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

More awful IoT stuff

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 245 posts

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#71

Post by CaptSpify »

bgentry wrote: post #69
CaptSpify wrote: post #66

I just blogged about this yesterday. In short: > The line in the sand for me is: network vs cloud-based systems. I want things to be network connected, but I want it for my own network only. I want to be able to control my coffee pot, but only from home. If I choose to expose this over the internet, great! It's up to me to make sure it's secure. I don't want anyone making that decision for me. I also want it to be up…

The network model you describe sounds just like Apple's HomeKit.

Is that compatible with non-apple devices? I generally dislike apple philosophically, so I avoid their products.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#72

Post by ksk »

CaptSpify wrote: post #66

I just blogged about this yesterday. In short: > The line in the sand for me is: network vs cloud-based systems. I want things to be network connected, but I want it for my own network only. I want to be able to control my coffee pot, but only from home. If I choose to expose this over the internet, great! It's up to me to make sure it's secure. I don't want anyone making that decision for me. I also want it to be up…

> I'm willing to pay a lot of money for standalone quality devices, but nobody is supplying!

You could pay an amateur electronics hacker to make you such devices.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#73

Post by jsondata »

I also mentioned this in a recent blog post: https://www.jsondata.io/blog/2016/iot-needs-a-cloud/

> Right now, the cloud - especially for IoT - isn't a healthy ecosystem. Your shiny new smart thermostat might as well be dialing into AOL on a dedicated landline. And unlike public services, these proprietary service providers lack long-term guarantees of service availability.

> What we need is a push for openness and interoperability in the cloud, and that will only happen if consumers demand it. The service providers are incentivized to do just the opposite.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#74

Post by josho »

oliwarner wrote: post #60
Klathmon wrote: post #4

>It's running Linux and includes Busybox and dnsmasq, so plenty of GPLed code. I emailed the manufacturer asking for a copy and got told that they wouldn't give it to me, which is unsurprising but still disappointing. Has the GPL really lost it's power that much? I mean not responding to inquiries is one thing, but outright saying no?

Lost its power? This is just copyright apathy. Nothing new, especially in China. Look at it from the manufacturer's point of view. They know how expensive this would be to take to China and prosecute and they know they're a tiny fish. It's simply a reasoned gamble that saying no is the fastest, most efficient way to get this dealt with. Much easier than auditing the code, having the developer separate out sensitive d…

This makes me wonder how imports are handled. If I can buy a third party power supply from a US based order system (amazon), and this ps is dangerous (eg. those knock off Apple power supplies). How is this legal, presumably the device hasn't passed safety regulations here. So, there must be some way to stop this product from entering the country. Why isn't that mechanism happening?

Same applies for this device. If a mfg is infringing on copyright then shouldn't we have a mechanism to stop it from being imported?

It strikes me that we have two laws in this country. The laws for those with money/power (e.g. MPAA to protect US corporate media interests), and then those same laws that are not applied to protect consumers. Is the only difference that MPAA has lawyers to ensure copyright infringement stops while consumers don't?

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#75

Post by cosmeen »

unwiredben wrote: post #56
manyxcxi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that easy. I stick with brands/products that are reviewed by people I trust or have seemed to pick up some momentum. My general rule of thumb is I NEVER buy anything IoT that is WiFi based. Zigbee or Z-Wave based devices will save you a lot of security nightmares (though definitely not all).

If it's not connected to the Internet, isn't that just a Network of Things?

You mean Intranet of Things.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#76

Post by georgehotelling »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #35
manyxcxi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that easy. I stick with brands/products that are reviewed by people I trust or have seemed to pick up some momentum. My general rule of thumb is I NEVER buy anything IoT that is WiFi based. Zigbee or Z-Wave based devices will save you a lot of security nightmares (though definitely not all).

Why is Z* preferable to Wifi-based?

Say you wanted to build a protocol for IoT stuff. What would be on your feature list?

