Regulation through “bricking”: private ordering in the “Internet of Things”

Abstract

Internet-enabled "smart products" operate through networked software that links the devices to their manufacturers' servers to enable the collection and distribution of data, and, as a result, these products are vulnerable to software disruption. This article examines "regulation by bricking", which refers to the deliberate impairment or destruction of software with the intention of negatively affecting product functionality. The article argues that companies are employing bricking within a system of private ordering that is reshaping the governance of physical objects, as companies can arbitrarily and remotely affect the functionality of any software-enabled device and even determine product's lifespan. Further, the article contends that through companies' post-purchase regulation of internet-connected goods, "Internet of Things" (IoT) firms have an unfair capacity to impose their preferred policies unilaterally, automatically, and remotely. Control over software thus enables control over hardware. This private ordering occurs within a regulatory framework in which IoT companies use restrictive licensing agreements to govern the use of the products' software. With a focus on the governance of consumer-oriented IoT goods within the United States, the article draws upon the law and technology literature to explain bricking as a form of techno-regulation, which is the deliberate use of technology as a regulatory instrument (Brownsword, 2005), through an analysis of manufacturers' licensing agreements for smart products.

The problem of innovation in technoscientific capitalism: data rentiership and the policy implications of turning personal digital data into a private asset

“…Data rentiership is dependent on the capacity to predict and manipulate personal data, reflecting not only advertising revenues but also the control of consumer behaviour itself (Nieborg and Poell 2018;Zuboff 2019). On a mundane level, the prevalence of rentiership in relation to personal data is best illustrated by the concept of "precarious ownership" that reflects the increasing limitations companies put on the use of products and devices they have sold, especially through electronic copyright (Tusikov 2019;Birch 2020). Physical products like tractors, cars, or smartphones are reframed as a subscription service in which personal data collected from individual devices allows companies to not only update and fix software or electronics, but also remotely control device functionality and usability (Perzanowski and Schultz 2016).…”

Internationalising state power through the internet: Google, Huawei and geopolitical struggle

“…It is true that modern corporations have enormous economic power, which they can leverage for private political authority in the international economy (Büthe and Mattli, 2011;Elbra, 2014;Haufler, 2006;Quack and Dobusch, 2013;Tusikov, 2019b). However, international firms can also be used as conduits for internationalising state power through the extra-territorial application of state authority (Crasnic, Kalyanpur, and Newman, 2017;Farrell and Newman, 2019;Tusikov, 2016Tusikov, , 2019a.…”