Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 325 posts

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#281

Post by felipeerias »

dcexqm wrote: post #13
binarymax wrote: post #3

I feel like I'm missing out on a huge bulk of money simply because when I have ideas of "Internet of Things", I cant get over the security obstacles and cancel the ideas. If only I just didn't care (or didnt know) and just implemented whatever the heck brought in money from oblivious customers.

Under pressure in an interview, yesterday, I found myself saying "'The Internet of Things' is short for 'The Internet of Things you don't need, sending surveillance data you don't want, to people you don't know.'"

Smart things? Sure.

Smart, connected things? Yes, maybe.

Smart things connecting over the Internet to a corporate cloud? Hell no.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#282

Post by uxp »

aidenn0 wrote: post #275
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you even buy those anymore? The GP is right: most new thermostats don't take power from the 24VAC line. That surprised me when my heat wouldn't come on one morning because the battery was too weak to pull in the relay for more than a few seconds. That's what I get for ignoring the "low battery" warning! All my previous electronic thermostats only used the battery as a backup. In any case, are you really saying th…

I guess when I think of a "dumb" thermostat I think non-electronic. None of the 5 places I've lived in as an adult has had an electronic thermostat.

I should have been more specific by stating the difference between a dumb digital thermostat as I was describing, and a truly analog thermostat like the Honeywell T87.

A dumb digital thermostat is just a thermocouple and a relay, which you could rig together with very little EE knowledge and a weekend with an Arduino.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#283

Post by jameshart »

I wonder if a more fruitful attack target than the lights in other rooms might be the android switches themselves. Even cheap commodity android tablets contain cameras or at least microphones. There's almost certainly a remote update interface on them of some sort.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#284

Post by Spooky23 »

Technology for technology's sake is a real shitshow and a big problem.

I was in my friend's Honda Pilot the other day, which has the new trendy big screen interface to replace the radio. I'm sure it is insecure junk, but more importantly it is a nightmare for humans.

I have a BS in CS, have developed some enterprise apps, run major complex tech programs successfully, and could program my dad's VCR in the early 80s. And... It took me nearly 10 minutes to figure out how to turn off the radio on the weird touchscreen.

To turn the radio on requires 4 clicks, and the key button is on the corner of the screen, where it is least responsive to touch. I would probably be safer driving with my knees and texting with two hands than controlling that radios.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#285

Post by ChuckMcM »

gherkin0 wrote: post #248
zyxley wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I learned that before that clause had been part of the standard contract, there had been a manufacturer who decided unilaterally that half of the noise suppression capacitors in the schematic were "unneeded." I don't understand how putting that in the contract is supposed to help if the manufacturer being used is pulling stupid "you didn't say the product actually had to work" semantics games that would get them sm…

I'm totally speculating, but it could be that such clauses make the breach of contract case easier and cheaper to win. It could also be that such clear terms are useful in other jurisdictions where shenanigans like that wouldn't be smacked down without them.

This is exactly right. When you disagree with a supplier you can only disagree based on the contract, and if someone could reasonably (and there is a wide latitude here for "reasonably") argue their interpretation was within the constraints of the contract than your remediation options are limited.

If you read contracts a lot (and over the years I've probably read a couple of thousand and negotiated maybe 100 or so) you will begin to see clauses that are in the contract which specifically prevent what was clearly a problem before that had not been decided as being in breach, so the added clause insures that in future contracts it would be decided as being in breach.

My lawyer once told me that every contract tells a story if you know how to read it. The more I've read, the more I have come to appreciate that sentiment.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#286

Post by jkire »

potatolicious wrote: post #258
jkire wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: Don't the other companies talk about security in their replies to the RFQ? Wouldn't that cause the original company to stop and ask the other repliers about the security they would implement (if they didn't mention security)?

Well that's just it, security is talked about but the buyer (the hotel in this case) is often not in a position to actually evaluate the vendor's claims. You can put down "device should not be hackable" but without their own competent IT arm the hotel can't possibly verify the product delivers on the security promise.