Low power: it should not require much in the way of network traffic or heartbeats so that you could leave the radio mostly off.

Mesh networking: ideally the devices should be able to repeat commands so that they could be low-power and not have to broadcast across entire houses.

Secure: it should have specific ways to join a network that don't require a keyboard on the device.

IoT application focused: the protocol should make it easy to do things like turn a device on/off, set a value or read a value.

Z-Wave and Zigbee do these things (for the most part), while WiFi is sort of hacked to try to maybe accomplish it. For instance, my Z-wave thermostat has been running off the same lithium AA batteries for about a year now, and the battery level is at 77%. I can't imagine a WiFi device being able to achieve that.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#77

Post by kps »

FussyZeus wrote: post #45
ju-st wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which problems do you want to solve with these IoT devices? What should they do? In my opinion existing IoT devices generally replace simple, proven systems with complex and abstruse ones.

A good example would be the smart outlet ones, so I could for example setup one to automatically power cycle my cable modem and router, or even one that could handle the load of a space heater I keep in my office during the winter months and switch it on 15 minutes before I get home. I don't even need the ability to manage it over the WAN, I'd be fine with just something my linux boxes at home could handle with cron…

  > I could for example setup one to automatically
  > power cycle my cable modem and router
It's turtles all the way down.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#78

Post by FussyZeus »

tunap wrote: post #52
FussyZeus wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I'm getting at though, there is clearly a market for consumer ready devices that don't cost what solutions like that do and don't need a contractor to install them. I mean you can't tell me that in today's world we couldn't manufacture an outlet with electronic control of the flow of current out of it's outlets, and do it in such a way that uses proper SSL and endpoints, without having to price it so high…

I totally agree, the demand & the means exist. However, the intent of retail providers is anything but enabling simple, automated controls. Everything is about grabbing the data cash bag and, as an afterthought, let's personalize your experience. I have been pondering this and the only conclusion I can come up with is the market controllers(more than mere "forces") have much to gain by selling the perception instead…

I suppose but it still seems like a copout (not on you of course, on them) to play the brand lock-in game. You don't need a centralized server to personalize and operating those servers, even on something like AWS, costs money. Why not put that on the consumer instead? Many consumers I know would prefer the roll-your-own solution and it saves the manufacturer money.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#79

Post by schneidmaster »

oliwarner wrote: post #60
Klathmon wrote: post #4

>It's running Linux and includes Busybox and dnsmasq, so plenty of GPLed code. I emailed the manufacturer asking for a copy and got told that they wouldn't give it to me, which is unsurprising but still disappointing. Has the GPL really lost it's power that much? I mean not responding to inquiries is one thing, but outright saying no?

Lost its power? This is just copyright apathy. Nothing new, especially in China. Look at it from the manufacturer's point of view. They know how expensive this would be to take to China and prosecute and they know they're a tiny fish. It's simply a reasoned gamble that saying no is the fastest, most efficient way to get this dealt with. Much easier than auditing the code, having the developer separate out sensitive d…

I'm also curious how many manufacturers (especially of questionable-quality products like this) simply don't bother to read and understand the licenses of the OSS they're using. I suspect it's a lot.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#80

Post by euroclydon »

josho wrote: post #74
oliwarner wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lost its power? This is just copyright apathy. Nothing new, especially in China. Look at it from the manufacturer's point of view. They know how expensive this would be to take to China and prosecute and they know they're a tiny fish. It's simply a reasoned gamble that saying no is the fastest, most efficient way to get this dealt with. Much easier than auditing the code, having the developer separate out sensitive d…

This makes me wonder how imports are handled. If I can buy a third party power supply from a US based order system (amazon), and this ps is dangerous (eg. those knock off Apple power supplies). How is this legal, presumably the device hasn't passed safety regulations here. So, there must be some way to stop this product from entering the country. Why isn't that mechanism happening? Same applies for this device. If a…

Right, but can't Amazon or Home Depot be sued?
Post reply on HN