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 tonyPick on Friday March 30 2018, @09:19AM (2 children)
How about protecting you from other people's stupidity?
Or do you think that, for example, an electrical fire and explosion with burning battery acid, will somehow confine itself to affecting "owners only"?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 30 2018, @01:26PM (1 child)
I agree with you on that.
If I buy a toaster, I expect it to not burn my house down.
But there is some level of protection that has gone berserk. It might be difficult to articulate. But a digital alarm clock that has a warning not to use it underwater?
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Monday April 02 2018, @10:48AM
And I'd agree with that, but at the moment ISTM that IoT devices are the wild west in terms of what gets shipped and how it changes in the field: You can qualify the software on Cad A, and deploy different software to the field, and then upgrade it again with software from V2 of the board, and minimal tests, or even no testing, on the thing the customer uses. You can deploy Li-Ion cells that are essentially bombs that rely on software to not explode, and then change the software arbitrarily. You can intentionally break products in the field. You can spam out wifi and take down everyone else’s device. You can require an upgrade to work, and change the terms of ownership or functionality on the upgrade, etc etc.
I think we're a ways away from over-regulation here.
These are all problems that the current law doesn't really account for, and having a consultation on safety with the industry, experts and anyone interested who can make a coherent argument (as per TFA) before introducing new laws or regulations seems a good way to go to me.