Slashdot Mirror
Web Bluetooth Opens New Abusive Channels (dailydot.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Recently, browsers are starting to ship Web Bluetooth API, soon to become a component of Web of Things. Web Bluetooth will allow to connect local user devices with remote web sites. While offering new development and innovation possibilities, it may also open a number of frightening security and privacy risks such as private data leaks, abuses and complexity. Web Bluetooth as currently defined by W3C may introduce unexpected data leaks such as location, and personally-identifiable data. "There are numerous examples of data processing methods possible of extracting insight previously seemingly hidden," said Steve Hegenderfer, director of Developer Programs at the Bluetooth Special Interest Group. "With Web Bluetooth, core security and privacy responsibility is delegated to the already powerful Web browser. Browsers should consider the types of information made available to websites and act accordingly in designing their data privacy layers." Is pairing kettles with web sites a good idea?
The idea and the platform is a joke. The standardization guys must be drunk.
LUDDITE software is shitty and can't use wireless AppTooth devices correctly! Modern appy app apps using AppTooth via AppApps are appier!
Apps!
"Is pairing kettles with web sites a good idea?"
Why not? I remember fondly the first coffeepot camera on the web, even if it 'leaked' the location of the pot and the hands of those serving themselves.
Web Bluetooth as currently defined by W3C may introduce unexpected data leaks such as location, and personally-identifiable data
The leaks aren't unexpected, all new web technologies are being designed that way on purpose. When advertisers make up the standards body, this is what we get.
.... why is it a good idea to come up w/ yet another wireless standard when we have existing ones? Like if my rice cooker needs to connect to the internet, why not just use a legacy 802.11a chipset to let it link up to the internet at slow speeds? Do the things on the internet of things need to be high bandwidth as well, if they are not delivering intensive data, such as video data?
Also, if Bluetooth needs to be enhanced, why not make it something that allows not just 1:1, but many:many connections? Like I have 2 tablets, either of which could connect to a Bluetooth speaker I have at home. Or 2 phones, either of which could connect to my car navigation system. Why not have it such that either of them could access the speaker if it's idle, and that it would only fail to connect - or request an interruption - if the resource in question is already being used?
Why the hell would I want to do this?
Seriously, what is the use case?
Seriously, you thought we weren't going to illegally and unconstitutionally spy on you in your own country?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Actually, I quite like the versatility of the English language, the way one can artistically change word order, and (sometimes) preserve the same meaning.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Will also allow sentence not having getted one subject?
At the bottom of the
Or worse, Facebook will be able to "conveniently" unmute the headphones and raise the volume to make SURE you hear the ad they've embedded on the page.
This may be the time when open source swoops in and saves the day by creating tools which will interfere and ignore certain intrusive 'standards' foisted upon the unsuspecting general public.
I wonder if a device can be engineered to broadcast an interfering signal along the Bluetooth band and just kill the ability to function.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
This will integrate seamlessly into the IoT botnet used to take down Dyn the other day!
Better known as 318230.
A language where "I love you" and "I love sausages" only differ in the object can never be elegant.
I hate to break this to you, but your example translates word-for-word (correctly) into a whole slew of languages.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Contrast that with Mandarin, where you could have a sentence where carelessly raising, then dropping, the pitch of some word in the middle of the sentence instead of simply dropping it could transform it from something a parent might say to their child into something that could be interpreted as crude, inflammatory sexual slang that would make guys in an American locker room cringe because it's *so* bad.
Not nearly as likely as it might seem. (To my relief, I might add.) For one thing, although each Chinese *character* represents a syllable, Chinese *words* are not necessarily monosyllables. While there are pairs that can be easily confused (e.g. mãi "buy" and mài "sell"), these tend not to be used in isolation for just that reason ("buy" is usually gòumãi, and "sell" is often shòumài). In addition, there's a lot of variation--even amongst Mandarin speakers, some words are spoken with different tones in different localities, so Mandarin speakers tend to have a very forgiving ear, just as most English speakers have no trouble recognising any of "ai", "ah", and "oi" as the first person singular pronoun that all English speakers write as "I".
(I'm using the tilde to represent the low tone, BTW, because fucking Slashdot won't let me fucking use anything with a fucking caron. Idiots.)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Who are the faggots who WANT this... on the consumer side of things, I mean.
The same IoS (Ineternet of Sheeple) that want their garage door, light bulbs and door locks on the internet because marketing told them they do.
--- Keep the choice with the user..