walkitout (walkitout) wrote,

Internet of Things, BE SCARED NOW! So we can make money off your clicky goodness


I tend to ignore these, however, there is some irony embedded in this article that cracked me up. FTC commission chairwoman lists a bunch of things you could learn about people through the Internet of Things (many of these based on a lot of unjustified assumptions, imo, but hey. People make those).

She would like this to be fixed via opt-in, notice, etc. "outside of lengthy privacy policies and terms of use". (Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha)

Cisco systems blog is quoted including "But in general, it appears that the architecture for protecting IoT consumer data will follow the format of current regulatory regimes for data privacy and security overall."

The author of the BI piece chose not to point out the massive gap in hopes/expectations between these two statements. Is the author aware of the gap? It's Chris Neiger over at the Motley Fool, who I am not familiar with, but it seems quite possible that Neiger did this on purpose.

I have mixed feelings about all this. I do think that location data on one's phone should have pretty hefty protection on it. But what about the location data on the Tile you threw in your gym bag because you tend to lose track of it? If you lose your gym bag, you can't use the gym bag's Tile to track the person. What _is_ there to worry about with the location data on the gym bag's Tile? Similarly, could you figure out somebody went to a lot of trouble to automate their household lighting, thermostat, etc. from Friday evening to Saturday evening and thus jump to a conclusion about their religion? Sure! But I'm pretty sure that the person in question isn't trying to _HIDE_ their religion, because that probably isn't the only conspicuous behavior associated with that religion that they are exhibiting.

I'm sure we're going to figure out that there are problems with the Internet of Things. I, personally, worry a lot more about automated lighting coming on in the middle of the night and waking me up, say, than I am about people figuring out that we don't spend a lot of time on the first floor in the middle of the night and thus we turn the temp down. There's a marginally larger security concern associated with turning the Nest to "Away" when we go on vacation, but you could figure out we weren't home just by shooting an IR thermometer at the house windows, probably. Drones could do it (are thieves trying that in expensive neighborhoods yet?).

Not too long ago, BI did another article scaremongering about IoT:


Here's my favorite line from the story:

"Nest thermostats: A hacker with physical access to a Nest can compromise it in 15 seconds."

Dude, if the hacker has physical access to my Nest, the hacker is IN MY HOUSE. There are a lot of things I'd worry about a stranger with bad intent doing in my house in 15 seconds than ... hacking my thermostat. Jesus. We are on a natural gas pipeline. They could go into the kitchen, turn on all the burners without lighting them and walk out the door and BOOM. No more house. Why would I worry about a hacker when that is possible?

The CBS article that the tea kettle claim links to includes the Ruiu claims about the sound based air gap jumping virus that no one was ever able to reproduce. Really, people? This is what we are worried about? I would list the things you could do to a tea kettle to fuck with someone that don't require a "smart" tea kettle, but, you know, makes me look bad, might give someone ideas. (Kitchens are terrifying places. I love them.)

One of the better links embedded in the piece is this one:


Why anyone would assemble an article containing the CBS link and this link is beyond me -- I chalk it up to Slate being click-bait-y and entirely without morals.

Anyway. There are some real issues if you reuse login credentials and something you use transmits those in clear text. Go get a password manager and you won't need to worry about it any more. There are some real problems if you acquire a stalker. Ditch everything electronic on or around you, go to a police station and work with them to detach your stalker safely. But the exact problem that Symantec (and anyone having trouble with a stalker) is concerned about is the exact opportunity that companies salivate over when it comes to wearables: when someone walks into the store, we know a little about them and that can help us "serve" them better.

IoT should definitely Get With The Program and up their security (clear text broadcasting of information is bad). We should all just give in and get a password manager so we don't need to do a bunch of foolishness with our passwords. Stalkers are a special case, and we need to take that problem seriously and provide support for their victims and deploy the law with a heavy hand to make it clear we don't allow that kind of thing.

But long before we need to worry about this:

"For example in one app that tracks sexual activity, the app makes specific requests to an analytics service URL at the start and end of each session. In its communication, the app passes a unique ID for the app instance and the app name itself as well as messages indicating start and stop of the tracked activity."

We should be a lot more worried about the cowboy culture over at Uber, where they are tracking who goes where, when, how long they stay and when they go home. Because you are way more likely to get outed in an embarrassing way by them that you are by the sex tracking app that anyone who uses would probably LOVE to get ... caught using.

ETA: Wondering about what a sex tracking app is? Thinking, maybe it's about getting pregnant?

This oughta answer most of your questions.


Oh, and the requested cock ring is being contemplated, but hasn't reached prototype yet.

Tags: our future economy today
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.