How do you feel about using Smart devices regarding privacy?

Pique

I saw this article and wondered how you lot reconcile the obvious security risks associated with smart devices.
From Echo/GH 'always on' mics or systems that know when you are home or away etc., there is a lot of information available to potential abuse.

How does one secure privacy in the IOT age?

wexfordman2

Im of the opinion that my life is just too boring for anyone to be bothered. I am quite ok with patterns of my life being identified and stored on a big DB somewhere in order for it to make stuff work, and if that is used for some level of marketing etc, then so what. In reality, the very fact that we are using this forum is pretty miuch entirely dependent on knowing details about our lives to allow it market stuff to us.

30 yrs ago, it was junk mail about any old thing in through your letterbox, now its targeted web adds when we are browsing. I prefer the latter, at least its more likely to be something Im interested in.

afatbollix

Just go in with the idea that everything is hackable.

The local scum bag is not going to hack your house before he robs it but the CIA will be listening if it wants to. (It was GCHQ who hacked smart TVs to listen in on people first)

I don't mind the voice-activated stuff but the amazon alarm clock with a camera is a bit much. Who would like to see my O face anyway.

Watch the movie Snowden if you would like to see how much they collect/store your data.

wexfordman2

Yep,

Cameras I think are a different kettle of fish, I would be reluctant to use indoor cameras!

4068ac1elhodqr

wexfordman2 wrote: »

30 yrs ago, it was junk mail about any old thing in through your letterbox, now its targeted web adds when we are browsing. I prefer the latter, at least its more likely to be something Im interested in.

Well now it's more like pairs of ears and eyes looking in through your letterbox, and possibly every other room via smart devices, recording everything they see and hear. Sure why bother even having curtains?

Smart electric wi-fi meters let folks know exactly when you're making a cup of tea. Always on listening devices (people actually pay for this) have your every word stored. Smart TV's and some game systems even have full stereoscopic live images. Your new car could most likely be started and driven away by someone without keys (just a signal booster from outdoors). Monitors and cordless phone handsets have always been easy to listen into.

Aside from 2.4ghz wi-fi (microwave) radiation beaming around houses (WEP/WPA hack kits also readily available), all your devices likely have internal Chinese made routing components, as such some governments expressed great concern at this possible foreign hardware backdoor.

Even billionaire Zuck has PVC black tape on his laptop to prevent privacy loss.



The solution: old basic phones, hard-wired net, dumb tv and a big chain around your car's steering wheel. Probably a few other basic ideas e.g. using Ghostery/Ad-blockers to reject each and every cookie.

bk

Callie Clever Albacore wrote: »

Even billionaire Zuck has PVC black tape on his laptop to prevent privacy loss.

Actually it makes perfect sense for him. He is a high value target, people would pay massive amounts of money to hack him. See Corporate espionage or even the recent Russian controversies around FB.

Billionaires like him always have very heightened security around them as it is actually worth it to directly hack them to steal financial information (if you know a companies upcoming financial results, you could make billions in the stock market) or just steal details of upcoming projects.

As for people like us, joe public, our lives aren't interesting enough for some one to directly hack us, Mission Impossible style. Of course we might be targets of drive by hacks to steal credit card information along with millions of others.

But you local thief certainly isn't going to bother to hack your home before breaking in.

Of course I would assume that certain government agencies have a profile on you and have tapped into various web services data, but unless you are planning to join some terrorist organisation, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

In the end, if you have a modern smart phone, it has multiple mics, cameras, GPS and access to almost all your private data. It is already a lot more interesting then what an Echo could give it.

4068ac1elhodqr

bk wrote: »

Actually it makes perfect sense for him....

As for people like us, joe public, our lives aren't interesting enough for some one to directly hack us...

But you local thief certainly isn't going to bother to hack your home before breaking in....

The point about Zuckerberg is that even billions of ready cash can't protect a single laptop, a mostly virus-free Macbook too.

The point about Job public could be responded to with the 'curtains principle'. Assuming that yes 99.9% of us folks aren't doing anything wrong, then why do we even have curtains or blinds upon windows? Sure why not take them all down.

