ET Don't Phone Home
jacquesmattheij.com
jacquesmattheij.com
1) create a standard that does all of the normal things you would want an IOT device to do
2) turn it into a microservice that runs on standard platforms like AWS/GCP/Azure
3) User buys the hardware, and then essentially pays monthly for the services to the cloud services (potentially thru some kind of wrapper service that makes it easier for them to interact with)
So in the future, you would be able to have something like a vanilla version of what Nest cameras, wemo switches, and random leak sensors and whatever all provide, but you are both the producer and consumer of the data with a cloud service in the middle. Yes, of course the cloud people could spy on you. But its different when you don't have to sign some agreement when you "login" to setup your nest sensor that says you agree to them selling your data.
All the companies that are heavily pushing cloud based IoT stuff are doing it because they think they can make more money via lock in and spying on people than traditional home automation suppliers.
You buy a webcam/printer which has a driver, but use it with apps made by others.
So I guess we need to invent "cloud drivers".
I’m as DIY as you can get, and That does not sound like something I want controlling my power socket while I’m not home
Are you saying that those of us designing and maintaining our own devices should be legally prohibited from doing so because it is a public safety hazard, and only corporate designed devices should be considered to be safe and pluggable?
You'll note that such limits already exist for products on the market - what keeps your neighbor from burning the whole block down is a complex web of legal requirements and means of recourse that force equipment producers to don't cut corners and don't do too shitty designs. They absolutely would if they could, because it would be cheaper, but the law prevents them from doing so. Which is why your neighbor can safely buy a product in a random western shop and keep it plugged to mains - whereas products imported straight from China will happily burst into flames at random occasions, because there is no legal protection that would make these sellers accountable.
I had a dropcam for a while. Infuriating device. It records video, uploads it to its cloud service, then when I want to watch the video, the player downloads it back from that service through my same internet connection! what kind of bonehead decided that was a good use of my bandwidth? Why can’t I just connect locally directly to the device and stream video from it? It’s as if someone said “well we have lots of cloud engineers here, so we obviously need to write a cloud service!” without regard to whether it was needed. Or more cynically, they said “We could make it stream video locally but then we couldn’t offer a monthly cloud service for sweet recurring revenue.”
Apart from nextcloud, self-hosted social networks and sandstorm - what else is there that solves similar problems?
So the question is why does it not exist yet?
They got a bit carried away thanks to Moores law making lavatory building cheap, especially if you buy a million at a time and so now we have town sized constructs of just lavatories. And all those lavatories need infinite quantities of piss and shit to justify their existence. Conduct hackathons. Fund incubators. Hire the best and brightest and it's possible to get populations to ramp up piss and shit generation. It then takes armies of sales and marketing drones zigzagging the planet day and night incentivizing orgs and people to ditch their own loos.
The stagnating transport industry (Big Telco) woke up when they noticed people taking shuttles to Mega Loo Plaza and started competing with each other to upgrade their own transport infra all over the world. A confluence of all these factory take us right back to where we started. A lavatory excess. But don't worry the Corporate Robot class is on the case. The goal is to get people to piss and shit 24x7 to utilize that excess (you will notice people who produce a lot piss and shit are encouraged). And things seem to be going well.
And ofcourse you can use your own loo at home. They are very cheap these days.
* Requires a computer with <OS list> to function
* Requires that software be installed from <list of app stores>
* Device data format is documented
* Deivce software can be replaced with independently developed software, but might require NDA or other agreement with the company
* Device software can be replaced independent of the company, but might might require NDA or other agreement with a third party (chip maker, etc.)
* Hardware is fully documented
The hardware/software must be fully documented reads as “must be open source”. There needs to be some incentive for quality vendors to get in the game, and most (all?) of them want to take some measures to ensure no one steals their design.
After all there are trade-offs here, for instance one device might be open source on the device but talking to a service vs a closed source device using an open protocol.
My own main gripe with the idea is that people in general just don't seem to care at all, it's just a few hardcore tech people that see where this is all headed.
* Device will receive security updates until <date>.
It always astounds me that the Android security update debacle has not made this a mandatory statement that all devices must contain. Of course this needs to be backed up with a consumer law to allow returns of all devices for a full refund which have a vulnerability which is unpatched 90 days after disclosure.
You said exactly that Google thought they were capable of predicting the 2016 election, and they predicted HRC (and by implication that is what they wanted) but the result proved that they were wrong.
Are you saying Google and it's fans (who?) think they have influence on elections, but they are wrong because of the 2016 results? And implicitly that they tried to skew the results against the GOP?
Is there any device/service that does that ? In my (limited) experience working on consumer product, the device sends detailed info that is then aggregated.
Automatic updates have huge pros, but also huge cons that are not being properly addressed by most vendors.
