Slashdot Mirror


Green Light Or No, Nest Cam Never Stops Watching (securityledger.com)

chicksdaddy writes: How do you know when the Nest Cam monitoring your house is "on" or "off"? It's simple: just look at the little power indicator light on the front of the device — and totally disregard what it is telling you. The truth is: the Nest Cam is never "off" despite an effort by Nest and its parent Google to make it appear otherwise. That, according to an analysis of the Nest Cam by the firm ABI Research, which found that turning the Nest Cam "off" using the associated mobile application only turns off the LED power indicator light on the front of the device. Under the hood, the camera continues to operate and, according to ABI researcher Jim Mielke, to monitor its surroundings: noting movement, sound and other activity when users are led to believe it has powered down.

Mielke reached that conclusion after analyzing Nest Cam's power consumption. Typically a shutdown or standby mode would reduce current by as much as 10 to 100 times, Mielke said. But the Google Nest Cam's power consumption was almost identical in "shutdown" mode and when fully operational, dropping from 370 milliamps (mA) to around 340mA. The slight reduction in power consumption for the Nest Cam when it was turned "off" correlates with the disabling of the LED power light, given that LEDs typically draw 10-20mA.

In a statement to The Security Ledger, Nest Labs spokesperson Zoz Cuccias acknowledged that the Nest Cam does not fully power down when the camera is turned off from the user interface (UI). "When Nest Cam is turned off from the user interface (UI), it does not fully power down, as we expect the camera to be turned on again at any point in time," Cuccias wrote in an e-mail. "With that said, when Nest Cam is turned off, it completely stops transmitting video to the cloud, meaning it no longer observes its surroundings." The privacy and security implications are serious. "This means that even when a consumer thinks that he or she is successfully turning off this camera, the device is still running, which could potentially unleash a tidal wave of privacy concerns," Mielke wrote.

199 comments

  1. video transmission by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With that said, when Nest Cam is turned off, it completely stops transmitting video to the cloud, meaning it no longer observes its surroundings

    That should be easy enough to check, shouldn't it?

    1. Re:video transmission by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, yet these morons did not even try to look for that. Honestly the whole "story" is a bunch of speculation from people that dont know anything at all about the technology they are looking at.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:video transmission by serbanp · · Score: 1

      Or they really couldn't believe that the engineers at Nest did such a shitty job w.r.t. the device's power management...

    3. Re:video transmission by fche · · Score: 2

      It's the slashdot poster's erroneous paraphrasing that made this "problem" seem worse:

      "ABI Research, [...] found that turning the Nest Cam "off" using the associated mobile application only turns off the LED power indicator light on the front of the device" ... which exaggerates what the report said. They didn't say the power-off ONLY turned the LED off.

    4. Re:video transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, yet these morons did not even try to look for that. Honestly the whole "story" is a bunch of speculation from people that dont know anything at all about the technology they are looking at.

      How would you look for that? How do you not know that it doesn't store what it sees to be transmitted at some unspecified future date when it's "on"?

    5. Re:video transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you look for that? How do you not know that it doesn't store what it sees to be transmitted at some unspecified future date when it's "on"?

      Because it has limited storage, and because that, too, would show up in the data volume.

    6. Re:video transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Power Management is a pretty shitty way to sense if the Nest is active or not. How about just tear apart the damned firmware and look for anything malicious like storing stuff to send to the cloud later or something? Or better yet, just don't trust crap products like this.

    7. Re:video transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy. You look at the damned code. You pay security researchers to read the code if you don't understand it. What's that I hear? It's just a binary blob and they didn't give you the code? Then why did you pay for it? Why would you use something where you don't know that the source compiles to the binary they provide? It could be anything on there, even viruses.

    8. Re:video transmission by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Reality check, ALL network video cameras stay powered up, how do you think you re-enable it over the network? by keeping the processor running, and you might as well keep the camera module powered as well because whiney people wont pay $500 for a full features camera.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re: video transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if you should trust any device

    10. Re:video transmission by quenda · · Score: 2

      Submission is a beat-up, but TFA has some significance.
      I believe any indicator on a webcam should be hardware. Unhackable. It should be fed from the power supply to the sensor, which is not difficult to do.
      Otherwise, privacy is compromised. And trust. I use a webcam with a physical slide-down lens cover, because I don't trust the indicator LED, and this story has validated that.

      Also, there is the issue of unnecessary standby power consuming gigawatts 24/7. You'd think a branch of "don't be evil" would be working to reduce that.

    11. Re:video transmission by serbanp · · Score: 2

      Sorry Lumpy, but if the design draws almost as much in standby as in fully-on mode, its power design is crappy. All bits that are not used for keeping the network connection alive can be disabled; the network portion should be responsible only for a reasonable percentage of the power being burned - 91% is not reasonable.

    12. Re:video transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fairness, the LED may be directly connected to the transmitter, and when the transmitter is on, the LED is on.

    13. Re: video transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you're the moron. How do you know the cam doesn't just store the pics from when it is 'turned off' for later transmission, when it has been 'turned on' again?

    14. Re:video transmission by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Presumably the device can be reactivated through the smartphone app as well as deactivated. So the WiFi needs to stay active. And since they cannot control the customer routers to ensure that Wake-on-LAN functionality is present, the main processor needs to stay active to continually monitor the WiFi. About all they could have done better is to deactivate the camera CCD and maybe put the main processor into a lower power state. But such things have a tendancy to introduce hard to debug problems around the time that things go in and out of low power states, so it is easy to see why they might have done the minimum to stop the video stream, rather than gone all out for maximum power savings (which might not be all that much of a saving in the end given what needs to stay active anyway).

    15. Re:video transmission by ZipK · · Score: 1

      You'd think a branch of "don't be evil" would be working to reduce that.

      They're actually a branch of "Do the Right Thing."

    16. Re:video transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      There was a set-top box here where the power usage increased when put into standby. Apparently it had no standby feature and some new law required it. They hacked an implementation in by starting an extra process that overwrites all pixels with black and all audio samples with zero, increasing the CPU load to almost 100% (as it was not done by the hardware video decoder). There was a lawsuit over this, but the device was found compliant, as the standby mode was there as asked for in the law.

      Current versions do really power down the box.

    17. Re:video transmission by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I don't think you quite understand how incredibly efficient it can be to just dump a frame of data from a small CCD. Based on the numbers in the article it makes me think they are already powering down everything they could. This is after all an always network connected device. That will use the majority of the power.

    18. Re:video transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > That should be easy enough to check, shouldn't it?

      Not necessarily. It could conceivably store lower-rez snapshots locally and batch transmit them back to the mothership periodically or just when the camera is "turned on" again. And that says nothing about what it might be made to do if compromised by a script kiddy or after a future firmware "update" from Nest.

      My opinion is that anything with such enormous potential for security and privacy invasion as an in-home internet-connected camera or microphone deserves absolutely no benefit of the doubt. Even the appearance of being untrustworthy is a major problem. You can't reasonably expect people to just trust the company in the face of anything suspicious.

    19. Re:video transmission by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In fairness, the LED may be directly connected to the transmitter, and when the transmitter is on, the LED is on.

      If that had been the case they'd have said so, but they didn't. They left us to wonder, which means the truth is uncharitable. People brag on their bragworthy bullet points. We are talking about a PR flack here, they are quoted as a spokesperson. ... correction, she is quoted as "a spokesperson", and in fact is currently a "Senior PR Manager" there. So she's an expert at telling bullshit lies, like "when Nest Cam is turned off, it completely stops transmitting video to the cloud, meaning it no longer observes its surroundings". Well no, that's not that that means, and only an idiot PR flack with no knowledge of the product or even computing in general could believe such idiocy.

      The whole argument is that the LED should tell you when the camera has been activated, because an attacker who has compromised your device isn't going to turn the LED on for you when they fire up a program to stream from your camera to their computer. Either she is too stupid to understand that, and should be prevented from making more public statements that demonstrate her stupidity, or she is a lying piece of shit who is deliberately defrauding customers (and others) about the security of the device and the relevance of the LED. Either way, she should be an embarrassment to Nest.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:video transmission by taylorius · · Score: 1

      Not if it does some local processing, and stores some manner of activity signature for upload at a later time.

    21. Re:video transmission by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      To get "activity signatures" clandestinely, companies could simply use the microphone on pretty much every device in your house.

