Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the open-minded dept.

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.

16 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oh really? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re: Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Oh really? by murdocj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    4. Re:Oh really? by nctritech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    5. Re:Oh really? by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Oh really? by jhecht · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  2. Security by inking · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  3. Smartphones are no better... by infolation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Smartphones are no better... by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Smartphones are no better... by Zocalo · · Score: 3

      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.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  4. Re:And they learned this from Facebook! by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Too expensive, no reliability, not enough upside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. As I've said a dozen times already... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  8. oh yeah, everybody wants one by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing