3 ms·

Warning, inane tangential commentary: I love the author's "But why?" article. However, I have a worry: So many "But why?" questions in the software world apply

Warning, inane tangential commentary: I love the author's "But why?" article. However, I have a worry: So many "But why?" questions in the software world apply to IoT projects, and IoT is playing a central role in the rise of global dystopian surveillance and data-brokering. Sometimes it feels like we're getting too much practice at making this stuff. As though we should be answering "But why?" for more minimal or freedom-promoting projects, like unconnected solar-powered desktops or very dumb sensors and timers for decidedly not-smart homes. I dunno. Just a thought.

kn100 2y ago
You make a good point - but let's be careful to not confuse personal hackery with random internet connected shit you buy from the internet. In my ideal world, every IoT product would directly and clearly document it's hardware, along with allowing the user to replace the firmware with whatever they wanted, so users like me can opt out of the cloud driven solution. The nice thing about a hack like this is you, the creator, have full control over exactly what is exposed or how. There's no cloud, no external control, no unwanted firmware updates, nothing. If everybody was willing and capable to engage with their hardware at this sort of a level, there wouldn't be this crisis of insanely insecure hardware being sold to uncaring consumers, imo!
- netbioserror 2y ago
  My comment is maybe too-indirectly implying that these skills end up getting applied in careers where surveillance is added on top of these sorts of connected processes. The hobby can be as benign as we like, but paychecks change what people are willing to tolerate...
- bombcar 2y ago
  One thing I've learned when dealing with cheap PoE CTV cameras, is that there really are only a very few IoT chipsets for various things, everyone seems to be using the same ones (except for a subset of boutique ones reusing off-the-shelf more complicated ARM processors or Raspberry Pis or whatever). I'd love to see that more standardized and things like OpenWRT for all sorts of IoT junk, giving back control. Opinionated things like Valetudo https://valetudo.cloud https://valetudo.cloud
  - kn100 2y ago
    Y'know what I'd love? For all IoT crap to feature a socketed ESP32 or whatever. The vendor can ship whatever garbage software they want to it, but maybe in the future when Wifi 2.4ghz does eventually die as an example, we could all just swap the controller chip with one that supports 5ghz wifi. This will never happen since the world prefers us to throw all that crap out to buy new crap, but it's nice to imagine!
    - brk 2y ago
      This is impractical for a couple of reasons: 1) Socketed chips add significant cost in a number of ways as compared to CoB or just standard soldered chips 2) This would likely violate most FCC/CE/C-tick/etc. certifications. 3) The whole assembly would need to be designed to be field servicable so you could access the circuit boards, which would also add cost (and possible warranty issues). In the end, building a product that could properly facilitate this would just wind up costing more than viewing them as disposable units that you toss out when a newer version of something is available. This is optimal from a capitalism standpoint, but suboptimal from a sustainability standpoint.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        > 1) Socketed chips add significant cost in a number of ways as compared to CoB or just standard soldered chips Yep, that's probably true. > 2) This would likely violate most FCC/CE/C-tick/etc. certifications. IANAL but that doesn't seem like it can possibly be necessarily true, since most computers let you replace the motherboard and wifi card. > 3) The whole assembly would need to be designed to be field servicable so you could access the circuit boards, which would also add cost (and possible warranty issues). Not all, but most IoT boxes I've seen already are easy enough to take apart, it's just that there's not much to do with it once it is apart. So I don't think this would be a change.
        brk 2y ago
        I'm not saying any of it is impossible, just that it is costly (based on my direct experience at a number of hardware companies). For an "IoT box" type of product there would likely be fewer issues with the certifications and swapability. For IoT devices like light switches, bulbs, smart outlets, or anything else where the 120V/240V power is exposed vs. isolated by a power supply (as in the case of a PC or "IoT box") it would likely be too costly to do in a conformant way. Particularly when the tinkerer consumer base that would actually value this is maybe 5% of the total market.
creesch 2y ago
I have a hard time connecting the dots in your argument? For starters, there are already desks out there on the market with this functionality build in. As an example, my desk can be controlled through Bluetooth. It's why I also have trouble seeing the link you seem to find obvious, the global dystopian surveillance and data-brokering aspect. Specifically in relation to personal hobby projects like this, as the author is doing nothing new and there is absolutely no link to data-brokering...
- netbioserror 2y ago
  The line connecting the dots is that some who practice these skills end up adding those surveillance features to products in their careers. Not a hard leap to make, unsure why it wasn't obvious.
  - godelski 2y ago
    > Not a hard leap to make, unsure why it wasn't obvious. Don't be dismissive. Just because others can't see it, doesn't mean we should be dismissive of __them__. I know it is subtle, but I think this is important, especially if we want to be taken seriously. The whole problem is about how small things add up, and often how we can't even see the issues with the small things themselves. People's views are going to be skewed by their experiences and often, with regards to this topic, how effective (or seemingly effective) their governments are. The line is thin and hard to see. That's the whole problem in the first place. So don't chastise people who can't see the spiderweb just because you were at the right angle to see it glistening in the sun.
  - seanhunter 2y ago
    Some people who study computer science end up using those skills to write those products with the surveillance features. Should we not practise computer science as well, just to be on the safe side? I don't understand this argument at all.
    - netbioserror 2y ago
      This sort of braindead absurd reduction shouldn't belong in this place but is tragically what I've come to expect. Christ alive.
fragmede 2y ago
looking forwards to the black mirror episode where the user's standing desk height is used to reverse engineer all sorts of tidbits about the users habits to sell them more stuff

