4 ms·

I don't want my Things to be on the Internet. I am so adamant about that that I won't even apply to IoT jobs. While the common concern is that they have poor

I don't want my Things to be on the Internet. I am so adamant about that that I won't even apply to IoT jobs. While the common concern is that they have poor security, that's not my concern. What I don't want is for my refrigerator to let my grocery store know that I'm out of milk. When I'm out of milk, I'll go to the grocery store to pick some up myself - then pay cash.

watty 11y ago
Then don't by a "smart refrigerator" or connect your refrigerator to the internet. IoT isn't being forced on people, people are embracing IoT.
- dubwubz 11y ago
  Were you not around for the Samsung smart TV outrage? People certainly weren't embracing it then, but complaining about how hard it was to find non-"smart" TVs.
- falcolas 11y ago
  How long will that be an option? There's a lot of benefits to the refrigerator makers to include IoT access, and cross-marketing opportunities with various brands out there. Just look at the current TV market for how pervasive these things can get.
  - _lce0 11y ago
    manufacturers are just steps away to place some internal 3g-like connection inside the device, so they will not need to rely on the user's connection -- while the tech is there, it's not cost effective (yet) once there, we are doom
    - micheljansen 11y ago
      This is happening already: Kindles come with 3G (though still optional) and many new cars are now sold with a 3G connection.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  You basically can't buy a TV these days and NOT connect it to the Internet, as the buggy firmware isn't fixed until long after is sold. Granted, you can use a usb stick and patch it yourself every now and then, much like your car is updated at service (but how long until cars are updated, and hacked, remotely?)
  - neonfreon 11y ago
    Easy solution: don't configure wifi on the TV.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      That is harder that it sounds in many places, because you don't get to (easily) control the radio signals that cross your house. Windows set a (very bad) precedent a long time ago that devices auto-connect to new networks, so your TV could be using your neighbor's wifi automatically. That's just the short term problem while 802.11 chips are the cheap device preferred by hardware manufacturers. This will get a lot harder to block when the LTE/WiMAX/HSPA/etc chips become cheaper and the device manufacturers start negotiating deals with the network owners for cheap low-priority batch-job rates. Your TV can store what you've been watching as long as necessary, and upload whenever the cellular network is quiet. Precedent for embedding a cellular radio already exists with "onstar". I seriously doubt anybody checks that their electronic devices aren't uploading personal data at 3:27AM once or twice a week.
keithwhor 11y ago
I'm confused. Have you never ordered pizza online? Using an app?
- mtuncer 11y ago
  things get messy if pizza shows up on the door because some "device" decided you should have pizza
  - trhway 11y ago
    >things get messy if pizza shows up on the door because some "device" decided you should have pizza it will happen anywhere, even if you wouldn't have any "devices" in your home, the "devices" present around, outside of your control, will learn enough about you, and the Big Pizza will buy those predictions to make sure that once you decide to have pizza it is already at your doorsteps waiting. Of course, the same machinery will be used to place police officer right where and when you decide to speed a bit over the limit. They will know you better than you know yourself.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  The problem with this comparison is that ordering pizza using some sort of webpage or client-side app is still fundamentally the same interaction as simply calling up the restaurant and ordering the traditional way. The same information needs to be exchanged. Some devices (e.g. a phone or pizza ordering app) require a network connection because that is fundamentally what the device is intended to do: giving you access to a telecommunication network. A phone or pizza ordering app without immediate network access is generally useless. On the other hand, a TV only needs to receive a video signal to function properly. If you take away the network, the TV is still useful (it can show traditional broadcast-only video, it can show locally-generated stuff (dvd/video game console), or whatever. You might be able to add additional utility to the TV with a network (automatic guide downloads, for example). Adding the network also brings with it the usual risks associated with being on the internet. Some may find that trading risk for features is useful. A cell phone can have a lot of utility. The problem is when people start adding network chips to products as part of this "internet of things", without considering if the utility outweighs the risks. Unfortunately, there is moral hazard in this assessment: what is good for the end user ("not being spied upon") is in conflict with the business that sees profit in data mining what used to be the end user's private activities.
Tehnix 11y ago
On the other hand, I would very much like to be able to see what I have in my refrigerator without physically checking it. It doesn't have to automatically order things, it could just generate a shopping list, based on preferences.
- mark_l_watson 11y ago
  I believe that Samsung has sold such a refrigerator in South Korea for a number of years. This actually came up at breakfast with friends this morning. My friends wife wanted to know why it was not sold in the US.
_lce0 11y ago
The problem you described sounds as "whom the device can talk to" Seems like Stalmans' model is the only viable solution: As long as the user don't control the device, the manufacturers will be allowed to make the device talk to whoever and whenever they want to

watty 11y ago

Then don't by a "smart refrigerator" or connect your refrigerator to the internet. IoT isn't being forced on people, people are embracing IoT.

