25 Jul
2015
25 Jul
'15
5:18 p.m.
Hi!
From Battlemesh V8 agenda
(http://battlemesh.org/BattleMeshV8/Agenda):
The new FCC rules are in effect in the United States from June 2nd 2015
[1] for WiFi devices such as Access Points. They require to have the
firmware locked down so End-Users can't operate with non-compliant
parameters (channels/frequencies, transmit power, DFS, ...). In
response, WiFi access point vendors start to lock down firmwares to
prevent custom firmwares (such as OpenWRT) to be installed, using code
signing, etc. Since the same type of devices are often sold world wide,
this change does not only affect routers in the US, but also Europe, and
this will also effect wireless communities.
We would like to discuss:
* What are your experiences with recently certified WiFi Hardware
* How can we still keep OpenWRT on these devices
* What can we suggest to Hardware vendors so that they keep their
firmware open for community projects while still compliant with the FCC?
[1]
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=39498&s…
Mitar
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
25 Jul
25 Jul
5:31 p.m.
It's likely this was in result to some end CPE vendors being ..
flippant with the rules. I won't name names.
I'll go poke some QCA people and see what the story is.
-a
On 25 July 2015 at 17:18, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com> wrote:
Hi!
From Battlemesh V8 agenda (http://battlemesh.org/BattleMeshV8/Agenda):
The new FCC rules are in effect in the United States from June 2nd 2015
[1] for WiFi devices such as Access Points. They require to have the
firmware locked down so End-Users can't operate with non-compliant
parameters (channels/frequencies, transmit power, DFS, ...). In
response, WiFi access point vendors start to lock down firmwares to
prevent custom firmwares (such as OpenWRT) to be installed, using code
signing, etc. Since the same type of devices are often sold world wide,
this change does not only affect routers in the US, but also Europe, and
this will also effect wireless communities.
We would like to discuss:
* What are your experiences with recently certified WiFi Hardware
* How can we still keep OpenWRT on these devices
* What can we suggest to Hardware vendors so that they keep their
firmware open for community projects while still compliant with the FCC?
[1]
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=39498&s…
Mitar
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
_______________________________________________
mesh mailing list
mesh(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
28 Jul
28 Jul
1:25 p.m.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com> wrote:
Hi!
From Battlemesh V8 agenda (http://battlemesh.org/BattleMeshV8/Agenda):
The new FCC rules are in effect in the United States from June 2nd 2015
[1] for WiFi devices such as Access Points. They require to have the
firmware locked down so End-Users can't operate with non-compliant
parameters (channels/frequencies, transmit power, DFS, ...). In
response, WiFi access point vendors start to lock down firmwares to
prevent custom firmwares (such as OpenWRT) to be installed, using code
signing, etc. Since the same type of devices are often sold world wide,
this change does not only affect routers in the US, but also Europe, and
this will also effect wireless communities.
We would like to discuss:
* What are your experiences with recently certified WiFi Hardware
* How can we still keep OpenWRT on these devices
* What can we suggest to Hardware vendors so that they keep their
firmware open for community projects while still compliant with the FCC?
Fucking hell. I just sent emails to TP-Link and Ubiquiti stating that we
rely on this for our organization and asking what they're planning to do.
Ubiquiti already locked down channel selection and made separate EU/US
models so it's not unthinkable that they'll actually do the right thing.
TP-Link also already has Chinese and US/EU versions of some routers. Maybe
we can get the EFF to help launch a campaign for device freedom to make the
manufacturers aware that this is important?
Hopefully we can scale quickly enough using current-generation gear that
we'll be able to have our own routers FCC certified and mass produced
before it becomes an issue. If need be we can create a meta-organization
for all the world's mesh groups to make a few types of routers that we need.
Maybe we can convince the router manufacturers to interpret the FCC
regulations such that opening the case on a router and soldering a
connection is required to flash the router. That would be super easy for
them to implement and very convenient for us. If we got EFF lawyers to
interpret the new FCC regulations and issue a statement that they believe
this is legal (they did something similar for their open wireless movement)
then we could take that statement to all the relevant folks.
