These exploits promise to be the rule, not the exception -- and not (just) because this company might have to comply with its national imperatives.
Assuming companies get paid for deploying hackable devices, it gives them an unfair competitive advantage relative to ethical companies (who would have higher prices).
Given the information asymmetry (promoting the devices as simply reliable vs the difficulty and complexity of hacking them), this advantage is protectable.
Thus if, or since, the market gives enduring advantages to this kind of exploitation, we can expect exploitation to be the rule, and product/technical leaders will be selected who comply.
A key aspect (noted in the article) is the capture of technical standards organizations by the companies they monitor. Usually this is good (keeping standards more realistic, timely, and relevant). But that means one can't rely on those organizations to protect end users (whether business or consumer).
The alternative of government politicized regulators would kill technology advancement, leading to a race to less-regulated jurisdictions (protected by fair-trade rules). The same is true of product liability schemes.
So exploitation is the rule, and technology can't regulate itself or be regulated.
Meanwhile, technology reaches into every aspect of work and play.
Entrepreneurs who solve this problem would create tremendous value (yes, some of which could be captured).
These exploits promise to be the rule, not the exception -- and not (just) because this company might have to comply with its national imperatives.
Assuming companies get paid for deploying hackable devices, it gives them an unfair competitive advantage relative to ethical companies (who would have higher prices).
Given the information asymmetry (promoting the devices as simply reliable vs the difficulty and complexity of hacking them), this advantage is protectable.
Thus if, or since, the market gives enduring advantages to this kind of exploitation, we can expect exploitation to be the rule, and product/technical leaders will be selected who comply.
A key aspect (noted in the article) is the capture of technical standards organizations by the companies they monitor. Usually this is good (keeping standards more realistic, timely, and relevant). But that means one can't rely on those organizations to protect end users (whether business or consumer).
The alternative of government politicized regulators would kill technology advancement, leading to a race to less-regulated jurisdictions (protected by fair-trade rules). The same is true of product liability schemes.
So exploitation is the rule, and technology can't regulate itself or be regulated.
Meanwhile, technology reaches into every aspect of work and play.
Entrepreneurs who solve this problem would create tremendous value (yes, some of which could be captured).