Slashdot Mirror


Always-Listening IoT Devices Raise Security Policy Questions For the Workplace (securityweek.com)

wiredmikey writes: Rafal Los raises an interesting point about new Internet of Things (IoT) devices that may be coming into the office after Christmas, and the possible security risks associated. He uses an example of the Amazon Echo which is "always listening" and raises the question of how welcome it would be in an office where confidential and highly sensitive conversations are frequent. "How many things are showing up at the office this week that are an always-on conduit to your network from some external third party you really shouldn't be trusting? Watches, streaming media widgets, phones, tablets and a whole host of other things are likely making their way into the office right now. You probably have a BYOD policy, but do you have an IoT policy? BYOD policies are meant to address your mobile handsets, tablets and personal laptops, but who's addressing all the other gadgetry?"

152 comments

  1. Simple.... by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't allow it.......

    --
    You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    1. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good luck telling someone they can't wear a watch.

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

      You don't allow it.......

      You must be the simple one. These devices are not under the consumers' control. Webcams (or rather CCDs) are not turned off when you disable them, only LED is affected. The current measured over the sensors remains the same, regardless of what the device UI claims. Furthermore, all mobile devices can be remotely controlled. Every govt has had this ability for years. Add to that, most manufacturers like to record what you're doing, whether it's "listening for voice commands" when that functionality has been disabled, or logging your activity, remains the same. Now let's go up a level. Many exploits are available underground, they are sold via bitcoins to anyone with the bit-purse.

      So Mr Know-it-All, prey tell, how do you disallow all this shit?

    3. Re:Simple.... by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Obviously you have no clue of network security at your workplace and just allow people to plug in shit as they feel like it. You shall reap what you sow. There are a number of steps you can take to not let unauthorized devices on your company network.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    4. Re:Simple.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Webcams (or rather CCDs) are not turned off when you disable them, only LED is affected. The current measured over the sensors remains the same, regardless of what the device UI claims

      Current doesn't exist without voltage being applied across the photosensor array, and the LED can easily be hard wired directly to the voltage signals that go to sensor. No voltage means that it is impossible to detect anything, and no LED light means no voltage is present. Any voltage high enough to get any information at all from the array would easily be enough to turn activate the signal line connected to the LED . Not all webcam manufacturers do this, of course, but it is no more costly at the hardware level than having a separate firmware logic controlling the LED,

    5. Re:Simple.... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't allow it.......

      Easy enough if it's trying to use the corporate network but what if it's listening to confidential conversations but using another route...via a mobile phone hotspot for example, that you have no control over ?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    6. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about not allowing the manufacturer to sell it, you know, like other dangerous things like machine guns, cyanide and bombs?

    7. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that is what he meant by not allowing the devices, albeit hard to enforce.

    8. Re: Simple.... by IBME · · Score: 1

      More like, Good luck getting the average company to secure their physical network beyond backing it up or issuing updates.

    9. Re:Simple.... by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Obviously you have no clue of network security at your workplace and just allow people to plug in shit as they feel like it. You shall reap what you sow. There are a number of steps you can take to not let unauthorized devices on your company network.

      You're assuming that it's connecting over the workplace network. What's to prevent it from connecting over the mobile network or just waiting until it has a network connection later at a new location? Preventing network access doesn't prevent a device from snooping. The only way to prevent it would be to ban all smartphones, smartwatches, fitbits, digital cameras, and electronic devices in general and it's only going to get worse as more electronics are incorporated into everyday objects like shoes, purses, credit cards, etc... They already sell a sdcard that has built in wifi and webserver. As the size and price of these type of devices continue to drop, you are going to see more and more everyday items include them possibly even without the user's knowledge.

    10. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously missing the point, the idea of "don't allow it" is basically along the lines of "if you bring any electronics to work, you're fired"

      I work at a shipyard and this is somewhat standard procedure, you change into your uniform in the mantrap / locker room and enter the work facility through a metal / EMF detector.

    11. Re: Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's not a watch.

    12. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another easy thing... There should be wireless IDS setup to prevent rogue APs.....
      https://www.zebra.com/us/en/products/software/wlan-systems/wlan-management-and-security-software/airdefense-wids-wips.html

    13. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't allow them to connect to your network. Easy.

    14. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck telling someone they can't wear a watch.

      In a right-to-work state (half the US), I don't need luck.

      You want a job, you follow the rules.

      It's quite simple.

      Oh, and fuck your primadonna attitude that you "need" a smartwatch to do your job. Tired of catering to that bullshit too.

    15. Re:Simple.... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      I can't wear my smartwatch all places where I work. I put it right on top of my cellphone in the cellphone cubby. It's in the policy, if it has blue tooth it can't go certain places.

    16. Re:Simple.... by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what the article mentioned? Devices connecting to your INTERNAL network? Of course you cannot do anything about stuff connecting to 4G and outside WAPs.

      From the article:

      "Now is a great time to start to think about policy and procedure for the inevitable. As everything imaginable starts to ask for an IP address from your network, make sure you watch ingress and egress points and terminate encryption so you can properly inspect all traffic. What is your policy for things like the Amazon Echo, on your corporate network? "

      You implement policies about what can or cannot access your company network. At my place of work, we have several wireless networks...some can access the internal production environment and some cannot (guest access, vendors, etc). If you want your gadget on the corporate network, you have to GET APPROVAL. Otherwise tough tacos.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    17. Re:Simple.... by cfalcon · · Score: 2

      The concern isn't that. Many devices have speakers that can be activated remotely. Some can record RF in raw mode, or have other inputs. It's not just about the connection.

    18. Re:Simple.... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      If your cellphone can be remotely turned on while appearing off (true), can record video or audio with no external signs, and can broadcast it at that time or later, then it doesn't matter if it is on your network or not. This is a physical security problem.

    19. Re:Simple.... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > Current doesn't exist without voltage being applied across the photosensor array, and the LED can easily be hard wired directly to the voltage signals that go to sensor.

      Can be, but isn't. It's super hard to figure out which LEDs actually are hard indicators and which are not. As far as I can tell, they can ALL be goofed up such that they appear off but are actually on, with varying degrees of difficulty. The LED is just an indicator that you hope the device driver updates, but that is by no means guaranteed. Yes, it COULD be done not shitty, but the point is, it universally is not. You'd need a law, and the law would need serious technical wording, and it would need to be federal. Then you'd need to wait 20 years for the old stuff to go away. Very unlikely, and even if we were all about it, it would take three decades to be mostly true.

