undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdeelowe9y ago0 comments

UL isn't a regulatory body. UL testing is voluntary. You may know this, but perhaps many others don't.

I think a UL for internet connected devices is a fantastic idea. Just need to figure out how to get companies to volunteer for such testing. The way it works for UL is that they provide some insulation from litigation. Perhaps if users could litigate IOT manufacturers for inadequate security testing, something similar would materialize for that industry as well?

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

tkinom9y ago· 2 in thread

Retailers (Walmart) require UL for insurance propose.

UL is created for by Insurance companies to gauge the safety of the products.

At the end, the real cause is "The force of Lawyers" is strong for product safety in US. :-)

"The force of the lawyers for IOT" is still weak. :-)

The force of the Jedi (IT, hackers, SW Dev, EFF, OSF) still strong, for now....

The Empire will win when and if enough Jedi (SW Dev) turn to the dark side - team up with the lawyers start suing IOT startup, devices, creators.

No more IOT, raspberryPI, OpenWRT.... only Intel/Qualcomm/MSFT licensed UEFI controlled SecureBoot (Windows CE) devices, Lock down Chromebooks from Google will be allowed.

Feel the power of Dark Side!!!..... :-)

serge2k9y ago

> No more IOT, raspberryPI, OpenWRT.... only Intel/Qualcomm/MSFT licensed UEFI controlled SecureBoot (Windows CE) devices, Lock down Chromebooks from Google will be allowed.

Silly FUD like this does nothing to help.

mindslight9y ago

idk, seeing a comparison with UL gives me hope that consumer device security doesn't actually have to mean totalitarian dystopia.

Nothing is stopping anyone from building their own non-UL electronic devices, and even distributing them to tinkerers and early adopters. This is much preferable to some steep liability/mandatory insurance regime like automobiles where you've got to Soviet-style register your car and even yourself!

Sensationalists push a panicked narrative about insecure devices, but any disruption of third parties is entirely due to scale. Simply making it so the enormous group of low-effort consumers won't end up with negligently insecure devices would basically erase the problem.

rocqua9y ago

I am not sure, but it might be that it is difficult to gain 'standing' in a civil suit.

It is really hard to show you were directly hurt, and even harder to show whom by.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse