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

Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

kuenzi.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 311 posts

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#211

Post by humanistbot »

arrowsmith wrote: post #82
qingcharles wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome Time Travellers! This is 2023 where you can find yourself locked out of your toothbrush after too many failed password attempts.

How long's it going to be before "smart" toothbrushes become the only option? Should I start stockpiling "dumb" toothbrushes now while I still can? The other day I was trying to buy a pair of bathroom scales and it took me far too long to find one that just, you know, weighed things without also demanding I connect it to the Wi-Fi and download a smartphone app. How is this an improvement?

It isn't that hard at all. I'm calling BS, because it seems like you're exaggerating to make a point that would be big, if true. Except it isn't true.

First, I've owned several wireless connected bathroom scales from high-end to low-end brands. All of them work out of the box without needing or demanding you connect it to Wi-Fi and download an app. Put in batteries, step on scale, and weight is displayed. If you want to use an app, that feature is available, but definitely not mandatory, and I've never seen the device prompt to install an app. One had a removable sticker that advertised the app with a QR download code.

Second, it took me less than 5 seconds to find a non-connected bathroom scale, if you care about that. Maybe I'll assume good faith here, you may be shopping at a super high-end retail shop, or an electronics store that also sells appliances, or an online megaretailer that knows you're into tech and is recommending you smart devices? But when I search for "bathroom scale" on amazon, target, walmart, or home depot, the first result is a basic digital scale that has no connected features.

Same when I look at what is in stock in stores where I live in San Francisco. If there is a place where retailers would think they only need to stock connected bathroom scales, that would be the place. Nope, plenty of non-connected scales that only need a single button CR battery.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#212

Post by humanistbot »

JohnFen wrote: post #196
jackvalentine wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what compels someone to lie like that. It’s just bizarre.

That's a strange conclusion to jump to. Perhaps the commenter wasn't shopping online, took a while to find such a scale in the stores, and so wasn't lying.

No. I'm pretty sure it is an exaggeration for rhetorical effect. You have to try really hard to put yourself in a situation where the only bathroom scale you can buy is non-connected. OP is either really intellectually lazy on this or is exaggerating to make a point.

Maybe if you go to an electronics retailer that also sells appliances like Best Buy, that's all you can find. But I live in a very techy area (San Francisco) and my local Target has plenty of non-connected digital scales for sale. For $10 more, you can get the connected version.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#213

Post by chillbill »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #148

It's a toothbrush. Why does it need all this tech and an app? It's better to think about sustainability. I had an Oral B IO electric toothbrush. The retail price is nuts and the brushes are expensive and can't really be recycled. Imagine millions of these out there slowly rotting. I gave up on the IO and bought this one instead. Simple design and battery lasts longer too. https://www.trysuri.com/

Why do you need an electric tooth brush to begin with? Just get one of those old Jordan ones you can probably get one for as low as $2.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#214

Post by josephcsible »

JohnFen wrote: post #200
josephcsible wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because it's a feature customers ask for? Aren't switches to temporarily bypass emissions controls in cars illegal, despite being a feature customers ask for? > What laws do you want written? I want all e-fuses to be banned, as well as any other means for manufacturers to permanently reduce, restrict, or remove functionality from products after they've been sold. > How "secure" am I allowed to make my product befor…

> I want all e-fuses to be banned, as well as any other means for manufacturers to permanently reduce, restrict, or remove functionality from products after they've been sold. I am in opposition to this stance. What you're (rightfully) concerned about is when companies do bad things with these mechanisms. But the mechanisms themselves not only have no ethical/moral problems, but are also really useful for all sorts o…

What legitimate uses are there for e-fuses that can't be done just as well with arbitrarily rewritable storage?

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#215

Post by JohnFen »

humanistbot wrote: post #212
JohnFen wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strange conclusion to jump to. Perhaps the commenter wasn't shopping online, took a while to find such a scale in the stores, and so wasn't lying.