dubwubz 11y ago
Were you not around for the Samsung smart TV outrage? People certainly weren't embracing it then, but complaining about how hard it was to find non-"smart" TVs.
falcolas 11y ago
How long will that be an option? There's a lot of benefits to the refrigerator makers to include IoT access, and cross-marketing opportunities with various brands out there. Just look at the current TV market for how pervasive these things can get.
- _lce0 11y ago
  manufacturers are just steps away to place some internal 3g-like connection inside the device, so they will not need to rely on the user's connection -- while the tech is there, it's not cost effective (yet) once there, we are doom
  - micheljansen 11y ago
    This is happening already: Kindles come with 3G (though still optional) and many new cars are now sold with a 3G connection.
alkonaut 11y ago
You basically can't buy a TV these days and NOT connect it to the Internet, as the buggy firmware isn't fixed until long after is sold. Granted, you can use a usb stick and patch it yourself every now and then, much like your car is updated at service (but how long until cars are updated, and hacked, remotely?)
- neonfreon 11y ago
  Easy solution: don't configure wifi on the TV.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    That is harder that it sounds in many places, because you don't get to (easily) control the radio signals that cross your house. Windows set a (very bad) precedent a long time ago that devices auto-connect to new networks, so your TV could be using your neighbor's wifi automatically. That's just the short term problem while 802.11 chips are the cheap device preferred by hardware manufacturers. This will get a lot harder to block when the LTE/WiMAX/HSPA/etc chips become cheaper and the device manufacturers start negotiating deals with the network owners for cheap low-priority batch-job rates. Your TV can store what you've been watching as long as necessary, and upload whenever the cellular network is quiet. Precedent for embedding a cellular radio already exists with "onstar". I seriously doubt anybody checks that their electronic devices aren't uploading personal data at 3:27AM once or twice a week.

keithwhor 11y ago

I'm confused. Have you never ordered pizza online? Using an app?

mtuncer 11y ago
things get messy if pizza shows up on the door because some "device" decided you should have pizza
- trhway 11y ago
  >things get messy if pizza shows up on the door because some "device" decided you should have pizza it will happen anywhere, even if you wouldn't have any "devices" in your home, the "devices" present around, outside of your control, will learn enough about you, and the Big Pizza will buy those predictions to make sure that once you decide to have pizza it is already at your doorsteps waiting. Of course, the same machinery will be used to place police officer right where and when you decide to speed a bit over the limit. They will know you better than you know yourself.
pdkl95 11y ago
The problem with this comparison is that ordering pizza using some sort of webpage or client-side app is still fundamentally the same interaction as simply calling up the restaurant and ordering the traditional way. The same information needs to be exchanged. Some devices (e.g. a phone or pizza ordering app) require a network connection because that is fundamentally what the device is intended to do: giving you access to a telecommunication network. A phone or pizza ordering app without immediate network access is generally useless. On the other hand, a TV only needs to receive a video signal to function properly. If you take away the network, the TV is still useful (it can show traditional broadcast-only video, it can show locally-generated stuff (dvd/video game console), or whatever. You might be able to add additional utility to the TV with a network (automatic guide downloads, for example). Adding the network also brings with it the usual risks associated with being on the internet. Some may find that trading risk for features is useful. A cell phone can have a lot of utility. The problem is when people start adding network chips to products as part of this "internet of things", without considering if the utility outweighs the risks. Unfortunately, there is moral hazard in this assessment: what is good for the end user ("not being spied upon") is in conflict with the business that sees profit in data mining what used to be the end user's private activities.

Tehnix 11y ago

On the other hand, I would very much like to be able to see what I have in my refrigerator without physically checking it. It doesn't have to automatically order things, it could just generate a shopping list, based on preferences.

mark_l_watson 11y ago
I believe that Samsung has sold such a refrigerator in South Korea for a number of years. This actually came up at breakfast with friends this morning. My friends wife wanted to know why it was not sold in the US.

_lce0 11y ago

The problem you described sounds as "whom the device can talk to" Seems like Stalmans' model is the only viable solution: As long as the user don't control the device, the manufacturers will be allowed to make the device talk to whoever and whenever they want to