6 ms·

As a developer, I was shocked when at a friend's house saw that Alexa not only operated lights, but door locks and blinds. Or when another friend takes hands of

As a developer, I was shocked when at a friend's house saw that Alexa not only operated lights, but door locks and blinds. Or when another friend takes hands off the steering wheel to test lane keep assist. I don't think I can trust any software at that level.

Ekaros 5y ago
I agree with the IoT stuff, would never trust or want that... Taking hands off steering wheel. Depends on where done, but straight or slightly curving highway with no significant other traffic sure. Why not try how well it works, just be ready to grab and correct if needed. I even try how well my car goes straight line in similar conditions...
dijonman2 5y ago
I use a voice assistant for lightning control, it’s amazing when I’m walking in with hands full or lay down and want the lights off. I occasionally use it for weather but it’s annoying with such suggestions. I should know better but in this case the convenience is worth it.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
I wouldn't mind blinds so much, but it'd have to be via a button; I dislike talking on a good day, let alone to a machine. That said, my lights are operated via RF remote(s) (two systems, one working on plugs, the other from ikea), pretty convenient without needing an internet connection. Just an awkwardly sized battery.
- OJFord 5y ago
  Why not just automatic? Maybe plus a button for privacy/needing darkness for a film or whatever depending on the room, but mostly I just want curtains & blinds to open in the morning and close in the evening.
  - djrogers 5y ago
    Because they provide privacy in addition to light blocking. I don't have a 100% reliable schedule on when I'm going to need my windows to be blocked.
- otterley 5y ago
  At least with Alexa, you don’t need to talk to a device to manipulate smart-home devices. The mobile app has controls in it for you to use.
  - djrogers 5y ago
    Pretty sure that's the case with all voice-assisted smart home tech
exikyut 5y ago
It's not just trusting the software, but the implicit policy around its implementation and use and even more implicit social norms around what it is expected to do that develop and evolve in interesting ways as products and services entrench further and further into the woodwork. Say an attacker captures enough of a homeowner's voiceprint to build a language model good enough to get past Google's or Amazon's voiceprint matching, then pipes "<hotword>, open the front door" through a wall or window (possibly ultrasonically). What happens now? Who is to blame? Is it the homeowner's fault for using a product according to the use cases included in the instructions? "Oh, no, that was just a serving suggestion! You shouldn't use <product> to lock your doors unless the doors were an effectively unnecessary decoration to begin with." So then you have Buy N' Large and Big Brother getting into the home and contents insurance industry. No. No you don't. The only reason this use-case got cleared by Legal is because someone figured out the circle of plausible deniability (weaponized portmanteau of "circle of competence") is currently wide enough to fit a lawsuit defence through. :( It's like with Tesla and the whole self-driving thing. The implementation *happens* to be able to drive asleep "drivers" down highways at 100 miles an hour, and the company has somehow been able to corral itself into the evil-genius legal position of being 50% "always keep hands on the wheel" and 50% "look self-driving AI go brrrt" and somehow combine the liability protections of the former with the societal expectations of the latter. Solely in terms of overpromising and underdelivering and then wrangling the legal status quo to declare that okay, I do think it's a bit... not great. Crucially, this problem is most definitely not limited to Tesla, Google or Amazon; it's an endemic permeability in the legal systems of ostensibly-developed countries that makes a joke of the proof-of-work foundation of good-faith technical investment, and institutes a fraudulent social contract that the infrastructure we increasingly depend on is fundamentally reliable and trustworthy ("set in stone") when it is not. To adopt these technologies is to adopt the ever-changing tech stacks that underpin them, and the risks associated with upgrading the proverbial engines on ever-larger digital airplanes while they're in flight. I think it's dangerous and irresponsible to dispel the tenuous fabric of social perception around these risks and give unsuspecting passersby the impression things are safer than they are. Hmm. I'm reminded of http://bash.org/?4753 http://bash.org/?4753: <xterm> The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself? Maybe that's what's happening here?
vkou 5y ago
Why would you be even a little bit concerned over software door locks? Most traditional locks can be picked open in seconds. There's no meaningful way to do any worse than that. The only fit-for-purpose way to use locks is in keeping honest people honest. They are utter rubbish at keeping bad guys out of your house.
theK 5y ago
I presume the Alexa Argument ist against the service and not against automation. Running your whole life on self hosted home automation is Stil awesome and the way to go. Just ensure that data never leaves your home premises and you have enough resiliency.
- krageon 5y ago
  I would say trusting any kind of software with door locks(!) is a terrible idea. Yes, if you use home automation you should self host. No, if you secure your home you should not needlessly expand the attack surface.
  - sandos 5y ago
    I use a "smart" lock, even with BT/wifi/GPS based automatic unlocking which seems to freak my fiancee out. I see it as stealing my phone is not different from stealing my key. The more sinister ability is to unlock remotely via the "cloud" which I am still a bit shocked that it just seems to work, and no complaints AFAIK from insurance companies. I just happen to know that locks aren't really a deterrent if you really want to get inside a house.... On the other hand, in reality I am not going to be targeted by competent hackers (who would own me at once), but rather a crude gang of misfits roaming around for an easily burglarised home.
    - michaelt 5y ago
      > On the other hand, in reality I am not going to be targeted by competent hackers (who would own me at once), but rather a crude gang of misfits roaming around for an easily burglarised home. The threat isn't a competent hacker targeting you directly. The threat is a competent hacker targeting the lock's vendor, getting their whole database, then selling address, entry code and occupancy times for $20 per home on the darknet.
      - djrogers 5y ago
        > then selling address, entry code and occupancy times What locks are you referring to where locally configured entry codes are stored in a cloud DB? That's not the case for any of the ones I've installed.
rootusrootus 5y ago
The biggest tech enthusiasts I know are tech workers, though. It's the normies in my life that couldn't care less about this stuff. I've been a developer for 30 years and I love my home automation toys. But I do make sure that all of it fails gracefully to 'normal' when something interrupts HA. My software can (and does, every day) lock the door. But the deadlock still has a key on the outside and a standard twist knob on the inside. All the light switches work just fine without their wireless connection. Thermostat is indistinguishable from an old school Honeywell if you ignore the Z-Wave logo. etc. I do keep my hands on the wheel, though ;-). The whole 'dying in a ball of twisted metal' failure mode is pretty convincing.
- dkarl 5y ago
  > But I do make sure that all of it fails gracefully to 'normal' when something interrupts HA. This is why interest and trust don't have to go together. Sometimes the people who are most adventurous are simply the ones who are comfortable with a lower level of trust, because they can manage their risk. I'm comfortable playing with new or niche technology because I'm able to keep it low stakes. My most tech-phobic family members, on the other hand, act like they have complete faith in the software they use even when they say they have zero faith. They don't have the savoir-faire to do things that limit their risk, like withholding sensitive data and backing up important data in different places, so they resent technology as chronically treacherous and agonize over whether they can "trust" individual pieces of tech in an absolute yes/no way.

