This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/iot-wg@ripe.net/
[iot-discussion] What role does the SP play in protecting consumers re IoT?
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-discussion] What role does the SP play in protecting consumers re IoT?
- Next message (by thread): [iot-discussion] What role does the SP play in protecting consumers re IoT?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Apr 10 14:49:16 CEST 2017
> On 10 Apr 2017, at 13:31, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote: > > Do I really want my house > thermostat to stop working because my ISP doesn't like me > running a tor node, and do I really want to lose my whole > Internet connectivity because someone hacked my toaster? I’d be surprised if your ISP’s T&Cs don’t already have an over-arching clause which covers this sort of thing. “You agree we can cut you off whenever we feel like it for blah, blah, blah...” Unsecured IoT devices (whatever that may mean) will be just another thing an ISP would add to that list. Assuming it wasn’t already covered by a “causing damage to the network” clause or some such. Oh and if your hacked toaster was damaging my interwebs, I’d *want* your ISP to pull the plug.
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-discussion] What role does the SP play in protecting consumers re IoT?
- Next message (by thread): [iot-discussion] What role does the SP play in protecting consumers re IoT?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ iot-wg Archives ]