Could That Be The Wireless Police Knocking?

netbuzz writes "Should private-property owners be required to practice safe wireless? Are the wireless police about to come a-knockin' on the front door of your castle? Network World reports on a condo complex in Arizona that will monitor your wireless signal for security. Is this the way all condos and apartment complexes should go?" From the article: "'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,' says Welch. However, a lawyer warned that wireless technology could quickly overrun any specific 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.' Why bother at all? 'We just don't want to see anybody hurt with their wireless system,' says Welch. 'If someone (unauthorized) were accessing it and an owner's information, there could be damage and a potential lawsuit.'"

Comments

Re:Why single out wireless protection?

[Tim C]

How about *you* go to hell, or start shouting at the right people?

I'm not actually advocating mandatory wireless encryption; it's your wireless, I think you should be free to leave it open if you want. I encrypt mine, but that's my choice.

These rules are being put into place because the appartment complex is probably getting kickbacks from the local cable or DSL provider and they want to make sure they collect the maximum possible number of subscription fees.

Now you're being utterly, utterly ridiculous. All the article says is that they're considering mandating encryption. So, rather than having an open network, you switch on WEP or WPA and tell everyone what the key is. Hell, make the SSID the key if you want.

If the ISPs were behind it, they'd simply mandate it in their TOS, and everyone would be caught by it, whether they live in an apartment block (and so have a management team) or not (and so most likely don't).

Congratulations on being a big business shill.

Congratulations on being a typical over-reacting ad hominem throwing slashbot. Nowhere in my post did I say it was ok to impose these rules, I just pointed out that they did not prevent the hypothetical collaboration posited by the OP. Hell, I even pointed out that local tenancy laws may prevent that sort of rule; I very much doubt that any landlord or association in the UK could impose them, for example.

But again, if you want to go through life wasting energy fighting battles that needn't happen, that's your choice too.