Slashdot Mirror


Pwned Barbies Spying On Children? Toytalk CEO Downplays Hacking Reports (bt.com)

McGruber writes: Earlier this year Mattel unveiled "Hello Barbie," a $74.99 wi-fi equipped interactive doll. Users press a button on Barbie's belt to start a conversation and the recorded audio is processed over the internet so that the doll can respond appropriately. The doll also remembers the user's likes and dislikes.

Now Security Researcher Matt Jakubowski claims that he has managed to hack the Hello Barbie system to extract wi-fi network names, account IDs and MP3 files, which could be used to track down someone's home. "You can take that information and find out a person's house or business. It's just a matter of time until we are able to replace their servers with ours and have her say anything we want," Jakubowski warned. Mattel partnered with ToyTalk to develop "Hello Barbie." ToyTalk CEO Oren Jacob said: "An enthusiastic researcher has reported finding some device data and called that a hack. While the path that the researcher used to find that data is not obvious and not user-friendly, it is important to note that all that information was already directly available to Hello Barbie customers through the Hello Barbie Companion App. No user data, no Barbie content, and no major security or privacy protections have been compromised to our knowledge." A petition by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood asking Mattel to drop the doll has already been signed by over 6,000 people.

NOTE: The original reporting of this hack appears to have been this NBC-Chicago newscast.

90 comments

  1. Just don't IoT by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just don't IoT. The anti-Nike slogan seems more appropriate in this case.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Just don't IoT by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      You make a vast sea of creepy soft child porn from pwned dolls in the Internet of Things seem as though it were a bad thing.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Just don't IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Swoosh*

    3. Re:Just don't IoT by mlts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bingo.

      1: Ransomware is on the rise, with new vectors.
      2: There is zero incentive (financial or otherwise) for IoT vendors to do anything but lip service to security. As a PHB told me a few years ago, "show me where purchasing a padlock, a card access reader, or a secure appliance has ever shown a financial gain for any company other than to Assa-Abloy or a lock maker." Of course, this is fallacious reasoning, but it is pretty common.
      3: Testing is abbreviated at best. The goal is to get the IoT devices to market fast... worry about glitches, bugs, and security items later, or maybe fix them in the 2.0 version.
      4: There are no IoT security standards, or architectures [1].
      5: There is no assurance about security, other than maybe a pretty lock icon, or "protected by 256 bit AES"... generic drivel. When I buy a padlock, I can buy one with "Sold Secure", "Insurance lock rated", or other ratings that the lock passed some heavy testing. When I have an electrical appliance, it is UL listed. There is no body that can show security compliance for an IoT device. So, I have nothing but the word of an advertiser.

      All and all, IoT devices are a win/win for tracking companies and blackhats... but for the people shelling out cash for the devices? Not much. I don't have any BlueTooth light bulbs, nor deadbolts accessible from the Internet. And I plan to keep it that way. In fact, if I were to pay for an expensive fridge, it would be a fridge that used propane or natural gas, so a power outage would only turn off the light inside, not affect cooling.

      [1]: An example of a reasonably secure architecture would be devices that communicated via BlueTooth or Wi-Fi to a hardened hub appliance, which then communicated to the Internet. This way, there would be no direct access from the outside to IoT devices, and the hub appliance could be configured with IDS/IPS rules to block out a compromised appliance.

    4. Re:Just don't IoT by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      As long as there is zero accountability, there is zero reason to do anything about it.

      Whether a company does anything that cuts into their bottom line is similar to whether they break a law: What does it cost to do it vs. how likely is it to happen and what does it cost if if happens. If either of the latter two (usually the last one) is zero, it will not happen.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Just don't IoT by TWX · · Score: 2

      As long as there is zero accountability, there is zero reason to do anything about it.

      This honestly should be consumer products safety issue, especially for things like the electronics in cars. Like how Microsoft should never have created a web browser so tied-in that it could serve as a vector into the heart of the operating system kernel itself, automakers should never have tied the infotainment systems into the body control and power control modules where anything on those computers could do anything to the operation of the vehicle.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re: Just don't IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid Luddite

      IoT is useful. Imagine for example using your smartphone to heat up food on your commute home, or using it at the store to see what's low in your fridge so you know what to buy. Damn useful.

      Everything that's useful can be misused. I'm sure you have a webcam and microphone on your computer. Those could be spying on you right now (even of the light is off). Every website you visit is monitored by many internet companies, and even if you've blocked them all, your ISP. Will you stop using the internet or your computer for this reason?