Or alternatively we do nothing now and bypass whatever security comes out,
or start a router smuggling ring, but what a pain.
Better to be pro-active though and get in touch with all router
manufacturers. Adrian and others on this list: If you have points of
contacts that might serve as entry-points to getting in touch with the
right people at relevant corporations then that would be much appreciated.
We can start talking and tell them what we have in mind and that we'll do
the leg-work as much as possible. We can offer them some community cred by
hoisting them high on a page of "Proudly user-reflashable" devices (we'll
have to come up with a nice marketable term like "open source", hm, "User
controlled"? "Owner controlled"? I'm sure we can do better.
Anyway, just throwing some ideas out there. What you say?
--
marc/juul
1:27 p.m.
Hi,
Don't complain to the vendor. Write a letter to the FCC. Encourage
everyone you know to write letters to the FCC.
It's not up to tplink/dlink/ubiquiti/etc.
-a
On 28 July 2015 at 13:25, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com> wrote:
Hi!
From Battlemesh V8 agenda (http://battlemesh.org/BattleMeshV8/Agenda):
The new FCC rules are in effect in the United States from June 2nd 2015
[1] for WiFi devices such as Access Points. They require to have the
firmware locked down so End-Users can't operate with non-compliant
parameters (channels/frequencies, transmit power, DFS, ...). In
response, WiFi access point vendors start to lock down firmwares to
prevent custom firmwares (such as OpenWRT) to be installed, using code
signing, etc. Since the same type of devices are often sold world wide,
this change does not only affect routers in the US, but also Europe, and
this will also effect wireless communities.
We would like to discuss:
* What are your experiences with recently certified WiFi Hardware
* How can we still keep OpenWRT on these devices
* What can we suggest to Hardware vendors so that they keep their
firmware open for community projects while still compliant with the FCC?
Fucking hell. I just sent emails to TP-Link and Ubiquiti stating that we
rely on this for our organization and asking what they're planning to do.
Ubiquiti already locked down channel selection and made separate EU/US
models so it's not unthinkable that they'll actually do the right thing.
TP-Link also already has Chinese and US/EU versions of some routers. Maybe
we can get the EFF to help launch a campaign for device freedom to make the
manufacturers aware that this is important?
Hopefully we can scale quickly enough using current-generation gear that
we'll be able to have our own routers FCC certified and mass produced before
it becomes an issue. If need be we can create a meta-organization for all
the world's mesh groups to make a few types of routers that we need.
Maybe we can convince the router manufacturers to interpret the FCC
regulations such that opening the case on a router and soldering a
connection is required to flash the router. That would be super easy for
them to implement and very convenient for us. If we got EFF lawyers to
interpret the new FCC regulations and issue a statement that they believe
this is legal (they did something similar for their open wireless movement)
then we could take that statement to all the relevant folks.
Or alternatively we do nothing now and bypass whatever security comes out,
or start a router smuggling ring, but what a pain.
Better to be pro-active though and get in touch with all router
manufacturers. Adrian and others on this list: If you have points of
contacts that might serve as entry-points to getting in touch with the right
people at relevant corporations then that would be much appreciated. We can
start talking and tell them what we have in mind and that we'll do the
leg-work as much as possible. We can offer them some community cred by
hoisting them high on a page of "Proudly user-reflashable" devices (we'll
have to come up with a nice marketable term like "open source", hm, "User
controlled"? "Owner controlled"? I'm sure we can do better.
Anyway, just throwing some ideas out there. What you say?
--
marc/juul
_______________________________________________
mesh mailing list
mesh(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
1:37 p.m.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
Hi,
Don't complain to the vendor. Write a letter to the FCC. Encourage
everyone you know to write letters to the FCC.
It's not up to tplink/dlink/ubiquiti/etc.
