Towards responsive regulation of the Internet of Things: Australian perspectives

Richardson, Megan; Bosua, Rachelle; Clark, Karin; Webb, Julian; Ahmad, Atif; Maynard, Sean B.

doi:10.14763/2017.1.455

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This could encompass improved funding and resourcing for organisations such as the ACCC or the OAIC, which has received increased funding relating to its mandates regarding the Consumer Data Right and My Health Record (OAIC, 2021). Direct consumer and data protection standards for CIoTs could also be introduced that escalate to privacy‐based doctrines enforced through litigation (Richardson et al, 2017, p. 9), or co‐regulatory approaches where the design and enforcement of regulatory requirements are shared between a regulator and those being regulated (see Levi‐Faur, 2011a, 2011b). Moreover, Australia could consider approaches such as Europe's General Data Protection Regulation regime that provides a number of protections such as Article 22 that grants a right not to be subject to automated decision‐making or profiling that can occur from consumer IoT data (see also Mann and Matzner, 2019).…”

Section: Discussion: Implications For Future Regulatory Efforts In Au...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the context of regulating consumer IoT a responsive approach will mean escalating enforcement and the imposition of sanctions, starting with incentivising compliance through to more stringent responses backed by hard law and external investigation and enforcement. As Richardson et al (2017, p. 8) point out this could commence with self‐regulation through privacy‐by‐design initiatives ‘as a first and fairly minimal’ response to the regulation of CIoTs, by encouraging the adoption of privacy‐conscious design choices and offering clear customisable privacy settings and configurations to consumers. Organisations such as the IoTAA could assist with promoting privacy‐by‐design approaches and supporting such industry‐wide forms of self‐regulation.…”

Section: Discussion: Implications For Future Regulatory Efforts In Au...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The competing strengths and also weaknesses of various ‘solutions’ to the problems created by IoT may encourage the regulatory posture of the ‘smart’ regulation of ‘smart’ things (Gunningham & Sinclair, 2017). ‘Smart regulation’ entails multiple responsive regulatory strategies and parties (Gunningham & Sinclair, 2017) and builds upon Ayres and Braithwaite's (1992) model of responsive regulation and the accompanying enforcement pyramid (see also Richardson et al, 2017). This model aims to be ‘responsive to the regulatory environment and to the conduct of the regulated in deciding whether a more or less interventionist response is needed’ (Braithwaite, 2017, p. 117, see also Parker, 2013).…”

Section: Discussion: Implications For Future Regulatory Efforts In Au...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Consumer IoT and its under‐regulation: Findings from an Australian study

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The expansive growth of consumer internet of things (IoT) has created a range of concerns around privacy, security, and their broader societal impacts. This article reports on findings from interviews with 32 key stakeholders from the fields of information security, policy and regulation, the IoT industry, consumer and privacy law, and academia in Australia. It details a broad variety of issues and concerns that go beyond the well-recognised issue of privacy or the technical standards of information security, to encompass a wider set of issues regarding the implications for vulnerable communities, the environment and industrial standards of IoT production. Most key stakeholders expressed the view that more robust regulation is required in Australia, but no clear regulatory priority or strategy was identified by our sample. The implications of these findings for further regulation of consumer IoT and future regulatory strategies are considered.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Implications For Future Regulatory Efforts In Au...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion: Implications For Future Regulatory Efforts In Au...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion: Implications For Future Regulatory Efforts In Au...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consumer IoT and its under‐regulation: Findings from an Australian study

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the scenario of Medical grade IoT, it may require the attention of both departments [45]. On the other hand, some people believe strict government regulations may create additional bureaucracy and stifle the innovation and agility in the IoT development [49]. Several governments have already started to propose very basic level legislations to handle this trade-off.…”

