Anonymizing Wi-Fi Device Project Unexpectedly Halted

An anonymous reader notes that a project to develop an anonymizing Wi-Fi device has been canceled under mysterious circumstances. The device, called Proxyham, was unveiled a couple weeks ago by Rhino Security Labs. They said it would use low-frequency radio channels to connect a computer to public Wi-Fi hotspots up to 2.5 miles away, thus obscuring a user's actual location. But a few days ago the company announced it would be halting development and canceling a talk about it at Def Con, which would have been followed with a release of schematics and source code. They apologized, but appear to be unable to say anything further.

"In fact, all [the speaker] can say is that the talk is canceled, the ProxyHam source code and documentation will never be made public, and the ProxyHam units developed for Las Vegas have been destroyed. The banner at the top of the Rhino Security website promoting ProxyHam has gone away too. It's almost as if someone were trying to pretend the tool never existed." The CSO article speculates that a government agency killed the project and issued a gag order about it. A post at Hackaday calls this idea absurd and discusses the hardware needed to build a Proxyham. They say using it would be "a violation of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, and using encryption over radio violates FCC regulations. That’s illegal, it will get you a few federal charges — but so will blowing up a mailbox with some firecrackers." They add, "What you’re seeing is just the annual network security circus and it’s nothing but a show."

Comments

Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[hawguy]

It is a violation of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, and using encryption over radio violates FCC regulations.

I think they mean that encryption on licensed Ham bands is illegal, since encryption over radio is perfectly legal (otherwise both Bluetooth and Wifi would be illegal).

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[everett]

I haven't looked in to it, but the statement "They said it would use low-frequency radio channels to connect a computer to public Wi-Fi hotspots up to 2.5 miles away, thus obscuring a user's actual location." makes me believe it would be using the portion of the amateur radio spectrum that borders the wifi range (as is used by HSMM) and thus encryption is not allowed.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[willoughby]

I tuned in to say the same thing. Police departments all over the US use encrypted radios every day. I bought a used Motorola Sabre II on Ebay for use on the Ham bands & it still had the encryption chip installed. I removed it because even if you're not using it it's a heck of a drain on the battery.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Chris Mattern]

Which is presumably why they called it "Proxyham".

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[nyet]

The more onerous and stupid the law, the more likely law enforcement gets exemptions from them.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Forever Wondering]

As a former ham: RTTY used to be [5 bit] Baudot. Using ASCII was considered encryption [and illegal]. Eventually, things changed and ASCII was allowed.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[TWX]

Business band can also encrypt. "Public" bands being used by licenses specifically for public use are not allowed to encrypt specifically because they're public. If you want to be private, you can apply for a license and communicate privately all that you want.

The entire point of ham radio (and CB for that matter) is to facilitate learning and open communication. If it's encrypted then it's not facilitating open communication.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[sjames]

Actually, the 900MHz cards use an ISM band, just like a/b/g/n do.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between encoding and encrypting, and it's not purely semantic.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Forever Wondering]

If it were operating on a ham band, the user would need a ham license with the right classification (e.g. the higher the classification [the more difficult the test], the more frequencies you're allowed to use). Ham radio operators would object to their relatively small bands being encroached on.

More likely, the frequency was some "open" frequency, not assigned to anything or specified as needing no license [like WiFi or baby monitors, wireless [non-cell] phones, etc.]. [Overly] large swatches of radio spectrum are designated for military purposes.

It can't be encryption alone. Since WiFi hookups use encryption (e.g. ssh/ssl/tls), that isn't the likely objection. Perhaps, this was a knee jerk reaction at some gov't org (e.g. maybe James Comey made the phone call personally :-) that threatened dire consequences that have no [ultimate] legal basis. However, a protracted legal battle would be in the offing. Not something a mere mortal might be willing to opt for.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Obfuscant]

I haven't looked in to it, but the statement "They said it would use low-frequency radio channels to connect a computer to public Wi-Fi hotspots up to 2.5 miles away, thus obscuring a user's actual location." makes me believe it would be using the portion of the amateur radio spectrum that borders the wifi range (as is used by HSMM) and thus encryption is not allowed.

You're right, you haven't looked into it.

If you click on the link in TFA, you'll wind up looking at a Ubiquity M900 bridge product, which while it uses the 900 MHz band, is NOT an amateur radio device. Amateur radio has nothing to do with the discussion, therefore. And the amateur radio prohibition on encryption to hide content is irrelevant.*

Nine hundred megahertz is also not "low-frequency". It is in the ULTRA HIGH frequency (UHF) portion of the spectrum. It is lower than the normal 2.4GHz of WiFi, but low it is not.

It seems pretty clear that this entire fiasco is intended to draw attention to the author or his company. There is nothing illegal about using a license-free wireless bridging device to extend a network connection. There is nothing illegal about connecting to a public WiFi access point using a device within the normal coverage area of that AP, and that's where the connection is being made, no matter how far away the user happens to be. Imagine someone putting a laptop with a wired connection in range of the public WiFi point and accessing that laptop from Lithuania, e.g., to use the WiFi. Would anyone think that was illegal? Or try this one: I have a computer at home with a wireless connection to the public WiFi in the library next door. I put a modem on the system and dial in from a remote location. Am I breaking the law if I do anything remotely over the wireless connection? Of course not.

There's nothing to see here, it's a waste of time. "ProxyHam" is using COTS gear to do what it was designed to do.

* the "prohibition on encryption" is not as absolute as some try to claim. The prohibition is on hiding content because the amateur rules have restrictions on what content is legal, and the amateur radio service is mostly self-policing. Other hams have to be able to see your content to know if you're breaking the rules and should be reported. As everett mentions, there is something that used to be called "HSMM" (high speed multimedia), now referred to as "meshnet" or something like that. Users of that system, because it coincides with the license-free 2.4GHz WiFi band, regularly use WEP or WPA as an access control method. Because it is for "access control" and not "hiding the content", the FCC has not acted to shut such systems down.

The escape clause, so to speak, for that system is that it uses one of a few standard "passwords" that are published on various websites so, in theory, the wireless traffic can be monitored by others but the general public will be kept out.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[bobbied]

I tuned in to say the same thing. Police departments all over the US use encrypted radios every day. I bought a used Motorola Sabre II on Ebay for use on the Ham bands & it still had the encryption chip installed. I removed it because even if you're not using it it's a heck of a drain on the battery.

Police departments use LICENSED services which are allowed to encrypt per the terms of their licenses. Hams are allowed encryption too, but under the terms of the band plan and licenses and NEVER to obscure the meaning of the transmission.

I'm told that for Ham Radio users of the WiFi spectrum (I believe in the USA you can use the lower channels of the WiFi in 802.1G mode with a tech class license), encryption is allowed as long as the encryption key is maintained in your logs, or is publicly available for other hams to use.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[gstoddart]

It can't be encryption alone

Of course it wasn't.

