Members of the BuzzBlog Brigade were asked to weigh in on the notion of private property owners being required by regulation or law to secure their wireless networks. Here’s what Jon Gog had to say:
Let’s try an analogy here. Most states require that your car meet certain minimum safety requirements (along with federal regs, of course). Some states go so far as to require periodic inspections to make sure that your lights work, your tires aren’t bald, and so on. This is for your safety and the safety of others. Having an unsecured wireless network is, at best, going to allow for someone to abuse the system. At worst, it will provide an unscrupulous person with the ability to do real harm to systems, perhaps important ones.
OK, that’s fine for government regulation, but what about private property? Well, I don’t live in one of those neighborhoods that have an “association,” but I believe it’s pretty common for them to set rules that you must abide by if you’re going to live there, including keeping your property up to the standards agreed to by all the members. If you don’t, it will cost you. What is the difference if that association set a rule saying that wireless networks should be secured?
Finally, if I go to a hotel or stay in a condo and the owner mandates “No Smoking,” how is that different? Demanding wireless security is a matter of computer safety and health just as disallowing smoking is a matter physical health and property safety (less chance of fires).
I just don’t see the big issue here. The real problem is that wireless systems are shipped totally unsecured. Vendors need to make default setups that won’t connect to the Internet or to more than one wireless connection until the SSID has been changed and at least WEP security is enabled. At least this condo won’t be a mass of war-driver material.
— Jon Gog
