3 ms·

This is a real shame. BLE and ANT+ are fundamentally different, the latter being a broadcast protocol. You can have any number of devices connected/logging the

This is a real shame. BLE and ANT+ are fundamentally different, the latter being a broadcast protocol. You can have any number of devices connected/logging the broadcast of an ANT+ device, while BLE is usually limited to one or two devices. I am sure is not a fundamental limitation of BLE but is the reality for the currently available chipsets. The fact that it is unencrypted is completely irrelevant. My heart rate data over a short period of time is not useful to anyone but myself, and that is the only personal data any of my ANT+ devices broadcast. Unless you consider cadence to be personal information but that is also broadcasted to the world visually and is no more secret than the colour of my running or cycling shorts. The rest of my devices broadcast mechanical, device status and/or environmental data.

WD-42 2y ago
Maybe encryption isn't important for you, but it is for some people, especially professional athletes. Imagine a Tour De France rider or their follow car being able to read the heart rate of their competitor - this could easily inform their strategy.
- stonogo 2y ago
  We're really going to screw things up for everyone else because of a couple dozen professional bike racers? This deal sucks
  - WD-42 2y ago
    Are we really going to argue in 2025 that encryption is too hard?
    - nradov 2y ago
      We are really going to argue in 2025 that encryption is too hard when you want a cheap, tiny sensor to operate for months on a single CR2032 battery.
      - WD-42 2y ago
        So like my wireless shifters whose battery I haven’t changed in over a year.
        nradov 2y ago
        Wireless shifters only transmit when you press a button. Power consumption is higher with other sensors that transmit continuously at 1Hz: heart rate, running foot pods, wheel speed, cadence, etc.
        WD-42 2y ago
        Exactly. Transmitting over radio continuously is what is expensive, not encrypting a couple of bytes.
      - teruakohatu 2y ago
        > tiny sensor to operate for months on a single CR2032 battery. Not to mention real-time broadcasting of sensor data to multiple devices. In the case of HR data: ~1 update per second which is usually broadcasted three times in succession to ensure transmission)
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        I'd want to see actual numbers. Radio transmit is expensive power-wise. The numbers I'm seeing for BLE energy per bit are all over the place, but the numbers I found for some SHA3 testing say that even with a pretty old chip fab you can make a circuit that encrypts more than 10 bytes per nanojoule. That's a pretty small tax.
    - yencabulator 2y ago
      Good handshakes are actually hard. There's no UI on these gadgets, and often not even a single button! Consider going to a public gym and wanting your heartrate to show on the exercise bike -- you'll be pairing it right there, in public.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Reducing the risk to handshake is already pretty good, but also that's going to be quite hard to MitM. Just use diffie-hellman.
- KetoManx64 2y ago
  If they care about that kind of privacy why would they not buy a device that has encryption for the broadcasting?
- phren0logy 2y ago
  If this scenario is relevant for anyone, it's a tiny number of people. That leaves 99.99% of the fitness market.
- fulafel 2y ago
  It's health and presence info. In surveillance capitalism your or your flat neighbour's devices might capture it, upload to cloud and sell it, the buyer of the info might combine it with location data etc to bind it to your identity, and sell it onwards. The next time you buy health insurance or are involved in a court case the data may be used against your interests. (probably someone can invent a still more nefarious scenario)
- tw04 2y ago
  Imagine a Tour de France team who spends millions of dollars being unwilling to find a company to build them a custom monitor that supports heart rate monitoring with an encrypted data stream if they can’t find one off the shelf. 30 seconds of searching shows me the polar h10 is already multiprotocol and supports Bluetooth. https://www.polar.com/us-en/sensors/h10-heart-rate-sensor/ https://www.polar.com/us-en/sensors/h10-heart-rate-sensor/
  - Manouchehri 2y ago
    The Polar H10 broadcasts your heart rate unencrypted in ADV_IND frames last time I checked.
- nradov 2y ago
  It seems that pro cycling teams aren't actually very concerned about this. https://www.facebook.com/dcrainmaker/posts/pfbid02doLyLhNSwTx4gj1oe7DEQhbh44u7uNLXUezteBqFcnzuP2gPYCwEyFApLfrKHxf7l?comment_id=925720463033096&reply_comment_id=619518010420549 https://www.facebook.com/dcrainmaker/posts/pfbid02doLyLhNSwT...
markrages 2y ago
Ant also broadcasts a unique(-ish) identifier. This was enough to end Nike+. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike%2BiPod#Wireless_protocol_data_and_privacy_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike%2BiPod#Wireless_protocol_...
markrages 2y ago
> I am sure is not a fundamental but is the reality for the currently available chipsets. It is pretty fundamental. Ant has an inverted master/slave (or whatever we're calling it nowdays) relationship. In Ant, the sensor determines the timing, and can broadcast to many receivers. In Bluetooth, the central device (phone) determines the timing, and each sensor connects to one central with a one-to-one connection. There are ways around this limitation of BLE: 1. A few bytes of data can be stuffed in BLE advertising, so the sensor can communicate without a connection in the Ant style. To my knowledge, none of the Ant+-replacing profiles support this. 2. The sensor can basically run multiple instances of bluetooth stack at the same time to connect to multiple central devices. This basically doubles the resource usage, and good luck determining if your sensor supports this without trying it. #2 appears to be the path forward. A few sensors support it already, and the next generation of radio SOCs will make the resource requirements less onerous.
m463 2y ago
Ok, I know this doesn't make much sense with relation to ANT+ or heart rate stuff but... I read recently that the bluetooth standard was getting a broadcast protocol. this seems like a no-brainer, think of uses like museums or movie theaters, let alone your television EDIT: it is public broadcast protocol PBP EDIT2: wasn't the protocol used in gyms anyway not ANT+ but the protocol developed by polar?