    22. Re:video transmission by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Sorry Lumpy, but if the design draws almost as much in standby as in fully-on mode, its power design is crappy.

      It uses a negligible amount of power either way. The Nest Cam is plug-in, not battery powered. So keeping it powered may cost a penny or two per month. Consumers care far more about the instant-on capability. I have a Nest Cam, and it is integrated with my Wink Z-Wave home automation system, so it turns on automatically if motion or a loud sound occurs, or if a door or window sensor is triggered. If that happens, I don't want any delay in recording. I am happy to pay an extra 2 cents for this capability.

    23. Re: video transmission by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      How do you know the cam doesn't just store the pics from when it is 'turned off' for later transmission?

      Because that would require many gigabytes of flash storage, which would increase the cost, and REDUCE PROFIT. A big flash chip would also be obvious to anyone with a screwdriver.

    24. Re:video transmission by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      How do you not know that it doesn't store what it sees to be transmitted at some unspecified future date when it's "on"?

      You use a screwdriver. You open it up, and look for the many gigabytes of flash storage that would be required. Since it isn't there, it isn't storing anything. As long as you have it open, you could also use a logic probe on the power pins to see specifically what is powered up and what isn't, which is a lot more than the authors of TFA did.

    25. Re:video transmission by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I believe any indicator on a webcam should be hardware.

      Then it can only serve one purpose. If it under software control, it can be "on" when the sensor is on, but it can also blink to indicate a lost network connection, or pulse in different sequences to indicate different internal errors. With proper programming, a single LED can serve more purposes than a Swiss Army knife.

    26. Re:video transmission by quenda · · Score: 1

      Then it can only serve one purpose.

      That is a feature, not a bug. Add a second software LED if you with. I don't care if it adds 5 cents to the retail price.

    27. Re:video transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh words from someone that has never designed a CONSUMER product in his life....

      NOTHING consumer is built for good power management. Get a clue kid.

  2. Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's a list of reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things:

    1) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I sleep.

    2) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pee.

    3) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make kaka.

    4) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pleasure myself.

    5) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I wash my body in the shower.

    6) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I relax in the tub.

    7) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my teeth.

    8) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make passionate love to my wife.

    9) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my hair.

    10) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read a book.

    11) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read Slashdot.

    12) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I bake cake.

    13) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I put in my contact lenses.

    14) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I get ready to play golf.

    15) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my laundry.

    16) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I think about rugby.

    17) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I tie my shoes.

    18) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I celebrate the 4th of July.

    19) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I water my flowers.

    20) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I eat ham.

    21) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I use my stapler to staple documents.

    22) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I chew bubble gum.

    23) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I check the oil in my car.

    24) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I look for my TV remote.

    25) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I blow my nose.

    26) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I rearrange my stamp collection.

    27) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I listen to the Backstreet Boys.

    28) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my calisthenics.

    29) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I search for a paper clip.

    30) Internet of Things devices could send information about me to advertisers.

    31) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I sleep.

    32) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pee.

    33) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make kaka.

    34) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pleasure myself.

    35) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I wash my body in the shower.

    36) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I relax in the tub.

    37) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my teeth.

    38) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make passionate love to my wife.

    39) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my hair.

    40) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read a book.

    41) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read Slashdot.

    42) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I bake cake.

    43) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly coll

  3. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, when faced with the question of 'does this device stop transmitting to the cloud' the "researcher" decided to monitor the power consumption of the device as opposed to, you know, seeing it if is actually transmitting video to the cloud?

    How does stuff like this make it to the front page?

    1. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Especially since the typical maximum power draw for Leds is 20ma, and damn near nobody does that. Half that is normal.

      And last time I checked, 10ma is a lot less than 30ma.

    2. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, when faced with the question of 'does this device stop transmitting to the cloud' the "researcher" decided to monitor the power consumption of the device as opposed to, you know, seeing it if is actually transmitting video to the cloud?

      How does stuff like this make it to the front page?

      Slashvertisement?

      I'd never heard of the damn thing until now.

      And Dice is desperate.

    3. Re:Idiots by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      the same way they get to be called "researcher" crap like this sullys the word.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.
      How is "it lies to you" an ad?
      You are desperate.

    5. Re:Idiots by swb · · Score: 1

      It's not really what you'd call comprehensive, but monitoring power consumption is a reasonable way to guess at how active a device is, especially if the vendor says it's doing nothing.

    6. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 to 10ma is more typical.

    7. Re:Idiots by mikael · · Score: 1

      Because there might be a hardware MPEG compressor and a flash memory chip somewhere in the circuitry. An HD webcam has the MPEG compressor, so isn't not too difficult to add a flash memory card.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    8. Re:Idiots by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      There might be. There might be a poison capsule hidden in there.

      Is there?

    9. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does stuff like this make it to the front page?

      Because slashdot editors are brain dead fuckheads.

      Thanks for asking

  4. c'mon man...didn't we already suspect this? by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    that's what duct tape is for.

  5. Rich people problem by irrational_design · · Score: 0

    At $180 per cam, this is definitely a rich people problem.

  6. FUD at least sort of. by samantha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the piece: "With that said, when Nest Cam is turned off, it completely stops transmitting video to the cloud, meaning it no longer observes its surroundings." .
    So whether its camera is all the way off or in warm standby isn't very relevant to privacy if no information is being sent out. For instance if I wanted a unit to act only as a movement tracker this would be a good thing to have a camera for but no sending information out. Now the question is why does it need to send video from in my home to the cloud at all? Why can't I just store video locally if I am interested in that or see out of its camera live? I am not sure I understand the use cases of this device.

    1. Re:FUD at least sort of. by vivaoporto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not FUD at all. There is an expectation when you turn of a camera / motion detector that it will stop performing its main function (filming, detecting motion) and just do nothing instead.

      imagine a faucet that, when turned off, instead of stopping the flow of water it simply closed the loop in the sink, storing the water somewhere locally for further reuse.

      People would not appreciate the fact that it is not letting the water go away because they want the faucet to stop running water when off.

    2. Re:FUD at least sort of. by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      It likely does stop filming completely. They just don't add circuitry to remove power from the camera module.
      That costs money and wouldn't save an awful lot of power.

    3. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he says is that it stops transmitting data to the cloud when turned off. If it caches the data and transmits it all when turned back on, his statement is still true and your privacy is still in the shitter!

    4. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imagine a faucet that, when turned off, instead of stopping the flow of water it simply closed the loop in the sink, storing the water somewhere locally for further reuse.

      Good analogy. When I shut off my water faucet, the water pressure is still maintained. It's on hot standby ready to go, just like the Nest. The water station is still pumping water even! It's like the water is still on.

    5. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah.. don't think so. There's very little possibility that the device is recording and caching video for any length of time while it's "off". There's just not enough storage for that. If you're talking about data like.. "someone walked in at 8pm" then maybe but no..

      not a problem like "I turned it of before I got busy with my gf and it sent it still sent it to the internet after it got turned back on".

    6. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      #1 It's a spokesman for Nest saying that it isn't transmitting when you think you've turned it off.

      #2 If the device is already hardwired to allow it to shut down the LED without shutting down the camera then it's only one software update/hack away from transmitting while it appears to be off. (Assuming that such a "feature" hasn't already been included and is just waiting for a signal to activate.)

      I don't think i tend towards excessive paranoia, but having a camera attached to the internet with a power switch which doesn't actually power it down seems a bit sketchy to me. Even if Nest/Google the corporation has fully honorable intentions the situation still seems liable to potential abuse.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    7. Re:FUD at least sort of. by confused+one · · Score: 1

      It's a poor analogy. If the processor stops running, you will no longer be able to control the device using the UI.

    8. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this sounds more like a device that's being kept in a "hot standby" mode. As anyone who's used a cellphone camera knows, there's a bit of start up time as the camera module turns on. I don't necessarily understand why that is (I just know that it is and reducing that startup time has become a selling point), but my guess is that the Nest camera keeps everything powered on so it can instantly respond to a request to reactivate.

    9. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does a tree really fall in the forest if it doesn't record it?

    10. Re:FUD at least sort of. by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      imagine a faucet that, when turned off, instead of stopping the flow of water it simply closed the loop in the sink, storing the water somewhere locally for further reuse. People would not appreciate the fact that it is not letting the water go away because they want the faucet to stop running water when off.

