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

Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 253 posts

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#141

Post by throwaway2016a »

alphaalpha101 wrote: post #139
throwaway2016a wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to believe for technical reasons. From what I can tell in the Network traffic the speaker actually talks directly to Spotify for instance. They would need to have a remote kill switch and use it. Secondly, they have done this before (forced agreeing to the terms to do a software update) and every time they have warned "some functionality might cease to work" and every time I kept using it past the cuto…

So they've already released 'updates' that break the device and reduces its feature set, and you're okay with this?

From what I understand that one was more Audible's fault than there's. It sounded like Amazon deprecated the API. I am sure if I kept using it without updating that it would eventually stop working. Anyone who got effected by that should blame Amazon.

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#142

Post by s73ver_ »

mhb wrote: post #87
crispyambulance wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can play stuff you physically own from a Roku too. Are you saying that Sonos could arbitrarily upload your media files to their servers? Doubtful. At worst, they could do a sound-print analysis locally on the device to identify it and send the metadata to Sonos. I am trying to think of concrete examples of scenarios where actual harm would REALISTICALLY be done to individual consumers because of Sonos privacy pol…

1. Government 'dissident' listens to 'subversive' podcasts via Sonos. 2. Government compels Sonos to provide data on customers' listening histories. 3. Chilling effect, political implications, oppression.

I'm not pleased at this Sonos development either, but that's way too tinfoil hat for me.

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#143

Post by eponeponepon »

Naga wrote: post #140
dvdhnt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, I would agree, and in the broadest sense of the terms, they are not equal. You can call anything whatever you want; you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. England used taxation as a way to maintain control over its colonies regardless of how it turned out. Eventually, and most famously, the U.S. realized the taxation was a form of oppression and not for the common good. People who didn't pay t…

The American Revolution isn't nearly as clear cut as that. It wasn't anti-taxation, it was anti-taxation without representation. The colonists were objecting to being taxed without having a say in the levying of the taxes. There were many colonial Americans who would have been happy returning Members to Parliament without independence. The core of the issue really was that Britain defended the American colonies from…

> The American Revolution isn't nearly as clear cut as that.

This is an entirely legitimate statement.

> ...now it is Britain freeloading on American military spending.

...but this you're really going to have to back up. Can you point to a specific example and explain why it's 'freeloading'?

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#144

Post by Sir_Substance »

leggomylibro wrote: post #103
justinjlynn wrote: post #2

It seems like nobody actually owns anything any more - that we're all just digital serfs living on someone else's land. I really don't know why anyone would willingly make such a deal.

The answer is, nobody does. They implicitly agree under duress, because their time is worth far too much to even read 10 pages of fine print for every product they use. I'm not being flippant; it bloody well is. I'm not sure why courts consider that to hold any weight; to me it goes against the whole notion of informed consent in binding agreements. And to be fair, often the courts don't consider to hold any weight.

>They implicitly agree under duress, because their time is worth far too much to even read 10 pages of fine print for every product they use. I'm not being flippant; it bloody well is.

You don't need to read 10 pages of fine print for every product, because it's functionally the same fine print for every product.

If you don't like this, don't ever buy smart devices because they /all/ reserve the right to do this kind of stuff.

I avoid smart devices like the plague. If I want my speakers smart, I'll connect them to a suitable control unit. The only thing I want from my speakers is for them to translate electrical waves into pressure waves, the more accurate the better.

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#146

Post by inopinatus »

cm2187 wrote: post #102

To be honest I had a pretty average experience with Sonos so far. It is connected with cat6 ethernet, professional switches, with no other connectivity problems on that network (and I tested all cables). I have 3 systems (pay1, play 5 and the sonos amp), and they keep losing track of each others, I have to regroup them regularly. They also struggle with long music tracks (i.e. 1h podcasts off a synology shared drive)…

Turn off the wireless interfaces.

Instructions I followed which solved everything: https://bsteiner.info/articles/disabling-sonos-wifi

Sonos's spanning tree implementation is problematic (and anachronistic: last I looked, it was using classic STP not RSTP). In a similar situation I've watched them flap away merrily, spitting constant topology change BPDUs at each other through both interfaces. It's not a pretty sight.

They seem to me to be totally in denial about it, judging by their forums. Lots of blame-the-customer and blame-someone-else's-device, and very little (or no) technical documentation. I think they are a speaker manufacturer first, a streaming audio interface second, and a networking company a very distant third.

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#147

Post by kybernetikos »

syshum wrote: post #95
justinjlynn wrote: post #2

It seems like nobody actually owns anything any more - that we're all just digital serfs living on someone else's land. I really don't know why anyone would willingly make such a deal.

Open Source, Open Hardware, Open Protocols That is the only way

I've got a bunch of hardware that plugs into specific services like Pocket (ebook reader) or Spotify (my hifi). If those services go away, or for some reason I don't want to use them, there's no way for me to get equivalent functionality with some simlar service (e.g. I'd rather use pinboard.in than pocket).

I would much prefer it if all of these services followed a publicly documented protocol and allowed me to configure which endpoint they talked to. I can't see this ever happening without regulation though.

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#148

Post by xg15 »

pantsofhonking wrote: post #104

Wow talk about blowing something out of proportion. The new software comes with new terms. If you don't accept the new terms you keep the existing software. Over time, it is possible that current software sill stop working with e.g. some future Pandora API, and you'll have a choice of either updating your software or foregoing that feature. I have a Sonos in every room of my house and I've owned them since the very f…

Whatever the rationale, the posts's core statement - that either people accept new contract terms or their device will brick the next time they change the API - is correct.

[edit] apparently the models have a line-in socket? In that case, I agree, them turning into regular speakers is better than bricking. However, I still think the article is relevant as it highlights the problem of ownership and terms of sale with IoT devices. (The conditions under which you bought the device can change arbitrarily after the sale)

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#149

Post by blktiger »

crummy wrote: post #114
stock_toaster wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the units are also wifi connected (sonos mesh networking), then either only plug in one of them to ethernet, or fiddle with your switch spanning tree cost values. As I recall, sonos uses the older standard spanning tree values, and until I fiddled with my managed switch settings, the sonos were regularly bringing down my local network, and/or winning the elections so that large amounts of my lan traffic went over…

^ I worked in Sonos support for 7 years and going wired for everything is the best configuration - if you're still having issues with that then spanning tree configuration is the likely cause.

I found Sonos support to be super helpful. First time I've talked with a support representative where I came away impressed with how knowledgeable they were.

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#150

Post by MikeGale »

I suspect that legislators are so far behind the curve on this, that they'll never protect decent humans from such guys.

Answer: Forget the protection afforded by the state. Protect yourself. Blacklist the scum manufacturers, warn your acquaintances.

What other suggestions.

Post reply on HN