On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Eliot Lear <l...@ofcourseimright.com> wrote:
> It is worth asking what protections are necessary for a device that > regulates insulin. Insulin pumps are an example of devices that have been over-regulated to the point where any and all innovation has been stifled. There have been hardly any changes in the last 10+ years, during a time when all other technology has advanced quite a bit. Its off-topic for Nanog, but i promise you this is very frustrating and annoying topic that hits me close to home. There has to be a middle ground. I guarantee we do not want home firewalls, and all the IoT devices to be regulated like insulin pumps and other medical devices. I think I'm starting to agree with those that want to keep government regulation out of this arena... Marcel > Eliot > > > On 11/8/16 6:05 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message <20161108035148.2904b5970...@rock.dv.isc.org>, > > Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > >> * Deploying regulation in one country means that it is less likely > >> to be a source of bad traffic. Manufactures are lazy. With > >> sensible regulation in single country everyone else benefits as > >> manufactures will use a single code base when they can. > > I said that too, although not as concisely. > > > >> * Automated updates do reduce the numbers of vulnerable machines > >> to known issues. There are risks but they are nowhere as bad as > >> not doing automated updating. > > I still maintain, based upon the abundant evidence, that generallized > > hopes that timely and effective updates for all manner of devices will > > be available throughout the practical lifetime of any such IoT thingies > > is a mirage. We will just never be there, in practice. And thus, > > manufacturers should be encouraged, by force of law if necessary, to > > design software with a belt-and-suspenders margin of safety built in > > from the first day of shipping. > > > > You don't send out a spacecraft, or a medical radiation machine, without > > such addtional constraints built in from day one. You don't send out > > such things and say "Oh, we can always send out of firmware update later > > on if there is an issue." > > > > From a software perspective, building extra layers of constraints is not > > that hard to do, and people have been doing this kind of thing already > > for decades. It's called engineering. The problem isn't in anybody's > > ability or inability to do safety engineering in the firmware of IoT > > things. The only problem is providing the proper motivation to cause > > it to happen. > > > > > > Regards, > > rfg > > > > >
