[192232] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Death of the Internet, Film at 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keith Medcalf)
Sat Oct 22 20:14:19 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:14:13 -0600
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On: Saturday, 22 October, 2016 17:41, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@va=
xination.ca> wrote:
> On 2016-10-22 19:03, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> > This does not follow and is not a natural consequence of sealing the
> little buggers up so that they cannot affect the Internet
> Problem is that many of these gadgets want to be internet connected so
> mother at work can check on her kids at home, start the cooking, raise
> thermostat etc.
This does not require that the devices be open to the Internet, nor does it=
require that they are under the control of an Internet based controller.
> The problem is that as a novelty, people are quick to adopt, but don't
> think about making their homes vulnerable to attack. (consider an
> internet connected door lock)
There are many people who do not read this list who would have nothing what=
soever to do with such a scheme (earlier similar schemes are routers & etc =
that are programmed and controlled from the "web", and remote access crap w=
hich is proxied through a third-party web server -- another ill-conceived a=
nd brain-dead idea). This is a self-limiting issue. Darwin will take care=
of it. Unfortunately there will be collateral damage as those not fit to =
the continuation of the species are eliminated from the gene pool.
We should do our duty and make sure that the pool cleaning proceeds with th=
e maximum speed and efficiency possible.
