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.
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.
That should be easy enough to check, shouldn't it?
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
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?
that's what duct tape is for.
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.
Can an eye be said to "see", even though these images cannot be sent to the brain?
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.
>"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.
"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"
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!
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.
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.
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...
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
The Internet of things is not hearing the sound of thousands of scroll wheels...
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.
And the worms ate into his brain.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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
^this
Loading...
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.
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?
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...
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.
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...
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.
You think that is bad huh? How do you think the "Plastic Yoda Doll" guy is feeling right now?
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.
> 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...
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.
What the heck are you blabbering on about, son?
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.
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.
By my records, you only did 38 of those things.
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.
any relation to Erich Mielke? The old man would have loved a Nest in every house.
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.
4) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pleasure myself.
Does the internet of things pay by the hour?
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.
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
Even old baby monitors don't transmit unless somebody visits the URL of the cam.
Failing to detect the traffic is meaningless.
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.
"No problem, we'll monitor you via audio instead." - Script kiddies and hackers.
Since those people had to pay to get spied on themselves, I would have gone with "YOU STUPID COWS!!!" instead.
At this point, it's more like "Fool me twenty times..."
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).
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.
I love this!
You'll only find your remote when you're searching for a paper clip.
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
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...
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...
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.