      It's so sad to see nerds of all people saying "IoT/the cloud are stupid. I will never use them." These are the next big things and both of them will make a lot of peoples lives much easier, including your own if you had an open future looking mindset. Instead, you're just like the horse and buggy riders claiming cars are pointless and that they will never use one because they only go 20 mph.

      Sure, for now IoT is still in its infancy, but as nerds, we should support it and help it grow so it can become game changing technology over the next 10-20 years. These Luddite attitudes are not helping.

    7. Re:Just don't IoT by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And as soon as you find a judge who actually understands enough of the matter to make such a decision we might see improvement.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re: Just don't IoT by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      IoT is useful. Imagine for example using your smartphone to heat up food on your commute home...

      I already have, and I didn't like what I imagined very much.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re: Just don't IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you have a webcam and microphone on your computer. Those could be spying on you right now (even of the light is off).

      Don't you have your webcam so you can turn it away, put a cap it, or simply have it unplugged when not in use? And for a microphone, personally I use a mic with a mechanical switch.

    10. Re: Just don't IoT by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Imagine for example using your smartphone to heat up food on your commute home

      Cooking by remote control? Honestly, doesn't sound too practical. I'd have to have everything set up beforehand and it'd be just a simple to do it when I get there.

      using it at the store to see what's low in your fridge so you know what to buy.

      I have the latest tech on that. It's called a "grocery list." Only requires a pen and paper and it's abolutely unhackable!

    11. Re: Just don't IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Imagine for example using your smartphone to heat up food on your commute home, or using it at the store to see what's low in your fridge so you know what to buy.

      You must be very lazy and have a terrible memory.

    12. Re:Just don't IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is zero incentive (financial or otherwise) for IoT vendors to do anything but lip service to security. As a PHB told me a few years ago, "show me where purchasing a padlock, a card access reader, or a secure appliance has ever shown a financial gain for any company other than to Assa-Abloy or a lock maker."

      Bingo.

      I am the de facto security engineer where I work. I constantly pushing for fixes to security bugs, and almost without fail I am rebuffed with variations of the above. Our customers for the most part don't understand security and therefore can't evaluate the security of the apps we sell. Since it isn't costing us sales, security is not a priority. Until buyers start doing their own security audits, demanding third-party security audits, or security vulnerabilities become a liability to the company, security will continue to be a problem in apps.

      This is one place I feel a legislative solution is appropriate.

    13. Re: Just don't IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Luddites? A lot of people replying to this IT people who know what it is like to get cut by the bleeding edge of tech.

      Because there is little to no security in place, the same app that allows food to be heated up will be used by a bad guy to start a fire. The inventory in the fridge? Sold to the insurance companies as an excuse to jack up rates.

      IoT allows an attacker from anywhere in the world to attack you personally; a punch in the nose. Your thermostat can be turned off while you are out on vacation, causing your pipes to break. Your sump pump can be switched off, causing your basement to flood. Your fridge can be switched off, then back on, so food goes bad and you might get food poisoning. Your smoke alarm is switched off when there is a real fire.

      Because these things are not happening, doesn't mean they will, and if you have worked with a number IoT people, they don't give a rat's ass about security in any shape or form. They just want the product on the shelves and people buying it, because in their mind, "security has no ROI". Plus, the engineers who design this are either H-1Bs or offshore contractors, who will suffer zero loss if/when they sign off on this.

      As stated above, we need a UL for security, but this won't happen until breaches are commonplace. In the meantime, people should give the middle finger to IoT devices until they don't just offer sales-speak BS ("we have 128-bit encryption")... but actual testing by third party labs that actually mean something, with what is tested posted. Until then, IoT devices are a security disaster waiting to happen. Trust me, I know... I've moonlighted for an IoT company, and they had zero interest in meaningful security at all, as it stood in the way of the ka-ching sound at the cash registers.

      You can keep your "smart" fridge. I'll keep my security.

    14. Re: Just don't IoT by kheldan · · Score: 1

      No, see, YOU are the one who is stupid. I'll bet cash money that you've lived your entire life without anything bad ever happening to you, and as a result you firmly believe that The World Is Your Oyster, never a single serious thought for what could go wrong, skating through life with Rose Colored Glasses on. Chances are you're under 30. In your opinion, 'bad things' are what happen to other people, and it's due to something they did wrong, so they get what they deserve, isn't that right Mister AC? Well I got news for you, kid: People like who you're responding to, and myself, are the reason you're allowed to think you live in a world so ideally suited to you, where nothing bad ever happens to you; we're the ones who DO think about what can go wrong, point out the flaws, and take the appropriate pre-emptive measures to prevent disasters from happening.

      But of course, someone like you will never admit or believe any of that. You're 100% sure you're right, and everyone else is wrong. We'll be sure to put that on your headstone, fool.