IMO the biggest difference in software now vs 1995 is the ability to incrementally upgrade pieces of it w/ limited user interaction (this is true for consumers and for programmers who are using a library / docker base layer).
Automatic updates are probably responsible for a non-trivial portion of our economic growth. It's worth creating better tools to make them safe & transparent.
How can they be, if by definition they don't involve paying extra for them, so they have no impact on economic growth metrics themselves?
As for proper addressing, I'd love if either an industry custom or a legal requirement would exist that would make vendors unbundle security updates from feature updates. There were plenty of situations in my life where I purposefully disabled automatic updates of software precisely so that it doesn't accrue bloat or the modern art projects that pass as UIs these days.
1. allowing companies to charge monthly for 'always fresh' software / services
2. adding free baseline features to OSes and open libraries, and fixing bugs. These improvements are bundled into paid products or used directly to increase productivity or standard of living.
So yes, even if the recording never leaves the building guests should be informed that they are being recorded. But those are recordings that the user is presumably at least aware of.
Hence the 'device contains a microphone or camera' category.
How would the device receive security updates? Or is the hope/expectation that the device would have no security vulnerabilities? (That seems hopelessly naive.)
Keep in mind that having a remote update process is a security risk in and of itself. So some people might want to opt out from such updates and firewall the device off entirely, if its functionality does not require a live internet connection this should be possible.
What about security bugs in a device's offline functionality? For example, imagine a keypad door lock. It can be configured online to add and remove unlock codes and to set schedules for automatic locking/unlocking, and then goes offline for normal operation.
Suppose someone discovers that certain invalid input sequences will unlock it regardless of what codes are set. I'd say that's a security bug that requires a security update, even though what it is fixing is functionality that does not require or use an internet connection.
https://www.google.com/search?q=smart+door+lock+vulnerabilit...
I'm not just talking about IoT devices. I want this for my washing machine, my electric toothbrush, my vacuum cleaner...everything.
1. If you insert a formatted thumb drive that contains a directory with some magic, standardized name (e.g., "DEVICE_INFO"), the device creates a directory under that named after the device, and in that directory writes out a PDF of its manual, install guide, warranty info, and/or whatever other documentation comes with the device. It also writes a text file containing model number, serial number, manufacture date, version information, and stuff like that.
2. If you insert a formatted thumb drive that contains a directory with another magic, standardized name (e.g., "FIRMWARE_UPDATES"), which contains a sub-directory names after the device, the device looks in there for a firmware update file, and if it finds one that is applicable it applies it.
- Write down the rules precisely.
- Get input from as many consumer rights organizations as possible.
- Submit the final rule set as a RFC or standard.
- Create a certification process with logo.
- Start lobbying for this certification become mandatory whenever there is a big cybersecurity scandal.
I record all my guests in my home. But using my own system. I don't upload it anywhere insecurely or share it with any outsiders because that would be crazy.
Smart folks understand about these various platforms and know to not discuss sensitive issues anywhere within a quarter mile of technology, or with anyone carrying a phone or other device. It's just common sense.
Based on your claim, baby monitors are illegal. Maybe a class action suit against baby monitor companies is a good idea!
Baby monitors don’t record and have indicators that they are active. And it’s still possible to use them in such a way that you run foul of the law.
Many of them do record nowadays, incidentally to providing internet accessibility.
Even if there were such a device, wouldn't that just bring us back to the point of the article? The existence of such a device wouldn't make the device suddenly legal to use without getting consent from the people being recorded.
I'm telling you I've committed no crime.
You say I have. You then say I have no proof I am not a criminal.
That's not how it works in this country. I'm presumed innocent. You want to prove I am a criminal, bring it on Griswald. Bring it on. Call the FBI. Call the state officials. Try to get me arrested for the crimes you insist I have committed. Make a big public case of it, as public as possible. Since slander and libel are also problematic aren't they.
I made two posts suggesting you might be in violation of the law for your own consideration. I made a third post to someone else about a tangent.
> I'm telling you I've committed no crime.
Yes.
> You say I have.
Nope. I said you might be in violation and I gave reasons. Your responses since then have actually lead me to believe you have no idea whether your system is legal. If you did, I think you'd be able to articulate why your system is legal.
I don't have anything at stake here. If you're in violation, you're the one risking felony charges, not me. If you think it's legal, great. If you don't think it's legal, then get in compliance or don't.
> That's not how it works in this country. I'm presumed innocent. You want to prove I am a criminal, bring it on Griswald. Bring it on. Call the FBI. Call the state officials. Try to get me arrested for the crimes you insist I have committed. Make a big public case of it, as public as possible. Since slander and libel are also problematic aren't they.
I don't know how to help you. This response makes no sense at all.