4 ms·

> There is, however, enormous opportunity in crossing this chasm. The new IoT provides valuable data about its users, their habits, daily routines and preferenc

> There is, however, enormous opportunity in crossing this chasm. The new IoT provides valuable data about its users, their habits, daily routines and preferences. The old IoT generates detailed information about the environment they interact in. Combining both with big data crunching technology will lead to unprecedented (and slightly scary) insights into individual user’s behavioral patterns as well as into the systems they compose. And this is the gap that I don't want to be bridged. One of the reasons I love my rpi's, is that I end up with ultimate control over my device and it's data. At the end of the day, I decide what leaves my home, not $smart_company. If I decide to submit that data to them, sure, they can run with it, but if they require me to send it? I'm not even going to consider their product. The data-crunching would also have to be done on my server, or I'm not interested. Yes, I understand that my home-server is probably not powerful enough to do the processing required, but I'll live without whatever feature requires it.

quadlock 11y ago
Do the channels yourself with NATS. http://bit.ly/1ZzpJAw http://bit.ly/1ZzpJAw
StavrosK 11y ago
I wrote a library to enable secure communications over insecure channels for IoT, maybe it'll be useful to you: https://stringphone.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ https://stringphone.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  Interesting. I actually run a web-server, and I only control my stuff through a web-API's, but that could also be useful.... Thanks
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    It doesn't really matter how you get messages to clients, the library just makes sure that each participant is who they say they are. For example, a rogue client could connect to your API and start sending commands, but with this library, they'd have to know the key. That said, it's definitely not useful everywhere, e.g. if you use TLS and the application is only for stuff at home, you're probably fine.
click170 11y ago
I agree with you mostly, but I do want that divide to be crossed, by software that I the user control, not by software that $smart_company controls. It's my data! If it's a choice between $smart_company or nobody though, I'll take nobody. Thanks to firewalls and blocking outbound connections from IoT devices, it's often not that black and white.

quadlock 11y ago

Do the channels yourself with NATS. http://bit.ly/1ZzpJAw http://bit.ly/1ZzpJAw

StavrosK 11y ago

I wrote a library to enable secure communications over insecure channels for IoT, maybe it'll be useful to you: https://stringphone.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ https://stringphone.readthedocs.org/en/latest/

CaptSpify 11y ago
Interesting. I actually run a web-server, and I only control my stuff through a web-API's, but that could also be useful.... Thanks
- StavrosK 11y ago
  It doesn't really matter how you get messages to clients, the library just makes sure that each participant is who they say they are. For example, a rogue client could connect to your API and start sending commands, but with this library, they'd have to know the key. That said, it's definitely not useful everywhere, e.g. if you use TLS and the application is only for stuff at home, you're probably fine.

click170 11y ago

I agree with you mostly, but I do want that divide to be crossed, by software that I the user control, not by software that $smart_company controls. It's my data! If it's a choice between $smart_company or nobody though, I'll take nobody. Thanks to firewalls and blocking outbound connections from IoT devices, it's often not that black and white.