    20. Re:Simple.... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      You don't allow it.......

      Then I'll wear two. Then you'll threaten to get me fired. Then I'll wear three. Then, after numerous iterations on this, we'll realize that this cat is out of the bag, it isn't going back in, and the people offering these devices will have to be held responsible for the damages their products cause.

      That said, a friend of mine informed me that his company still doesn't allow wifi. In 2015. Our IT started prohibiting that in 2002, and we started installing our own wifi, and they quickly realized that firing us is harder than just finding a sensible option. I suppose especially retarded companies will continue to drag their feet for another decade.

    21. Re:Simple.... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm in a right-to-work state and I tell my IT to eat dick at least once a month, or I did when I was still working for a company that didn't understand IT is a service, not the business. You can write all teh rules you want, you will not get compliance from most people.

      Honestly the cat was out of the bag when people started carrying smartphones. Banning watches is just being nit picky about the forms of spying you want to forbid.

    22. Re: Simple.... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Well, then the average company goes out of business and we are left with above average companies.

    23. Re:Simple.... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      If by 'you don't allow it', you mean 'reject the so-called Internet-of-Things', then I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's an out-of-control joke so far as I'm concerned. Are there a few devices that benefit from being capable of control over a TCP/IP network? Yes. Should every damn electronic (or electric) device on the planet need that sort of connectivity? I say "hell, no!". As we all can see, it's more security holes for potential attackers to use. It's a first-world-problem that marketing people are creating and inflicting on us, and I think we just don't need any of this headache.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    24. Re:Simple.... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I have a piece of duct tape over my laptop camera. May not be disabled, but nobody is seeing miuch.

    25. Re:Simple.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Peculiar, since what I've described is actually simpler to implement from an electronics perspective than actually having separate firmware logic to explicitly turn the LED on or off independently of what is going on with the sensor. As a much intended bonus, such a design would offer consumers positive certainty that as barring physical sabotaging the device and breaking the LED (which should generally be physically obvious), the camera cannot *POSSIBLY* be used without providing indication of it

    26. Re:Simple.... by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what the article mentioned? Devices connecting to your INTERNAL network? Of course you cannot do anything about stuff connecting to 4G and outside WAPs.

      Yes, it does mention the network in the actual article but both the summary and the article start out worrying about the "always listening" devices which no amount of encryption or inspecting is going to help if they are connecting by one of many other methods not controlled by the company. Not to mention if it's end to end encryption then even if it is on your network then you can't inspect it only block it.

    27. Re:Simple.... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well the point is that you don't allow amazon echo into the office.

      now windows 10 on the other hand.. that's a bit trickier policy if you have to develop windows apps in the office.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    28. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm in a right-to-work state and I tell my IT to eat dick at least once a month, or I did when I was still working for a company that didn't understand IT is a service, not the business. You can write all teh rules you want, you will not get compliance from most people.

      Honestly the cat was out of the bag when people started carrying smartphones. Banning watches is just being nit picky about the forms of spying you want to forbid.

      Speaking of service, understand that IT Security is a component of IT that exists to ensure you can continue operating the fucking business, not just secure employment for those who like to tell fellow employees to "eat a dick" because they feel the business revolves around them.

      And companies don't rely on compliance. All they need is corporate policy vetted and supported at the highest levels of management. Don't want to comply? Don't let the door hit you too hard on the way out, which by the way in a right-to-work state is effective fucking immediately. Speed limit signs on our roads serve the same purpose. It doesn't stop people from speeding. It provides an avenue of punishment and deterrence so arrogant fucks don't get out of control.

      Remember as you try and carry a primadonna attitude in the workplace. The flattening of our society will ensure management can always find a replacement no matter the skill set.

    29. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. These devices do not "Raise security policy questions." At least, not any questions that haven't already been answered.

      If you work in a remotely secure environment, cell phones, cameras, etc are already disallowed. Amazon Echo and its ilk will be immediately added to that list.

    30. Re:Simple.... by lgw · · Score: 1

      IT Security is a component of IT that exists to ensure you can continue operating the fucking business

      Only a small portion of IT security is that, and that portion (if done right) has little to do with individual employees following nit-picky rules. Most IT security concerns have some manageable cost associated with ignoring them, and it's just a matter of cost of security vs risk of loss.

      If you're an IT security guy, it's easy to mistake your job for "eliminate all IT security threats". But that's not your job. Your job is "manage all IT security threats". It's up to the business leaders to decide what trade-offs are best for the business, and you should accept that the best decision is sometimes to ignore a risk, or take minimal preventive steps.

      It's also your job to realize that humans don't follow rules as written. You're not writing software there. Write rules such that, when people do what they are prone to do in response to the rules, you benefit (even though that's rarely "follow them exactly").

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get a radio and connect it to a circuit that upconverts to ultrasonic frequencies you feed the signal into the pa system. Turn up the volume. Might not work. Might lead to strange lawsuits about mind control or personal health.

    32. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also as a plus the rodents will stay away.

    33. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I DON'T allow it in my home. If I had the authority at any business or workplace, rules would be in place about any cell phone or other device that connects to anything via blutooth, wi-fi, internet, or phone networks. Either don't bring it to work or it will be confiscated and destroyed!

      Yes, I allow guests in my home to bring a cell phone, tablet, and/or laptop. I may even let them connect to my wi-fi. I will never buy or allow any IoT devices that have the capability to spy on me and connect to the internet.

      To allow even cell phones in the workplace is a security nightmare, and bad policy! The only purpose for IoT devices to exist is to spy on those who buy them! They serve no useful purpose to their owners/purchasers. And yes, I have worked for employers that required any such device including cell phones be left at home or in the owner's vehicle. BOYD is a security nightmare and disaster!!

      Yes, I know that Joe Sixpack the sheeple does not understand why such things are bad, all they see is the ohhhh shiney device or appliance that can be monitored or controlled via a cell phone app.

    34. Re:Simple.... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      You're correct, but for the last ten years or so camera indicators have been wired the more complicated/expensive/nefarious way. It's almost enough to make you a little paranoid.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    35. Re: Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and below average companies too. so the average remains where it was. mode, median and standard deviation might shift around a little bit.

    36. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what I'd do is politely and "unofficially" ask you to follow the company security policy. When you refused, I'd send a polite email to my IT boss saying that the company security policy is being violated in specific ways X, Y & Z (and I wouldn't name any names, because that's a dick thing).

