Visit our website
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review
io9
io9
Techdirt
Techdirt
Knowledge@Wharton
Knowledge@Wharton
Bioscience Technology
Bioscience Technology
redOrbit
redOrbit
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Popular Science Blog
Popular Science Blog
Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center
Genomics Law Report
Genomics Law Report
Science 2.0
Science 2.0
The Guardian Headquarters
The Guardian Headquarters
Genetic Literacy Project
Genetic Literacy Project
Disclaimer

Statements posted on this blog represent the views of individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Law Science & Innovation (which does not take positions on policy issues) or of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law or Arizona State University.

Wednesday Web Watch for January 21, 2015

www3

Cory Doctorow, in a piece for WIRED entitled How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us to Greater Harm,  lambasts laws that require computing devices to have measures to prevent, curtail or otherwise control certain uses.  Doctorow claims that any such legal requirements will become “intolerable and deadly dangerous when our 3-D printers, self-driving cars, smart houses, and even parts of our bodies are designed with the same restrictions.”  He adds that, “imposing codes and commands that you can’t overrule is a recipe for disaster,” because  it allows third parties to have greater control over a digital system or device than an owner.  This is not a good idea because “hidden” programmed code is easily intercepted by hackers, making the owner vulnerable to harm.  As Doctorow points out, “[t]here can be no [pre-programmed] ‘lawful interception’ capacity for a self-driving car, allowing police to order it to pull over, that wouldn’t also let a carjacker compromise your car and drive it to a convenient place to rob, rape, and/or kill you.”  A scary thought indeed.