IJay Palansky, Partner, Armstrong Teasdale
IJay is not a cyber security expert, but he is a trial lawyer who handles complex commercial litigation, consumer protection, and class actions - usually representing the defendant.
There is a difference between data breach and IoT vulns. They aren't handled the same. There is precedent on data breaches, but not really much on IoT devices. People have been radically underestimating the cost and volume of IoT lawsuits that are about to come. The conditions are going to be right for a wave of lawsuits.
Think about policy. The rules are changing. It is hard to predict how this will play out, so it's hard to say how IoT companies should protect themselves. IJay likes this quote from Jeff Motz - "What would make 'defense greater than offense'..?" (Motz? maybe Moss?)
People are trying to get the latest and greatest gadget out, to get the first to market advantage. Security slows this down. But if your'e not thinking about security devices up front, you are putting yourself at risk. If you get drawn into litigation or the media draws attention to it, you need to be able to answer to the media (or a judge) what you did to meet basic security requirements for that type of device. Think of avoiding the liability. Judges will look for who is the msot responsible.
It's estimated that there will be 20 Billion connected devices by 2020.
There are ridiculous items coming online all the time - like the water bottle that glows when you need to drink, the connected Moen shower to set temperature, and the worst the i.Con Smart Condom... oh boy.
These devices have potential to harm, from privacy issues to physical harm. There can be ransomware, DDoS attacks, etc. These are reality - people are remotely hacking vehicles already.
Plaintiffs' lawyers are watching and wating, they want to make sure they can get soemthing out of it financially. They need to be able to prove harm and attribution (who to blame). Most importantly, the plaintiffs' lawyers don't understand this technology (and neither do the judges), or how the laws here work.
There is general agreement that the security of IoT devices is not where they should be. There will be lawsuits, once there are some, there will be more (those other attorneys will be watching).
This is not the first time that product liability or other law has had to address new technology, but the interconnectedness involved in IoT is unique. They need to show who's fault it was - could get multiple defendants, and they will be so busy showing what the other defendant did wrong - doing the plaintiffs' lawyer's job for them. :-)
There has been some enforcement by regulators, like the response to TRENDnet Webcam hack in Jan 2012, which resulted in a settlement in 2013.
Some lawyers will be looking for opportunities to take up these cases, to help build a name and reputation.
The Jeep hack was announced in 2015, then Chrysler recalled the vehicles. That's not where the story ends... there is a class action lawsuit moving forward still. (filed in 2016, but only approved yesterday to go forward). This is where things get interesting - nobody was hurt, but there was real potential of getting hurt. People thought they were buying a safe car, and they were not. What is the value?
There is reputation loss, safety issues, and the cost of litigation that makes this all a problem. It's a burden and distraction on key employees that have to be deposed, find documents, etc.
The engineers and experts get stressed about saying something that will hurt their company, or thinking that they did something wrong that hurt someone. That is a cost.
IJay then walks us through law school in 10 minutes :-)
You need to understand the legal risks and assocaited costs, so when you are making decisions on the right level of security.
Damages vary by legal claim and the particular harm. Claims can be around things like negligence, fraud or fradulent omission, breach of warranty, strict product liability. These are all state law claims, not federal, which means there will be variance.
Negligence means you have failed tot take "reasonable care" - often based on expert opinions. Think of the Pinto - they had design defects.
Design defets could be around hardware or software, things like how passwords are handled.
Breach of warranty is an issue as well - there are implied warranties, like of merchantability (assumption product is safe and usable) If you know you have an issue, and don't tell anyone - that's fraudulent omission.
Keep in mind that state statutes are dsigned to be cosnumer friendly, with really broad defintiions.
You need to minimally follow industry standards, but that may not be sufficient.
Think about security at all stages of your design, be informed and ask the right questions, be paranoid and allocate risk. Test and document the testing you did, save it while you do the work. It will hep protect you. Be careful about words you use around your products, watch what you say in your advertisement and don't overstate what you do.
You should also get litigation insurance and make sure it covers IoT.
If it goes wrong - get a good lawyer who knows this area. Investigate the cause, inclding discussions with engineers.
A wave of IoT hack and vuln litigation is coming - you need to be thinking about this now. Understand and use sound cybersecurity design and engineering principles.
Lamb-entations - Like the Mardi Gras King Cake, I suspect that the Easter Lamb Cake is just inherently Wrecky. I mean, this one Jamie B. sent in is a good one: So really,...