5 ms·
California's bad IoT law
- natvert 8y agoCould whoever is attending the next tech Illuminati summit plz tell me where, outside of Californa of course, everyone is going to move to start their next company?
- phendrenad2 8y agoI think the point of these laws is so that companies with a surplus of cash can just dump money into compliance and thus maintain the barrier to entry.
- sieabahlpark 8y agoI honestly think that's why companies stay in California because it's just so hard to actually enter the market.
- sieabahlpark 8y agoWhy must California feel that regulating everything to shit makes it better.
- jiveturkey 8y agoTypically I hate this kind of blog. More often than not, they get it wrong and tend to oversimplify. This post on the whole is good though. However: This guy is a security guy? Why is he dealing in absolutes? The law is a step forward. It's perfectly reasonable to get something on the books, even if it's far from perfect. It's a rough (very rough) draft of GDPR-like principles applied to security. Being "reasonable and appropriate" is a perfectly reasonable requirement. You will demonstrate it by having evidence of a security-focused (as opposed to product-focused) assessment before you launched your shitty IoT product. That "reasonable and appropriate" is vague is a good thing, not a bad thing. It floats with the current set of threat vectors.