Do you really think a bunch of guys in dark suits didn't show up and basically threaten them with jail time?

As paranoid as is sounds, these days I think it is entirely plausible that a national security letter or somesuch was used to say "if you tell anybody about this, we will put you in a deep dark hole ... whether it's for the rest of your life or marking the end of it is your choice".

This technology will never see the light of day, unless it's used by some three letter agency full of fascists.

Welcome to modern reality. Where all that crazy shit from the 80s is now true.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Obfuscant]

Do you really think a bunch of guys in dark suits didn't show up and basically threaten them with jail time?

Yes.

As paranoid as is sounds, these days I think it is entirely plausible that a national security letter or somesuch was used to say "if you tell anybody about this, we will put you in a deep dark hole ...

It is using a commercially available product for the purpose it was designed. If it was that illegal to do, the FCC would have confiscated all of Ubiquity's product and levied a fine for violation of the FCC regulations.

This technology will never see the light of day,

You can buy them from more than 200 distributors worldwide. The genie is out of the bottle, the horse has left the barn. It's not the full system, but anyone with any technical proficiency in networking can put it together in their sleep almost.

I have a system with a pair of COTS 5GHz bridge wireless boxes that does exactly the same thing this system is supposed to do. I fear no dark suits telling me to stop.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[mysidia]

Encryption IS allowed on the Ham bands, within certain narrow constraints.
You can use encryption to protect traffic used to control a system. You can use digital codes that leave the meaning of the message intact.
Encryption with intent to obscure the meaning of the message is not allowed on the Ham bands. However, that does not mean the technology is not allowed to be built and communicated.

For the purpose of demonstrating the technology, the demonstrators can get around the encryption rule by publishing the actual message and making the content a matter of public record, Then the purpose of performing the encryption is To make a personal demonstration of the technology to enthusiasts, and it cannot possibly be intended to obscure the meaning of the message, since the actual message content is being published openly and widely for all to see, and you can be clear on the decrypted message not being used for a pecuniary purpose ------ this is assuming that the presenter does not receive payment in exchange for demonstrating their work.

The technology could be developed and experimented with for demonstration purposes, AND then if you want to use it, you could go purchase a license for some frequency ranges to use with the technology.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[jbmartin6]

How does using 900Mhz enter into it? Would a yagi not have the range to work going direct to a 802.11 a,b,g,n access point? Or would it just have to exceed the power limits to get across 2.5 miles on those frequencies?

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[UnknownSoldier]

One is known, the other unknown. Regardless, the point is, is the _transmission_ legal or not (over a spectrum.) HOW the message is sent, where one is illegal and the other is not is complete bullshit.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[blueg3]

As paranoid as is sounds, these days I think it is entirely plausible that a national security letter or somesuch was used to say "if you tell anybody about this, we will put you in a deep dark hole ... whether it's for the rest of your life or marking the end of it is your choice".

NSLs are not magic. They are not for making arbitrary legal requests. Even the EFF will tell you that--as well as telling you that NSLs cannot possibly have anything to do with ProxyHam.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Forever Wondering]

Of course I thought the dark suits showed up. I said as much here: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

2.4GHz is fine if you have true line of sight, unobstructed. But tree leaves, for example, completely @#$% 2.4GHz signals.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

This builds a good case that (a) no NSL or gag order was given, (b) the hardware used is commodity, and therefore the actual build is a matter of tinkering, not invention, and (c) the build is legal* with regard to radio frequency encryption and the computer fraud and abuse act

*Read the article for more nuance.

Re: Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the fucking point. Anything can be made. What is not allowed is any control by the public of such technology wholesale. God forbid cellphones with encryption as a std be allowed either.
Obama needs to be hung dead as an example of his tyranny.

Re: Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious that you think a change in President will affect the actions of your NSA\FBI\CIA agencies in this matter.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't looked in to it, but the statement "They said it would use low-frequency radio channels to connect a computer to public Wi-Fi hotspots up to 2.5 miles away, thus obscuring a user's actual location." makes me believe it would be using the portion of the amateur radio spectrum that borders the wifi range (as is used by HSMM) and thus encryption is not allowed.

You're right, you haven't looked into it.

If you click on the link in TFA, you'll wind up looking at a Ubiquity M900 bridge product, which while it uses the 900 MHz band, is NOT an amateur radio device. Amateur radio has nothing to do with the discussion, therefore. And the amateur radio prohibition on encryption to hide content is irrelevant.*

Nine hundred megahertz is also not "low-frequency". It is in the ULTRA HIGH frequency (UHF) portion of the spectrum. It is lower than the normal 2.4GHz of WiFi, but low it is not.

It seems pretty clear that this entire fiasco is intended to draw attention to the author or his company. There is nothing illegal about using a license-free wireless bridging device to extend a network connection. There is nothing illegal about connecting to a public WiFi access point using a device within the normal coverage area of that AP, and that's where the connection is being made, no matter how far away the user happens to be. Imagine someone putting a laptop with a wired connection in range of the public WiFi point and accessing that laptop from Lithuania, e.g., to use the WiFi. Would anyone think that was illegal? Or try this one: I have a computer at home with a wireless connection to the public WiFi in the library next door. I put a modem on the system and dial in from a remote location. Am I breaking the law if I do anything remotely over the wireless connection? Of course not.

There's nothing to see here, it's a waste of time. "ProxyHam" is using COTS gear to do what it was designed to do.

* the "prohibition on encryption" is not as absolute as some try to claim. The prohibition is on hiding content because the amateur rules have restrictions on what content is legal, and the amateur radio service is mostly self-policing. Other hams have to be able to see your content to know if you're breaking the rules and should be reported. As everett mentions, there is something that used to be called "HSMM" (high speed multimedia), now referred to as "meshnet" or something like that. Users of that system, because it coincides with the license-free 2.4GHz WiFi band, regularly use WEP or WPA as an access control method. Because it is for "access control" and not "hiding the content", the FCC has not acted to shut such systems down.

The escape clause, so to speak, for that system is that it uses one of a few standard "passwords" that are published on various websites so, in theory, the wireless traffic can be monitored by others but the general public will be kept out.

Excellent post, 100% agree with the statements

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Andy Dodd]

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act assertion is absurd. I can not see in any way that this could result in a violation of that. (It could be used as a tool as part of OTHER activities that are violations, but its use in and of itself would not be a violation.)

However, the "ham" part of the name indicated that it was probably using an amateur radio (ham) service. This service requires operators to be licensed, and has its own rules very different from that of the ISM bands.

