Why is this allowed? There’s no way to consent to a coffee machine.
The device is dead simple. No advanced electronics. Nothing complex that can break. Just a coffee maker fine-tuned to near perfection.
The only flaw it has is the handle for the pot. I've resorted to replacing the plastic handle with a fancy walnut one I made myself. I needed that because we tilt the pot sideways to fill the reservoir with water (because of the placement on the kitchen counter and the cabinets above), and that plastic handle is not designed for sideways stresses.
Like the people who reply to nigerian emails have already been pre-qualified by 1) ignoring the misspellings and 2) replying.
Legislators are cheap to purchase
Why not? iirc some of the smart TVs have been shown to find open wifi networks on their own and upload data. (I'm not sure about that though. But it's plausible and undoubtedly will be implemented some day).
I could also see some kind of partnership with ISPs to use their "public" WiFi hotspots[1]. This seems more likely since it's (probably) harder to honeypot but requires making regional deals.
[1] https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/is-your-router-a...
Limiting the quantity of data which is transmitted, received or sent, an appliance that a person purchases.
That, plus nobody in their right mind would buy American (vs French, Italian, German, Dutch...) when it comes to coffee. (yes, Starbucks is a thing here, but I'd argue people who are into _coffee_ don't go there, people go there for other reasons.)
Why you would give a coffee maker access to your WiFi is the real question,
Besides, did you see how he was dressed?
Since most appliances now contain a general-purpose computer, it would be unfair to say that a device is incapable of hacking or hosting malware, because any device with the given sensors and radios and capabilities can be essentially reprogrammed at any time.
So, if we're looking at smart TVs with cameras and microphones and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and all the connectors, or if we're simply looking at a an ordinary network device, they all fall under the umbrella of general purpose computer, and there is no way to trust their maker, or some equally capable programmer, not to turn them malevolent in some future update.
I don't view this as an issue of terms of service or of software or of your manufacturer. I view this as an existential and fundamental problem with dropping general purpose computers into your home and behind your DMZ.
Consumer operating systems like Windows and Apple have all kinds of countermeasures against this malicious use. But without the proper introspection and without the proper safeguards, a device that looks special purpose but is in fact general purpose is far more dangerous.
Sensors/access is unavoidable, otherwise the device doesn't actually do anything useful. The point is it sets the scope for what the device is able to affect. When people say "set up a separate IoT VLAN" (that still has Internet access) this is basically what they're addressing - how a device can access other devices they may care about more.
Internet access is the catalyst that's created this whole dumpster fire - I don't care about the proprietary software on my keyboard/mouse/UPS/monitor/GPU/etc to nearly the same extent. I've got some TP-Link plugs that I control local network only. They don't get Internet access, so no updates, telemetry backhaul, etc.
The authority to update/configure/change that software is the crux. With proprietary software, there are no cuddly kittens period. Here we've got a case of a "legitimate" company choosing to be a bona fide attacker to increase their bottom line! The harm was exacerbated by a bug causing it to run amok, but even without the bug they are deliberately violating trust.
But even libre software can fall to security holes as well. Meaning you want to centralize the attack surface as much as possible, for administration's sake of keeping updated. "Internet" of things is basically the direct opposite of this - postulating many illegible fine-grained links between devices on different networks. Whereas really need more like the Home Assistant model, where peripheral devices may communicate over the network, but it's only ever over the local network. Think how ethernet is set up when used in industrial control networks (or at least how it should be set up, hehe).
I don’t actually think that applies to coffee makers spying on people though. People shouldn’t be expected to understand how computer networks or ad tech spying works in the same way that literally any child or idiot should know the difference between a lion cub and a house cat.
How do you feel about thermostats? Are some things worth it? I've had a "smart" one for the past five years, part of a new furnace install, that I've stubbornly refused to connect to my wifi. Of course this means if we forget to turn the heat down while no one's home, there's nothing to be done about it.