Consumers Are Holding Off On Buying Smart-Home Gadgets Due To Security, Privacy Fears (businessinsider.com)

According to a new survey from consulting firm Deloitte, consumers are uneasy about being watched, listened to, or tracked by devices they place in their homes. The firm found that consumer interest in connected home technology lags behind their interest in other types of IoT devices. Business Insider reports: "Consumers are more open to, and interested in, the connected world," the firm said in its report. Noting the concerns about smart home devices, it added: "But not all IoT is created equal." Nearly 40% of those who participated in the survey said they were concerned about connected-home devices tracking their usage. More than 40% said they were worried that such gadgets would expose too much about their daily lives. Meanwhile, the vast majority of consumers think gadget makers weren't doing a good job of telling them about security risks. Fewer than 20% of survey respondents said they were very well informed about such risks and almost 40% said they weren't informed at all.

Comments

Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean it's not because they're not really, you know, that useful?

Pretty much every home automation gadget I have seen so far is just another take on the 'fixing something that ain't broke' rule.

Re:Oh really?

[TheRaven64]

I suspect it's a mixture of several reasons. In no particular order:

• Complexity implies unreliability. Something with a simple mechanical switch is likely to be (or, at least, perceived to be likely to be) more durable than something with a microprocessor, a smartphone app, and some cloudy things.
• Most 'home automation things are not actually useful.
• They're all big on vendor lock-in. This means that you're screwed if the vendor goes out of business, but it also means that devices from different vendors don't play nice together. People don't actually want to have 20 apps installed on their phones to control different aspects of their homes.
• They're getting a reputation for poor security - who wants their home to advertise to potential burglars that they're going to be out for the next few hours?
• Even when they have decent security, that just means that unauthorised people won't get the data, it doesn't mean that the vendor won't be spying on you and selling info about the inside of your house.
• Even the useful things are very expensive both in relation to build costs and to utility.
• They're so very hipster that if you don't live in the Bay Area you'd be deeply embarrassed if any of your friends saw that you owned one.

Re: Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it's not security and privacy fears. It's security and privacy ISSUES. I love how these articles all make refusal to adopt subscription money sucking, poorly engineered, planned obsolete data collecting trash as somehow being an issue of fear. It's an issue of rational thought.

Re:Oh really?

[murdocj]

Hard to believe it's not more durable. The light switches in my house were there 40 years ago. You think a "smart switch" would work 40 years from now?

Re:Oh really?

[aaarrrgggh]

Lighting control, security, and whole house audio are areas where it clearly is valuable; whole house TV/watch anywhere is likely not as much of a "killer app." My wife and I love having all the disparate lights go on at set schedules and based on it sensing motion. It is nice to have Sonos start up when we turn on the kitchen lights, and unmute the bedroom speakers a few minutes after the lights go on. It is nice having the Christmas lights come on both in the early morning and evening, but shutting off late night so our neighbors don't lose the spirit.

What isn't nice today is programming that. I have a mix of Insteon, Hue, Sonos, and a few other random things pulled together by a Universal Devices ISY-994i and a Beaglebone. For the life of me, I can't figure out why one lighting state changes on the Hue strips at 6:23AM. It sucks needing to get another component (IR Blaster) to be able to fully control some of the fake candles and laser projector.

But, I sure as hell don't want Alexa/Google to be listening (or watching) all the time to try to figure out what I am wanting to do. I'll program and hard wire crap to avoid that.

Re:Oh really?

[aaarrrgggh]

Generally agree with your points; home automation components likely max out around a 12-year life, and one little component breaking can be quite a pain.

However, vendor lock-in is generally only an issue with the simplest of setups. With a ~$300 controller (plus $50 power line modem) I can manage insteon, zigbee, IR, and any network accessible resource for control at a minimum. Status can be a little more tricky, or require extra components.

A year ago, it took a reasonably tech savvy person to do it. A decade ago, it required a five-figure Crestron controller and integration tomdo the same things. Today, as long as you don't give a shit about privacy it is a breeze.

Re:Oh really?

[nctritech]

What bothers me about them is that most of these "smart" things don't work without the vendor actively allowing it and don't work without being connected to the damned internet all the time. If the vendor stops supporting it or goes out of business...it's a very expensive pile of bricks. There is no value to me in buying stuff like that and modifying my house to accept it all when I can't guarantee it'll be functional in even 5 years! It's not a cell phone; you can't just go out and buy another smart home system and install it in five minutes. Plus, what happens when it breaks down or stops working? Do you lose the ability to use the smart things in a stupid way, i.e. are you now locked out of your house?

Re:Oh really?

[GuB-42]

For me, the lack of a real standard is the big thing that plagued home automation for decades. They should have learned their lessons by now, but no...

I considered it a I was working on my house a few years ago. I had to completely overhaul the wiring, lighting, heating, A/C etc... so I looked into it since it was almost a clean slate. And guess what, I found absolutely nothing satisfying.
First problem is the price : a standard, good quality name brand light switch is around $10, its smart counterpart is maybe $50. Do this for all the small things and it adds up to thousands. Not a deal breaker but enough to seriously consider the value of such a system.
Second is the lack of choice. To continue with the light switch, my local DIY store has plenty of light switches of various designs, the smart light switch is only available online an only has a single design.
Third is compatibility : now that I found the overpriced smart light switch and smart light bulb that fits my need, turns out that they are not compatible. There may be shims and gateways that can make them understand each other but at that point, I have already given up.
Fourth is the lack of long term guarantee : this is for my house, not for a smartphone. I expect my system to last for at least 10 years, and hope for 20 or 30. This kind of work is quite an investment and I want it to last. Systems that stop working after 3 years? No thanks.