In many cases, ham bands and ISM bands overlap. The ham bands sometimes extend outside of the frequency range of the ISM bands, and also licensed ham operation is subject to different rules than ISM devices. Key differences:
1) Licensed amateur radio operators can use MUCH higher power levels than ISM devices. They can legally interfere with ISM devices (although doing this is frowned upon by most hams) - In most of the ISM bands, the military is the primary user, amateur radio is secondary (In some areas, military radars operate in the ham/ISM bands. IIRC there was an interesting situation a few years ago where no one could use certain brands of garage door openers near a military base because the big radar was interfering.), ISM devices are tertiary. Lower-class users must accept interference from higher-class users and can't interfere with them. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/proj...
2) Operating under Part 97 (ham) rules instead of Part 15 (ISM) rules means that you can't use encryption for the purposes of obfuscating data

I suspect that something about this device made it require operation under Part 97 rules to function, but encryption is a no-no under such rules. Also, it seems like they intended to sell this/encourage its use by unlicensed operators despite the device being a Part 97 device.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that this product should be legal, and that pulling it is probably a stunt (or they got in over their heads), but most of your examples would be illegal in the US (illegal but not regularly-enforced). Both of your cases could fall under theft of services, or unauthorized access of a computer system.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Do you really think a bunch of guys in dark suits didn't show up and basically threaten them with jail time?

It had nothing to do with the FCC or encryption - this thing is just a raspberry pi plugged into an off-the-shelf 900mhz bridge, so if Part 97 were an issue, it would be an issue with the underlying device, too. Obviously it isn't, since these things are available from a multitude of vendors.

That said, your men-in-dark-suits theory is equally absurd. This is not "technology". This is a thing that anyone of intermediate tech skill could kludge together over a weekend. It's not new - it was just repackaged and remarketed as a tool to fight "the man".

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

900 MHz has a further radio horizon than 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz at the same terrain points.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

However, the "ham" part of the name indicated that it was probably using an amateur radio (ham) service.

Yeah, I get that the name implies it operates at ham frequencies. However, the articles all say 900 Mhz.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Obfuscant]

Yeah, I get that the name implies it operates at ham frequencies. However, the articles all say 900 Mhz.

From here, you will see that the 33cm amateur band runs from 902 to 928MHz, with all modes (except "pulse") authorized for all classes of amateur licensee except novice.

If you want to see what is allocated where, then this chart might be handy. Or this table may be more readable.

If the confusion is that you think a reference to "900 MHz" in marketing documents means 900.000 MHz only, then you should know that, in general, a reference like this means "an allocation somewhere around 900 MHz" and not the exact frequency. For example, when a ham says he's operating on "2 meters", he doesn't mean he's on 150.000 MHz (2 meter wavelength in free space), he's somewhere between 144 and 148 MHz. Likewise, when a public safety agency says they are operating on "700 MHz", they don't mean 700.000MHz, they mean in the allocation for public safety users up near 700 MHz (which actually extends into the 800's.)

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Sure, but around 900Mhz is, inaddition to amatuer and ISM also "private land mobile" certified, which means that the manufacturer could be licensed to produce devices that transmit in that range for a variety of things. The proxyham seems to use this radio module

But I admit I know very little about radio waves in general, in licensing, or in practice. I did know not the expect 6 sig-figs on the range though. But yeah, I assumed 900MHz at least id'd which licensed block of freqs it fell within... like 2.4GHz implies it falls in a specific subset.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

makes me believe it would be using the portion of the amateur radio spectrum that borders the wifi range (as is used by HSMM) and thus encryption is not allowed.

It used/uses the 900Mhz ISM band.. Same as many DECT phones which have encryption features.

Re:Encryption across radio waves is illegal?

[Obfuscant]

Sure, but around 900Mhz is, inaddition to amatuer and ISM also "private land mobile" certified, which means that the manufacturer could be licensed to produce devices that transmit in that range for a variety of things. The proxyham seems to use this radio module

No, from the pictures and text in the Hackaday article, it is using this product, which is an unlicensed bridge. (As is the one you link to.) Manufacturers of products that use licensed allocations do not obtain the licenses, it is the end user who does, or one party to the communications (as is done by cellphone providers to cover the licenses for Part 22 cellphone use.)

Manufacturers must have FCC certifications that authorize manufacture and sale of products that meet the technical standards for the intended frequency and regulatory use. If this device did not meet the FCC rules for the intended use, then the FCC could, and would, confiscate the offending products and levy a fine for violation of the rules. They do this on a semi-routine basis when they uncover a dealer who is selling illegal power amplifiers that can be used in the 11m (CB) band.

If "over 200 distributors", including NewEgg, are selling this device, then it is a good assumption that it is not illegal for manufacture or sale. Ubiquity states that this is for unlicensed wireless. Thus use of the device in a system where it is performing its intended function is not the issue.

Easily replicated with an SDR...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its just a low throughput relay moved down the bands a little. Any SDR tranceiver and a copy of GNU radio could have this up and running in a couple of hours.

Re:Easily replicated with an SDR...

[bobbied]

Sure, but to keep it legal one would need to be very careful.

Such a device would need to be Part 15 compliant, which puts a real damper on the output power, but allows encryption (I believe). Also Part 15 is secondary to EVERYBODY else on the spectrum. Running more than the Part 15 allowed field strengths and encrypting would be illegal.... Part 15 is pretty much do what you want to do, just keep the field strengths low enough that nobody will likely hear you more than 100 yards or so away, and if you interfere with somebody, YOU get to shut down.

Being illegal and getting caught are totally different things though.... The FCC is pretty understaffed in the spectrum monitoring area so unless somebody complains the chances of having a legal problem is slim (but not none). However, if they catch you, the fines can be $5K/day for each offense, so I'd not recommend flaunting the law in this case..

Re:Easily replicated with an SDR...

[Phreakiture]

Part 15 reads almost the same for 900 MHz as for 2.4 GHz: You can use 1W if you are doing one of three things.

Thing 1 is to send a direct-sequenced spread spectrum signal (not in this case)

Thing 2 is to send a frequency-hopping spread spectrum signal, with a maximum dwell time of 400ms and a minimum of 50 channels in your spreading sequence (again, not the case here)

Thing 3 is to send a digital signal of at least 500 kHz RF bandwidth (which is likely to be the case here)

Additionally, there are bonuses for using good antennas (the FCC seems to want to encourage this). You do need to reduce your transmit power if you have a gainful antenna, but you only have to reduce power by 1dB for every 3dBi of antenna gain. For example, using a 3dBi antenna (for instance, a 5/8 wave) would double the strength of your transmitted signal, but would require you to turn down your transmitter power by 1 dB, making it roughly 800 mW rather than 1W. Put this together, and you get an effective radiated power (ERP) of ~ 1.6W.

