On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

On 28 July 2015 at 13:46, Martin <dcmk1mr2@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