who speed. it's lazy government over-reach.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:12AM

      by frojack (1554) on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:12AM (#232496) Journal

      Actually its mostly a misunderstanding, according to a new story at ArsTechnica [arstechnica.com].

      The FCC is now claiming the never intended to prevent third party or open source software, but only intended to block the access to the radio frequencies and power.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.