      People pay a premium for faucets like that. Google hot water recirculating facet.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    11. Re:FUD at least sort of. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It likely does stop filming completely.

      There's no film.

      Does it hold images? Does it have a buffer? Is any data moving from the camera to the cloud when the camera is off?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Luthair · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think i tend towards excessive paranoia, but having a camera attached to the internet with a power switch which doesn't actually power it down seems a bit sketchy to me. Even if Nest/Google the corporation has fully honorable intentions the situation still seems liable to potential abuse.

      Note its an off button in an app. In order for the user to be able to turn it back 'on' from an app the camera cannot power down. Personally I wouldn't use a cloud connected camera for a variety of reasons but this sounds as if its working exactly as one would expect.

    13. Re:FUD at least sort of. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      #2 If the device is already hardwired to allow it to shut down the LED without shutting down the camera then it's only one software update/hack away from transmitting while it appears to be off. (Assuming that such a "feature" hasn't already been included and is just waiting for a signal to activate.)

      So? Even if the camera was being powered off, it would only be one software update/hack away from being able to transmit while turning off the LED.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:FUD at least sort of. by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Likely not. The camera module is probably still sending image data and the SoC is just ignoring it.

      That's simplest to implement.

    15. Re:FUD at least sort of. by misosoup7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      But if you are worried about it transmitting when off, it's actually very easy to check with packet sniffers. This really shouldn't even be a he said she said argument. There is a really clear and simple way to test this:

      1. Turn Nest Camera to "off" mode, ie the Green LED is off. 2. Start up wireshark and see if the Nest Camera is transmitting to the anything and where it's transmitting to.

      Now, repeat the above with the Nest fully turned on. Compare the packets captured. Is the camera talking to the same servers and transmitting similar amount of data?

      You can tell much more objectively this way then speculating what is or isn't doing based on power usage.

    16. Re:FUD at least sort of. by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Even if Nest/Google the corporation has fully honorable intentions the situation still seems liable to potential abuse.

      And you can't get much more honorable intentions than "data-mine your every activity to sell it to advertisers to serve you more advertising".

    17. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Even more appropriate might be the hot water recirculating loops you can create with a small pump. The hot water is off, but the pump continuously circulates water through the system so that as soon as you turn the water on, the water out of the tap is hot. It's a convenience for which you pay an energy penalty, and the flip side is almost zero startup time.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    18. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Nest Cam is cloud-only through a wi-fi router. There is no local storage option and the device can't even be configured without a sign-in. If you want a device for local storage with nothing sent to the Cloud, Nest Cam isn't it.

    19. Re:FUD at least sort of. by mikael · · Score: 1

      It saves battery life not having to send power through the CCD sensor and the chip logic. That CCD consists of millions of transistors. a 10 Megapixel sensor is going to have that many transistors. Then all sorts of OS kernel jiggery-pokery has to be performed to set up data transfer buffers, set up streaming from the CCD to the display,

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    20. Re:FUD at least sort of. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So whether its camera is all the way off or in warm standby isn't very relevant to privacy if no information is being sent out.

      How do we know it's not storing images to transmit once the go-button is pushed again?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    21. Re:FUD at least sort of. by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      It is good engineering practice that when you "soft" power something down, all unnecessary circuits get switched into low power/standby modes, and you only retain just enough functionality to detect the "power on" signal. It takes some effort to do well but it's not rocket science.

    22. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Comen · · Score: 1

      I have posted something like this before, but I think there need to be a company that certifies devices like home microphones and cameras and stamps them with approval if they follow certain ways of engineering these devices. For instance I would like to see these devices basically tie a external LED to com on or off via a electronic relay that is tied directly to the power of the mic and the camera. So if I wanted to install cameras inside my house that only come on when my alarm is going off, I would know they minute they come on by having a very bright LED that is saying "YOUR CAMERA IS ON" and if off the power is off. If you used right hardware and did this correctly there were be a zero percent chance that even a hacker could compromise the camera and turn the camera on with out the LED also being on. I do not trust the makers of these devices and I also do not trust that a hacker can not get in and watch also.
      I currently have IP cameras outside my house, but if someone hacked them I would not be too worried if they want to watch my driveway.

    23. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they decided their customers would rather have instant on /shrug

    24. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you are worried about it transmitting when off, it's actually very easy to check with packet sniffers. This really shouldn't even be a he said she said argument.

      The benefit of asking before you do that test is that the answer will be defensive based on you not knowing about the transmission status.
      If the camera is reporting in data while "off" then that is bad. If the representative is lying about it then they are outright malicious.

    25. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it only takes a single frame and the led was directly connected to the power than the led may not be bright enough to even see the 'flash'.
      So you need to add a pulse stretcher in front of the led as well. I expect about four extra electronic components are needed to do this properly.
      Those four components may make it hard to actually fit on a circuit board in currently very cramped designs.

    26. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But if you are worried about it transmitting when off, it's actually very easy to check with packet sniffers.

      Not so fast there. There are all kinds of ways to fool a naive investigation like the one you proposed.

      You are assuming that it is either recording everything or nothing. That doesn't account for the idea that it might only record under certain conditions - like specific times or in response to specific events (like certain sounds) or remote commands, or that it might periodically record low-rez stills to a buffer and only transmit those when it is turned back "on."

      When investigating something like this you need to think like an adversary rather than assume happy-path.

    27. Re:FUD at least sort of. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It is good engineering practice that when you "soft" power something down, all unnecessary circuits get switched into low power/standby modes, and you only retain just enough functionality to detect the "power on" signal. It takes some effort to do well but it's not rocket science.

      Sounds like they decided their customers would rather have instant on /shrug

      Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. This is not about removing power from the camera. This is about using the functionality built into basically every camera-control IC to turn on a LED when the camera is recording, and turn it off when it isn't. Unless there is something drastically wrong with the camera driver, and that would be their fault since they chose the camera module, that doesn't take any appreciable time. If their customers would like instant on, they can have that and a LED which does what the customer expects at the same time. Your logical fallacy is false dichotomy, but it was probably brought about by ignorance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:FUD at least sort of. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Even more appropriate might be the hot water recirculating loops you can create with a small pump. The hot water is off, but the pump continuously circulates water through the system so that as soon as you turn the water on, the water out of the tap is hot. It's a convenience for which you pay an energy penalty, and the flip side is almost zero startup time.

      That's analogous to power being delivered to the camera, which is always the case. Nobody is switching power off to the module in any context. That would take more hardware that would consume power while the module is active, or which takes up a lot of space. Instead, they are simply telling the driver when to spit out data, and when not to. Nobody is telling the driver to spit out data when they're not using it on a mobile device, because that increases power consumption. I would personally avoid doing it even on a static device because it only increases the chance of exposing some flaw in the driver, but that doesn't mean Nest hasn't done it.

      The hot water loops are a good analogy, though; keeping the power on is like having a hot water loop, but water still doesn't come out of the tap unless you actually open it — in this case, by connecting to the driver and retrieving image information from it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:FUD at least sort of. by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Personally I wouldn't use a cloud connected camera for a variety of reasons

      Just curious, isn't every smartphone these days a cloud connected camera? Granted, it's usually not in a position where it can see very much.

    30. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, and why doesn't it use a cheap PIR sensor for motion detection?

    31. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they would know when you left your house.

    32. Re:FUD at least sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described the exact function of a faucet. I turn it off, and the water remains "stored" until I need it to flow again later.

  7. When an optic nerve is cut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can an eye be said to "see", even though these images cannot be sent to the brain?

  8. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a security camera. Why the hell would you EVER turn it off? If you don't want 24/7 surveillance then don't buy the product.

  9. Re:non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem is it's still recording when it shouldn't be. There is also the fact that you can't even delete YOUR videos that have been uploaded to their servers. They simply don't allow it.

  10. Whose problem it is is irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pathetic when people like you write off a very real problem as being insignificant just because you've incorrectly deemed it to be a "first world problem" or a "rich people problem" or the remarkably racist and sexist (although your kind typically refuses to admit or see that it is) "white man's problem".

    A problem is a problem. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if affects you, or me, or anyone else on earth. A problem is a problem.

    IoT devices watching people when people don't expect it is a serious problem affecting everybody. It's naive to think that only "rich people" will be watched. Just wait until IoT devices end up in public washrooms and other places. It won't just be "rich people" affected!