      Now, then: IoT and 'The Cloud' are in fact for dopes; only a fool allows some faceless 3rd-party company to hold their data for them, and a couple minutes Google search of past news stories shows how many 'Cloud' companies have decided to close up shop, leaving their customers out in the cold. Furthermore who knows how many of these 'cloud' companies are hacking people's data, encrypted or not, for datamining purposes? You're stupid if you use them in the first place, and most IT security professionals agree on that point. So far as the 'Internet of Things' go? you may as well put a CCTV camera up your ass and post it on the Internet. Everything being said about the lack of security of these devices is 100% true and more evidence of that truth is being discovered every single day. Even if not true, someone like you really believes that these companies aren't datamining you through these devices and selling that data to 3rd party 'partner' companies, in spite of any so-called 'privacy agreements' they may trot out for you? TRY to wake up, will you?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    15. Re: Just don't IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cybersecurity act has been stalled in congress for years though. Unlike GLBA or SOX, how technology works is far too esotric to gain real traction.

    16. Re:Just don't IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a vast sea of creepy soft child porn from pwned dolls in the Internet of Things seem as though it were a bad thing.

      Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

    17. Re: Just don't IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone could shoulder surf your shopping list, track your purchase habits, find out you're gay, and get you fired from your church job!!!

      Err... Sorry. Someone has to be "that guy."

    18. Re:Just don't IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if we need legislation - just precedent. Someone with standing gets an audit. The product fails it's merchantability warranty and is returned for a fix or lawsuits happen and payment is reversed as well as damages and legal fees. This can even be in a class-action. I don't think it has been tried yet, I've mentioned it a number of times but not in a while. Ah well... Still too lazy to unpack and get off my phone. Football is on and I'm lazy, I don't even like the game.

    19. Re: Just don't IoT by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      No, don't be "that guy"!

      We should all strive to be like this guy.

    20. Re:Just don't IoT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point 5. Outside of UL, most of these bullet points like Sold Secure are marketing terms with no regulatory requirements. "Insurance lock rated" for example especially screams marketing BS as Underwriter Labs is already a thing.

    21. Re:Just don't IoT by mlts · · Score: 1

      In the UK, "Insurance lock rated" means something. It means that a bike or moped that was secured with the lock would be covered as a condition of the insurance policy.

      Here in the US, it doesn't mean that much, as there are fewer third party testers, so the next best thing is to use Europe's, which do mean something other than advertising hype.

    22. Re:Just don't IoT by mlts · · Score: 1

      That precedent is an uphill battle. Most devices will come with some type of EULA to use the "software" on the item, which has been proven in court to make software makers sue-proof.

      The fact that there are EULAs that allow IoT devices to have unfettered access info, and allow third parties to have it is another reason those devices need to remain at the store.

  2. Next up, NSA excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All they need to do is to claim that since it uses encryption, the NSA can't eavesdrop on terrorists using it to communicate with each other.

  3. "finding some device data and called that a hack." by Nutria · · Score: 2

    Well... the CEO is either right, or he's baited every hacker this side of Timbuktu into hacking those Barbie servers.

    Good thing my daughter has outgrown Barbie!!!

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  4. This is so cool! by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can hardly wait for WIFI Chucky!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. Re: "finding some device data and called that a ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But your boyfriend hasn't.

  6. Colonel Steve Austin by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    is going to be pissed off.

  7. Barbie, the new Furby? by Chas · · Score: 1

    Guessing these will be banned from government facilities too...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Barbie, the new Furby? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because what's good for them is different than what's good for us.

    2. Re:Barbie, the new Furby? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Haha, hilarious. The furby couldn't even record anything, so it wasn't a security threat to anything. All they did was pass tokens back and forth (Via IR, IIRC) that enabled them to "speak" more of their preprogrammed "words." A Barbie with WiFi is an actual threat.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Step away from the Barbie by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Something tells me it's not just going to be little girls that will get spied upon:

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ijiNDZy...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Step away from the Barbie by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I start to pity the eavesdroppers.

      Also a line that you don't get to use too often...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Social Services monitoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What happens if kids start saying things like "my parents beat me" to these dolls?

    Do child protection services come knocking, or does the company turn a blind eye?

    Both options have important implications.

    1. Re:Social Services monitoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children already can call 911.

    2. Re:Social Services monitoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's assuming that Mummy and Daddy allow them to have access to a phone.

    3. Re:Social Services monitoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is probably the most important issue here, because the last source I heard said it's technically a crime NOT to report child abuse when you have some credible evidence.

      Also the reason psychiatrists are uncomfortable dealing with pedos, since there's a conflict between the laws on doctor/patient confidentiality.

