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

161–170 of 174 posts

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

#161

Post by testing22321 »

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?

Buy a used one the same as your current one. Find one with little use and you’ll be good for many more years.

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

#162

Post by deafpolygon »

hinkley wrote: post #107
ethin wrote: post #62

IMO a company should lose all control over technology once you've purchased it. Doesn't matter if it's "smart" or not. If the company wants to do something like telemetry, they can buy a license from you for that data. See how they like it when the tables are flipped.

This could be the sort of thing that a Nielsen takes care of, just like viewing data for TV.

... a Liam Nielsen with a particular set of skills?

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

#163

Post by deafpolygon »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #127
Xelbair wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse - they actually can remove books that you've purchased. Not only revoke license for future downloads - but actually remove them from your device. Ironically they did that to 1984 book.

The “good news” is you can get a refund for titles that are removed. But you have to ask for it.

Will they adjust it for "inflation" before refunding?

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

#164

Post by charcircuit »

Telaneo wrote: post #130
charcircuit wrote: post #15

I suspect this is not the full story. Why would someone waste their time manually disabling a device? That makes me think that this device was doing something malicous to their servers, enough to trip an alert.

> Why would someone waste their time manually disabling a device? What what makes you think it was manual? > That makes me think that this device was doing something malicous to their servers, enough to trip an alert. Sounds like a them problem, and not a problem that should affect the consumer (beyond losing functionality directly tied to the server, which bricking of any kind goes far beyond)

>What what makes you think it was manual?

The article said that someone from the company logged in to his device and edited a file on it to disable it. Even if it was automatic someone would manually have to write a script to login and edit a file.

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

#165

Post by Telaneo »

charcircuit wrote: post #164
Telaneo wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would someone waste their time manually disabling a device? What what makes you think it was manual? > That makes me think that this device was doing something malicous to their servers, enough to trip an alert. Sounds like a them problem, and not a problem that should affect the consumer (beyond losing functionality directly tied to the server, which bricking of any kind goes far beyond)

>What what makes you think it was manual? The article said that someone from the company logged in to his device and edited a file on it to disable it. Even if it was automatic someone would manually have to write a script to login and edit a file.

> The article said that someone from the company logged in to his device and edited a file on it to disable it.

I can't find that in the article. Could you quote it?

The closest I got to finding this is:

> The manufacturer added a makeshift security protocol by omitting a crucial file, which caused it to disconnect soon after booting, but Harishankar easily bypassed it.

> deep in the logs of his non-functioning smart vacuum, he found a command with a timestamp that matched exactly the time the gadget stopped working. This was clearly a kill command

> So, why did the A11 work at the service center but refuse to run in his home? The technicians would reset the firmware on the smart vacuum, thus removing the kill code, and then connect it to an open network, making it run normally. But once it connected again to the network that had its telemetry servers blocked, it was bricked remotely because it couldn’t communicate with the manufacturer’s servers.

Which to me reads 'automatic script on the server tells device to delete file and reboot, causing it to brick', using the same kind of mechanism that an automatic firmware update would use, not 'human at company logs into device and tells it to brick'.

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

#166

Post by fragmede »

DaSHacka wrote: post #159
fragmede wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you bring me your silverware from the kitchen, or I go into your house to take it, what's the difference? (CFAA charges)

If you sell me silverware that, unless I share my eating habits with you, automatically disintegrates, or if you break in and steal them back, what truly is the difference? It's funny you think a vacuum automatically bricking itself if you try to prevent its connection to the mothership is at all equivalent to someone choosing to give someone silverware.

it's funny you read my comment in a way I did not write. User asked for an explanation of the difference between two fairly scenarios, so I provided one.

How has making up things that other people haven't said been working out for you?

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

#167

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

godelski wrote: post #75
blueboo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you trivially reframe the initial purchase as being subsidized by that license? Your $200 smart knife sharpener would be $300 if it weren't recording audio 24/7 (for VAD, surely!) I don't like it either but here we are

I think you frame it that way you need to offer the other version. I do wonder how many people would buy non-spy versions of devices given the option. More specifically, what that differential in price would be too. At worst it would be interesting to have a price explicitly stating what our data is worth. Many people actually internalize that it's not that valuable, but doing this would make it explicit.

Its also because people don't trust companies to not spy on them, even when they say they aren't, even when you paid them not to. They still will. So if I see a offer for to pay $100 more for a vacuum that won't spy on me, I think - yeah right, you're going to spy on me AND get any extra hundred bucks.

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

#168

Post by DaSHacka »

fragmede wrote: post #166
DaSHacka wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you sell me silverware that, unless I share my eating habits with you, automatically disintegrates, or if you break in and steal them back, what truly is the difference? It's funny you think a vacuum automatically bricking itself if you try to prevent its connection to the mothership is at all equivalent to someone choosing to give someone silverware.

it's funny you read my comment in a way I did not write. User asked for an explanation of the difference between two fairly scenarios, so I provided one. How has making up things that other people haven't said been working out for you?

And yet you're unable to vocalize the contrast in my interpretation and your message, because I interpreted it exactly as you intended for it to be.

How's that backpedaling working out for you?

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

#169

Post by smt88 »

chipsrafferty wrote: post #150
smt88 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What math are you doing here? Robovacuums don't cost £150 an hour. If you buy one for £500 and run it every day for two years, you're paying ~70p per hour. Are there any cleaners who charge less than £1 per visit?

Children are free

In what universe?

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

#170

Post by Saris »

witx wrote: post #106
brenainn wrote: post #41

A good time to point out https://github.com/Hypfer/Valetudo . I haven't tried it personally because my particular model of vacuum has some complicated and potentially destructive procedure to get the required access, but there's quite a few models where it can be installed easily.

From my understanding (I might be wrong) the images are pre-built by the owner of the project right? I remember there being a form you fill and you receive a download link. If that's the case what guarantees do I have there's no "funny business" on the image?

It runs entirely on LAN, ie; you just go to the vacuums IP address in a browser to control it. So you can block internet access for it if you're worried with no negative effects.
Post reply on HN