I don't think I can trust any software at that level.
But I do make sure that all of it fails gracefully to 'normal' when something interrupts HA. My software can (and does, every day) lock the door. But the deadlock still has a key on the outside and a standard twist knob on the inside. All the light switches work just fine without their wireless connection. Thermostat is indistinguishable from an old school Honeywell if you ignore the Z-Wave logo. etc.
I do keep my hands on the wheel, though ;-). The whole 'dying in a ball of twisted metal' failure mode is pretty convincing.
This is why interest and trust don't have to go together. Sometimes the people who are most adventurous are simply the ones who are comfortable with a lower level of trust, because they can manage their risk.
I'm comfortable playing with new or niche technology because I'm able to keep it low stakes. My most tech-phobic family members, on the other hand, act like they have complete faith in the software they use even when they say they have zero faith. They don't have the savoir-faire to do things that limit their risk, like withholding sensitive data and backing up important data in different places, so they resent technology as chronically treacherous and agonize over whether they can "trust" individual pieces of tech in an absolute yes/no way.
That said, my lights are operated via RF remote(s) (two systems, one working on plugs, the other from ikea), pretty convenient without needing an internet connection. Just an awkwardly sized battery.
Taking hands off steering wheel. Depends on where done, but straight or slightly curving highway with no significant other traffic sure. Why not try how well it works, just be ready to grab and correct if needed.
I even try how well my car goes straight line in similar conditions...
On the other hand, in reality I am not going to be targeted by competent hackers (who would own me at once), but rather a crude gang of misfits roaming around for an easily burglarised home.
The threat isn't a competent hacker targeting you directly.
The threat is a competent hacker targeting the lock's vendor, getting their whole database, then selling address, entry code and occupancy times for $20 per home on the darknet.
Threat: Hacker owning vendor and selling info on darknet Threat likelyhood: 1%
Risk: All valuables being stolen. Risk value: High if you keep a few kilograms of gold in your home. But basically depends on your possessions.
When we were burglared while sleeping a few years back the perp entered through a window. It was the last window not switched to a new one more secure. It took him around 15 seconds to enter. He left with the DSLR, a TV, clothes, a few valuables lying around and my SO's purse. Additionally, because traditionally her car keys were by the door on ground level he could grab them and put everything into her car and leave.
Nowadays our purses and keys never stay downstairs when we go to sleep.
I think the risk profile for traditional break ins is way higher than the risk from a smart lock (not that we have any).
And if they're going to do that, it's quite likely easier to pop a window lock than it is to buy a darknet database of API keys.
What locks are you referring to where locally configured entry codes are stored in a cloud DB? That's not the case for any of the ones I've installed.
This reminds me strongly of an ex-employer of mine, whose response to a security vulnerability was inevitably "our customers won't do that". It's one thing to have a threat model, it is quite another to dismiss low-hanging fruit (and trust me, whatever "smart" lock you have is very low-hanging) as not a big concern.
There is no perfect security, only risk profiles. I would argue the risk profile of door lock automation is low enough not to be worthy of concern in most cases.
If your home is targeted specifically, yes. However, if a group hacks a cloud lock provider and then hits several homes using that without having to do something that looks supicious like physically breaking the door then it could be a lot safter and thus profitable for them.
I.e. automating your door locks may very well increase your actual security rather than reduce it, if it causes your doors to be locked more often than you'd remember otherwise.
I like being able to check the status of my door locks remotely, and lock them if necessary. I like being able to make sure all locks and garage doors are secure automatically before bedtime. I'm not at all worried about someone sitting out in front of my house hacking the Z-Wave lock. By the time they figured it out, the neighbors will have already called the police anyway.
Connecting all my door locks (and garage doors too) to HA has measurably increased the security of my home.
I cited this example not as something that is objectively bad, but as something subjective, more about my gut reaction.
Funny thing is both my friend and I have electrical engineering education. I went to build software for a living, he more or less moved to sales/management. His job is to hype tech. My job is to make the saussage. There's a popular meme which I heard some time after the anecdote above:
Tech enthusiasts: My entire house is smart.
Tech workers: The only piece of technology in my house is a printer and I keep a gun next to it so I can shoot it if it makes a noise I don't recognize.
Most traditional locks can be picked open in seconds. There's no meaningful way to do any worse than that. The only fit-for-purpose way to use locks is in keeping honest people honest. They are utter rubbish at keeping bad guys out of your house.
I occasionally use it for weather but it’s annoying with such suggestions.
I should know better but in this case the convenience is worth it.
Say an attacker captures enough of a homeowner's voiceprint to build a language model good enough to get past Google's or Amazon's voiceprint matching, then pipes "<hotword>, open the front door" through a wall or window (possibly ultrasonically).
What happens now?
Who is to blame?
Is it the homeowner's fault for using a product according to the use cases included in the instructions?
"Oh, no, that was just a serving suggestion! You shouldn't use <product> to lock your doors unless the doors were an effectively unnecessary decoration to begin with."
So then you have Buy N' Large and Big Brother getting into the home and contents insurance industry.
No. No you don't. The only reason this use-case got cleared by Legal is because someone figured out the circle of plausible deniability (weaponized portmanteau of "circle of competence") is currently wide enough to fit a lawsuit defence through. :(
It's like with Tesla and the whole self-driving thing. The implementation *happens* to be able to drive asleep "drivers" down highways at 100 miles an hour, and the company has somehow been able to corral itself into the evil-genius legal position of being 50% "always keep hands on the wheel" and 50% "look self-driving AI go brrrt" and somehow combine the liability protections of the former with the societal expectations of the latter. Solely in terms of overpromising and underdelivering and then wrangling the legal status quo to declare that okay, I do think it's a bit... not great.
Crucially, this problem is most definitely not limited to Tesla, Google or Amazon; it's an endemic permeability in the legal systems of ostensibly-developed countries that makes a joke of the proof-of-work foundation of good-faith technical investment, and institutes a fraudulent social contract that the infrastructure we increasingly depend on is fundamentally reliable and trustworthy ("set in stone") when it is not. To adopt these technologies is to adopt the ever-changing tech stacks that underpin them, and the risks associated with upgrading the proverbial engines on ever-larger digital airplanes while they're in flight. I think it's dangerous and irresponsible to dispel the tenuous fabric of social perception around these risks and give unsuspecting passersby the impression things are safer than they are.
Hmm.
I'm reminded of http://bash.org/?4753:
<xterm> The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?