The system that grabbed my attention the most is KNX : it's an ISO standard and it's robust but it is too expensive and it is not the kind of stuff you find everywhere.

Re:Oh really?

[jhecht]

I tried one "smart" wireless replacement switch and it lasted maybe four years. Then I had to replace it -- and have the electrician climb into the attic to replace the the controller on the light fixture because the maker of the first one went out of business. That one lasted a year or two, and the replacement didn't work. I finally figured out it had been miswired, but that requires bringing in the electrician yet again.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're all big on vendor lock-in. This means that you're screwed if the vendor goes out of business

It's not just "if" the vendor goes out of business, we've seen several times over the last few years vendors just deciding they can't be bothered to support a device anymore (in some cases their device was just over 2 yrs old!).

  It's not just the threat of vendors shutting shop, or bricking devices (see Logitech), but what happens if there's a problem on the server end , or (even more likely) a problem with the customers internet connection ?

Being the cynical asshole that I am, I don't trust them. If a device won't operate unless it can connect to a server somewhere then I won't bother.

Re:Oh really?

[Gilgaron]

Home electrical isn't too hard if you get a book. Sure, the number of different ways you can do a 3 way switch is boggling at first but just run everything power to switch and don't worry about using some extra wire. Back on topic, yeah when wiring my basement I put in a power outlet with USB ports on it but also went ahead and bought a spare regular outlet since I'm doubtful of how long it'll work.

Re:Oh really?

[vtcodger]

The biggest problem I've seen is that gizmos that might actually be good for something generally have user interfaces that are horrible beyond belief. The multitude of simple mechanical devices in a modern household -- can openers, thermostats, light switches, etc have evolved over decades or centuries into simple forms that are comprehensible and easy to use. Their digital replacements often are strange beyond belief.

Re:Oh really?

[omnichad]

So concerned with vendor lock in that they forget about long-term customer lock-in. You can't make someone think about their home the way they think about "disposable" tech. The lack of interoperability is number 1. Number 2 is the external dependency on a server to do basic control functions - and that server will go away before the device fails.

I want it to connect to my own home hub or server for the same reason I prefer Blu-Ray over "digital copies." I am in control of when it goes away.

Re: Oh really?

[omnichad]

adopt subscription money sucking

Like Echo/Alexa requiring a "music storage" service to hold your music somewhere outside of your home just to charge money to stream it back to you. Google gives you reasonable amounts of external storage, but then won't let you connect a nice external amp/speaker to their voice control system.

Re:Oh really?

[omnichad]

Wave after wave of "Other OS" style class-action lawsuits will be the only thing that maybe makes this finally stop. External server or not, you're changing the functionality of the device post-purchase. The ONLY acceptable time to do this is post-bankruptcy. And even then, it would be better to open-source the server software or publishing the protocol as you go down.

Re:Oh really?

[GuB-42]

Blu-Ray disks have quite nasty copy protections built-in. While they are better than Netflix and the like in term of being in control, they are clearly not ideal.
It is a bit sad but if you want HD, pirate copies may be your only option. DVDs are fine, they are encrypted but their copy protection (CSS) is permanently broken.

Re:Oh really?

[omnichad]

Blu-Ray copy protection is permanently broken for all the discs I own. And that's enough for me. If I stop being able to rip them, I stop buying them. I hate dealing with physical discs and copy them to a media server anyway.

Re:Oh really?

[Tintivilus]

I have about 40 SmartHome-brand Insteon switches in my house. Every year one or two of them crap out and need to be replaced at $50 a pop and an hour of tinkering with wiring and controller programming.

Automation can be useful but I'm not sure if it's useful enough to justify the continuing maintenance overhead.

Re:Oh really?

[deadwill69]

My house was built in 1917. I still have four of the original switches that work (I can only assume since I'm not that old) as good as the day they were put in. I see no reason to replace them. They'll wear out one day and get replaced then. No point adding unnecessary crap to the landfill. You can actually repair them if you're inclined.

Re:Oh really?

[Immerman]

Yeah - as far as I'm concerned the *only* legitimate reason for a "smart-home ____" to send data to a remote server is to post it's IP address so that I can find it remotely without needing to pay for a static IP. And it should do that in a standard, adjustable manner so I can choose any such "address book server" for the job.

There's undoubtedly value to be had in collecting and amalgamating data from millions of users - and if they want to pay me for that value *maybe* I'll consider selling it. But probably not - I'm unlikely to see any benefit to outweigh the loss in privacy and security.

Re:Oh really?

[jabuzz]

A 100 year old light switch is likely to have safety issues to be honest. When a 40 year socket when puff with a bang and smoke a couple of years ago in my mothers house, we decided better to replace the lot for a modest sum. As an added bonus they now all match

Re:Oh really?

