| ▲ | homeonthemtn 4 days ago |
| This seems a bit sensationalist. Guy hacks smart vacuum. Smart vacuum behaves different than standard vacuum. Manufacturer kills vacuum remotely. As the business running the servers of smart vacuums, if I saw an atypical device reporting in, without context, I too would kill that device. Because they're vacuums. Why would they not be homogenous? |
|
| ▲ | Sanzig 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The owner did not hack the vacuum, he blocked the IP address on his network for the telemetry server. Same thing tons of people do with Pi-Hole DNS blocking, for example. There's no sane world where it is defensible to remotely brick a device because it can't communicate with a telemetry server. |
| |
| ▲ | consp 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not just devices. Same for apps. If you block the live monitoring features of some crash accumulators apps will not function. (Looking at you dexcom) | |
| ▲ | hulitu an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > There's no sane world where it is defensible to remotely brick a device because it can't communicate with a telemetry server. Just today: Setting up an old smartphone: "Google assistant cannot work on this device." The only choice was "back". Had to search on the internet the solution: do not connect to wi-fi. |
|
|
| ▲ | Zak 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > As the business running the servers of smart vacuums, if I saw an atypical device reporting in, without context, I too would kill that device. If you want to block a device from accessing your servers because it's behaving in an odd way, such as this one that was contacting the update server but not the telemetry server, that's not entirely unreasonable. Sending it a command to modify its software to stop it from operating entirely is outrageous. |
|
| ▲ | bigbadfeline 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Why would they not be homogenous? Why would a business have the power to decide what should and what shouldn't be homogeneous about the property of others? A transaction took place, property has legally changed hands and the former owner is exerting control over property that isn't theirs any more. How about if the builder of your house comes into your home via an access route unknown to you, and starts rearranging where things are placed, or where you and your wife are placed, etc. in order to maintain homogeneous layout? |
| |
| ▲ | HiPhish 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > How about if the builder of your house comes into your home via an access route unknown to you, and starts rearranging where things are placed, or where you and your wife are placed, etc. in order to maintain homogeneous layout? And if you complain he kicks you and your wife out of the house you bought. And if you dare to close off the backdoor he sends you to jail. | |
| ▲ | dylan604 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > How about if the builder of your house comes into your home via an access route unknown to you, and starts rearranging where things are placed, or where you and your wife are placed, etc. in order to maintain homogeneous layout? I've seen this movie. Only, the twist was that the home was built 100+ years ago and the builder long since dead. The family living in the home currently had to resort to an exorcist. Edit to say that the sarcasm is direct rebuttal with the preposterous nature of the hypothetical. | |
| ▲ | below43 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is a cool article, and neat he got it working in the end. One thing that is odd - if he blocked it calling home, it doesn't make sense that the kill code was issued remotely. It makes more sense that there is a line of code internally that kills the machine when it can't call home (which would be far less malicious). | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That would in many ways be even worse because it means that if the manufacturer were to go out of business all of the stuff they sold would stop working. That's more malicious, not less. | |
| ▲ | DaSHacka 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It makes more sense that there is a line of code internally that kills the machine when it can't call home (which would be far less malicious). Would it be? Whether the line of code is on the server or the device, what's the difference? | | |
| ▲ | below43 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | He implied they were remoting in after he blocked network traffic. It could easilyl be a standard exception handling approache when it can't call home and fetch latest settings etc. It might not be malicious - not defending the architecture, just think that there is an assumption of intent here. | | |
| ▲ | foobarchu 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Whether they remote into his device or it kills itself is irrelevant except that if it's local code that's even worse, as they've programmed in future obsolescence. That is indefensible, full stop, do not pass go. |
| |
| ▲ | fragmede 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you bring me your silverware from the kitchen, or I go into your house to take it, what's the difference? (CFAA charges) | |
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ThePowerOfFuet 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The business has no right to remotely kill a device purchased by an end user. |
| |
| ▲ | whycome 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah! Just degrade the battery life and user experience through forced updates so they are pushed to upgrade instead! | |
| ▲ | dylan604 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Did you accept the EULA? | | |
| ▲ | SchemaLoad 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Consumer law comes above the EULA. A clause which states the company can remotely brick your hardware should be rendered invalid. | |
| ▲ | ptrl600 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | OK, no _moral_ right. They could probably stick a clause in there about the vacuum eating my pets for nourishment, but... | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | And now you've lost the plot or jumped the shark depending on which side of the pond you're on. | | |
| |
| ▲ | homeonthemtn 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Only sane comment in this thread |
| |
| ▲ | sidewndr46 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You don't own the software on the device, they do. If they choose to revoke that license, that is their choice. | | |
| ▲ | chrismcb 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, no. You can't just revoke a license.
As far as owning the software in the device, I works would argue that you do own a copy of it. I'm sure there is some buried tos claiming you just own a license to run it, and I know this is still being litigated. But when the average person purchases someone their expectation is that they've purchased it, not licensed it. | |
| ▲ | kdmtctl 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In EU you have the right to use bundled software as long as you own the appliance. Not sure this is true for US. | |
| ▲ | awefasdf 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I own the device and all of its storage. The exact state of that storage is my business and precisely no one else's. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | alvah 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Does low-effort rage-bait belong on HN? aka, are you f**ing kidding? |
