• TheWiz@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    For me it’s more the privacy aspect. IOT devices tend to be network weak points. Things like Alexa constantly listening. I could see myself self hosting home assistant maybe in the future but not of the things smart devices enable are really a value add for me personally.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You don’t need home devices to lose your privacy like that. Your phone’s themselves are constantly listening in.

      Was talking to the wife in the car one time about buying a new pair of tennis shoes, and when I got home that evening and watched YouTube videos and such, I was getting so many tennis shoe ads it was actually quite spooky.

      • TheWiz@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh definitely, I go to a lot of effort to try and mitigate it (graphene OS, no Facebook, social media, pihole for network wide ad blocking, simplelogin for email aliasing, no smart devices) but there’s always plenty of invasive apps/services even you’re privacy conscious.

    • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jesus Christ “always listing”.

      No they aren’t. Not in any sense that even explained in common sense language to normal people.

      They are listening to what amounts to be a key pair(s) voice imprint. That’s done at a hardware level. And despite it be career making and be worth millions nobody has reported any large scale beach of trust in many years.

      The major players have an excellent track record of being secure.

            • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              First, the attacker needs to be within wireless proximity of the device, and listen to MAC addresses with prefixes associated with Google. After that, they can send deauth packets, to disconnect the device from the network and trigger the setup mode. In the setup mode, they request device info, and use that information to link their account to the device and - voila! - they can now spy on the device owners over the internet, and can move away from the WiFi.

              Congrats, you found a single instance. It was patched via the security program. It relied on physical proximity.

              Then you link another scenario where an utterly insignificant portion of users data was shared with partners.

              It’s grasping at straws and both those incidents are unrelated to always on recording. None of that shit you linked is related in the least bit. It’s slippery slope bullshit you’re trying to pull.

              Astroturfing 🤣🤣🤣 good lord I wish I could get paid arguing with uninformed privacy zealots.

              • Calavera@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So much so for your “excellent track record of being secure.” right? Specially this taking almost a year to be patched. Now image the exploits that were found not by researchers, but malicious parts…

                I mean, if you were a paid astroturfer I could understand, because people have to make ends meet right. But doing that for free? What a dystopian world we live in

                • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Holy shit, you really are stuck on this 100% unrelated local access hack 🤣

                  I guess you’ll never use tls again cause of its history right?