[Immerman]

1) - No need: network over power-lines has been a thing for decades. And for smaller houses/with enough repeaters, even wireless can be done reasonably securely if you actually put some effort into it - say "temporarily plug remote dongle into control hub and hit the sync button to establish a secure key", or even just "physically hit the sync key on both devices within N seconds". Physicality is key though - if an attacker has physical access to both ends of the link your security is already as good as compromised anyway, you only really need to defend against remote attacks

2,3,4) N/A, see 1

The biggest issue is that HA stuff seems to all be designed by geeks, for geeks, and with no regard for security. There's absolutely no reason a Rasberry Pi equivalent couldn't network over the power lines with every automation system in your home, all presented and controllable in an easy to understand and use, KISS web page (accessible via HTTPS of course) No apps, no proprietary lock-in, just intuitive visual direct/programmable controls for everything.

Re:Oh really?

[Solandri]

Yeah. The only smart-home gadget I'd buy is one that will still work after I modify my router's security settings to prevent it from accessing anything outside my home network, and I can access it remotely by VPNing into my home network.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The switches are probably fine (and def. cool) but I'd be wary of the wiring to which they are connected. Rubber wire insulation goes brittle and crumbles with age, particularly if parts have been added over the years. Even undisturbed, if water gets to it you can get current leaks from live to neutral which can start fires or pose electrocution risks. Lastly wiring standards in 1917... weren't. Bare earths (or other), under-specced wires (particularly if bits - extra load - have been added since), odd wiring locations.

You're probably fine, just be aware, particularly if you need to disturb the old wiring.

Re:Oh really?

[phantomfive]

This might be a noob question, but why do you need a smart bulb separate from a smart switch?

Re:Oh really?

[deadwill69]

I've had that happen with newer ones also. It will most likely fall apart in a few years. This is the last circuit in the house to be rewired and is slated to be done in the next few months.

Stay away from anything in the 60's and 70's especially Federal Pacific. This is probably where your bang came from:
http://www.mcgarryandmadsen.co...

Re:Oh really?

[pnutjam]

Don't those have a built in transformer, which means they will always draw power, like a wall wart?

Re:Oh really?

[Gilgaron]

Yeah but you can gang it with a switch and not worry about it.

Re:Oh really?

[GuB-42]

The point of a smart switch is that it can be assigned any function. For example you can decide that turning on the light in the bathroom also turns on the fan, and when you turn it off, the light turns off but the fan stays on for 10 minutes to extract the humid air.
You can also assign a switch that turn all lights off, close the blinds, turns on the alarm, etc... for when you leave. You can also combine motion detection and switches.
The switch isn't connected directly to the light bulb. Instead, it sends a signal on a network. The light bulb is on the same network and decides to turn on or off depending on its programming.

Re:Oh really?

[michael_wojcik]

Lighting control, security, and whole house audio are areas where it clearly is valuable

"Clearly"? That all sounds dreadful to me. I'd pay extra not to have those "features".

Fortunately I don't have to, but it may yet become difficult to avoid all this crap. Our television died this week, and when I went to replace it, I found exactly one model for sale that didn't have idiotic, pointless, vulnerability-ridden "smart" features. (There were probably others that would work as conventional sets without network access, but of course it's impossible to tell from the box whether they'll refuse to work if not allowed on the net.)

Security

[inking]

Are you sure it’s not the fact that a smart valve controlling how much hot water comes into your heating costs several hundred dollars whereas a non-smart one costs a bit more than a coffee?

Re:Security

[TheRaven64]

It's worse than that. A modern digital thermostat is programmable and the entire system is not much more expensive than an old-style analogue one. Throw in an Internet connection, and you get to pay double the price to be dependent on some cloud provider (and your ISP) for working heating. Hmm, which one should I buy...?

Re:Security

[murdocj]

That's subtle.
What was that quote "a liberal is someone who reaches into your shower to turn the water down because they say you're using to much hot water."

I think the quote is "a conservative is someone who charges you 10x what hot water costs because you don't deserve hot water"

Re:Security

[AmiMoJo]

Here is a link to the actual report: https://www2.deloitte.com/cont...

Reading it, they say that consumers do actually understand that companies (ab)use their personal data and share it with third parties. They also say that 91% are willing to accept legal terms when using apps, web sites and wifi without bothering to read them. Most importantly, since there is no real choice (everything has an EULA, all of them are impenetrable legalese) consumers don't see that as a barrier to ownership, just an inherent part of the technology.

So actually the summary of this report seems to be saying the opposite of what the report does. Consumers are not put off at all by privacy violations, they just accept that if they want that tech they have little choice.

Re:Security

[thegarbz]

Are you sure it’s not the fact that a smart valve controlling how much hot water comes into your heating costs several hundred dollars whereas a non-smart one costs a bit more than a coffee?

And given the fact the smart ones pay for themselves over time, why should I "waste" the coffee money?

Smartphones are no better...

[infolation]

Smartphones are no better... but their privacy-undermining technologies are not explained in simple language to consumers.

The 'Smart-Home Gadget' explicitly advertises its privacy invasive status, whereas the camera-and-microphone-equipped smartphone device they carry everywhere they go (and sleep with in their bed) has apps installed with equally privacy invasive permissions and features.