Section: Regulatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

IoT Behavioral Monitoring via Network Traffic Analysis

Sivanathan

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I graciously acknowledge and appreciate the collaboration with the teams at Cisco Systems and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (AC-CAN). Their involvement and the input provided at various stages of this work were inevitably productive. v I have been extremely fortunate to meet and interact with several talented, interesting, and fun fellow research colleagues, Mohammad Hossein, Ayyoob, Sharat, Iresha, Jawad, Minzhao, and Thanchanok (Tara), who spared their time to help me with both the happy and boring parts of the Ph.D. I cannot forget friends who went through hard times together, cheered me on, and celebrated each accomplishment. Anu Raghavi, Arunkumar, Gajan, Kaavya, Kawsihen, Navaroshan, Sirojan, and Tharshini -thank you for keeping my life nourished and fun-filled.Words cannot express my gratitude to my parents and family, Sivanathan, Sasikala, Abhayan, Aparajithan, and Dhanya for constantly encouraging me to pursue a doctoral degree. My deepest appreciation is dedicated to my wife, Anusuya. You have been extremely caring and supportive of me throughout this entire process and have made countless sacrifices to help me get to this point whilst carrying your own burdens. Also, I would like to thank Anusuya's parents and family members for their constant moral support during this journey. Aekan and Pavinesh, because of you, I laughed harder and smiled more.Finally, I'm grateful to the people of Australia, who as a country has generously offered me all the necessary rights, respect, peace and safe environment, some of which were even refused in my country of origin. vi

show abstract

“…Beyond IoT technical security challenges, many new legal and regulatory concerns are yet to be addressed. A study focusing on Australian perspectives discussed the impact of IoT-based ubiquitous surveillance on the basic structure of society [29] concluded that more efforts to reform a responsive regulation are required. In the United State (US), the Department for Homeland Security and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have already promoted guidelines and best practices for IoT security based on frameworks and standards by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) but they are non-binding.…”

Section: Regulatory Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

Federated Blockchain-Based Tracking and Liability Attribution Framework for Employees and Cyber-Physical Objects in a Smart Workplace

Ahmadi-Assalemi

Al-Khateeb

Epiphaniou

et al. 2019

2019 IEEE 12th International Conference on Global Security, Safety and Sustainability (ICGS3)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The systematic integration of the Internet of Things (IoT) and Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) into the supply chain to increase operational efficiency and quality has also introduced new complexities to the threat landscape. The myriad of sensors could increase data collection capabilities for businesses to facilitate process automation aided by Artificial Intelligence (AI) but without adopting an appropriate Securityby-Design framework, threat detection and response are destined to fail. The emerging concept of Smart Workplace incorporates many CPS (e.g. Robots and Drones) to execute tasks alongside Employees both of which can be exploited as Insider Threats. We introduce and discuss forensic-readiness, liability attribution and the ability to track moving Smart SPS Objects to support modern Digital Forensics and Incident Response (DFIR) within a defence-in-depth strategy. We present a framework to facilitate the tracking of object behaviour within Smart Controlled Business Environments (SCBE) to support resilience by enabling proactive insider threat detection. Several components of the framework were piloted in a company to discuss a real-life case study and demonstrate anomaly detection and the emerging of behavioural patterns according to objects' movement with relation to their job role, workspace position and nearest entry or exit. The empirical data was collected from a Bluetooth-based Proximity Monitoring Solution. Furthermore, a key strength of the framework is a federated Blockchain (BC) model to achieve forensic-readiness by establishing a digital Chain-of-Custody (CoC) and a collaborative environment for CPS to qualify as Digital Witnesses (DW) to support post-incident investigations.

show abstract

Towards responsive regulation of the Internet of Things: Australian perspectives

Cited by 8 publications

References 23 publications

Consumer IoT and its under‐regulation: Findings from an Australian study

Consumer IoT and its under‐regulation: Findings from an Australian study

IoT Behavioral Monitoring via Network Traffic Analysis

Federated Blockchain-Based Tracking and Liability Attribution Framework for Employees and Cyber-Physical Objects in a Smart Workplace

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About