On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
On 28 July 2015 at 13:46, Martin
<dcmk1mr2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
> Ok I just actually read it. Quote:
>
> "An applicant must describe the overall security measures and systems
that
ensure
that:
1. only properly authenticated software is loaded and operating the
device; and
2. the device is not easily modified to operate with RF parameters
outside of the authorization."
# 1 is insane for the FCC to have any purview over - not their turf.
Given the fact that these are Part 15 devices operating in the ISM bands
#2
isn't to bad to certify.
I would ask the FCC for a rules change to reflect that. The FCC
regulates
the public spectrum not software.
This is because there are some vendors that .. haven't been playing by
the rules. This didn't come out of nowhere.
They've been asking for a while for vendors to play ball, and there
are a couple of CPE vendors that haven't been, and.. this is what
happens.
So if you disagree with this, you should get together with a group,
formulate a /constructive/ reply to the FCC, and file it with them.
It doesn't change the fact that this makes the FCC look like incompetent
over-reaching bureaucrats. They could easily have demanded that devices
simply aren't configurable outside what's allowed even if the software is
changed, or just let the manufacturers decide if they want to implement
this by locking down software changes or in some other way. (btw, I can't
figure out why this doesn't force laptop vendors to lock down their
operating systems?)
I am sure I don't want to spend much of my time attempting to convince
incumbent power to stop interfering with our work. The whole point of our
project here (and Omni-related projects in general) is to make alternatives
that work around existing power structures instead of going up against
them. If they make new rules we'll find new workarounds. We are not
dropping out and disconnecting. We are decentralizing, bypassing and
re-purposing. Other people make it their business to affect top-down change
and I will support them in their efforts but I am not going to be
distracted from our goals by fumbling bureaucrats. Even if all governments
allowed what we are doing, the corporations are heading towards more
centralized control, not more freedom. Locked down devices are becoming the
default. Curated and censored app stores for all. Governments are talking
about required backdoors and laws against encryption. We are fast becoming
outlaws and I feel that our best chance is to build infrastructure and
media that is used, owned and loved by so many people that shutting it down
becomes completely unrealistic in any state wishing to retain the shining
facade of a functioning democracy. We have to act fast before we cannot act
at all, and while it is reasonable to expend some amount of energy where
top-down change seems within reach, it is certainly not my focus. If it
comes down to it, crossing borders is easier than changing laws. We only
have to build working examples of these alternative
societies-within-society in a few places and then, with luck, the model can
self-replicate.
--
marc/juul