4 ms·

> This feels kind of like that. It might feel like that, but it isn't. Everything[1] causes cancer. Not everything needs to have an Internet connection to a se

> This feels kind of like that. It might feel like that, but it isn't. Everything[1] causes cancer. Not everything needs to have an Internet connection to a service to function, not essentially at least. It's only these people looking to monetize or "h0ok all teh th7ngs up!!1!eleven!" that are shoveling crap that no one asked for, but everyone is too lazy to object to. I've got a pair of wireless earbuds, completely modern kickstarted project. They function not just without an Internet connection, but even without a paired device. You can load music onto them like an iPod (remember them? they didn't have to be connected to a cloud to have thousands of songs). Good design is possible if you care; bad design is trying to shoehorn required "connectivity" into something that doesn't need it. [1] - For certain values of everything.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Everything connected to the internet is a potential security and privacy risk. If they had a law requiring warning labels, then all products would just have to have that warning, regardless of whatever good design was applied to it (which is subjective and hard to judge, especially in the legal sense). But ya, take out the internet connection, and no more problems. Take out the battery and the risk of fire/explosion also goes away.
- npsimons 9y ago
  > Everything connected to the internet is a potential security and privacy risk. Yes, that's true. What I'm saying is that not everything needs to be connected to the Internet, and requiring things to be connected to function fully is stupid and anti-consumer. By requiring the label on things that don't essentially need an Internet connection, it would allow those of us discerning consumers to avoid the crappy products. > But ya, take out the internet connection, and no more problems. Take out the battery and the risk of fire/explosion also goes away. The fire/explosion risk doesn't go away (power bricks have been known to cause fires). And electricity is essential to electronic devices functioning; Internet connectivity is not.
semperdark 9y ago
I'd say 95% of IoT devices right now are from companies looking to jump on the bandwagon. The "iPod" of connected devices (i.e. actually useful) hasn't been discovered yet. Most products right now are just looking to tick a box for shareholders/investors. Sidenote, those earbuds sound interesting. Could you point me to them?
- npsimons 9y ago
  > Sidenote, those earbuds sound interesting. Could you point me to them? Bragi's The Dash: https://www.bragi.com/thedash/ https://www.bragi.com/thedash/
TremendousJudge 9y ago
Right now I'm writing my bachelor's thesis on IoT platforms. I think the real problem is that there's no real established pattern for authentication (the way there is for things like signing up for a web app). You ship devices and there isn't a 'one true way' for authenticating them against your platform, authenticating the user, partnering the user with the device, and then encrypting all traffic from the device to the local or public network. Everybody uses their own homegrown solution, which depends heavily on the hardware they have to work with. This means that some companies get it right and many get it wrong. Yeah, the biggest problem is companies shoehorning connectivity to products, but the second biggest problem is that there really isn't a standard for securing that connectivity.
- dozzie 9y ago
  > I think the real problem is that there's no real established pattern for authentication (the way there is for things like signing up for a web app). No. The real problem is that a device you bought requires internet access for no good reason, spies on you ("collects information") with no good reason, and becomes useless garbage once the company that sells it goes out of business or decides to terminate the product line or just grows to dislike you, all that for your lightbulb in the toilet to dim to the beat of played music. For IoT to be useful at all, the devices would need substantial configuration possibilities, like where and with what protocol send data to, or better yet, whom to allow to fetch data from the device. But this would be only for hobbysts, as general public is not interested in tinkering.
  - jkestner 9y ago
    I agree with you, from the nerd perspective. The general public cares more about utility than privacy, unfortunately, but the equation is similar in both cases: are we getting more value than we’re giving up in control? Much as HyperCard, Excel, etc have allowed non-nerds to solve their own problems or scratch an itch, there is room in IoT for these people to tinker. They just need the right tools and framing.
- thinkling 9y ago
  Another thing about IoT gadgets and "smart"stuff in general, is the guaranteed obsolescence. It's not literally planned obsolescense, but when you install that wi-fi smartlock in your door, you know that it 5 years the company will stop updating the app that goes with it, and it won't work anymore under iOS 16, and so you'll have to throw it out and get a new lock, a new dimmer, a new garage door opener, new audio system, you name it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

Everything connected to the internet is a potential security and privacy risk. If they had a law requiring warning labels, then all products would just have to have that warning, regardless of whatever good design was applied to it (which is subjective and hard to judge, especially in the legal sense). But ya, take out the internet connection, and no more problems. Take out the battery and the risk of fire/explosion also goes away.

npsimons 9y ago
> Everything connected to the internet is a potential security and privacy risk. Yes, that's true. What I'm saying is that not everything needs to be connected to the Internet, and requiring things to be connected to function fully is stupid and anti-consumer. By requiring the label on things that don't essentially need an Internet connection, it would allow those of us discerning consumers to avoid the crappy products. > But ya, take out the internet connection, and no more problems. Take out the battery and the risk of fire/explosion also goes away. The fire/explosion risk doesn't go away (power bricks have been known to cause fires). And electricity is essential to electronic devices functioning; Internet connectivity is not.

semperdark 9y ago

I'd say 95% of IoT devices right now are from companies looking to jump on the bandwagon. The "iPod" of connected devices (i.e. actually useful) hasn't been discovered yet. Most products right now are just looking to tick a box for shareholders/investors. Sidenote, those earbuds sound interesting. Could you point me to them?

npsimons 9y ago
> Sidenote, those earbuds sound interesting. Could you point me to them? Bragi's The Dash: https://www.bragi.com/thedash/ https://www.bragi.com/thedash/

TremendousJudge 9y ago

Right now I'm writing my bachelor's thesis on IoT platforms. I think the real problem is that there's no real established pattern for authentication (the way there is for things like signing up for a web app). You ship devices and there isn't a 'one true way' for authenticating them against your platform, authenticating the user, partnering the user with the device, and then encrypting all traffic from the device to the local or public network. Everybody uses their own homegrown solution, which depends heavily on the hardware they have to work with. This means that some companies get it right and many get it wrong. Yeah, the biggest problem is companies shoehorning connectivity to products, but the second biggest problem is that there really isn't a standard for securing that connectivity.

dozzie 9y ago
> I think the real problem is that there's no real established pattern for authentication (the way there is for things like signing up for a web app). No. The real problem is that a device you bought requires internet access for no good reason, spies on you ("collects information") with no good reason, and becomes useless garbage once the company that sells it goes out of business or decides to terminate the product line or just grows to dislike you, all that for your lightbulb in the toilet to dim to the beat of played music. For IoT to be useful at all, the devices would need substantial configuration possibilities, like where and with what protocol send data to, or better yet, whom to allow to fetch data from the device. But this would be only for hobbysts, as general public is not interested in tinkering.
- jkestner 9y ago
  I agree with you, from the nerd perspective. The general public cares more about utility than privacy, unfortunately, but the equation is similar in both cases: are we getting more value than we’re giving up in control? Much as HyperCard, Excel, etc have allowed non-nerds to solve their own problems or scratch an itch, there is room in IoT for these people to tinker. They just need the right tools and framing.
thinkling 9y ago
Another thing about IoT gadgets and "smart"stuff in general, is the guaranteed obsolescence. It's not literally planned obsolescense, but when you install that wi-fi smartlock in your door, you know that it 5 years the company will stop updating the app that goes with it, and it won't work anymore under iOS 16, and so you'll have to throw it out and get a new lock, a new dimmer, a new garage door opener, new audio system, you name it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]