Smart Lights, Speakers, Thermostats, Cameras and Other IoT Devices Are Being Increasingly Used as a Means For Harassment, Monitoring, and Revenge (nytimes.com) 174
Smart home devices are supposed to bring convenience to people's lives, but increasingly, their unintended consequences are surfacing, and are being exploited to harass others, an investigation by The New York Times has found. [Editor's note: the link maybe paywalled; syndicated source.] From the report: In more than 30 interviews with The New York Times, domestic abuse victims, their lawyers, shelter workers and emergency responders described how the technology was becoming an alarming new tool. Abusers -- using apps on their smartphones, which are connected to the internet-enabled devices -- would remotely control everyday objects in the home, sometimes to watch and listen, other times to scare or show power. Even after a partner had left the home, the devices often stayed and continued to be used to intimidate and confuse.
For victims and emergency responders, the experiences were often aggravated by a lack of knowledge about how smart technology works, how much power the other person had over the devices, how to legally deal with the behavior and how to make it stop. "People have started to raise their hands in trainings and ask what to do about this," Erica Olsen, director of the Safety Net Project at the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said of sessions she holds about technology and abuse. She said she was wary of discussing the misuse of emerging technologies because "we don't want to introduce the idea to the world, but now that it's become so prevalent, the cat's out of the bag."
For victims and emergency responders, the experiences were often aggravated by a lack of knowledge about how smart technology works, how much power the other person had over the devices, how to legally deal with the behavior and how to make it stop. "People have started to raise their hands in trainings and ask what to do about this," Erica Olsen, director of the Safety Net Project at the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said of sessions she holds about technology and abuse. She said she was wary of discussing the misuse of emerging technologies because "we don't want to introduce the idea to the world, but now that it's become so prevalent, the cat's out of the bag."
IoC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
so, not a Internet of Crap thing
Re: (Score:3)
In hindsight, CF bulbs were necessary, but really a joke of a product. Only in todays world would a buyer tolerate ten times the pruchase price, slow starting, flickering, wrong color, gets dimmer with age, can't be dimmed, needs to be recycled because of mercury, doesn't last as long as claimed, and can't be used in half of the (fully enclosed) fixtures. But hey you saved on electricity!
LED bulbs learned from all that, even the EnergyStar rating requires much longer warranties because the early CF lifespan
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
Scale? On a dehumidifier? What kind of air do you breathe? Are you a Horta? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IoC (Score:5, Insightful)
modern dehumidifiers are like the old CF bulbs in that they do not last.
I was just at my parent's place and the Electrohome dehumidifier from the 1970s is still in the basement, chugging away.
It may not be as energy efficient to operate, but considering it was built once almost 4 decades ago and no one needs to buy a new one, I think overall it's ahead of the game.
It is built so sturdily I can easily sit on it, and the cooling coils are so thick and stiff I can't move them easily.
Contrast this to the modern one I have in my house, the housing appears to be made from old pie plates and the cooling coil is so flimsy it shakes back and forth just from wiggling the unit.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Energy Star is a joke. A gasoline powered alarm clock received an energy star rating.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-strange-story-of-how-a-completely-fake-gas-powered-clock-radio-got-its-energy-star-certification/
Re: (Score:2)
In hindsight, CF bulbs were necessary, but really a joke of a product. Only in todays world would a buyer tolerate ten times the pruchase price, slow starting, flickering, wrong color, gets dimmer with age, can't be dimmed, needs to be recycled because of mercury, doesn't last as long as claimed, and can't be used in half of the (fully enclosed) fixtures. But hey you saved on electricity!
LED bulbs learned from all that, even the EnergyStar rating requires much longer warranties because the early CF lifespans were laughable.
LED bulbs sure learned something all right; produce an even more expensive product and buy legislation mandating its use.
In my experience, LED bulbs do not last any longer than CF bulbs; where I live they have a half life of about 6 months unless powered by an online UPS. The manufacturers love to list the operating life of the LEDs until they dim a certain amount but that has nothing to do with the ballast failures. They still do not work in most lamp fixtures due to limited operating temperature range.
Re: (Score:3)
You and i might not use them but our friends at shodan.io will scan for them regardless.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:IoC (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That is brilliant. I wonder how many people figured the reference. Obscure level expert!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone else remember when you'd press buttons on the TV remote and the channel would change instantly? Remember when you'd put a video came in your console, power it on and start playing instantly?
Tech products are getting worse and worse year by year, but hey, nobody needs a 4 year computer science degree when you can learn to code at a 2-week bootcamp. Because those are totally the same thing.
