110
Man Alarmed to Discover His Smart Vacuum Was Broadcasting a Secret Map of His House (futurism.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/56386378

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 10 months ago* (7 children)

Firmware updates. It runs on software that requires routine maintenance if you want it to do all the fancy stuff and needs updates, to keep up with security protocols and fix bugs remotely. That requires internet access.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    USB port.

    Internet access is absolutely not required for any technical reason

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

    Unrealistic. Not everyone is technically savvy enough to download firmware updates from a website just to put on a USB stick. It’s intimidating to users and takes too many steps thus making it an inconvenience to the customer. Users much rather just call up a number and have a tech fix it remotely.

    Additionally, it takes time for firmware updates that contains fixes to get uploaded to a website, so it would really piss users off to have an inop device in the meantime. Much easier and faster to call up a tech and have them fix it remotely.

    Also, USB sticks would require the user to get to a computer, which they may not have, and the manufacturer would have to install a USB port on the device itself. I see your point from a security standpoint, but I can’t see a manufacturer spending more on a slower, user-error prone, and in many ways outdated, tech just for the sake of security and privacy

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    People plug devices into their computers daily for charging and updates.

    They can visit websites. They have a robot vacuum ffs, they have a computer.

    And firmware can be updated by Bluetooth from a phone and BT on the vac can be turned off when unneeded.

    This reasoning is specious. There is no intrinsic reason for any home appliance to need unfettered internet access. Tech bros may want 24/7 upskirt photos of their users, but we don’t have to accept their requests.

    We give up nothing by insisting on privacy in our homes. We can have all the cool things without giving it up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    The sheer fact that internet access exists for them indicates there's a use case. And it's obvious. Over the air updates are objectively a better user experience. Maybe even the best. For the average consumer that doesn't even know to use ctrl + c, what do you think they'll choose: dragging out the USB stick/cord or just having the device take care of itself?

    The problem isn't that the devices have internet access. It's that we don't have appropriate legislation governing protection of privacy that would keep this kind of snooping in check.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I prefer to chew my own food as do most adults.

    You can’t claim it’s objectively better user experience, we haven’t really tried other alternatives. You made that up. It comes from a place of contempt for the mythical ’user’ that is unwarranted and distasteful. People are not as stupid as you think they are.

    There a many work flows that would protect privacy and require no additional steps or unfamiliar actions most consumers of robo vacs already know.

    Users have to clean and handle a robo vac frequently. Make an app that guides them in the clean out and does the firmware update by bluetooth (which is only on when the dirt trap is open) AFTER asking permission and explaining the update.

    Once more, there is no compelling use case for constant internet connection for these types of appliances. The only reason to include it is to invade privacy for Silicon Valley reasons, which are evil.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    It's really not some mythical user, man. I just laid out the two main methods we were comparing of updating firmware. One process requires literally 0 user intervention after device setup. The other require the user to intervene. In what world is the process where the end user has to do literally nothing to get updates inferior to any process that requires intervention? It's not that the device has Internet that's the issue. It's that there's nothing respecting privacy! We're on the same side but you wanna...what...make it illegal to do OTA updates because internet connectivity for devices is intrinsically invasive somehow? I just don't get it. Your position doesn't make sense.

    Make an app

    And now the app pulls gelocation data of the user and takes the data on the device and uploads it through the app because no privacy laws.

    Why does using a USB stick to flash the firmware equate with chewing your own food, but using an app to update the firmware not? They didn't compile the app from code!

    there is no compelling use case for constant internet connection for these types of appliances

    I literally just gave you one. The ability to push out OTA updates for bugs greatly reduces the complexity of maintaining technical support and development to support legacy features. I don't know, maybe instantly patching a critical Bluetooth vulnerability to protect users privacy via OTA updates is compelling enough ?Do they have to do it that way? No. The device could just get it via BT from the phone app. Basically the same thing as the device itself doing it.

    But the privacy issue still remains even if we remove WiFi from the fucking vacuum and then just let the phone app have WiFi access instead.

    Did I make my point better? Removing internet access to the device, doesn't remove the privacy concern. It just moves it somewhere else. And yes I know there absolutely is a way to do firmware updates in some privacy respecting way, but if you maintain that a 0 step process is less preferable to the majority of users than any process that requires multiple steps... Then I don't know. Interact with users more? There's plenty of boomers peck typing their way around the internet.

    I admit you have points, friend. I share your concern about privacy. But come on... We got where we are in part because the general users don't give a flying fuck or even think about privacy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I suppose what I am railing against is the fait accompli of it all. Meaning the idea that the way we do things now is the best possible way.

    It isn’t and the best way to get my dander up is to hand-wave away concerns, as if the problem is solved and we can’t question it any more. This is why people hate the tech-bro archetype.

    And even more maddening is the attitude that these ‘features’ are for users benefit.

    The TV series Silicon Valley and their Pied Piper product seems so much less funny now that Peter Thiel has unmasked himself as a wannabe anti-christ. (PTs response to this accusation? ‘no u’)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent