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 Dan Wakeman had to say:
Required wireless security for private entities: I see nothing wrong with this, and am leaning toward thinking it is a good idea.
When my father-in-law purchased land and built his house, development covenants dictated several things including “no satellite dishes” (which was later clarified to mean the big ones, the little 18-inch dishes were deemed OK) and that he must use natural siding materials (i.e. wood) and natural colors (not sure how they defined this). He was aware of these before purchase and by virtue of purchasing agreed to them. How is network security any different? I at least see nothing wrong with this. Not to mention, wireless security is a good thing for everyone to practice.
How might it be a good idea? Hmmm… Let me count the ways that an unsecured, probably unmonitored, and possibly even “encouraging” network access point might foster “no good” in general amongst the neighbors. True, it might be an “airwaves-only” mess, and people walking down the hall or sitting in their own rooms on the other side of the wall would not be affected by this, but what tangible/visible/audible things might a rogue public access point cultivate? In their very close (meaning proximity) community?
— Dan Wakeman