> Well that's just it, security is talked about but the buyer (the hotel in this case) is often not in a position to actually evaluate the vendor's claims.

But at least the buyer becomes aware that security might be an issues, and thus take it into account when making the final decision. (Even if its just "take the lowest bidder that talks about security convincingly"). OTOH, this doesn't work for buyers that don't actually care.

> You can put down "device should not be hackable" but without their own competent IT arm the hotel can't possibly verify the product delivers on the security promise.

Sure, but if the vendor puts this in the contract and the hotel does get hacked, isn't the vendor then suddenly liable?

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#287

Post by elinchrome »

x0x0 wrote: post #240
stestagg wrote: post #193

When I stayed there, it was just as soul destroying to use these things as you might imagine. The implementation felt like they'd asked a VB6 dabbler to implement it in Java. Then stuck it in the cheapest 600mhz tablet they could find. The UI was purely a button grid with distorted graphics, and dodgy typography. Button presses took about 1/2 a second to respond, and every 5th press caused the app to crash (adding a…

Light switches that can fucking crash! Now I'm living in the future. I keep waiting for this iot/we put a chip in it/etc to produce results that are an improvement ...

It's like on the pilot of Futurama. As Fry leaves the cryogenics he woke up in, the door automatically whooshes open. He stands under it and looks up, only to have it slam down into his face.

On the DVD commentary, one of the writers explained that the future will be like Star Trek, but nothing will work. It's turning out to be true.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#288

Post by [deleted] »

acdha wrote: post #241
Jean-Philipe wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on all your points, except: > This is exactly the mechanism that gets people in trouble going to China for manufacturing. I keep hearing about the "cheap Chinese tech", even though nowadays a lot of high-quality gadgets are really Chinese. Even Apple's products are mostly from China. And it's not even for the cheap prices, it's because the entire production chain is there[1] The mistake is not going…

This is a great point, and there's a close parallel with the way that people make similar comments about Indian developers and completely ignore the many highly-qualified developers who just won't work at lowest-payer wages.

[deleted]

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#289

Post by ilvnvtoomuch »

Last week's episode, Ask This Old House, had something similar. They swapped a normal front door lock/handle with a Bluetooth (or WiFi) controlled unit. The phone could be used with an optional WiFi extender. My head swirled with so many scenarios where things could be bad.

1) Leave the phone in the home, you'll never be able to get in! 2) Wireshark the WiFi 3) Hijack the signal

I'm sure the dark side is waiting for us all to adopt IoT in our homes. I prefer my mechanical locks, thank you.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#290

Post by goodcanadian »

gregmac wrote: post #256
goodcanadian wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these things sound like killer applications, and few of them require any kind of computational power let alone networking. There are much simpler ways of accomplishing the same things. That is my point; IoT proponents are adding unnecessary complexity for dubious gains. Some examples: You want to have your lights come on at a certain time. I can get a timer at a hardware store. You want to add motion detectio…

I've long been interested in "home automation" stuff, so I'll give you a quick example of what I have at my house now that can't be done with timers/motion sensors from the hardware store. There's keypad in the entrance to the kitchen, with buttons labelled "Bright" "Dim" and "All off". If you press Bright, all of the lights (sink, under-cabinet, range hood, and island) turn on 100%. Dim sets just the under-cabinet l…

Thank you. Genuinely interesting, and in my opinion, one of the few examples of the technology done right.

I would point out that the three different switches on opposites sides of the kitchen sounds more like an issue of poor switch placement (admittedly, a common problem) than anything crying out for automation, but the ability to control sets of lights with one button is intriguing.

I think the take-away is this:

> Is any of this game-changing? Not really. It's interesting to me, it's not overly expensive (especially as I have built this up over time), and it's a nice albeit minor quality-of-life thing.

Which I contrast with: "Let's hook my toaster up to the internet because: Internet of Things!" which seems to be the prevailing attitude.

Post reply on HN