4 ms·

So you think the consumers should be punished for something you think the producers do wrong? Do you apply this to other products as well? Would it be ok to so

So you think the consumers should be punished for something you think the producers do wrong? Do you apply this to other products as well? Would it be ok to soak peoples cigarettes in water, break the motor of your neighbours high fuel consuming SUV or destroy the guns of people since these products can cause damage to other people?

biktor_gj 9y ago
The problem is, I think, what choice do we have (we == rest of the world) when somebody's messed up camera starts spamming the entire Internet? And how much does cost the mirai botnet to everyone when some client rents it? Best case scenario: users claim warranty and replace their devices something better Worst case scenario: users need to buy new gear, they probably won't buy from that same manufacturer because last one died for no apparent reason. Really worst case scenario: users buy again the same cr*p and dies again, until they realize that brand is worthless and buy something a bit better. Doesn't seem so bad, if the alternative is having their machines taking down businesses and users...
- JabavuAdams 9y ago
  Really worst-case scenario: Someone is killed or maimed due to bricked system. FTFY
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    I was particularly thinking of baby monitors during an emergency. It was most important house-hold device I could think of in terms of harm. Maybe turn a freezer off on IoT fridge while people are on vacation then back on just before they return to make meat refreeze or something spoiled. Maybe turn off the power in household with IoT home automation and someone on life support of some kind. Im only having a few possibilities come to mind that are life-threatening. Most are just annoying or financial drain. If we add painful, maybe make an epileptic's screen on SmartTV blink fast like the attack on the web site. Turn off people's alarm clock enough they get fired and loose health insurance before major operation. Im really having to stretch it here.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Alarm system with remote fire alarm capability. Those things are everywhere and if they don't work people could easily die.
      - nickpsecurity 9y ago
        That's a great one. Good catch.
    - mondoshawan 9y ago
      Lights that turn off at night while someone is walking down stairs can result in death if that person is unfamiliar or disoriented enough to tumble.
      - nickpsecurity 9y ago
        That's clever. The threat of lighting was nicely illustrated on Christmas Vacation. Whole relationships ruined and stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8lwpvQEIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8lwpvQEIM
username223 9y ago
> Would it be ok to soak peoples cigarettes in water,... How about in arsenic? The Internet of Things is mostly insecure trash that will only be fixed by throwing it away. The manufacturers know this, and simply don't care.
Arizhel 9y ago
If a certain brand of cigarettes is creating secondhand smoke that causes a significant number of bystanders to die of anaphylactic shock somehow, and the government refuses to force a recall, and the manufacturer doesn't care, and the smokers don't care because it doesn't affect them, then YES, it is morally correct to destroy these cigarettes illegally.
nickpsecurity 9y ago
I addressed that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14207953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14207953
rdiddly 9y ago
The analogy would be, someone leaves their cigarettes or their gun out on the stoop all night, or their SUV on the street unlocked with the keys in the ignition. If they do that, something is going to happen to it eventually. Especially if they live on a street that actually spans the entire world, and whose entire length can be traversed in one second. John J. Citizen should be thankful if the person who finds it only wants to deactivate it rather than use it to poison him / shoot him / run him over. No matter who finds it though, it's tough luck for that person; they're the owner of that item in name only, if they don't secure it. Society has decided in some cases (in domains well-understood by legislators, unlike IoT) that the person doesn't deserve to keep that item if they don't secure it. Example: "Improper storage of a firearm" or the like, is literally a crime in many jurisdictions and can result in losing your gun license. Creating a burden on or a danger to society through your neglect has in that case been affirmed to be unacceptable. The law will catch up with this too, I hope.

biktor_gj 9y ago

The problem is, I think, what choice do we have (we == rest of the world) when somebody's messed up camera starts spamming the entire Internet? And how much does cost the mirai botnet to everyone when some client rents it? Best case scenario: users claim warranty and replace their devices something better Worst case scenario: users need to buy new gear, they probably won't buy from that same manufacturer because last one died for no apparent reason. Really worst case scenario: users buy again the same cr*p and dies again, until they realize that brand is worthless and buy something a bit better. Doesn't seem so bad, if the alternative is having their machines taking down businesses and users...

JabavuAdams 9y ago
Really worst-case scenario: Someone is killed or maimed due to bricked system. FTFY
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  I was particularly thinking of baby monitors during an emergency. It was most important house-hold device I could think of in terms of harm. Maybe turn a freezer off on IoT fridge while people are on vacation then back on just before they return to make meat refreeze or something spoiled. Maybe turn off the power in household with IoT home automation and someone on life support of some kind. Im only having a few possibilities come to mind that are life-threatening. Most are just annoying or financial drain. If we add painful, maybe make an epileptic's screen on SmartTV blink fast like the attack on the web site. Turn off people's alarm clock enough they get fired and loose health insurance before major operation. Im really having to stretch it here.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Alarm system with remote fire alarm capability. Those things are everywhere and if they don't work people could easily die.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      That's a great one. Good catch.
  - mondoshawan 9y ago
    Lights that turn off at night while someone is walking down stairs can result in death if that person is unfamiliar or disoriented enough to tumble.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      That's clever. The threat of lighting was nicely illustrated on Christmas Vacation. Whole relationships ruined and stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8lwpvQEIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8lwpvQEIM

username223 9y ago

> Would it be ok to soak peoples cigarettes in water,... How about in arsenic? The Internet of Things is mostly insecure trash that will only be fixed by throwing it away. The manufacturers know this, and simply don't care.

Arizhel 9y ago

If a certain brand of cigarettes is creating secondhand smoke that causes a significant number of bystanders to die of anaphylactic shock somehow, and the government refuses to force a recall, and the manufacturer doesn't care, and the smokers don't care because it doesn't affect them, then YES, it is morally correct to destroy these cigarettes illegally.

nickpsecurity 9y ago

I addressed that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14207953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14207953

rdiddly 9y ago

The analogy would be, someone leaves their cigarettes or their gun out on the stoop all night, or their SUV on the street unlocked with the keys in the ignition. If they do that, something is going to happen to it eventually. Especially if they live on a street that actually spans the entire world, and whose entire length can be traversed in one second. John J. Citizen should be thankful if the person who finds it only wants to deactivate it rather than use it to poison him / shoot him / run him over. No matter who finds it though, it's tough luck for that person; they're the owner of that item in name only, if they don't secure it. Society has decided in some cases (in domains well-understood by legislators, unlike IoT) that the person doesn't deserve to keep that item if they don't secure it. Example: "Improper storage of a firearm" or the like, is literally a crime in many jurisdictions and can result in losing your gun license. Creating a burden on or a danger to society through your neglect has in that case been affirmed to be unacceptable. The law will catch up with this too, I hope.