No. I'm pretty sure it is an exaggeration for rhetorical effect. You have to try really hard to put yourself in a situation where the only bathroom scale you can buy is non-connected. OP is either really intellectually lazy on this or is exaggerating to make a point. Maybe if you go to an electronics retailer that also sells appliances like Best Buy, that's all you can find. But I live in a very techy area (San Franc…

I'm just saying that calling someone a liar is a pretty extreme thing, and you should be really certain that they're lying before you do so. I don't see how you can have that level of certainty in this case.

Now, saying that they're wrong is much more supportable and doesn't require you to engage in the tricky business of trying to read someone's mind.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#216

Post by JohnFen »

josephcsible wrote: post #214
JohnFen wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want all e-fuses to be banned, as well as any other means for manufacturers to permanently reduce, restrict, or remove functionality from products after they've been sold. I am in opposition to this stance. What you're (rightfully) concerned about is when companies do bad things with these mechanisms. But the mechanisms themselves not only have no ethical/moral problems, but are also really useful for all sorts o…

What legitimate uses are there for e-fuses that can't be done just as well with arbitrarily rewritable storage?

Many security applications, situations where you're providing equipment to others and want to make sure it's not modified, etc. It's not that hard to come up with legitimate uses for this.

In any case, that sortof doesn't matter. Even if there was no legitimate use for them, that doesn't in and of itself mean they should be illegal. You should at the least demonstrate that their existence is causing great societal harm.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#218

Post by josephcsible »

luma wrote: post #145
josephcsible wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because it's a feature customers ask for? Aren't switches to temporarily bypass emissions controls in cars illegal, despite being a feature customers ask for? > What laws do you want written? I want all e-fuses to be banned, as well as any other means for manufacturers to permanently reduce, restrict, or remove functionality from products after they've been sold. > How "secure" am I allowed to make my product befor…

> Aren't switches to temporarily bypass emissions controls in cars illegal, despite being a feature customers ask for? So you'd propose that we bans switches? You're saying that a microcontroller should never have a certain feature because you don't like how it has been implemented by a single company. Then you propose that nobody should have this feature ever because someone once used it to turn on a light reminding…

> You're saying that a microcontroller should never have a certain feature because you don't like how it has been implemented by a single company.

It's not the implementation. I don't want hardware to ever be able to permanently make itself less useful, no matter how it's done or what it's being used for.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#219

Post by josephcsible »

JohnFen wrote: post #216
josephcsible wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What legitimate uses are there for e-fuses that can't be done just as well with arbitrarily rewritable storage?

Many security applications, situations where you're providing equipment to others and want to make sure it's not modified, etc. It's not that hard to come up with legitimate uses for this. In any case, that sortof doesn't matter. Even if there was no legitimate use for them, that doesn't in and of itself mean they should be illegal. You should at the least demonstrate that their existence is causing great societal ha…

> Many security applications, situations where you're providing equipment to others and want to make sure it's not modified, etc. It's not that hard to come up with legitimate uses for this.

Why isn't just making sure the expected private key didn't get wiped a good enough way of making sure it's not modified?

> You should at the least demonstrate that their existence is causing great societal harm.

Okay, how about that it destroys the secondhand CPU market? Once you use an AMD CPU in a Lenovo computer, it blows e-fuses to keep you from ever using it in any other brand of computer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29958247

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#220

Post by mrb »

mschild wrote: post #115
frowin wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have this brush and would highly encourage you to swap the head when the brush asks you to do so, for the sake of your dental health.

I have it as well and at this point used the same head for 5 months. There's no visible deterioration and I exceed the recommended brushing time by doing 5 instead of 3 minutes. Why exactly is the head only good for 3 months?

You probably don't brush correctly: you need to apply sufficient pressure on your teeth so the bristles can scrub the enamel well enough. Or else there is no way your head has no visible deterioration after 5 months at 5 min per brushing.
Post reply on HN