3 ms·

Pretty mediocre article. Replace “sex toy” with any other IoT device and you get the same thing. Don’t want your sex toys connecting to the internet? Don’t buy

by KMnO4 5y ago

Pretty mediocre article. Replace “sex toy” with any other IoT device and you get the same thing. Don’t want your sex toys connecting to the internet? Don’t buy the one with a wifi connection. But really, the end of the article says this best: “Despite the risks, many continue to use networked sex toys because they feel, correctly or not, that these devices—like social media platforms—give them more than they take.”

angelzen 5y ago
With the looming 5G deployment supporting 1000x device density, what's keeping iot devices to just connect to the 5G network and directly report their payload with no user intervention. If we're lucky we'll get an opt-out choice hidden somewhere in the small print that will auto-revert to "on" every now and then because "user convenience". There have been 20 years of exploding ubiquitous spyware, online and offline. We can't walk on the street without an array of spy cameras recoding every word, move, facial expression. The excuse "don't buy x / don't use x" is beyond stale.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The same thing that's been protecting privacy since the 90s. https://www.amazon.com/Reynolds-Wrap-Aluminum-Foil-Square/dp/B00UNT0Y2M/ https://www.amazon.com/Reynolds-Wrap-Aluminum-Foil-Square/dp...
revolvingocelot 5y ago
>Don’t want your sex toys connecting to the internet? Don’t buy the one with a wifi connection. I'm not certain that the problem is that they connect to the Internet, I think the problem is that bad actors are fucking with improperly secured internet-connected devices. I'm not an expert or anything but I think it's probably possible to make a wifi-connected sex toy, hell, a wifi connected anything, without turning it into a standard IoT-future-botnet-participant. Kinda strikes me like saying "don't want to have someone take over your car through the satellite radio? Buy a pre-1990 ICE car!" or "don't want to be spied on by your smartphone? Don't carry a smartphone!" or even "don't want to get shot? Don't leave the house!". While these are all entirely practicable solutions that indeed solve the problem, they blame the individual for a predatory situation. Wouldn't it be nicer to try to improve the situation, rather than blame the insufficiently techy victim? Pretty much everybody is driving a modern car, using a smartphone, and lacking a bulletproof vest. Are they all to blame? >“Despite the risks, many continue to use networked sex toys because they feel, correctly or not, that these devices—like social media platforms—give them more than they take.” This line seems included to help the reader blame the ig'nant sex-toy user -- don't they know that everybody's lying about the safety of everything?!
- vinceguidry 5y ago
  > they blame the individual for a predatory situation. Wouldn't it be nicer to try to improve the situation, rather than blame the insufficiently techy victim? Years of being in ecommerce and web development has taught me that there's no getting around buyer beware, it is the price for living in a consumer-focused society. There's always a greater fool, and the people building solutions will always prioritize sales and revenue over virtually all else. Attempting to circumvent this means going bankrupt faster.
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    ...I know, but it makes me sad. D: I had to leave ecommerce for this reason, basically. On the other hand, 150 years ago educated gentlemen were surely saying this about then-common poisonous, noxious food additives. Somehow, society managed to turn that particular law of the financial universe around [0][1]. I fear we no longer have the strength. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Washington_Wiley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Washington_Wiley [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act
    - vinceguidry 5y ago
      If there's enough there to enshrine legal principles, sure. That's not going to ever stop consumers from having to be wary of what they buy. Society has to live with an evil for long enough to become aware of the downsides.
      - revolvingocelot 5y ago
        >That's not going to ever stop consumers from having to be wary of what they buy Do you still feel the need to check for formaldehyde and Borax in your milk and meat? How do you accomplish this? I'm fascinated! Is that a bit facetious? Sure, but the point is that there's wary and then there's wary. "Having to weigh cost, reputation, and performance" is not "having to guess which product won't hurt you because there's no disincentive to hurt you". >Society has to live with an evil for long enough to become aware of the downsides IMO "society" already is. Nobody's thinking "hey, lying about whether this chat app is end-to-end encrypted is totally cool and good" after they put their trust in the product and the lie is revealed. I suspect poor IoT security is just going to have to somehow kill and cripple a lot of photogenic people until someone can score political points by writing some laws.

