If IoT becomes a security or safety nightmare, which I think most of us will concede as possible if not likely, there will be a public outcry that will result in either gov't oversight and regulation or the industry being sued out of existence. So, assuming for the moment that the IoT industry does not want to be suffocated by lawsuits, the real question for it is by whose hand regulations emerge and are enforced; the industry itself or the gov't?
Industry-based regs, e.g. UL.com, will be the least burdensome. But almost always an industry cannot self-regulate because of free riders, et al., or out of a short-term focus over profit maximization. So, in steps gov't regulation. And gov't regulation is very often over-kill, like using a bazooka to kill a fly. Said bazooka does result in a dead bug but also a lot of collateral damage to the industry being regulated. Think the FAA and how it's Part 23 regulations have both guaranteed safe aircraft and stagnated the general aviation industry nearly to death.
With articles such as this one and Gawker's "Why is My Smarthome So Fucking Stupid", it's pretty obvious that the IoT industry as a whole should be embracing and spreading industry-wide security, safety, and UX standards. Yet, for now there seems to be no such industry initiative to do so, leaving the task to Apple and, to a much lesser degree, Google. With HomeKit, Apple is forcing partners to adhere to tight security and usability standards. With its large user-base of ApplePay-enabled, willing consumers, Apple can force its will upon IoT partners going through the HomeKit acceptance process. But as if on cue, some partners, exhibiting short-sightedness, have whined to the press that Apple's process is onerous. While I'm sure Apple is more than happy to let IoT manufacturers not affiliated with HomeKit IED themselves through lax security or UX, for the industry it's a big mistake.
There are two things that can break IoT, security and fracturing. But security is a necessary condition for IoT to succeed.
I know Apple has surprised many of the companies that want to work with HomeKit with its security requirements. I heard from one company that, for example, was upset that locks cannot be remotely activated. The last thing anyone needs is their house getting hacked and robbed as well.
Remotely activated locks? What's the use case for this? Call your girlfriend when you're locked outside your house and ask her to open the door with her cellphone?
There seems to be a high risk for little benefit, or perhaps I don't have a lot of imagination.
I would imagine it was more of the opposite scenario. Rather than calling your girlfriend when you forget to lock your house, you might want to just lock it remotely.
That goes back to what someone else questioned: Should we not address the problem more directly with devices that take action themselves? All we've done here is move the interface off the physical object. Not much in the way of actual smarts. Requiring an owner to take action on a smartphone is a transitional phase.
Ironically, fracturing has superficially improved security for the moment. Devices with the largest user base get a disproportionate amount of the attacks.
Anything that changes NYC's economy to make it less dependent upon those who play with money is a good thing. I'm even happier that tech companies are finding NYC a place with plenty of talent.
This is such a bad idea. China? Russia? Those two countries should have a say in running the Internet proportional to their citizens' right to free speech. So China would have no say whatsoever and Russia's voice would only be marginal.
People should be happy for Zuck and Pricilla. Any claims by those who don't know Pricilla that this is other than for love should really get a check-up on their humanity. Not that they'll ever read this, but congrads to them both.
This is from the "2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS of the U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION" report. Just giving a breakdown of the current state. This was not a flash message or a breaking news report. The time for the breaking news was in '07 and '08 not in 2011 ;)
There was an earlier draft that was made public (or semi-public) a month or so ago. This was the final draft, with some less-confrontational, less hyperbolic language, that was sent to Congress this past week.