Re: IoC (Score:2)
Let's not forget the 10-20 seconds it takes to wake up 3 sleeping monitors because Windows has to re-negotiate HDCP handshakes with each of them, one by one. Made worse by the hellbent-determination of Windows to put monitors to sleep at every possible opportunity... even IF you try disabling that behavior. The next Windows update blows all the changes you made away, and you're back to reading manuals while twiddling the mouse with one hand to trick Windows into thinking it's active.
Seriously, I think someo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IoC (Score:5, Interesting)
The way they should work is they should never connect to the Internet, and should limit their network activity to your LAN. If you want to control them from outside your home, you should set up a VPN server on your router (many of them come with one built-in now), and use the VPN client on your phone to access your LAN from the Internet, giving you access to those devices.
Unfortunately, this is beyond the technical capabilities of the vast majority of users, and they don't want to learn how to do it, so we end up with these IoT devices which access the Internet directly. Same reason everyone sells their soul and shares their news and photos on Facebook, instead of setting up their own personal website/blog.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: IoC (Score:2)
Frankly, the PLA is the LEAST of my worries. China's government has no authority to prosecute me, and I doubt whether it genuinely CARES what random Americans do. If I had family members or substantial investments in China I *might* care... but I don't.
On the other hand, bored troll losers looking for random shits & giggles scare me a lot, precisely because they DO have the potential to cause large-scale harm to random strangers at little personal risk & with minimal effort.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most routers support dynamic DNS. If you want your stuff accessible through a domain you control, you can create a CNAME entry on your domain that points to the dynamic-DNS hostname (so that home.example.tld gets redirecte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: IoC (Score:2)
Someone (in France, I think) came up with an entirely reasonable compromise a few years ago -- Carrier-grade NAT with a static shared public IP, and 16-1024 port addresses (out of the 65,535 possible) permanently forwarded to the private IP assigned to each customer. End users configure their router as always (except technically, now double-NAT'ing). The only difference is, ports 1-32768 are shared by everyone sharing the public IP, and only a known range of upper ports gets forwarded to you (say, 49153-501
Re: (Score:2)
4. They can charge a monthly fee for "premium" features that realistically have nothing to do with the cloud or infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Brakes", the word you're trying to use is "brakes".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure either. I rather like the construction "put the breaks on". It's a little unconventional, but in certain context it can be meaningful. Language should be mutable. Even fungible.
Re: (Score:1)
Illuminati is an old word that at one time could refer to a group of wealthy power brokers who were going to rule the world, but are now mostly dead of old age. There is, however; a freudian slip in the use of that word by more recent groups, and of another one in the same vein: prism.
It's because physics research has seen more dollars than any other type of research over the past 35 years, mostly in the realm of photonics, entangled photons, general quantum entanglement, quantum memory, and quantum commun
Re: (Score:2)
So.. it's basically generic power, exactly the same as every other technology that preceded it? Yeah, I can see that.
Seriously, they probably said the same thing about fire and the wheel. You're not wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Any technology can be misused.
I've seen cases of abusive spouses using double-sided locks (Locks which require keys on both sides) to trap victims. Taking the phone (landline). Etc.
The problem is always the same and so is the answer. Dump the abuser. Be prepared to defend yourself.
Sure get a restraining order. Call police if they break it. But when seconds count the police are only minutes away. So be prepared to defend yourself.
Re: IoC (Score:1)
It's literally impossible for women to lie, Nazi.
Ah Yes (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that most people (mostly contractors) usually try to buy the cheapest thing that they find at the Home Depot when they can get away with it. We really need to try to save those people from themselves.
We already have regulations in place that "dumb" switches aren't allowed to be so poorly made that they can catch your house on fire (no matter how cheap they are), so we should probably have something similar with the "smart" ones.
Default "abc" or "123" passwords on an IoT device should probably
Re: (Score:2)
Also:
IoT devices should be required to be able to work peer-to-peer if possible, ideally via a hub that acts as a VPN/firewall.
IoT devices that use a clown server should be required to be supported for 10 years. Having to throw away a thermostat after two years because the manufacturer shut down the cloud servers is wasteful as hell.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that IoT companies have no vested interest in security. If their devices are used for that, worse case is that the C-levels short their stock, make the announcement, and "mourn" the dead company on the deck of their new ship. The average person in the company has to choose between making deliverables or security... and deliverables are what keeps the badge from being disabled.
Best way to fix? Don't buy that crap. If you want to buy a $3000 fridge (and have the ability to add a flue and a
Re: (Score:2)
+10 modpoints for correct use of "aggravated" (Score:1)
It didn't make the problem MAD, it made the problem WORSE.
-Legal.Troll (a /. hero who can't post because of negative karma)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
You have 2 competitors and one has no security, they don't sell any products and the bar is raised.
Wtf is 2018.
