What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices? • Hacker News Board

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#41

Post by freehunter » Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 2:17 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #13

In California, there is a law that basically everywhere (e.g. all apartment complexes) must have a sign that specifies that the compounds used on site can cause cancer or birth defects or whatever. But because the signs are pervasive, they are basically useless. This feels kind of like that.

The problem I've always found with the California warnings is that they're so damn generic. There's nothing forcing companies to tell you what compound is harmful, where it is, or what it's used for..

A fishing sinker made from lead is pretty obvious when you see that warning. There's only one ingredient, lead, and it's obvious why it's harmful. But when you buy a complex product that says "this product contains chemicals known by the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects", the first thing I want to know is what the chemical is, the second is where it is in the product, and the third is why it's there. Nothing in the warnings makes manufacturers tell you any useful information.

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#42

Post by new299 » Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 2:20 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #41

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #13

In California, there is a law that basically everywhere (e.g. all apartment complexes) must have a sign that specifies that the compounds used on site can cause cancer or birth defects or whatever. But because the signs are pervasive, they are basically useless. This feels kind of like that.

The problem I've always found with the California warnings is that they're so damn generic. There's nothing forcing companies to tell you what compound is harmful, where it is, or what it's used for.. A fishing sinker made from lead is pretty obvious when you see that warning. There's only one ingredient, lead, and it's obvious why it's harmful. But when you buy a complex product that says "this product contains chem…

Interestingly, I want to know none of those things. I'd be more interested in knowing how statistically likely the chemicals are to increase my risk of getting cancer.

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#43

Post by 0xfffff » Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 2:22 PM UTC

I read about proposal to prominently put expiration dates IoT devices, to show how long it will be servered with security updates. That could be interesting and also raise awareness.

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#44

Post by seanmcdirmid » Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 2:23 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #41

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #13

In California, there is a law that basically everywhere (e.g. all apartment complexes) must have a sign that specifies that the compounds used on site can cause cancer or birth defects or whatever. But because the signs are pervasive, they are basically useless. This feels kind of like that.

The problem I've always found with the California warnings is that they're so damn generic. There's nothing forcing companies to tell you what compound is harmful, where it is, or what it's used for.. A fishing sinker made from lead is pretty obvious when you see that warning. There's only one ingredient, lead, and it's obvious why it's harmful. But when you buy a complex product that says "this product contains chem…

Even if they did, would it matter? It would be some chemical term, like the one you see in an ingedient list, that is meaningless to most people.

And these are places, not products...with gardens. Even if they use organic pesticides, they probably still have to put up the warning.

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#45

Post by semperdark » Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #17

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #13

In California, there is a law that basically everywhere (e.g. all apartment complexes) must have a sign that specifies that the compounds used on site can cause cancer or birth defects or whatever. But because the signs are pervasive, they are basically useless. This feels kind of like that.

> This feels kind of like that. It might feel like that, but it isn't. Everything[1] causes cancer. Not everything needs to have an Internet connection to a service to function, not essentially at least. It's only these people looking to monetize or "h0ok all teh th7ngs up!!1!eleven!" that are shoveling crap that no one asked for, but everyone is too lazy to object to. I've got a pair of wireless earbuds, completely…

I'd say 95% of IoT devices right now are from companies looking to jump on the bandwagon. The "iPod" of connected devices (i.e. actually useful) hasn't been discovered yet. Most products right now are just looking to tick a box for shareholders/investors.

Sidenote, those earbuds sound interesting. Could you point me to them?

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#46

Post by jstanley » Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #44

freehunter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I've always found with the California warnings is that they're so damn generic. There's nothing forcing companies to tell you what compound is harmful, where it is, or what it's used for.. A fishing sinker made from lead is pretty obvious when you see that warning. There's only one ingredient, lead, and it's obvious why it's harmful. But when you buy a complex product that says "this product contains chem…

Even if they did, would it matter? It would be some chemical term, like the one you see in an ingedient list, that is meaningless to most people. And these are places, not products...with gardens. Even if they use organic pesticides, they probably still have to put up the warning.

> that is meaningless to most people.

Therefore no people should be allowed to know?

For what it's worth, I'm not in favour of California's labelling requirements either. But just because something is meaningless to the majority of the population doesn't mean it's meaningless to the entire population. And it is specifically the population that is interested in knowing it that finds it least meaningless!

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#47

Post by jgust » Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 2:25 PM UTC

new299 wrote: post #42

freehunter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I've always found with the California warnings is that they're so damn generic. There's nothing forcing companies to tell you what compound is harmful, where it is, or what it's used for.. A fishing sinker made from lead is pretty obvious when you see that warning. There's only one ingredient, lead, and it's obvious why it's harmful. But when you buy a complex product that says "this product contains chem…

Interestingly, I want to know none of those things. I'd be more interested in knowing how statistically likely the chemicals are to increase my risk of getting cancer.

I would argue that without the prior information, the statistics are also irrelevant.

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#48

Post by FabHK » Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #13

In California, there is a law that basically everywhere (e.g. all apartment complexes) must have a sign that specifies that the compounds used on site can cause cancer or birth defects or whatever. But because the signs are pervasive, they are basically useless. This feels kind of like that.

I find the phrasing so funny, "known to the State of California to Cause Cancer", as if the State of California had any bearing on evidence or scientific truth.

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#49

Post by daniel-cussen » Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 2:30 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #41

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #13

In California, there is a law that basically everywhere (e.g. all apartment complexes) must have a sign that specifies that the compounds used on site can cause cancer or birth defects or whatever. But because the signs are pervasive, they are basically useless. This feels kind of like that.

The problem I've always found with the California warnings is that they're so damn generic. There's nothing forcing companies to tell you what compound is harmful, where it is, or what it's used for.. A fishing sinker made from lead is pretty obvious when you see that warning. There's only one ingredient, lead, and it's obvious why it's harmful. But when you buy a complex product that says "this product contains chem…

Or how much of it there is. Parts per million/billion?

I'm pretty interested in how much cadmium and mercury gets into my system because they're bad news for the brain. At the same time, mercury is also in air so it's kind of inescapable. Parts per billion is interesting information because then I can control how much I ingest the way I do for food that is fattening.

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#50

Post by jmcgough » Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 2:32 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #13

In California, there is a law that basically everywhere (e.g. all apartment complexes) must have a sign that specifies that the compounds used on site can cause cancer or birth defects or whatever. But because the signs are pervasive, they are basically useless. This feels kind of like that.

I've actually always appreciated that we have that... coming from a less liberal place, it made me feel like the state really cared about peoples' safety over the safety of corporations, and it's usually easy enough to find more information online about the compounds.