    1. Re:Whose problem it is is irrelevant. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      A problem is a problem. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if affects you, or me, or anyone else on earth. A problem is a problem.

      Who told you that? Is it a problem? Well, it depends.

      By your logic, if something is a problem for one person, then it's a problem for everyone. There is an 90 year old woman on the block for whom climbing three flights of stairs is a problem. There are three flights of stairs in my house, but is it a problem? Not for me it ain't. For someone without fingers, a keyboard represents a problem. Does that mean keyboards are a problem for everyone? Of course not.

      You got a problem with that?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Whose problem it is is irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the heck are you blabbering on about, son?

  11. Yep by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >"The truth is: the Nest Cam is never "off" despite an effort by Nest and its parent Google to make it appear otherwise."

    And this surprises anyone? I work on the EXPECTATION that equipment that uses cloud services outside my control, and is not open source, and always connected to the Internet is just that.... uncontrolled.

    Even if it were "off", there is nothing to prevent it from being turned on remotely or being changed to do so with an automatic update. Promises made by companies mean almost nothing to me... if you can even understand them when it is followed by 10 pages of incomprehensible legal jargon.

    And then there are the security risks that have nothing to do with the manufacturer. If it is connected, it can be compromised by someone.

    There is a reason I don't have certain devices in my home. This stuff is going to get worse and worse. People should probably reflect on why one wants or needs everything to be connected to a third-party service or always connected to the Internet. Just because it seems "cool" doesn't mean it is a great idea or that there is no potential hidden cost.

    1. Re:Yep by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      You say "cool", I say useful.

      I used my Dropcam (back when it was still called that) to catch my landlord entering my apartment illegally. I complained to the management company and got $500 back, more than the cost of the camera. It was ridiculously easy, given that I had an e-mail with a picture of the guy's face walking into my apartment.

      There might well be a cheaper solution, but I've found this to work well.

      And I don't agree that it's going to get worse, the first versions of these devices will have flaws, but they'll get fixed.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    2. Re:Yep by markdavis · · Score: 2

      >"You say "cool", I say useful. I used my Dropcam (back when it was still called that) to catch my landlord entering my apartment illegally."

      And why couldn't you do that with a camera that uses your OWN web services or your own private software? And why did it have to be on the Internet in order to record? Those are exactly my points. Not everything has to have some third-party service or connectivity to be useful. The third-party service might, indeed, be convenient... buy security and privacy are both typically at odds with convenience.

    3. Re:Yep by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      It wasn't recording. I had it configured to send me an e-mail when it detected motion (requiring an internet connection) but it wasn't saving anything to the "cloud". (Aside from the still image included in the e-mail).

      As for using homegrown solutions, I used to have time for that, I don't anymore. It's just not a fun or valuable use of my time. That doesn't mean I don't protect my privacy, Nest cam allows you to control whether it stores data in the cloud.

      Given that the camera can be turned on from the iOS app, I'm not surprised that it doesn't power down (it's also turned off from the app, there's no switch on the device). It still needs a working Wi-Fi connection in order to be turned on again.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    4. Re:Yep by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You can use your own, but you don't have to buy a 3rd party service, and can't lose the footage because someone stole the camera. Still sounds like a good feature.

  12. someone doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "ok. this takes too long to turn on. it needs to boot instantly. we want to ship it in a month so this needs to be fixed. get to work"

    1. Re:someone doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ excuse #113 on why we keep the camera on to spy.

  13. This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I never install anything that needs 'the cloud' to function. Store you files at home, run your own dvr....

    I'm shocked...SHOCKED that people are actually shocked at this at all.

  14. Expected. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do consumers expect from an advertising company that makes billions off of user data?

  15. Fuck IOT by GerryGilmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, I'm not a Luddite by any means (got started with Data General back in 1976 but am currently in development of a web-based app using Laravel, so - welcome to my lawn!), but the current trend of "internet-ize everything and we'll figure out security, basic expectations, etc. later" is ridiculous! I love my flat-panel TV but, when it comes time to buy my next one, it will NOT be a "smart" TV. A TV is a fucking receiver - period. I'm OK with having it (STV) as an option on models clearly marked as such, and I know that some of the FB/Twitter-oriented crowd will just love the idea of sharing what they're currently watching, commenting on it, etc. But.....count me TF out!

    1. Re:Fuck IOT by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "I love my flat-panel TV but, when it comes time to buy my next one, it will NOT be a "smart" TV."

      You will NOT own a "next flat-panel" then, because you won't find "non-smart" TVs at all.

    2. Re:Fuck IOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then don't connect it to the Internet? That was simple.

    3. Re:Fuck IOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I love my flat-panel TV but, when it comes time to buy my next one, it will NOT be a "smart" TV."

      You will NOT own a "next flat-panel" then, because you won't find "non-smart" TVs at all.

      Seems like it, but you can still pay more for business class monitors of all sizes that are nothing but receivers. They are just flat screen tv's without all the smart hardware, and yes it's ironic that that charge more for them..

    4. Re:Fuck IOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, you could just not connect it to a network.

  16. 'IoT' and 'The Cloud' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are two things that you're a complete and total sucker if you fell for them, and if the NSA, CIA, FBI, local LEOs, or some perv on the Internet is watching you masturbate? It's your own goddamned fault and I have no sympathy for you. Scoop all the stuff up, and if you can't get a refund for all of it, smash it all with a hammer and put it in the e-waste bin. It's bad enough we're watched everywhere we go in public, and every goddamned thing you do on the Internet is logged and analyzed, you should have privacy in your own goddamned home. Now stop being idiots and falling for this shit!

  17. Re:non-story by Dereck1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If its not transmitting the data to the internet, and doesn't have the capacity to store video/audio streams itself its not "recording". That said any device with a video/audio input should have hardware based light indicating if that capability is powered or not. No form of software updating/hacking should be able to disable that functionality.

  18. If you want a surveillance thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    build it yourself.

  19. Re:non-story by misosoup7 · · Score: 1

    I like how the people posting blatant lies post anonymously :)

    First of all, there is a difference between the camera being powered on and recording. It's like leaving your camera on but not hitting the shutter. The camera is on, but nothing is being saved anywhere.

    Second, you can delete your videos. You can do it on the old dropcams to the new Nest Cams. See the support site if you don't know how to do it.
    https://nest.com/support/artic...

    If you are worried about the fact that it can take a few days for all the copies in the distributed cloud to be deleted, then yes, when you host the amount of data that Google does, it's going to take some time for all the replicated copies to be deleted. Cloud infrastructure is pretty complicated.

  20. Re:non-story by Assmasher · · Score: 2

    Because when the "power is off" it is not off.

    Why not just say "it is not transmitting"? ...because people want to be able to turn it off.

    Next thing you know they'll change their EULA to say "...when powered off we reserve the right to send data to Google services..."

    --
    Loading...
  21. flawed "research" by lophophore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    30 mA will light most modern LEDs screaming bright. Or very bright, at least.

    Deciding that the camera is not uploading images to the cloud based on power consumption is like deciding that water is wet by looking at clouds... I did not see any mention of ethernet packet capture in TFA. You want to see if the thing is uploading? show me some captured packets.

    The argument is specious at best. It is a wireless camera, administered over an internet connection. In "power down" mode it still needs a way to be powered back on -- so it needs to keep its microprocessor and wifi radio on.

    The researcher says that power down mode should reduce current by 10-100 times. Let's see. 1/10 of the 322 mA cited for 360p "video record -- no motion" would be 32 mA. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you cannot run a microprocessor and wifi radio at that power level. And the 1/100th? 3.2 mA? NFW.

    TFA is a troll, perhaps by a shill. it is a crock of shit, and it stinks.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
    1. Re:flawed "research" by TCM · · Score: 1

      The point is, when that thing is still running, what prevents the Internet service you're using from switchting it into recording state remotely? Just because it doesn't transmit data "right now", doesn't mean it can't be made to, remotely.

      However, that's exactly the reason why I wouldn't use anything "cloud" in the first place. Give me a cam that can upload to my server. I don't care if it's really off or not, if I can firewall it to only talk to my services.

      As such, this "problem" is only a problem because it highlights the bad decision someone made in the first place, namely using "cloud-based" bullshit.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    2. Re:flawed "research" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      TFA is a troll, perhaps by a shill. it is a crock of shit, and it stinks.