Ekaros 5y ago

I agree with the IoT stuff, would never trust or want that... Taking hands off steering wheel. Depends on where done, but straight or slightly curving highway with no significant other traffic sure. Why not try how well it works, just be ready to grab and correct if needed. I even try how well my car goes straight line in similar conditions...

dijonman2 5y ago

I use a voice assistant for lightning control, it’s amazing when I’m walking in with hands full or lay down and want the lights off. I occasionally use it for weather but it’s annoying with such suggestions. I should know better but in this case the convenience is worth it.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

I wouldn't mind blinds so much, but it'd have to be via a button; I dislike talking on a good day, let alone to a machine. That said, my lights are operated via RF remote(s) (two systems, one working on plugs, the other from ikea), pretty convenient without needing an internet connection. Just an awkwardly sized battery.

OJFord 5y ago
Why not just automatic? Maybe plus a button for privacy/needing darkness for a film or whatever depending on the room, but mostly I just want curtains & blinds to open in the morning and close in the evening.
- djrogers 5y ago
  Because they provide privacy in addition to light blocking. I don't have a 100% reliable schedule on when I'm going to need my windows to be blocked.
otterley 5y ago
At least with Alexa, you don’t need to talk to a device to manipulate smart-home devices. The mobile app has controls in it for you to use.
- djrogers 5y ago
  Pretty sure that's the case with all voice-assisted smart home tech

