Yesterday the House passed HR
6032, the State of Modern Application, Research, and Trends of (SMART) IoT
Act, by a voice
vote. The ‘debate’ lasted just over 8 minutes and consisted mainly of
praising committee leadership for their bipartisan support for crafting this
bill.
In my earlier post on this bill I had serious reservations
about the definition of ‘internet connected devices’ used instead of trying to
define IoT. That concern is further aggrevated by the discussion of the IoT problem
found in the House Energy and Commerce Committee report
on the bill. In both the sections describing the purpose of the bill and the
need for the legislation, the term ‘internet connected devices’ is never used;
all references are to the undefined acronym ‘IoT’.
Those discussions in the report clearly (but certainly not concisely)
indicate that the Committee is concerned about a wide variety of devices that
are connected to the internet but, may communicate over the internet without
the specific control of the owner of the data that is being shared or with whom
the data is being shared. But that concern is specifically ignored by the
inclusion of the requirement in the definition of ‘internet connected devices’
that the physical object connected to the internet would “communicate
information at the direction of an individual” {§2(c)(2)(A)}. One of the big problems of so many IoT
devices is their capability to communicate information without the direction of
the individual owner/operator of the device.
This bill obviously has bipartisan support and more
importantly the lack of any significant opposition, so it could be passed in
the Senate under their unanimous consent process. If there were a single
Senator, however, that objected to this bill, the bill would languish in that
body in the limited number of floor hours available for consideration of bills
under regular order. I do not expect to see this bill reach the President’s
desk.
No comments:
Post a Comment