5 ms·

Please please, if you have a partner installing these things in your home, have them show you: 1) How they installed it 2) Where the product's support is, and

Please please, if you have a partner installing these things in your home, have them show you: 1) How they installed it 2) Where the product's support is, and how to contact them 3) How to uninstall/remove/destroy it (also useful if the robot overlords take over the world)

xbryanx 8y ago
Yes, this seems like an important aspect of safety and trust in the home. Each partner and family member should know how the devices around them work and can be used.
lozaning 8y ago
Or at a minimum know where/what your modem is. Unplug that bad boy and all your IOT stuff goes back ot being things, not of the internet.
- GabeWeiss_ 8y ago
  The article calls this out to an extent. The problem here, is if you unplug it, the abuser knows, and often then physical retribution, or at least abuse escalation can occur. It's a VERY difficult problem to solve IMO. At least being on equal footing with everyone in the household so it's not seen as an avenue of control (which most domestic abuse scenarios are all about) would be a great first step.
  - jstarfish 8y ago
    If there is one to be found, the solution to this is not going to be a technical one. Local switches and use of passwords can still be monitored or disabled. Tape on cameras will attract retribution. You literally cannot beat the house at its own game. In a few states I'm aware of, if you commit any form of domestic abuse and deprive the victim access to a phone, it's a separate charge. It can't/doesn't stop it from happening but it disincentivizes it by making the punishment worse. I suspect a lot of this IoT nonsense will eventually attract the same riders. A documented history of remotely tampering with locks or lights, blasting heat in the summer and blaring music at full volume in any context will eventually become factors in a case of abuse.
    - floatingatoll 8y ago
      They can already be factors in a case of abuse today; it’s simply that few people know how to inspect and legally request the service access logs for their devices’ online services.
    - GabeWeiss_ 8y ago
      I agree with this. I think the real solution is going to be to rewrite laws to account for digital abuses. This is still true not just domestically, but a lot of the large criminal actions don't take into account digital equivalence. They're catching up, slowly but surely, but it's definitely a slow process.
  - bluescrn 8y ago
    If you're in a relationship where you fear retribution for turning off an annoying gadget, then the relationship is already abusive, and it's time to get out. The gadget is not the problem
    - speedplane 8y ago
      True, but it’s another “attack vector”, and more nefarious in some ways because it can be couched as technical wherewithal.
    - astura 8y ago
      Some people don't have the power to leave an abusive situation (children). Source: spent my entire childhood in a domestic abuse and domestic violence situation. Also abusers often work very hard to make it difficult for the abused to leave: make them quit their job, cut off their outside social ties, make them pregnant against their will, etc.
    - GabeWeiss_ 8y ago
      Victim shaming isn't acceptable. Sorry. You're blaming the person being abused for not leaving. There's a MULTITUDE of reasons (as other comments have already stated) that people aren't enabled to get out of an abusive relationship.
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  Nope. August smart locks and Hue smart lights will continue accepting Bluetooth commands from previously-authorized clients while in offline mode. There are only two viable choices: 1) Logout and/or factory reset all devices. 2) Delete the online accounts associated with all devices. I recommend both, as otherwise there are edge cases where unsafety could remain. Disclaimer: I did #2 when I left a long-term partner (along with a complete list of all credentials that needed to be rotated or disabled), both to be able to provide her absolute certainty that I could not somehow spy on her consummating her affair, and to ensure that I could not be placed into legal jeopardy by either of them as punishment for knowing that he existed at all. There is a serious legal risk if you retain access after moveout. Do not permit that risk to impact you.
  - jpindar 8y ago
    Hue lights are controlled by their bridge via Zigbee, not directly from a client via Bluetooth. Without an internet connection, they can still be controlled by a client that is on the same LAN as the bridge.
    - floatingatoll 8y ago
      The bridge only permits authorized LAN clients. Pairing requires using the physical “confirm” button in the center of the bridge itself. Being on the same LAN is not sufficient. EDIT: Oh, yes, you’re right about the “it’s not Bluetooth” nitpick, for whatever good that is to this conversation :)
  - bigiain 8y ago
    While not perfect, it still helps. The threat from an abusive ex with internet access is a lot larger than an abusive ex within bluetooth range. I maintain a version of your "complete list of credentials" professionally - and every time I've left a job I've supplied that list saying: "Here are the company-related credentials to which I've had access. This list is best-effort and may not be complete. Please respond acknowledging I've advised you to change these and any other credentials I've ever had access to."
