baby_wipe

I responded to a similar post above. I have not thought through the externality argument very much.

You are correct. I was mistaken. I updated my original post.

I will note though I am suspicious this will be used as a framework for future mandated regulation.

That's true. Consumers rely on things like brand name, word of mouth, customer reviews, etc.

Another label like this will likely do nothing.

I haven't thought through the externality argument very much. If I do I will come back and respond. I'm sure there are people more thoughtful than me who have said something about it.

Something to keep in mind though, government regulation itself is an externality.

> their eyes will glaze over.

I agree. They don't care.

If anything, consumers need to be protected from predatory politicians claiming to serve the public interest.

Your points about the opt-in nature of the regulation are correct. I was mistaken and made an update in my original post.

> Customers _want_ to purchase more secure products but do not have the option, and do not have the information required to do so.

Again, if customers really were demanding this, why haven't these greedy corporations provided the service already?

If I'm wrong, then there's an market opportunity that I hope an entrepreneur will take advantage of.

Consumers often purchase insurance for low probability, high impact events. I would infer the fact that consumers are not purchasing insurance for these devices means they don't think it's that big of a deal.

The fact they voluntarily trade their own resources for these devices is the evidence I would point to.

They may care about "about lung cancer" and other aspects of the product, but they make trade-offs.

Consumers are ignorant about many aspects of the products they use. I do not trust politicians to somehow know what those asymmetries are and divine what our true preferences are.

I support individual's choice of whether or not take personal safety measures.

It could also be the case politicians are exploiting voters' ignorance of basic economic principles.

[Update: I did not read the original proposal carefully. I mistakenly believed this was a mandated regulation and not a voluntary one, so some of the points in my post do not apply.

However, I still oppose it for mostly the same reason: if consumers wanted this type of label on their products, then we we would likely already see it.

I am also skeptical that this is being initially proposed as a voluntary program, but is actually laying the foundation for a regulation that is mandatory.]

Please do not propose this regulation. If consumers actually cared about their IoT devices receiving security updates, companies would be doing it. The fact that companies are not already doing this is evidence it's not important to consumers. People may express frustration, but their purchasing behavior speaks louder than their words.

This regulation would force companies to work on things that customers don't actually value. It will hinder innovation. Companies could work on features consumers value instead of working on security updates that consumers do not value.

If this regulation passes, companies will be less likely to offer new IoT devices knowing they will have to provide security updates beyond what consumers are demanding.

This regulation will also increase costs for IoT devices. As a consumer, I do not want the FCC mandating what features will be included in my IoT devices.

From the perspective of an individual engineer, tech regulation like this often leads to engineers doing soul-sucking work that nobody cares about. I know your focus is on consumer protection, not producers, so that point may be irrelevant.

Please do not be the individual that causes a negative impact on the world, despite whatever good intentions you may have.

I'm guessing if the FCC enacts this regulation, it will help you in your political career. However, if you were to take the opposite stance and oppose the legislation for the reasons stated above, I'm sure you'd lose your job very quickly. Therefore, I am confident I will be ignored.

Then all news outlets should be forced to publicize their internal editorial decisions.

If for-profit companies keep doing all these awful things, why people keep paying them money?