      Then it would take a miracle for my boss to care. If he did, it would take another miracle for anyone in the company to listen to anything IT says. If that happened, it would take a third miracle for the company to approve a few purchase requests to help get everyone in the office in compliance (think installing our own wireless with radius auth, probably not much more than the cost of 2 WAPs).

      What would actually happen is no one would listen to me about the security policy, no one would listen to my boss about the security policy, and I'd eventually leave for a company that isn't such a drag to work at. Eventually you'd have some kind of data breech and you'd all scream about how "IT didn't do their jobs".

    37. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. If anyone (including visitors) is spotted with a cellphone, smartwatch, or other suspect device in the office, this person HAS to pay for ALL the beer at the next social event. If he can't make it to the social event, he has to donate roughly the required amount in cash ASAP.
      That's our office rule. We drink for free pretty often, and the amount of unwanted devices is pretty low.

      Once each violation costs people money, they will learn how to behave in no-time. Unless they are actually, willingly, industry spies. But that's another matter altogether.

    38. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably simpler to design but less easy to piece together from components. But I do concur with the other commentor- it's enough to make you suspicious for sure.

    39. Re:Simple.... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      That is the IT side of exactly how it works. Try to ban pot and some will smoke it and even more will ignore it, and even the policemen stop caring.

    40. Re:Simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't allow it.......

      Then I'll wear two. Then you'll threaten to get me fired. Then I'll wear three. Then, after numerous iterations on this, security will escort your arrogant ass out of the building.

      FTFY...

  2. They were too busy asking themselves if they could by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And not asking if they should

  3. Always-Working culture is the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Work in the workplace. Leave your toys at home. Go home to your toys. Get a life. Have a work/life balance.

    1. Re:Always-Working culture is the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Take your communism elsewhere.

    2. Re:Always-Working culture is the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fired?! That's awesome! 0% work 100% life is just what I needed! I feel so ALIIIIIIIVE.

    3. Re:Always-Working culture is the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Work in the workplace. Leave your toys at home. Go home to your toys. Get a life. Have a work/life balance.

      Your home toys spy on you more than your workplace tools do.

    4. Re:Always-Working culture is the real problem by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Have a work/life balance.

      Insanity. Telling my IT to eat a dick might at worst get me yelled at by my boss, maybe if I were already on his shit-list. Otherwise he'd probably tell me I shouldn't do that, and I'd list a number of other things I shouldn't do, and we'll reach an impasse.

      Having work/life balance will actually get me fired. I mean...laid off.

    5. Re:Always-Working culture is the real problem by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      While leaving the "toys" at the door is a viable solution, the fact is that being able to use the net IS work. When I'm in an area without access to, for instance, my phone, I have a hard as SHIT time looking stuff up. Between blocked websites ("hacking" red flag, for instance) and an inability to save state and documents effectively, the phone is a huge help- it stands in for a bookshelf at minimum.

      The issue isn't "toys" versus "non toys". The issue is, my TOOLS have problems.

    6. Re:Always-Working culture is the real problem by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That was the plan when smart phones were new. "Don't bring your phone to the office", a simple plan and the only ones complaining were hipsters. A year later all the IT groups were scrambling to figure out how to coexist peacefully with smart phones.

  4. Re:still protecting our imaginary secrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, brah. We all already know you have a micropeen.

  5. Re:I will personally rip it out if I see it by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2, Funny

    Internet Tough Guy Status: Confirmed.

  6. Why are people accepting this? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't get all of this, and frankly it's a little creepy.

    From Barbies which upload everything your child says to a server, to XBox units which send everything in your living to Microsoft, to whatever the hell an Amazon Echo is ... why the hell are people willing to accept something around them which is always listening, and always uploading everything you say to the internet?

    You want one of these things in your home, go right a head, that is your choice. But bringing shit like this into an office where it affects other people? That should be against a lot of corporate policies -- and in a lot of workplaces probably violates some legal requirements.

    I trust neither the competence, security practices, or behavior of these companies. They don't give a crap about you or your security, they care about monetization and analytics ... which means I assume anything written by Amazon like this is at least some fraction intended to line of the pockets of a corporation.

    You bring stuff like this into a workspace, and you should expect someone is going to be pretty pissed off that they're included in this without their consent.

    Keep your shiny baubles which violate your own privacy the hell home -- the workplace is NOT a place where everyone is willing to consent to the terms of service of Amazon just because some ass got a shiny toy for Christmas.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Simulant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And then there's your cell phone....

    2. Re:Why are people accepting this? by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up "insightful".

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    3. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > probably violates some legal requirements

      For example state wiretapping laws. IANAL but it seems it could be breaking the law in states that require two party consent.

    4. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      keep raging against it, doesn't matter
      eventually these sorts of things will be pervasive, leaving you only to cry into your yogurt

    5. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You want one of these things in your home, go right a head, that is your choice.

      As long as you don't have visitors, or inform them about the device and warn them not to say anything that might be considered to be private, or always remember to turn it off. I've seen people who otherwise behave intelligently dump stuff about me on facebook or twitter without asking permission or even understanding that they should when I object, so I'm not too optimistic about where this might be going.

    6. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily, I live in a one party recording site, and don't have to ask anyone's permission to have Alexa listening to what people say.

    7. Re:Why are people accepting this? by castionsosa · · Score: 1

      Agreed. IoT is a security hazard enough at home... but the workplace? No thanks. I can't even begin to think how many rules, regulations, policies, even laws, some IoT devices would break. To boot, the devices may not work with WPA-enterprise, so would need their own SSID, and if the devices had their own cellular connection, that can break even more rules.

      Nope... there are enough security issues already. I think policies will be quickly updated to cover IoT stuff soon.

    8. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And then there's Maude.

    9. Re:Why are people accepting this? by houghi · · Score: 2

      Why, because they are told it is a good idea. Or at least they are not told that it is a bad idea.

      No matter how bad your idea is for whatever, it can be packaged in such a way that people will want it.

      DrunkXYZ, now with even more success in increasing your sugarlevels. Drink DrunkXYZ for the highest blood sugarlevels possible in nature. Packaging also increates the number of jobs in the waste industry. Almost no deterogation of the waste product with the advantage of not usable for a second time.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      I don't get all of this, and frankly it's a little creepy.

      From Barbies which upload everything your child says to a server, to XBox units which send everything in your living to Microsoft, to whatever the hell an Amazon Echo is ... why the hell are people willing to accept something around them which is always listening, and always uploading everything you say to the internet?