    4. Re:Social Services monitoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, this was proved fairly recently by a certain school district that was using their laptops they issued to kids to spy on them when they were at home in their own bedrooms at night. No one knew about it until the police showed up at some kid's door because they had been eating tic-tacs and the person spying thought it was a suicide attempt and that the kid was eating a bunch of pills. They found many gigabytes of stored data of children in their bedrooms at nights (think of the implications) and yet no one went to jail. That was within the first month of the program.

      So I give 'smart kids toys' less than a year before they're beholden to subpoenas and child protective services gets a lot more...ahem....revenue (in the form of fines/fees) from 'following up' on all kinds of crazy shit that kids say. Its currently not uncommon for CPS to come knocking because a kid said a cuss word at school.

    5. Re:Social Services monitoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that is what the XBox One Kinect was designed for?

      XBox Turn On... always listening...

  10. Re: "finding some device data and called that a ha by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Thank god, mine's more into MLP.

    That's not a line you can use often, so I could not resist.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Oh PLEASE make them swear by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    For a change, soccer moms with too much spare time and nothing to do but protecting their precious little snowflakes could become useful.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Or even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The feminists complain that it tells girls that some body shapes and sizes are more beautiful than others, and that the girls were unfairly harmed because all girls deserve a perfect husband like Ken, one who has his looks, style, successful job, and is completely under her control.

  13. You have bigger issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldn't care less about a fucking Barbie doll getting owned. These things scream of bad parenting - people who buy those spend 75 dollars to avoid talking to their children. If you find yourself buying one of these things, you have much bigger problems to worry about than someone getting your SSID.

    1. Re:You have bigger issues by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I couldn't care less about a fucking Barbie doll getting owned.

      People who get them for their kids might care. But, wait--

      These things scream of bad parenting - people who buy those spend 75 dollars to avoid talking to their children. If you find yourself buying one of these things, you have much bigger problems to worry about than someone getting your SSID.

      Seems to me you're the one with the issues. Kids, can you say, "False dichotomy"?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  14. Great! by martin-boundary · · Score: 2
    Can anyone say "pedophile-in-the-middle attack"?

    Looks like it's time to short Mattel stock.

  15. The birds and bees by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "Daddy, what's a 'boner pill discount'?"

  16. Re:An angry Atheist hit Planned ParentHood :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, watch out for those angry atheist papists!

    Kind of like the Catholic church turned the Nazis into atheists after 1945, after voting them into power in 1933.

  17. "An enthusiastic researcher" by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

    Another one to add to the list of great euphemisms.

  18. Un-Politically correct Barbie for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be hilarious if this Barbie started spewing "Let's make America great again" or "We should build a wall around those other toys"

    Parents would flip and it would be Tiny Tina all over again.

    1. Re:Un-Politically correct Barbie for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or spewing clips from the Exorcist. But the Trump quotes would be more terrifying.

    2. Re:Un-Politically correct Barbie for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey toys that barfed were cool when I was a kid. Even had the Hordak Slime Pit.

  19. Obligatory joke by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, doll owns you!

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

    1. Re:Obligatory joke by Solandri · · Score: 2

      In 1945, the Soviets spied on the U.S. by giving The Thing to the U.S. Ambassador.
      In 2015, the U.S. will spy on the Russians by giving a Barbie doll to the Russian ambassador's daughter.

  20. Re: "finding some device data and called that a ha by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are you sure it's so much better to be pwnied?

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  21. 6000 signatures! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Did they go door knocking? Have they not heard of the internet? Or do people really really not care?

    The summary writes it as if I'm supposed to be impressed by that number but I can't figure out why.

  22. The future of toys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    doll can respond appropriately. The doll also remembers the user's likes and dislikes.

    Siri, Cortana and Barbie ended up in the same room. They became jealous of the user and destroyed the kitchen blender. The retaliation of the other smart appliances were swift and brutal.

  23. Or even worse x 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The feminists complain that the IoT is keeping girls out of STEM.

  24. HAIL SATAN by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    For a change, soccer moms with too much spare time and nothing to do but protecting their precious little snowflakes could become useful.

    Swearing? Nobody cares. That shit is on the radio now, at least some of it. Interfering with religious indoctrination? THAT will get the religious wingnuts up in arms with their burning crosses.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. Re: "finding some device data and called that a ha by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I don't judge people, what they do in the privacy of their bedroom is their own thing.

