In practice I expect it to result in fewer products on the market that are more expensive and no more secure as this sort of regulation will simply select for large companies who are experts at paperwork and soft bribes.
I wish I had a better idea.
Something that already works are various forms of certification.
Examples are:
* "Norton protected" on websites
* Underwriters Laboratories on US products
* US DOD Trusted Computer System Evaluation Critera for how the US military checks the security of a product
* ISO 9001 for quality management
* Oregon Tilth for certifying organic products
Some of these are more valuable than others, but are at least a separate stamp of approval.
With my magic wand I'd have a group come together to form such a certifying organisation and provide it with a marketing budget. The marketing would mirror the success of "check for a green padlock on a website to know it is secure" - look for the stamp on a product box.
If that doesn't happen and there are more serious incidents is that consumers would look to Google, Apple, Amazon etc. eg if the proposed device doesn't work with the Apple hub and been vetted by Apple, then they wouldn't buy it.
It also isn't necessary for every consumer to care about certification. All it takes is a minority to do so - enough to tip sales away from the competition. Certification is also easy to mention in reviews and product feature lists.
So yes, regulations are circumvented or ignored intentionally, but that doesn't mean that it's somehow a bad idea; the idea is to enforce positive behavior by attaching an undesirable response to not doing the positive behavior. It's meant to shape behavior in the long run, and it's why pulling funding and reach from regulatory agencies is usually shitty, as more than anything, it's meant to induce a scenario where one can say "look, we have these regulations, but X, Y, and Z continue to do the bad behavior! The regulation is senseless!"; in reality, X Y and Z have just run the costs and determined that it's cheaper to fight the regulation than to adhere to it.
Similar to costco - sometimes they do not sell products that they believe don't have the quality their customers deserve.
Without effective regulation I imagine you'd see aircraft falling out of the sky left and right because - and let's be honest here - safety is probably at the bottom of the priorities, both for manufacturers and airline operators.
Most people don't believe that accidents can happen to them. People rationalize the risk away, so they skimp on security to save a buck.
So, operators don't have incentive to maintain and upgrade their aircraft because that has only a negligible effect on performance, but costs a ton and the perceived risk is low. Manufacturers, likewise, have no incentive to produce safer airplanes because safety doesn't sell: range, capacity and fuel efficiency do.
Yet, air travel as never been safer. Seems to me like regulation works ok in this case.
The bottom, really? That's a pretty bold statement to make, and a disservice to the work those have done to ensure we have thousands of safe flights every single day. I'm certainly not arguing against airline regulation, but I don't believe that's the only thing holding them back from crashing planes on the regular.
Neither argument seems particularly persuasive without being falsifiable.
What do you mean "this sort?" Schneier just says "we need regulation", that's pretty definitely all the article says.
Which are exactly the kind of companies who can do good engineering, so why wouldn't they do that instead?