      Unfortunately the current voice recognition technology is not good/fast enough to run on low powered devices like barbies or even smart phones so companies have found a neat trick that uploads the audio clip to the cloud, have heavy duty cloud servers do the translation and then send the reply back to the device. We need major advances in voice recognition, battery life, mobile processor speed, or some other area to get around this. The other possibility is to not use voice recognition and/or pass laws restricting what can be done with the audio once it is uploaded but even if you do this, regardless, when you start carrying around devices with microphones in them then there is always the possibility that someone is able to record using it. Pretty much the only way to prevent this would be to have electronic frying devices at the entrance to secure buildings.

    11. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get all of this, and frankly it's a little creepy.

      From Barbies which upload everything your child says to a server, to XBox units which send everything in your living to Microsoft, to whatever the hell an Amazon Echo is ... why the hell are people willing to accept something around them which is always listening, and always uploading everything you say to the internet?

      You want one of these things in your home, go right a head, that is your choice. But bringing shit like this into an office where it affects other people? That should be against a lot of corporate policies -- and in a lot of workplaces probably violates some legal requirements.

      I trust neither the competence, security practices, or behavior of these companies. They don't give a crap about you or your security, they care about monetization and analytics ... which means I assume anything written by Amazon like this is at least some fraction intended to line of the pockets of a corporation.

      You bring stuff like this into a workspace, and you should expect someone is going to be pretty pissed off that they're included in this without their consent.

      Keep your shiny baubles which violate your own privacy the hell home -- the workplace is NOT a place where everyone is willing to consent to the terms of service of Amazon just because some ass got a shiny toy for Christmas.

      There is another side to this as well. What happens if there is an internet outage/power cut for any period of time? Do all these devices no longer work? Do self-driving cars stop in the middle of the street? We are building all these devices with a single point of failure.

    12. Re:Why are people accepting this? by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't get all of this, and frankly it's a little creepy.

      From Barbies which upload everything your child says to a server, to XBox units which send everything in your living to Microsoft, to whatever the hell an Amazon Echo is ... why the hell are people willing to accept something around them which is always listening, and always uploading everything you say to the internet?

      Because the price of privacy (which is unproven until someone sees the evidence in their own bank accounts) doesn't even hold a candle to the price of "convenience", and speaking to control a computer (only something we've fantasized about in movies for half a damn century now) is somehow infinitely better than actually having to lift fingers and depress a touch screen.

      You want one of these things in your home, go right a head, that is your choice. But bringing shit like this into an office where it affects other people? That should be against a lot of corporate policies -- and in a lot of workplaces probably violates some legal requirements.

      Feel free to convince said consumer that talking into their watch (or vice versa) is somehow affecting other people. Sure, I get it from a security standpoint, but the other 99% of society who doesn't get paid to think about such concerns doesn't give a shit about it, and therefore will not even acknowledge it to be a problem to solve.

      I trust neither the competence, security practices, or behavior of these companies. They don't give a crap about you or your security, they care about monetization and analytics ... which means I assume anything written by Amazon like this is at least some fraction intended to line of the pockets of a corporation.

      You bring stuff like this into a workspace, and you should expect someone is going to be pretty pissed off that they're included in this without their consent.

      Keep your shiny baubles which violate your own privacy the hell home -- the workplace is NOT a place where everyone is willing to consent to the terms of service of Amazon just because some ass got a shiny toy for Christmas.

      With always-on Internet connections in every employee pocket (cell phone), coupled with WiFi/Bluetooth/next-gen wireless tech, good luck "securing" the workplace. The primadonnas will speak loudly in their "defense".

      You've also got the industry to fight too. We tried to enforce a policy that prohibited any cellular device from merely having a camera, to include corporate-issued devices. That didn't even work with the hardware vendor for longer than about a year or two.

    13. Re: Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol please tell me this refers to the old all in the family spin off called Maude.

      Anti gentile, the lot of ya.

    14. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just recently found out about the whole "Elf on the Shelf" concept. I'd seen pictures of the creepy little doll-thing, but never bothered to investigate the premise.

      In case you don't know, the Elf is supposed to be a spy for Santa. Parents move him around while the children are sleeping to give the illusion of activity. Meanwhile, kids are getting accustomed to the feeling of 24/7 surveillance in their own homes.

      Get the fuck outta here with that creepy shit.

      Sorry for the tangent, but your comment just reminded me of that. You and I are clearly bothered by the concept of an always-watching, always listening device... but for how much longer will that be the norm? How many generations until people are just OK with this kind of thing??

    15. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "little" creepy?

      Hey, is the water in this pot getting warmer?

    16. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually alexa is eavesdropping if she isnt a a party to the conversation.

    17. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      after all its not their personal information... Seems to be a tradgedy of the commons type problem.

    18. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap, first Star Wars and now this. What 70s flashback is next: Bruce Jenner?

    19. Re:Why are people accepting this? by Toshito · · Score: 1

      and speaking to control a computer (only something we've fantasized about in movies for half a damn century now) is somehow infinitely better than actually having to lift fingers and depress a touch screen.

      That's your opinion, from my point of view it's the total opposite. Voice control outside of my home is a total no-no for me. I hate speaking to people, what makes you think that I would like to speak to a thing?

      In fact I also despise touch screens, give me real physical buttons, keyboards, knobs and sliders, without any lag, and I'll be very happy.

      I'm so tired of all the lag that is creeping everywhere. It seems like things are becoming slower, not faster. There's always lag on every button press, when you turn something on, when you change volume, or the button lights up but the action comes after, or the reverse, and then you press it twice because you think it didn't register your click... It's worse on touch screens.

      And voice recognition is the mother of all laggy way to command something.

      No counting the fact that I've yet to find a working voice recognition for my mother tongue. You see I speak French, but I don't live in France. Wich means that all voice recognition software is almost useless unless I fake a French accent instead of my own Quebecois accent.

      --
      Try it! Library of Babel
  7. Phones include all this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phones already include 100% of the issue. If the year is 2002 then you have probably already already handled the IoT-in-the-workplace case.

    1. Re:Phones include all this by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No. You've probably already ignored the IoT-in-the-workplace case. Just *try* telling your boss to leave his phone at home.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  8. Re:still protecting our imaginary secrets? by messymerry · · Score: 1

    For the camera: http://www.jerrysartarama.com/... Sticks to gorilla glass like an octopus.

