4 ms·

UPDATE. I am surprised that no one proposed the obvious counter argument to my "Tort law über alles" position. The world is a big place. Even if we successfull

UPDATE. I am surprised that no one proposed the obvious counter argument to my "Tort law über alles" position. The world is a big place. Even if we successfully eliminate bad devices from the U.S. market there will be million of malformed devices everywhere else. They can be herded into a rampaging DDoS horde. The U.S. tort system is powerless to prevent that from happening. Nothing is easy. We should remember the lesson of Chesterton's fence.

natch 10y ago
I didn't raise that, because I felt it was a red herring. More importantly, with regulation we would at least have a prayer of making a dent. With lawsuits, not a prayer. It's hard to sue when you don't know what the device is, where it is in the world, whether its IP address is real or not, whether it's behind NAT, who the owner is, who bought it, who distributed it, who the retailer is, who their supplier is, who the manufacturer is, and whether it was even a real device or not. Regulation would be way more effective, relatively speaking.
- philiphodgen 10y ago
  Who would be the regulator for webcams sold in Uzbekistan? Who would enforce those regulations in Ukraine? I'm not saying regulation is bad. And we have it already. Look at that alphabet soup of little logos in the back of every electronic device you own. I'm just saying regulation is an imperfect solution. Tort law and economic incentives are an imperfect solution. And I am wary of government solutions, even if they are the better choice.
  - natch 10y ago
    That's not how it works. They don't design shitty products specifically for sale in Uzbekistan. Off-brand crappy products are typically simply copied from the designs of mainstream products, and the features baked in for the large markets (US) get automatically included. Often times this happens with secret "third" shifts where the factory reports two shifts per day to the main customer that supplied a design for manufacture, and then the third shift is run illicitly and solely for the profit of the factory management / owners. These illicit products are then sole to places where enforcement is sketchy. They don't go and retool the factory for the third shift just to make stuff more crappy. Yes there are still some crappy products that fall through the cracks. But the rising tide would eventually help lift all boats.
  - natch 10y ago
    Saying any solution is imperfect is just a waste of breath. Of course that's the case. The point is to move forward with improvements regardless, because improvements, guess what, improve things.

natch 10y ago

I didn't raise that, because I felt it was a red herring. More importantly, with regulation we would at least have a prayer of making a dent. With lawsuits, not a prayer. It's hard to sue when you don't know what the device is, where it is in the world, whether its IP address is real or not, whether it's behind NAT, who the owner is, who bought it, who distributed it, who the retailer is, who their supplier is, who the manufacturer is, and whether it was even a real device or not. Regulation would be way more effective, relatively speaking.

philiphodgen 10y ago
Who would be the regulator for webcams sold in Uzbekistan? Who would enforce those regulations in Ukraine? I'm not saying regulation is bad. And we have it already. Look at that alphabet soup of little logos in the back of every electronic device you own. I'm just saying regulation is an imperfect solution. Tort law and economic incentives are an imperfect solution. And I am wary of government solutions, even if they are the better choice.
- natch 10y ago
  That's not how it works. They don't design shitty products specifically for sale in Uzbekistan. Off-brand crappy products are typically simply copied from the designs of mainstream products, and the features baked in for the large markets (US) get automatically included. Often times this happens with secret "third" shifts where the factory reports two shifts per day to the main customer that supplied a design for manufacture, and then the third shift is run illicitly and solely for the profit of the factory management / owners. These illicit products are then sole to places where enforcement is sketchy. They don't go and retool the factory for the third shift just to make stuff more crappy. Yes there are still some crappy products that fall through the cracks. But the rising tide would eventually help lift all boats.
- natch 10y ago
  Saying any solution is imperfect is just a waste of breath. Of course that's the case. The point is to move forward with improvements regardless, because improvements, guess what, improve things.