On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:45:34AM -0800, List Mail User wrote:
> 	A very fine point:  The manufacturer is barred from providing
> "software or drivers" with a particular capability, but can allow a
> third party to develop exactly that!?  I am not a lawyer, but I wouldn't
> want to test that interpretation.

I don't think the FCC could regulate device datasheets if it wanted to.

> P.S.  Bugs in all existing Window's drivers for Atheros chips seem to allow
> "illegal" active scanning on some channels and some cards (e.g. anything
> Netgear and many others), and "illegal" associations to access-points or
> routers on those same channels (12-14, & 100-140) but I don't think that
> it is on purpose (except, possibly the D-Link channel 52 mess - They already
> had WHQL so seemed to ignore the FCC and their own filings, about removing
> it, and operation in turbo mode on channel 50 seem to contradict their own
> documents - though it works with their supplied drivers).

These slip-ups are common enough.  It begs the question, "why bother?"

> P.P.S.  As to "tamper-proofing" PART 15 devices, my drawer full of "security"
> bits and screwdrivers attests that many manufacturer do attempt to prevent
> physical access to the insides of the devices they sell (often at the FCC's
> request - I can dig up other references if you like, but a search on PART 15
> transmitters will give you all you should need).

This jives with my argument that the FCC's aim is to prevent illegal
operation that is casual or inadvertent.  Clearly these devices have not
been "tamperproofed" if you have a drawerful of bits & screwdrivers to
open them!  These are rudimentary barriers to disassembly.  A determined
person can and will tamper with the device.

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung@ojctech.com      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933