      That's what I would have said before Nest legitimized the assertion by having a PR flack say "when Nest Cam is turned off, it completely stops transmitting video to the cloud, meaning it no longer observes its surroundings". But this is a lie which was spoken in response to this complaint, which tells me that the complaint is dead-nuts accurate.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:flawed "research" by Dunavant · · Score: 1

      30 mA will light most modern LEDs screaming bright. Or very bright, at least.

      I have two Nests, and the LEDs on them _are_ super bright. Annoyingly so actually.

  22. They're advertising now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we have another tech downturn, I hope Nest becomes the poster-child of companies that advertise a lot and then flame out. I hope they have a fantastic Superbowl ad. That'd be perfect. Fuck Nest, and IoT.

  23. Re:non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that it's not OFF when you turn it OFF. You fucking moron.

  24. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by GuB-42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Internet of things is not hearing the sound of thousands of scroll wheels...

  25. nest cam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, as of now it's "off", but, "it's not sending anything to the cloud." First step is, they change the language so that "Off" doesn't really mean "Off". "On is Off, war is peace, freedom is slavery..." that type of thing. Now you are perfectly fine with the idea that off is not off. ...And still you diseased, mentally deranged freaks buy this shit..you wait in line for the privilege of begging to sign up for the ass raping of your life. I am so glad that I will not have to live in the fucked up world you morons are building for yourself. All in the name of safety and security. Pathetic.

  26. Crappy engineering by FrankSchwab · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, to have an IOT thermostat I have to give it around 350 ma @ 5 v (over 1.5 watts) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? That's roughly 13 kWh over the space of a year.

    It must be nice to design devices where someone else has to pay for the sloppy engineering.

    /frank

    --
    And the worms ate into his brain.
    1. Re:Crappy engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It must be nice to not read the summary where they are talking about a camera, not a thermostat.

    2. Re:Crappy engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU, you stupid communist. Capitalism is all about making a profit, even if your customers die. Hey, if you've got fifty million dollars, and your customers are all dead, who gives a fucking shit, am I right?

    3. Re:Crappy engineering by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      So, to have an IOT thermostat I have to give it around 350 ma @ 5 v (over 1.5 watts) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? That's roughly 13 kWh over the space of a year.

      It must be nice to design devices where someone else has to pay for the sloppy engineering.

      Presumably the reason you would have an IOT thermostat instead of a regular (non-IOT) thermostat is that you want to be able to remote control it and have it collect performance data about the heating and cooling of your house. Being able to remotely turn something on when it is "off" requires it not to truly be off. 1.5 watts is not an unreasonable amount of power for this, especially if you include over time monitoring of temperature and that that the device needs to maintain a network connection. Where I live electricity costs about 11 cents per kilowatt hour, so a 1.5 watt load costs me $1.45 a year.

      Good engineering is determining a plan that examines and balances the costs of various build options with a set of desired features our outcomes to arrive at an acceptable solution.

      I suppose you could say that the engineering was sloppy and the load should only be about a watt bringing the annual cost down to about a dollar a year. What would the saving of that half watt cost in terms of design and manufacturing? Would the product now be too expensive to sell? Would customers even notice the reduced power consumption? Do customers care about a fifty cent operational cost annually? I would argue that extra effort to save the half watt is probably not worth it.

      Setting aside the potential straw man, if the engineers who designed the thing considered the above questions then it was not sloppy engineering.

    4. Re:Crappy engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, to have an IOT thermostat I have to give it around 350 ma @ 5 v (over 1.5 watts) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? That's roughly 13 kWh over the space of a year.

      It must be nice to design devices where someone else has to pay for the sloppy engineering.

      /frank

      I have seen much worse engineering. Back when the analogue TV signal was shut down, they sold digital receivers for "people who can't affort new TVs". It used 20 W while operating and 18 W when turned off. When turned off, it should only listen to the power button and the "on" IR signal from the remote. Nothing else. Disconnecting the power made it use 0 W (no surprise) and it would start as fast from that state as from the 18 W state.

      18 W 24 hours a day consumes 157.7 kWh each year, but at least watching TV will only consume 2 W extra... and then whatever the TV uses.

      For two year's worth of electricity for that thing I bought a USB TV tuner at the same time. It consumes max 2.5 W (no idea about current, but it's USB powered) and then some CPU time when it is actually displaying something. Since the computer turns USB power off when it's shut down, the standby power would be 0 W. That tuner still works despite being 9 years old and is upgraded (in software) to display HD as well as MPEG4 (something the setup box couldn't do) and it comes with a HD recorder as a free bonus. Sometimes the cheap solution quickly becomes expensive and the expensive is dead cheap in the long run. Also regardless of price, some products are simply better engineered than others.

  27. So peep this, noobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article links to an older article.
    https://securityledger.com/2015/06/whitehouse-taps-google-advanced-projects-lead-for-software-safety-lab/

    From that article you can see the Whitehouse literally cares about these issues.

    Knowing that Windows is full blown global spyware... like... everybody and their grandma's cats knows already...

    The Whitehouse is yet silent on Microsoft spying. Or did I just miss that?

    1. Re:So peep this, noobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't remember the Microsoft antitrust/monopoly trials? How do you think those went away? Besides, even before that was a thing, Tom Clancy (of all people) jokingly commented in one of his novels in the 90's that Windows was designed to literally be a tool for spies to gather intelligence (although, to be fair, it actually does some things a lot better than linux does). Honestly, it's shocking how much classified information is in some of his early novels, and how people just kinda treat it all like it is fiction. He's like the Nostradamus of spy warfare, and presumably the US government gives him a stipend to discourage him from writing any more novels himself.

    2. Re: So peep this, noobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gives him a stipend? Dude where have you been? He's dead.

  28. Re:non-story by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    To most of us, a camera that technically has power flowing to it but isn't actually doing anything is still off. This is like an epic pedantic troll comment, but it's a whole article.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  29. So don't buy it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - provide feedback with your wallet.

  30. Shouldn't a simple packet sniff show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A simple packet sniff would show just how much data the camera is transmitting in both modes. If it has the ability to be remotely "Woken Up" and does not require and port forwarding, then of course, it still needs to maintain a connection to their control servers. If the data transmitted in "Sleep" or "Off" mode gathered through a Wireshark shows massive data still being transmitted, then Houston, we have a problem. Otherwise, It is a cloud-connected device. Get over it, or use something that is more physically under your control.

  31. Mental images by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    All I can think of is the EFF's NSA spy eagle playing in its "nest" with its baby spy eagles perched atop some poor souls roof.

  32. Re:non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that it's not OFF when you turn it OFF. You fucking moron.

    Just like pretty much every other electronic device in my house. You know... you can just plug it into a power strip, and turn that off, if you really want to be sure there's no funny business going on.

  33. Trust by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    We all know we can trust google (owner of Nest) to:

    1) Respect our privacy

    2) Ignore/Fight NSA warrants to let them use the Nest to look into your home with the light turned off.

    3) Write perfect code so that crackers/hackers will never get in and play with it.

    On second thought, these things should be sold with camera covers.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Trust by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Camera covers and hats 'cause they don't they have microphones? Or...maybe..just don't buy them?

  34. Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times do people have to get burned to realize Google are, at heart, a dishonest and disengenuous company driven only by motives of profit at any cost? They don't ever have your or my interests in mind, not ever. At this point it's a matter of, 'Fool me once. . . '.

    1. Re:Seriously by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      At this point, it's more like "Fool me twenty times..."

  35. Typical LEDs do not draw 10-20mA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps they did in 1970, but not today. Typical current for surface mount LEDs these days is in the 1-5mA range.

  36. Re:non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how the people posting blatant lies post anonymously :)

    Except you're the one posting lies.

    First of all, there is a difference between the camera being powered on and recording. It's like leaving your camera on but not hitting the shutter. The camera is on, but nothing is being saved anywhere.

    Then why is the camera on? It doesn't need to be so there is some reason why it's still on when you tell it to turn off.

    Second, you can delete your videos. You can do it on the old dropcams to the new Nest Cams. See the support site if you don't know how to do it.

    Wrong. This is a direct quote from the link you provided:

    You can also manually delete your Video History at any time by removing the camera from your Nest account or by calling Nest support.

    You cannot delete your video, you can only remove the camera or call support to have them delete it.

    If you are worried about the fact that it can take a few days for all the copies in the distributed cloud to be deleted, then yes, when you host the amount of data that Google does, it's going to take some time for all the replicated copies to be deleted. Cloud infrastructure is pretty complicated.