Alex3917 8y ago
The issue is that domestic abuse is one of the main drivers of technology adoption in the first place. E.g. look at the studies of consumer adoption of beepers and cell phones.
- yodon 8y ago
  > domestic abuse is one of the main drivers of technology adoption in the first place. E.g. look at the studies of consumer adoption of beepers and cell phones. Citation? As someone who lived though both pager and cell phone adoption curves, your assertion sounds highly suspect and doesn’t match any market research I’ve ever seen. The earliest mass adopters of pagers were physicians and surgeons (high income on call demographics) followed by drug dealers (ditto) and then teenagers as the price dropped. Cell phone early adopters were heavily biased towards high wage adults who were fearful of breaking down on the road at night and needing assistance (early cell phones would fit under the seat of a car with the handset near the dash or in the glove compartment but were too big to fit in a briefcase or purse). I’m pretty sure you’ve bought into some made up revisionist urban legend here.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    > The earliest mass adopters of pagers were physicians and surgeons (high income on call demographics) followed by drug dealers That's why I specifically said consumer adoption. Doctors and drug dealers had good economic reasons for buying cell phones. But considering that the earliest cell phones were up to $10,000 inflation adjusted and weren't even remotely good, there were only a handful of non-business use cases for buying them for your family members. Mizuku Ito's book Personal, Portable, Pedestrian has a good overview of cell phone adoption and usage patterns. And there have been papers about cell phones being used for partner stalking for decades, e.g.: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=technology+partner+stalking https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=technology+partner+stal... Or for a more recent example, look at the uproar over Facebook instituting their Real Names policy because of how many people were using the site to stalk former intimate partners, among other issues.
tjr225 8y ago
IMO, unless you're physically disabled, don't use any of this crap.
- stuntkite 8y ago
  I am really surprised at the amount of voice control units my security conscious friends have installed. I find them offensive. Sure we all want our house to be the starship enterprise, but it's not, it's a house. IoT means just another out of date linux box. I'll stick to using keys for my door.
  - skgoa 8y ago
    I mean you could do these things properly. Have the voice control live on the device entirely without internet connection, make it absolutely clear when the device is listening at all etc. But that's not what these companies want to provide, because they want to capture dat sweet sweet data and the bulk of consumers don't care enough.
  - tjr225 8y ago
    For me it just seems totally unnecessary. I can't find anything severely wrong with a light switch or a key and no amount of useless convenience is going to convince me to part with my money. That said, I was a caretaker for a disabled guy through college and can't imagine how much better IoT devices make life for people such as him.
    - GabeWeiss_ 8y ago
      A lot of it is pretty gimmicky right now, granted, but that's not where things are going. The logical conclusion this is all heading towards is really all about coordination of device/thing across the household. Convenience is really at the heart of it, which means for a percentage of the population, it won't ever catch on, because as you say, there's nothing WRONG with a physical key for your house. But we said the same about cars, but how much more convenient is it to just put your hand on the car door handle, and it unlocks and opens for you? How much easier is it to just get into the car and hit a button to start it because the key fob is in your pocket? They're small improvements of quality of life, but added up, and it makes for a better experience moving through the world. Security is a HUGE issue of course, and to a large extent we need to figure it out, but there's good progress being made. And IoT devices aren't (as another comment says) just another outdated Linux box. OTA (over the air) updates are a real thing now, and done securely are as safe as updating your desktop machine at home.
Johnny555 8y ago
I doubt many of the partners even want to know those details. I know when I installed smart switches in our house, my wife didn't want to know any details other than "Which button do I press to turn all lights on and all lights off?" She didn't even want the controller app on her phone, she just texts me if she's out and thinks she forgot to turn the lights off or if she wants me to check in on the dog on the camera. If I got hit by a bus and she had to remove it all, she can call an electrician. In any case I doubt an abuser will want to tell his spouse how to disable everything.

xbryanx 8y ago

Yes, this seems like an important aspect of safety and trust in the home. Each partner and family member should know how the devices around them work and can be used.

lozaning 8y ago

Or at a minimum know where/what your modem is. Unplug that bad boy and all your IOT stuff goes back ot being things, not of the internet.