    --
    Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
  9. don't buy it by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3

    it's very simple, don't buy such devices and don't allow them near you. it's been trumpeted for years and idiots don't care. the real question is, when will security get the authority to override what some dumbass manager demands?

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already in your phone, your TV, your gaming consoles, your media devices, your tablets, and your MS and Apple OSes.

      If you want anything made in the last three years (and going forward), you have no choice. And that's not all. Everyone around you doesn't care. You are being recorded whether you like it or not, and regardless of whether the device owner(s) know their gadgets are doing it.

  10. BYOD includes "IoT" by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    Unless something changed in 2016, a thing like a Smartwatch or the Echo is still a "device" thus should be covered under the BYOD policy. The D means "Device".

    1. Re:BYOD includes "IoT" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not strictly. I own IoT devices which I do not bring to work. All my BYOD items are IoT items.

    2. Re:BYOD includes "IoT" by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Nuh uh! It's a "thing"! "Things" and "devices" are compltely different!

    3. Re:BYOD includes "IoT" by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you bothered to write that. We are talking about work where a BYOD policy applies, not stuff you use at home. Any BYOD policy includes IoT devices you bring to work. The D in BYOD means "device" and a "IoT" device is a device.

  11. srsly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    BYOD policies are meant to address your mobile handsets, tablets and personal laptops, but who's addressing all the other gadgetry?"

    Existing policies should prohibit attaching new devices to the network or computer without permission from the IT department, which is the only policy you need. Anyone who installs these always-listening devices where sensitive information is communicated deserves exactly what they get.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:srsly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt they deserve what they get. But does the security conscious employee who works in the same office deserve the repercussions of having someone hack his bank account because he he was unaware someone brought in a gadget that recorded him making a call to his bank and uploaded it?

      Like everyone else here is saying...BYOD should cover this. It's a device, with an internet connection. Though sometimes it's hard to be proactive enough, especially where more and more things get their own embedded cellular communication, or the prevalence of free wifi that your company's most stringent security policies have no control over.

    2. Re:srsly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And many workplaces have a fairly open "guest WiFi" which would be easy to attach the Echo to. Sure the Echo won't be able to get on the company network and infect the servers, but it can still transmit confidential conversations.

      Having said that -- I suspect phones with malware would be a much greater threat for espionage than an Echo which will encrypt the data it hears and send it to Amazon where it will simply get lost in the flood of other information other Echos are sending to Amazon. A phone with malware could be much more easily targeted to a specific business or even individuals who might have "interesting" conversations.

    3. Re:srsly? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      BYOD policies are meant to address your mobile handsets, tablets and personal laptops, but who's addressing all the other gadgetry?"

      Existing policies should prohibit attaching new devices to the network or computer without permission from the IT department, which is the only policy you need. Anyone who installs these always-listening devices where sensitive information is communicated deserves exactly what they get.

      How many managers / lawyers / whatever have iphones (for example) that have or will have an 'always on' component like Siri that doesn't even need the corporate network to be able to connect back to the manufacturer cloud ?

      These people have other jobs and are generally neither technical nor tech-security aware by default and thus just aren't going to consider whether their phone is leaking confidential client/lawyer conversations (or whatever) to apple, for example.

      The article is quite validly pointing out that companies security policies and user security sensitization/education need to be upgraded to take such things into account.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    4. Re:srsly? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Existing policies should prohibit attaching new devices to the network or computer without permission from the IT department, which is the only policy you need. Anyone who installs these always-listening devices where sensitive information is communicated deserves exactly what they get.

      That covers "I want to connect X to our company network." What about the situation where the user is using their private cell phone connection? Suppose I had a smartwatch that connected via my mobile hotspot, constantly recorded audio, and uploaded it to the cloud via my hotspot for transcribing/saving. How is an IT manager supposed to know that such a device exists in the building (it's not on the company network), much less stop the employee from using it?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  12. Maybe you won't even know by badzilla · · Score: 1

    If someone is waving a talking gadget around in the workplace then maybe you can do something about getting it removed. What about their smart nose stud or some other thing that does not look like a threat? The only way would be airport-style security on your office door and I suspect nobody wants the expense or inconvenience.

    --
    "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    1. Re:Maybe you won't even know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >smart nose stud
      i lol'd.
      Shortly before realizing, yes, someone would buy it. Too many someones.

  13. using POT (Personal Open Terminal) keep an eye out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for each other & on our felonious crown royal overlords with almost everyone on at once,, & free range access to all the millions of streams etc,, & cctv & satellites (which we paid for it all many times over already) we can become aware if even one of us is being treated poorly almost anywhere? what a gig?

    Slashdot only allows anonymous users to post 10 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). A user from your IP has already shared his or her thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email posting@slashdot.org with your particulars...

  14. Internet of things by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I keep hearing this concept repeated like a tocsin by "internet experts" (that I've never heard of) but seriously, who is going to buy this crap? Who really wants their coffeemaker or refrigerator attached to the internet at all, much less be willing to pay one cent more to add what amounts to zero functionality but additional points of failure and additional ability for corporate America to grab some other details about our personal lives?

    Is there any actual, normal person out there even faintly interested in this crap?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Internet of things by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I keep hearing this concept repeated like a tocsin by "internet experts" (that I've never heard of) but seriously, who is going to buy this crap?

      1) you're not going to have a choice because everything else will fall off the market and 2) the masses of asses who don't think beyond "ooh, shiny". They are clearly in the majority, just look around.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Internet of things by vikingpower · · Score: 2

      Is there any actual, normal person out there even faintly interested in this crap?

      Yes, there is. Marketing at Amazon. They're coming for you, too, bro.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    3. Re:Internet of things by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I actually enjoy being able to control things in my apartment by voice. That's actual, real functionality to me. You may not agree, but I don't think you represent as much of the target market for these devices as you believe yourself to. It's like "why pay an extra $30 for a HD monitor? 480 P is just fine. I can't see the difference". Your dismissal of such functionality is a bit silly. "I don't need voice commands" is one thing. "I don't like that so I don't think it offers functionality to anyone at all" is myopic.

      That said, I can't imagine bringing something like an Echo into the office. I don't even want to issue voice commands to my computer or watch in that environment. That is a head scratcher.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    4. Re:Internet of things by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Voice control of things in your apartment doesn't need Internet access to work. We have had voice control since the 1990s.

