5 ms·

Good luck enforcing something like that.

• avian 7y ago
  Why is enforcing this so much different than enforcing that your cheap Wi-Fi router doesn't interfere with air traffic control radar?
  • Groxx 7y ago
    Because your wifi router is limited to a minuscule physical range. The rest of the world's wifi routers don't continually threaten to interfere with your local air traffic control radar - if they did, we'd probably have much stronger controls around it than we currently have.
  • birdman3131 7y ago
    It is a prove a negative vs prove a positive. "This device cannot broadcast with enough power to interfere with radar" is provable. "This device has no security holes" is often not provable even if they try to secure it.
    • yetihehe 7y ago
      "This device uses [x,y,z] techniques for avoiding [interference/hacking]" is provable. List of required techniques should be known in advance (like ["no default password", "no raw tcp password sending", ...]). I have seen such requirements when delivering devices for some big companies which care about security of devices reselled by them, I think it was even some publicly defined standard, but can't find it now. Such things exist already, but are just not enforced like interference requirements.
    • okmokmz 7y ago
      >It is a prove a negative vs prove a positive No, it isn't >"This device has no security holes" is often not provable even if they try to secure it. That's not how security compliance is determined Just as is done with HIPAA compliance, NIST compliance, etc. there would be a framework of security controls that need to be adhered to
  • mullen 7y ago
    Because if you screw with ATC radar, people with the force of law will kick down your door and take your equipment. The FCC and FAA won't tolerate ATC radar being screwed with, no one cares about IoT hardware until it stops working.