In a more extreme case, imagine using a 24dBi directional antenna: You get a 2^8 boost in your signal from the antenna, and only have to cut your power by 8dB. Actual transmitter power ends up at 160mW, but the boost from the antenna gives you an ERP of ~40W.

Re: Easily replicated with an SDR...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god someone else understands part 15. By the way you get 6dBi on top of 30dBm to start. With a 24dBi antenna you only have to reduce 6dBm to account for 18dBi of additional gain. EIRP is 48dB: about 70W

interesting..

[Anonymous Coward]

Paid off, or on to something good and keeping it qiuet??

Re:interesting..

[Anonymous Coward]

Quiet.. Hehh Shhh!

Re:interesting..

[bsolar]

Or maybe 100% vaporware without a feasible implementation in sight? Was a working prototype ever presented? Was a sound technical concept ever presented?

Re:interesting..

[SuricouRaven]

The technology isn't fundamentally impossible - it isn't breaking any laws of physics or demanding amazing breakthroughs. The only really difficult part is making it sufficiently small. Distance like that needs a large antenna.

Re:interesting..

[Anonymous Coward]

No new tech is needed, you can buy the product off-the-shelf from many commercial wireless network vendors. For example:
https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/rocketm/rocketm900_DS.pdf
http://www.streakwave.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=RBMetal9HPn

Make sure the used frequency range is legal in your area (US is fine). Practical range is a few km in an environment with poor line of sight, much more with line of sight (tens of km!).

Re:interesting..

[bobbied]

Or maybe 100% vaporware without a feasible implementation in sight? Was a working prototype ever presented? Was a sound technical concept ever presented?

Totally possible, just totally illegal to operate and would have a high possibility of being caught. They would certainly need to use licensed spectrum for what they are describing, and such spectrum is currently packed solid with users. The data rates possible are pretty slow, unless you take up a huge amount of spectrum space, which would raise the noise floor, up the necessary power and make yourself a problem for the licensed users. Licensed users would surely locate you, then turn you in to the FCC in droves, who would show up to verify the interference and start sending you nasty letters about the rules you are breaking and the cost of the fines. They might even knock on your door and inspect the equipment if you are dumb enough to let them in. They cannot do much but fine you, but the DOJ can force the collection of the fines though court action, fines which run upwards to $5K/day per violation..

Re:interesting..

[currently_awake]

You can get over 20 miles from a pringles can and a standard wifi router, so I'm thinking the design/engineering isn't holding up the project.

Re:interesting..

[Anonymous Coward]

The device pictured is a Wandboard, which has known HW issues with WiFi (client mode works, but AP mode is not working).

Re:interesting..

[dave420]

You've been so wrong about a lot of things lately, I really can't bring myself to believe a single word of that.

Re:interesting..

[Coren22]

S/he is wrong, the radio being used is commercially available and runs on the ISM 900Mhz band. Other posts above have all the information about the radios (Ubiquiti M900) and how it works. There is nothing special about this device, with good antennas though, you likely could get 25 or so mile range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.wlanparts.com/ubiqu...

Re:interesting..

[SuricouRaven]

That's a large, directional antenna. You can't conceal it, and you can't casually drop it. It's also up in 2.4GHz band - where range is far too short. This device would have to run lower, which means a bigger antenna still.

Can you say "gag order"?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Sure you can.

Wonder if they bothered to get a Grand Jury to rubberstamp it....

Gag orders

[DoofusOfDeath]

Gag orders and national security letters have no place in the Land of the Free.

This should be too obvious to even be worth saying.

Re:Gag orders

[Noryungi]

Gag orders and national security letters have no place in the Land of the Free.

This should be too obvious to even be worth saying.

Except, of course, you are no longer in the "Land of the Free". Took you a while to realize it, I am afraid.

As someone wiser than me said: "Freedom of the press is fine, as long as *you* have a printing press".

The correct thing to do, then, would be to leak schematics and software on the Internet, and let the chips fall were they may. PGP got "opened" exactly in the same way, I expect this project to do the same.

Re:Gag orders

[Anonymous Coward]

They do because you hate women!!

Re:Gag orders

[penguinoid]

People like you make our government officials want to gag.

Re:Gag orders

[Anonymous Coward]

Gag orders and national security letters have no place in the Land of the Free.

This should be too obvious to even be worth saying.

And you're going to do what about it? With all your guns to fight against an oppressive government and your toothless constitution you *say* you are the land of the free and that gag orders and national security letters have no place there yet they exist and you do nothing about it.

Re:Gag orders

[Forever Wondering]

The correct thing to do, then, would be to leak schematics and software on the Internet, and let the chips fall were they may. PGP got "opened" exactly in the same way, I expect this project to do the same.

That was the correct thing to do. Now, "leaking" could get the developer(s) in much more [legal] trouble [they probably had to sign something prohibiting disclosure in any form]. More likely, and better now, would be for a developer not connected with the original group to recreate the design from scratch (ala Brian Benchoff)

Re:Gag orders

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, yet they persist.
Imagine the hope.
The disparate pleading, the fear, the outrage. The resignation.
For the souls of Dacchau, death was the easy part. Waiting for the cavalry that didn't come soon enough. The sound of the distant bugler, one bridge too far.
Sons of dust, light must never allow the darkness to encroach.

Re:Gag orders

[bobbied]

Gag orders and national security letters have no place in the Land of the Free.

This should be too obvious to even be worth saying.

This is NOT a gag order... My reading of this is that the device is not legal for sale in the USA by FCC rules. I could go into the reasons why the FCC won't allow this device to be manufactured and sold, but suffice it to say, the technical requirements of the device and the FCC's rules for such things are incompatible at this time. I doubt this situation will change in the future.

Building a device like this would be allowed, but you couldn't sell it, nor could you operate it apart from the Part 15 rules, which judging from the photos of the device in question, it CLEARLY does not and cannot be brought into compliance.

So this is not a government gag order.... IMHO

Re:Gag orders

[Antique Geekmeister]

> This is NOT a gag order...

What makes you think there is not a strong gag order involved? I've not seen confirmation of that, but it's certainly typical of a small company or isolated developer faced with a gag order.

Re:Gag orders

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct thing to do, then, would be to leak schematics and software on the Internet, and let the chips fall were they may. PGP got "opened" exactly in the same way, I expect this project to do the same.

That was the correct thing to do. Now, "leaking" could get the developer(s) in much more [legal] trouble [they probably had to sign something prohibiting disclosure in any form]. More likely, and better now, would be for a developer not connected with the original group to recreate the design from scratch (ala Brian Benchoff)

The joke's on them. I've been building these things and giving them away for years. There are multiple-hundreds of them out there right now. Wouldn't be surprised if their 'project' was a direct ripoff. I built the 1st one years ago to connect to my home router from work 5 miles away to bypass workplace internet filters.