    5. Re:Internet of things by tsqr · · Score: 1

      1) you're not going to have a choice because everything else will fall off the market and 2) the masses of asses who don't think beyond "ooh, shiny". They are clearly in the majority, just look around.

      It's not just the masses of asses who don't think beyond "ooh, shiny", unless you define everyone who buys this crap as an ass. I have a close friend with a PhD in CS and an MS in psychology, who has everything in his house from his garage door to his thermostat to his ceiling fan (!) networked and internet accessible. Another friend who is extremely cautious - bordering on paranoid - about revealing any personal information on the internet, has an Amazon Echo sitting on his bar. Still scratching my head over that one.

    6. Re:Internet of things by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not just the masses of asses who don't think beyond "ooh, shiny", unless you define everyone who buys this crap as an ass.

      Can't I?

      Another friend who is extremely cautious - bordering on paranoid - about revealing any personal information on the internet, has an Amazon Echo sitting on his bar. Still scratching my head over that one.

      Ooh, shiny!

      To be fair, I own an Android phone. It's running AOSP and I have voice turned off, but there's a certain amount of trust involved even so. Who can say what level of paranoia is justified?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Internet of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I actually enjoy being able to control things in my apartment by voice. That's actual, real functionality to me.

      That's also not functionality which requires access to the Internet, and even if you want to be able to sit at work and use your voice to fuck with your dog by flipping the lights on and off, you can achieve it without giving every last gadget a public, routeable IP address.

    8. Re:Internet of things by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Voice control of things in your apartment doesn't need Internet access to work. We have had voice control since the 1990s.

      One of the things I'm happy Apple (and to some extent Google) has begun to offer is offline voice recognition, recognizing that not all of us want our voice recordings sent to the cloud for further processing.

      I'm happy people have set up giant neural network voice recognition systems for interpreting what people are saying, using a bazillion cores in a data center, but what I really want is for the algorithm to be implemented local to my house.

    9. Re:Internet of things by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Except those things usually don't have enough horsepower to do the work themselves, so they send it all back to a central thing which does the work and sends back results.

      Which means, as currently deployed, these things mostly do require internet connections ... and that's kind of the problem. You end up with machines which might be constantly sending everything around them to the mothership, which stands a good chance of being misused and exploited in ways we'd prefer it not be.

      Essentially you bug your home or office so that in the small amount of time you want voice control, it can figure out what you need.

      Now, picture this in a corporate boardroom, a hospital, or other place in which there are legal requirements around confidential information ... suddenly every bit of what everyone says is streamed to a 3rd party whose EULA says "we own this shit, bitches".

      In its current form, voice control is just handing all of your data to a third party who you should assume will have decreed they can do anything they want with it. And, of course, government can secretly demand access to it.

      This is Big Brother, only we've willingly invited him into our homes, placed the data under the control of a corporation, and decided that's perfectly fine.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:Internet of things by mbone · · Score: 1

      the masses of asses who don't think beyond "ooh, shiny". They are clearly in the majority, just look around.

      That may be true, but just who do you think configures their networks and sets up their devices?

    11. Re:Internet of things by mbone · · Score: 1

      Is there any actual, normal person out there even faintly interested in this crap?

      Yes, there is. Marketing at Amazon. They're coming for you, too, bro.

      You have an interesting definition of normal, and for that matter, of actual.

    12. Re:Internet of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who can say what level of paranoia is justified?

      Everyone but you.

    13. Re:Internet of things by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      No one is saying Voice Control is useless. We take great exception ot the fact that as implemented, it almost always requires submitting your data to another party to analyze. What is myopic is that you think the functionality of voice control is worth the price of having everything you say recorded and stored. Give me OFFLINE voice control, and ill eat it up. Give me a NEST thermostat that ONLY talks to me, and ill buy it. etc.

      --
      Good-bye
    14. Re:Internet of things by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Switch on your irony sensor, please. If you can't, please make the next legal u-turn.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    15. Re:Internet of things by tsqr · · Score: 1

      It's not just the masses of asses who don't think beyond "ooh, shiny", unless you define everyone who buys this crap as an ass.

      Can't I?

      Well yeah, as long as you're not looking for a lot of buy-in. Of course, you can always dismiss anyone who disagrees as being part of the mass of asses. Sort of an interesting variation on "no true Scotsman".

      Another friend who is extremely cautious - bordering on paranoid - about revealing any personal information on the internet, has an Amazon Echo sitting on his bar. Still scratching my head over that one.

      Ooh, shiny!

      Well, that's what has me scratching my head. This guy is definitely not the "Ooh, shiny!" type at all.

      To be fair, I own an Android phone. It's running AOSP and I have voice turned off, but there's a certain amount of trust involved even so. Who can say what level of paranoia is justified?

      To the true paranoid, there is no level of paranoia that isn't justified.

    16. Re:Internet of things by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Read anything about the new large screen TVs?

      FWIW, in 2 years things won't bother to advertise that they communicate over the internet. You won't find out until you read the documentation after you buy it. And they'll either be wireless, or they won't work right without an internet connection.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  15. Anyone remember Furbies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Back in 1999 the NSA banned Furbies as they felt they might pick up on National Secrets and repeat them.
    http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-nsa-once-banned-furbies-as-a-threat-to-national-sec-1526908210

    1. Re:Anyone remember Furbies? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      OMiGawd...yes! How times have changed, eh.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  16. Re:still protecting our imaginary secrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF, white tape?!? I have a Rose Gold iPhone 6s you insensitive clod!

  17. Any work wifi... by CimmerianX · · Score: 1

    Any work wifi network should be secured with WPA2ENT using id/pw or certificates for access to the wifi LAN. I seriously doubt these devices will have support for anything more than PSK or the auto-configure 'thing' that consumer routers are coming with now.

    Seriously.... what kind of IT would let that happen?

  18. Re:They were too busy asking themselves if they co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been a long time since I've seen an appropriately used quote from Jurassic Park!

  19. Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's gone too far, and all in the name of the mighty dollar. Technilogy and orogress are great, but there are useful applications gor it in our lives, and useless ones. There is no reason for a device to be listening all the time unless it is hoping to collect something from it.

  20. I'm a Unix admin by dfn5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't talk to people

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    1. Re:I'm a Unix admin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm a network admin. I don't talk to people either, but I do listen to everything they're saying. ;)

    2. Re:I'm a Unix admin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are You now considered an IoT Always-on Device?

