Hacker News Reader

Comment by daveguy | Hacker News Reader

The big problem I have with IoT is that none of this requires online AI. What part of having an authorized list or identifying you requires internet access?

The IoT will take off when services are run on site. When the processing power is available from a small appliance box and companies advertise security and reliability associated with local processing it will catch on.

What happens to your smart lock of your internet connection goes out? What about if the server that holds your whitelist is compromised?

View on HN

Exactly. If there's one thing I hate about the direction of tech these days, it's this headlong rush to gratuitously shackle all of our previously-independent devices to a mesh of online services. My bike lock (to use this example) should NOT require an internet connection, and should not depend on some web service (run by a super trendoid startup which might not exist in six months time) to fulfill its function.

And don't get me started on phone apps which shift some trivial processing off into "the cloud" as a thinly veiled excuse to upload all of your personal data to the company's servers so they can then flog your details off to some advertising company.

/rant

I can see value in internet access. The lock having internet access means I can be on vacation in Thailand and grant a friend access to my house to drop off the rent check I left on the counter. And later, I can make sure my friend didn't forget. Or, make sure my dog-sitter is showing up. I also can't think of a more convenient way to grant access and identify people off-hand.

As for the connection going out, there are solutions. Redundant cellular connections, maybe? And if you really can't get in, it's not the end of the world. We already have solutions for that: locksmiths. Might be expensive though, and end up destroying the device, or maybe your door.

The data security thing is really bad. Unfortunately, that's a much larger problem though, not really related just to IoT.

Got a nice start reading that comment. A nice amount of good sense. And then...

> We already have solutions for that:

Yes, finally somebody will say "local cache"!

> locksmiths.

Ok. Not yet.

That's a good point!

I guess more broadly, I was thinking about a scenario in which the lock device dies, and making the point that conventional devices aren't foolproof either. In this case, the fool being me, and the proof being locking my keys in the house.

So, any lock can fail, but I'm not really concerned as long as it has a reasonably low failure rate. We've tolerated conventional lock systems failing (via user error mostly) for a long time.

That's why vanadium exists (and is being invented). Http://v.io

Reply on news.ycombinator.com