"The Internet of Things" - One of the worst Ideas possible

In the wake of a couple of hackers taking down a Jeep Cherokee, we should really reconsider the whole "internet of things" idea. This isn't to say that it's ever not been a bad idea, just that more and more evidence piles up against the idea of networking everything.

In order for the "internet of things" to not be a major security risk, security holes need to be minimal and quickly patched. Instead, security is often an afterthought, or not even a consideration, and, in combination with the interconnection of important "things" with much less important (but considerably more networked) "things" allows for "hackers" to perform significantly malicious acts, and reduces privacy to a pittance.

Steering, braking, transmission, fridges, house lighting/electricity, etc. So many things that have no good reason for being connected to the internet are networked to kingdom come. The only way to guarantee that no one can hack an important system/equipment is to have an "air gap". That is to say, there is no direct connection between the important equipment and any form of transmitter/receiver. The transmission on the aforementioned Jeep Cherokee would be a lot harder to hack if it wasn't connected to the vehicle's built in wifi.

If it isn't a computer, and it doesn't need to be connected to the internet, disconnect it, if at all possible.

Friendly...

There is a saying: There are friendly foreign governments, but there are no friendly foreign intelligence agencies.
Most nations in the world have at least one agency devoted to espionage and/or counter-espionage. How well those twin missions executed can have a major impact on how well a nation does, and if performed right can give a nation a major advantage over other nations. Thus, any nation without an intelligence agency of some sort is at a distinct disadvantage, and is either too poor or too incompetently led to be a serious threat to any nation with a more than token military.
Thus, when other countries steal our secrets I don't get mad at those countries. I just want the various intelligence agencies here in the US to work extra hard to prevent more secrets from being stolen and for the US to retaliate against whomever stole the secrets. And when we're the ones stealing secrets from other countries I want our government to do its best to avoid any serious repercussions. After all, when it comes to intelligence gathering, even among allies, it is not a case of "want". It is a case of "need". It is immoral for a nation to not gather intelligence, engage in counter-intelligence, attempt to reprise against those who steal it's secrets, and attempt to avoid reprisal when it is caught stealing secrets.
The problems come when intelligence agencies spy upon the citizens that they're supposed to protect.

A Good Reason to Avoid online social networking

From BBC:

Facebook was targeted by 'sophisticated' hackers

With as many people who use Facebook, it is a prime target for cyber attacks. Even if no one's data was compromised be this attack, there will be attacks in the future - and eventually they'll succeed. 

Think about how much information you have about yourself on your Facebook account. Now think about a criminal gaining access to that information. Now think of ways to limit your exposure should Facebook face a successful attack that gains access to user information.

Zombies!

From CBS News:
Maine drivers warned of zombie danger

A construction sign got changed by somebody to read "Warning Zombies Ahead!"
Is it wrong of me to think that this is really cool?

City spokeswoman Nicole Clegg said the signs are a safety precaution and changing it could have led to driver distraction.

She told The Portland Press Herald that tampering with a safety device is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty certain that a sign about zombies is a thousand times cooler than "Night work 8 pm-6 am. Expect delays." At least the zombie sign would allow me to enjoy the delay.

SOPA/PIPA

After considering the language in SOPA/PIPA (specifically SOPA, but PIPA is also a concern), I have decided that it would be a very bad law.

I'll start with a summary of what I have heard and read on the internet. First, if a site has user-generated content, it is at extreme risk. Second, if a site facilitates reaching a restricted site, it too becomes restricted. Third, SOPA/PIPA does not provide an easy method to fight back against the accuser.

Now for my thoughts. Tor, a service designed to help people behind the Great Chinese Firewall would be blocked in the U.S. It is a software designed expressly to get around firewalls and make the users anonymous en masse; you can tell if someone is using it BUT you cannot filter where they go OR tell where they go. Tor, in and of itself, is a very useful tool for whistle-blowers, journalists, and other people who want to remain anonymous when posting online (due to legal concerns or personal concerns). I will say this much about SOPA's hope of preventing access to Tor; look at China (PRC), have they blocked Tor completely?
Nope.

Also, if the interpretation of this law becomes broad enough (or loose enough; look at the second amendment for example) then sites who have dealt with sites whose sole purpose is to get around firewall's/pirate content/etc. could find themselves at risk.

I'm going to take everyone's favorite (or least favorite) browser. Mozilla Firefox has a massive addon ecosystem with user generated content. So someone who did not like Mozilla or was competing with Mozilla could, conceivably, put copyrighted content in a user review of an addon, or upload an addon that enables others to get around DNS blocking/firewalls/etc., and then Mozilla Firefox is effectively out of business.

Sites that serve as places to upload reviews of products would also be hard hit, since instead of going through a legally arduous process to get a bad review removed, a company could just upload copyrighted content (anonymously) to the website and get it pulled down for that.

Here is something else to consider; I could write a book, self-publish it, and then use the forums of EA to completely (or partially) kill EA's online presence.

By the same token, some smart cracker/hacker (cracker is more accurate) somewhere will crack into the government's website and post copyrighted material there, which would make the government liable (the government probably won't care--they wrote the law, so they could modify to give exemptions to certain parties, but then some people are more equal in the view of the law then others. Just like 1984).

Has anyone out there given any thought to the potential for crackers to take down legitimate sites that had no intention of violating copyright law, but did violate copyright because it got cracked/hacked?

I have no problem with IP laws; it is only how it is enacted, and I think that SOPA/PIPA along with the DMCA go a little to far. I want to own what I purchase, and be able to resell it later.

SOPA and PIPA are just disasters waiting to happen; if you cannot enforce the law, especially one like this, then you have no business passing the law in the first place.

For those in congress:
Oh, and about Tor? Some people already have it. It is open source, anyone can get the source, anyone can build it, anyone can improve upon it. Again, look at how effective it is in places that have essentially the same type of blocking.
Also, don't trust the lobbyists; they have been known to lie to further their interests.

For everyone else:
Join us, get Tor today for tomorrow.
http://www.torproject.org

Also, I see .onion domains popping up all over the place. Those are sites only accessible via Tor, and no one can track them back to the originator easily.

BTW, I do not condone or engage in piracy, so please don't say that I'm against it because you think I engage in "piracy."

Also, for those wanting to quote me out of context, please do so after SOPA/PIPA pass. I'll use it on YOU. If you are going to quote me, get the context; if you don't, ask. I'm specifically thinking of the previous paragraph.