Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.misc, alt.books.electronic |
| Subject | Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? |
| Date | 2019-04-19 09:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ghshajF4tucU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <ghla1vFhjf6U1@mid.individual.net> <q95dvl$ojg$1@dont-email.me> <q96gus$364$1@solani.org> <q9am5p$s87$1@dont-email.me> <q9auhg$1mfl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 19/04/2019 8:42 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In comp.misc Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote: >> In comp.misc RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: >>> On 2019-04-16, Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Hasn't that already happened? I seem to recall that certain home >>>> automation stuff stopped functioning a year or two ago when the >>>> company went under & its servers were shut down. Don't remember the >>>> details, but it convinced me to not even look at any IOT/HA crud that >>>> required access to an external server. >>> >>> Yes, I remember that too - a clear warning against any product whose >>> ability to function requires existence of the company and its servers on >>> a minute-by-minute basis. >> >> This is the one I remember: >> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/05/revolv-devices-bricked-google-nest-smar >> t-home >> [snip] >> Also more recently: >> >> https://www.reddit.com/r/homeautomation/comments/alr36r/iris_shutting_down/ >> Iris shutting down >> IRIS >> Posted byu/DarkL1ghtn1ng >> 2 months ago > > Sounds like there'd be a business opportunity for someone to run > alternative servers for all the various devices which are shut down. > But next to impossible when the devices have used certificate pinning. Their firmware would need to be updated, which is not something typical end users would be able to do, and may also be impossible without a relevant signing key. > Or the systems could be standardised so that the manufacturer and > "IOT Service Provider" could be separated. But fat chance of that > given the current state of the industry. > Indeed. Another approach would be a legal requirement to put a clear warning on the sales literature that the product will become unusable immediately if the company ceases to support it. Then watch how quickly vendors move to address the issue. Sylvia.
Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Do we really own our digital possessions? "Alasdair Allan" <posthamster@x-static.demon.co.uk> - 2019-04-15 21:11 +0000
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> - 2019-04-16 00:01 +0200
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2019-04-16 17:20 -0500
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-04-16 16:12 +1000
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? Filip454 <filip454.newsgroups@gmail.com> - 2019-04-16 11:31 +0200
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2019-04-16 17:22 -0500
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-04-17 12:39 +1000
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2019-04-16 20:29 +0000
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2019-04-17 06:26 +0000
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-04-17 12:32 +0000
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2019-04-18 20:20 +0000
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-04-18 22:42 +0000
Re: Do we really own our digital possessions? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-04-19 09:59 +1000
csiph-web