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

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

#231

Post by tinus_hn » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 6:14 AM UTC

bogomipz wrote: post #169

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.

This is so true. I refused to update a second generation Apple TV when after several updates I realized the "updates" added zero functionality to then end user. They were just occasions to put new paid-placement crapware on the home screen. I kept up this refusal to update partly out of stubbornness and partly as an experiment. Eventually, after a few months Apple just applied the update without asking. It was at thi…

The list of services on older Apple TVs was online (and cached). The services were more like websites than like apps and you could supply your own by manipulating DNS and installing your own certificates. It could change without firmware updates.

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

#232

Post by white-flame » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 6:56 AM UTC

KMag wrote: post #230

sverige wrote: post #191

I hate all smart devices. The TV should just be a TV, the dishwasher should wash dishes, the refrigerator should keep stuff cold, the washing machine and dryer should clean my clothes, and speakers should just produce sounds. I have yet to hear any compelling reason to make these devices dependent on software.

My degree is in mechanical engineering, but I work in software development. Software is eating the world for good reasons. How many gates would it take to have a pure hardware decoder for ATSC? A microcontroller-based dishwasher timer is much cheaper to design and manufacture, and wears out more slowly under many conditions, than a mechanical timer. I wouldn't be surprised if a micontroller could wring another 1% eff…

"Smart" does not mean computer-controlled, as opposed to mechanical. "Smart" implies that it talks to and is controlled and updated via the internet and usually cell phone apps. Offline non-smart devices are still wholeheartedly welcome to use computers for internal and local control.

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

#233

Post by white-flame » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 6:59 AM UTC

MikeGale wrote: post #150

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.

You violate HIPAA, and it's severe. So there's already a precedence for sensitive data. We just need to ensure all our personal data is considered under a sensitive data infrastructure of some form. That would hopefully also disincentivize home gadgets from constantly dumping everything to their mothership.

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

#234

Post by ace_of_spades » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 7:39 AM UTC

Maybe it's just a naive idea but wouldn't it make sense to have "smart devices" be smart in sofar that they have some local computation power and the ability to communicate near range? Maybe have local orchestrator (e.g., apple tv, google home, what not) dedicated for communicating with companies while the rest stays rather dumb and completely interchangeable. Why is literally every smart device sending back information to another company?? Why aren't Distributed IoT and Smart Objects paradigms more of a thing already?

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

#235

Post by _m7bj » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 9:29 AM UTC

rconti wrote: post #207

cabalamat wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All my speakers are low-tech analog only devices. There really is little benefit to making most of these devices "smart".

One benefit is not drilling holes in my walls to run speaker wire all over the place. Another benefit is not having an audio player tethered in one place. A third benefit is being able to change the audio settings from any one of a half dozen devices in my house.

The downside is that if you don't keep buying the new systems even though the old ones work perfectly fine, eventually your device will get too old and you will be categorised as a legacy customer. When that happens, your shit will stop working.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/4/11362928/google-nest-revol...

That's the future. The dude with the 80's hifi setup knows what's up, in my opinion.

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

#236

Post by sverige » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 10:22 AM UTC

forcemajeure wrote: post #224

sverige wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but any company that wants to collect my personal data just to continue using their product after I've purchased it, is scum.

Any company that isn't collecting data on which features are being used is missing an opportunity

And they need my personal information for that because...?

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

#237

Post by givinguflac » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 11:22 AM UTC

sverige wrote: post #236

forcemajeure wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any company that isn't collecting data on which features are being used is missing an opportunity

And they need my personal information for that because...?

Again with the unfounded statement. Where are you giving away personal info? You register the device with an email, what personal info do you think they're collecting? Do you think they can identify you because you named a speaker "living room"??

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

#238

Post by mhb » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 12:16 PM UTC

bigiain wrote: post #226

mhb wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're a "government dissident" and you're inviting internet connected always-on microphones into your home - you're doing it wrong... "Alexa? Send details of my subversive plan to the government!" "OK Google, upload the audio of the last 30mins discussion with my co-conspirators directly to PRISM!" "Hey Siri? Which law enforcement agency needs to know about this surprise protest we just planned?"

What does this have to do with Sonos?

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

#239

Post by _khau » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 1:30 PM UTC

rconti wrote: post #207

cabalamat wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All my speakers are low-tech analog only devices. There really is little benefit to making most of these devices "smart".

One benefit is not drilling holes in my walls to run speaker wire all over the place. Another benefit is not having an audio player tethered in one place. A third benefit is being able to change the audio settings from any one of a half dozen devices in my house.

One benefit is not drilling holes in my walls to run speaker wire all over the place.
Another benefit is not having an audio player tethered in one place.

A third benefit is being able to change the audio settings from any one of a half dozen devices in my house.

Okay, but that's just wireless tech. Why do they need to be constantly connected to the internet and phoning home?

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

#240

Post by gruturo » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 1:50 PM UTC

KMag wrote: post #230

sverige wrote: post #191

I hate all smart devices. The TV should just be a TV, the dishwasher should wash dishes, the refrigerator should keep stuff cold, the washing machine and dryer should clean my clothes, and speakers should just produce sounds. I have yet to hear any compelling reason to make these devices dependent on software.

My degree is in mechanical engineering, but I work in software development. Software is eating the world for good reasons. How many gates would it take to have a pure hardware decoder for ATSC? A microcontroller-based dishwasher timer is much cheaper to design and manufacture, and wears out more slowly under many conditions, than a mechanical timer. I wouldn't be surprised if a micontroller could wring another 1% eff…

The "Smart" in the post you replied to stands for something else than your examples (which are absolutely valid uses cases!).

We could summarize it as "needlessly Internet connected, reporting to some endpoint in the cloud outside of your control, which is now a point of failure".

Indeed my dishwasher is likely more reliable, and my fridge can get more efficient with a microcontroller. But the 2017 version is likely to suddenly stop working is someone in Korea forgets to renew a certificate (or worse, become part of a botnet, or act as an breach in the security of your network like the aquarium in Vegas I read about lately). Most of the times, the "added value" of this new dependency is harvesting your data for profit (which won't get passed down to you as a better price, don't worry).