When I read 1984 as a child, Winston had to sit in an alcove, unseen by the telescreen, to write his diary. I was bought up to find the concept of the telescreen abhorrent.

Re:Smartphones are no better...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel bad about the future (I have given up really). :( Already now, I will NOT get myself a smart phone. It is bad enough having a Microsoft Windows product, which makes my own computer alien to me, as if I didn't really owned it. A smartphone to me seems like a huge security risk.

Re:Smartphones are no better...

[geekmux]

Smartphones are no better... but their privacy-undermining technologies are not explained in simple language to consumers.

They're explained to consumers every time a data store gets hacked.

They're explained to consumers every time a "bug" exposes data.

They're explained to consumers every time a vulnerability is exploited on their perpetually unpatched hardware.

Sorry, but I'm fucking done with the excuse that consumers somehow don't know. They know. They just don't care. Security is not worth the hassle to the masses.

Re:Smartphones are no better...

[Baron_Yam]

> They know. They just don't care. Security is not worth the hassle to the masses.

For many, a smart phone has become a necessity. Of course it ISN'T, but it's thought of as one. It's certainly convenient to always have your phone, email, various social networking apps, some games, and a web browser on your person at all times.

The average person is also not a techie. A smart phone isn't a computer running various programs of various origins to them. It's just a thing that does stuff. A black box.

Re:Smartphones are no better...

[inking]

How are the two even remotely comparable? One is a tool to monitor and optimize the energy use in your house, the other a tool to monitor you and call the nation’s finest to toss you into a cell for what we as readers perceive to be unjust reasons.

I too have read 1984 as a fourteen-year-old and it was my favorite book for a long while, so much so that I wish people would stop referring to it for entirely inane reasons.

Like with all new technologies, there are bound to be issues with the implementation—especially in the early stages—but don’t dismiss it outright.

Re:Smartphones are no better...

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's also a thing that many employers are starting to expect if not outright require.

Re:Smartphones are no better...

[Zocalo]

The average person is also not a techie.

Actually, I don't think "being a techie" makes much difference either. Think about how many who are technically competent, including those that actually have an idea of what is going on and the capabilities of big data, still continue to use the services of Facebook, Google, and so on, despite the now almost weekly stories highlighting just how easy it is for companies to make connections and draw conclusions that at first seem to be impossible. Technical knowledge is almost certainly a major factor in why people eventually decide to opt-out (or try to), but it apparently has no bearing on why people keep voluntarily throwing their often highly personal data at all sorts of companies, as opposed to situations like Equifax, where they probably didn't even get a say in the matter. That willingness seems like it's mostly down to a combination of two things: apathy, in that they know but it's too much effort to change, or contentment, in that they've accepted the trade-off as they understand it (almost certainly poorly, regardless of technical aptitude) and don't see any need to even look for an alternative approach.

Re:Smartphones are no better...

[geekmux]

The average person is also not a techie...

The "average person" is out there customizing Twitter pages, building business websites on Facebook, and creating videos riddled with special effects for a YouTube channel. They happily take the time to learn all that, but ensuring their devices are secure and they adhere to best practice? Nope, fuck that. Too much time and effort. It also might exacerbate FOMO and infringe on their right to YOLO. Strong passwords and MFA? Ain't nobody got time for dat!

Sorry, but the average person is a techie; a techie that cannot be bothered with the burden of privacy or security. The mantra of IDGAF says it all.

Re:Smartphones are no better...

[evanh]

There is one big difference. Security does stop things working if done wrong, or just doesn't do anything at all. Whereas no matter how little effort is put into it, fuddling around with a paint brush always does something effective in practice.

Re:Smartphones are no better...

[thegarbz]

Sorry, but I'm fucking done with the excuse that consumers somehow don't know.

What are you talking about? The connections between them are non-obvious to the vast majority of people, and furthermore don't affect an ever larger portion of them.

I mean if this is your equivalent of education that consumers should react to then they should be running around screaming endlessly "the boogeyman is coming to get me, the boogeyman is coming to get me".

None of what you posted has had any effect on consumers other than taking up a bit of media airtime.

Re:And they learned this from Facebook!

[Z00L00K]

I did learn this in the 80's - from Max Headroom.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Too expensive, no reliability, not enough upside

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who would ponder a smart gadget to save money, probably are smart enough to embrace the myriad of cheaper heating/cooling/whatever strategies that save more. I mean, does a smart thermostat dial that learns your routine, an extremely simple algorithm, really deserve to be a couple hundred bucks compared to a $20 one that can be programmed? All it has going for it is being pretty and slightly more convenient but the few times it's better is not going to make up the difference to most people. It's not like its designers had to design something complex like a new 3d engine for the latest batch of video games.

On top of that, switches are plain reliable. I've been in houses where 115 year old light switches (and wires) were still operating. Basic switchs cost around $1 or something today. I've had ceiling fans still work after 40 years, still on a basic switch, with a dangling yank cables operating the light and fan speed operation. Otoh, I've seen fans where $30 smart switches, controlling all operations from the light switch box, are broken after a measley 5 years and often unavailable since the model is updated or manufacturer just gone. Replacing an entire ceiling fan (or 2 or 3) is hours of aggravating physical work with ladders no smart switch is worth, no matter the few second conveniences it provides.

