Hacker News Reader

Comment by meepmorp | Hacker News Reader

> If someone has a cell phone and needs to call 911, would you be held liable for their inability to make that call?

I've been in plenty of buildings with terrible-to-nonexistent cell reception. I somehow doubt that they'd be held liable if I wasn't able to get reception to make a 911 call. I can't see that the large Faraday cage example is appreciably different.

View on HN

The FCC begs to differ: https://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibit...

So it is illegal. So basically I am not free to block hot spots in my own area if I use it for public access, which essentially amounts to "Even if you own an area, whenever it is publicly accessible, you do not own its 'air'". I find it a bit too restrictive.

A lot of people want land ownership to mean that they have absolute dictatorial power over everyone and everything on their land. We, as a society, have decided that this is silly, and that most crimes outside your land remain crimes inside your land. I can't really disagree.

No it doesn't. That ruling is about the illegality of deploying a wi-fi protocol that's meant to interfere with other communication.

A purely passive barrier to electronic signals is a completely different thing. There are no rules against Faraday cages, and the FCC is perfectly aware of them and what they are for; it OKs the use of Faraday cages for use with experimental radio technology that would otherwise require a special permit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com