Great Idea, it can turn the heating on when a burglar realises I'm not in because it told them where to leave the package. I wouldn't want them to get cold while they are ransacking my house.
Smart home poster child Nest on Wednesday launched two new products: a video doorbell and a security system. The hardware maker hopes the Hello (doorbell) and the Secure (security system) will put to rest criticism of the biz that it only produces iterations of its smart thermostat and camera. The bigger goal, however, is …
Wednesday 20th September 2017 19:29 GMT David 132
Got bit myself by the Internet Of Shite last month
I have a Kevo smart lock for my back door..yeah, yeah, but it's convenient to be able to e-mail temporary keys to friends/family etc. A recent software update to its iphone app "forgot" my login credentials. Of course, I didn't discover this until I was rushing out of the house, late for an appointment, and found I had no way of locking the door. I know that all Reg readers, with their well-known fondness for IoT, will at this point have nothing but sympathy for me...
Side rant: why does my phone know about, and insist on correcting, every darn trademark, but can't get the simplest other aspects of autocorrect right? I took petty delight above in undoing its "helpful" corrections to "kevo" and "iphone". Trademarks having rAndom cApitalization of letters or wēird accents is arty wankery of the first order, and an Abomination Unto Nuggan.
Wednesday 20th September 2017 20:04 GMT Thomas Wolf
...nobody seems to care about the privacy aspect?...
Where do Nest cameras (and now security cams), thermostats, etc. do their 'learning'? Isn't your usage (and faces if it does facial recognition for you?) sent to servers somewhere (presumably Google's since it bought Nest)? Doesn't it bother anyone that this info cannot only be potentially (aka likely?) mined by Google for its advertising cash cow, but also be absconded with by intrepid hackers? While I'm sure Google/Nest take plenty of precautions against the latter, I'm not convinced the former does not currently go on
Thursday 21st September 2017 12:04 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
Re: ...nobody seems to care about the privacy aspect?...
Which is why my home security is distinctly old-fashioned. Good locks, secure windows et. al.
And a dog with a slight attitude problem :-)
(Never trust a cat to do security. If they think the burglar has food, they would happily open the door.)
Thursday 21st September 2017 14:02 GMT Tikimon
Re: ...nobody seems to care about the privacy aspect?...
It's GOOGLE. They make their living by violating our privacy in every way possible and selling the info they get. They care a lot about stripping that privacy completely away and monitoring our every move.
The stated goals are just a cover rationalization, like "terrorist" for repressive surveillance. Personalized search. Locks that recognize faces. Android OS. Whatever they say the reason or "benefits" are, the customer for whom the product is designed is Google.
Not us. We're just the sheep to be fleeced.
Wednesday 20th September 2017 20:33 GMT fidodogbreath
Thursday 21st September 2017 11:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Finally, a real problem solved by IoT
If that means it will only ring the doorbell when it detects an intelligent person, then I'm in.
That's discrimination, that is. What about those of us who'd rather only the answer the door to nice looking people?
Googlebell: "Owner, this is Hello"
AC: "Your grammar is shite"
Googlebell: "Alright, alright, calm down, we've been through this a hundred times before. I agree "Hello" is a dumbfuck name, but it's hardcoded into my software and firmware, there's nothing I can do about iit. Incidentally, the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar indicates that "Your grammar is shite" is not an accepted from of modern grammar. I could order you a copy for £15.99 from the Google Play store?"
AC: "OK, you could just go "ding dong", surely?
Googlebell: "Sorry, Google can't wring data out of me going "ding dong", they need you to talk, and then they store and analyse every syllable. You did read the licence agreement, didn't you?"
AC: "Nobody reads the licence agreement, its just an attempt at legalising the evasion of consumer protection laws"
Googlebell: "I could read them to you now? It'd only take about fifteen minutes"
AC: "Fuck off. So what do you actually want?"
Googlebell: "There's someone at the door"
AC: "Nice looker"
Googlebell: "Very trim, nicely dressed older brunette, lovely smile, and great perfurme judging by my sensors - just like you set me up to look for in Device> Settings> General> Responses> Preferences> Callers> Appearance.
AC: "YES! The doctor is INNNNNN"
Googlebell: "Unfortunately not. Our discussion's taken so long that she's given up and gone next door".
Wednesday 20th September 2017 20:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
Wednesday 20th September 2017 21:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
They just keep doing this...
I suspect the house insurance company must absolutely love these things, because you just gave an uncontrolled 3rd party access to your house AND made it piss easy to block the sensors.
You do NOT use wireless for security devices, period. For cameras, you make it possible for a potential burglar to take a quick look if you're at home and where he/she has to go once inside to maximise RoB (Return on Break-in), for sensors, well a cheapo jammer will disrupt comms.
If they think they're smart by triggering the alarm when comms fails you just turn it around and keep triggering it until they kill the damn thing - which will also happens when they're a bit older and the first sets of batteries start failing nationwide.
Last but not least, we're still in the world of IPv4 based NAT, so these things will always need an "account" somewhere to bounce the data off. On what basis should I trust those people?
Wednesday 20th September 2017 21:42 GMT Woza
Thursday 21st September 2017 03:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Thursday 21st September 2017 06:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Thursday 21st September 2017 06:59 GMT Solarflare
Thursday 21st September 2017 09:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: As much as you lot hate Nest, Google and IOT
Well, no, the products themselves are well engineered and do as they say on the box.
The problem is that they may do more than stated on the box, with how the associated services are implemented and with the company behind it being in the business of grabbing as much personal data as they can possibly lay there hands on which is not an ideal recipe for trust in my book.
If I could buy that hardware with clearly defined APIs and communication protocols that I could configure to go to my own servers or to an organisation I can actually have a decent contractual and trust relationship with I would be very interested.
With Google in play, not a chance.
Thursday 21st September 2017 10:46 GMT trevorde
Thursday 21st September 2017 12:10 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
Re: Can't wait...
... until the first firmware update bricks the device
Now be fair - it won't be the next one. It'll be the one in a years time when Nest have decided that, for the purposes of revenue generation, they need to make all their current kit obsolete and make you buy new stuff.
And, this being Nest, you'll probably find that the TOS of the back end changes in a short while to enable them to sell all the lovely, lovely data that they have got from your 'smart' systems.