    I like how you try to use "the cloud" as some excuse as to why one cannot delete their videos instantly. There is zero technical reason why you should not be able to. The fact that you even try to present this pathetic excuse is a sign that you don't have a clue what you are doing with regards to computers and technology.

  37. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, researchers have discovered that the microphone in your speakerphone is still listening even when the phone is hung up. In fact, the microphone has been shown to be still converting sound to electrical signals even when the phone is completely unplugged and the microphone is removed from the device. The implications on user privacy are obvious.

  38. Re:non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not recording. It's just consuming power.

  39. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm a fan of home automation (a hobby of mine that's increasingly turning into a business). I, and many fellow HA enthusiasts, are firm proponents of the LAN of Things, or even a Separate Network - Controlled By a Hub That is Only Allowed To Connect To the Internet Under Strict Conditions - Of Things. There are plenty of useful ways to automate your home (no, nothing essential or life-changing, but sometimes very convenient), but very little of that requires data to leave the house. And when it does, it should only happen on your own terms. And cameras? The ones around my house have their power cut off externally when we're home, and show a light when they are on (a separate dumb LED on the same power supply). No use taking any chances there.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  40. Re:non-story by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, that's just on "standby mode", that's not "off".
    Off is no power running through the circuits, and not doing anything useful.
    Standby is power running through the circuits and not doing anything useful
      On is power running through circuits and doing something useful

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  41. Re:non-story by Assmasher · · Score: 2

    ^this

    --
    Loading...
  42. Re:non-story by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    If its not transmitting the data to the internet, and doesn't have the capacity to store video/audio streams itself its not "recording". That said any device with a video/audio input should have hardware based light indicating if that capability is powered or not. No form of software updating/hacking should be able to disable that functionality.

    And a piece od black Electrician's tape.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  43. $20? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    You are bitching about $20 a year for a $200 device that does 24/7 monitoring of a million dollar asset?

    I'm curious: do you turn off your water heater between showers? Do you power your phone down at night? Do you unplug your TV and microwave between uses? Do you manually power down your wifi router and modem when you're not actively on the internet? Do you unplug all the ac/dc converters when you're not using them? Do you disconnect the positive terminal of your car battery when you're not driving?

    All these things take power. All are wasteful. And yet we leave them on because it is inconvenient not to. I realize that you, personally, may be rationing your power in your off-grid bunker, keeping time by counting your prepper stores of jerky and ammo, but the rest of us in the civilized world waste $1.60 a month on far less useful things than keeping a home security camera running 24/7.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:$20? by fnj · · Score: 1

      You are bitching about $20 a year

      $20? Are you crazy? 13 kWh is about $2.60 where I am, and we have some of the highest electric rates in the US.

    2. Re:$20? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      answers:
      1. yes. i have a timer on my water heater.
      2. no. my phone requires no internal power.
      3. yes. a simple flick of the power strip.
      4. yes. manually.
      5. yes. every time. a converter melt-down cured us of that.
      6. no. but i do disconnect when i know i won't be driving this week.

      bottom line: it's not about the $20 power bill.
      it's about Control of the on-off switch.

  44. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all fine and dandy until someone else's router is left wide open and your internet of things devices upload all of _your_ data through _their_ router. Or maybe your router doesn't block traffic as advertised, or there's a bug or a security flaw that lets data through. Or maybe your internet of things merely save the data locally so that law enforcement, a thief, or whoever can take them one day and access all the details they've been silently collecting on you.

  45. Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a piece of electrical tape can't fix.

    If you want to go all techie then I suppose you can just block it from talking to the net completely. ( I would if it had a mic in it )

    My rule of thumb is to block everything from the net unless I absolutely need it out there.

    1. Re: Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I realize it's a security camera, block it from the net anyway. Connect to home network via vpn and look at whatever you want that way.

      Works well for my own cameras I have setup.

  46. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a list of reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things:

    Which is exactly what they are designed to do. Get used to it. The government has been trying for years (especially the Brits) to figure out how to get cameras into private residences. And now the sheeple are doing it to themselves. The corporations are drooling over all that data they can sell to each other (and the criminal element).

  47. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    HA setups typically store very little data, what little is there is hardly worth taking, and certainly not worth worrying about. If a router in my house were open, I'd be much more worried about the stuff they could steal off my computers and NAS than the stuff stored in my "things". Besides, if data is exposed through a flaw in my router, there would still need to be someone aware of that fact and in a position to collect and exploit the data. If instead you are using IoT-devices, your data is harvested and abused by default with a 100% certainty, by the mothership.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  48. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a fan of home automation (a hobby of mine that's increasingly turning into a business). I, and many fellow HA enthusiasts, are firm proponents of the LAN of Things, or even a Separate Network - Controlled By a Hub That is Only Allowed To Connect To the Internet Under Strict Conditions

    Like over my cold dead body?

    Would you give a warrantee tghat my Washing machine or toaster or heating system will never ever be hacked?

    I love technology, a lot more than many slash dotters do.

    But nothing has ever been put out to be attached to the interwebz has ever been secure.

    And at the tender mercies of people like this:

    http://specialreports.dailydot...

    There are people out there who fuck with people just because they can - and I'm supposed to give them control of my furnace when I'm on vacation in the winter? Shut that sucker off, pipes break, and they have destroyed my house.

    I don't want to have daily mandatory security updates for my refrigerator, or run the risk of some misanthropic sociopath will turn it off for the Lulz. Maybe I pissed off some Slashdotter, so it's time to burst the pipes. Or do you LoT masterminds have insurance against that sort of thing?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  49. Nest Cam is a computer with NIC and camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the computer stays running. Why? How long does it take to boot yours? IP cams, which is all the Nest Cam is (if you ignore that you are being suckled by google), have only enough CPU to get by, and booting can take a minute. Some can be ready much faster, but as said, only enough CPU to get by. Sure, it stays on. Sure, it COULD continue to transmit the video and audio back to google but since you already are knowingly doing that anyway, is it really that outa-there that it might do that...accidentally on-purpose? That you allow it at all in your house means you don't care if you are watched by some wanker at google.

  50. Hacker's Delight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cuccias wrote in an e-mail. "With that said, when Nest Cam is turned off, it completely stops transmitting video to the cloud, meaning it no longer observes its surroundings."

    At least until somebody hacks the software and tells the device otherwise. The FBI is probably already working on this. After all, they have already granted themselves the power to hack into your webcam for surveillance purposes, why not the security cams in your own house. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/07/22/0113224/fbis-hacks-dont-comply-with-legal-safeguards

  51. Re: non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that's your stance, then pretty much nothing ever turns off. There is always an electron or two moving about any circuit.

  52. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    If your fridge or furnace can be turned off completely by remote (or even locally), you're doing it wrong. Think for a moment what you are automating. The temperature, not the furnace. Your thermostat will be controllable, the furnace will remain just a dumb unconnected piece of equipment, but smart enough to remain operating within acceptable limits even if the thermostat is compromised. I have a fairly comprehensively automated home, but with full control or even the ability to operate devices outside their normal limits, you could do very little actual damage there, and cause a minor inconvenience at best. It's good to be careful and wary of any connected device, but at some point it's just fearmongering and/or a complete misunderstanding of the actual risks.

    By the way, I'd be happy to accept liability for any damages such as the ones you describe, if I were selling you a home automation setup.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  53. Re: non-story by aXis100 · · Score: 1

    There are degrees of off/standby. It's good engineering practice and environmentally that when you "soft" power down, you turn off as many internal circuits as you are able and only retain basic functionality required to turn back on again.

    Eg:
    LED off
    Camera sensor off completely
    WiFi chip in low power / periodic transmit mode
    CPU at lower clock speed or sleep mode with periodic wake up timer.

    Not doing this means that the camera designers were either:
    1) Lazy and unprofessional
    or
    2) Planning to retain the camera functionality for nefarious uses.

  54. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    You think that is bad huh? How do you think the "Plastic Yoda Doll" guy is feeling right now?

  55. Nest is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N is for Nest, C is for Cows. Cows say Mooo. Mooo cows Mooo! Mooo! Mooo say the cows. YOU SURVEILLED COWS!!!

    1. Re:Nest is for Cows by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Since those people had to pay to get spied on themselves, I would have gone with "YOU STUPID COWS!!!" instead.

