That is not a distinction the law makes. You are not allowed to operate a GPS jammer for your home safety, either.
There are exceptions, prisons can operate cellphone jammers for example. I don't think there are any for private enterprises.
There are exceptions, prisons can operate cellphone jammers for example. I don't think there are any for private enterprises.
It is not legal for prisons to jam cell phones.
"The Communications Act prohibits non-Federal entities from using cell jammers. The FCC cannot waive this statutory prohibition absent a change in the law by Congress." [1]
There was an attempt to add an exception for prisons, but it was never passed (Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009[2]).
[1] http://www2.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/summits/Combating-Contraband-C... [2] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s251
"(c) Exceptions
The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to carriers transporting such devices or home electronic equipment and systems without trading in them, to devices or home electronic equipment and systems manufactured solely for export, to the manufacture, assembly, or installation of devices or home electronic equipment and systems for its own use by a public utility engaged in providing electric service, or to devices or home electronic equipment and systems for use by the Government of the United States or any agency thereof. Devices and home electronic equipment and systems for use by the Government of the United States or any agency thereof shall be developed, procured, or otherwise acquired, including offshore procurement, under United States Government criteria, standards, or specifications designed to achieve the objectives of reducing interference to radio reception and to home electronic equipment and systems, taking into account the unique needs of national defense and security."
(Emphasis mine)
That's a very clear exception.
"under United States Government criteria, standards, or specifications designed to achieve the objectives of reducing interference to radio reception and to home electronic equipment and systems, taking into account the unique needs of national defense and security."
Sorry about that.
You're not indiscriminately preventing wifi from working. If your network is broadcasting with enough power to reach the AP, and therefore customers besides yourself, they would be preventing that.
If someone sets up a wifi access point outside your building with the same name as your wifi, you should be able to prevent people from accidentally connecting to that rogue access point. That's why basically every enterprise AP comes with that ability. I can't imagine if this were actually illegal the FCC would allow the sale of systems with the ability to do that.
The distinction here is that it was done as a money grab and not for security reasons.
I am saying that using deauth packets to prevent wifi from operating does not seem to be outright illegal and there are valid reasons to be able to do it. Considering basically every high end AP has the ability to target rogue APs and the FCC takes a dim view on people selling jammers, it seems like the context of the application of this determines whether you are jamming or not and not the use of deauth packets by itself.
The legal principle here is remarkably clear cut.
Are you willfully interfering with another user of the band? Yes? You're breaking the law.
The method used to accomplish the interference isn't germane to the question of whether you're interfering or not.
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless-mobility/...
As someone who has experienced the fallout firsthand from a neighboring tenant in a downtown Seattle office building who used it, I'd challenge the idea that there are valid reasons to do this.
If you control the physical network - don't allow rogue APs on your network.
If you control the client and care about them connecting to access points that aren't under your control, then manage that instead.