"Such a world will bring many benefits. Consumers will get convenience, and products that can do things non-computerised versions cannot. Amazon’s Ring smart doorbells, for instance, come equipped with motion sensors and video cameras. Working together, they can also form what is, in effect, a private CCTV network, allowing the firm to offer its customers a “digital neighbourhood-watch” scheme and pass any interesting video along to the police."
This is the best they could come up with as an example for the "many benefits"? Tilt your head only slightly privacy-leaning and this looks like a terrifying dystopia. Of course the Orwellian nightmare won't come to "law abiding" middle and upper-class citizens, who will most be tracked as unwitting lab rats by mega tech firms intent on understanding every aspect of human life in order to monetize it, usually through ads and Chinese-style digital karma, but the marginalized groups--ethnic minorities, political dissidents, and the "mentally unstable" will be persecuted and hounded endlessly by digital means. With mass shootings all over the US, it's only a matter of time until they weaponize the already-built surveillance network to red-flag people. As usual, our own fear of each other is way out ahead, on the leading edge of technology.
Oof private CCTV network, so they can sell the live video feeds. Imagine the possibilities with face recognition. Wanna follow your wife everywhere? Want to follow anyone you want to stalk? No problem for this fee you will have access to our video feed and face recognition software, which will enable you to track anyone and anywhere.
Want their DNA? No problem. Want their interests? Sleeping schedule? Work schedule? If you got the money we got the stuff.
Do you want a hot shower after your long day? Touch here to transfer $1 to the malware that just hijacked your plumbing. Try to remove it, and it will do $5000 in damage. A professional home IT security fix will run $1000 and take 3 days, while you camp in your back yard or live out of a motel.
Yup, you can already get a terrifying amount of data about people for a small fee to a shady data broker, it's only going to get worse as smart stuff comes more into the real world.
Exactly right. Every individual will be a subject of the silent red flag machine, and not even the machine's owners will be able to tell why. No redemption in sight, unless, of course, you have the money to buy an indulgence.
I think every day products will have increased use, life, and other benefits being able to have a IoT device that enhances our lives as the current products are just there in our lives.
Shockingly, this was published last week. I was expecting a mid-90's/early-00s article.
I don't understand why this is an article. Its basically saying "Imagine if the Internet of Things.... wait for it.... had more Things!" Of course you'll see an increase in efficiency, and the balance of power will shift toward larger corporations capable of harnessing said efficiency. This has been happening for 15 years. This is not news to anyone.
Shockingly, this was published last week. I was expecting a mid-90's/early-00s article.
That's the impression I had. Home automation hasn't gone very far, and seems to be more trouble than it's worth. Now you have to worry about your "cloud home animation provider" going out of business, or changing their business model, or just dropping support on your home devices. Someone faced with Google dropping support on something recently wrote "My house won't work any more". "Unauthorised Bread" by Cory Doctorow is close to reality now.
There's the Cameras Everywhere thing, with Ring and that crowd. That's the telescreen from 1984, privatized.
None of this stuff does any much. All sensing, no actuation. Power windows for houses, for example, are expensive and rare. Even HVAC systems for houses which have a controlled damper for outside air are rare. The robot vacuum cleaners still aren't good enough to just ignore and let them do their job.
Most of the ideas for the Internet of Things can be seen in the 1950s Whirlpool Kitchen of the Future. Today, you can really buy most of that stuff. Back then, though, Big Brother wasn't part of the package.
I've said this before, but the "Internet of Things" is a bad vision for the future. Dystopian, almost. I don't want every little thing to be a computer running software that is buggy, out of date, insecure, out of my control, and constantly pestering me for updates.
What I want is one smart device: a robot that can operate all my non-smart devices. The robot can set the thermostat, unlock the door, flip the light switches, do the laundry and the dishes, monitor the house while I'm away, etc. That's the goal we should be working towards. IoT should be seen as, at best, a stopgap solution. It's not a desirable end state.
Love this. To use computer terminology, kinda like having a mainframe in the home that is connected to devices it controls? I think that is a far better and user friendly design. Also personal clouds backed up by corporate clouds if desired.
I kinda do this with a Raspberry Pi currently using OpenHAB on OpenHabianPi[0]. I was going to link it all up with Mycroft[1] but I havent setup my own version of Mycroft just yet. I might just buy one to support the project.
Up next is security cameras using MotionEyeOS[2] and Raspberry Pi Zero W's.
You really don't have to pay millions of dollars to automate your home. My thermostats use technology called Z-Wave for which there is a USB[3] adapter available on Amazon, for about $45 I turned 2 different Thermostats into Nest-like thermostats that I fully control myself, if my pi dies, the usb device still has them synched.
All in my house, all in my control and managed by yours truly.
Final thought: If I ever get Mycroft setup, I'd essentially have a robot in my home running off a Raspberry Pi. He wouldn't move (wouldn't need him to) but he would do whatever I wish. For now openHAB has a UI for me.
