SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Protecting-the-product-or-the-public? dept.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is conducting a public hearing on the safety of internet-connected consumer products, and is requesting comments.
The Commission hearing will begin at 10 a.m., on May 16, 2018, and will conclude the same day. The Commission hearing will also be available through a webcast, but viewers will not be able to interact with the panels and presenters through the webcast.
...
The growth of IoT-related products is a challenge for all CPSC stakeholders to address. Regulators, standards organizations, and business and consumer advocates must work collaboratively to develop a framework for best practices. To that end, the Commission will hold a public hearing for all interested parties on consumer product safety issues related to IoT.
Although this explicitly does not cover data security and privacy it covers many of the other issues seen with IoT devices.
Comments can be submitted to the commission through the web portal:
You may submit written comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2018-0007
...
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Seen through the Internet Of Shit twitter feed.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday March 30 2018, @12:55AM (3 children)
Yes, of course. Why not?
Does your sister know anything about how cars work? Probably not. However, she's fully responsible for the emissions from her car if she lives in an emission-controlled area. She doesn't get to just ignore the emission testing because she's ignorant of how car engines work.
(Score: 3, Touché) by tonyPick on Friday March 30 2018, @09:06AM (2 children)
So, following this line of argument then in the VW emissions scandal [theguardian.com] it's the people who bought the cars that should be held responsible?
Because that's not the way it's working in the UK [thisismoney.co.uk] or Germany [globallegalpost.com] or even the US [theguardian.com].
ISTM all of these places are holding the car maker to blame, and they're very much not holding the owners to blame for the faults of the manufacturer in this case.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:06PM (1 child)
So, following this line of argument then in the VW emissions scandal [theguardian.com] it's the people who bought the cars that should be held responsible?
If they continue to drive non-compliant cars on public roads, then yes. Why would you argue otherwise? You don't get to ignore the laws just because someone else is at fault. In their case, VW should have the responsibility of either fixing or replacing their cars (which, to my knowledge, is what has happened). However, if they refuse this corrective action, they don't get to just drive around and ignore the emissions laws. So YES, they should be held responsible. VW has already been held responsible for their part of the crime, and consumers were not, before that point.
Same goes for IoT devices: manufacturers should be held responsible by the legal system when found to be negligent, but that doesn't mean consumers can just keep using the faulty devices and ignore the laws or regulations. Worse, with IoT devices, many of them aren't backed by some giant European-based multinational company with deep pockets, they're made by fly-by-night Chinese companies. So no, consumers can't just say "well sorry, my device's manufacturer has disappeared from AliExpress and there's no support or software updates so I'm just going to keep using it it".
I'm sure a lawyer could enlighten us about the specific legal terminology involved here, but you don't get to just throw your hands up when a manufacturer has disappeared, and keep ignoring laws or regulations. You're responsible for abiding by them with your devices or possessions, and you can shift blame to the manufacturer at times (if they can be found and then held responsible legally and financially), but that doesn't completely absolve you of all responsibility. It's really mind-boggling that you would even think this.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Sunday April 01 2018, @09:35AM
I see this as a change from your opening argument, where the initial example was of the final product owner being automatically held liable for damages which were due to the actions of the manufacturer and installer. To quote:
Nobody (AFAICT) is arguing owners should not be responsible for their *own* actions, but automatic liability for damages on the owner also places them on the hook for the actions of the suppliers and third parties.