Just because a rule is not enforced does not mean it's always unnecessary. So, there, I answer your blanket statement with one of my own.
And here are the reasons why that's okay in this case (I'm going to 1-2-3 you again now)
1) Until it becomes cost-effective, We don't have the manpower to waste turning the campus in to a WiFi police state, and we hope it never becomes cost-effective 2) There's no reason to cause a fuss unless there is a reason to cause a fuss. The rule is there so we have the authority and justification to take action if necessary, not because we enjoy slapping people's wrists. Back to the topic of the post - that's all the school was doing: "officially" giving themselves the okay to take action. 3) You agree to the rules when you come here (or go to any school). I consider myself a libertarian in many ways, but even I can see that when two parties engage in an agreement, they're both expected to abide by the rules of that agreement.
The University of Tennessee, where I matriculate and work, has the same policy. There are three main reasons why the students have no right to complain about it:
1) When you live in a school's dorms/apartments, you agree to follow its rules. For example, the school is a dry campus - you agree not to have alcohol in your abode.
2) The school provides your internet access. If you feel like putting up a AP, go ahead! If we find it we'll turn off your port!
3) When your computer gets compromised because you didn't secure your AP properly, guess who you'll come crying to - us! Think of it as preventative medicine...
That said, like the alcohol rule, the rule is only rarely enforced, basically only if you're not secured or you are on a channel that is being used by our APs.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because a rule is not enforced does not mean it's always unnecessary. So, there, I answer your blanket statement with one of my own.
And here are the reasons why that's okay in this case (I'm going to 1-2-3 you again now)
1) Until it becomes cost-effective, We don't have the manpower to waste turning the campus in to a WiFi police state, and we hope it never becomes cost-effective
2) There's no reason to cause a fuss unless there is a reason to cause a fuss. The rule is there so we have the authority and justification to take action if necessary, not because we enjoy slapping people's wrists. Back to the topic of the post - that's all the school was doing: "officially" giving themselves the okay to take action.
3) You agree to the rules when you come here (or go to any school). I consider myself a libertarian in many ways, but even I can see that when two parties engage in an agreement, they're both expected to abide by the rules of that agreement.
The University of Tennessee, where I matriculate and work, has the same policy. There are three main reasons why the students have no right to complain about it:
1) When you live in a school's dorms/apartments, you agree to follow its rules. For example, the school is a dry campus - you agree not to have alcohol in your abode.
2) The school provides your internet access. If you feel like putting up a AP, go ahead! If we find it we'll turn off your port!
3) When your computer gets compromised because you didn't secure your AP properly, guess who you'll come crying to - us! Think of it as preventative medicine...
That said, like the alcohol rule, the rule is only rarely enforced, basically only if you're not secured or you are on a channel that is being used by our APs.