Edit: Forgot to mention that openHAB is also scriptable, and even has a bit of IFTTT type of capacity internally.
Here's the utopia I'd love: The thermostat / door lock / light would present a simple documented interface exposing all the functionality available from the physical device. I'd even be okay if it was delivered via Wi-Fi or ZigBee (though I'd really prefer RS-488, RS-232, or wired Ethernet w/ PoE).
No manufacturer will do this because it limits their ability to engineer-in planned obsolescence, vendor lock-in, and recurring revenue "cloud" business models.
There are commercial and industrial-grade devices that do what I want, but they're priced for their market segment and, infuriatingly, their protocols are needlessly baroque (MODBUS, BACNET, et. al.) or proprietary.
> What I want is one smart device: a robot that can operate all my non-smart devices. The robot can set the thermostat, unlock the door, flip the light switches, do the laundry and the dishes, monitor the house while I'm away, etc.
I don't want Elon Musk high on some substance, being able to control the car I drive. Or anyone, really. While it's arguably hard to make your own car, it's trivial to make an ebike, that nobody can control except you.
It's trivial to not rely on cloud providers for anything. I can store mp3s (or mkvs, etc.) on a NAS and play them from a computer or a Pi. I can certainly flip switches to turn lights on or off in my house.
In fact, most "home automation" sounds a little absurd. If you can program it yourself and you like it, good for you. But to rely on a remote provider that may or may not work when you most need it, or who may "discontinue" devices you rely on, is irrational.
It seems most people are willing to give away control for the smallest gain in convenience. We should resist more.
What an asinine way to begin a comment attempting to explain your position. I think it’s safe to say that nobody wishes another human “high on some substance” has the ability to disrupt the control of their vehicle. Where did you even pull that from?
That being said, the people who “should resist more” are the ones don’t find it “trivial” to not rely on cloud service providers. They grab IoT products like a Ring doorbell off the shelf and install it one and done.
Elon Musk is often high and even when not, says things that are completely unacceptable. Look them up. He's loved here on HN. But even if you do love him you shouldn't give him control over your life.
Why does anyone need a Ring doorbell? Can't you just stand up and answer the door? I don't understand any of this (I do understand I'm in the wrong forum for saying so).
We can agree to disagree over Elon Musk, but I can give you a good use case for Ring off the top of my head:
My parents bought a Ring (I am heavily against it for every reason you wrote, plus I can’t stand the idea of a company owning my family’s video footage, I asked them to let me set up some sort of CCTV system but they just want the easy way)and it provides them with a quick, cheap motion activated video feed of their home straight to their phones from anywhere in the world. This isn’t even a doorbell function, the thing can be configured to detect motion over a selection of distances and send you a notification straight to a live video feed.
Sure that can be manually set up but for a lot of people who aren’t too tech savvy, grabbing something like a Ring from bestbuy is quick and easy to get running. Maybe the issue could be helped if a someone sold something like an arduino based doorbell / cam, with easy to use software or an app like Ring that didn’t call back home.
What I find missing is that the implication of this:
>The cheaper models in Tesla’s line-up have parts of their batteries disabled by the car’s software in order to limit their range. At the tap of a keyboard in Palo Alto, the firm was able to remove those restrictions and give drivers temporary access to the full power of their batteries.
has not been contemplated.
It plainly means that someone in Palo Alto can also add restrictions (possibly even stopping the car altogether) and that since everything is remote actuated possibly someone else might do the same (individually or per area, etc.).
31 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 78.5 ms ] threadThis is the best they could come up with as an example for the "many benefits"? Tilt your head only slightly privacy-leaning and this looks like a terrifying dystopia. Of course the Orwellian nightmare won't come to "law abiding" middle and upper-class citizens, who will most be tracked as unwitting lab rats by mega tech firms intent on understanding every aspect of human life in order to monetize it, usually through ads and Chinese-style digital karma, but the marginalized groups--ethnic minorities, political dissidents, and the "mentally unstable" will be persecuted and hounded endlessly by digital means. With mass shootings all over the US, it's only a matter of time until they weaponize the already-built surveillance network to red-flag people. As usual, our own fear of each other is way out ahead, on the leading edge of technology.
Want their DNA? No problem. Want their interests? Sleeping schedule? Work schedule? If you got the money we got the stuff.
Future is looking really interesting.
I don't understand why this is an article. Its basically saying "Imagine if the Internet of Things.... wait for it.... had more Things!" Of course you'll see an increase in efficiency, and the balance of power will shift toward larger corporations capable of harnessing said efficiency. This has been happening for 15 years. This is not news to anyone.
That's the impression I had. Home automation hasn't gone very far, and seems to be more trouble than it's worth. Now you have to worry about your "cloud home animation provider" going out of business, or changing their business model, or just dropping support on your home devices. Someone faced with Google dropping support on something recently wrote "My house won't work any more". "Unauthorised Bread" by Cory Doctorow is close to reality now.