You are right, it is 2018. So you have 100 competitors and one has security but costs more than the other 99 knockoffs that all came from the same factory. They don't sell any products and go out of business. That is 2018.
obMovieReference (Score:3)
Internet of Simple Home Invasion Tactics (Score:2)
Smart? (Score:1)
Easily duped is not smart.
Hate to victim blame (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, these IoT devices are so very difficult for anyone in the home to deal with.
I mean, if you have physical access, it's just waaaaaay to difficult too just unplug/disconnect something without understanding exactly how it works. Probably need a contractor for that...
Re: (Score:3)
Well some stuff is so leaky it's stupid. Look at the recent bit with baby monitors for example. We're not talking about a lack of passwords, but rather that the devices are so badly designed that any form of protection is easy to bypass, much like all of those "smart locks" that idiots have been pushing.
Re: (Score:2)
For some of these devices, like thermostats and light switches, it is difficult for people without any experience with circuitry or electronics to replace them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the problem is that the person who installed it is probably still considered an authorized party, and may be the one with the ability to reset passwords.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you're focused on this thread, not the story it's attached to. Fair enough, but I think the person you replied to was thinking of the "manipulative ex installed stuff, how to get rid of it" part.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is abuse of secret knowledge by a geek "he" over a non-geek "s
Re: (Score:3)
Hate to victim blame, but anyone who buys an IoT thingy and actually plugs it in to the internet is all but asking for it. If it can't do it's job not connected, don't buy it, and if it does, don't connect it.
Except in this case if the victim protested they were liable to get punched.
This isn't a story about devices being hacked. This is a story about abusers installing smart home tech in order to control and monitor their partner.
Every technology gets abused (Score:2)
There are always some power-hungry fuckups that do it. At least these here are obvious about it, unlike the NSA, the GCHQ and other groups of no ethics whatsoever.
weasel words (Score:5, Insightful)
"Increasingly", "many", "more"
How many? How do you know?
It makes a great story, but "many" of these kinds of stories don't have much to back them up, as to the size of the problem.
It might be helpful to say "X percent of DV cases in {area} in 2017 involved smart home devices" or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Fragmentation is bad - hubs need to be smarter... (Score:3)
Imagine if a home had a single hub for the smart devices that acts as a VPN server. All traffic between the devices and the Internet would be mediated by that hub. Changing the password or key on the hub would automatically lock out all external devices.
Compare this to the current paradigm, where there's a cloud provider for each brand of device, with different authentication information for each. It's easily possible to forget to change some of the passwords when someone moves out/is kicked out of your home. Fragmentation is the problem here.
The traffic would of course be peer-to-peer (i.e. phone-to-hub via Internet) in my paradigm, not going through a bunch of 3rd-party servers to be mined, sliced, diced, and spied upon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've preferred that model. Have everything communicate via Z-Wave, Bluetooth, or similar to a hub, which is hardened, and has a manifest/profile for every device including what it can talk to (and 0.0.0.0/0 as a netmask is not going to be allowed.) Perhaps 2-3 hubs for redundancy, if that is what is wanted. This way, there is a hardened device doing all the Internet stuff, rather than devices made in the cheapest Chinese factories with software made by the sloppiest, "get 'er done, it builds, ship it" me
And this is a surprise to anybody why exactly? (Score:1)
How shocking... (Score:1)
...and unexpected this is. :-|
Stop being ridiculous (Score:2)
All spouses of all genders have suspicious and paranoid moments and everyone tries to startle others and laughs when they jump sometimes. You and your spouse ARE both entitled to n
Re:Stop being ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, there is someone out there making their partner a veritable slave in their home. But we've taken this so extreme you won't actually ever encounter it in life situation and act like it is everywhere
The easier it becomes to do a thing, the easier it becomes to do an uncharacteristic thing in a moment of weakness. Little girls don't lock their diaries because even they think the lock can't be broken, any more than people lock their front doors because they think their lock can be broken. It's because lots of people will just walk in, and plenty of people will just take something that isn't nailed down. A simple lock that's easily defeated stops the impulsive, if not the determined.
These systems are so vulnerable that they practically invite snooping. If someone can get into your camera just by googling the stuff written on it, the odds go way up that they will. This is actually true of malicious actors as well as the bored and curious; a notable portion of them are incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't deny that at all. But this isn't about third parties gaining unauthorized access, this is about painting a spouse as an abuser if they access these devices in their own home.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, using a home security system to spy on a partner IS abuse. It's a violation of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy violation along with most things can certainly be used as a tool of abuse. It
Advice to Victims (Score:4, Insightful)
Unplug the bad device from the network... as in unplug that wire that isn't power. No wire because WiFi?... realistically 99% of the IoT stuff is WiFi, do this to keep it disconnected:
1. Change the password on your WiFi router, and do not update it on your IoT devices.
2. If you don't know how to do that, throw away your old WiFi router and buy a new one, which will force you to make a new password.
