On Monday, the Senate passed Resolution 110, calling for the development of a national strategy that incentivizes and accelerates the country’s use of the “Internet of Things,” or IoT.  The Resolution comes amidst increased attention on the IoT industry, including the first Congressional hearings on the subject in both the House and the Senate.  The discussion has centered around the question of whether and to what extent the U.S. Government should regulate the burgeoning industry. 

Two sides line the debate.  The pro-regulation camp argues that the dangers that IoT technology may present – privacy mishaps first among them – demand some form of regulatory protection.  Those on the other side of the IoT aisle, however, warn that the industry is much like a very young Internet and that regulation runs the risk of stifling innovation before the country can reap its benefits.

The Resolution suggests that, for now, the Senate’s position leans more towards the latter than the former.  To start, it is plainly pro-IoT.  The three-page Senate Resolution dedicates almost half of its text to extolling the benefits of IoT technology – trillions of dollars in economic opportunity, empowering consumers across all aspects of their lives, untapped efficiencies and cost-savings across the economy, and so on.

At the same time, it appears less decidedly pro-regulation.  The Resolution acknowledges that the IoT “represents a wide range of technologies that are governed by various laws, policies, and governmental entities” but then proceeds to emphasize the role that multi-stakeholder processes can play in shaping its future.  That is, “the United States should recognize the importance of consensus-based best practices and communication among stakeholders.”  The Resolution limits its discussion of the role of government to noting only how it should “commit itself” to using IoT technology.  It also appears to give short shrift to the privacy fears that bolster calls for regulation.  The closest the Resolution comes to addressing such concerns is a quick reference to “responsibly protect[ing] against misuse.”

Others in Washington have sent mixed signals on how the Government should best approach the IoT.  Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) released a report on the IoT, urging Congress to pass consumer privacy legislation.  In fact, the Senate’s Resolution comes on the heels of the FTC’s announcement on Monday of a newly expanded Office of Technology Research and Investigation, which will focus on consumer protection in the IoT space, among others.  There is also the recent Federal Communications Commission net neutrality ruling, which treats the Internet much like a public utility, despite similar criticism that such heavy regulation will unnecessarily halt innovation.

On the other hand, just last month, President Obama issued an executive order directing the National Telecommunications & Information Administration to craft a voluntary code of conduct addressing privacy concerns surrounding another fledgling but controversial  technology – commercial drones.

The state of play is thus too muddled to predict how Washington will tackle the IoT.  One thing is for sure though:  Like the IoT industry, the conversation is only just getting started.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Kate Growley Kate Growley

Businesses around the globe rely on Kate M. Growley to navigate their most challenging digital issues, particularly those involving cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure, and their intersection with national security. Clients seek her guidance on proactive compliance, incident response, internal and government-facing investigations…

Businesses around the globe rely on Kate M. Growley to navigate their most challenging digital issues, particularly those involving cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure, and their intersection with national security. Clients seek her guidance on proactive compliance, incident response, internal and government-facing investigations, and policy engagement. With a unique combination of legal, policy, and consulting experience, Kate excels in translating complex technical topics into advice that is practical and informed by risk and business needs.

Kate has extensive experience working with members of the U.S. government contracting community, especially those within the Defense Industrial Base. She has partnered with contractors from every major sector, including technology, manufacturing, health care, and professional services. Kate is an IAPP AI Governance Professional (AIGP) and a Certified Information Privacy Professional for both the U.S. private and government sectors (CIPP/G and CIPP/US). She is also a Registered Practitioner with the U.S. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Cyber Accreditation Body (AB).

Having lived in Greater China for several years, Kate also brings an uncommon understanding of digital and national security requirements from across the Asia Pacific region. She has notable experience with the regulatory environments of Australia, Singapore, Japan, and Greater China—including the growing regulation of data flows between the latter and the United States.

Kate is a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C., office, as well as a senior director in the firm’s consultancy Crowell Global Advisors, to which she was seconded for several years. She is a founding member of the firm’s Privacy & Cybersecurity Group and part of the firm’s AI Steering Committee. She has been internationally recognized by Chambers and named a “Rising Star” by both Law360 and the American Bar Association (ABA). She has held numerous leadership positions in the ABA’s Public Contract Law and Science & Technology Sections and has been inducted as a lifetime fellow in the American Bar Foundation.