    3. Re:I'm a Unix admin by antdude · · Score: 1

      But you just did on /.!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  21. Re:BYOD becomes BYOT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point and maybe it should be BYOT ... but I just don't think switching to a BYOT (Bring Your Own Thing) policy is going to work though. :p

  22. This is already an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smart watches, etc

    Anywhere that cares about security will have a bunch of cubbyholes or lockers at the front door, and you'll be checking your personal electronics when you walk in.

    Amazon Echo and the like are *consumer* devices, aka "toys for your home", and have no place in business environments, unless someone has actually done the analysis for security. (and assuming that the vendor has actually provided sufficient information and configuration control).

    yes, a pain, and "that's why we can't have nice things"

    1. Re:This is already an issue by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      Anywhere that cares about security will have a bunch of cubbyholes or lockers at the front door, and you'll be checking your personal electronics when you walk in.

      From 2005 to 2010, I worked for a fed government contractor in a fed government facility, and that is precisely what we had.. Certain areas of the building were secure areas and ALL personal electronics were placed in those lockers when entering the secure area. Other areas you *could* carry your personal cellphone, so long as it didn't have a camera, otherwise you had to leave in your car. Before I left in 2010, it got so *secure* that you had to declare to the armed guards at the front gate as you drove in, what you had in your car. I often carried my personal laptop in the trunk of my car, to use before and after work, and I had to get special dispensation from security to allow that..

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
  23. BYOD Only network by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Informative

    We have a byod wifi network for any non-approved wireless devices.

    The network is completely separate from the LAN and normal WIFI network and is subject to some bandwidth throttling.

    A user can plug in a device to the network, but I do monitor the DHCP logs. This hasn't been a real problem since we gave the users a sandbox to play in though.

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:BYOD Only network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you've supplied them the bandwidth needed to upload your HR conversations?

    2. Re:BYOD Only network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the point where the BYOD IoT devices are now listening to everything said in their area and uploading it to third party corporate servers.

    3. Re:BYOD Only network by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      Well, here's the deal. The office space is small enough (2 floors of a downtown skyscraper) that I regularly see most of it. I am pretty connected with what users are doing.

      Sometimes the solution is not so much technical and is more on the social side.

      The answer to your question is: Yes. If an HR or Accounting (or any) person in the office decided to attach a wireless device that listens, it would have an available connection to the Internet (assuming it used port 80 or 443).

      BUT, I would be aware of it pretty quickly. We are not the police. We are the IT department. We don't set or enforce policy for users. After talking to them about the potential risks, it would be up to their group leader or the operations committee to tell them they can't do it. We would, of course inform that decision, but unless the device is causing a disruption, we generally let users do what they want in that byod space.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    4. Re:BYOD Only network by avandesande · · Score: 1

      It's trivial for just about the least technical person to record conversations with their phone. I don't think there is really a way to stop people from doing this if they want to.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:BYOD Only network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:BYOD Only network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certain employers cannot not stop you from recording certain conversations, because failure to stop your recordings would constitute a federal offense and all involved are unambiguously guilty by the existence of such a recording.

      Be sure you understand which you are working for before you try to record co-worker conversations for blackmail purposes. (Saw that end very badly for a few self-absorbed co-workers.)

    7. Re:BYOD Only network by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      "We are the IT department. We don't set or enforce policy for users."

      You are supposed to be the network police. Management has gutted your autonomy and authority. Sounds like you are more of a Help Desk than an actual IT dept.

      --
      Good-bye
  24. Re:BYOD becomes BYOT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point and maybe it should be BYOT

    The point is that all those 'things' are also 'devices', so there's no need to change the acronym or, in many cases, even the IT policies.
    Where I work it's pretty simple- you don't get to connect anything to the network which hasn't been pre-approved by Corporate IT. There's a Guest Wireless network, which is apart from the regular company network, which can be used for your Smartphone or fitness watch, etc.
    Anything which can or does record audio or video of any sort, may only be used for Official work purposes. This means that technically no, you can't ask Siri anything unless you step outside the building.
    This policy pretty much covers the entire "IoT".

  25. workplace? No. Anywhere. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. Just no.

    Anyone that is stupid enough to let an internet connected device transmit everything it hears in a non-public location is just asking to be screwed.

    Once you do this, the feds no longer need a warrant to bug your home. They can just ask the company.

    Once you do this, Anonymous or any other hacker can p@wn you like the fool you are. Expect to be blackmailed.

    Once you do this, you basically are giving up all privacy, and let the Facebooks of the world sell things you own for massive amounts of money.

  26. You guys remember when Furbies first came out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember when Furbies first came out? Everyone was super paranoid that they were actually hidden spying devices. IIRC they were banned from military installations, gov't offices, etc..

    Fast forward 10 years later, and actual devices that we all know are always on listening, we know they collect our data - and we love it! Who doesn't like having better autocorrection on their phone keyboard? (even though it means everything you type is on someone else's server?)

  27. Re:They were too busy asking themselves if they co by Etcetera · · Score: 1

    And not asking if they should

    Sadly, this quote basically sums up a lot of current-generation Silicon Valley thinking.

  28. How is this complex? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    Plenty of places don't allow smartwatches, cellphones, or anything with radio. This will become more common as everything magically needs an internet connection to give even basic functionality.

    Why is "record audio, broadcast to mothership" a basic design tenet of all the new voice things? This has a very real cost in privacy, security, bandwidth, and reliability.

    Most things can trivially turn off their voice addon. But once that gets better, will some Design Jackass come in and say "voice is just superior, fuck the rest"? We'll have to listen to that asshole in eight years if we don't provide the needed pushback now.

    1. Re:How is this complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of places don't allow smartwatches, cellphones, or anything with radio. This will become more common as everything magically needs an internet connection to give even basic functionality.

      Why is "record audio, broadcast to mothership" a basic design tenet of all the new voice things? This has a very real cost in privacy, security, bandwidth, and reliability.

      Most things can trivially turn off their voice addon. But once that gets better, will some Design Jackass come in and say "voice is just superior, fuck the rest"? We'll have to listen to that asshole in eight years if we don't provide the needed pushback now.

      You ask why all these devices send the audio up to the "mothership"? It's because they don't want to put the voice recognition into the device - it requires more hardware in the device, and it doesn't do as good a job of parsing it into language. Cheaper / easier to put the voice recognition into a sizable machine that's shared by all the devices.

      Oh, it's a privacy risk? Sorry, we must do it this way (because it's cheaper / easier / does a better job).

