#paxtechnica Some further thoughts arising from the @CRASSHlive conference in Cambridge on The Implications of the Internet of Things. (For a comprehensive account, see @LaurieJ's livenotes.)
Many people are worried about the security implications of the Internet of Things. The world is being swamped with cheap internet-enabled devices. As the manufacturing costs, size and power consumption of these devices are being driven down, most producers have neither the expertise not the capacity to build any kind of security into them.
One of the reasons why this problem is increasing is that it is cheaper to use a general-purpose chip than to design a special purpose chip. So most IoT devices have far more processing power and functionality than they strictly need. This extra functionality can be then coopted for covert or malicious purposes. IoT devices may easily be recruited into a global botnet, and devices from some sources may even have been covertly designed for this purpose.
Sensors are bad enough - baby monitors and sex toys. Additional concerns apply to IoT actuators - devices that can produce physical effects. For example, lightbulbs that can flash (triggering epileptic fits), thermostats that can switch on simultaneously across a city (melting the grid), centrifuges that can spin out of control (attempting to sabotage Iran's nuclear capability).
Jon Crowcroft proposed that some of this could be addressed in terms of safety and liability. Safety is a useful driver for increased regulation, and insurance companies will be looking for ways to protect themselves and their corporate customers. While driverless cars generate much discussion, similar questions of safety and liability arise from any cars containing significant quantities of new technology. What if the brake algorithm fails? And given the recent history of cheat software by car manufacturers, can we trust the car not to alter the driver logs in order to evade liability for an accident?
In many cases, the consumer can be persuaded that there are benefits from internet-enabled devices, and these benefits may depend on some level of interoperability between multiple devices. But we aren't equipped to reason about the trade-off between accessibility/usability and security/privacy.
For comparison's sake, consider a retailer who has to decide whether to place the merchandise in locked glass cases or on open shelves. Open shelves will result in more sales, but also more shoplifting. So the retailer locks up the jewelry but not the pencils or the furniture, and this is based on a common-sense balance of value and risk.
But with the Internet of Things, people generally don't have a good enough understanding of value and risk to be able to reason intelligently about this kind of trade-off. Philip Howard advises users to appreciate that devices "have an immediate function that is useful to you and an indirect function that is useful to others" (p255). But just knowing this is not enough. True security will only arise when we have the kind of transparency (or visibility or unconcealment) that I referenced in my previous post.
Related Posts
Defeating the Device Paradigm (October 2015)
Pax Technica - The Book (November 2017)
Pax Technica - The Conference (November 2017)
The Smell of Data (December 2017)
Outdated Assumptions - Connectivity Hunger (June 2018)
References
Cory Doctorow, The Coming War on General Computation (2011)
Carl Herberger, How hackers will exploit the Internet of Things in 2017 (HelpNet Security, 14 November 2016)
Philip Howard, Pax Technica: How The Internet of Things May Set Us Free or Lock Us Up (Yale 2015)
Laura James, Pax Technica Notes (Session 1, Session 2, Session 3, Session 4)
Holly Robbins, The Path for Transparency for IoT Technologies (ThingsCon, June 2017)
Jack Wallen, Five nightmarish attacks that show the risks of IoT security (ZDNet, 1 June 2017)
No comments:
Post a Comment