[violentvinyl]

It's interesting (depressing) to me, that the FCC thinks that hardware vendors should be responsible for what their hardware does once it leaves their hands. If we applied the same logic to other industries, there wouldn't be a firearm manufacturer left in the USA.

Is this an actual problem? Are there people running DD-WRT in a way that is wreaking havoc on other communications? I can count on one hand the number of people I know who have played with DD-WRT, and I've worked with hundreds of geeks in my career. It feels like the FCC is trying to regulate a problem that doesn't exist yet, and it makes me wonder what the motivation behind it is.

[bcg1]

Actually it seems very similar to the example you provided.

A similar scenario would be if a firearms manufacturer designed a semi-automatic rifle (one trigger pull = 1 shot fired) that easily could be modified to be an automatic rifle (one trigger pull = multiple shots fired). Former is legal, the latter is not. If such a firearm starting becoming a favorite of criminals because of this feature, a vast majority of gun enthusiasts would have no problem with BATF requiring the manufacturer to put safeguards in place (there are perhaps a small sliver of extremists that might object, but nowhere near the degree to which an equal-but-oppositely extreme sliver of gun control advocates would have you believe).

The FCC is really just saying that if you make a device that you want to get certified, and it is physically capable of transmitting outside of the parameters for which it is being certified, it wants to know what steps you are putting in place to ensure that the it can't easily be modified to do that.

And to answer your question - yes, people are already modifying consumer routers to use outside of Part 15... for example http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/ ... those are licensed operators of course but anyone could do this, licensed or not.

[bmelton]

Honestly, as someone who associates with a lot of gun enthusiasts, I think that the AR platform is quite easily modified into fully automatic -- just replace the sear from a semi-automatic sear to a full auto sear.

You have to have a BATFE approval and pay a tax stamp to possess a full auto sear, but the work in switching from semi to full auto is pretty minimal.

A more apt scenario that people would clamor behind is a semi-automatic firearm that had a fully automatic failure state. That would be terribly unsafe, and everyone on both sides of the gun debate would be demanding it got fixed, just as they would if a firearm were on the market that could accidentally fire when dropped.

Both of those used to be fairly common scenarios, but are now both exceedingly rare thanks to advancements in gun safety.

[pavel_lishin]

I'm not familiar with guns - what's a sear?

Without knowing that, I'm gonna go ahead and make a comment that may not make sense: I think the idea is that it shouldn't be trivially simple to convert a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic rifle. E.g., it can't be done by putting a paperclip into some part of the mechanism, or slightly filing down a metal part.

If getting a full auto sear is a non-trivial process (which it seems to be) and making one from scratch isn't trivial either, then gun manufacturers seem to have gone to reasonable lengths to prevent their guns from being converted to full auto.

[bmelton]

A sear is, basically, a piece of metal. It's part of the trigger assembly. Speaking simplistically, it is the thing that gives the trigger pressure -- it holds back the striking mechanism until your trigger pull releases it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sear_(firearm)

This is an animation of a semi-automatic sear (in which the sear is the green part): http://mcb-homis.com/blog/trigger-animation.gif

This is an animation of a fully automatic sear (in which the sear is blue): http://mcb-homis.com/blog/m16animation1ww1.gif

Taking out a semi-automatic sear and replacing it with a fully automatic sear is trivial. Converting a semi-automatic sear is slightly more difficult, as it requires precision, and a supplementary catch (to keep the firearm from always firing always).

If people aren't committing crimes with fully automatic firearms, it isn't because the process of obtaining fully automatic firearms is difficult, because it isn't. You can get butt stocks that replicate fully automatic fire for less than $50. Fully automatic fire is just silly to use. If you miss with the first shot, you're almost certainly going to miss with subsequent shots, so for anything requiring accuracy (which is almost everything you would do with a firearm short of perhaps intimidation), converting to full auto makes it less effective.

[bcg1]

This is true, and a good comment. It sort of supports what I am saying though; there actually aren't a lot of gun owners who think it is tyrannical to have regulation around this. And besides, the percentage of crimes committed in the US with an AR-15 (let alone an AR-15 modified in that way) is so low that the actual problem could almost be classified as non-existent, so it is not a surprise that there is not an uproar about it. Your point is taken however, thank you for the info.

[ams6110]

There's no defined right of the people to keep and bear WiFi routers in the Constitution.

[ethbro]

To go down the rabbit hole, the Second Amendment specifies "Arms" (sadly, not Mips -- sorry, couldn't resist), not firearms.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

[qb45]

Maybe radio regulatory agencies should be given some run for their money and forced to always provide solid rationale for their rules. How serious is the problem currently? Why locating and fining offenders isn't enough?

Unfortunately, it's easier to order manufacturers to force users to jump hops instead of getting one's hands dirty.

[pjc50]

there wouldn't be a firearm manufacturer left in the USA.

Attempts have been made on this but have not been successful. Perhaps a better comparison would be cars, which are also deadly but the liability nearly always falls on the drivers so long as the manufacturers stay within the rules.

[qb45]

There's probably quite a lot of weapons manufactured in the USA.

However, good luck trying to purchase this anti-aircraft battery to deter idiots who would want to crash stolen jets on your property.

---

I find it somewhat interesting that the right to own firearms referred to state of the art weaponry when it was codified.

[skywhopper]

There's not a problem with wreaking havoc on other communications precisely because of the FCC's tight regulation on such things.

[lawstudent2]

What on earth are you talking about?

There is an entire, rich, enormous field of law called products liability that is precisely about holding manufacturers accountable for the performance of their products post sale. Everything from toaster ovens to home furnaces to nuclear reactors.

> If we applied the same logic to other industries, there wouldn't be a firearm manufacturer left in the USA.

We do. I'm going to ignore the statement about gun manufacturers - because lets be serious, that is hugely politically loaded, and the only reason this already isn't a thing is due to a recent act of congress making it illegal to sue gun manufacturers for the damage their guns cause, which is very likely to be repealed in the near future - but in literally every other industry this happens all the goddamned time. Car manufacturers are sued constantly, as are the manufacturers of tools and appliances, home builders, makers of factory equipment, and even the companies that make the factories and power plants themselves.

I am just... shocked. America is rife with manufacturers getting sued for the use and misuse of their products, including their downstream modification by their users, on literally a daily basis. The entire plaintiff's bar is based around this. There is a massive, multibillion - and not single billions, tens of billions - industry around the diligence behind product testing, the insurance against lawsuits in products liabilities, and the lawsuits themselves, all targeted at domestic and foreign manufacturers of everything ranging from paperclips to airplanes. I literally - literally - have a dear friend who makes his living suing aircraft and aircraft component manufacturers for products liability resulting from aviation disasters. I literally have another colleague who had a rich career of representing class action plaintiffs in everything from malfunctioning car parts to injuries caused by pharmaceuticals.

What planet do you live on?

Edit: please note that manufacturer liability also applies to foreseeable post-sale modifications: http://www.cassiday.com/maa-dri-productliability/

This is America. You can sue people for shit.

[wtallis]

Chill. None of that rant applies, because product liability doesn't extend to aftermarket modifications made by the user.

[lawstudent2]

Yes. It does. It absolutely does.

http://www.productliabilityprevention.com/images/5-PostSaleD...

http://www.cassiday.com/maa-dri-productliability/

If a post-sale modification of a product is foreseeable, and the manufacturer has not properly warned the user of its risks, then the manufacturer can be liable. It is really that simple.

[cwyers]

A firearm manufacturer can be liable if the FIREARM violates the law after it left the manufacturer.