Technology

I agree with you that this should be illegal. I expect this was in the terms of service, though. Since we have no laws restricting this kind of bullshit, the company can argue that they're within their rights.

We need some real legislation around privacy. It's never going to happen, but it needs to. We need a right to anonymity but that is too scary for advertisers and our police state.

There needs to be a huge neon orange warning on the Front of these products that explains, clearly, that you don't own it, your privacy will be invaded and the company can disable it at anytime. This will stop people from buying this garbage, and hopefully companies will stop if they want our money.

My life rule is, if it says Smart on it, it's never going to be smart. It will always cause trouble.

I think your comparison to slavery is a bit overblown and minimizes the tragedy of actual slavery. But I agree with the sentiment.

For me the worst part is that someone developed the functionality to monitor and track, until the signal is lost, and if so, kill. It's really crazy how daring this is.

Name and shame.

it’s only allowed to communicate when actually in use.

What's the point? The manufacturer is interested in the map of your apartment and usage statistics. What do you think it's sending when not in use? Does it have a microphone or something?

It's not the navigation that requires the server but the processing of the mapping data.

Which in itself is BS because most of these vacuums come with hardware roughly equivalent of a top of the line smartphone from about 5-6 years ago. They can easily do the raw data to map conversion, even if it's a bit slow and takes 20-30 seconds.

Also if you read the article it specifies that the damn thing is already running Google Cartographer which is a SLAM 3D map builder software - one of the better pro-grade mapping software suites, mind you. So the whole claim of cloud needed for processing is BS.

Don't worry, the quality of the modern hardware is so shitty, it will not outlive the company for long

Man itd be great if there was an answer to this. Maybe in an article somewhere. Guess we'll never know.

Just looked at the PCB board and man that guy is such a insufferable, gatekeeping twat.

Ours has needed very little maintenance and has quickly become a necessity because it gets the floors much cleaner that we ever did. An unexpected consequence is that the whole house stays cleaner because we still spend some of the time and energy we were spending on sweeping on other cleaning tasks.

As much as the thing irritates me you'd have to pry it from my cold, dead hands.

The problem that is created by a person's private data being collected against their will is primarily a philosophical one similar to the "principle of least privilege", which you may be familiar with. The idea is that those collecting the data have no reasonable need for access to it in order to provide the services they're providing, so their collection of that information can only be for something other than the user's benefit, but the user gets nothing in exchange for it. The user is paying for the product/service they get, so the personal data is just a bonus freebie that the vendor is making off with. If the personal data is worthless, then there is no need to collect it, and if it does have worth, they are taking something of value without paying for it, which one might call stealing, or at least piracy. To many, this is already enough to cry foul, but we haven't even gotten into the content and use of the collected data yet.

There is a vibrant marketplace among those in the advertising business for this personal data. There are brokers and aggregators of this data with the goal of correlating every data point they have gotten from every device and app they can find with a specific person. Even if no one individual detail or set of details presents a risk or identifies who the specific person is, they use computer algorithms to analyze all the data, narrowing it down to exactly one individual, similar to the way the game "20 questions" works to guess what object the player is thinking of--they can pick literally any object or concept in the whole world, and in 20 questions or less, the other player can often guess it. If you imagine the advertisers doing this, imagine how successful they would be at guessing who a person is if they can ask unlimited questions forever until there can be no doubt; that is exactly what the algorithm reading the collected data can do.

There was an infamous example of Target (the retailer) determining a young girl was pregnant before she told anyone or even knew herself, and created a disastrous home situation for her by sending her targeted maternity marketing materials to her house, which was seen by her abusive family.

These companies build what many find to be disturbingly invasive dossiers on individuals, including their private health information, intimacy preferences, and private personal habits, among other things. The EFF did a write-up many years ago with creepy examples of basic metadata collection that I found helpful to my understanding of the problem here:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters?rss=1

Companies have little to no obligation to treat you fairly or even do business with, allowing them to potentially create a downright exile situation for you if they have decided you belong on some "naughty list" because of an indicator given to them by an algorithm that analyzed your info. They can also take advantage of widely known weaknesses in human psychology to influence you in ways that you don't even realize, but are undeniably unethical and coercive. Also, it creates loopholes for bad actors in government to exploit. For example, in my country (USA), the police are forbidden from investigating me if I am not suspected of a crime, but they can pay a data broker $30 for a breakdown of everything I like, everything I do, and everywhere I've been. If it was sound government policy to allow arbitrary investigation of anyone regardless of suspicion, then ask yourself why every non-authoritarian government forbids it.

I know that's a lot; it is a complicated topic that is hard to understand the implications of. Unfortunately, everyone that could most effectively work to educate everyone on those risks is instead exploiting their ignorance for a wide variety of purposes. Some of those purposes are innocuous, but others are ethically dubious, and many more are just objectively nefarious. To be clear, the reason for the laws against blanket investigations was to prevent the dubious and nefarious uses, because once that data is collected, it isn't feasible to ensure it will stay in the right hands. The determination was that potential net good of this kind of data collection is far outweighed by the potential net negatives.

I hope that helps!

One aspect to consider is exactly what data these devices are exfiltrating from your network. You usually can't see the contents of the telemetry sent, but given that a LOT of smart devices have cameras and/or microphones, do you really trust that your IoT devices are not sending back audio and or video recordings of the inside of your house?

Email me the blueprints to your house, your address, name, and your favorite hobbies and I will tell you the answer.

First, it isn't a roomba, second it says in the article how much it cost, third some people have hobbies and sometimes those hobbies are tinkering, dismantling and hacking things they supposedly own and that sometimes leads to revelations like this. Hope that helps.

He did it for the greater good. Clearly he'll never be a politician with that level of integrity.