Re: [Model-t] draft-thomson-tmi

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2020-07-21, at 16:02, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I agree that the even bigger problem is that the user looses control about its data as soon as the data has left their own network and devices. However, that doesn’t mean it is not important to have some control or at least visibility about what data leaves your network. I would say the opposite is the case. The solution to the problem about how your data is maintained is probably regulatory 

Yes.  The interesting question here is what kind of protocol support is needed to support a regulatory framework.  Доверяй, но проверяй.

For instance, I would like to be sure that the data my electricity meter is sending to my electricity broker is what it is supposed to be, and not anything else, whether for criminal intent or gross negligence.  I can just trust my electricity broker and the electricity meter, and I have to trust the broker anyway once they have their hands on the data.  But with respect to what data is leaving my house, it would be better if I had some visibility.

> or could be “just don’t install a cloud-backed camera”. Instead, you could probably use a camera that connects to your own gateway to provide this service. However, in this case I really want to make sure that camera really only connects to my gateway and does not also streams the video to the cloud or the police (not even occasionally). At the same time, I guess I still wouldn’t want to block all traffic entirely because I still want to make updates and such. In the end it’s a matter of trust and I might actually trust an independent third-party more than the various IoT companies.

Any reasonable model needs to be able to enable доверяй, но проверяй.

Grüße, Carsten