[Cryptography] Schneier's Internet Security Agency - bad idea because we don't know what it will do

Peter Todd pete at petertodd.org
Sat Feb 25 17:52:33 EST 2017

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 04:26:27PM +0100, Ian G wrote:
> 2. I think we can agree that the market hasn't solved the problem.  But it
> is a fallacy that this implies the government has to then step in.  As a
> matter of objective reality, governments can't solve some problems, and
> governments can make some problems worse.  Which is why we have bad wars and
> bad legislation, something that even Schneier admits with DCMA.

Why would the market have solved the problem? There's no way if I'm getting
attacked by some insecure IoT devices for me to sue the users, distributors,
manufacturers, and/or developers of those devices.

Introduce strict liability for distributors, manufacturers, and/or developers
and this problem would go away. Of course, so would the IoT industry, but they
were creating an unsafe product causing harm to others, so there's every reason
why that industry (and individuals working in that industry) should be sued
into the ground until they find ways of developing secure IoT devices that
don't cause harm to others.

https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20170225/d8b959bc/attachment.sig>

More information about the cryptography mailing list