  29. As the article author... by Wh1t3Rabbit2084 · · Score: 1

    I'm glad y'all are discussing this, but it's obvious too many don't actually understand the problem. Google's latest Android OS update as well as the new iOS both have "always listening" functionality. They listen for their trigger word, but they're always listening. What's worse is that some of these things have their own Internet connectivity (cellular data) and don't need your permission. Putting them on a "separate guest network" accomplishes next to nothing since it's not only their network presence but physical presence as well you need to worry about. Point being - dismissing as "It's stupid. I don't allow it. People are dumb." reply demonstrates exactly why security folks are marginalized. It's unfortunate, because this is both a technology and psychology/sociology issue Failure to understand that, means you continue to be irrelevant in the "real world" where people can't wait to buy a fridge that keeps track of when their milk will spoil and sends them text-message alerts while simultaneously re-ordering new milk. Thanks for reading.

  30. Seen this before... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I did a PC refresh job at a Fortune 500 company where the engineers were allowed to hang on to their old workstation for a week before turning them in for decommissioning and recycling. Most found clever excuses to keep them indefinitely, as having more processing power was a status symbol. Not all the cubicles had multiple network ports that were open. So the engineers brought in old network switches from home. That's when the real fun started. They didn't realize that their network switch also had a DHCP server with private network addresses that cut every workstation on the segment off from the corporate network and the Internet. A network technician spent a day tracking them all down..

    1. Re:Seen this before... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      That's when the real fun started. They didn't realize that their network switch also had a DHCP server with private network addresses that cut every workstation on the segment off from the corporate network and the Internet. A network technician spent a day tracking them all down..

      LOL, I've seen similar.

      Years ago a manager couldn't get more network drops in his office, so he brought in a little router for himself.

      In another entire office, but part of the corporate network, his collision with 192.168.*.* caused the corporate Exchange servers to keel over -- I'm still fuzzy on the exact details of that.

      The next day an IT guy hand delivered him a 8-port switch which didn't perform DHCP ... and a very LOUD announcement in email stating "thou shalt not bring in thine own networking equipment" was enacted.

      It was kind of funny, caused a hell of a mess, and took a LONG time for people to figure out what happened.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  31. It's not network attachment that's problematic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If anything, that would make things easier. You could just block them. No, IoT will bring their own network. We've talked a lot about internet-enabled TVs spying on their users, and the reflex is always the same: Don't give your TV internet access and you're good. No, you are not good. The TV will soon come with its own network builtin, where you can't just unplug it or pull the Wifi stick or refuse to give it the WPA key. If you don't give it access to your Wifi, then it will talk to the neighbors' TVs and to their neighbors' TVs until it finds one that has an uplink. Or maybe M2M mobile cards will get cheap enough to just put one into every TV. A computer with Wifi costs less than $5. Mesh networks have been built with less capable hardware. The time of "airgapping" computers is coming to an end. The "Internet of things" is not the Internet. It's the "Evernet", where a disconnected state is a malfunction. And these devices listen to confidential information. Do you see the problem now?

  32. Re:BYOD becomes BYOT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Satire and snark is so under-appreciated on /. these days.

  33. How welcome? by mbone · · Score: 1

    Not.

    Don't try bring any of this junk in a SCIF.

    1. Re:How welcome? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Not.

      Don't try bring any of this junk in a SCIF.

      Junk?

      Wonder how well this stance is going to work out as SCIF-riddled businesses fight with both security policy and medical discrimination when those Bluetooth-enabled pacemakers start becoming all the rage amongst obese greybeards in support...

  34. Google searches by cliffjumper222 · · Score: 2

    I always thought there would be a mine of information based on a company's searches too. Engineer is reading a spec and googles an acronym, finance google a company they are planning to merge with, HR google potential candidates, R&D google research terms, etc. Not too much of an issue if you have no other interaction with google, but if your company competes with google or otherwise has a business relationship with them, then it may be a good idea not to google anything!

  35. dance, motherfucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just allow people to plug in shit as they feel like it.

    hmmm.

    "allow"

    that's cute.

    quaint, even.

    that fantasy of yours lasts until the fancy-ass cunt in a suit wants their fucking new toy to work, and doesn't give a flying fuck about anything except "shiny!".

    a number of steps you can take to not let unauthorized devices on your company network.

    it's not your network, you clueless wageslave.

    it's their network.

    the only step you can take to escape your orders to dance on command, is seppuku.

    learn it. live it. love it.

  36. Re: Simple.... IT is a service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, as water utilities are. But the service provider gives you rules (in order to provide a fair and maintable service) and you choose to do what you want... well be responsible to handle any issue arises from your free will choice.
    Doing otherwise is just plain an immature way of thinking.

  37. Re:using POT (Personal Open Terminal) keep an eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got that message first message of the day. Got to wonder how 24 hrs is calculated

  38. Wired vs Wireless by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Our workplace is simple. Wired (fast, secure) network is for work. Wireless network (throttled, less secure) is for everything else. It's pretty simple and it works.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  39. O.B.I.T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just watched this classic "Outer Limits" episode again last night, about a machine called the "Outer Band Individuated Teletracer" (or OBIT) that spies on everyone. At one point, the man running the program to distribute the machines everywhere says, "People with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from O.B.I.T."

    At the end of the episode, the Control Voice says, "Agents from the Justice Department are rounding up the machines now . . . In the final analysis, dear friends, whether O.B.I.T. lives up to its name will depend on you."

    And this was from 1963.

  40. Strict IT policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strict IT policies work every bit as well as abstinence-only sex ed.

  41. Snap, Crackle, Pop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Accessorize your tinfoil hats with crinkly mylar, and launch a blizzard of elven breakfast cereal noises upon the IoT.

  42. Re:I will personally rip it out if I see it by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Well there are some places where things like that happen. I had a coworker lose his phone (at the time it was a new iPhone 4s) to an electronics shredder at a customer site where he had been told not to bring it into specific places. He didn't listen and then when he pulled it out the armed guard came took it from him and fed it to the shredder. So it does happen, the sad part was that he wanted the company to reimburse him for it even though he had been told several times by several people to not bring it.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  43. You probably have a BYOD policy, by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    You probably have a BYOD policy,

    Yes. It's DONT.

    If you do bring it, don't plug it into the network.

    If it doesn't have an ethernet socket and needs a wifi connection, you need to contact IT with it's MAC address and your written authorisation from your line manager instructing IT to provide you with connectivity. The IT will probably tell you or your manager to fuck off.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"