Slashdot Mirror
University Bans Wireless Access Points
Slayk writes "The University of Texas at Dallas has adopted a policy of disallowing the use of 802.11b/g access points outside of those used for the campus-wide wireless network. While they have an understandable concern with ensuring the accessability of the school network, the rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC. Students have until the 15th of September to comply with the policy, disable their wireless equipment, and string cat5 over the floor, or be subject to 'disciplinary action.'"
Looks like it's not a bad time to consider putting up some of this: Anti Wi-Fi Wallpaper
mattdev@server$ touch
cannot touch `/dev/genitals': Permission denied
I guess this will be the great return of 802.11a since it runs on the 5ghz spectrum.
My school, Plymouth State in Plymouth, NH has a similar policy (sorry, couldn't find a link). No non-campus owned access points. Main reason being security control. The excuse they give to students? Using an access point might knock someone else in the building off the network.
But... do they enforce it? Not so far.
As we know, the signal is not confined to a single room unless you've got some of that silver wallpaper that was mentioned a while back.
Otherwise it's quite feasible to get a signal through two or three walls or a floor.
A large percentage of people still do not bother to / are able to configure WEP/WPA security on their access points. These people would be opening up the university network to unauthorized access, making their own internal server infrastructure (including valuable data like research material) for anyone close enough to an access point to see.
Yes, it's a rather draconian measure, but what other choice is there? They can't insist on setting up all student access points themselves (and then changing the password) can they?
What's to prevent students from creating ad-hoc networks?
There is no reason why anyone should be allowed to connect a WAP to a network that doesn't belong to them.
This is a similar concept to banning modems.
If the Uni wanted their network to have public access then they would provide public access on their terms not through students plugging in WAPs and inadvertantly letting every joe in reception range surf anonymously through the Unis network.
It's pretty standard network design to only allow WAPs to exist in the dmz. Not a good idea to have them on the trusted network at all.
"goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?" - AC
go and grab a copy of this
and get you and a few friends to wander around campus with laptops running it.
it will completely hose the wifi police trying to find accesspoints cince the program broadcast's thousands of fake AP's.
great fun...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Doesn't matter, federal law trumps all state and local regulations. The university is very likely (though IANAL) to loose any case that is brought against them in regards to this issue. The courts are very likely to say that the code of conduct cannot be used to ban unregulated wireless because only the federal government has that right.
On their property yes. But if I were a tenant there, and it wasnt explicitly prohibited in my leasing agreement, how can this be enforced? Can they tell me not to listen to the radio while in my room (dorm)? No. Can they tell me not to use my cell phone in my room? No. Why should they tell me that I cannot make use of other areas of the spectrum?
No. They are specifically banning access points connected to outside providers, on the grounds of interference with the campus WiFi network.
This might be an interesting test case of FCC policy.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
You should really preface your post with IANAL because you obviously didn't consult with your lawyers before posting.
College students do not hold leases on their dorms and even if they did it is quite obvious that this is now included.
The college is not regulating the spectrum in anyway. They are not saying you can use 2.4Ghz phones. They are not saying that you can't use the airwaves in anyway. They are banning a specific piece of equipment. As somebody else pointed out it is just like banning hot plates and microwaves. They aren't telling you that you can't eat in the dorm.
So, if I take my wi-fi enabled laptop to the control room of a nuclear plant, and the signal causes a plant trip to due super-sensitive electronics used to measure signals in pico-amps, the plant has no right to prevent the same thing from happening again?
Note that this is not an absurd situation. We have banned cell phones from the control room, and I've personally observed a handheld walkie talkie cause a trip.
But it is hypothetical as I'm in Canada and the same laws don't apply.
Actually, they are suggesting that the students use 802.11a for their private wireless if they don't want to string up CAT-5 wiring. But my real question is, if the University is already providing wireless internet access, why on earth are the students paying for private access via either cable or DSL? Too much money to burn?
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
IANAL, and I'm not sure about the specifics with regards to WAPs. However, the fact that the students entered into a legal contract doesn't necessarily make it binding with regards to networking devices. To take an only partially related idea - most people in the area where I live (Northern Virginia) are under Home Owner Association contracts or Apartment contracts that prohibit satellite dishes. The US government ruled those unenforceable in most cases as of a few years back. Hence, a lot of us who get sick of Comcast/Media General/Adelphia have satellite dishes instead, and there's nothing that the landlords can do about it.
Does this apply here? Probably not, at least not right now. The Satellite Dish rules were a very specific case. But, just assuming that the contract is enough to make them lose is going too far.
Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
The university is NOT banning the use of the RF spectrum, the university is banning the use of Wireless APs. Just as banning hotplates does not ban having heat in your apartment, banning Wireless APs does not ban the use of the 2.4 range.
I mean, what's the point of living...if you don't have a dick?
Just because something is in a contract does not mean it is enforcable. If you sign a lease contract for an apartment that states you are not allowed to install a DirectTV dish, it is unenforcable. It is not possible for a landlord to prevent you from installing a DirectTV dish via a rental contract.
