4 ms·

Absolutely. Your IoT devices should be on their own 2.4ghz network running on a specific channel to isolate them. You should also firewall these devices pretty

by chrneu 1y ago

Absolutely. Your IoT devices should be on their own 2.4ghz network running on a specific channel to isolate them. You should also firewall these devices pretty heavily on their own router. The only devices on wifi should be cell phones and laptops if they can't be plugged in. Everything else, including TVs, should be ethernet. When I moved into my last house with roommates their network was gaaarbage cuz everything was running off the same router. The 2.4ghz congestion slowed the 5ghz connections because the router was having to deal with so much 2.4ghz noise. A good way of thinking about it is that every 2.4ghz device you add onto a network will slow all the other devices by a small amount. This compounds as you add more devices. So those smart lights? Yeaaahh

drnick1 1y ago
My advice would be NOT to connect any kind of TV to the Internet. They have microphones and sometimes cameras, and are a huge privacy risk.
- bdangubic 1y ago
  so does your phone :)
  - drnick1 1y ago
    Yes, but unlike TVs, my phone runs free software (Graphene) and is free of the spyware "smart" TVs are known for.
    - whatevaa 1y ago
      Most people don't run Graphene so point stands.
      - drnick1 1y ago
        Most people don't know that Big Tech is extracting data from them on a massive scale. It's up to us, the "tech people," to educate the people and show them alternatives like Graphene. As for the TV, my advice is not to connect it to the internet. If you need to stream something, hook up a laptop or dedicated device to the TV.
        hvb2 1y ago
        This is where regulation comes in. For the TV makers. Things should be secure by default and come with fines if they aren't. As for the extracting of data, yes that happens on a massive scale. In free products that no one is forced to use. And I would argue that, by now, almost everyone should know that comes at a price, it's just not monetary to the user. At that point it's a choice people make and should be allowed to make.
        franga2000 1y ago
        The "it spies on you because it's free" thing hasn't been true for many years now. TVs that cost almost a grand still spy on you, as do cars that cost tens of thousands. Youtube/Netflix/Spotify/... still spy on you even if you pay for the premium/whatever tier. If something is free, you're the product. But if it isn't free, you're paying to be the product.
- inkyoto 1y ago
  If one must forgo the comfort of complete isolation from the vulgarities of contemporary media and visual indulgence – an unwise choice, yet one that many appear compelled to make – then prudence demands mitigation rather than surrender. A measured compromise would entail the meticulous profiling of the TV’s network traffic, followed by the imposition of complete blocking at the DNS level (via Pi-hole, NextDNS and alike) first, whilst blacklisting the outgoing CIDR's on the router itself at the same time. This course of action shall not eliminate the privacy invasion risk in its entirety – for a mere firmware update may well redirect the TV traffic to novel hosts – yet it shall transform a reckless exposure into a calculated and therefore manageable risk.
  - ipython 1y ago
    I don't connect my TVs to the Internet; instead I hook up Apple TVs to an HDMI port and just use the TV as God intended - as a dumb display device. The Apple TV is connected to the Internet and functions as my portal to, as you say, the vulgarities of contemporary media and visual indulgence. Without the downsides of buggy and spyware ridden TV firmware.
    - drnick1 1y ago
      The Apple TV box is better than a TV from a privacy standpoint (no microphone or camera), but it still does not give the user enough freedom. The App Store is the only way to install software, and it is tightly controlled by Apple. This means things such as ad-free frontends from Youtube are regularly purged, and Apple won't even allow you to install a browser.
cycomanic 1y ago
> When I moved into my last house with roommates their network was gaaarbage cuz everything was running off the same router. The 2.4ghz congestion slowed the 5ghz connections because the router was having to deal with so much 2.4ghz noise. I don't know why you're saying, a 2.4 GHz device should not interfere with 5 GHz channels unless it's somehow emits some harmonics, which would most definitely make i noncompliant with various FC standards. Or do you mean the modem was so crappy it couldn't deal with processing noisy 2.4 GHz channels at the same time as 5GHz ones? That might be true, but I would assume the modems would run completely different DSP chains on different asics, so this would be surprising.
- robocat 1y ago
  > do you mean the modem was so crappy > but I would assume the modems Your assumption is sometimes incorrect as cheap devices can share some RF front end. Also apparently resource contention can also occur due to CPU, thermal, and memory issues. https://chatgpt.com/share/68e9d2ee-01a4-8004-b27b-01e9083f7e70 https://chatgpt.com/share/68e9d2ee-01a4-8004-b27b-01e9083f7e... (Note that Prof is one "character" I have defined in the prompt customisation) Or: https://g.co/gemini/share/1e8d55831809 https://g.co/gemini/share/1e8d55831809
  - ssl-3 1y ago
    Ah, splendid. I'm so glad that you have come before me today to present this bot's confounding quandary, and I receive it with tremendous glee. Please allow me to proffer the following retort: The answer to having a shitty, incapable router is to use one that is not shitty, and is capable. (The routing-bits have no clue what RF spectrum is being utilized, and never have. They just deal with packets. The packets are all shaped the same way regardless of the physical interface on which they arrive, or which they are destined for.)
    - robocat 1y ago
      There's no need to be rude. cycomanic knows stuff but their answer was basically contradicting chrneu, which nobody likes. It is counterintuitive to me (and I'm guessing cycomanic too) that the different bands should interact so much. The AI answers passed my shit-detector... And I think it is the same as trying to be helpful but providing a search link in the past. Other HN users can make their own decision about reading the prompt or reply (although using links does make me wonder about cross account tracking and doxing myself).

