6 ms·

Tragedy of the commons. No individual manufacturer really cares about the issues created by the ecosystem of IoT, so they have no real incentive to address it.

danharaj 10y ago
Tragedy of the Commons really means "the structure of a market failed to produce the desired outcome". The common good may be the victim, but the market is the culprit. The solution of course is alternate economic structures that respect the commons. The distinguished economist Elinor Ostrom wrote a whole book called Governing the Commons which presents real-life alternatives to markets for commons-like economic activity. Or we could continue marching to the drum of neoliberalism and try to contort markets until they meet our needs. Love me some procrustean capitalism.
- rhizome 10y ago
  I thought neoliberalism was more about contorting society until they meet the needs of the market.
  - danharaj 10y ago
    Two sides of the same process: force markets to exist where they didn't or shouldn't.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      Sure, but it's not a symmetrical or reflexive relationship.
- mtgx 10y ago
  Assuming you've already read that book, can you elaborate how would those strategies help in this case and what kind of changes would they imply?
- cobbzilla 10y ago
  The opposing viewpoint is that only public resources suffer from tragedies of the common (they become a free-for-all), whereas with private ownership there's usually a natural incentive to make your profit-producing resource sustainable. Of course, it's always more nuanced than that (mining and resource extraction industries are problematic), the ideal is probably somewhere in the middle. So we argue about exactly where it should be :)
abraae 10y ago
Any manufacturer who has to recall a device cares very much about it.
- imtringued 10y ago
  Those IoT manufacturers must be lucky then. They haven't been sued because of a insecure lightbulb yet.
  - atemerev 10y ago
    "Yet" is the key word. Even rumors are sometimes enough and as powerful as lawsuits. Market forces are really powerful. See Samsung's recent troubles -- once everything was fine, and then -- BAMM! - their phone sales went down without any external regulation. (pun intended.)
wyager 10y ago
How is this "tragedy of the commons"? The only "common" they are using is the RF spectrum, which they are presumably not polluting too badly or the FCC would start smashing down doors. Let's not start claiming the internet itself somehow qualifies as a "common", because with common ownership rationally comes common censorship (as with the FCC and public broadcasts).
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  Seems unwise to reason backwards from your desired conclusion (commons implies censorship/regulation, so it can't be a commons). Security is indeed a commons because the overall security of the ecosystem only benefits each person weakly, and so every actor rationally benefits by neglecting security. External regulation isn't the only way to address commons problems. Manufacturers can see the writing on the wall and work together to solve issues, but only if the public pushes them to.
  - akavel 10y ago
    I imagine that it can also get better once a company can gain competitive advantage by advertising that "our device is secure!" But I suppose a precondition for this is customer awareness of the issue, which probably requires some well publicized high impact/casualty incidents first? :/
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      Of course, anyone can say "our device is secure", and if the industry is left to its own devices to create a standard for being allowed to say that, they'll pick the cheapest standard possible. Then, so long as they can say "we were following the standards", and the standards company can say "we're updating the standard" every time, nobody cares.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > But I suppose a precondition for this is customer awareness of the issue, which probably requires some well publicized high impact/casualty incidents first? :/ I'd say it absolutely requires a high-impact case, something like downing of an airplane, or a cyberattack that sets half of the city in flames. Otherwise, any concern of people about security will quickly get papered over by marketing - as it always is.
dfc 10y ago
The situation you are lamenting (and I agree with your sentiment) is not a "tragedy of the commons." I think you are trying to describe a collective action problem. Collective action problems are frequently brought up during a discussion of the tragedy of the common but the existence of a collective action problem does not imply that there is a tragedy of the commons. If you are interested in these types of issues Mancur Olsen's "The Logic of Collective Action" is the standard introduction.

danharaj 10y ago

Tragedy of the Commons really means "the structure of a market failed to produce the desired outcome". The common good may be the victim, but the market is the culprit. The solution of course is alternate economic structures that respect the commons. The distinguished economist Elinor Ostrom wrote a whole book called Governing the Commons which presents real-life alternatives to markets for commons-like economic activity. Or we could continue marching to the drum of neoliberalism and try to contort markets until they meet our needs. Love me some procrustean capitalism.

rhizome 10y ago
I thought neoliberalism was more about contorting society until they meet the needs of the market.
- danharaj 10y ago
  Two sides of the same process: force markets to exist where they didn't or shouldn't.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Sure, but it's not a symmetrical or reflexive relationship.
mtgx 10y ago
Assuming you've already read that book, can you elaborate how would those strategies help in this case and what kind of changes would they imply?
cobbzilla 10y ago
The opposing viewpoint is that only public resources suffer from tragedies of the common (they become a free-for-all), whereas with private ownership there's usually a natural incentive to make your profit-producing resource sustainable. Of course, it's always more nuanced than that (mining and resource extraction industries are problematic), the ideal is probably somewhere in the middle. So we argue about exactly where it should be :)

abraae 10y ago

Any manufacturer who has to recall a device cares very much about it.

imtringued 10y ago
Those IoT manufacturers must be lucky then. They haven't been sued because of a insecure lightbulb yet.
- atemerev 10y ago
  "Yet" is the key word. Even rumors are sometimes enough and as powerful as lawsuits. Market forces are really powerful. See Samsung's recent troubles -- once everything was fine, and then -- BAMM! - their phone sales went down without any external regulation. (pun intended.)

wyager 10y ago

How is this "tragedy of the commons"? The only "common" they are using is the RF spectrum, which they are presumably not polluting too badly or the FCC would start smashing down doors. Let's not start claiming the internet itself somehow qualifies as a "common", because with common ownership rationally comes common censorship (as with the FCC and public broadcasts).

smallnamespace 10y ago
Seems unwise to reason backwards from your desired conclusion (commons implies censorship/regulation, so it can't be a commons). Security is indeed a commons because the overall security of the ecosystem only benefits each person weakly, and so every actor rationally benefits by neglecting security. External regulation isn't the only way to address commons problems. Manufacturers can see the writing on the wall and work together to solve issues, but only if the public pushes them to.
- akavel 10y ago
  I imagine that it can also get better once a company can gain competitive advantage by advertising that "our device is secure!" But I suppose a precondition for this is customer awareness of the issue, which probably requires some well publicized high impact/casualty incidents first? :/
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    Of course, anyone can say "our device is secure", and if the industry is left to its own devices to create a standard for being allowed to say that, they'll pick the cheapest standard possible. Then, so long as they can say "we were following the standards", and the standards company can say "we're updating the standard" every time, nobody cares.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > But I suppose a precondition for this is customer awareness of the issue, which probably requires some well publicized high impact/casualty incidents first? :/ I'd say it absolutely requires a high-impact case, something like downing of an airplane, or a cyberattack that sets half of the city in flames. Otherwise, any concern of people about security will quickly get papered over by marketing - as it always is.

dfc 10y ago

The situation you are lamenting (and I agree with your sentiment) is not a "tragedy of the commons." I think you are trying to describe a collective action problem. Collective action problems are frequently brought up during a discussion of the tragedy of the common but the existence of a collective action problem does not imply that there is a tragedy of the commons. If you are interested in these types of issues Mancur Olsen's "The Logic of Collective Action" is the standard introduction.