WD-42 2y ago

Maybe encryption isn't important for you, but it is for some people, especially professional athletes. Imagine a Tour De France rider or their follow car being able to read the heart rate of their competitor - this could easily inform their strategy.

stonogo 2y ago
We're really going to screw things up for everyone else because of a couple dozen professional bike racers? This deal sucks
- WD-42 2y ago
  Are we really going to argue in 2025 that encryption is too hard?
  - nradov 2y ago
    We are really going to argue in 2025 that encryption is too hard when you want a cheap, tiny sensor to operate for months on a single CR2032 battery.
    - WD-42 2y ago
      So like my wireless shifters whose battery I haven’t changed in over a year.
      - nradov 2y ago
        Wireless shifters only transmit when you press a button. Power consumption is higher with other sensors that transmit continuously at 1Hz: heart rate, running foot pods, wheel speed, cadence, etc.
        WD-42 2y ago
        Exactly. Transmitting over radio continuously is what is expensive, not encrypting a couple of bytes.
    - teruakohatu 2y ago
      > tiny sensor to operate for months on a single CR2032 battery. Not to mention real-time broadcasting of sensor data to multiple devices. In the case of HR data: ~1 update per second which is usually broadcasted three times in succession to ensure transmission)
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      I'd want to see actual numbers. Radio transmit is expensive power-wise. The numbers I'm seeing for BLE energy per bit are all over the place, but the numbers I found for some SHA3 testing say that even with a pretty old chip fab you can make a circuit that encrypts more than 10 bytes per nanojoule. That's a pretty small tax.
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    Good handshakes are actually hard. There's no UI on these gadgets, and often not even a single button! Consider going to a public gym and wanting your heartrate to show on the exercise bike -- you'll be pairing it right there, in public.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Reducing the risk to handshake is already pretty good, but also that's going to be quite hard to MitM. Just use diffie-hellman.
KetoManx64 2y ago
If they care about that kind of privacy why would they not buy a device that has encryption for the broadcasting?
phren0logy 2y ago
If this scenario is relevant for anyone, it's a tiny number of people. That leaves 99.99% of the fitness market.
fulafel 2y ago
It's health and presence info. In surveillance capitalism your or your flat neighbour's devices might capture it, upload to cloud and sell it, the buyer of the info might combine it with location data etc to bind it to your identity, and sell it onwards. The next time you buy health insurance or are involved in a court case the data may be used against your interests. (probably someone can invent a still more nefarious scenario)
tw04 2y ago
Imagine a Tour de France team who spends millions of dollars being unwilling to find a company to build them a custom monitor that supports heart rate monitoring with an encrypted data stream if they can’t find one off the shelf. 30 seconds of searching shows me the polar h10 is already multiprotocol and supports Bluetooth. https://www.polar.com/us-en/sensors/h10-heart-rate-sensor/ https://www.polar.com/us-en/sensors/h10-heart-rate-sensor/
- Manouchehri 2y ago
  The Polar H10 broadcasts your heart rate unencrypted in ADV_IND frames last time I checked.
nradov 2y ago
It seems that pro cycling teams aren't actually very concerned about this. https://www.facebook.com/dcrainmaker/posts/pfbid02doLyLhNSwTx4gj1oe7DEQhbh44u7uNLXUezteBqFcnzuP2gPYCwEyFApLfrKHxf7l?comment_id=925720463033096&reply_comment_id=619518010420549 https://www.facebook.com/dcrainmaker/posts/pfbid02doLyLhNSwT...

markrages 2y ago

Ant also broadcasts a unique(-ish) identifier. This was enough to end Nike+. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike%2BiPod#Wireless_protocol_data_and_privacy_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike%2BiPod#Wireless_protocol_...

markrages 2y ago

> I am sure is not a fundamental but is the reality for the currently available chipsets. It is pretty fundamental. Ant has an inverted master/slave (or whatever we're calling it nowdays) relationship. In Ant, the sensor determines the timing, and can broadcast to many receivers. In Bluetooth, the central device (phone) determines the timing, and each sensor connects to one central with a one-to-one connection. There are ways around this limitation of BLE: 1. A few bytes of data can be stuffed in BLE advertising, so the sensor can communicate without a connection in the Ant style. To my knowledge, none of the Ant+-replacing profiles support this. 2. The sensor can basically run multiple instances of bluetooth stack at the same time to connect to multiple central devices. This basically doubles the resource usage, and good luck determining if your sensor supports this without trying it. #2 appears to be the path forward. A few sensors support it already, and the next generation of radio SOCs will make the resource requirements less onerous.

m463 2y ago

Ok, I know this doesn't make much sense with relation to ANT+ or heart rate stuff but... I read recently that the bluetooth standard was getting a broadcast protocol. this seems like a no-brainer, think of uses like museums or movie theaters, let alone your television EDIT: it is public broadcast protocol PBP EDIT2: wasn't the protocol used in gyms anyway not ANT+ but the protocol developed by polar?