3 ms·
> Accordingly, incorporating our modifications, we propose, for purposes of the IoT labeling program, to define an IoT device as: (1) an Internet-connected devi
by burkaman 3y ago
> Accordingly, incorporating our modifications, we propose, for purposes of the IoT labeling program, to define an IoT device as: (1) an Internet-connected device capable of intentionally emitting RF energy that has at least one transducer (sensor or actuator) for interacting directly with the physical world, coupled with (2) at least one network interface (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) for interfacing with the digital world. We seek comment on our proposed definition.
I think this definition would apply to stuff like phones and cars, right? If so that's great.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoI don't like the quoted wording. I would like it to be clearer that the RF part isn't part of the transducer, but part of the network interface.
- burkaman 3y agoI don't think it has to be part of the network interface. You could have an ethernet-connected device that emits RF for some non-networking purpose and I think it would still qualify.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoBut if I have an ethernet-connected device that doesn't emit RF for some non-networking purpose, it should still qualify. It should just need the transducer and a network connection.
- burkaman 3y agoI don't think it would for this specific proposal. The FCC's justification for this rule is that insecure IoT devices "could be manipulated to generate and emit RF energy to cause harmful interference". That's why they have jurisdiction here, because they regulate radio frequency use.
- ncallaway 3y agoThis makes sense to me. The definition is slightly awkward, but awkward in a way that preserves the FCC's ability to regulate the issue at all. If you clean up the definition, you can get to a more coherent definition of IoT device, but without the FCC's ability to regulate the devices. I think the broader definition would probably just fall back to the FTC, and as far as consumer protection goes I think they've been asleep at the switch for decades.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoAh, I see. Well, I stand by my position that the other is also a problem, but maybe this rulemaking isn't an approach that can cover that. Don't get me wrong, this is still worth doing...