You are reading a single comment by @rhowe and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
We know more about how our cars work, and put more effort into car maintenance, than we do with software and hardware
It's alright, this'll correct itself very soon - cars are being rapidly computerised!
The Jeep story's the best I've read, but I'm pretty sure there are others:
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jeep-hackers-return-high-speed-steering-acceleration-hacks/
rhowe
In theory they help centralise IoT communication. Which should help control it.
In practise they will inhibit innovation by forcing all vendors to be constrained by Apple's set of rules. You'll only be permitted to innovate if Apple likes you. Which sucks, because the majority of innovation does not occur within Apple or with Apple's consent (though they do a wonderful job of marketing the innovations they copy in a way that people believe that they do actually innovate).
As an industry, as a set of users, we've just been very blasé about caring about how our networks and devices worked. We know more about how our cars work, and put more effort into car maintenance, than we do with software and hardware. Basically, we're all negligent, and at some point need to start taking responsibility.
The ISP firewall is a good idea because it forces end users to become responsible. Forces device manufacturers and suppliers to document what they do, how they do it, and what ports they need open to do it.