No, because they suck

[wolfheart111]

Really useless, and they suck.

Re:Current state of problems with IoT

[jonwil]

I don't get why manufacturers are so reluctant to provide even the most basic security on these things. There is no reason why these bluetooth "smart locks" (for example) couldn't implement decent authentication/encryption on the things except that the manufacturer wants to save the 1c/device (multiplied by x number of devices) it would cost to pay a few programmers to actually implement decent security (heck, they wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel when the open source community has already done it and they can just grab an off-the-shelf library to do most of the work for them)

Not all of them

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just the Trump voters.
They don't want their house to be smarter than them.

Smart people

[gweihir]

Buying smart-home devices at this time would be really dumb. They are insecure, unreliable and overpriced. The only thing they will do for you is cause problems.

Re:Smart people

[ReneR]

yeah exactly, finally at least some consumers are getting that. We really need to start producing better products, and not this planned obsolescence cloud spying nonsense that stoops working in a year or two anyways, ...

Re:Smart people

[vtcodger]

I've been told that after years of practice and exercise, certain monks can develop the discipline to type their occasional weight measurements directly into a spreadsheet.

Not practical for normal human beings of course.

Re:Smart people

[gweihir]

Nice one!

Re:Smart people

[swillden]

Buying smart-home devices at this time would be really dumb. They are insecure, unreliable and overpriced. The only thing they will do for you is cause problems.

FWIW none of the Google security and privacy engineers I know have any concern about having a Google Home in their house, and many do. Those who don't, don't because they don't see the value, not because they perceive privacy or security problems. I haven't spoken with any similar engineers at Amazon, but I expect the same is true there.

IMO, the privacy concerns are overblown and based on a misunderstanding of how the tech works, and I think the big tech companies are also quite good at security. Pricing is a personal value judgement, and depends both on how much money you have and how much value you expect to receive. I have a Google Home and like it. I've been considering buying an Echo just to see how it compares.

Re:Smart people

[ChatHuant]

FWIW none of the Google security and privacy engineers I know have any concern about having a Google Home in their house, and many do. Those who don't, don't because they don't see the value, not because they perceive privacy or security problems.

I'll venture to say that somebody who works at Google already doesn't care about privacy - in particular for other people. It's probably a condition of employment. But that's not the issue. If you choose to be tracked, by buying a Google Home or suchlike, that's fine. The issue is that Google will track you whether you choose to be tracked or not, and there is no way to opt out (and no, the current "solution" they suggest, to create an account with them in order to to tell them "don't track" is not sufficient or even workable).
 

IMO, the privacy concerns are overblown and based on a misunderstanding of how the tech works,

IMO it's Google and other similar companies' business model that's based on a misunderstanding: the misunderstanding by the general population of Google's actions and scale of data gathering. As people were generally unaware, Google has expanded their spying and made stalking and data slurping the current accepted model for anything. They have basically poisoned the internet; it's not easy (if even possible) to get on the web with a reasonable expectancy of privacy anymore, mainly due to Google and their actions.

Google should be harshly regulated: they should only be allowed to collect data of people that explicitly opt in to being tracked. Any data Google collects that can't be directly correlated to one of their opt in customers should be immediately discarded. Of course, Google can block people who haven't opted-in to tracking from GMail or Google Maps or whatnot. I'm sure that trade-off would be totally acceptable for many privacy concerned people.
 
Unfortunately the chances of such a regulation are slim; as Google is well aware their model is based on abusing people's privacy, and that there is a risk of legal action - they spend huge amounts on lobbying, apparently being on track to become the largest political contributor in Washington.

Re:Smart people

[swillden]

FWIW none of the Google security and privacy engineers I know have any concern about having a Google Home in their house, and many do. Those who don't, don't because they don't see the value, not because they perceive privacy or security problems.

I'll venture to say that somebody who works at Google already doesn't care about privacy - in particular for other people.

The truth is quite the opposite. Google hires the nerdiest of nerds, and they (we) care about what nerds care about.

Google will track you whether you choose to be tracked or not, and there is no way to opt out (and no, the current "solution" they suggest, to create an account with them in order to to tell them "don't track" is not sufficient or even workable).

Actually, that's not the opt-out mechanism. The opt-out mechanism is a setting that's tracked in a non-unique browser cookie, and, optionally, a browser plugin that makes sure the cookie doesn't get lost.

IMO it's Google and other similar companies' business model that's based on a misunderstanding: the misunderstanding by the general population of Google's actions and scale of data gathering. As people were generally unaware, Google has expanded their spying and made stalking and data slurping the current accepted model for anything.

Cite?

Security? Privacy?

[Opportunist]

No. Just no. Sorry, but this simply cannot be the reason.

We are talking about people who buy "smart locks" where they send a signal from their iPhone app to the server of the manufacturer of the lock who then in turn sends a signal to their lock, and who stare at you blankly with a "yes? so?" expression when you explain it to them like this.

Whatever the reason may be for those people to not buy these gadgets, but security or privacy concerns are certainly not the reasons.

Re:Security? Privacy?

[michiganbob]

... "smart locks" where they send a signal from their iPhone app to the server of the manufacturer of the lock who then in turn sends a signal to their lock...