  56. Re:non-story by konohitowa · · Score: 1

    Then why is the camera on? It doesn't need to be so there is some reason why it's still on when you tell it to turn off.

    How would you turn it back on remotely if it's completely powered down? At least some part of it needs to still be up and running. From all reports, the camera isn't recording anything. That said, I think the LED should in line with the power for the camera so there's no question.

  57. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can always recognize the brilliant work of a deep thinker when their vocabulary includes sheeple.

  58. Fer sure by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    > Cuccias wrote in an e-mail. "With that said, when Nest Cam is turned off, it completely stops
    > transmitting video to the cloud, meaning it no longer observes its surroundings."

    Ha ha ha ha, of course it does. A spokesperson from Nest Labs would never lie to you!

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  59. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I don't have a problem with any of those, except #11.

  60. You're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It sounds like you've been thinking of buying Internet of Things things instead of building them. You are talking about products, not technology.

    Is this how far we've sunk, that we hear about tech and suddenly just envision an Apple or Google or Microsoft logo on it? Just don't buy that crap, and you can have all tech that you want.

  61. Re:non-story by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    It's on though. Still sucking up a whopping 340mA. Ok, not that whopping but only a slight dip in power. 10mA for a power LED seems like a lot to me, but I'm working on low power devices too long maybe.

    Pedantic or not, if the manual says it's "off" then it should be off and not lying about it. The power drop is far too small to actually be in "standby" mode.

    Then again, these devices aren't made for people who care about power or privacy. They're designed for people who want the latest gadget.

  62. Re: non-story by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Wifi should be completely off. It's a big current drain usually, and if you're in standby there will never be a need for periodic transmits (I hate that smart phones refuse to understand this as they want "instant" connection to the access point so they suck up more battery life than they should).

    My guess is that they don't really know how to get to low power mode. It's not something commonly done. Most engineers grew up in the PC oriented world where power saving wasn't even a concept, and "instant on" tube televisions were common. It's only now that we're getting to have more devices with batteries that power is more important and people are learning how to manage it. But even then we're still mostly in a "rechargeable battery" mode which means engineers assume someone is recharging overnight and there's no need to try and get lower even lower.

  63. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    By my records, you only did 38 of those things.

  64. Re: non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wifi should be completely off.

    You are saying that a wireless product whose main functionality is "you can turn it on and off from the internet" should turn its wifi completely off when it is turned off (from the internet). I'm not a hardware engineer, but there my be some problems with that approach that are not completely trivial to solve.

  65. Security Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first thing during a post-install test of a security camera or a motion sensor is to turn off it's activity indicator. Also would anybody using a security camera for security purposes want to made it easy to be disabled and enabled using an unsecured remote interface?

  66. Re: non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you know? You don't, all you know is that Nest/Google lied about the camera being off.
    Now look at GPS location and Google on the latest Android, and you'll see that you cannot turn off location to Google. You can only tell Google apps not to use it, it still goes to the big spy company in the cloud.

    And the privacy regulators? Where are they when all this was happening?

  67. Uncle Erich by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1

    ABI researcher Jim Mielke

    any relation to Erich Mielke? The old man would have loved a Nest in every house.

  68. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A police officer could shoot you at any time. Do you not like them because of that possibility?

  69. Why is there never a mechanical shutter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on these things? A solid stops video from being recorded and if it's not recorded, it can't be captured by some hacker on the internet who reprogrammed the cam because of a software error they exploited. I put resin over the facing cam on one of my computers for that reason. Try taking a vid when there's a lump of opaque resin in the way.

    1. Re:Why is there never a mechanical shutter by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      "No problem, we'll monitor you via audio instead." - Script kiddies and hackers.

  70. Why not provide feedback by words? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because in this world, deciding not to buy is seen as "luddite" and you're "tinfoil hat" for caring about it, and you need to "get with the times" and "everything is doing this", so you will "miss out" on everything.

    Yes, these are all demands why my boycott of Steam is vilified (and anyone else who doesn't get, for example, Fallout4 or Skyrim or X-Rebirth or Diablo III) and I should NOT refuse to provide feedback with my wallet.

    But I'm ALSO not allowed to complain by words, either, as you have demonstrated here. You're not allowed to complain,you're "supposed" to "vote with your wallet". But that's not allowed either and is enough to generate a torrent of abuse and "arguments" how wrong you are for "doing without something that's really cool and worth it".

    So what else is there to "provide feedback" with?

    And if you don't buy because this doesn't do an ACTUAL off, how will any other company know what to do to capture this market? After all, voting is supposed to change things, so how will silently not buying lead to anything different?

    The truth is nobody is allowed to complain or not buy (because that would ruin the profits of a company, which is an anathema). We're only allowed to consume and accept our lot as decided by our "betters".

    Because anything else is WRONG if some retard on the internet doesn't agree.

  71. Re:non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would you turn it back on remotely if it's completely powered down? At least some part of it needs to still be up and running. From all reports, the camera isn't recording anything. That said, I think the LED should in line with the power for the camera so there's no question.

    By issuing a wake command. You know, the same way I can remotely power on basically any computer or electronic device made in the past 10 years.

  72. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If his fridge or furnace can be turned off or on by remote or even locally, it's the manufacturer doing it wrong, NOT the damn customer who doesn't get a frigging say in the matter.

    When smart meters are designed, they're designed by the company and they will not care, because nobody is allowed to complain or speculate on how bad it is to design an IoT device, so they will design for their convenience and for marketing bullet points. So instead of merely being programmable as to how much power it asks for, it will be made "internet aware" so you can "turn it on from your smartphone app, ready for coming home!" and all sorts of other crap that, if you were cautious, would claim "ur doin it wrong".

    And because you can't rebuild it, you have to take whatever they build into their stuff.

    And then YOU will, like an arsehole, come along and blame the customer who had little to no choice in the matter, for doing it wrong, because heaven forfend the "job creators" be blamed, they may take their jobs and wealth abroad, and you'll never get to whet your whistle.

  73. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    4) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pleasure myself.

    Does the internet of things pay by the hour?

  74. Shouldn't be surprised ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    This is a camera, designed to be connected to the internet, accessible via an app, built by companies who sell ad and analytics data, and who want access to all of your information so they can figure out how to monetize it.

    Anybody who thought this kind of device was intended to guard your privacy or have any real level of security is kidding themselves.

    You want it off, unplug it. Better yet, don't even own one.

    At this point all of this "internet of crap" which wants to be constantly connected to the internet and accessible via an app on your phone, I just assume it's all got pathetic security, and spies on you FAR more than they let on.

    When people buy this stuff and then go all "oh nos, teh security is the sux0r", I just shake my head. You should assume this up front, because it's quite likely true, and anybody who has been around tech long enough should be doing this.

    Never had a webcam, and I never will. Because I have zero trust in the people who make them.

    The more stuff people try to connect to the internet, the less interested I am in stuff which connects to the internet.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Shouldn't be surprised ... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      You can have a webcam, as long as it's one which connects via USB and that you can physically disconnect when you're not using it.

  75. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    4) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pleasure myself.

    I recently submitted a story about how PronHub noticed a significant drop in traffic after the launch of Fallout 4. In the modern age, it seems that many people know when onanists are pleasuring themselves.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  76. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A thermostat that can turn off your heating system (they all can). You do know what happens when you don't heat a house and it is below freezing outside, right?

    Think before you belittle someone.

  77. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For some reason, this reminded me of a song I once heard.

    You make me wanna break the laws of time and space
    You make me wanna eat pork
    You make me wanna staple bagels to my face
    Then remove 'em with a pitchfork

    Youtubes
    Lyrics (because the man is an insane evil genius, and it's sometimes hard to understand just how those words could fit together...)

  78. Camera is on. Light is off. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

    Even old baby monitors don't transmit unless somebody visits the URL of the cam.

    Failing to detect the traffic is meaningless.

  79. It's your own decision, deal with it by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    You're the idiot who decided it would be a good thing to not only install cameras inside your house, but you actually paid for them too.

    Shut up and deal with the consequences.

  80. Re:non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Light should be on and yellow if in standby mode. Light should be green when on. Blinking when having problems. Light off should signal power off.

  81. Re:non-story by konohitowa · · Score: 1

    You're thinking of WoL - not WoWLAN. WoWLAN can't operate in anything but a standby mode [which the Nest seems to be in] and even then is problematic due to routing issues (although less problematic in a typical home network).