Yeah I see that now. There seems to be no wiggle room here. They must
prevent third party firmwares using strong security. The best we can hope
for is to jailbreak.
Or we can spend the next couple of years of our lives attempting to get the
FCC to change their regulations.
Router smuggling operation it is then.
--
marc/
1:45 p.m.
It's not a bad idea to establish a dialog with the hardware manufacturers
and hopefully have them on our side in explaining out use case to the FCC.
This may be infeasible but maybe we could advocate that power and frequency
restrictions be locked down at the hardware level and not firmware? I don't
really know anything about anything but I'd assume something like that is
possible while probably cost prohibitive to vendors. I'd be willing to pay
extra for "open (locked down)" hardware.
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','adrian@freebsd.org');>> wrote:
Hi,
Don't complain to the vendor. Write a letter to the FCC. Encourage
everyone you know to write letters to the FCC.
It's not up to tplink/dlink/ubiquiti/etc.
Yeah I see that now. There seems to be no wiggle room here. They must
prevent third party firmwares using strong security. The best we can hope
for is to jailbreak.
Or we can spend the next couple of years of our lives attempting to get
the FCC to change their regulations.
Router smuggling operation it is then.
--
marc/
1:47 p.m.
please open a dialog with the regulatory bodies /and/ please play well
with them.
-a
On 28 July 2015 at 13:45, Mo Balaa <buddybalaa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's not a bad idea to establish a dialog with the
hardware manufacturers
and hopefully have them on our side in explaining out use case to the FCC.
This may be infeasible but maybe we could advocate that power and frequency
restrictions be locked down at the hardware level and not firmware? I don't
really know anything about anything but I'd assume something like that is
possible while probably cost prohibitive to vendors. I'd be willing to pay
extra for "open (locked down)" hardware.
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Don't complain to the vendor. Write a letter to the FCC. Encourage
>> everyone you know to write letters to the FCC.
>>
>> It's not up to tplink/dlink/ubiquiti/etc.
>
>
> Yeah I see that now. There seems to be no wiggle room here. They must
> prevent third party firmwares using strong security. The best we can hope
> for is to jailbreak.
>
> Or we can spend the next couple of years of our lives attempting to get
> the FCC to change their regulations.
>
> Router smuggling operation it is then.
>
> --
> marc/
8:44 p.m.
Complaining to the vendor is worthwhile -- kudos, Marc -- businesses
typically do want to do what their customers want (caveat caveat of
course), and arming the vendor with resources to present to the FCC is
worthwhile too.
Anybody want to work with me on a blog post about this? I'm happy to put
one up, and have a bit of a following in the Wikipedia/open source world --
but could use somebody more expert to work with.
http://wikistrategies.net/blog
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]] on the wiki
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
Hi,
Don't complain to the vendor. Write a letter to the FCC. Encourage
everyone you know to write letters to the FCC.
It's not up to tplink/dlink/ubiquiti/etc.
-a
On 28 July 2015 at 13:25, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com> wrote:
Maybe
Hi!
From Battlemesh V8 agenda (http://battlemesh.org/BattleMeshV8/Agenda):
The new FCC rules are in effect in the United States from June 2nd 2015
[1] for WiFi devices such as Access Points. They require to have the
firmware locked down so End-Users can't operate with non-compliant
parameters (channels/frequencies, transmit power, DFS, ...). In
response, WiFi access point vendors start to lock down firmwares to
prevent custom firmwares (such as OpenWRT) to be installed, using code
signing, etc. Since the same type of devices are often sold world wide,
this change does not only affect routers in the US, but also Europe, and
this will also effect wireless communities.
We would like to discuss:
* What are your experiences with recently certified WiFi Hardware
* How can we still keep OpenWRT on these devices
* What can we suggest to Hardware vendors so that they keep their
firmware open for community projects while still compliant with the FCC?
Fucking hell. I just sent emails to TP-Link and Ubiquiti stating that we
rely on this for our organization and asking what they're planning to do.