Re:Gag orders

[Anonymous Coward]

Gag orders (warrant, grand jury, subpoena, etc) are supported only, and precariously, by promulgated rulings of the supreme court, not by the Constitution itself.

NSL's are completly different and are entirely bogus. If you get one you can wipe your dog's ass with it and hand it back to the agent. Other than him having a smelly ride back to the hole he came from, nothing will happen to you for trashing it.

Re:Gag orders

[gl4ss]

because fundamentally it is just a 2.5km radio data link and not a magical anonymizer.

(it doesn't connect directly to the wifi ap either, due to the wifi ap being able to not receive low freqs)

it just sounds like a concept they rolled up while high, marketing got involved and it all went downhill from there and they cancelled it to save face.

Re:Gag orders

[Anne Thwacks]

That is "gag" orders, not "gay" orders, you idiot!

Re:Gag orders

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct thing to do, then, would be to leak schematics and software on the Internet, and let the chips fall were they may. PGP got "opened" exactly in the same way, I expect this project to do the same.

That was the correct thing to do. Now, "leaking" could get the developer(s) in much more [legal] trouble [they probably had to sign something prohibiting disclosure in any form]. More likely, and better now, would be for a developer not connected with the original group to recreate the design from scratch (ala Brian Benchoff)

The joke's on them. I've been building these things and giving them away for years. There are multiple-hundreds of them out there right now. Wouldn't be surprised if their 'project' was a direct ripoff. I built the 1st one years ago to connect to my home router from work 5 miles away to bypass workplace internet filters.

Links, plz.

Another situation like that with TrueCrypt?

[Anonymous Coward]

More U.S. government corruption? Hidden agencies in the U.S. government can do secret projects that are bad for the country.

GRC's | TrueCrypt, the final release, archive

Was planning on building something similar myself

[Anonymous Coward]

Last crap (read: expensive) hotel I was in offered internet access at $15 per device per day and free service in the lobby. Bought a Nanostation with the hopes that next time it might extend service from whatever room I end up in into the lobby. But if it doesn't, my plan was to use my phone to buy access, clone the mac to the Nanostation, set it up in station mode, and connect the Nanostation to an OpenWRT access point configured to put all traffic through a VPN before sending it out the WAN port to the Nanostation. Thus avoiding the issue of the more intelligent operators looking for access point "leakage" and letting me connect more than one device. If the hotel actively tries to shut down ANY access points that aren't theirs, I'd turn off the radio and use the LAN ports. Yeah, I guess that makes me a scumbag too. I figure at $15+ a day for almost no service, I'm in good company. :P

Replace the network cable with two Nanostations bridging the connection and you've got this same item (the locoM9 does 900 Mhz, if that's what is wanted). I'm not really sure it's all that genius, to be honest.

Maybe it was just illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

...and they didn't want to go to jail for a useless gimmick? That, or a squad of Ham operators had a horse head delivered to the developers; you know, to hint at consequences for abusing their bands.

Re:Maybe it was just illegal

[TWX]

Yup. The FCC will confiscate equipment and will fine those that abuse, and will probably come down even harder on entities that intentionally do it for commercial purposes.

Re:Maybe it was just illegal

[bobbied]

Yup. The FCC will confiscate equipment and will fine those that abuse, and will probably come down even harder on entities that intentionally do it for commercial purposes.

Where I don't disagree, I have to point out that in the case of one misbehaving ham who's case recently came to a formal end with the FCC, this can take a LONG time. For this guy it took nearly 10 years to get just a portion of the $75K fine entered as a judgment and get his ham radio license yanked. It wasn't because it was hard to catch him breaking the rules as he basically ran an illegal shortwave broadcast operation on the ham bands for most of the day and night... I'm just saying that the FCC isn't exactly in an all fired hurry to actually enforce the rules sometimes...

Re:Maybe it was just illegal

[KGIII]

Wouldn't that be legal so long as they followed the identification rules and did so every 30 minutes or so? (I think it is 30 minutes, licensing was so very long ago.)

Re:Maybe it was just illegal

[bobbied]

No, it's not legal to just broadcast, identification or no... But in this case, the content was obviously NOT ham radio related, but more about a personal business venture or two. Well, at least that's what the FCC finally dinged him for (among other things).

In this case, the fella was automatically transmitting pre-recorded content at all hours and then couldn't (or wouldn't) prove that he actually had a real life control operator in the loop. Automatic station control is not allowed on the frequencies he used. He got further into trouble by not responding to the FCC's inquiries into his station's operation so they fined him $75K as I recall.

Re:Maybe it was just illegal

[KGIII]

Now I understand. Thanks. I thought there was a human there and that they were just talking and whatnot.

Speculation Abound

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing the ~450Mhz PMR / FRS bands due to the availability of cheap commodity hardware (with the same nominal range) that will cover the various international allocations, and the fact that these radios are generally pretty easy to interface in (i.e. setup parrot repeaters etc) Failing that the VHF ham bands as others had said.

Either way it was never going to be a goer, even if they chose to disregard the permitted spectrum use, there was never going to be the bandwidth to float this kind of thing, especially when your sharing it with every other station within several miles (propagation can be a bitch). I doubt there has been some massive cover-up, more likely some software guys setup a radio modem with 2 handhelds and got carried away, before crashing head-first back into reality.

Re:Speculation Abound

[thinkwaitfast]

But there has to be conspiracy and coverup involved.

uhhhhh

[bsdasym]

Almost certainly this is due to it using Ham frequencies and some other crap, and nothing to do with OH NOES TEH NSA.

It's trivially easy to build a signal boosting reflector out of some aluminum foil and construction paper, or use one of the 8139417234 different cantenna plans on dem innernetz.

Re:uhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. 2.5 miles can happen by accident with 2.4GHz WIFI. You don't need "low-frequencies" to do that.

Maybe they're thinking VHF frequencies that can propagate well without LOS....?

Whatever. You use enough bandwidth in "low-frequency" ham bands to move even a fraction of the data typical of WIFI and the hams around you will make you their personal mission in life. And after they've had the FCC crush you with heart stopping Federal fines they'll laugh at you over coffee.

I suspect someone that was a little naive had the facts of life explained to them when someone with a clue learned about their presentation. At that point the best way to not look a fool is to say nothing.

Re:uhhhhh

[currently_awake]

If it was the radio band they would just say so, and switch to a different one. At such short range there is no reason to use a lower bandwidth frequency that will get you in trouble when there are higher open frequencies to use.

Re:uhhhhh

[bobbied]

True this....

I'm one of those hams who would hunt you down for sport. Actually it IS a sport for some hams and we have competitions to see who of us can find hidden transmitters the fastest. We call it "Fox Hunting" and believe me, there are some folks who take this kind of thing very seriously and can find you, on or off the ham bands in pretty short order.