GabeWeiss_ 8y ago
The article calls this out to an extent. The problem here, is if you unplug it, the abuser knows, and often then physical retribution, or at least abuse escalation can occur. It's a VERY difficult problem to solve IMO. At least being on equal footing with everyone in the household so it's not seen as an avenue of control (which most domestic abuse scenarios are all about) would be a great first step.
- jstarfish 8y ago
  If there is one to be found, the solution to this is not going to be a technical one. Local switches and use of passwords can still be monitored or disabled. Tape on cameras will attract retribution. You literally cannot beat the house at its own game. In a few states I'm aware of, if you commit any form of domestic abuse and deprive the victim access to a phone, it's a separate charge. It can't/doesn't stop it from happening but it disincentivizes it by making the punishment worse. I suspect a lot of this IoT nonsense will eventually attract the same riders. A documented history of remotely tampering with locks or lights, blasting heat in the summer and blaring music at full volume in any context will eventually become factors in a case of abuse.
  - floatingatoll 8y ago
    They can already be factors in a case of abuse today; it’s simply that few people know how to inspect and legally request the service access logs for their devices’ online services.
  - GabeWeiss_ 8y ago
    I agree with this. I think the real solution is going to be to rewrite laws to account for digital abuses. This is still true not just domestically, but a lot of the large criminal actions don't take into account digital equivalence. They're catching up, slowly but surely, but it's definitely a slow process.
- bluescrn 8y ago
  If you're in a relationship where you fear retribution for turning off an annoying gadget, then the relationship is already abusive, and it's time to get out. The gadget is not the problem
  - speedplane 8y ago
    True, but it’s another “attack vector”, and more nefarious in some ways because it can be couched as technical wherewithal.
  - astura 8y ago
    Some people don't have the power to leave an abusive situation (children). Source: spent my entire childhood in a domestic abuse and domestic violence situation. Also abusers often work very hard to make it difficult for the abused to leave: make them quit their job, cut off their outside social ties, make them pregnant against their will, etc.
  - GabeWeiss_ 8y ago
    Victim shaming isn't acceptable. Sorry. You're blaming the person being abused for not leaving. There's a MULTITUDE of reasons (as other comments have already stated) that people aren't enabled to get out of an abusive relationship.
floatingatoll 8y ago
Nope. August smart locks and Hue smart lights will continue accepting Bluetooth commands from previously-authorized clients while in offline mode. There are only two viable choices: 1) Logout and/or factory reset all devices. 2) Delete the online accounts associated with all devices. I recommend both, as otherwise there are edge cases where unsafety could remain. Disclaimer: I did #2 when I left a long-term partner (along with a complete list of all credentials that needed to be rotated or disabled), both to be able to provide her absolute certainty that I could not somehow spy on her consummating her affair, and to ensure that I could not be placed into legal jeopardy by either of them as punishment for knowing that he existed at all. There is a serious legal risk if you retain access after moveout. Do not permit that risk to impact you.
- jpindar 8y ago
  Hue lights are controlled by their bridge via Zigbee, not directly from a client via Bluetooth. Without an internet connection, they can still be controlled by a client that is on the same LAN as the bridge.
  - floatingatoll 8y ago
    The bridge only permits authorized LAN clients. Pairing requires using the physical “confirm” button in the center of the bridge itself. Being on the same LAN is not sufficient. EDIT: Oh, yes, you’re right about the “it’s not Bluetooth” nitpick, for whatever good that is to this conversation :)
- bigiain 8y ago
  While not perfect, it still helps. The threat from an abusive ex with internet access is a lot larger than an abusive ex within bluetooth range. I maintain a version of your "complete list of credentials" professionally - and every time I've left a job I've supplied that list saying: "Here are the company-related credentials to which I've had access. This list is best-effort and may not be complete. Please respond acknowledging I've advised you to change these and any other credentials I've ever had access to."

Alex3917 8y ago

The issue is that domestic abuse is one of the main drivers of technology adoption in the first place. E.g. look at the studies of consumer adoption of beepers and cell phones.

yodon 8y ago
> domestic abuse is one of the main drivers of technology adoption in the first place. E.g. look at the studies of consumer adoption of beepers and cell phones. Citation? As someone who lived though both pager and cell phone adoption curves, your assertion sounds highly suspect and doesn’t match any market research I’ve ever seen. The earliest mass adopters of pagers were physicians and surgeons (high income on call demographics) followed by drug dealers (ditto) and then teenagers as the price dropped. Cell phone early adopters were heavily biased towards high wage adults who were fearful of breaking down on the road at night and needing assistance (early cell phones would fit under the seat of a car with the handset near the dash or in the glove compartment but were too big to fit in a briefcase or purse). I’m pretty sure you’ve bought into some made up revisionist urban legend here.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Alex3917 8y ago
  > The earliest mass adopters of pagers were physicians and surgeons (high income on call demographics) followed by drug dealers That's why I specifically said consumer adoption. Doctors and drug dealers had good economic reasons for buying cell phones. But considering that the earliest cell phones were up to $10,000 inflation adjusted and weren't even remotely good, there were only a handful of non-business use cases for buying them for your family members. Mizuku Ito's book Personal, Portable, Pedestrian has a good overview of cell phone adoption and usage patterns. And there have been papers about cell phones being used for partner stalking for decades, e.g.: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=technology+partner+stalking https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=technology+partner+stal... Or for a more recent example, look at the uproar over Facebook instituting their Real Names policy because of how many people were using the site to stalk former intimate partners, among other issues.

tjr225 8y ago

IMO, unless you're physically disabled, don't use any of this crap.

stuntkite 8y ago
I am really surprised at the amount of voice control units my security conscious friends have installed. I find them offensive. Sure we all want our house to be the starship enterprise, but it's not, it's a house. IoT means just another out of date linux box. I'll stick to using keys for my door.
- skgoa 8y ago
  I mean you could do these things properly. Have the voice control live on the device entirely without internet connection, make it absolutely clear when the device is listening at all etc. But that's not what these companies want to provide, because they want to capture dat sweet sweet data and the bulk of consumers don't care enough.
- tjr225 8y ago
  For me it just seems totally unnecessary. I can't find anything severely wrong with a light switch or a key and no amount of useless convenience is going to convince me to part with my money. That said, I was a caretaker for a disabled guy through college and can't imagine how much better IoT devices make life for people such as him.
  - GabeWeiss_ 8y ago
    A lot of it is pretty gimmicky right now, granted, but that's not where things are going. The logical conclusion this is all heading towards is really all about coordination of device/thing across the household. Convenience is really at the heart of it, which means for a percentage of the population, it won't ever catch on, because as you say, there's nothing WRONG with a physical key for your house. But we said the same about cars, but how much more convenient is it to just put your hand on the car door handle, and it unlocks and opens for you? How much easier is it to just get into the car and hit a button to start it because the key fob is in your pocket? They're small improvements of quality of life, but added up, and it makes for a better experience moving through the world. Security is a HUGE issue of course, and to a large extent we need to figure it out, but there's good progress being made. And IoT devices aren't (as another comment says) just another outdated Linux box. OTA (over the air) updates are a real thing now, and done securely are as safe as updating your desktop machine at home.

Johnny555 8y ago

I doubt many of the partners even want to know those details. I know when I installed smart switches in our house, my wife didn't want to know any details other than "Which button do I press to turn all lights on and all lights off?" She didn't even want the controller app on her phone, she just texts me if she's out and thinks she forgot to turn the lights off or if she wants me to check in on the dog on the camera. If I got hit by a bus and she had to remove it all, she can call an electrician. In any case I doubt an abuser will want to tell his spouse how to disable everything.