Ubiquiti already locked down channel selection and made separate EU/US
models so it's not unthinkable that they'll actually do the right thing.
TP-Link also already has Chinese and US/EU versions of some routers. we can get the EFF to help launch a campaign for
device freedom to make
the
manufacturers aware that this is important?
Hopefully we can scale quickly enough using current-generation gear that
we'll be able to have our own routers FCC certified and mass produced
before
it becomes an issue. If need be we can create a
meta-organization for all
the world's mesh groups to make a few types of routers that we need.
Maybe we can convince the router manufacturers to interpret the FCC
regulations such that opening the case on a router and soldering a
connection is required to flash the router. That would be super easy for
them to implement and very convenient for us. If we got EFF lawyers to
interpret the new FCC regulations and issue a statement that they believe
this is legal (they did something similar for their open wireless
movement)
then we could take that statement to all the
relevant folks.
Or alternatively we do nothing now and bypass whatever security comes
out,
or start a router smuggling ring, but what a
pain.
Better to be pro-active though and get in touch with all router
manufacturers. Adrian and others on this list: If you have points of
contacts that might serve as entry-points to getting in touch with the
right
people at relevant corporations then that would
be much appreciated. We
can
start talking and tell them what we have in mind
and that we'll do the
leg-work as much as possible. We can offer them some community cred by
hoisting them high on a page of "Proudly user-reflashable" devices (we'll
have to come up with a nice marketable term like "open source", hm, "User
controlled"? "Owner controlled"? I'm sure we can do better.
Anyway, just throwing some ideas out there. What you say?
--
marc/juul
_______________________________________________
mesh mailing list
mesh(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
_______________________________________________
mesh mailing list
mesh(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
8:56 p.m.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Complaining to the vendor is worthwhile -- kudos, Marc
-- businesses
typically do want to do what their customers want (caveat caveat of
course), and arming the vendor with resources to present to the FCC is
worthwhile too.
Anybody want to work with me on a blog post about this? I'm happy to put
one up, and have a bit of a following in the Wikipedia/open source world --
but could use somebody more expert to work with.
http://wikistrategies.net/blog
Yes willing to work on it definitely but I need more info from experts. I'm
still not sure how to interpret all of this. Have some ideas for who to ask
though.
--
marc/juul
9:19 p.m.
Hi,
The vendors don't care unless you buy a lot of units. They just won't care.
The FCC takes public submissions and can be lobbied. Your vendors can't.
Sure, please feel free to tell the vendors about it but please focus on the
regulatory bodies. This includes Europe as well.
Adrian
(Speaking from vendor experience here. )
On Jul 28, 2015 8:56 PM, "Marc Juul" <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Complaining to the vendor is worthwhile -- kudos,
Marc -- businesses
typically do want to do what their customers want (caveat caveat of
course), and arming the vendor with resources to present to the FCC is
worthwhile too.
Anybody want to work with me on a blog post about this? I'm happy to put
one up, and have a bit of a following in the Wikipedia/open source world --
but could use somebody more expert to work with.
http://wikistrategies.net/blog
Yes willing to work on it definitely but I need more info from experts.
I'm still not sure how to interpret all of this. Have some ideas for who to
ask though.
--
marc/juul
10:55 p.m.
I'm not sure that the document mentioned is actually law. It refers to FCC
Part 15.202 but the current law doesn't have that language:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=5991c94250b02271a6155c9625a0fad4&a…
I'm not sure how the two are related but will look into it.
If it is law the ARRL would participate in lobbying for change. There is a
ham mesh network called HSMM that would also be nixed.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
Hi,
The vendors don't care unless you buy a lot of units. They just won't
care. The FCC takes public submissions and can be lobbied. Your vendors
can't.
Sure, please feel free to tell the vendors about it but please focus on
the regulatory bodies. This includes Europe as well.
