pleekmo
Triptoe Through The Tulips
Premium
join:2001-09-14
Manchester, CT
clubs:
| reply to Goober
Re: Any Fines?
said by Goober  :said by koolman2 :said by Goober :I wonder if they'll punish people after a number of such incidents. They can't, as it is currently completely legal to have an open and unsecured wireless network. Right. THe operative word being "currently" though. The other operative words are that local jurisdictions may pass laws forbidding any action not procribed by the Constitution of the United States of America or expressly permitted by the Constitution and its Amendments. On the other hand, it appears probable that a local jurisdiction may not have the authority to regulate what may or may not be transmitted by radio (a wireless router is, after all, a transmitter) as such things are generally only regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. On the gripping hand, the FCC could always regulate licensing of such transceivers, which would seem to make (other) regulation of wireless routers even easier. On the fourth hand, even so, enforcement would likely only be the jurisdiction of the FCC.
--
HCN: Because you deserve a rest!
Free Omelas! |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by pleekmo :On the gripping hand I know I recognize that but I can't place it. Where's that from? |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to pleekmo
So you're saying that federalism may save the day for unsecured hotspots?
Possibly. But, I have a feeling that local laws could be constructed to somewhat skirt around federal FCC laws. Of course, if it becomes a huge issue that starts bothering the government for some reason, they could always throw in a commerce clause argument and take it all back. That being said, I'm not sure other than for making sure the FCC is the only entity regulating the airwaves, what interest the government would have. |
|
