Can a university legally enforce a policy preventing students from creating their own wireless networks? I attend a university in the United States where the school policy states that &quot;Students are not permitted to setup or use their own wireless networks.&quot; This includes personal hotspots that come with one's phone plan, bluetooth connections, etc. I had some concerns about this policy and wrote to the administration. In the end they agreed to meet with me and said they would work with me to change the outdated policy. So for me, it looks like all good news. That being said, I'm aware that there are many other universities out there with this same policy, and that have refused to change it. Can these universities legally enforce this policy? I'm leaning towards thinking that they would not be able to (I'll link some of the sources that gave me this impression below), but I'm curious to hear what others have to say, as this is starting to become a very prevalent issue, and I wouldn't be surprised to see cases in court in the coming years. Sources/Arguments: One of the reasons for this policy provided by the school was that other wireless networks could cause unwanted interference with their network. Ignoring the fact that almost all modern devices (and all wireless devices using the 5Ghz spectrum, per regulation) automatically detect which wireless channels are being used and will select unused ones, it would seem that per FCC regulations, the university must &quot;...accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.&quot; Note: the type of interference - if any - caused by students self-hosting their own wireless networks would not come near to the FCC's &quot;harmful interference&quot; definition. Also check out the §15.5(b) explanation in this article: &quot;For unlicensed devices, which include Wi-Fi, the FCC has consistently interpreted this to mean that interference incidental to the operation of a properly functioning device is allowable. Someone using a properly operating hotspot in your vicinity has as much a right to operate their device as you do operating your device, even if the two systems cause problems with each other.&quot; It would also appear that the university wouldn't have any more right towards use of the wireless spectrum than any student would, as consistently the FCC has shown that property rights have no relation to usage rights of the wireless spectrum. &quot;First, under the general requirements for operation, the consumer does not receive or possess a 'vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency' on the basis of device certification or use. Being the owner of the device does not guarantee the consumer exclusive, continuous, or ongoing usage of that wireless device at a specific frequency. Although a consumer may operate an unlicensed wireless device for weeks, months, or years, this operation does not confer a first-in-time 'vested' right to continue to operate the device if another licensed or unlicensed device begins to operate at that frequency.&quot; Finally, it looks like the only authority with the right to ask someone to stop a wireless transmission is the FCC itself: &quot;The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference.&quot; Update: After seeing this comment from gparyani, I got curious and searched through all of the official university policies I'd agreed to. As it turns out, despite the warning being plastered all over the university's website, and the website itself saying that it's the university's policy not to allow students to create their own wireless networks... it's not actually in any of the hundreds of pages of policy documents that I agreed to abide by upon enrolling here... I just figured I'd highlight this point for any future visitors to this post. Update #2 I have accepted this answer as it seems to be correct, and after waiting a few months and prompting the authors of some of the other compelling answers to respond, there has yet to be a counter argument. If, however, a strong counter argument is made, or you think I’ve selected the wrong answer, let me know with a valid explanation, and I’ll change my selection. It should also be noted that this answer was provided long after the hype died down on this question, hence why it doesn’t have nearly as many views and votes.
Yes they can You are approaching this from the wrong direction. Their right to enforce what you can and can't do doesn't come from radio-spectrum law; it comes from property and contract law. You are on their property subject to a license that they give you to be there. One of the terms of that license is that you won't set up or operate a wireless network. No doubt there are other things you are not permitted to do; for example, you may not be able to sell goods and services. If you breach the terms of the license then you are trespassing and they are within their rights to have you removed. In addition, if you are a student (or staff), this is probably one of the terms of your contract with the university. If you breach it, they can terminate your candidature (employment). Contracts can impose obligations on you that goes beyond what the law obliges you to do. Indeed, there is no contract if it only requires what is already required.
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/dk/dk091en.pdf is the Copyright Law in English for Denmark. You should probably try to find a Danish version to ensure the translation is accurate. Chapter 2 lists the exemptions from the general rule that you need the copyright owner's permission to use their IP. Unfortunately, the usage you have made does not meet the requirements for private use (s12): digital copies may only be shared among the members of one household, placing them on the web extends beyond your household. It may meet the requirements of educational use (s13) providing that your school has met the requirements for Extended Collective Use (s50). For photographs, this seems unlikely, such arrangements are usually limited to songs and television works. Under Chapter 6b, you are permitted to use "orphaned works", however, this requires that you have made a diligent search for the owners and have been unable to either identify or locate them. Copyright violation is subject to both penal sanctions (fines and in egregious violations imprisonment) (s76) and damages (s83). TL;DR Yes, you could be sued. Yes, the copyright holder would probably be successful. No, it is extremely unlikely they would bother.