The question here is whether the FCC 'exclusive enforcability' that trumped the airports ability to restrict airline tenants' usage of wireless networks applies to the particular situation of students and dorms.
If they are, then hell -- get two wireless NIC cards and put one in AP mode. Semantics all your own.
Or use as many wireless NICs are you want and set them up in Ad-Hoc mode. Since it's essentially Peer To Peer, there is no AP and the University can go pound salt.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I absolutely agree with the university's decision. There's already a wireless network in place, and since it is overseen by the IT staff, I think it's safe to assume that somebody there has the responsibility of making the network secure and functional for all the students, staff, and faculty to use. Use that, for everybody's sake. Be neighborly.
) One guideline is that "infrastructure modifications are to be performed only by authorized departments." Adding a wireless node counts as infrastructure. I assume that a student doesn't count as an authorized department. You lose. Sorry.
Setting up a wireless node implies that the node connects to the external network. That means it uses university bandwidth, and that means it falls under the university's computer use guidelines (here: http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/tcs/general/policy.htm
If the node isn't on the LAN, perhaps that's a different story. But I'd hate to have to discover and figure out which ones were live and which ones were contained. It's a drain on resources, and a pain in the ass.
If you're doing something that requires you to have your own network, go get an account with a service provider or use the facilities provided by the school. Going that far out of your way would seem to indicate that a rogue wireless node probably is not the right solution anyway.
There seems to be a common misconception that since 2.4GHz bands are unregulated, the FCC is the only entity that can restrict the usage of 2.4GHz devices. This, of course, is false.
If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into a police station with the purpose of intentionally interfering with the department's administrative computers, you might get arrested for obstruction of justice.
If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into your office with the purpose of disabling a corporate network, you might get reprimanded, fired, or sued.
If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into a competitor's office with the intent of manipulating the company's stock price by disabling their computer network, you might be charged with securities fraud.
If you sign an agreement with a college stating that your enrollment is contingent upon agreeing with campus policies designed to protect the college's network, then you can't use a wireless jamming device without repercussions. This is regardless of whether the "wireless jamming device" is a "wireless access point" that merely has the potential to jam.
Of course, intention will play a role in any of the above scenarios. But the important thing here, people, is that you're not allowed to walk around wherever you want saying, "Who are you, you're not the FCC!"
The FCC only handles circumstances in which two independent entities are in conflict over the usage of such airwaves when no federal or state law exists to regulate the legal behavior between two independent entities with respect to those airways.
A college and an enrolled student are not considered "independent entities", as there exists an expectation to abide by the rules defined in the relationship between the college and the student. NOTE: this goes both ways - the student can sue the college if the college acts in ways that are contradictory to the expectations of the relationship. The college can't fail a student without reason and then say "Who are you, you're not the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, you can't regulate how I pass or fail you!"
Okay, how about a different example:
My employer keeps confidential data on its network and has prohibited the use of unauthorized WAPs due to the sensitive nature of the data.
Does the FCC's rules trump those of my employer's? Should I be allowed to set up an access point without fear of losing my job to insubordination?
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
I appear to have a blog. Odd.
I think nobody got what I was trying to say.
"So laptops with integrated wifi and hostap software are OK then?"
hostap is a Linux module that allows some kinds of 802.11b cards to act as access points.
If the University seeks to eliminate all access points, they need to take this into account. How will they use a ban on devices to also ban machines using hostap? The physical hardware is capable of being either a client (perfectly legal) or an access point.
To put it another way:
Situation 1: University tells a student they can't use their D-Link DWL-800AP on campus. Fair enough. Hot plate.
Situation 2: University tells a student they can't use their old 586-class PC running Linux with an 802.11b adapter, because it's being used as an access point and has no other function. They can't prohibit this like a device (hot plate analogy) unless they also prohibit devices in situation 3.
Situation 3: University tells a student they can't use their old 586-class PC running Linux with an 802.11b adapter, because it COULD THEORETICALLY be used as an access point. They have just crossed the line.
Situation 4: University tells a student they can't use their wifi-enabled laptop, because it could theoretically be used as an access point. Reduction to absurdity achieved.
Situation 5: University tells a student they can't use some unidentifiable computing hardware, because it may or may not really be an access point that's been removed from its case, for 'stealth'.
I submit that there is a bright line between situations 2 and 3 the University isn't going to be able to describe in law or policy, by disallowing devices like they disallow a hot plate. They would make their own wireless network useless by banning all devices capable of acting as clients.
Obviously they're not going to do that. Equally-obviously, no student is going to waste precious resources by dedicating a laptop to stealth-access-point duty. Someone may have an old 586 laying around though.
Then how is the University going to disallow that? They can probably find a way, but we should discuss what theory they might use, other than this "banning hot plates" analogy.
--Michael Spencer
If the University is already providing wireless internet access, why on earth are the students paying for private access via either cable or DSL? Too much money to burn?
Perhaps the students want to use their computers for gaming, pr0n, running servers, p2p sharing, or other activities that universities tend to frown upon people using their academic networks for. This university in particular sounds a bit capricious in their policies, and it's not hard to see why students would want Internet access that was not subject to the university's whims.
