5 ms·
Still cannot understand the IoT mentality. It is actually the CoT Communication of Things. Internet shouldn't be required to turn your lights on or off nor be
by yndoendo 9y ago
Still cannot understand the IoT mentality. It is actually the CoT Communication of Things. Internet shouldn't be required to turn your lights on or off nor be the device communication backbone in an industrial enviornment. Internet should always be the last resort for communicating because of the distance.
- duxup 9y agoI can't monitor you or turn your light switch into a "service" that involves reoccurring payments if we don't use the internet to connect.... /s
- bsder 9y agoAnd you also can't get a security update when someone figures out how to turn your lightbulbs into a botnet.
- jamiek88 9y agoIf it's not on the internet it can't become part of a botnet. You lose functionality though, like being able to check doors etc. remotely. I trust Apple and I trust Homekit so I'm not too concerned with that.
- dcow 9y agoWhy can't you have both?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago> You lose functionality though, like being able to check doors etc. remotely. You don't. That's what VPNs are for.
- icebraining 9y agoWhat kind of VPN? If you mean using the router to connect the LAN to a VPN, then this[1] report should put to rest the idea that they are trustworthy. If it's an end-to-end VPN, it's doubtful most of these devices have the power to run a client. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16847716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16847716
- koffiezet 9y agoThat's nice for techies, but I'd love to see you explain that to my mom...
- jessaustin 9y agoBotnets are so passé. Nowadays, everything pwned is mining! Now your lightbulb will produce as much heat as it did back when it was incandescent!
- shawnz 9y agoI wonder if there's any money to be made in an electric heating company that installs bitcoin miners in your home instead of heating coils.
- Sebguer 9y agohttps://techcrunch.com/2018/03/08/qarnot-unveils-a-cryptocurrency-heater-for-your-home/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/08/qarnot-unveils-a-cryptocur...
- shawnz 9y agoNice, although IMO they've got it wrong: They should keep the coins and lease the units at a lower price than traditional systems of a comparable wattage.
- dcow 9y agoIt's not either/or. Something can contact an update server but otherwise function entirely local.
- duxup 9y agoThe status quo seems to already be devices on the internet that can be updated.... but are still apart of a botnet.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoAnd I can't also get bullshit "feature" updates, and my device can't be remotely bricked, and it doesn't need the mothership servers to be up - so again, my device won't die when the company gets acquihired, stops pretending to provide value and pivots to writing blogposts about their incredible journey.
- cgh 9y agoYou are correct, particularly in an industrial environment with lots of sensors etc. These are typically on a closed network, which gives us the Network of Things, or NoT.
- jasonkostempski 9y agoOr just "network". That there are "things" being networked has always gone without saying.
- voltagex_ 9y agoI agree, but I'm still finding it very useful for turning off a light I forgot or powering off/on my PC via a smart socket. Not everyone can set up a port-forwarded and secured service to access their stuff away from home.
- walrus01 9y agohttps://twitter.com/internetofshit?lang=en https://twitter.com/internetofshit?lang=en
- russellbeattie 9y agoTotally with you. Maybe I'm a pessimist or a luddite or something, but I really don't think IoT devices should be connected directly to the Internet. Most are just too simple, underpowered or cheaply made to adequately defend themselves from attacks. IoT gadgets should always talk to a more powerful/secure hub of some sort, which then is exposed to the Internet. Seriously, my WiFi lightbulb switch just has no business doing anything outside my internal network... And god help us when all these IoT devices start talking IPv6... With no NAT and anemic firewalls on most routers? Oof.
- HoppyHaus 9y agoAbsolutely. I love small devices I can modify and the such, but when I do it, it's some assurance that i have a bit of security-by-obscurity, as well as an open-source background that usually comes with the random-modification scene. But when a commercial entity wants my lights to connect to the internet, chances are they are less-modifiable than a few hacked-together circuits.
- hvidgaard 9y agoI've had this conversation before. I want "IoT" stuff to connect to a bridge I control. Even that does not need to go outside of the network, I can VPN into my network if I need access. But John Doe does not care, he wants convenience to the point where the IoT manufacturer knows everything about how they use the product.
- dingaling 9y agoJust because a device supports IPv6 doesn't mean you have to route that prefix to the Internet. Assign Unique Locals ( ULA ) to untrusted LAN devices and no Internet router will carry them. Then your laptop or phone can additionally receive a routed prefix. Remember with IPv6 you can assign an arbitrary number of prefixes and addresses to each interface, or just one. It makes for very flexible routing.
- smacktoward 9y agoBut then how am I supposed to turn the garage doors of all the other houses on my cul-de-sac into the world's largest game of Hungry Hungry Hippos?
- lightbulbjim 9y agoThe full acronym is IOTWSNBCTTI, or Internet Of Things Which Should Not Be Connected To The Internet.
- komali2 9y agoThere are use cases for which internet becomes the most effective solution. Mostly "extremely distributed products," like a sensor sold by a company offering analysis and preventative maintenance services alongside the product. Do the security right and the classic internet of shit botnet type vulnerabilities aren't really an issue (knock on wood...) Anyway, we've managed to survive pitching internet connectivity instead of local network, and several customers have found use cases for it that I don't think local would be feasible for. In the end it's not just "technically a LAN would be the most secure option here," I mean that's always the case. It can be more "our partners and solution are offering a so-far-unbroken security model, and connecting via the Internet makes the whole manufacturing, distribution, on-site enrolling, and monitoring cheaper and working out of the box."
- 0xsfv 9y agoAgreed. The term you are looking for is called pervasive computing. Moreover when the so called "connected devices" can be mobile, then we are speaking about ubiquitous computing. IoT is a way of utilising pervasive computing through the internet. Unfortunately the media and therefore the majority of the tech community has wrongly decided to use IoT for everything which results in a lot of misconceptions. Probably a marketing trick, who knows.