Slashdot Mirror


Smart Meters and New IoT Devices Cause Serious Concern

dkatana writes: The ongoing deployment of internet-of-things devices is already creating serious issues and discussions about the privacy of users, IoT security, and the potential threat of cyber criminals taking control of sensors and smart devices connected to the Internet.

Security and privacy concerns associated with smart meters are why they are currently "optional" in several countries. That's the case in the Netherlands after consumer organizations and privacy watchdog groups campaigned vigorously to stop the mandatory smart meter deployment. A report from researchers at Tilburg University claimed that "smart meters have the capacity to reveal quite privacy-sensitive information, thus affecting not only informational privacy but also privacy of the home and of family life."
This now applies to televisions as well — an article in Salon discusses the author's new "smart" TV, which came with a 46-page privacy policy. Quoting: "It logs where, when, how and for how long you use the TV. It sets tracking cookies and beacons designed to detect 'when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message.' It records 'the apps you use, the websites you visit, and how you interact with content.' It ignores 'do-not-track' requests as a considered matter of policy. It also has a built-in camera — with facial recognition."

17 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. I would send that TV back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would send that TV back if I had made the mistake of buying it in the first place. Stores hate returns. It wastes their time, which is the same as wasting money. They have to re-stock the item and it sells less easily with the box taped up. We should do this on purpose to all devices with "features" like that. Make it cost them. It'll send a message.

    1. Re:I would send that TV back by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and pay a restocking fee

      --
      XDInd
    2. Re:I would send that TV back by turp182 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is this TV even legal in all states? It sends the audio it hears to a third party (per the Salon article). Seems that may run afoul of audio recording laws in all-consent states (maybe even single-party consent states). Can providing the TV with power be considered "consent" to have everything you say in your living room sent to a 3rd party?

      From the Salon article:
      “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.”

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    3. Re:I would send that TV back by BradMajors · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which TV?

      Article is useless in that no one is able to independently verify that what the writer says is true.

    4. Re: I would send that TV back by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I wish he'd stated what the fuck TV this was?!?!

      I want to avoid this brand/model like the plague!!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:I would send that TV back by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These are all things that many of us have been warning about, for many years.

      The "privacy policy" and consumer warnings should be required to be on the OUTSIDE of the box. If it won't fit... don't do it.

      And anything that may be privacy-intrusive should be opt-in ONLY.

    6. Re:I would send that TV back by Sun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming the click-wrap isn't binding, then I don't see how this can be legal even in one party consent jurisdictions.

      Even if the click-wrap is binding, it is only binding to the person who "Agreed" to it. If I'm not allowed to implant a recording device in the room that will listen to your conversations with someone else when I'm not there, I don't see how I have the authority to let someone else do the same.

      Of course, IANAL.

      Shachar

  2. Consumer education by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consumers need to be educated on dangers of buying into 'Internet of Things' and 'Smart' appliances. I think the only way is to release and publish exploits, so consumers realize that these "features" are not under their control.

    1. Re:Consumer education by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Consumers have no way to educate themselves, because the companies are not compelled to reveal what they are collecting or what they are doing with the information with any specificity.

    2. Re:Consumer education by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That and the general public is dumb as a box of rocks in regards to technology.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Consumer education by LVSlushdat · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder just how long it will be before 1) there is a law *requiring* you to own/use a television-like device, 2) the only units that are sold have these "features", and 3) once installed you are unable to turn them off or if you do manage to do so, you get a visit by the "tv police"... Of course, the reason for such a "law" making this requirement would be couched in terms like "for the children... terrorists... " ... you get the drill... I feel sorry for the kids of today who will have to live with such shit..
      George Orwell had it right, just a few years too early... Glad I'm over the hill, probably won't last more than 10 more years.. (64 now).. Hopefully, this shit happens after I'm gone....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    4. Re:Consumer education by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That and the general public is dumb as a box of rocks. *snip*

      There...Fixed that for you.

      :)

      Seriously, if you've everworked a job dealing with the general public, you leave with this concept permanently burned into your brain. It sounds elitist to those that have never had to deal with the general public in a meaningful way (retail, support of any kind, food service, etc), but once you do, you just realize most people out there are 100% fucked in the head.

      It amazes me so many of them can even process oxygen correctly.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  3. This is like transmission on web sites by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Informative

    "'when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message"

    Sounds horrible and ominous. Unless, of course, you realize that the TV would otherwise have no way of indicating your next unread message / new messages, sorting your watched shows from your unwatched ones, and allowing you to browse your history. Do not track (I'm guessing) is ignored so that it doesn't break functionality on content sites which need it to, again, show you your history, make viewing suggestions, and keep track of which episodes you've watched. Facial recognition sounds super 1984, but would be exceptionally convenient so that the TV brings up Dr. Who and The Simpsons when you sit down rather than Twilight and Wizards of Waverly Place (though its easy to see how a mis-match - or correct match - could be a bit embarassing).

    Maybe our TVs just need an "incognito mode" on the remote?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:This is like transmission on web sites by bobbied · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe our TVs just need an "incognito mode" on the remote?

      A button on the remote isn't necessary, a paper bag with eye holes will do the trick... If you don't have a black mustache and wear glasses, a set of Grouch-o Mark's glasses might work too.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  4. Justification for privacy invading technologies by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems like if you pick a random Joe who does not like these technologies, then put that person into the company that manufactures the product, he will completely change positions. There will be no end of excuses as to why it is okay and the public is paranoid. I've even see people slowly go from one viewpoint to the other as a result of project assignments.

    There must be a name for this phenomenon.

  5. 6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! by Bodhammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "‘Smith!’ screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. ‘6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You’re not trying. Lower, please! THAT’S better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me. A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston’s body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and — one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency — bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes. ‘THERE, comrades! THAT’S how I want to see you doing it. Watch me again. I’m thirty-nine and I’ve had four children. Now look.’ She bent over again. ‘You see MY knees aren’t bent. You can all do it if you want to,’ she added as she straightened herself up. ‘Anyone under forty-five is perfectly capable of touching his toes. We don’t all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Malabar front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what THEY have to put up with. Now try again. That’s better, comrade, that’s MUCH better,’ she added encouragingly as Winston, with a violent lunge, succeeded in touching his toes with knees unbent, for the first time in several years.’" "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." 1984 - George Orwell

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  6. When is forcing not forcing? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't like the "smart tv" features? Don't fucking buy one.

    That argument is worth about as much as "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" once you reach the point where some undesirable item or behaviour is theoretically not compulsory but is necessary to live a normal life as part of society.

    Don't like abusive airport security? Don't ever go on holiday to intersting faraway places or fly across a large country to see your family.

    Don't like Facebook data mining your life? Don't participate in what is currently the main mode of group organisation for a lot of social groups.

    Don't like unknown parties tracking your movements via your cell phone? Don't use the most common form of direct communication in today's society.

    Don't like unknown parties tracking what you access and search for on-line? Don't use the greatest information and education resource created in the history of humanity.

    At some point, something is de facto required to live a normal life, even if there is some weasel-worded get-out clause where it isn't strictly necessary so, y'know, no need for pesky things like basic human rights and common decency in how we treat each other.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.