That disclaimer bugs me. Just admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and to consult a lawyer before using on equipment the user doesn't own and control. Instead it misleads the uninformed, and shows the slightly-informed you skimmed half a news article once.
Can you clarify the problem you have with the disclaimer? The important parts of the disclaimer seem to be the lines "this might be illegal, make sure to check, use with caution" as well as mention of de-authing being the potential problem. Those seem to me to be enough for an informed user to be able to do their research and enough for an uninformed user (or those unconfident in their ability to research it) to be sufficiently scared away.
It wasn't a change in regulation. There was an enforcement advisory that the FCC considered interfering with WiFi connections to be interference under 47 USC 333. That's not a new law or regulation, it's just the FCC publicizing that they have already and will take further action over new way to violate a law.
> it appears intentionally de-authing WiFi clients, even in your own home,
The radio spectrum is a public resource, even when it radiates through your home. I can't use a stingray just because the phones are being used in my house either. I can understand why some people might disagree with the public resource nature of RF. But it's neither clear if the author is trying to pick that bone for real, nor am I here to defend that classification. Just pointing it out.
> is now classed as ‘jamming’. Up until recently, jamming was defined as the indiscriminate addition of noise to signal - still the global technical definition.
Jamming is used colloquially to refer to all interference under 47 USC 333. But with a little googling I don't see the FCC using the term "jamming" for this style of WiFi interference. The law is written the way it is because spoofing deauth messages is just one of the many ways to cause interference without "jamming."
> It’s worth noting here that all wireless routers necessarily ship with the ability to de-auth, as part of the 802.11 specification.
I don't think I understand that it's "worth noting." There is a large difference between an access point managing it's clients, and a rogue actor spoofing messages to mislead those clients that the message came from the AP. The fact it's part of the spec is the only reason this tool works at all, and the concept of layer 2 interference isn't particularly hard to grasp, especially when that's the explicit purpose of the tool.
Also:
>The very fact this code exists should challenge you to reconsider the non-sane choice to rely on anything wireless for home security. More so, WiFi jammers - while illegal - are cheap. If you care, use cable.
There are a great many things in my life that someone could fuck up if they wanted to break the law that are much more important than my wifi based home security. Even with this tool, the greatest threats to wifi devices are still lousy wifi performance before interference, and lousy residential internet connections.
I don't need someone with a baseball bat loitering around the parking lots I use to pester me about my car. That doesn't "challenge me to reconsider the non-sane choice" of using a mode of transportation that is just so darn easy to damage with a baseball bat.
