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 Jim Albright had to say:
I am generally opposed to government infringing on individual rights. 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 long-standing premise that the rights of an individual end where they begin to infringe on the rights of others. I believe unsecured wireless networks do this in three very critical ways.
First it can be argued that inappropriate sharing of broadband Internet access, whether intentional or not, inflates the cost to “legitimate” users by reducing the subscriber base. You probably recognize this argument as roughly parallel to the economic arguments against software piracy. Of my three assertions, this is admittedly the most difficult to support.
Next I would claim that unsecured wireless networks in the home pose a threat to corporate network security. With the recent growth of the remote workforce, unsecured home networks provide a growing opportunity for casual hackers and especially targeted attackers to obtain the credentials and other information needed to gain access to corporate networks.
Finally, and most importantly, unsecured wireless networks provide a safe haven for the white-collar criminal or terrorist. Unsecured access points offer virtually anonymous Internet access to anyone connecting to them. Any audit trail of inappropriate activity would end with the registered owner of the circuit and never lead to the perpetrator that was parked in a car across the street six months ago. With the alarming rise in the rate of identity theft, virus releases into the wild and other computer crimes, coupled with the current concerns over anti-terrorism, I believe that requiring ALL installed wireless networks to be secure is not only appropriate, it is imperative.
Unfortunately such legislation would be difficult to enforce. Perhaps a more appropriate alternative is to regulate the manufacturers of these devices by stipulating that all new wireless equipment sold must contain configurable security settings that are not only on by default but cannot be disabled.
— Jim Albright
