/linked/2016/10/07/schneier-krebs-internet-of-things

Comments

anonymous:
Big surprise that ((Bruce Schneier)) believes more government oversight is the solution to this.
6:12 pm — Friday, 7 October 2016
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
What a dumb dumb argument.

First, all of these IoT security issues can be fixed with firewalls. Block incoming and outgoing connections to internal only devices like Cameras. Whitelist specific IPs if they do need outside access. PROBLEM SOLVED.

Second, this is flat out false: "The market can't fix this because neither the buyer nor the seller cares." A) Nobody knew that this would be an issue so they had no reason to care at first. B) But now, buyers sure as hell will care if their network is being used for nefarious reasons. And sellers sure as hell will care when their buyers are complaining or going elsewhere.

Third, the regulations won't actually change anything right now. So there isn't anything to do.

Fourth, regulations will increase cost and reduce innovation. That will be very bad.

This isn't a market failure. The market will correct. The government will only make things worse. (That's standard for pretty much any government regulation).



7:39 pm — Friday, 7 October 2016
Vagina Monologue:
> First, all of these IoT security issues can be fixed with firewalls. Block incoming and outgoing connections to internal only devices like Cameras. Whitelist specific IPs if they do need outside access. PROBLEM SOLVED.

The people buying these don't know what a firewall is. They're being sold at Home Depot next to buckets of paint.

> A) Nobody knew that this would be an issue so they had no reason to care at first.

This is 2016. If you design a networked device without basic security it's because you're selling the things for a nickel and the intern in Shenzou who wrote the firmware doesn't get an extra RMB to care.

> B) But now, buyers sure as hell will care if their network is being used for nefarious reasons.

They don't even know how to check. The blister pack the thing was sold in (next to the box of diapers) didn't say anything about security.

> This isn't a market failure. The market will correct. The government will only make things worse.

Howard Roark be praised. I don't have much faith that the invisible hand jerking itself off over hentai is going to accomplish much here. There's not enough money in these crappy cameras for anyone to GAF.
8:18 pm — Friday, 7 October 2016
catfood:
vagina beat me to it.
8:52 pm — Friday, 7 October 2016
To Be Fair:
It's funny how libertarians/free-market supremacists always see themselves as the smartest guys in the room.

But then when they speak, like Patrick here, they reveal themselves to be totally clueless. It's the Dunning–Kruger effect illustrated.
9:57 pm — Friday, 7 October 2016
ohm:
To Be Fair:

That goes both ways. Anyone that purports to have special knowledge can look like a fool.

As can anyone that haughtily strikes down that person's arguments on a message board.

The truth is that true Libertarianism hasn't been tested. And government intervention is too easy an answer. Supporting either is an effort in ignorance.
11:52 pm — Friday, 7 October 2016
To Be Fair:
@ohm:

What's wrong with answers being easy? After all, your username is named after a very simple, yet effective, equation.
2:12 am — Saturday, 8 October 2016
ohm:
To Be Fair:

By 'easy answer' I meant, it is too easy to say. I'm sorry for not being clear.

What I see in discussions between authoritarians and libertarians is feckless tossing around of theories.

Each of our experiences is different, as are the countries in which we live and the education we have received. I'm on my fifth country (third immigration) only to find that the socialist ideas I held to in Sweden and Canada were on paper great, or in practice great, but hardly across the board.

It is fine to toast libertarians for relying on theories. But by the same token, just tossing out 'this is why we need regulation', is silly, and the reasons are clear: highly regulated countries and systems are not necessarily less or more corrupt than their more libertarian counterparts.

And regulation isn't necessarily a good thing or effective thing. Japan has been deregulating for decades and in general has been getting cleaner, with better service, and beholden to fewer massive scams.

There are places where regulation or single payer systems would really really be nice, but to just toss out 'regulation' or 'deregulation' as an answer is too pat.
11:30 am — Saturday, 8 October 2016
Donarry Clintrump:
Yes, because clearly the government has demonstrated their superior IT security skills on a repeated basis, so obviously we should trust their regulatory abilities in the same domain. The NSA can't even manage to stop a low-level contractor from walking out with their entire file system on a USB stick but Gruber thinks the almighty government will magically secure IT infrastructure for the common man.

Do any of you pro-regulation retards ever listen to yourselves?
8:30 pm — Saturday, 8 October 2016
To Be Fair:
>What I see in discussions between authoritarians and libertarians is feckless tossing around of theories.

If you see it as "authoritarians vs. libertarians," then you're just full of shit, and using propagandistic terms to distort the issues.
11:27 pm — Saturday, 8 October 2016
Donarry Clintrump:
>If you see it as "authoritarians vs. libertarians," then you're just full of shit, and using propagandistic terms to distort the issues.

authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom

Well... government regulation falls into this definition, so what's your beef here? Can't stomach the truth?
4:39 am — Sunday, 9 October 2016
To Be Fair:
>Well... government regulation falls into this definition, so what's your beef here? Can't stomach the truth?

No, it doesn't. Minor regulations are not "strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom."

In fact, your personal freedoms are actually more threatened by having insecure devices fall victim to botnets.

This has nothing to do with authoritarianism.
9:33 am — Sunday, 9 October 2016
ohm:
To Be Fair:

"If you see it as "authoritarians vs. libertarians," then you're just full of shit, and using propagandistic terms to distort the issues."

(don't know markdown, sorry)

You're entitled to call me full of shit, but regulatory bodies and expanding powers of government absolutely fall under authoritarian headings.

I'm not against authoritarianism in some - in fact many - things. Propaganda isn't the right word.

In fact, if you have such a hard reaction to someone mentioning libertarianism and authoritarianism in the same sentence, you're most likely the one affected more by propaganda.

The truth is that it is a discussion of theories. We don't know that the market would correct itself. A theory says, that absent toying by non-market powers, it would. Another theory says that it can't without the aid of non-market powers.

Neither have proven (or been proven) correct and probably never will. There is too much intertwining of government into free market to make judgements about the free market, and there isn't enough free market to test the theories of free market thinkers.

You're free to call me full of shit. I simply prefer not to velcro myself to ideals that are nothing more or less than happy thoughts.
10:46 am — Sunday, 9 October 2016
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!