So, go ahead.... Interfere with the ham bands or some other radio service who knows to ask us for help, let us have some real fun. We'd be happy to find you and report you to the FCC...

Re:uhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, trust me, it won't be me interfering. It will be my network of proxies. Good luck hunting them. Directionality and frequency hopping vs. you and your scanner. In the end, you'll find some high object which doesn't belong to the right anarchist.

Re:uhhhhh

[Andy Dodd]

They'll find your proxy. They'll figure out what the interface is on the next hop. Then they'll hunt that interface.

Yes, multistage/multi-transmitter foxhunts are a thing too. http://www.qsl.net/n2ki/HVDFA/...

Re:uhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about the frequency hopping??

Re:uhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always been interested in HAM radio, but I find the community a little off putting, what with their intense desire to subjugate free speech and report people to authorities for making use of radio waves. I don't see it as very different from someone who sits at their window as a hobby, calling the police to report jaywalkers on the way to the grocery store.

Re:uhhhhh

[bobbied]

That too... Don't worry, we got that covered...

Re:uhhhhh

[bobbied]

I'm guessing you don't like to follow rules then...

What hams generally object to is somebody who refuses to learn and follow the rules..

Re:Was planning on building something similar myse

[hawguy]

Last crap (read: expensive) hotel I was in offered internet access at $15 per device per day and free service in the lobby. Bought a Nanostation with the hopes that next time it might extend service from whatever room I end up in into the lobby. But if it doesn't, my plan was to use my phone to buy access, clone the mac to the Nanostation, set it up in station mode, and connect the Nanostation to an OpenWRT access point configured to put all traffic through a VPN before sending it out the WAN port to the Nanostation. Thus avoiding the issue of the more intelligent operators looking for access point "leakage" and letting me connect more than one device. If the hotel actively tries to shut down ANY access points that aren't theirs, I'd turn off the radio and use the LAN ports.

Since the FCC has declared that Wifi blocking is illegal, why not just use your phone as a hotspot and then you don't need to carry around a network closet's worth of wifi equipment with you? Worst case, get a USB cellular modem and plug it straight into your laptop.

Yeah, I guess that makes me a scumbag too. I figure at $15+ a day for almost no service, I'm in good company. :P

Replace the network cable with two Nanostations bridging the connection and you've got this same item (the locoM9 does 900 Mhz, if that's what is wanted). I'm not really sure it's all that genius, to be honest.

Doing all of that just to get "free" wifi doesn't make you a scumbag, it makes you a geek.

We don't know what happened...

[seepho]

So it was probably the gubbmint. Thanks, Obama.

Encryption is fine on any medium

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to the first amendment.

Re:Encryption is fine on any medium

[bobbied]

Thanks to the first amendment.

On the radio spectrum, unless the license you are using allows encryption, it is illegal. You see, the FCC has some pretty clear rules about this kind of thing, and it has NOTHING to do with the First amendment, according to the courts anyway..

Re:Encryption is fine on any medium

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no government rules against encryption over RF in the 902-928 MHz ISM band or any other band for that matter. At least not yet. HAM radio operators made their own rules about encryption. They don't like it and they are fighting the newer generations of hams who would like to be able to use it.

Re:Encryption is fine on any medium

[Andy Dodd]

WRONG. The FCC Part 97 rules themselves explicitly forbid encryption for the purposes of obscuring the message.

(Spread spectrum techniques can be considered encryption, which is why SS is only allowed if you publish your spreading algorithm. Encryption for the purposes of "data whitening" is OK as long as the key you're using is published somewhere.)

intersting but.

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't see how this would be legal. Operating a transmitter at 900mhz requires a license. You don't simply start transmitting without either using air ways that are open to usage ( Ham operator - still requires a license to operate) or that you own the frequencies. As 900mhz is mainly cellular I didn't believe that the article was real.

Re:intersting but.

[Guy From V]

I think 900mhz is better for longer distances and diffusing around obstacles, with the gain usually 14dbi+ 900 can easily tune resonant reflections of 2.4 in the clear...maybe even 4.9-5.0 (I think that's allocated to something or other, too), but yeah, to tx you'd need a call sign...but as this claimed to anonymize traffic txing wouldn't tip your identity, only your location, and you'd have to be bleeding over the spectral masks of nearby bands and making a huge dick of yourself before there would be any reason that someone might call the radio cops on your ass.

Re:intersting but.

[bobbied]

I couldn't see how this would be legal. Operating a transmitter at 900mhz requires a license. You don't simply start transmitting without either using air ways that are open to usage ( Ham operator - still requires a license to operate) or that you own the frequencies. As 900mhz is mainly cellular I didn't believe that the article was real.

Actually, the FCC does issue blanket authorizations to operate on may frequencies though Part 15 (pretty much every frequency is fair game, with a few exceptions). Part 15 requires some pretty low maximum field strengths though and has some criteria for all electronic/electric devices that emit RF however it is the field strength limits that make this device impossible to be a part 15 device, which means you are going to have to go with one of the licensed services.

CB and FRS are out because encryption is not allowed there, nor is data. Ham bands might work but you would need to get a license (not hard, really) and encryption would be a big no no. Other licensed services would be expensive and generally would require a fixed operating point which make being stealthy impossible...

I'm with you, the device may have been real, but it wasn't legal by FCC rules in the USA (or the rest of the industrialized world for that matter). Importing the devices would be a serous problem too... I'm guessing they realized that this wouldn't go well for them on a number of fronts...

Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC showed up saying "Bitches, the ERP limit on unregulated devices exists for a reason."

'Cause there's two ways a wifi signal is going for miles: Breaking the half-watt (?) limit, or a more popular and 100% more legal alternative strategy of impressing a used Pringles can into service as a po boy directional antenna. I'm pretty sure that no variation of "I just discovered what a directional antenna is" is going to be accepted as a DefCon presentation, therefore...

Re:Or...

[seepho]

1-watt, IIRC

Re:Or...

[Guy From V]

I forgot about the ERP limit, that would make it hard to legally do all of what I went on about above w/o a call sign.

Re:Or...

[bobbied]

1-watt, IIRC

Nope, 1-watt is generally way too much power for Part 15 limits, with a few exceptions you are going to be limited to 1/10th of a watt or less of drive power (not RF out, DC IN to the final amplifier). Actual transmit power is going to be somewhat less than the 0.1 Watt. Plus, there are field strength limits too, so you cannot just hook up a directional antenna (like a 26db Yagi) and stay under the field strength limits very easily.

