[guelo]

That's fine, if you connect some cheap webcam and it causes you to be knocked off the internet you're going to be mad, leave a bad review for the camera, and not buy from them again. Market forces would then incentivize better security to be built into these devices.

[Jtsummers]

But the average consumer won't realize, especially when the installation and network failure aren't temporally adjacent, that the camera is the cause of the problem.

The solutions available (and there are more, just enumerating some):

IPv6 so everything is directly on the internet or not hidden behind a common router like they are now. This allows direct blocking of bad actors.

Security certifications for all software and hardware that ever connects to the internet. Well, guess I won't be doing as much programming at home anymore. And good luck getting that open source project of yours certified without getting some Patreon supporters with deep pockets.

Arbitrarily, from the consumers perspective, block their access to the internet when they "did nothing wrong".

Hold the creators of the devices accountable for making shitty, exploitable systems. Sue them directly for the financial harm they've permitted (millions of dollars today alone). But good luck suing them, they're in a foreign and will cease to exist tomorrow (under that corporate entity).

[cpncrunch]

>But the average consumer won't realize, especially when the installation and network failure aren't temporally adjacent, that the camera is the cause of the problem.

In theory the user could be presented with a "here is why you've been blocked" explanation when they try to browse any site. They could then (probably) figure out what is the offending device, take it off the network, then click "please let me back on the internet, the bad device has been removed". (Somewhat similar to how the MX blacklists work at present).