Adrian
(Speaking from vendor experience here. )
On Jul 28, 2015 8:56 PM, "Marc Juul" <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
_______________________________________________
mesh mailing list
mesh(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
Complaining to the vendor is worthwhile -- kudos,
Marc -- businesses
typically do want to do what their customers want (caveat caveat of
course), and arming the vendor with resources to present to the FCC is
worthwhile too.
Anybody want to work with me on a blog post about this? I'm happy to put
one up, and have a bit of a following in the Wikipedia/open source world --
but could use somebody more expert to work with.
http://wikistrategies.net/blog
Yes willing to work on it definitely but I need more info from experts.
I'm still not sure how to interpret all of this. Have some ideas for who to
ask though.
--
marc/juul
1:31 p.m.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.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."
Here it is:
https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869RsyQddPi5hpw%3D%3D…
It is specifically an anti-openwrt measure (well, they list dd-wrt).
So... yeah that's insanely broad and it looks like we're fucked.
--
marc/juul
Hi!
From Battlemesh V8 agenda (http://battlemesh.org/BattleMeshV8/Agenda):
The new FCC rules are in effect in the United States from June 2nd 2015
[1] for WiFi devices such as Access Points. They require to have the
firmware locked down so End-Users can't operate with non-compliant
parameters (channels/frequencies, transmit power, DFS, ...). In
response, WiFi access point vendors start to lock down firmwares to
prevent custom firmwares (such as OpenWRT) to be installed, using code
signing, etc. Since the same type of devices are often sold world wide,
this change does not only affect routers in the US, but also Europe, and
this will also effect wireless communities.
We would like to discuss:
* What are your experiences with recently certified WiFi Hardware
* How can we still keep OpenWRT on these devices
* What can we suggest to Hardware vendors so that they keep their
firmware open for community projects while still compliant with the FCC?
Fucking hell. I just sent emails to TP-Link and Ubiquiti stating that we
rely on this for our organization and asking what they're planning to do.
Ubiquiti already locked down channel selection and made separate EU/US
models so it's not unthinkable that they'll actually do the right thing.
TP-Link also already has Chinese and US/EU versions of some routers. Maybe
we can get the EFF to help launch a campaign for device freedom to make the
manufacturers aware that this is important?
Hopefully we can scale quickly enough using current-generation gear that
we'll be able to have our own routers FCC certified and mass produced
before it becomes an issue. If need be we can create a meta-organization
for all the world's mesh groups to make a few types of routers that we need.
Maybe we can convince the router manufacturers to interpret the FCC
regulations such that opening the case on a router and soldering a
connection is required to flash the router. That would be super easy for
them to implement and very convenient for us. If we got EFF lawyers to
interpret the new FCC regulations and issue a statement that they believe
this is legal (they did something similar for their open wireless movement)
then we could take that statement to all the relevant folks.
1:46 p.m.
1:51 p.m.
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.
-adrian
2:46 p.m.
I guess i'm not familiar with all the issues.
It's an undue cost for manufacturers to certify software/security as long
as # 2 is met. It seems like the manufacturers would have a vested
interest to fight this. The public can claim a benefit from CPE running
open software as it provides enhanced functionality, allows important
experimentation, etc.
I would be happy to support a rules change effort though I don't have the
fire in the belly to organize a petition group. The rules change process
is well documented on the FCC web page. I belong to a club that has gotten
other rules changed before so I know it can be done.
I'm a ham and have bigger beefs with the FCC right now. I'm currently
trying to get an experimental license for low frequency operation and
probably won't get it due to rules. (The issue is proximity to power
transportation lines and interfering with PG&E power line communications.
I'd like to think that PG&E would prefer to fix their vulnerabilities.)
--Martin
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:
#2
>>
>
> 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 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.
-adrian
2:53 p.m.
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:
#2
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
>>
>
> 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 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.
29 Jul
29 Jul
11:36 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 07/28/2015 01:31 PM, Marc Juul wrote:
It is specifically an anti-openwrt measure (well, they
list
dd-wrt). So... yeah that's insanely broad and it looks like we're
fucked.