Okay, except that's not how smart locks work...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Wave

Re:Security? Privacy?

[Opportunist]

Lucky for us there is only one such standard. Oh, wait. No, there isn't. There is for example this. Just read the "how it works" section.

And how I know that they have control over the lock? Because else they couldn't do this.

Re:Security? Privacy?

[Opportunist]

But if you really prefer ZigBee based products, here is a pretty neat presentation at a security conference from two years ago.

And because they're stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do I need my toaster to tweet at my lightbulbs or the ability to look at my thermostat via a security camera over the internet, and then change the temperature setting by posting to instagram?

Re:And because they're stupid?

[vtcodger]

"Why do I need my toaster to tweet at my lightbulbs or the ability to look at my thermostat via a security camera over the internet, and then change the temperature setting by posting to instagram?"

I'm sure Alexa can explain that to you if you just ask.

Re:And because they're stupid?

[omnichad]

Stop trying to control your smart devices solely through IFTTT.

me too

[AndyKron]

Include me in the list.

As I've said a dozen times already...

[Zontar The Mindless]

I've no interest whatsoever in coming come to a burnt-out shell that used to be my apartment because some script kiddy wants to show off his 1337 5k111z on my "smart" oven. None.

Re:As I've said a dozen times already...

[geekmux]

I've no interest whatsoever in coming come to a burnt-out shell that used to be my apartment because some script kiddy wants to show off his 1337 5k111z on my "smart" oven. None.

Manufacturers no longer give a fuck what you want. You'll get what makes them the most money.

And no, the 1% fighting against that won't change a damn thing.

Good luck finding anyone selling a "dumb" appliance 10 years from now.

Re:As I've said a dozen times already...

[thegarbz]

What the fuck kind of oven do you have that burns down your house!

Re: As I've said a dozen times already...

[Anonymous Coward]

You think I wont be able to buy the same basic stove inside a decade? Oh son. Yoy really need to get outside of your suburb sometime. The world is much less flat and similar than your connected brain has convinced you. SAD!

oh yeah, everybody wants one

[FudRucker]

who wants an "always listening" microphone connected to a for-profit corporation sitting on their desk listening to EVERYTHING, every idle thought spoken out loud, every private conversation between two people be it, spouses, lovers, friends, business partners, siblings, etc.. all to be commoditized and used to advertise to you or sold to who knows what

fuck that, amazon, google and microsoft can go to hell because i refuse to consent to that

Re:oh yeah, everybody wants one

[geekmux]

who wants an "always listening" microphone connected to a for-profit corporation sitting on their desk listening to EVERYTHING, every idle thought spoken out loud, every private conversation between two people be it, spouses, lovers, friends, business partners, siblings, etc.. all to be commoditized and used to advertise to you or sold to who knows what

Based on the number of "always listening" devices sold to date, I'd say millions of people do.

fuck that, amazon, google and microsoft can go to hell because i refuse to consent to that

Amazon, Google, and Microsoft no longer give a fuck what you think. Refuse all you want. You and the other 1% of consumers will be ignored.

Re:oh yeah, everybody wants one

[atrimtab]

Odds are you already have an "always listening microphone" with you right now, your smartphone.

Alexa, Google Home and whatever Microsoft is selling are really just stationary extended beacons for your smartphone likely already has all those features plus it's a complete tagging and tracking system of your whereabouts and what your current interests are.

Home microphone/speaker systems are just a little spackle to fill in one of the few remaining nitches for the surveillance industrial complex.

Most of us now are all simply cows with tracking collars being targeted and milked.

Re:oh yeah, everybody wants one

[doom]

Yes, that was the sort of thing I was wondering about. ALl of a sudden, now, they're worried about privacy? They're okay with email being spyed on, they carry tracking devices everywhere they go, they don't blink at NSA backdoors into the phone system... but all of a sudden, a microphone "in my home!", that crosses a psychological barrier for them.

Re:oh yeah, everybody wants one

[mikael]

Nobody has told them that it is possible to find the location of a smartphone or tablet simply by looking up the MAC address of their device using Google's geolocation services. NSA backdoors in the phone system - that's just to keep an eye on those terrorists. Police using smartphones as bugging devices - oh that's just used to catch out organized crime. The microphone in the home - that's something the KGB or Nazi Gestapo would do, thinking of all those world war II spy movies with microphones hidden in table lamps and chandeliers.

Suspicious

[RatPh!nk]

For me, security and privacy is a concern however I would honestly be surprised if that is ever adequately tackled. The main reason for me is the cost, most of these gadgets are fantastically expensive for what they are. The value just isn't in it for me.

Re:Current state of problems with IoT

[aaarrrgggh]

As long as it doesn't need to connect to the internet, security is easy with a firewall drop rule. Streaming content from multi-function devices makes things more complex, but you can still block everything that it doesn't demonstrably need to function. Home video cameras are also easy by forcing a VPN connection rather than allowing a cloud service; most are open protocol, and if they aren't, just return it since it is broken.

Most of this stuff should never (need to) be updated-- isolation is sufficient protection. BS feature creep and UI redesign are the primary updates made anyway.