Re:Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 902-928 MHz band that the device uses, 1 Watt conducted power is allowed with a 6dBi antenna for a ERP of 36dBm. The rules are 1) must be at least 50 channels, frequency hopping on a psuedo-random pattern with all channels used equally. The 20dB channel bandwidth must be 500KHz and the modulation is digital, then the power measured in any RBW of 3khz within the band cannot exceed 8dBm. (the power has to be spread out over the allocated spectrum).

Re:Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, the previous post got mangled during capcha.
In the 902-928 MHz band that the device uses, 1 Watt conducted power is allowed with a 6dBi antenna for a ERP of 36dBm. The rules are 1) must be at least 50 channels, 2) frequency hopping on a psuedo-random pattern with all channels used equally. The 20dB channel bandwidth must be less than or equal to 500KHz.
If the modulation is digital, and the channel bandwidth is greater than 500khz, then the power measured in any RBW of 3khz within the band cannot exceed 8dBm. (the power has to be spread out over the allocated spectrum).

They just crossed the HAM homebrew Rubicon

[Guy From V]

As a longtime ARRL license holder I was following this project closely and I have to say...what whoever did and whatever they did to do it pretty much accomplished the equivalent of the Streisand Effect on steroids traveling at the speed of light (radio). 'Disappearing' this project virtually guarantees that almost a quarter-million DIY techies that build things like this from what they find in their garage plus a pound of solder just because they are bored and want to 'chew the carpet' about it on the next local repeater Net will do so, and because you can't shut us the hell up even people who don't want to know or care about this will hear about it 16 times. And there will be huge amounts of coax and silicone tape sacrificed to this end.

Re:They just crossed the HAM homebrew Rubicon

[Anonymous Coward]

Also a HAM here -- but I'm licensed by the FCC, not the ARRL. Around here it's called ragchewing and carpet munching is an...ummm..different thing.

Re:They just crossed the HAM homebrew Rubicon

[bobbied]

I've had a FCC issued license for 30 years and I've used it for a "rag chew" on the local repeater from time to time, but I haven't a clue what "chew the carpet" means or what license the ARRL issues that gets you on a local repeater... Has the XYL been slapping you around too hard lately and you've lost your mind or is this some intentional QRM nonsense?

73's

Re:They just crossed the HAM homebrew Rubicon

[TheGratefulNet]

"chew the carpet?"

???

does it, at least, match the drapes?

(sorry, had to go there.)

maybe the OM is doing the snoo snoo with his XYL?

Re:They just crossed the HAM homebrew Rubicon

[Andy Dodd]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The most likely reasoning for this device getting nixed was that it was likely relying on Part 97 rules for access to additional frequencies/power levels, and it was hams themselves who went after it. As in "don't put this crap in our band". (Since encryption for the purposes of obfuscation is a no-no for Part 97 operation.)

Not the CFAA, but possibly the FCC

[l2718]

Accessing an open WiFi connection using a repeater would not violate the CFAA -- the connection is open and your device would log on to it. You'd be using it the way it was intended. Of course, The DOJ claims that simply violating terms of service can make you a federal felon, but that's wrong. Read Prof. Orin Kerr's work for more on this

On the other hand, the FCC allows anyone to use the 900MHz band but tightly regulates what can be done there (for example, no "retransmission of .. signals emanating from ... radio station other than an amateur radio station", which likely does make this idea illegal. See 47 CFR Part 97.

Re:Not the CFAA, but possibly the FCC

[Obfuscant]

On the other hand, the FCC allows anyone to use the 900MHz band but tightly regulates what can be done there (for example, no "retransmission of .. signals emanating from ... radio station other than an amateur radio station",

If anyone can use the frequency, it is really hard to impose a regulation that applies ONLY to the amateur radio service upon those users. You might have to explain how Ubiquity is managing to sell the 900 MHz device that the article points to if the only data it can "retransmit" is from amateur radio stations.

This system isn't designed with amateur radio equipment, so Part 97 of the rules are irrelevant.

Re:Not the CFAA, but possibly the FCC

[rahvin112]

It really doesn't matter what you think the law is. If they can get a judge to go along, a jury to convict you and an appeals court to uphold it you WILL got to jail. The CFAA has allowed far lesser things to put people in jail. The CFAA is so incredibly generic that they can put you in jail for almost anything involving a computer, and it's so technical in nature that you're guaranteed a jury won't understand it which means the government has a major advantage. This is doubly true for the courts, both the original and the appeals.

I wouldn't be so cavalier about the CFAA, Aaron Swartz had a view similar to yours then he was looking at 25 years in Federal jail and killed himself under the stress of being raped daily for 25 years. What he did wasn't technically illegal either and the people involved didn't even want to prosecute him.

Re: Not the CFAA, but possibly the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw come on, Swartzy boy wou have never been raped daily for 25 years. Just for a couple of days. Then he would have died from massive sodomy-induced anal trauma and internal bleeding due to colon rupture.

Re:Not the CFAA, but possibly the FCC

[DavidLeeLambert7357]

With a name like "proxyHAM", there's a reasonable suspicion that it was indeed operating on an amateur band.

Re:Not the CFAA, but possibly the FCC

[Obfuscant]

With a name like "proxyHAM", there's a reasonable suspicion that it was indeed operating on an amateur band.

Operating "on an amateur band" is not the same as "operating under the rules of the amateur radio service." The 2.4GHz WiFi allocation in the US is "an amateur band", but when you buy your home router you are not "operating under the rules of the amateur radio service". Similarly, there are overlapping amateur/non-amateur allocations at 900 MHz. And there are a lot of 434 MHz things (lower end of the amateur 70cm band) that aren't operating under the rules of the amateur radio service.

I didn't need a ham license when I bought and installed my wireless weather system (one of those "434MHz things"), and I don't need a ham license to use one of the Ubiquity M900 links this system is based on.

Maybe he realized his project was stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

900MHz bridged to public WiFi? Oh the Humanity. When will the engineering wonders cease? I cannot comprehend it's practicality and.. .oh screw it. This was sheer protohype from the beginning, and now it has completely imploded. How is this even clever enough to be given a slot at DefCon? A 5 year old could build one of these, and probably code an onion router for it too. This article was a complete waste of my time, and now if you read this, it's a waste of yours too.

Good Day.

Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Several people post a comment to some of the many Federal Register postings by FCC to address legalizing that frequency for use in that application so there is least some public feedback about it for lawyers to grab onto.

1984?

[GumphMaster]

Orwell's "memory hole" at work?

Maybe is just simply didn't work :)

[Hougaard]

So we'll pretend there is a coverup of some sort to "get of jail for free" :)

Re:Maybe is just simply didn't work :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you really represent, traitor?

Re:Maybe is just simply didn't work :)

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF

In completely unrelated news

[Anonymous Coward]

Families of the project managers were returned to them unharmed and only marginally "interrogated" by a handful of three-letter agencies.

