all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 8 months ago (5 children)

... Why does a vacuum needs a webcam, a microphone, and Internet access? And what did the manufacturer do with all that data?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Why does anyone need a robot vacuum cleaner? Nobody does. You can use a normal vacuum cleaner. Or you can have a dirty house. So "why does it need..." is automatically the wrong way of framing it.

    So, why do they have:

    1. a camera? To use computer vision to try and avoid socks you left on the floor.
    2. internet access? Because the cheapest way for a company to let a large market control a device nowadays is through a smartphone app. That means it needs to be network-enabled, so internet-enabled is no extra cost. It brings some benefits, too; it means you can control the device (whatever it is) when you're out. If you forgot to set the robot vacuum off before you left the house, you could do it while out.
    3. a microphone? These are rare, but given that you already have a device that can trundle round the house, is internet-connected, and has a camera in it, why not add a microphone so you can use it as a security camera?

    Nobody needs any of these features, but each provides something useful to someone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    nice ableist view this sunday morning 🌅

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Oh, TIL disabled people can't have a dirty house, and cannot avail themselves of any of the other options that my non-exhaustive list didn't cover! I suppose before the invention of the robot vacuum cleaner in the 20th century, disabled people simply did not exist, as the need them.

    Or you can re-assess your performative holier-than-thou attitude.

  • source
  • parent
  • 20 comments in c/nottheonion@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 63 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    But he soon discovered that the same credentials that allowed him to see and control his own device also provided access to live camera feeds, microphone audio, maps, and status data from nearly 7,000 other vacuums across 24 countries. The backend security bug

    I feel like "bug" is doing a looot of heavy lifting here.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    It also illustrates how a security vulnerability is simply a bug, albeit a dangerous one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Is it a bug though in this case? To me a bug is when a program behaves in a way that's not intended. This might very well be a case of the program behaving exactly as intended, except the intentions of the people who made it were wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    An online service is a program (or a bunch of program).

    Giving access when it's not supposed to falls into behaving in a way that's not intended.

    Therefore, an online service giving access when it's not supposed to can be classified as a program behaving in a way that's not intended.

    Thus, this case fits into your very definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Giving access when it's not supposed too

    Not sure I'd agree with that statement. Personally I see it as the correct credentials were provided, and thus access was granted; ergo, the app performed as intended, and there is no bug.

    The error here seems to be around the lack of concern for security; nobody considered that using the same credentials for their fleet of robots could pose a threat if discovered. It's no different to someone using the same email and password for everything, and then wondering why their facebook has been hacked after their Reddit account leaked. The problem isn't a bug in code, it's just poor cybersecurity hygiene; what we see here is the same just on a commercial level. 

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    The error here seems to be around the lack of concern for security

    I feel like this is extremely generous, but I'm a bit of a cynic.

    I don't see an error at all. All I see is Upskirt Robot working as intended

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago

    [the robot vacuum] retails for around $2,000 and is roughly the size of a large terrier or a small fridge

    Doing everyhing possible to avoid actual dimensions as always.

    What size is a 'small fridge' anyway??

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago

    Minions! Tonight we vacuum.. THE ROOM!

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Long story short: he was trying to find the password for his own vacuum (yeah that already sounds ridiculous) so he could control it with a game controller, and found that the same exact credentials worked for an estimated 7000 other vacuums that need to call home to process visual data in the cloud. Hidden behind the lede: DJI automated vacuums require constantly sending their footage abroad to even work in the first place

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Why do these things require microphones?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Good time to shamelessly plug valetudo, if your vacuum robot is supported.

    With this, it does not access the public internet, and still functions the same as without rooting it. You just can't manage it if you're not home, unless you have some VPN set up or home assistant integration. But I don't know when I ever wanted to manage/watch my vacuum robot when I'm not home. Some sort of offline mode should be legally required for these kinds of devices that don't really need it. "Does not need an app to work" has become a major selling point for me for things, alongside "has physical buttons".

    Also drop me a message if you're in switzerland and need an unsoldered valetudo breakout board, I still have around 5 left.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    I see a new law coming, limiting the number of automatic bots/ai one person can legally give commands to.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    World's suckiest army.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago
    12 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 63 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

    The backend security bug effectively exposed an army of internet-connected robots that, in the wrong hands, could have turned into surveillance tools, all without their owners ever knowing.

    Suprise, if it has cameras, microphones, gps, data mapping capabilities and speaks to a server outside of your home it is by definition is a surveillance tool.

    All of this has always been predicated on the idea that the surveillance will never be used against you somehow. I don't know why anyone ever bought into that.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Which is why we need to de-normalize this thought process. People should always ask, why does my vacuum need to go online? Or at the very least, can I turn that "feature" off?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    because vacuum makers lock away advanced capabilities on the app making a home network the only way you can access them.

    of course, when you're shopping, it'll use those advanced features as advertisements; but there's no way to know that ahead of time unless you're buying the most expensive models available.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    And to top that off, those features have a terms contract you need to accept to use. Yet you don't know what that entails until you spend a lot of money.

    Both your point and this also needs to be denormalized. We should be able to have full visibility for purchase decisions and have no push back on returns if we don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    if it has cameras, microphones, gps, data mapping capabilities and speaks to a server outside of your home

    It has also happened with baby monitors. Well, almost endless other IoT devices too. But baby monitors are a particular issue. They have speakers in them too. Attackers were exploiting it and playing very disturbing sounds to cause extreme distress to babies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    I guess the most plausible explanation is incompetence, there wouldn't be a reason to do this on purpose (a backdoor), right? Since the company could have easily used different credentials per device that they store anyway?

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)
    [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Gosh, their drones are getting banned in the US. This just seems to help their case.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 16 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Long story short: he was trying to find the password for his own vacuum (yeah that already sounds ridiculous) so he could control it with a game controller, and found that the same exact credentials worked for an estimated 7000 other vacuums that need to call home to process visual data in the cloud. Hidden behind the lede: DJI automated vacuums require constantly sending their footage abroad to even work in the first place

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    I guess computing also abhors a power vaccuum!

  • source