Seems the ideal place to ask

[Shemmie]

Is anyone familiar with any reliable, robust self-hosted solutions for IoT gimmicks? Something capable of providing Google Assistant / Home style functionality? Is there still much room for things like X10? Is that still a thing going strong?

RE self-hosting, I'd imagine it'd be possible to have a Pi style home hub, with potential for external hosting to unify it all - or alternatively have it running on a home server, again, something like a Pi or what-not?

Does this exist in 2017 - something that's generic, robust, easy to use, secure, and not constantly sipping on my personal data? Is anyone doing this for their own home?

Re:Seems the ideal place to ask

[tazan]

I'm running some lights from a computer running HomeGenie with a Z-Wave dongle. It's not bad.

Re:Seems the ideal place to ask

[Shemmie]

Ooo, thanks for the HomeGenie shout. Will have to have a look.

Re:Seems the ideal place to ask

[Shemmie]

I had not - I'm very 'layman' on the topic. It's something I'd love to get into as a bit of a hobby, but all the existing solutions using 3rd party services leave me cold. Thanks for the shout.

Riiiight

[yanyan]

So... just how many of these consumers also shun the use of facebook, google, linkedin, instagram, etc., etc., etc.?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not good enough...

[XSportSeeker]

Considering every breach, hack and leak that has already happened, and how much the tech industry is trying to push these spying devices into peoples' lives, 40% is still far from being good enough. The average consumer should be fighting back this trend of smart assistants and IoT devices like it was some sort of pandemic.

Not as useful as you might think

[houghi]

So what could I not do without? The CD replaced the LP because it had several advantages. It was smaller, better quality (Does not mean you have to like the better quality), contained more contend, no need to turn it over and almost the same price.

So what is the actual advantage of the IoT, besides my phone? The phone is also not a thing that can do only one thing. It is a hand held PC.

Do I actually need light switches that I can turn on the light from where ever I am in the world? How often would I do that after the first month? Do I really need my coffee maker talk to my toaster so they are ready 2:27 minutes I turn off the alarm as it know I need to pee first?

Now I might be convinced I want one by a good marketing company and buy a smart thing that counts my steps, but selling me a bluetooth doorlock after that will be much harder. Not even talking about the security here or privacy, just the usage.

But companies will keep pushing to sell the stuff, because that is what it is about: selling more shit to add to the stuff we already don't need.

Compatibility and Longevity

[pubwvj]

Compatibility and Longevity are huge issues.

The market right now is a bit wild-west with compatibility issues. Not fun for real life unless you're into wasting your time.

I don't want to buy things for my long term item (home) that are short term investments (sorry but your front door is no longer supported).

IoT summed up in one question

[zerofoo]

Every year at CES Samsung shows a bunch of "smart" appliances. One year they showed a smart washer and dryer and one onlooker asked "why does my clothes washer need Twitter"?

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I ended up buying a Speed Queen washer and dryer - made out of steel inside and out with mechanical controls - similar to the ones my mother used for 30 years without issue.

Re:IoT summed up in one question

[mikael]

We've got black and yellow highway road construction signs that reference Twitter hashtags to get updates on road conditions ahead. How complex do things need to be?

Re:Too expensive, no reliability, not enough upsid

[gtall]

Overhead LED lights on a rack are just as bad. In the models I've seen, the lights are not replaceable. You just go out and buy a new rack, which will look different than the old one since that one was discontinued shortly after you bought it. You won't mind painting the ceiling again because the transformer block is now a different size.

Re:Too expensive, no reliability, not enough upsid

[dj245]

The people who would ponder a smart gadget to save money, probably are smart enough to embrace the myriad of cheaper heating/cooling/whatever strategies that save more. I mean, does a smart thermostat dial that learns your routine, an extremely simple algorithm, really deserve to be a couple hundred bucks compared to a $20 one that can be programmed? All it has going for it is being pretty and slightly more convenient but the few times it's better is not going to make up the difference to most people. It's not like its designers had to design something complex like a new 3d engine for the latest batch of video games.

On top of that, switches are plain reliable. I've been in houses where 115 year old light switches (and wires) were still operating. Basic switchs cost around $1 or something today. I've had ceiling fans still work after 40 years, still on a basic switch, with a dangling yank cables operating the light and fan speed operation. Otoh, I've seen fans where $30 smart switches, controlling all operations from the light switch box, are broken after a measley 5 years and often unavailable since the model is updated or manufacturer just gone. Replacing an entire ceiling fan (or 2 or 3) is hours of aggravating physical work with ladders no smart switch is worth, no matter the few second conveniences it provides.

I've been experimenting with both smart and semi-smart (occupancy/vacancy sensor) switches. I have one Zwave 120V switch, a Zwave 240V switch on the waterfall pump, and probably a dozen occupancy/vacancy sensors that are independent of each other. The 240V switch developed an internal short on the 35th day (outside of Amazon warranty) and was a nightmare to get replaced under warranty. The 120V Zwave switch works, but is more expensive, more of a pain to set up, and more of a pain to maintain than occupancy switches. I have found timer/sunset based programming to not always be what I want, and additional functionality (motion, light sensor, etc) to be expensive and a pain to maintain.