by KMnO4 5y ago

angelzen 5y ago

With the looming 5G deployment supporting 1000x device density, what's keeping iot devices to just connect to the 5G network and directly report their payload with no user intervention. If we're lucky we'll get an opt-out choice hidden somewhere in the small print that will auto-revert to "on" every now and then because "user convenience". There have been 20 years of exploding ubiquitous spyware, online and offline. We can't walk on the street without an array of spy cameras recoding every word, move, facial expression. The excuse "don't buy x / don't use x" is beyond stale.

ethbr0 5y ago
The same thing that's been protecting privacy since the 90s. https://www.amazon.com/Reynolds-Wrap-Aluminum-Foil-Square/dp/B00UNT0Y2M/ https://www.amazon.com/Reynolds-Wrap-Aluminum-Foil-Square/dp...

revolvingocelot 5y ago

>Don’t want your sex toys connecting to the internet? Don’t buy the one with a wifi connection. I'm not certain that the problem is that they connect to the Internet, I think the problem is that bad actors are fucking with improperly secured internet-connected devices. I'm not an expert or anything but I think it's probably possible to make a wifi-connected sex toy, hell, a wifi connected anything, without turning it into a standard IoT-future-botnet-participant. Kinda strikes me like saying "don't want to have someone take over your car through the satellite radio? Buy a pre-1990 ICE car!" or "don't want to be spied on by your smartphone? Don't carry a smartphone!" or even "don't want to get shot? Don't leave the house!". While these are all entirely practicable solutions that indeed solve the problem, they blame the individual for a predatory situation. Wouldn't it be nicer to try to improve the situation, rather than blame the insufficiently techy victim? Pretty much everybody is driving a modern car, using a smartphone, and lacking a bulletproof vest. Are they all to blame? >“Despite the risks, many continue to use networked sex toys because they feel, correctly or not, that these devices—like social media platforms—give them more than they take.” This line seems included to help the reader blame the ig'nant sex-toy user -- don't they know that everybody's lying about the safety of everything?!

vinceguidry 5y ago
> they blame the individual for a predatory situation. Wouldn't it be nicer to try to improve the situation, rather than blame the insufficiently techy victim? Years of being in ecommerce and web development has taught me that there's no getting around buyer beware, it is the price for living in a consumer-focused society. There's always a greater fool, and the people building solutions will always prioritize sales and revenue over virtually all else. Attempting to circumvent this means going bankrupt faster.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  ...I know, but it makes me sad. D: I had to leave ecommerce for this reason, basically. On the other hand, 150 years ago educated gentlemen were surely saying this about then-common poisonous, noxious food additives. Somehow, society managed to turn that particular law of the financial universe around [0][1]. I fear we no longer have the strength. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Washington_Wiley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Washington_Wiley [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act
  - vinceguidry 5y ago
    If there's enough there to enshrine legal principles, sure. That's not going to ever stop consumers from having to be wary of what they buy. Society has to live with an evil for long enough to become aware of the downsides.
    - revolvingocelot 5y ago
      >That's not going to ever stop consumers from having to be wary of what they buy Do you still feel the need to check for formaldehyde and Borax in your milk and meat? How do you accomplish this? I'm fascinated! Is that a bit facetious? Sure, but the point is that there's wary and then there's wary. "Having to weigh cost, reputation, and performance" is not "having to guess which product won't hurt you because there's no disincentive to hurt you". >Society has to live with an evil for long enough to become aware of the downsides IMO "society" already is. Nobody's thinking "hey, lying about whether this chat app is end-to-end encrypted is totally cool and good" after they put their trust in the product and the lie is revealed. I suspect poor IoT security is just going to have to somehow kill and cripple a lot of photogenic people until someone can score political points by writing some laws.