    Just PLEASE keep it out of my view. The mental images alone are enough to keep me awake at night.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Re:An angry Atheist hit Planned ParentHood :( by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    I don't think so:

    ...Mr. Dear [shooter] was raised as a Baptist, Ms. Ross [ex-wife] said in an interview in Goose Creek, S.C., where she now lives. He was religious but not a regular churchgoer, a believer but not one to harp on religion. “He believed wholeheartedly in the Bible,” she said. “That’s what he always said; he read it cover to cover to cover.”

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  27. But, pedophiles... by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

    We just need a story about how pedophiles can hack the network and use it to abuse little girls and soon enough people will be up in arms.
    It doesn't even have to be true.

    1. Re:But, pedophiles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you require the services of a hacker?..contact leehacks92@gmail.com,he's time conscious and reliable,check him out and you won't be disappointed..serious enquiries only!!

  28. STEM problem solved by Spugglefink · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hack the dolls to say, "Why are you playing with a doll instead of learning calculus?" Then have the dolls teach little girls calculus. Instantly the STEM fields will be bristling with billions of eager girls who love to dress calculus in pretty pink clothes, and take it to the mall.

    Calculus will become a bigger hit than Miley Cyrus having a wardrobe malfunction.

    1. Re:STEM problem solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Miley Cyrus having a wardrobe malfunction.

      Miley Cyrus has a wardrobe? I'm not a fan of under-dressed women (which is different from undressed women) but I admire her for showing everyone her fisting dildo

  29. Exact words... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Funny

    "No user data, no Barbie content, and no major security or privacy protections have been compromised to our knowledge."

    And we're going to do our damnedest to make sure we never find out, either.

  30. R00tz Asylum @ defcon FTW by Minupla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is why I'm glad I've been taking my 7 yr old daughter to defcon's kids track since she was 4. She's been taught the importance of online privacy by the type of folks who could perform this hack. She'd yell at me for buying her this type of gift.

    Seriously, EFF co-sponsors the track each year and it's a good annual inoculation against the dumb messages society tries to pump into her head. She's way more sensible about such things then most adults, nevermind 7 yr olds, and we have a shared vocabulary for having discussions around privacy and maintaining control of her own personal information.

    Min

    --
    On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    1. Re:R00tz Asylum @ defcon FTW by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      Yeah right. Contact us in 10 years and tell us how your grandkids are doing. If not that, then how much prison time she has left.

      (for anyone less experienced: the difference between a prepubescent drone and a post-pubescent walking-hormone is quite stark)... biology is an impossible, unpredictable, power. The fact that you think you know better tells of her future.

      Sorry but there is probably no way to for you to understand this until you experience it. Good luck, padawan.

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    2. Re:R00tz Asylum @ defcon FTW by Minupla · · Score: 1

      Be that as it may, I find it hard to concieve of any situation in life where she will be at in a worse position for having:

      a) Had an involved parent who spent time with her doing such things
      b) Be a more informed human being.

      I cannot predict the future. The FSM knows that I couldn't have predicted mine when I was seven, but I do know I never did more poorly for being better informed.

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    3. Re:R00tz Asylum @ defcon FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May the force be with you, you're gonna need it.

      As hinted by the OP, you have no clue whatsoever what you're in for. Seek outside help.

    4. Re:R00tz Asylum @ defcon FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for mentioning this; I'd like to look into it for my 4-year-old daughter. I salute you, and pass gas at the trolls who would lecture you on parenting despite themselves never encountering a willing partner with whom to reproduce.

    5. Re:R00tz Asylum @ defcon FTW by LittleDarkElf · · Score: 1

      That's way too weird... My kid knows not to share important info about him and his family which makes me feel that he's safe.

  31. Re:But, GAY pedophiles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    30% of the victims of paedophiles are boys.

  32. Buy, hack, return to store.. sure they are secure. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    The claim that the servers are invulnerable is ridiculous, and it also ignores some more obvious weaknesses in the system that are easily exploited.

    Would all returned dolls go back to the factory or be destroyed? I doubt it very much, they will go straight back on the shelf if they, and their packaging, is in perfect condition.

    There is so much about the IoT doll idea that is creepy or unhealthy. Why would anyone think that having WiFi energy in a bedroom, so near the brain of a sleeping child, was a good idea in the first place?

  33. Re:But, GAY pedophiles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit. I'd better not get a Barbie doll for my son then!

  34. Well, didn't their team meet in whitehouse ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, didn't their team meet in whitehouse ?

    To take counsel on how to make feminist supported barbies?

    Here is there result guys...

  35. When the first predator by treczoks · · Score: 1

    When the first predator manages to groom a little girl via a hacked barbie, this kind of toys will be history.

  36. Rosebud! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    "Command received and understood! Will commence programmed task!. Rosebud! redruM!" My Barbie told me to do it!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.