The Internet of Things (\u201cIoT\u201d) is here, and we seem to be going\u00a0all in. We are trying to put a microchip in nearly every object that is\u00a0not nailed down and even a few that are. Soon, your cars, toasters,\u00a0toys, and even your underwear will be wired up to make your lives\u00a0better. The general thought seems to be that \u201cInternet connectivity\u00a0makes good objects great.\u201d While the IoT might be incredibly useful,\u00a0we should proceed carefully. Objects are not necessarily better\u00a0simply because they are connected to the Internet. Often, the Internet\u00a0can make objects worse and users worse-off. Digital technologies\u00a0can be hacked. Each new camera, microphone, and sensor adds\u00a0another vector for attack and another point of surveillance in our\u00a0everyday lives. The problem is that privacy and data security law\u00a0have failed to recognize some \u201cthings\u201d are more dangerous than\u00a0others as part of the IoT. Some objects, like coffee pots and dolls, can\u00a0last long after the standard life-cycle of software. Meanwhile cheap,\u00a0disposable objects, like baby wipes, might not be worth outfitting\u00a0with the most secure hardware and software. Yet they all are part of\u00a0the network. This essay argues that the nature of the \u201cthing\u201d in the\u00a0IoT should play a more prominent role in privacy and data security\u00a0law. The decision to wire up an object should be coupled with\u00a0responsibilities to make sure its users are protected. Only then, can\u00a0we trust the Internet of Heirlooms and Disposable Things.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Internet of Things (\u201cIoT\u201d) is here, and we seem to be going\u00a0all in. We are trying to put a microchip in nearly every object that is\u00a0not nailed down and even a few that are. Soon, your cars, toasters,\u00a0toys, and even your underwear will be wired up to make your lives\u00a0better. The general thought seems …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,68,73],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4100"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4100"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4100\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7197,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4100\/revisions\/7197"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}