Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| "Absolutely no right"?
Huh? There are only so many possible wireless access points that can fit in a given area, and an enterprise often spends considerable effort to spread the access points around such that they don't interfere with each other (say, putting the same channels on the opposite sides of the campus).
Demanding that members of that enterprise not interfere with that seems really reasonable to me.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Reasonable to some, but I'm willing to bet you'd find some legal difficulties depending on what constitutes "disciplinary action"....
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···44A1.pdf
There's still plenty of debate over whether a landlord or a spectrum user has the right of way.... |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
1 edit | Well, you have an argument there, but I suspect the court would come down on the side on the school, but it would place an additional burden on the school to prove its reasonable.
But a school can still regulate its students more than you might think. At my college, many students faced "disciplinary action" for being in the dorm room of the wrong gender after a certain hour, even if he/she was behaving themselves. If a school can regulate when a student can visit another in the dorms (something, say, an apartment generally cannot do) then I have little doubt that they can regulate whether a student can set up a wireless network on campus. Students in dorms have less rights than a general renter.
But I like the new phrasing on the summary better. "Some would argue" is a more accurate description than "absolutely no right". |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode  :
There's still plenty of debate over whether a landlord or a spectrum user has the right of way....
Well in this case, "landlord" has nothing to do with it: en loco parentis-type reasoning has been dramatically on the upswing, with colleges legally being able to do nearly anything in the place of the parent.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| A lot of it depends on if they operate these Waterview Apartments or not plays a big role:
»webapps.utdallas.edu/irweb/index.html
You know there are lawyers who would have fun fighting this on behalf of some "opressed" young hotspot owner. There's some holes to drive through.... |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Karl Bode :
A lot of it depends on if they operate these Waterview Apartments or not plays a big role:
»webapps.utdallas.edu/irweb/index.html
You know there are lawyers who would have fun fighting this on behalf of some "opressed" young hotspot owner. There's some holes to drive through....
UTD owns the land that the Waterview Apartments use. the Waterview Apartments are "independantly operated", however because UTD owns the land, they do have a say as to how the apartments are operated. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Well still, it's not clear that land ownership means you can regulate the airwaves flying across your property. That's been a big debate at the major airports:
»www.thefeature.com/article?articleid=100811 |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Well that's a fair argument, but there was widespread suspicion that the airports simply wanted to treat it as a revenue issue. In the case of UT, they do permit wireless access point usage as long as it's set up in a non-interfering manner, so they have a much better case for a legitimate reason for restrictions than does the airport.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site |
|
b_zen
Premium
join:2002-07-24
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·TTNet
| I'm not sure of the legalities behind it... But by owning land, you usually own the surface-down to a specified max. By using airwave (FCC domain), even if originating from within your premise, I wonder the kind of argument you have, and whether you can/cannot enforce it.
I guess you'd have a case on the point of origin of the wave, eventhough, it seem you would have to ban the hardware altogether, not the servicing...
Any thoughts?
--
UWB over Wire is the future!
3Plink.com |Voice|Video|Data| |
|
IgorKane
@140.192.x.x
| reply to joebear29
I don't know if we (I work for a private university) officially ban private access points, but if we want something off the network, we find out where it is and disable the port on the router. Let them come to us and explain. I think we could do the same with wireless access points, but that would be a helluva waste of time. |
|