I am very satisfied with the occupancy switches. The timers are variable from 1 to 30 minutes, they can be programmed auto on/auto off, manual on/auto off. They can even be set to manual on/manual off if the next owner doesn't like them. I have relay-based ones in closets and dimmers in living spaces (to avoid audible clicks). They aren't on any network, they are independent of each other, they can't be hacked, and if I want to change the programming I just push a few buttons right on the switch. The motion detection is excellent, and it is easy to put white electrical tape over zones which I do not want the sensor to trigger. They have performed exactly as expected with never a delay in triggering. It wouldn't seem like saving 2 seconds whenever you enter or leave a room would be worthwhile, but it is very, very nice. I am the kind of person who is compelled to turn off lights when I leave a room, and it was constantly interrupting my thought process of wherever I was going and what I planned to do once I got there.

I will not be deploying Zwave devices further. If the 240V pool waterfall device fails, it will get replaced with an intermatic mechanical timer. I don't use the smartphone to turn it on/off as much as I thought, and the only other benefit (running the waterfall for 2 minutes twice a day to flush out leaves/bugs) I can replicate with a different, cheaper switch.

And yet most people think....

[Anonymous Coward]

...that is the ONLY acceptable behavior today. For everything to spy on you.

And they want to force it on everyone else, without understanding how that should be a CHOICE.

The thing that I can't comprehend is how this is acceptable and legal behavior while we are not allowed to record interactions as a two-party state.

Information asymmetry indeed!

Worried or Bothered

[JimSadler]

I like tech. I also like old fashioned mechanical devices. But with all the abilities of modern devices no auto maker has really paid any serious attention to prevention of auto theft. This is as big a mystery as why banks will disallow complex pass words on accounts. I wonder how many millions could be saved if banks allowed strong pass words. And just why do automakers not use a strong collar on the steering post that would prevent extraction of the guts of the lock? We still can not even get a bike tire to market at a reasonable price that will not easily go flat or be punctured. Are we applying technology to the right issues?

Re:Worried or Bothered

[omnichad]

And just why do automakers not use a strong collar on the steering post that would prevent extraction of the guts of the lock?

Because the automaker isn't the bank and they get their money either way. Or alternately, they are the bank (GM) and they still get to collect from the customer/insurance while selling another new car.

dongles

[fluffernutter]

I bought a ZWave switch and dongle once during the Windows 98 days. Played with it a bit, but didn't really work very well. Needed the dongle in a specific place in the house to contact the switch or get another couple hundred dollar station. The next time I decided to pull it out ant play with it I was on Windows 7 and there was no compatible driver for the dongle. So I thought to myself, do I really need this switch to work this badly that I will want to buy a new dongle with every new OS? The answer was no so I gave up on home automation at that point.

Re:dongles

[ledow]

Precisely.

Such things need not only a standard, but an open standard, that evolves but maintains backwards compatibility. You don't want to push an update to the control software that stops your systems from doing what they've always done and have years of programming to do on your schedule, etc.

And then you need a reason. I quite like having a remote control to my Christmas lights, that's all well and good. Saves me having to clamber under the tree. But everything else? I can live without it being gadgetised at great expense.

The problem is that I can't think of a use case. People try all kinds of lines out on me, and I can't see the use of them. "You could turn your heating on from the ride home if you're early!" Or I could save myself several hundred and just do it when I get home. "You could open your front door remotely!" Why? Anything delivered needs a signature or could just be left somewhere safe anyway. "You could get the dryer to know its wet out and decide to dry your clothes for you!". And I just can't think when that would ever happen, or that it would ever happen when you actually needed it, or that it wouldn't happen when you actually DIDN'T want to do it.

All the home automation stuff is really just nice toys. That's about it. As a massive geek, I can't justify it past that.

If they were dollar-each throwaway items, certified to standards, able to control mains devices, be wired into the existing plug leads so you don't lose "normal" control of the devices, etc. then, sure. But I still can't see past the gimmick to an actual use case that would justify it.

Though it would be nice to know "Did I leave the heating on by mistake?" remotely, I can't see that it will ever be cheap enough and yet reliable enough to get to that level of detail, and certainly it will never be standardised enough that it would just work like that.

And the second you introduce "control" features on a published standard, you better hope your implementation is kept up to date because for sure people are going to have fun hacking it remotely.

"Sorry, we don't issue security patches for your washing machine any more" is not only a worst nightmare, it's actually a potential reality. It was laughable when monitors started to come with driver CD's (despite being EDID etc.), let alone household appliances.

I think it would take legislation along the lines of smart meter standardisation, where a device has to advertise its power requirements and "importance" in order to be supplied power, and then it can be instructed to shutdown if there are brownouts, etc. And that's a long way off.

Deloitte

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

... from consulting firm Deloitte, consumers are uneasy about being watched

Yeah, because when it comes to security advice, Deloitte are the go-to-guys for that!

Re:Current state of problems with IoT

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The reason they don't want ot implement security is two-fold. First, the average consumer has no way to judge the security of various devices, so it's not going to increase sales now.. Second, it's kinda like the airlines all fucking you in unison. IF all of the IoT devices have the same shitty security, then it's not a point of difference, and no manufacturer needs to do it.

What is my purpose?

[Thud457]

"I resent the implication that I'm a one-dimensional, bread-obsessed electrical appliance. "