I did RTFA.
The debate here seems to be that people can't be prohibited from using the spectrum for wireless use because of a misinterpretation of an FCC regulation. The logic seems to be that I should be allowed to set wireless access anywhere I want, regardless of other rules set forth by the property owner.
Suppose my employer has their own wireless network installed for employees to use, and for some reason, I choose to set up my own little mini-network that is detached from the company network. That network is causing interference and preventing people from accessing the company's network. Can the company tell me to shut mine off? According to some of the people here, the answer is no.
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
look you jackass, i may have a rule that says you're not coming into my house with a gun. yeah, im taking your fucking rights away and you cant do anything about it. got a problem with it? too bad, you're still not coming into my house. too bad you're too thick to understand
In the fairly unlikely event that you're subject to a home invasion (i.e. armed robbers forcibly entering your home) what are you going to do? Say "Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop' again?" An armed individual who doesn't respect your rights is GOING to enter your home with that gun. Period.
On a more serious note, with civilized people it is of course a different story. I normally carry a handgun, and I do have friends that ask that I not bring weapons into their homes. I respect their wishes, and leave it locked in the trunk when asked--though for the most part I prefer a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The university may not be able to ban wireless devices outright -- however, they're probably well within their rights to say what can and cannot be connected on their network.
Tweet, tweet.
I've read the article, and finally the FCC ruling (which was slashdotted for while). And, I would agree with you except for one problem: UTD appears to be enforcing this policy under their student/university agreement (i.e. code of conduct), rather than any landlord/tenant agreement.
Since the basis for the original act (and clarifying ruling) was the landlord/tenant relationship, I'm not sure that it's a slam-dunk against UTD. Stir in a little ambiguity because UTD isn't absolutely prohibiting WiFi (just excluding all B/G and some A channels), and I'm not sure how it will turn out.
I am afraid to inform you that your level of understanding of contracts and law is abysmal. Yes, thats right, you don't know jack shit about what you believe you do.
Have you ever even rented an apartment?
landlords (like the university) routinely restrict all kinds of legal behavior.
I have seen leases that prohibit the possession of a firearm or prohibit smoking.
There is absolutely no way any court in the country would find anything wrong with this regulation. If the tenant doesn't like it, they can simply find someplace else to live. its that simple.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
This is a bit inaccurate. There are restrictions that the landlord can put on you, and in some cases you can't have the dish at all. If you have to modify the structure in any way, i.e. drilling through a wall, or you have to place the dish in a public area, the landlord can deny your request. That is what the FCC says.
This is besides the point. The students shouldn't just lie down and take it when the University is trying to regulate a spectrum it has no rights to. I'm a Waterview resident, and I've already paid tuition, $50/mo for Comcast internet, for my wireless access card, and for my 802.11b access point, and I absolutely REFUSE to shell out more because it's easier.
They can't tell you that you can't use 2.4Ghz cordless phones either. That's not their right since they don't own that particular spectrum. Do you realize a licensed HAM takes precedence over all unlicensed users in the unregulated spectrums? A licensed HAM can legally interfere with the 2.4Ghz range, disrupting everyone else if they choose. If an unlicensed operator's device interferes with a HAM device (whether or not the HAM's device was built to the specs that deal with interference or not) the unlicensed operator is required by law to shut their device down. Did you know that? Doesn't matter whot he unlicensed operator, beit ma and pa farmer or bloated ego university. I was with a group of HAMs once that were talking about that. They pulled out the FCC reg that gave them that right too. Interesting as hell. I wish I had the time to be a HAM.
Many universities also regulate off campus behavior.. like freshmen cannot have cars or fraternity membership is not allowed.
love is just extroverted narcissism
The first six channels for WiFi are in a amature radio band. If a user operates their "radio" in complience with part 47 of the FCC rules the university will have even less ability to rule over it's use.
If a student connects to the university from say AOL how is this different from a student connects to the university through the Amature Radio net (HM) (44.0.0.0). Even if the HM is one side of a Linux box and the university is another?
The FCC provides me a privelage to use amature radio devices as a part of federal law. Unless the university wants to icolate itself from the enitre internet they can not punish a student for their method of access unless a direct aggrement (contract) has been created between the student and university about this matter.
There are 10 type of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Here we go kids...the answers you're looking for:
/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf
1) The apartments are operated by First Worthing, and are on the UTD campus. Only students may reside in the apartments, but UTD does not own nor operate them.
2) Nothing in lease regarding personal WAP's. In fact, this "policy" is less than a week old.
3) FCC has very clear rules regarding this, and says it specifically apples to Multi-Tennant Environments, which it says, specifically include Universities, and also applies to Landlords. It is very clear that the FCC alone has the authority to make the calls when it comes to radio interference, including wifi's. (Which it again, specifically names.) read it here:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch
So, the verdict? UTD is overstepping its legal bounds.
May I also suggest visiting the site the students there have to rant about their apartment complex: http://www.waterviewsux.com/
Piece and Brownies