by chrneu 1y ago

drnick1 1y ago

My advice would be NOT to connect any kind of TV to the Internet. They have microphones and sometimes cameras, and are a huge privacy risk.

bdangubic 1y ago
so does your phone :)
- drnick1 1y ago
  Yes, but unlike TVs, my phone runs free software (Graphene) and is free of the spyware "smart" TVs are known for.
  - whatevaa 1y ago
    Most people don't run Graphene so point stands.
    - drnick1 1y ago
      Most people don't know that Big Tech is extracting data from them on a massive scale. It's up to us, the "tech people," to educate the people and show them alternatives like Graphene. As for the TV, my advice is not to connect it to the internet. If you need to stream something, hook up a laptop or dedicated device to the TV.
      - hvb2 1y ago
        This is where regulation comes in. For the TV makers. Things should be secure by default and come with fines if they aren't. As for the extracting of data, yes that happens on a massive scale. In free products that no one is forced to use. And I would argue that, by now, almost everyone should know that comes at a price, it's just not monetary to the user. At that point it's a choice people make and should be allowed to make.
        franga2000 1y ago
        The "it spies on you because it's free" thing hasn't been true for many years now. TVs that cost almost a grand still spy on you, as do cars that cost tens of thousands. Youtube/Netflix/Spotify/... still spy on you even if you pay for the premium/whatever tier. If something is free, you're the product. But if it isn't free, you're paying to be the product.
inkyoto 1y ago
If one must forgo the comfort of complete isolation from the vulgarities of contemporary media and visual indulgence – an unwise choice, yet one that many appear compelled to make – then prudence demands mitigation rather than surrender. A measured compromise would entail the meticulous profiling of the TV’s network traffic, followed by the imposition of complete blocking at the DNS level (via Pi-hole, NextDNS and alike) first, whilst blacklisting the outgoing CIDR's on the router itself at the same time. This course of action shall not eliminate the privacy invasion risk in its entirety – for a mere firmware update may well redirect the TV traffic to novel hosts – yet it shall transform a reckless exposure into a calculated and therefore manageable risk.
- ipython 1y ago
  I don't connect my TVs to the Internet; instead I hook up Apple TVs to an HDMI port and just use the TV as God intended - as a dumb display device. The Apple TV is connected to the Internet and functions as my portal to, as you say, the vulgarities of contemporary media and visual indulgence. Without the downsides of buggy and spyware ridden TV firmware.
  - drnick1 1y ago
    The Apple TV box is better than a TV from a privacy standpoint (no microphone or camera), but it still does not give the user enough freedom. The App Store is the only way to install software, and it is tightly controlled by Apple. This means things such as ad-free frontends from Youtube are regularly purged, and Apple won't even allow you to install a browser.

cycomanic 1y ago

> When I moved into my last house with roommates their network was gaaarbage cuz everything was running off the same router. The 2.4ghz congestion slowed the 5ghz connections because the router was having to deal with so much 2.4ghz noise. I don't know why you're saying, a 2.4 GHz device should not interfere with 5 GHz channels unless it's somehow emits some harmonics, which would most definitely make i noncompliant with various FC standards. Or do you mean the modem was so crappy it couldn't deal with processing noisy 2.4 GHz channels at the same time as 5GHz ones? That might be true, but I would assume the modems would run completely different DSP chains on different asics, so this would be surprising.

robocat 1y ago
> do you mean the modem was so crappy > but I would assume the modems Your assumption is sometimes incorrect as cheap devices can share some RF front end. Also apparently resource contention can also occur due to CPU, thermal, and memory issues. https://chatgpt.com/share/68e9d2ee-01a4-8004-b27b-01e9083f7e70 https://chatgpt.com/share/68e9d2ee-01a4-8004-b27b-01e9083f7e... (Note that Prof is one "character" I have defined in the prompt customisation) Or: https://g.co/gemini/share/1e8d55831809 https://g.co/gemini/share/1e8d55831809
- ssl-3 1y ago
  Ah, splendid. I'm so glad that you have come before me today to present this bot's confounding quandary, and I receive it with tremendous glee. Please allow me to proffer the following retort: The answer to having a shitty, incapable router is to use one that is not shitty, and is capable. (The routing-bits have no clue what RF spectrum is being utilized, and never have. They just deal with packets. The packets are all shaped the same way regardless of the physical interface on which they arrive, or which they are destined for.)
  - robocat 1y ago
    There's no need to be rude. cycomanic knows stuff but their answer was basically contradicting chrneu, which nobody likes. It is counterintuitive to me (and I'm guessing cycomanic too) that the different bands should interact so much. The AI answers passed my shit-detector... And I think it is the same as trying to be helpful but providing a search link in the past. Other HN users can make their own decision about reading the prompt or reply (although using links does make me wonder about cross account tracking and doxing myself).