Not yet but the local common simpleton thief type is probably already looking into cheap basic signal jammers or boosters. Perhaps they even splashed out already on a 50notes infrared camera drone for their van trips around isolated dwellings in the countryside whilst offering their dubious door-to-door type services.

bk

Callie Clever Albacore wrote: »

The point about Zuckerberg is that even billions of ready cash can't protect a single laptop, a mostly virus-free Macbook too.

I don't really see that, it is a nice, simple and effective way to limit exposure if his mac does get hacked.

Only one of hundreds of things I'm sure his security team does to protect him.

You have to remember that at his level the corporate espionage starts to ramp up into national espionage. Some of his Chinese competitors are quashi state owned companies who no one would be surprised to hear get support from national spy agencies to spy on their competitors. The lines between corporate and national espionage are really blurred in China.

Callie Clever Albacore wrote: »

The point about Job public could be responded to with the 'curtains principle'. Assuming that yes 99.9% of us folks aren't doing anything wrong, then why do we even have curtains or blinds upon windows? Sure why not take them all down.

Well increasingly I know lots of people who don't bother. But in general it is more about simple embarrassment and/or not wanting to expose poor passerbys to my naked ass

Callie Clever Albacore wrote: »

Not yet but the local common simpleton thief type is probably already looking into cheap basic signal jammers or boosters. Perhaps they even splashed out already on a 50notes infrared camera drone for their van trips around isolated dwellings in the countryside whilst offering their dubious door-to-door type services.

No need for drones, would bring too much attention (the damn things are noisy).

As you say, the normal tactic is just knock at the door to see if anyone is in. That is where something like a Ring camera and other cameras can be very useful.

You can answer a ring at the door even if your not home and they don't know if you are really in or not. And protects you from needing to open the door and risk assault even if you are in. It makes your home a higher risk for them to break into now and maybe they go to your neighbour instead.

Yes, they do use jammers, but so what, still better then nothing. When my broadband goes down, I immediately get notified that my alarm is offline for some reason. If I'm out, I'd call my neighbour to check on the place and see if their is anything dodge going on. Still better then having no security.

And that is my point, a lot of this stuff actually enhances your security and makes you a harder target for a reasonable cost to local thieves.

They aren't sitting at a computer hacking your home. A person with those skills could make way more money, with much less risk, hacking high value targets 1,000's of miles away. Or hell even getting a real job at an IT company

Of course if you are a super rich individual that is a different story, you then need to employ a professional security company, bodyguards, etc. But for most of use, these make use safer then not.

4068ac1elhodqr

bk wrote: »

Only one of hundreds of things I'm sure his security team does to protect him.

Agree the future POTUS 2020 is probably not the best example here, but one point this makes is that it's actually 'low-non-tech' that is often the best solution i.e. two small strips of black PVC tape, (cost:5cents) is something anyone can (Billionaire or not), and maybe should do to their laptop when not using VOIP.

bk wrote: »

No need for drones, would bring too much attention (the damn things are noisy). As you say, the normal tactic is just knock at the door to see if anyone is in. That is where something like a Ring camera and other cameras can be very useful.

In a pitch black country night, an iRed drone could bypass even wide-angled Ring. Ring looks good, but likely has its flaws too. Again going 'cheap/lo-tech' e.g. indoor imitation TV screen leds, dog barking motion box or pressure sensing welcome mat, PIR floodlight and red flashing dummy cctv box might well be better and much, much cheaper with no real running costs.

bk wrote: »

And that is my point, a lot of this stuff actually enhances your security and makes you a harder target for a reasonable cost to local thieves.

My point is that non/low tech might actually be better, any car with a chain thrown on the steering wheel is unlikely to get attention if the same model next to it hasn't. The simple (pre-recorded playback) sound of a big dog, gets door sellers/chuggers walking quickly in reverse.

Also, the only people that don't realistically regularly use curtains or blinds are the paid stars of Googlebox or the odd random Kim Cardigan types.

wexfordman2

Callie Clever Albacore wrote: »

The point about Zuckerberg is that even billions of ready cash can't protect a single laptop, a mostly virus-free Macbook too.

