4 ms·

So every time you add a camera, everyone in the family/workplace has to go find it and physically pair every one of their devices with it? That doesn’t sound wo

by wrs 7y ago

So every time you add a camera, everyone in the family/workplace has to go find it and physically pair every one of their devices with it? That doesn’t sound workable.

uhoh-itsmaciek 7y ago
Doesn't it? Compared to the nightmare described in the article?
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  I see this idea being proposed in an early design meeting. Then I see a product manager seriously consider it and then veto it. Why? Because their product's goal is to be the easiest to use camera system, and this makes using it much harder. But let's say the PM and the rest of management was convinced. So they make it require pairing and send it out for field testing. Field tests come back: "it's really annoying that I have to pair all of my phones individually with each camera." Management tells engineering to fix that. But let's say that the engineers once again convince management that this is a good idea. The product is launched. The review from CNET or Wirecutter or something comes back: "it's crazy in this day in age that I need to get a ladder and go around to all of my cameras to introduce them all to my new phones every time I do my yearly iPhone upgrade." CEO now has a crisis and demands this be fixed. Engineer pushes back again and is probably fired this time. Feature is removed. A few years later, this article comes out and it causes much, much less damage to the brand than the bad usability reviews. Everyone learns the wrong lesson.
  - Udik 7y ago
    But why individually? Can't all the cameras in the local network share a single pairing code?
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Or they pair with a "controller" device and any user pairs direct with that? Could be a dongle with a button that plugs in to a router usb port.
      - semi-extrinsic 7y ago
        FWIW, this is what Ikea's system does, and all that lets you do is turn the lights on and off.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Also: pair the cameras with the hub before installation, so you don't need a ladder later on.
  - uhoh-itsmaciek 7y ago
    I don't think the answer is to throw up our hands and say, "oh well, I guess security is fundamentally incompatible with usability in consumer electronics; caveat emptor is the best we can do." I concede there's a tension between security and usability (and that compromising on usability to achieve security makes your product less appealing), but we should demand that companies find better ways to design around that tension, instead of making the bare minimum concessions to security and adopting a "blame the user" mentality.
madhadron 7y ago
Or you do something sensible like have a hub. Every client device pairs with the hub. Every sensor device pairs with the hub. The hub brokers rendezvous and authentication. And to pair anything with the hub you have to be sitting there next to it with physical access.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  I would expect it being even simpler, once you are paired to the network of connected devices you are connected to any future devices added to the same. next time your app connects it simply indicates a new device has been added and asks if you accept it.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Those are equivalent, in the sense that the hub is a router to the IoT network. This functionality could be implemented on an Internet router itself, but it isn't, and honestly I wouldn't trust any consumer-grade router with it.
derision 7y ago
Sounds perfectly sensible to me. If I'm setting up security cameras in my own home then requiring physical interaction with the device to pair sounds like a great idea
- markstos 7y ago
  One reason to have a camera would be to provide access to a parent or family member who is far away, perhaps even in another country.
  - shoes_for_thee 7y ago
    And now that far-away person will have to ask someone with actual physical access to the device send a screenshot of a QR code. This is fine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
mnem 7y ago
You only really need 1 person to physically pair, and then they can authenticate other people wanting to share it.
llamataboot 7y ago
I mean, how often are you adding cameras? I have to push a physical button to control my Hue lights, and we can't require physical access to a /camera/ ?
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Perhaps something like Keybase's solution is workable? Where you generally need to access one of your existing Keybase clients to authorize a new Keybase client. Presumably you'd add cameras and the like the same way. https://keybase.io/blog/keybase-new-key-model https://keybase.io/blog/keybase-new-key-model
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Pair them with a hub. Cameras should talk to the hub on LAN, not the Internet. You can everyone's devices with the hub once. As explained in parallel, QR codes and distance are not mutually exclusive.

by wrs 7y ago

So every time you add a camera, everyone in the family/workplace has to go find it and physically pair every one of their devices with it? That doesn’t sound workable.

uhoh-itsmaciek 7y ago

Doesn't it? Compared to the nightmare described in the article?

CobrastanJorji 7y ago
I see this idea being proposed in an early design meeting. Then I see a product manager seriously consider it and then veto it. Why? Because their product's goal is to be the easiest to use camera system, and this makes using it much harder. But let's say the PM and the rest of management was convinced. So they make it require pairing and send it out for field testing. Field tests come back: "it's really annoying that I have to pair all of my phones individually with each camera." Management tells engineering to fix that. But let's say that the engineers once again convince management that this is a good idea. The product is launched. The review from CNET or Wirecutter or something comes back: "it's crazy in this day in age that I need to get a ladder and go around to all of my cameras to introduce them all to my new phones every time I do my yearly iPhone upgrade." CEO now has a crisis and demands this be fixed. Engineer pushes back again and is probably fired this time. Feature is removed. A few years later, this article comes out and it causes much, much less damage to the brand than the bad usability reviews. Everyone learns the wrong lesson.
- Udik 7y ago
  But why individually? Can't all the cameras in the local network share a single pairing code?
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Or they pair with a "controller" device and any user pairs direct with that? Could be a dongle with a button that plugs in to a router usb port.
    - semi-extrinsic 7y ago
      FWIW, this is what Ikea's system does, and all that lets you do is turn the lights on and off.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Also: pair the cameras with the hub before installation, so you don't need a ladder later on.
- uhoh-itsmaciek 7y ago
  I don't think the answer is to throw up our hands and say, "oh well, I guess security is fundamentally incompatible with usability in consumer electronics; caveat emptor is the best we can do." I concede there's a tension between security and usability (and that compromising on usability to achieve security makes your product less appealing), but we should demand that companies find better ways to design around that tension, instead of making the bare minimum concessions to security and adopting a "blame the user" mentality.

madhadron 7y ago

Or you do something sensible like have a hub. Every client device pairs with the hub. Every sensor device pairs with the hub. The hub brokers rendezvous and authentication. And to pair anything with the hub you have to be sitting there next to it with physical access.

Shivetya 7y ago
I would expect it being even simpler, once you are paired to the network of connected devices you are connected to any future devices added to the same. next time your app connects it simply indicates a new device has been added and asks if you accept it.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Those are equivalent, in the sense that the hub is a router to the IoT network. This functionality could be implemented on an Internet router itself, but it isn't, and honestly I wouldn't trust any consumer-grade router with it.

derision 7y ago

Sounds perfectly sensible to me. If I'm setting up security cameras in my own home then requiring physical interaction with the device to pair sounds like a great idea

markstos 7y ago
One reason to have a camera would be to provide access to a parent or family member who is far away, perhaps even in another country.
- shoes_for_thee 7y ago
  And now that far-away person will have to ask someone with actual physical access to the device send a screenshot of a QR code. This is fine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

mnem 7y ago

You only really need 1 person to physically pair, and then they can authenticate other people wanting to share it.

llamataboot 7y ago

I mean, how often are you adding cameras? I have to push a physical button to control my Hue lights, and we can't require physical access to a /camera/ ?

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

Perhaps something like Keybase's solution is workable? Where you generally need to access one of your existing Keybase clients to authorize a new Keybase client. Presumably you'd add cameras and the like the same way. https://keybase.io/blog/keybase-new-key-model https://keybase.io/blog/keybase-new-key-model

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Pair them with a hub. Cameras should talk to the hub on LAN, not the Internet. You can everyone's devices with the hub once. As explained in parallel, QR codes and distance are not mutually exclusive.