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

What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#151

Post by def_true_false »

teekert wrote: post #96
downer72 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure, that’s what killed the Pebble watch for me. I got it home, opened the box, thinking I had a new watch! Nope. You have to connect it to the internet and let it phone home first. It would not tell time, permit you to manually set the time, or let you explore that watch at all, until it spoke with it’s mothership. I put it back in the box, and tossed it in the closet, and it’s still there, and now it’s complet…

What a waste! Here in the EU you have 8 days to sent it back without any reason. That is a nice rule for this type of nonsense.

Wasn't it 14 days? And it only applies to online shopping (supposedly to compensate for losing the ability to see/try things before buying them)...

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#153

Post by sandworm101 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #121
sandworm101 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some warnings speak of "specific birth defects" which is something greater than a may/might do something. Normally this is reserved for the class of chemicals and drugs that post-thalidomide are known to cause limb-reduction defects.

Funny story, we moved from china to California last year because my wife was pregnant and the environment over there is pretty pllluted. When she saw this warning at the entrance of our new apartment, she began doubting our move (they don't have that in china!). Kid was born without defects.

When I was a kid I was put on an anti-acne drug known to cause such birth defects. Docs insist that any females wanting the drug be on birth control, some simply not prescribing it to any females who aren't open to a quick termination should they accidentally get pregnant while on the drug. There are things that we know for sure will cause serious harm. Too bad such warnings can get lost in the shuffle.

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#154

Post by npsimons »

koverda wrote: post #84

If we follow Troy's line of reasoning, then we would need to add these warnings to phones, tv's, websites, credit cards -- just about anything that contains data about you. I guess the main point the author is trying to make is that data can get compromised, and some people might not be aware of that. Nothing new or groundbreaking.

> If we follow Troy's line of reasoning, then we would need to add these warnings to phones, tv's, websites, credit cards -- just about anything that contains data about you.

I honestly don't see a problem with requiring this and enforcing it with the corporate death penalty. Need I mention Equifax?

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#155

Post by npsimons »

semperdark wrote: post #45
npsimons wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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

Bragi's The Dash: https://www.bragi.com/thedash/

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#157

Post by logfromblammo »

tesseract wrote: post #150
logfromblammo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be much more useful if it were in the form of "This property contains substances determined by the state of California to be toxic to humans. The site report may be viewed in person at 123 Maple St, Suite 200, San Mateo, or electronically at https: //sitereport.ca.us/ " Then the print report would basically be a binder full of MSDS-like information sheets, along with the history of measurements recorded on t…

That supposes testing of that nature is actually done for every item/location that has one of those warnings. It is not. Testing is expensive. The costs if you lose a lawsuit due to not displaying the warning when you should have, even more so. People are pretty desensitized to seeing the warnings. So the logical decision made by many business owners is to display the warning even if no tests have been conducted show…

Yes, it does suppose that.

That people display the warning without specific knowledge of a hazardous substance is the fault of the California legislature for passing laws that provide perverse incentives to do that.

If a business could be held liable for posting the warning without a reason why, those warnings would not appear without reason. Ambulance-chaser attorneys perform a kind of arbitrage there, as private-party enforcers, like finding ADA violations at a non-accessible business and suing to force them to settle and make reasonable accommodations, or fight it, pay fines, and make reasonable accommodations. Or like the Florida folks that test their Sunshine Law against various municipal organizations. The munis are forced to settle and open their records, or fight it, pay fines, and open their records.

I guarantee there would be at least one person in California that would go around checking for warnings and asking for the MSDS reports on the hazardous materials on the property. I asked for a MSDS once, and the building manager just about lost his mind. I just thought I smelled toluene, and wanted to check to see if I was right. Their reaction made me think that maybe someone should have been suing someone, and they were just worried that it was going to be me.

As with any complex system, it's the squeaky wheels that get greased. More sensible laws would make California less an object of ridicule for other states. Indiana takes a lot of flak over the pi thing, and Kentucky and Tennessee occasionally get their "ice cream cone in the back pocket" laws waved around, but those are just silly artifacts of law. The California "causes cancer warning" law affects so many businesses, even those outside the state.

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#158

Post by tripletmass »

659087 wrote: post #104
FabHK wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. There's this doorbell (400-1500 USD) that connects via internet to a central host, and then notifies you on your smartphone. Seems sort of a neat idea, but a house lasts several decades - is that startup and its server going to be around that long? http://www.doorbird.com

It also notifies that central host every time someone visits your home, and provides them with video and audio of that person. That doesn't seem like a "neat idea" at all. "By visiting my front door, you agree to Doorbird's privacy policy"

The doorbell for Serial Criminals who Sell Out to Federal Agents and/or Cartels. (...near you!) etc.

Speaking of planned obsolesence, it would be nice to be able to take a working 40yo. fixed camera and tell it it's a barcode reader and scheduled wildlife counter, or otherwise to take a power profile change, if not also distinct (llvm, CoolWave, Bluetooth 4.1 profile) promise or callback schema. Maybe tell the shakeweight that you're putting it in the closet in a manner than shaking is no excuse to dissipate more than 21mW. Certainly get (MSDS-ish # circumstance) links from devices that deal in goober or tree nut oils or PVC with flame retardant adjuvants, etc. maybe or maybe not explicitly asking things to McGuyver themselves into a bootstrap industry they don't belong to.

Re: What If We Put Warnings on IoT Devices?

#159

Post by tripletmass »

krapp wrote: post #27
jacquesm wrote: post #10

Simple rule: I buy it, I own it and it should not need an external service to operate. If it does then I'm not buying it. None of those grafted on services for me, I really have yet to see anything that was so compelling that I would give up and consent to essentially renting a device and having an account with some service to make it useful. That way you also don't need to warn anybody about the lousy security, I'm…

> Simple rule: I buy it, I own it and it should not need an external service to operate. If it does then I'm not buying it. That's a good rule, but good luck opting out once most manufacturers no longer give you an option.

Most of those Edison 170V DC products saw adaptation. (Their net service proved some adaptability.) Doorbells that offer both stealth and wireless stealth rolls and declared their adherence to ADnD (WoTC) v4.4 and a major faction (Lawful Wyrmic Faction? Fire Zero (Adherent, Vacancy)) sound a bit better right there. Company changing to DnD v. 5.2? Escrows a key (to open base.h ROM, to a VM, something with relevance.)
Post reply on HN