Could the SE Workplace community please review and vote as to whether this question can be re-opened after I edited it just now?

I feel the first question asked "Why do companies restrict WiFi" is answerable in general. However, I do not feel the existing answer given by @RualStorge is complete. Significant security concerns regards to WiFi (MiTM, evil twin, rogue AP etc.) were not discussed as a likely reason. I work as an IT security professional and believe I can add quite a bit more as to why companies tend to restrict WiFi access.

| | | | | |
  • 1
    So, you edited the Question for you to be able to answer it? Seeing your edit I notice the post is better now, but the question you rephrased is IMO still Company Specific. – DarkCygnus Oct 19 '17 at 1:59
  • 2
    How is this anything but a list question though? The reasons why they restrict wifi are varied and many and none of that has any practical use to someone facing a lack of wifi access as far as I can tell. – Lilienthal Oct 19 '17 at 9:14
  • Basically the only bit really answerable is building a business case. The rest is company specific. No idea what the bribaery rubbish is all about. Anyone tried to bribe me with food would find themselves under investigation. Any IT who would break company policy or protocols for a donut is not a professional. – Kilisi Oct 19 '17 at 22:47

I agree that the 1st question is answerable and useful in the context of a typical IT industry workplace. I have cast the first reopen vote on the question.

However, I suspect that the 2nd question about asking for WiFi access is a duplicate of several questions that broadly fall in the category of "how to request for equipment required for my work". Nonetheless, I prefer to keep questions than remove them. We will edit the question again if necessary. :)

| | | | | |

I agree that the first question is both answerable and useful - the reasons would likely be very similar across the industry and therefore useful to others in a similar situation.

Speaking of the situation though the first part of the question post that provides the background isn't particularly on topic IMO - it's basically saying "I asked and was told no but I suspect their reason to be incomplete or untrue" which isn't something we can address.

| | | | | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .