4 ms·
The microphone / motion sensor issues aside I would never sleep in an apartment where someone could remotely silent an alarm.
by vegardx 8y ago
The microphone / motion sensor issues aside I would never sleep in an apartment where someone could remotely silent an alarm.
- vectorEQ 8y ago:D in my country, i never saw anyone with an alarm on their house :D maybe the issue is not to remotely silent the alarm, but that it's needed in the first place :D
- pergadad 8y agoLegal obligation on landlords in any developed country
- braythwayt 8y agoFire codes in many developed regions also require working smoke alarms whether the property is rented or owner-occupied. Add to that the economic incentives involved when you wish to insure you property against fire and liability, or mortgage it (which almost always imposes a requirement to insure the property).
- dpark 8y agoDo you also live in a country where homes never catch fire? “Not needed” implies that there is no fire risk or that the risk is so low that you don’t care.
- dpark 8y agoYou have some serious enemies, huh?
- gcb0 8y agoprojecting much? :) I personally agree with the point being afraid of incompetence, not malice.
- dpark 8y agoIt’s not as if someone is going to experience a false alarm in their own system, accidentally access your system via a giant security failure and random account mangling, while your system is experiencing a real alarm at the same moment, and then unintentionally silence your alarm. The level of coincidence here is absurd. The alternative concern that Nest is so incompetent that they somehow issue an automatic silence command (either to all alarms or just yours) seems no more plausible than First Alert being so incompetent that your alarm simply doesn’t work. Especially in combination with the fact that this incompetence must either be undetected permanently (i.e. they always silence your alarm and never notice the horrendous bug) or coincidentally tied to an actual fire in your home, this is probably roughly as likely as a meteorite flattening your house. The only “viable” concern here is to that an attacker might silence your alarm maliciously, which implies a lot of dedication from an enemy, because they are literally trying to murder you. Presumably this enemy is also an arsonist because otherwise there’s likely no alarm to silence and if there is, it’s likely a false alarm.
- gcb0 8y agoyour landlord will get the notification about carbon monoxide on their phone. Then they will call you. It might be a false alarm twice. Then it might be real the third time but then they decided to not call you and just silence it. lot's of thing can happen by incompetence, not even have to go too far on the scenarios.
- dpark 8y agoWhy would they silence the alarm? It's just a notification on their phone. Silencing doesn't accomplish anything for them. The first time my landlord silenced a "false alarm", I'd tell them not to ever do that again. The second time, I'd reset the device and register it under an account they don't control. But yes, I do see your concern now. I was not initially thinking of the landlord actually controlling the device, merely installing and allowing the tenant to control it. There's a lot less ridiculous coincidence required for a landlord to stupidly silence the alarm.
- jsight 8y agoAFAIK, you have to be in close physical proximity to the nest alarm to silence it.
- behringer 8y agoUnless you're the CIA/NSA.
- sp332 8y agoKeep in mind, you won’t be able to silence Nest Protect if smoke is above levels specified by law. This is an industry rule that all alarms follow. https://nest.com/support/article/How-do-I-silence-Nest-Protect https://nest.com/support/article/How-do-I-silence-Nest-Prote...
- behringer 8y agoI doubt the landlord said the tenant couldn't put up a second fire alarm.