kn100 2y ago

You make a good point - but let's be careful to not confuse personal hackery with random internet connected shit you buy from the internet. In my ideal world, every IoT product would directly and clearly document it's hardware, along with allowing the user to replace the firmware with whatever they wanted, so users like me can opt out of the cloud driven solution. The nice thing about a hack like this is you, the creator, have full control over exactly what is exposed or how. There's no cloud, no external control, no unwanted firmware updates, nothing. If everybody was willing and capable to engage with their hardware at this sort of a level, there wouldn't be this crisis of insanely insecure hardware being sold to uncaring consumers, imo!

netbioserror 2y ago
My comment is maybe too-indirectly implying that these skills end up getting applied in careers where surveillance is added on top of these sorts of connected processes. The hobby can be as benign as we like, but paychecks change what people are willing to tolerate...
bombcar 2y ago
One thing I've learned when dealing with cheap PoE CTV cameras, is that there really are only a very few IoT chipsets for various things, everyone seems to be using the same ones (except for a subset of boutique ones reusing off-the-shelf more complicated ARM processors or Raspberry Pis or whatever). I'd love to see that more standardized and things like OpenWRT for all sorts of IoT junk, giving back control. Opinionated things like Valetudo https://valetudo.cloud https://valetudo.cloud
- kn100 2y ago
  Y'know what I'd love? For all IoT crap to feature a socketed ESP32 or whatever. The vendor can ship whatever garbage software they want to it, but maybe in the future when Wifi 2.4ghz does eventually die as an example, we could all just swap the controller chip with one that supports 5ghz wifi. This will never happen since the world prefers us to throw all that crap out to buy new crap, but it's nice to imagine!
  - brk 2y ago
    This is impractical for a couple of reasons: 1) Socketed chips add significant cost in a number of ways as compared to CoB or just standard soldered chips 2) This would likely violate most FCC/CE/C-tick/etc. certifications. 3) The whole assembly would need to be designed to be field servicable so you could access the circuit boards, which would also add cost (and possible warranty issues). In the end, building a product that could properly facilitate this would just wind up costing more than viewing them as disposable units that you toss out when a newer version of something is available. This is optimal from a capitalism standpoint, but suboptimal from a sustainability standpoint.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      > 1) Socketed chips add significant cost in a number of ways as compared to CoB or just standard soldered chips Yep, that's probably true. > 2) This would likely violate most FCC/CE/C-tick/etc. certifications. IANAL but that doesn't seem like it can possibly be necessarily true, since most computers let you replace the motherboard and wifi card. > 3) The whole assembly would need to be designed to be field servicable so you could access the circuit boards, which would also add cost (and possible warranty issues). Not all, but most IoT boxes I've seen already are easy enough to take apart, it's just that there's not much to do with it once it is apart. So I don't think this would be a change.
      - brk 2y ago
        I'm not saying any of it is impossible, just that it is costly (based on my direct experience at a number of hardware companies). For an "IoT box" type of product there would likely be fewer issues with the certifications and swapability. For IoT devices like light switches, bulbs, smart outlets, or anything else where the 120V/240V power is exposed vs. isolated by a power supply (as in the case of a PC or "IoT box") it would likely be too costly to do in a conformant way. Particularly when the tinkerer consumer base that would actually value this is maybe 5% of the total market.

creesch 2y ago

I have a hard time connecting the dots in your argument? For starters, there are already desks out there on the market with this functionality build in. As an example, my desk can be controlled through Bluetooth. It's why I also have trouble seeing the link you seem to find obvious, the global dystopian surveillance and data-brokering aspect. Specifically in relation to personal hobby projects like this, as the author is doing nothing new and there is absolutely no link to data-brokering...

netbioserror 2y ago
The line connecting the dots is that some who practice these skills end up adding those surveillance features to products in their careers. Not a hard leap to make, unsure why it wasn't obvious.
- godelski 2y ago
  > Not a hard leap to make, unsure why it wasn't obvious. Don't be dismissive. Just because others can't see it, doesn't mean we should be dismissive of __them__. I know it is subtle, but I think this is important, especially if we want to be taken seriously. The whole problem is about how small things add up, and often how we can't even see the issues with the small things themselves. People's views are going to be skewed by their experiences and often, with regards to this topic, how effective (or seemingly effective) their governments are. The line is thin and hard to see. That's the whole problem in the first place. So don't chastise people who can't see the spiderweb just because you were at the right angle to see it glistening in the sun.
- seanhunter 2y ago
  Some people who study computer science end up using those skills to write those products with the surveillance features. Should we not practise computer science as well, just to be on the safe side? I don't understand this argument at all.
  - netbioserror 2y ago
    This sort of braindead absurd reduction shouldn't belong in this place but is tragically what I've come to expect. Christ alive.

fragmede 2y ago

looking forwards to the black mirror episode where the user's standing desk height is used to reverse engineer all sorts of tidbits about the users habits to sell them more stuff