Like privacy? Then smart devices are a dumb idea | Hacker News Reader

Like privacy? Then smart devices are a dumb idea

theregister.com

38 pointsjjgreen10 comments

I've been writing software for around 40 years now. I absolutely refuse to have any Echo-like device, Ring cameras, smart thermostats, etc. in my home. It's bad enough that my phone constantly snoops on me. I've warned my family that if any such smart device comes into my home, I'm taking it outside and putting a round through it.

Yes, likewise. We have no smart devices, no TV in the house, no cameras or smart doorbells or Internet enabled appliances. People are always disoriented when they visit because there is no TV and no Echo-like device on the kitchen counter.

Here's Neil Postman on using technology to solve problems that no one has, linked to start at 20:03:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlrv7DIHllE&t=1203s

It's true but it's really hard to find non smart devices though.

Sometimes you can help it a bit. For example my ring cameras, I've opened them up and removed the microphones. Because they're so sensitive I could literally hear myself talking in the next room.

Other devices I have put on a vlan / SSID without internet access, they can only access my home assistant.

But these things are not for everyone of course. And some techniques bypass it. For example Amazon's sidewalk wifi can offer devices wifi even if you deny it!

> It's true but it's really hard to find non smart devices though.

What if you could make the device not so smart if you want? Physical kill switches are ideal here, but if such lack then a software switch to turn radio off or on helps.

I use an e-reader without cloud. I use USB-C to get my e-books on it. I keep WLAN off. If I want it on, I need to enable hotspot on my smartphone in order for it to connect to the internet. And yet for some reason it has a microphone.

I have some CM4 without BT and WLAN because I don't need the feature. But I do use ethernet on it (via its host).

I also have an Analogue Pocket. It has a microSD with all kind of games on it (I already gave away my physical cardridges long ago, and I am not going to run around with such or have such in storage). For connectivity it only sports USB-C. But that device is a FPGA for running older games.

I think the point is that if you want to use less smart / connected devices (with less profiling, advertising, connectivity) you need to be prepared to shell out money for dedicated hardware and sacrifice some convenience.

I never understood the hype behind smart devices.

I don't need my TV to be smart. We all know the TV manufacturers aren't going to spend a dime on security, give zero shits about privacy, and even performance is going to be lacking. Software updates are unlikely to be a thing, as they'd rather sell you a new TV. Just get a <$50 streaming device (ie, Amazon Fire TV stick) and plug that into your TV.

I don't need my clothes washer/dryer, dishwasher, or even my fridge to be smart. For the former three, I have to physically be there to load them, so why not just start it while I'm there? Why would I want a phone app to control them? If I want a delayed start, that functionality is already built in.

I don't need my light bulbs to be smart. Every room has the switch at the ingress/egress point. If I'm going to bed, switching off lights as I move to my bedroom takes zero effort.

That leaves me to digital assistants like Alexa. Sometimes, in the kitchen, I suppose it would be nice to be able to just be like "How many grams is 1 cup of all-purpose flour?" (Why the hell kitchen scales never caught on in America, leading to ingredients like flour being impossible to accurately measure by volume is beyond me, but that's another topic) and get an answer and not have to pick up my phone, since if I'm cooking, I might have dirty hands.

I don't tend to listen to music when I'm not at my computer, so I don't need something with voice control to change the song.

My thermostat is the only "smart" device I use, and even that is a dumb one relative to the fancy learning ones like Nest. It has a phone app that lets me set the schedule and change the temperature temporarily. It's nice when I go on a bike ride, about 30 minutes before I expect to get home, I'll tell it to temporarily reduce the house temperature by a couple degrees to help me cool off when I get home.

And I do have a Ring doorbell, but only because I didn't want to deal with a DIY solution.

But since this topic was about privacy, I will say that at this point, you'd have to be incredibly naive to think that device manufacturers aren't trying to harvest as much data about you as they can. This article should not be surprising to anybody, especially anybody here on HN.

Unfairly lumping smart and centralized together. Of course that's how the common consumer understands these things, so I get it -- if this were coming from the WSJ or other normie news. But this is The Register and they are smart about these things. eg, they specifically mention HIK, but fail to mention that unifi cameras operate strictly locally (or can operate that way), and you can even setup unifi VPN so you can see the feed from anywhere.

I can use my lutron smart devices without giving up any privacy whatsoever. With Home Assistant I can do even better.

They could have done so much more with this article.

There are alternative devices with open source platforms, and with RISCV it will be about time.

I have been ranting and raving that surveillance capitalism is the worst thing to happen in the modern world. It's not just personal privacy it ruins, but also community privacy it ruins.

My community is nothing but ring cameras and it drives me nuts because it means I'm always being monitored. I hate it so much.

People just aren't free to be people in private anymore.

> I have been ranting and raving that surveillance capitalism is the worst thing to happen in the modern world

Seconded.

Our defence is the GDPR. It makes gathering personal data a liability, not an asset.

It's amusing how many HN'ers (based in the US) will rant against the GDPR in an effort to defend their own scummy surveillance capitalism business models.

Surveillance capitalism is hardly just an American phenomenon, and though I don't defend it at all, or many other aspects of how things are in the U.S. corporate state, you're deluded if you think the EU is somehow greatly better. Many on HN go full holy roller on GDPR as if it were some sort of divine intervention while at the same time apparently blatantly ignoring how the EU's own laws are grossly intrusive in so many ways and without at least some of the minimal protections offered in the U.S. by its Bill of Rights. To name one good example, at least on this side of the pond free expression is more firmly defended, even if other things aren't so much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com