So you’re among the lucky owners who just paid $300,000 or more for a fully furnished, two-bedroom, two-bath unit in a soon-to-open condominium/hotel on a golf course near Tucson, Ariz.
Life doesn’t get much sweeter – at least, as long as you remember to secure your personal wireless access point properly, because failure to perform that little chore will get you in hot water with property management.
Yes, we’re entering the world of mandatory wireless encryption for private-property owners, at least if the intentions of the developers of Canoa Ranch Resort are any indication of things to come. We previously crossed the threshold on states prosecuting war drivers (Florida, for example) and governments requiring safe wireless practices of business owners (witness Westchester County, N.Y., earlier this year).
But private-property owners? Are the wireless police about to come a-knockin’ on the front door of your castle?
That’s hard for me to imagine – or justify – but then again, I’m not developing or buying into Canoa Ranch. However, I certainly can imagine the idea popping into the heads of local, state or federal lawmakers – we’re just that kind of society.
We’re going to get a jump on the debate right here because 15 regular readers of my blog – members of the BuzzBlog Brigade – were given an opportunity to weigh in before this column’s publication. We’ll get to a sampling of what they had to say, and you can read all their opinions under the blog version of this column at . . . . But first, back to Tucson.
Bryan Welch is sales manager for Canoa Ranch, and he takes credit for broaching the wireless security mandate with the developers of the project, which will provide each condo unit/hotel room with wired broadband, telephony and cable TV service. Owners are on their own for wireless. “We just kind of kicked it around the table and everybody said that’s a helluva good idea, [mandatory encryption] ought to go in the declarations,” Welch says. A lawyer warned, however, that wireless technology could quickly overrun any covenants they put to paper, “so we decided that instead of recording [declarations] at the county that we would leave it up to the hotel manager to put it in their rules and regulations,” which are more easily amended.
“We just don’t want to see anybody hurt with their wireless system,” Welch says. “If someone [unauthorized] were accessing it and an owner’s information, there could be damage and a potential lawsuit.”
We’ll leave that one for the lawyers, but I put the bigger question to my blog readers: Should safe wireless be mandatory? Oh boy, did I get a wide range of replies.
“I am generally opposed to government infringing on individual rights,” offers Jim Albright. “I think Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. That being said, I am absolutely in favor of regulation requiring not just business-installed but all wireless networks to be secure. It is a longstanding premise that the rights of an individual end where they begin to infringe on the rights of others.”
Albright ticks off three pretty good examples of such infringement, too, although I’m not quite ready to abandon ol’ Ben on this one. Neither are these fellows:
“I can’t think of a single compelling reason why an ownership association should require safe wireless,” offers Mariano Reyes. “What is their vested interest?”
Or the government’s?
“What business is it of government if I don’t want to use security?” asks Joel Trammell. “It is no different than passing a law that requires me to lock the door on my house.”
Personally, I might be able to get past the paternalism, but then there’s the little matter of enforcement. That’s simply not going to happen in an effective or even-handed manner, so why go through the charade?
Now if we want to talk about putting the onus on wireless equipment makers . . . .
If you’d like to join the BuzzBlog Brigade, drop me a line at buzz@nww.com.