Laws against such actions are not stated in terms of popular and fluid concepts like "computer virus", they are stated in terms of clear concepts like "unauthorized access". There are federal and state laws against this. This web site lists and links to all of the state laws on the matter. There is also a federal law: a detailed legal analysis by DOJ is given here. There are some limits to federal jurisdiction, for example "protected computers" include "computers used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication". The term "affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication" is widely used in federal law, and can be used to prohibit growing feed for your own animals. Anything that you "send" clearly affects interstate commerce (the internet is internationally connected). 18 USC 1030(a) says Whoever ... (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains...(C) information from any protected computer Essentially, a computer connected to the outside world is protected. The key here is "without authorization". If you authorize MS to report back stuff about your computer, that is not unauthorized. It may not be possible to use their product without giving such authorization, in which case you can use a different product that doesn't require that you grant authorization. There is also the possibility that some software producer has technically violates the law because they think that it's okay for them to access the computer as long as they do no harm. Typically, people are not aware that they have granted software publishers access to their computer. The concept of "harm" is pretty much irrelevant to computer-crime criminal law. It would be relevant, though, if a plaintiff were to sue someone for sniffing around their computer: then you'd have to show that you were damaged.
No, it is not illegal in UK to use proxies. No, it is not like the tor concept. No, the ISP does not slow you down (they mostly throttle detectable p2p connections), but if you use public proxies, many of them will be unacceptably slow. Note: for things like facebook, a proxy is utterly useless. You already donated your private data to them, there's nothing to hide.
What is the legality of someone putting a virtual hot spot on your property without permission? I know we are in uncharted territory but how would this compare to setting up a contest that would require going on your property without permission? The existence of a game does not authorise entrance to private property, barring some agreement with the owner. That is - if it is trespassing without Pokemon Go (or, for that matter Ingress), then it is trespassing while playing them. That being said, the creators of the game are free to place their in-game targets anywhere they please, and it is hard to imagine a scenario where they would be liable for their users' actions, unless they have not taken reasonable steps to prevent their users from doing so - Niantic clearly instruct their users to respect the law and also, only require that their users be within a certain distance of these points, not actually be at them. Is it currently legal to say Go to person X house and touch a tree? If not, does the current law extend to augmented reality? Nope, unless it can be done without entering private property (which includes the airspace above the property, to some extent). And there are no special cases for augmented reality. Now, there is some possibility that if they create a private nuisance - by being too loud, or by otherwise interfering with the use of the property - owners of a property could bring a claim in tort against players for doing so - or charges for a public nuisance, when done in a public area.
Copyright applies to literary and artistic works from the moment of their creation: they do not need any form of registration - your question and my answer are copyrighted materials owned by you and me respectively. However, "Who is on my wifi" is probably not a literary work - short phrases do not qualify for copyright protection. That said, "Who is on my wifi" can be, and probably is a trademark belonging to the developers of the other app. A trademark is anything used to identify the goods and services of a particular person, their app in this case. You are not allowed to use this phrase if it could cause confusion between their product and yours - on the face of it, it is hard to see how your use wouldn't do that. You need to find another name. Unfortunately for you, the name belongs to whoever used it first.
I believe the relevant section is 28 CFR 35.150 - Existing facilities § 35.150 Existing facilities: (a)General. A public entity shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This paragraph does not - Because of this, it seems theoretically possible that someone could complain that the youtube videos of lectures are not accessible enough to disabled persons, and therefore have them taken down. Regardless, it seems that UC Berkley decided to preemptively take down the videos in order to &quot;reset&quot; their online lectures catalogue and make large improvements. But yeah, nothing in the statute says they must take such videos down, but it would be a theoretical violation of the law to leave them up.
The university has a legal obligation to collect certain data from attendees, including employees an visitors. It has decided to keep these records in digital form, and offers a smartphone app as a convenience. The university has outsourced the data processing activity to a third party. This is perfectly legal under the GDPR, if that third party is contractually bound to only process the data as instructed, and not for their own purposes. Whereas the university acts as a data controller (Verantwortlicher), the third party would be a data processor (Auftragsverarbeiter). I have some doubts though whether an app or a website is indeed the solution that offers the best data protection, especially taking into account the GDPR's data minimization principle. Requiring updates when entering or leaving any room is potentially excessive. Given the sensitivity of the data, the university should have performed a data protection impact assessment to weigh the consequences of this measure. At least for employees, the measure would likely have to be approved by the union (Personalrat) as well.