An engineer got curious about how his iLife A11 smart vacuum worked and monitored the network traffic coming from the device. That’s when he noticed it was constantly sending logs and telemetry data to the manufacturer — something he hadn’t consented to. The user, Harishankar, decided to block the telemetry servers’ IP addresses on his network, while keeping the firmware and OTA servers open. While his smart gadget worked for a while, it just refused to turn on soon after. After a lengthy investigation, he discovered that a remote kill command had been issued to his device.

  • vortic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I agree with you that this should be illegal. I expect this was in the terms of service, though. Since we have no laws restricting this kind of bullshit, the company can argue that they’re within their rights.

    We need some real legislation around privacy. It’s never going to happen, but it needs to. We need a right to anonymity but that is too scary for advertisers and our police state.

      • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 hours ago

        They’re not law as long as you can afford the lawyers and legal costs to fight them. Which is, of course, the problem and the system working as designed.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Just because something’s written in the terms of service, doesn’t mean it’s legal.

    • GreenShimada@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I expect this was in the terms of service, though

      While I expect the same, there’s also just a reasonablility standard. If Meta and Google updated their TOS to say that users agreed to become human chattle slaves to mine cobalt and forfeit their rights, no court (…right, SCOTUS?..right?) would uphold that. A TOS is a contract, but it’s mostly for the protection of companies from liability. Takign active steps to brick someone’s device over the device not connecting to it’s C2 server (the company had zero evidence this was done intentionally and a router firewall misconfiguration could just have easily done the same thing), is IMO something that should result in a lawsuit.