Managing rouge APs is a legitimate pursuit in many contexts. It is always legitimate for the operator of an Ethernet network to attack, disable, and punish peo

Managing rouge APs is a legitimate pursuit in many contexts. It is always legitimate for the operator of an Ethernet network to attack, disable, and punish people for attaching unauthorized APs to that network. As a university or corporate IT department, you likely employ access control and monitoring techniques (including WPA2-EAP and 802.1x). An employee or student's Best Buy wireless router that strips you of the ability to individually identify users is a major liability. The worst case scenario in this case is a ruling against rouge AP management that does not distinguish between hotspots attached to the corporate network and hotspots merely existing on corporate property. Second, there is a compelling argument against cellular hotspots in contexts like secure corporate and government environments. Many corporations have a self-interest, ethical responsibility, and legal/regulatory obligation to monitor and archive employee communication. A personal WiFi hotspot would allow employees to exfiltrate private customer data, bypassing logging and packet inspection schemes. That could be used for anything from a financial rep engaging in prohibited sales practices immune from auditor/supervisory eyes and litigator discovery, to a Facebook employee selling chat logs to the highest better, to old-fashioned corporate espionage against R&D work products. Jamming cellular personal hotspot devices in a hotel should be illegal, but for the right reason - it's anticompetitive. Same thing as a railroad company selling exclusive carriage to one food company.