Because the Jew doesn't want free speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

... in case you expose his crimes against us all...

http://balder.org/judea/Hate-Speech-Laws-Immigration-Jewish-Influence-Britain.php

An easier solution

[fred911]

It's pretty trivial to make a Yagi from a Pringles can to point at an open AP. Change your MAC id and connect to a TOR node.

  Mission accomplished

Re:An easier solution

[Anonymous Coward]

No, dummy.

A Pringles "cantenna" would be a "wave guide" type...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantenna

A Yagi is completely different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagi-Uda_antenna

Both, of course, are highly-directional (potentially good) but for great distances you actually need something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_antenna

Get one big enough and if you've got line of sight to the AP then you're good for miles...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_Wi-Fi

No big secret

[pcjunky]

This would be fairly easy to produce. VHF radios are available cheap (Wouxen, Baofeng). Getting WIFI throughput would be all but impossible due to the necessity of using a much narrower than the 20 MHz channel WIFI uses at 2.4GHz.

Hams have been transmitting digital packets via radio over much father distances for over two decades. True it was only 1200 baud but I could see much higher speeds with much more modern DSP capabilities.

More than likely they cancelled this due to potential liability issues.

Re:No big secret

[Anonymous Coward]

Newer Harris radios can do some cool stuff. they can 400-500 kb file of HF in 3 - 4 minutes. We used it in about the 1-5 mhz frequency range and could regular spit this out over 400 km with 60 m of antenna and the self tuning radio. Theoretically it could do the same thing using sky wave but we never set it up for that.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Community wireless networks around the world continue to spread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

One very successful one is in Adelaide, South Australia http://www.air-stream.org/ which peers with VPNs over the world wide web with Perth's WACAN http://www.wacan.asn.au/ and Victoria's Melbourne Wireless http://melbourne.wireless.org.....

Source: I am a Australian.

Gag, Schmag!

[Anonymous Coward]

How much investor money did they run off with? What a scam!

From the pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

From the pictures, I'm guessing he used USB over RF with a signal booster. this connects to a raspi with vpn over usb, which in turn serves as a proxy, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what "code" is needed for that, any network savvy person would be able to set it up in 10 minutes if they had the equipment.

The cost is a bit high though, most usb over rf cost around $200.

My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

1 Brilliant idea, someone didn't like it, and shut it all down.
2 Brilliant idea, US government bought it all.
3 Bad idea, maybe a government plant, maybe something easily detected with radio finding (Have no clue if possible) concept retracted
4 Bad idea, maybe a government plant, concept intentionally retracted to give it the allure of mystery, and attract desperate people to try use it.

I have really no idea, I am not a technical person. :|

maybe they were just bullshitting.

[gl4ss]

maybe they were just bullshitting anyways.

like, come on, if it dependent on a device that sat near the wifi AP, it was hardly anything magical-special-super-anonymizer device in the first place. all it then was, would have been an unlicensed sort-of-long distance radio data link - which would have a whole other market mind you.

if they were implying that you could connect to the wifi ap from 2.5 klicks without anything special device near the wifi ap, then they were bullshitting.

so probably they were bullshitting because their product if it functioned as would have been likely, would have had a totally different market than what they were pushing it to.

just that it worked on unlicensed spectrum wouldn't have made it illegal to produce for markets where such use would have been legal.

Re:maybe they were just bullshitting.

[Coren22]

You can easily get that kind of range from 802.11 with the proper antennas, but doing it while moving would be...difficult...

How long till another device ?:)

[Vessarion]

Well they sparked the idea of such a device and gave an overall description on how it works, so I wonder how long it will take for somebody else to make a similar device :) I think government gag orders (or any other suppression methods [and I think this is government work] ) are useless in the long run.

Re:How long till another device ?:)

[AHuxley]

It really depends how some parts of the US government react. At this time most interesting people have their phone on them or are sitting at some desktop.
A person in a chair can be found and logged around the world by staff in another chair timezones away. Onion routing, a VPN or tame crypto failed or malware or...
One tasked group gets the win, glory and the long term connections globally back to that device connected to a user.
If this idea of a legal, low power device gets to be used then other traditional expensive local methods will have to be considered again.
Suddenly only a final hop is understood and the owner, residence, provider and other easy details are useless until the interesting user makes mistakes.
Governments would be back to the early 1980's having to send out teams in cars, vans, trucks trying to track short term signal bursts as they work back to the real network origin.
Locals tend to notice fast or slow new transport in the area or new funding for instant CCTV in an area, public and private. Even flying over an area in a search pattern gets noticed.
The main risk is the user makes mistakes or they return to unique patterns, hardware or terms they use on their normal everyday accounts.
A wireless surveillance system for wifi and other data siginals can cover a big city, in place to provide near instant triangulation of any signal of interest?
Are total spectrum tools ready for in use in most domestic city areas? The need for a plane or larger van locally would be reduced as origin could be found in real time.

Mysterious?

[nospam007]

What's so mysterious about it. They got a national security letter, can't talk about it and they will be hacked this or next week, the plans will be published by wikileaks or Anonymous and you will be able to order a completed product on Aliexpress for $29.95 in 3....2.....1...

Maybe an NSL for the customer list?

[Kazoo the Clown]

Might they have been secretly compelled to provide the customer list to the FBI? At this point no doubt the spooks would consider anyone who wanted one as "suspicious". Remember when this was supposed to be a free country? The "home of the brave"? Those were the days, eh?

The project was doomed from the start

[Taco Cowboy]

I am not saying that the project has no merit

What I am saying is that the project was doomed from the very beginning

The developers of the project may have good intentions unfortunately their approach was totally misguided

If I were the one who wants to do something like that I would just do it, first , making sure that the thing works as advertised, and only then, I show the thing to the world - with source code, and everything

They've Been Unpersoned!

[manlygeek]

Thanks Minitrue, you always come through! Still waiting on the 10th edition of the Newspeak Dictionary. That would be doublegood!

What about Hamnet

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/

Please excuse the interruption...

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to zee your papahs
Pleeeeze.
Who am I ? I am a citizen charged vith ensuring your security. Cone on, come on...I don't have all day!

And... are FCC rules proven a gral equilibrium?

[Anonymous Coward]

This news comes out after I asked if one common FCC rule was forcefully implemented in a console... So now I wonder, FCC rules are taken as state of nature, but do they form a general equilibrium? Is the application of all the rules a stable system or a self shutting down, self destroying system? Can they be implemented and respected and things still working? What is the meaning of it all??? It is very typical, you keep adding rules in specific settings only to find out at the end you locked yourself out of the house and set fire to it, rule by rule...

FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

An anonymous reader notes that a project to develop an anonymizing Wi-Fi device has been canceled under anonymous circumstances.