The point about Job public could be responded to with the 'curtains principle'. Assuming that yes 99.9% of us folks aren't doing anything wrong, then why do we even have curtains or blinds upon windows? Sure why not take them all down.

because joe public doesnt give a crap about when or if I make a cup of tea or not. However, if my curtains were open onto a public area, people just naturally glance in a window in passsing, there is a difference between the amount of effort that someone is going to go to to see if youve made a cup of tea or not, and someone glancing in a window with open curtains as they walk past.

Callie Clever Albacore wrote: »

Not yet but the local common simpleton thief type is probably already looking into cheap basic signal jammers or boosters. Perhaps they even splashed out already on a 50notes infrared camera drone for their van trips around isolated dwellings in the countryside whilst offering their dubious door-to-door type services.

jammers or boosters to do what exactly, how is jamming something going to help them spy on us to figure out if we are making a cup of tea or not.

And infrred drone camera, sorry, again to do what with our IOT ? They can do pretty much the same thing with a "infra red drone camera" on a house who's highest tech item is a wind up bakelite 1930's landline phone as they could with a house with fully kitted out IOT

As for your stuff around 2.4gh wifi and radiation, I suggest you purchase a tin foil hat to protect yourself as soon as possible

bk

Callie Clever Albacore wrote: »

In a pitch black country night, an iRed drone could bypass even wide-angled Ring. Ring looks good, but likely has its flaws too. Again going 'cheap/lo-tech' e.g. indoor imitation TV screen leds, dog barking motion box or pressure sensing welcome mat, PIR floodlight and red flashing dummy cctv box might well be better and much, much cheaper with no real running costs.

Sure, I've done all those or variants of. But I also know people who did and were still burgled. Many thieves are now wise to these and instead just use the old ring on the door and see trick.

A lot of the smart home, stuff enhances these and takes them to the next level.

Last year I was away for 2 months and I was so happy to have a couple of IP cameras that allowed me to keep an eye on the place and would immediately notify me of any movement or if the broadband went down. It brought real peace of mind.

BTW Again I'm not sure what you point about the iRed drone is? First it costs £10k!! I don't see your local lads in a van buying one of those. And even if they did, I don't know what it will tell them that knocking on the door wouldn't tell them for free?

And even if they see that no one is home. They still have to break in, triggering the security system and cameras which notify me and have me calling the Gardai.

Even if they use a jammer, I'll get a notification that my system is offline and I'll be calling my neighbour to check on the place.

All better then having just a fake barking dog and some lights that isn't going to fool many.

Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with also doing the low tech things too, but you should underestimate the extra level of security the high tech can add too.

BTW just because you have IP cameras, doesn't mean you have to have them overlooking your bed. You can have them on the outside of your house or just in the hallway. Nothing much to see if someone does happen to hack it. Be pretty boring.

bk

bk wrote: »

Even if they use a jammer, I'll get a notification that my system is offline and I'll be calling my neighbour to check on the place.

BTW this one is theoretical to me. Live in a big apartment building, fiber buried in the road. Short of taking a JCB to the road, they aren't going to be cutting/jamming my comms channel.

BTW I'm aware that isn't the case for many people. But still better to get a notification of your system is offline then nothing.

moonboy52

It is something i think about quite a bit.

I read 1984 in my teens, with the theme of that type of potential future.
There is always the thought that the more technology we have, the greater chance of that scary dystopian future becoming a reality.

The argument that unless you are a terrorist, you have nothing to fear apart from tailored ads is a wrong one in my opinion. Snowden was reported to have said:

“Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”


However, i really enjoy technology and i like Google Home and my Yeelights etc. Google is pretty transparent with what is recorded, searched for etc.

That there are backdoors that the spooks may/can/do use is always a cause for concern.

There sort of seems to be a grudging acceptance sadly, that for now at least that is the world we live in, if connected online.

bk

moonboy52 wrote: »

There sort of seems to be a grudging acceptance sadly, that for now at least that is the world we live in, if connected online.

That is the thing, I think technology is so embedded in our lives, it is already too late to try and avoid the technology.

Instead we need to shout at our politicians to put in place very strong data privacy laws and to curtail the powers of intelligence agencies, etc.

Fortunately, while far from perfect, here in Europe we have it way better then in the US.

BTW for decades the British Intelligence Agencies had tapped every international phone call from Ireland, so all of this isn't exactly new.