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

Vacuum bricked after user blocks data collection – user mods it to run anyway

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 174 posts

Re: Vacuum bricked after user blocks data collection – user mods it to run anyway

#31

Post by observationist »

bitwize wrote: post #29

Probably a felony under the DMCA. I'm reminded of when AWS us-east-1 went down and all the beds made by EightSleep (business model: Juicero for beds) became disabled. EightSleep put all the significant control for their beds in the cloud, doubtless because they couldn't or didn't know how to hire embedded engineers, and the only devs they could find were node.js flunkies who only knew how to do cloud. Looks like the…

That's awfully generous. Forcing phone-home, remote control, data harvesting features to be always-on creates a huge amount of data that can be sold for a lot of money. It gets all the wrong people excited about investing and normalizing the level of intrusion into your privacy, with some faceless corporation harvesting gigabytes of data per month from the most intimate and vulnerable physical location in nearly anyone's life.

Re: Vacuum bricked after user blocks data collection – user mods it to run anyway

#33

Post by SchemaLoad »

dylan604 wrote: post #17
ThePowerOfFuet wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The business has no right to remotely kill a device purchased by an end user.

Did you accept the EULA?

Consumer law comes above the EULA. A clause which states the company can remotely brick your hardware should be rendered invalid.

Re: Vacuum bricked after user blocks data collection – user mods it to run anyway

#34

Post by 1shooner »

HiPhish wrote: post #23
dylan604 wrote: post #20

"From there, he built a Raspberry Pi joystick to manually drive the vacuum, proving that there was nothing wrong with the hardware." He should make these and sell them. It would be worth it to just drive it in "discovery" mode and give it the exact path to follow while cleaning. The constant inability to learn the floor plan is beyond annoying.

Depending on where he lives this might be illegal. Yes, we live in a cyberpunk dystopia where the manufacturer can break what you bought and then send you to jail for repairing it. You can read more about it here: https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A... This shit is absolutely dystopian. The law must not just be reversed, manufacturers need to be taken to court for shoddy software. Insecure da…

There's an exemption from Section 1201 for "Computer programs that control devices designed primarily for use by consumers for diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of the device or system".

Re: Vacuum bricked after user blocks data collection – user mods it to run anyway

#35

Post by dylan604 »

analog31 wrote: post #28
HiPhish wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on where he lives this might be illegal. Yes, we live in a cyberpunk dystopia where the manufacturer can break what you bought and then send you to jail for repairing it. You can read more about it here: https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A... This shit is absolutely dystopian. The law must not just be reversed, manufacturers need to be taken to court for shoddy software. Insecure da…

>>>>> I expect the moment unsolicited data collection becomes a liability manufacturers will drop it like a hot potato. Possession of the data needs to be illegal. Here's how it could work. It's similar to how copyrights for music are enforced. A person whose data are found in someone's files or server can sue for "statutory" damages, which are levied on a per-offense basis.

What are the odds individuals learn their data has been found. What kind of damages could be awarded that would make hiring a lawyer and giving them 50% of winnings a worth while effort? I could also easily see individual cases combining to become class action reducing the winnings even further.

In other words, I find this a silly suggestion as it's just never going to work in the real world.

Re: Vacuum bricked after user blocks data collection – user mods it to run anyway

#36

Post by whatsupdog »

MrZander wrote: post #27
booleanbetrayal wrote: post #25

Never connected my Roomba to the internet and it has worked fine for the past several years. It insists that I should connect to it via the app to resolve the occasional minor issue, but I would always ignore those. It's starting to show its wear and it's probably time for a new vacuum. I'm not sure if I'll be able to bootstrap one without connectivity, nowadays. Any good recommendations out there?

You might be interested in this project https://valetudo.cloud/ They have a list of supported vacuums

Valetudo is the best out there. I rooted my Roborock, and connected it my home assistant. It's super useful without having to send data to the cloud. The only thing is the developers are severely limited by how many vacuums they can support. I recently bought a Dreame X50 and it's still not supported.

Re: Vacuum bricked after user blocks data collection – user mods it to run anyway

#37

Post by kdmtctl »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #14
ThePowerOfFuet wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The business has no right to remotely kill a device purchased by an end user.

You don't own the software on the device, they do. If they choose to revoke that license, that is their choice.

In EU you have the right to use bundled software as long as you own the appliance. Not sure this is true for US.

Re: Vacuum bricked after user blocks data collection – user mods it to run anyway

#38

Post by pfdietz »

HiPhish wrote: post #26
m463 wrote: post #6

I block this nonsense before it gets to the cash register.

That's always a good idea, but how many people have the resources to research these details? First of all you have to be aware that this issue even exists. Then you have to scrape the corners of the internet for whether an appliance has any anti-features, because no manufacturer will ever write "collects unsolicited data about you, we will break the appliance if you refuse us your personal information" on the box. An…

The simplest way is to just not buy any IoT devices.

Re: Vacuum bricked after user blocks data collection – user mods it to run anyway

#39

Post by ptrl600 »

dylan604 wrote: post #17
ThePowerOfFuet wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The business has no right to remotely kill a device purchased by an end user.

Did you accept the EULA?

OK, no _moral_ right. They could probably stick a clause in there about the vacuum eating my pets for nourishment, but...

Re: Vacuum bricked after user blocks data collection – user mods it to run anyway

#40

Post by DaSHacka »

below43 wrote: post #12
bigbadfeline wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would they not be homogenous? Why would a business have the power to decide what should and what shouldn't be homogeneous about the property of others? A transaction took place, property has legally changed hands and the former owner is exerting control over property that isn't theirs any more. How about if the builder of your house comes into your home via an access route unknown to you, and starts rearranging…

This is a cool article, and neat he got it working in the end. One thing that is odd - if he blocked it calling home, it doesn't make sense that the kill code was issued remotely. It makes more sense that there is a line of code internally that kills the machine when it can't call home (which would be far less malicious).

> It makes more sense that there is a line of code internally that kills the machine when it can't call home (which would be far less malicious).

Would it be? Whether the line of code is on the server or the device, what's the difference?

Post reply on HN