exikyut 5y ago

It's not just trusting the software, but the implicit policy around its implementation and use and even more implicit social norms around what it is expected to do that develop and evolve in interesting ways as products and services entrench further and further into the woodwork. Say an attacker captures enough of a homeowner's voiceprint to build a language model good enough to get past Google's or Amazon's voiceprint matching, then pipes "<hotword>, open the front door" through a wall or window (possibly ultrasonically). What happens now? Who is to blame? Is it the homeowner's fault for using a product according to the use cases included in the instructions? "Oh, no, that was just a serving suggestion! You shouldn't use <product> to lock your doors unless the doors were an effectively unnecessary decoration to begin with." So then you have Buy N' Large and Big Brother getting into the home and contents insurance industry. No. No you don't. The only reason this use-case got cleared by Legal is because someone figured out the circle of plausible deniability (weaponized portmanteau of "circle of competence") is currently wide enough to fit a lawsuit defence through. :( It's like with Tesla and the whole self-driving thing. The implementation *happens* to be able to drive asleep "drivers" down highways at 100 miles an hour, and the company has somehow been able to corral itself into the evil-genius legal position of being 50% "always keep hands on the wheel" and 50% "look self-driving AI go brrrt" and somehow combine the liability protections of the former with the societal expectations of the latter. Solely in terms of overpromising and underdelivering and then wrangling the legal status quo to declare that okay, I do think it's a bit... not great. Crucially, this problem is most definitely not limited to Tesla, Google or Amazon; it's an endemic permeability in the legal systems of ostensibly-developed countries that makes a joke of the proof-of-work foundation of good-faith technical investment, and institutes a fraudulent social contract that the infrastructure we increasingly depend on is fundamentally reliable and trustworthy ("set in stone") when it is not. To adopt these technologies is to adopt the ever-changing tech stacks that underpin them, and the risks associated with upgrading the proverbial engines on ever-larger digital airplanes while they're in flight. I think it's dangerous and irresponsible to dispel the tenuous fabric of social perception around these risks and give unsuspecting passersby the impression things are safer than they are. Hmm. I'm reminded of http://bash.org/?4753 http://bash.org/?4753: <xterm> The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself? Maybe that's what's happening here?

vkou 5y ago

Why would you be even a little bit concerned over software door locks? Most traditional locks can be picked open in seconds. There's no meaningful way to do any worse than that. The only fit-for-purpose way to use locks is in keeping honest people honest. They are utter rubbish at keeping bad guys out of your house.

theK 5y ago

I presume the Alexa Argument ist against the service and not against automation. Running your whole life on self hosted home automation is Stil awesome and the way to go. Just ensure that data never leaves your home premises and you have enough resiliency.

krageon 5y ago
I would say trusting any kind of software with door locks(!) is a terrible idea. Yes, if you use home automation you should self host. No, if you secure your home you should not needlessly expand the attack surface.
- sandos 5y ago
  I use a "smart" lock, even with BT/wifi/GPS based automatic unlocking which seems to freak my fiancee out. I see it as stealing my phone is not different from stealing my key. The more sinister ability is to unlock remotely via the "cloud" which I am still a bit shocked that it just seems to work, and no complaints AFAIK from insurance companies. I just happen to know that locks aren't really a deterrent if you really want to get inside a house.... On the other hand, in reality I am not going to be targeted by competent hackers (who would own me at once), but rather a crude gang of misfits roaming around for an easily burglarised home.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    > On the other hand, in reality I am not going to be targeted by competent hackers (who would own me at once), but rather a crude gang of misfits roaming around for an easily burglarised home. The threat isn't a competent hacker targeting you directly. The threat is a competent hacker targeting the lock's vendor, getting their whole database, then selling address, entry code and occupancy times for $20 per home on the darknet.
    - djrogers 5y ago
      > then selling address, entry code and occupancy times What locks are you referring to where locally configured entry codes are stored in a cloud DB? That's not the case for any of the ones I've installed.

rootusrootus 5y ago

The biggest tech enthusiasts I know are tech workers, though. It's the normies in my life that couldn't care less about this stuff. I've been a developer for 30 years and I love my home automation toys. But I do make sure that all of it fails gracefully to 'normal' when something interrupts HA. My software can (and does, every day) lock the door. But the deadlock still has a key on the outside and a standard twist knob on the inside. All the light switches work just fine without their wireless connection. Thermostat is indistinguishable from an old school Honeywell if you ignore the Z-Wave logo. etc. I do keep my hands on the wheel, though ;-). The whole 'dying in a ball of twisted metal' failure mode is pretty convincing.

dkarl 5y ago
> But I do make sure that all of it fails gracefully to 'normal' when something interrupts HA. This is why interest and trust don't have to go together. Sometimes the people who are most adventurous are simply the ones who are comfortable with a lower level of trust, because they can manage their risk. I'm comfortable playing with new or niche technology because I'm able to keep it low stakes. My most tech-phobic family members, on the other hand, act like they have complete faith in the software they use even when they say they have zero faith. They don't have the savoir-faire to do things that limit their risk, like withholding sensitive data and backing up important data in different places, so they resent technology as chronically treacherous and agonize over whether they can "trust" individual pieces of tech in an absolute yes/no way.