>Many manufacturers oppose making any commitments about security updates, even voluntary ones. These manufacturers are heavily engaged at the FCC and represente

>Many manufacturers oppose making any commitments about security updates, even voluntary ones. These manufacturers are heavily engaged at the FCC and represented by sophisticated regulatory lawyers. Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with the corrupt people like Ajit Pai? Sincerely - after the Ajit Pai debacle and the fraudulent selling off bandwidth rights, I literally dont trust the FCC with anything... So, prove to me the FCC actually understands IoT? Basically youre attempting to regulate a swarm of GNATs and how they should behave, without understanding how they are born... look at Moores Law as it pertains to surveillance and fraud tech ; The size of cameras, the power of IP enabled wireless talking devices (regardless of protocol/tech/mech) is so incredibly small and easily, cheaply replicated in any cheap-tech-state (china, and many other places we dont talk about) - makes it such that one can only assume that they are under 100% surveillance 100% of the time... THAT is what you should be regulating - the scanning of an area for detection of IoT device transmissions Think of Purple (brand) air quality monitors, a frequency field monitor for all RF transmissions in a given area (as can be heard) would be great, with sensors for adding to such monitoring that can RSSI triangulate the location of devices. Think of Apple Air-Tags... If you had cell phones all reporting RF triangulation signals - you could map out the IoT problem, frequencies, locations, targeted devices/tech etc...