SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
David Rosenthal has written a blog post on how end users may be affected by tort law. Specifically, he discusses two points in The Internet of Torts raised by Rebecca Crootof:
- Introducing the Internet of Torts, in which she describes "how IoT devices empower companies at the expense of consumers and how extant law shields industry from liability."
- Accountability for the Internet of Torts, in which she discusses "how new products liability law and fiduciary duties could be used to rectify this new power imbalance and ensure that IoT companies are held accountable for the harms they foreseeably cause."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
How IoT Devices Empower Companies at the Expense of Consumers
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 14 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:06PM (1 child)
The first two arguments apply to almost all existing domestic PCs and phones. The difference is the 3rd i.e. the "control of physical devices".
In the article, I think that the point is different though to the one you make. The point is that if the contract that services your e.g. door lock is terminated, you can be locked in or out of your own home; or alternately your door lock can become unlocked. This can lead to serious safety issues. Also, in effect it gives the service provider leverage to say "pay up on the service contract or you lose your house" which is unfair - you aren't renting a house, you are just renting a lock (at some level the law is about fairness after all).
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday August 18 2018, @09:09PM
My understanding is that most IoT devices are FAR less secure than your average PC. Scary as that concept may be.
Ah, yes, that's also a big danger of IoT devices.
>at some level the law is about fairness after all
Maybe once upon a time. Maybe. It seems to me the law, once it grew beyond simple rules of obedience, was concerned with "Justice", at least insofar as it was necessary to provide satisfaction via an uninvolved 3rd party to break the cycle of revenge, and it's socially destabilizing effects. But these days we go so far as to distinguish between justice systems and legal systems - and unfortunately our legal system in the U.S. is far more concerned with who can influence politicians most effectively than whether there's anything fair about the laws or the punishments for breaking them.