  82. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    You can always recognize the brilliant work of a deep thinker when their vocabulary includes...

    You mean like yours does?

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  83. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A thermostat is a few switches (heat/cool/fan) and a thermometer. Are you proposing redesigning / replacing home furnaces when simply using a dumb or unconnected thermostat would work just as well?

  84. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by chicksdaddy · · Score: 1

    I love this!

  85. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by null+etc. · · Score: 1

    You'll only find your remote when you're searching for a paper clip.

  86. Re: non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you know they are recording? You don't. Where did Nest/Google lie about the camera being off? Nowhere in my documentation does it say that the power is turned off. It says the camera is disabled. What privacy regulators are you concerned with and what do you want them to do when there's no privacy violation? Fucking nutter.

  87. Re:non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The manual doesn't say it is off. The manual says it is no longer transmitting. The manual is online for review.

  88. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by mikael · · Score: 1

    That's just like built-in kitchen cookers, fridges and dish washers. When the home is initially built, the property developer makes the decision on what appliances are to be installed; whether to use gas or electricity, internet-ready, remote control, whatever. Then the next home buyer comes along and has to either buy or not buy the property. No choice as to whether these should or should not IoT.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  89. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    No. My thermostat has no "off" switch, and a minimum temperature setting that is high enough not to let the pipes freeze. The electronic TRVs likewise have a safeguard against freezing.

    Sure, it's still electronics, and someone could have messed with the firmware, or even exploit a weakness in the thermostat by sending weird packets over the Z-Wave network (a wireless network used for home automation) to make it turn the heating off completely. That's far, far less likely to happen than the heater itself breaking down. And because I can monitor things remotely, it is extremely unlikely to happen without me noticing the problem.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  90. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    So buy a connected fridge from a reputable vendor whom you can trust to at least understand the important issues and risks of having an appliance connected to the LAN or Internet. Don't buy a connected fridge at all if you're too worried about this, or feel you can't trust any manufacturer. Make these manufacturers aware of your concern. Donate to the EFF or whatever so they can inform the public and influence regulators to safeguard our privacy and safety (and make manufacturers liable for such issues).

    It is fine to be cautious, just don't call anyone who disagrees an idiot, or claim that the introduction of IoT-capable appliances is somehow violating your rights. That's the vibe I am getting from a lot of opponents to HA. The IoT is not evil for the reasons you state; "IoT doesn't steal data, peope do".

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  91. Re:non-story by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Why not just say "it is not transmitting"? ...because people want to be able to turn it off.

    Because people do NOT want it off. The Nest Cam is an Internet connected camera that can be integrated with other devices, and controlled by an app on a mobile device. When people use the app to turn it "off", they also want to be able to turn it back "on", which means it needs to stay powered up, and stay connected to the Internet. Unless they are idiots, the users of this device are well aware that "off" just means it has temporarily stopped recording, which is exactly what happens.

    I have a Nest Cam installed in my house. It behaves exactly the way I expect it to behave. TFA is garbage journalism trying to manufacture outrage out of thin air.

  92. Re:non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I am not. WoWLAN works perfectly fine for my gear. There is no legitimate excuse why it can't for the Nest camera.

    You got a vested interest in Nest Labs or something? You certainly seem to be highly defensive, to the point of fabricating ridiculous excuse upon excuse for them.

  93. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    I'm a fan of home automation (a hobby of mine that's increasingly turning into a business). I, and many fellow HA enthusiasts, are firm proponents of the LAN of Things, or even a Separate Network - Controlled By a Hub That is Only Allowed To Connect To the Internet Under Strict Conditions - Of Things.

    That's not IOT, that's IOC - Internet of Controllers. Those pushing the IoT want every home device on a unique IPv6 address and able to talk to anything. The only IoT I've seen sold is by shitty wireless companies trying to sell private networks over their mobile systems. Even those selling IoT don't actually want IoT. Because if you don't control it in a single secure central server, you can't extract payment for every use. And it's all about extracting money from people.

  94. Re:non-story by konohitowa · · Score: 1

    It's okay. You don't need to create a conspiracy theory to cover up your lack of knowledge about the protocol. I have stated one simple fact: WoWLAN has to be in standby. You know why? Because WoL can receive power via ethernet in order to get the wakeup signal. Until WiFi can provide enough power via RF to keep the chip running and also stay connected to the SID, it can't work without standby power being on. Yes. I know. Facts are bummer. But keep trying to make yourself feel okay by exaggerating and mud flinging.

  95. Re: non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please tell me you didn't expect him to rtfm.

  96. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    So buy a connected fridge from a reputable vendor whom you can trust to at least understand the important issues and risks of having an appliance connected to the LAN or Internet. Don't buy a connected fridge at all if you're too worried about this, or feel you can't trust any manufacturer.

    Or if we get to the point of having them on everything, like OnStar in GM vehicles, make certain you disable them. And no, not having a subscription does not mean they don't pay attention.

    It is fine to be cautious, just don't call anyone who disagrees an idiot, or claim that the introduction of IoT-capable appliances is somehow violating your rights. That's the vibe I am getting from a lot of opponents to HA. The IoT is not evil for the reasons you state; "IoT doesn't steal data, peope do".

    Your own vibe is colored a bit by your preconceptions. It's not fearmongering for me to say I won't buy a GM car because I don't like OnStar. Just noting that there are certain aspsect that people might not be thinking about, like their vehicle disabling feature, or cab monitoring feature.

    There are implications that a lot of people don't think about. Remember the school in Pennsylvania that was using the school issued laptop cameras to spy on the students? That kind of went away, but I'll bet they got some interesting images of naked students who happened to be underaged. I've always wondered about what Comcast is getting into with their whole house surveillance security systems. They always show mom at work, siling and happy because her teenaged kids are safe at home. I'll bet there are some notsafe for the public images those cameras capture.

    And if mom can monitor the kids, from work, or control the thermostats or lights or security system, then its not fearmongering to note that other people can, and naive to assume that they won't try.

    Perhaps in the pursuit of pecuniary renumeration, you don't care. And in many respects I don't care either, as long as I am not forced to buy this stuff.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  97. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    No. My thermostat has no "off" switch, and a minimum temperature setting that is high enough not to let the pipes freeze. The electronic TRVs likewise have a safeguard against freezing. Now that is fascinating, because that means they know what the outside temperatures are. Something tells me you live an a place that doesn't get below freezing often. But these things do need an on off switch, a fan and a switchover to AC as needed.

    Sure, it's still electronics, and someone could have messed with the firmware, or even exploit a weakness in the thermostat by sending weird packets over the Z-Wave network (a wireless network used for home automation) to make it turn the heating off completely.

    Wait - I thought you told me this can't happen.

    That's far, far less likely to happen than the heater itself breaking down. And because I can monitor things remotely, it is extremely unlikely to happen without me noticing the problem.

    Actually, I'm not so certain about those odds. I do also suspect that the system will have to be safety critical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  98. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    A thermostat is a few switches (heat/cool/fan) and a thermometer. Are you proposing redesigning / replacing home furnaces when simply using a dumb or unconnected thermostat would work just as well?

    IoT gurus want everything connected to the internet. Somehow it makes things better. I'll bet that you will be able to send an image of yourself to all your friend's toasters. The basic infrastructure is there, now we will finally be happy when we can do this..... I'm waiting for it to take a toast selfie so I don't have tobe so damned inconvenienced by taking my own meal instagrams I mean what the hell did the Pilgrims do? It's a sin. I mean how did everyone know what they were eating? I mean - I mean.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  99. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    I forgot to include this. Security cams are a big part of the Internet of things already.

    Apparently, they are ironically named as well.

    http://www.networkworld.com/ar...

    Should I tell you what your reply is going to be before you make it? Right - don't use default passwords. And hopefully the company won't have a support backdoor built in.

    Most regular people find passwords a pain in the backside. As well, they aren't always up on security. An inescapable fact, 20 years on. It hardly even qualifies as hacking.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  100. Re:non-story by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    You are making me restate my point. Yes, you are technically correct. I cannot argue with a single point in your post. Yet, it is pedantic and useless to most people. The camera is doing nothing. If you want to call that "inactive", "standby", or "disabled" or whatever, it is the same thing from a practical standpoint as "off". Rare would be the end user who gives a crap, especially when the product doesn't even make a claim to be "off".

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.