There's the Cameras Everywhere thing, with Ring and that crowd. That's the telescreen from 1984, privatized.
None of this stuff does any much. All sensing, no actuation. Power windows for houses, for example, are expensive and rare. Even HVAC systems for houses which have a controlled damper for outside air are rare. The robot vacuum cleaners still aren't good enough to just ignore and let them do their job.
Most of the ideas for the Internet of Things can be seen in the 1950s Whirlpool Kitchen of the Future. Today, you can really buy most of that stuff. Back then, though, Big Brother wasn't part of the package.
[1] https://www.inverse.com/article/12064-we-ve-finally-arrived-...
Maybe it is for the people who read Economist?
What I want is one smart device: a robot that can operate all my non-smart devices. The robot can set the thermostat, unlock the door, flip the light switches, do the laundry and the dishes, monitor the house while I'm away, etc. That's the goal we should be working towards. IoT should be seen as, at best, a stopgap solution. It's not a desirable end state.
You mind emailing me at wow.its.nothing@gmail.com if you could you like to talk about this more?
Up next is security cameras using MotionEyeOS[2] and Raspberry Pi Zero W's.
You really don't have to pay millions of dollars to automate your home. My thermostats use technology called Z-Wave for which there is a USB[3] adapter available on Amazon, for about $45 I turned 2 different Thermostats into Nest-like thermostats that I fully control myself, if my pi dies, the usb device still has them synched.
All in my house, all in my control and managed by yours truly.
[0]: https://www.openhab.org/docs/installation/openhabian.html#ra...
[1]: https://mycroft.ai/
[2]: https://github.com/ccrisan/motioneyeos
[3]: https://www.amazon.com/Aeotec-Z-Stick-Z-Wave-create-gateway/...
Final thought: If I ever get Mycroft setup, I'd essentially have a robot in my home running off a Raspberry Pi. He wouldn't move (wouldn't need him to) but he would do whatever I wish. For now openHAB has a UI for me.
Edit: Forgot to mention that openHAB is also scriptable, and even has a bit of IFTTT type of capacity internally.
My household recently became multi-generational and it's really great! Feels like this is what it's supposed to be like.
No manufacturer will do this because it limits their ability to engineer-in planned obsolescence, vendor lock-in, and recurring revenue "cloud" business models.
There are commercial and industrial-grade devices that do what I want, but they're priced for their market segment and, infuriatingly, their protocols are needlessly baroque (MODBUS, BACNET, et. al.) or proprietary.
Our multitude of small devices themselves can stay "dumb", but it'd be a huge missed opportunity to totally cut them off from the software world.
A robot turning knobs and pushing buttons as grandparent seems to suggest is a romantic vision that doesn't hold up well to the real world.
Sounds like what you need is a https://www.deviantart.com/plank-69/art/Mr-Handy-Advert-Fall...
https://ilyanazarov.com/projects/X21AL
It's trivial to not rely on cloud providers for anything. I can store mp3s (or mkvs, etc.) on a NAS and play them from a computer or a Pi. I can certainly flip switches to turn lights on or off in my house.
In fact, most "home automation" sounds a little absurd. If you can program it yourself and you like it, good for you. But to rely on a remote provider that may or may not work when you most need it, or who may "discontinue" devices you rely on, is irrational.
It seems most people are willing to give away control for the smallest gain in convenience. We should resist more.
That being said, the people who “should resist more” are the ones don’t find it “trivial” to not rely on cloud service providers. They grab IoT products like a Ring doorbell off the shelf and install it one and done.
Why does anyone need a Ring doorbell? Can't you just stand up and answer the door? I don't understand any of this (I do understand I'm in the wrong forum for saying so).
My parents bought a Ring (I am heavily against it for every reason you wrote, plus I can’t stand the idea of a company owning my family’s video footage, I asked them to let me set up some sort of CCTV system but they just want the easy way)and it provides them with a quick, cheap motion activated video feed of their home straight to their phones from anywhere in the world. This isn’t even a doorbell function, the thing can be configured to detect motion over a selection of distances and send you a notification straight to a live video feed.
Sure that can be manually set up but for a lot of people who aren’t too tech savvy, grabbing something like a Ring from bestbuy is quick and easy to get running. Maybe the issue could be helped if a someone sold something like an arduino based doorbell / cam, with easy to use software or an app like Ring that didn’t call back home.
>The cheaper models in Tesla’s line-up have parts of their batteries disabled by the car’s software in order to limit their range. At the tap of a keyboard in Palo Alto, the firm was able to remove those restrictions and give drivers temporary access to the full power of their batteries.
has not been contemplated.
It plainly means that someone in Palo Alto can also add restrictions (possibly even stopping the car altogether) and that since everything is remote actuated possibly someone else might do the same (individually or per area, etc.).