by xenophonf on 10/28/16, 9:03 PM
It strikes me as being somewhat dangerous to compromise open network/network neutrality rules in order to kick compromised devices off the Internet, never mind the fact that it puts the cost of security vulnerabilities on end users, who can't fix them, instead of vendors, who can.
by protomyth on 10/28/16, 7:12 PM
Requested responses 8 and 9 scare the crap out of me. I think those pretty much end open source software on the internet. Requested response 6 looks like a call for forced updates. I would of preferred a call for a rule that prevents cell providers from holding up phone updates.
by dreamcompiler on 10/28/16, 7:54 PM
ISPs don't assign IP addresses to most IOT devices; routers do. So there's one credibility problem with this letter right from the beginning.
by nulagrithom on 10/28/16, 7:37 PM
Parts of this letter sound informed, while other parts sound woefully misguided... I'm not sure I understand the point. What's Mark Warner going for here?
by eatbitseveryday on 10/28/16, 8:04 PM
by dwheeler on 10/28/16, 7:00 PM
I think there are a number of specific laws or regulations that could reduce the problems
without harming innovation.
Here's a starter list: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/law-security.html .
I'm sure that list can be improved on (I'd love to hear about improvements).
by dredmorbius on 10/28/16, 7:32 PM
A non-Scribd source please?
by jwtadvice on 10/28/16, 8:07 PM
How about we fix DNS?