Until we figure out how to circumvent it (if it comes to that).
- --
The Doctor [412/724/301/703/415] [ZS]
PGP: 0x807B17C1 / 7960 1CDC 85C9 0B63 8D9F DD89 3BD8 FF2B 807B 17C1
WWW: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/
"The world is not a match for you and me/No matter what we used to
say!" --InSoc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=GXwH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:58 a.m.
Hi,
I'm meeting a vendor tomorrow and I'll ask them about it.
I'm also going to poke some people at the EFF and see what can be done.
Thanks,
-adrian
2:10 p.m.
I asked a guy who is in charge of set top boxes for a major cable provider
and reads FCC rules for fun. He thinks it's real and we'll have to figure
out how to bypass signature checking.
<<
The "invisible hand of the market" is your friend here. There's
economic incentive for the manufacturers to do the minimum possible to
meet the regulatory requirements while minimizing engineering and SKU
skew (heh) to support their global supply chain. I predict a level of
difficulty similar to that necessary to make HTs do extended transmit.
>
So it may not be that bad. (A HT is a handheld radio that can usually be
reprogrammed with the right cable, software, and expertise).
I've emailed the ARRL's legal staff as well.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
Hi,
I'm meeting a vendor tomorrow and I'll ask them about it.
I'm also going to poke some people at the EFF and see what can be done.
Thanks,
-adrian
_______________________________________________
mesh mailing list
mesh(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
5:56 p.m.
Hi!
I asked Eben Moglen about this and he is saying that they are aware of
the issue and that they hope that SFLC will be able to provide extensive
factual and legal analysis and some view of strategic options soon. So
they will look into this and publish a relatively extensive analysis,
explaining the history of the rule-making, the nature of the
regulation's likely short- and medium-term effects, and discussing
options for legal or political challenges to the rule.
Mitar
I asked a guy who is in charge of set top boxes for a
major cable provider
and reads FCC rules for fun. He thinks it's real and we'll have to figure
out how to bypass signature checking.
<<
The "invisible hand of the market" is your friend here. There's
economic incentive for the manufacturers to do the minimum possible to
meet the regulatory requirements while minimizing engineering and SKU
skew (heh) to support their global supply chain. I predict a level of
difficulty similar to that necessary to make HTs do extended transmit.
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>
So it may not be that bad. (A HT is a handheld radio that can usually be
reprogrammed with the right cable, software, and expertise).
I've emailed the ARRL's legal staff as well.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
Hi,
I'm meeting a vendor tomorrow and I'll ask them about it.
I'm also going to poke some people at the EFF and see what can be done.
Thanks,
-adrian
_______________________________________________
mesh mailing list
mesh(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
_______________________________________________
mesh mailing list
mesh(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
28 Jul
28 Jul
7:14 p.m.
Hi!
Maybe we can get the EFF to help launch a campaign for
device freedom
to make the manufacturers aware that this is important?
I think this would be really important. To start building a coalition
here. Their open wireless project is also impacted by this. Do we have
any information from their side what they think about this? Maybe a
common meeting should be organized and options evaluated.
Mitar
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
7:21 p.m.
(Adding the Sudomesh email list)
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com> wrote:
Hi!
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Help open a people-powered common space in Oakland, California!
https://omnicommons.org/donate
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Maybe we can get the EFF to help launch a
campaign for device freedom
to make the manufacturers aware that this is important?
I think this would be really important. To start building a coalition
here. Their open wireless project is also impacted by this. Do we have
any information from their side what they think about this? Maybe a
common meeting should be organized and options evaluated.
Mitar
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
_______________________________________________
mesh mailing list
mesh(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
3200
days inactive
3204
days old
21 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Adrian Chadd -
danarauz＠gmail.com -
Marc Juul -
Martin -
Mitar -
Mo Balaa -
Pete Forsyth -
The Doctor