[iot-discussion] iot-discussion Digest, Vol 1, Issue 5

Thanks for sharing Gordon, and good question Shane.. I found the article a
bit lacking in terms of a clear reason why  regulation is *the* main way
forward. It is not said that if you leave the regulation of IoT in the
hands of several different goverments across the world that you get better
security standards all-round. More likely, you will get certain
jurisdictions that do a good job and others that don't.

I also feel that the call for governments to take this up really opens the
door to legitimizing the ongoing efforts at the ITU to make it the hub for
IoT standard development. And looking at the recent discussions on Over the
Top (OTT) services and DOA at the ITU-D WTSA meeting, I am not sure that is
good solution.

Rather, it would be great if we could find a way to look at soft law
options and encourage the technical actors responsible for developing
security considerations to take the importance of strong security for IoT
on board, if only because if they don't people will lose trust in them and
their stuff they build.

And there I see a clear role for RIPE and its members.

Happy to further discuss! Best,

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <iot-discussion-request at ripe.net> wrote:

> Send iot-discussion mailing list submissions to
>         iot-discussion at ripe.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-discussion
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         iot-discussion-request at ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         iot-discussion-owner at ripe.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of iot-discussion digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Regulating the IoT (Shane Kerr)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:51:10 +0800
> From: Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>
> To: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>
> Cc: iot-discussion at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [iot-discussion] Regulating the IoT
> Message-ID: <20161122125110.47650945 at pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Gordon,
>
> At 2016-11-18 14:10:52 +0100
> Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You can read Bruce Schneier?s take here:
> >
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/
> 03/your-wifi-connected-thermostat-can-take-down-the-
> whole-internet-we-need-new-regulations/
> >
> > And here:
> >
> > https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/archives/2016/1115.html
>
> He's not wrong. But is there a path to reasonable regulation? Can RIPE
> help facilitate this in any way?
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 833 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-discussion/
> attachments/20161122/28de5dbb/attachment-0001.sig>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> iot-discussion mailing list
> iot-discussion at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of iot-discussion Digest, Vol 1, Issue 5
> ********************************************
>



-- 
Corinne J.N. Cath
Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute

Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: ccath at turing.ac.uk & corinnecath at gmail.com
Twitter: @C_Cath
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/attachments/20161122/459c6267/attachment.html>