[JoshTriplett]

If you have a device you don't trust, don't allow it on your network, or have an isolated network for such devices. Meanwhile, devices are right to not allow MITMing their traffic and to treat that as a security hole, even if a very tiny fraction of their users might want to MITM it to try to do adblocking on a device they don't trust or fully control, rather than to exploit the device and turn it into a botnet.

Along similar lines, a security hole you can use for jailbreaking is also a security hole that could potentially be exploited by malware. As cute as things like "visit this webpage and it'll jailbreak your iPhone" were, it's good that that doesn't work anymore, because that is also a malware vector.

I'd like to see more devices being sold that give the user control, like the newly announced GrapheneOS phones for instance. I look forward to seeing how those are received.

[EvanAnderson]

> If you have a device you don't trust, don't allow it on your network...

That's what I do. That means large swaths of potentially interesting "smart" devices are unavailable to me (since they won't work without Internet access and I'm unable to inspect their traffic). I'm not too heartbroken about it, but it does make me a little sad that I don't get to use some of this "we're living in the future" tech.

> ...devices are right to not allow MITMing their traffic and to treat that as a security hole...

> ...a security hole you can use for jailbreaking is also a security hole that could potentially be exploited by malware...

Yes. Complete agreement. Devices are right not to allow unauthorized parties to MiTM their traffic, tinker w/ their innards, etc. I would never suggest otherwise.

Owners, with physical access, should be permitted to MITM the traffic, tinker with the innards, etc. They're authorized parties.

Device manufacturers should compelled by regulation to allow device owners, with physical access, to examine and manipulate the device internals. I'm thinking of the "developer mode" physical switches on Chromebook devices. If I own it I should have the same access to the device the manufacturer does.

If a manufacturer's business / security model isn't compatible with this regulation the manufacturer should be required to deal with any e-waste concerns and it should clearly be marketed as a rental and not a sale.

None of this will ever happen. I know I'm tiling at windmills. The tech world will continue to get more locked-down, the public will lose unfettered access to general purpose computers, and the personal computer revolution will become a distant memory. We already lost and could never really win because "normies" don't care about this stuff.

[JoshTriplett]

> If a manufacturer's business / security model isn't compatible with this regulation the manufacturer should be required to deal with any e-waste concerns and it should clearly be marketed as a rental and not a sale.

I would be generally in favor of this. I don't like the idea of forbidding building a device that's locked down; there are potential use cases for such a thing. I do like the idea of saying "either allow tinkering or you are subject to numerous other things, like warranty / liability laws".

[ndriscoll]

Network segmentation does nothing for the types of attacks these devices perform (e.g. content recognition for upload to their tracking servers, tracking how you navigate their UI, ad delivery). I'm not worried about them spreading worms on my network. The problem is their propensity to exfiltrate data or relay propaganda. The solution to that is a legal one, or barring that, traffic filtering.

[JoshTriplett]

That was my motivation for the "or" (don't allow it on your network, or put it on an isolated network); it depends on your threat model and what the device could do. Some devices (like "smart" TVs) shouldn't have network access at all.