Re: (Score:1)
Great advice, but how does this help the victims? The vast majority of them will never see such a thing. You're preaching to the choir here. I'd imagine most /. readers are well aware of the dangers of the IoT and have either taken measures or decided they don't care.
This needs a solution that can be implemented once (or possibly on a political level), rather than one that needs to be implemented in every household in the connected world.
Re: (Score:1)
The IoT device might default to any available open network if it can't find encrypted networks it has credentials for. Local bad actors can take advantage of this by making an open network nearby. IoT devices are terrible in all ways.
I will never have one of these devices (Score:2, Insightful)
in my house. Ever. Working IT security for years and understanding how this stuff works has put me off of it long before Nest, Echo, Google Home, et al ever made the scene. To knowingly allow blatant spies into you midst is a sign of absolute carelessness. No one needs their house to be "automated" unless they're handicapped. My Honeywell HVAC system is simply good enough. I don't need or want an app to control anything in my home. I don't want or need a "connected' home. Being tethered to my on-call mobile
as designed.. (Score:1)
as designed. Just ask Google.
The reality is, the internet and its "things", browsers included, is a heedless goldrush where risk indifferent short sighted megalomaniacs -Jack Dorsey comes to mind as a prototype- inflict socially destructive , pointless services and gadgets on shortsighted people who are having the real consequences of their participation, subscription or purchase systematically and deliberately hidden from them.
In the end, people will sort it out, vote with their wallets and eyeballs and so
The Internet Of Hacked Things (Score:2)
On trends towards digitally-facilitated slavery (Score:2)
I was responding to this blog post -- especially the conclusion and Marx quote at the end (quoted here):
"Return of the Slave Society"
https://thesphinxblog.com/2017... [thesphinxblog.com]
"... There's a substantial tradition, especially in the nineteenth century, of contrasting ancient slave society with modern capitalism. I always recall the Aristotle quote with which I started from Marx's evocation of it in Das Kapital: foolish Greek, thinking that machinery would lead to a life of leisure, rather than being the surest method
GOLLY GEE I NEVER SAW THIS COMING! (Score:2)
There is always a loop hole (Score:1)
Just Disconnect Them (Score:2)
Why is Slashdot suddenly full of luddites?
My home is full of smart stuff. My fiance has full access to that smart stuff. If she leaves... I can easily revoke her access with one (ok, two) touches of a button in the settings of my iPhone (to revoke her access to Homekit). She won't be able to do anything with my house past that point.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "crappy IOT security"... or any such scare mongering thing. All that's wrong here is that people don't know how their own devices work
Re: (Score:1)
I feel like the commenters here just see the term "IoT Devices" and see it as an excuse to get on their holier-than-thou anti-Google/Amazon/Nest/etc soapbox. Guess what? No one gives a crap that you still use a flip-phone and "refuse to have an always-listening microphone" in your house. You're not s
IoT is a fad. (Score:3)
Said it 1.5 years ago [slashdot.org], will say it again.
IoT is a fad and it will die off pretty soon because of precisely this problem mentioned in TFA.
Nobodies Toaster needs a webserver.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, they do often cause physical and psychological harm....?
I think US citizens should have the right to do with their bodies as they wish, however.
And we should protect our borders from those committing the crime of crossing illegally...if they start right off breaking the law, then it would seem logical they don't have qualms about
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Moralistic moronic nonsense. The law is just a set of words written by a bunch of old farts who managed to con dumb people into voting for them.
By your argument, we should shoot speeders and pot smokers -- they've already broken the law, so they're more likely to commit murder. Might as well prevent crime before it happens.
I think the inverse is actually true with illegal immigrants. They're less likely to commit violent crimes because the consequences can often be dire. Not only jail, but deportation b
Re: (Score:1)
Nice opinion. Got any facts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like the law...CHANGE the law.
By they way, it is the legislators that make and pass the laws, so, tender your vote that way election time.
But until then, the law is the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The two guys gave one another "that look" - the one that says, Ah, silly paranoid nerd.
Your name is probably in a database too. 'Refused installation of a Telescreen.'
Re: (Score:3)
...or just install a Clapper...
Hello Time Traveler! Mind if I call your answering machine and leave a message? I have this cool 5-minute recording of random clapping noises. I keep it on a cassette tape labeled Your Shit was Never Secure...
Re: (Score:2)
If you think any of this is "unintended", you are a complete moron. Unlike them. They aren't morons. They are just evil.
Uh, a default password of password sent over insecure protocols is not "evil". That's just plain stupid, and their only intent in doing so was to save cost.