Regulating wireless devices [LWN.net]

Regulating wireless devices

Posted Aug 21, 2008 8:25 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
Parent article: Regulating wireless devices

Am I the only one that thinks that it's not the kernel's responsibility to enforce local law?
Should the Linux Kernel prevent being used in any other illegal actions? Maybe stop speeding
cars? Avoid being used in Internet fraud? Refuse to participate in a murder?

It is clear that the system should be able to impose limitations, but those should be decided
by the system administrator, not by the system itself. Most users cannot tell the difference
between a kernel enforced policy and a userspace (but privileged) one. What's more, most users
wouldn't event want to. And for those who would, it's trivial to build an emitting device.
This solution solves effectively nothing. The FCC should be equally served by an interface
that allows userspace to set the policy as required.

One final thought: laws and regulations change, not only from place to place, but with time
too.

(Log in to post comments)

Regulating wireless devices

Posted Aug 21, 2008 9:17 UTC (Thu) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

I like this development because;

It makes it easier to comply with local laws; arrest and fines are annoying, especially when
travelling.

Perhaps in future intel wireless will no longer need non-free binary-blob firmware:

http://bughost.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1594

People with ham-radio and other licenses may be able to experiment with software radio stuff
while easily complying with their special license.

Regulating wireless devices

Posted Aug 21, 2008 9:38 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link]

Presumably, people in general don't actually _wan't_ to break the law. As such, a computer
subsystem that try to keep you from unintentionally breaking the law should be seen as a good
thing.

Keep in mind that if you do want a device to emit radio waves at frequencies and powers that
are illegal in your current location, it is trivial to do so by simply using components that
can be bought for a small number of dollars at the nearest radio shack and information that
can be easily googled, or by making semi-trivial changes in a linux driver, or by slightly
altering the hardware itself.

Regulating wireless devices

Posted Aug 21, 2008 18:01 UTC (Thu) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link]

Keep in mind that if you do want a device to emit radio waves at frequencies and powers that are illegal in your current location, it is trivial to do so by simply using components that can be bought for a small number of dollars at the nearest radio shack and information that can be easily googled, or by making semi-trivial changes in a linux driver, or by slightly altering the hardware itself.

Despite the fact that this is common knowledge, it's still odd how the Wi-Fi vendors continue to "hide" behind the false perception of Linux users being a bunch of criminal hackers in order to justify not releasing hardware drivers. While there may be some substance to the notion that these companies are surrounded by market, legal, and trade-secret boundaries, I personally think that they're just too lazy to support anything other than Windows or Mac OS.

</vented frustration>

Regulating wireless devices

Posted Aug 22, 2008 9:39 UTC (Fri) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link]

I guess that the illusion of safety is more important than real safety here. If there is a
separate subsystem with cryptographically signed data about emission levels, that makes it
feel less open, less unrestricted, even if you in fact can just edit the source code a bit to
bypass the whole thing. Kind of like how the anti virus people want deep kernel hooks for
their anti virus products, even though there is nothing they can do with those that can't be
done by a pure user space solution. Kind of like how it has been repeatedly demonstrated that
there are many simple ways to get various weapons past airport security, but regular people
aren't even allowed to bring a bottle of shampoo.

Sometime security theater is the only thing that matters.

The good thing about this proposed subsystem is that it will actually make it easier to write
law abiding, bug free and stable drivers since it's suddenly much less work to find out at
what power you're allowed to transmit on a given frequency. So it serves a dual purpose of
both giving an illusion of safety and making the life of driver writers easier.

And hey, anything that will get this stupid policy deamon for my Intel wireless of my system
is a win in my book.

Regulating wireless devices

Posted Aug 21, 2008 23:20 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

it's not the kernels responsibility to enforce the local law, but it is the users
responsibility to _comply_ with the local law.

and if the kernel doesn't provide reasonable tools to allow the user to comply with the local
laws then the kernel is at fault.

remember that if someone really wants to they can change the code (they have the source), and
that there are people who have legitimate reasons to operate outside the 'normal' rules (for
example Ham radio operators can use wifi equipment on channels that are not legal for other
people to use in the US)