Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.

US Think Tank Wants IoT Device Design Regulated

posted by Fnord666 on Monday December 12 2016, @02:58AM   Printer-friendly
from the all-your-boink-detecting-mattresses-are-belong-to-us dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket writes:

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found an interesting story over at The Register about regulating the security of IoT devices:

Washington DC think tank the Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology is calling for regulation on "negligence" in the design of internet-of-things (IoT) devices.

Researchers James Scott and Drew Spaniel point out in their report Rise of the Machines: The Dyn Attack Was Just a Practice Run [PDF] that IoT represents a threat that is only beginning to be understood.

The pair say the risk that regulation could stifle market-making IoT innovation (like the WiFi cheater-detection mattress) is outweighed by the need to stop feeding Shodan.

"National IoT regulation and economic incentives that mandate security-by-design are worthwhile as best practices, but regulation development faces the challenge of ... security-by-design without stifling innovation, and remaining actionable, implementable and binding," Scott and Spaniel say.

[...] State level regulation would be "disastrous" to markets and consumers alike.

Does the ability of a company to make money now outweigh the security of our digital homes and devices?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
US Think Tank Wants IoT Device Design Regulated | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 31 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Monday December 12 2016, @01:47PM

    by stormwyrm (717) on Monday December 12 2016, @01:47PM (#440350) Journal
    Frankly, I'd take the hit on innovation in pharmaceuticals if it means that I won't be poisoned or sold useless treatments by charlatans. I'd take the hit on innovation in cars for safer vehicles and cleaner air. And I'd gladly take the hit in IoT innovation (much of which is of dubious usefulness like that mattress anyway), if it meant less chances of massive DDoS crippling the Internet and lesser chances of an IoT-enabled disaster. It's about time for that party to end.
    --
    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @05:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @05:18PM (#440450)

    "The automotive industry is highly regulated in many aspects, and none of this has served to seriously stifle innovation."

    oh yeah? where's my car that comes with guns and heads up targeting system? or one that shoots out oil slicks for the cops? or maybe small RPGs?

    "Frankly, I'd take the hit on innovation in pharmaceuticals if it means that I won't be poisoned or sold useless treatments by charlatans."

    wtf do you think you get from the "real" doctors?