“NSFW” doesn’t begin to describe Bluetooth security in sex toys | Hacker News Reader

“NSFW” doesn’t begin to describe Bluetooth security in sex toys

arstechnica.com

54 pointsjsjohnst14 comments

Every once in a while, I pick up my neighbors' sex toys while I'm scanning BT frequencies.

It made me feel kind of gross when I realized that I could (probably) play with the toy remotely and they'd never realize that I was the one who intruded on their time (if they even realized it was more than a bug). I never actually did (see point about gross), but I've been debating buying one myself just to fiddle around with it.

Good to know we've progressed to an age where digital sexual assault is possible.

"I've been debating buying one myself just to fiddle around with it."

Isn't that the point? ;-)

"Digital"... coming to a bedroom near you with double the meaning.

Remember the old 'finger' protocol?

This gives me a product idea.

Massively Multiplayer Online Interconnected Sex Toys (MMOIST).

You connect, find a peer and have some online fun together. Could even open it to local bluetooth networks by simply... well, not updating the security at all !

> Could even open it to local bluetooth networks by simply... well, not updating the security at all !

You're literally talking about digital STDs here.

(Sometimes I feel the future is coming too soon...)

See the movie the Zero Theorem for an example of your game.

An external will have control of your toy. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Golden promoted comment from article.

"I'm pretty sure letting the public control your sex toy is an entire category of fetish I don't know the name of.

This isn't a bug. This is a feature."

just out of SciFi esque curiosity, would that be e-rape? if you can prove it some how

Reading the NY penal code (not sure for other states), I'm not sure. It wouldn't be rape or a criminal sexual act since there's no intercourse. And for sexual abuse it states the offender must "touch" the victim or "insert" a foreign object. In this case the criminal isn't actually touching the victim, and the victim inserted the object themselves... I imagine this isn't something lawmakers thought of at the time. Hopefully this remains theoretical for the time being.

Do the correct marketing and some of these flaws can become features for some specific public who want... hum... different experiences.

I think having a 'door' that is locked by default, and able to be left open and 'unlocked', might be plausible consent.

The above very well would be a feature at least in fantasy (fiction, not genera) settings if not real ones as well.

Well. I'm getting ideas for Defcon fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com