Abstract
Regulation through “bricking”: private ordering in the “Internet of Things”
Highlights
With the rapid expansion of internet-connected physical products with embedded software known as the “Internet of Things” (IoT), once-ordinary goods like watches or televisions have become what is colloquially termed “smart” devices
This article argues that IoT companies, within the United States, are using bricking within a system of private ordering that is reshaping the governance of physical objects, as companies can alter the functionality of or brick any software-enabled, internet-connected device, typically without the consent or knowledge of their customers
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; see Hildebrandt, 2008) and an analysis of manufacturers’ licensing agreements for consumer-oriented smart products, Nest, the fitness wearable Fitbit, and Samsung’s smart television
Summary
With the rapid expansion of internet-connected physical products with embedded software known as the “Internet of Things” (IoT), once-ordinary goods like watches or televisions have become what is colloquially termed “smart” devices. This article argues that IoT companies, within the United States, are using bricking within a system of private ordering that is reshaping the governance of physical objects, as companies can alter the functionality of or brick any software-enabled, internet-connected device, typically without the consent or knowledge of their customers. This article examines the governance of IoT products as a form of private ordering with a focus on consumer-oriented smart products, its argument has broader relevance to the control that manufacturers can impose over all manner of internet-connected, software-enabled goods. While there is a growing scholarly literature on the Internet of Things, examining security and privacy risks (see e.g., DeNardis & Raymond, 2017; Friedland, 2017), few studies consider the ways that IoT manufacturers employ their newly expanded capacity to set rules governing the use and lifespan of these products, even after purchase (notable exceptions are Fairfield, 2017; Perzanowski & Schultz, 2016).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
