Fair point, I guess I just disagree that it's an increased risk compared to a manual lock that can be overcome.
There's increased usability with smart locks so I think we're headed that direction.
Do cars even come with mechanical keys anymore?
Last car I was in had an RFID fob and a button.
Nah, connecting anything to the internet is a massive increase in attack surface.
A plain old deadbolt has basically two defeat modes - pick the lock, smash in. A smart lock adds "hack the lock" without doing anything to mitigate existing defeat cases (it also adds additional failure cases of "botnet" and "glitch" to "mechanical failure").
This is, frankly, straight inferior to existing solutions to the problem. IoT just needs to die.
"It's already a risk" is pretty dense reasoning. So is "Nothing has happened, therefore nothing will happen." There's a risk you'll be strick by lightning, but carrying a giant metal rod during a storm in an open field is still a bad idea. This is inviting a lot of risk, for not a lot in return.
There's only an assumption that this technology is increasing risk.
Different access methods don't mean increased risk. Unless we're going with having more windows or more doors is more risky line of reasoning which is silly.
Smart locks already exist, is there an epidemic of theft or assault happening with these people?
Technology isn't going to be the motivating factor for being broken into.
Here's a case where a hotel smart lock had a massive security hole, and a thief exploited it heavily.
And a good lockpicker can open most home door locks in under a minute. It's also pretty easy to build a lock that doesn't have an open bypass/debug port on the bottom
My front door has a "smart" lock - I can press a button from inside on a console and unlock it for ~5 seconds. If I wanted to I could pretty easily wire that up to the internet with an arduino or something too; but there's also a physical key and it's not any less secure. By the time you managed to remove the rather solidly installed intercom unit and get access to the wires to trigger the electromagnet you could easily have picked the lock or broken down the door
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Almost all deadbolt locks are security through obscurity anyway. Anyone who makes it their business to routinely steal from private property would be knowledgeable on how to defeat the most common household door locks.
I still wouldn't use this. It reduces the (literal) barrier of entry (please excuse the pun) from "took the time to become proficient at an obscure but not overly complex skill" to "can push button on pre-packaged software".
Your only real defense in either case is to foster a relationship with your neighbors where you will monitor each other's property while the other is not home.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Fair point, I guess I just disagree that it's an increased risk compared to a manual lock that can be overcome.
There's increased usability with smart locks so I think we're headed that direction.
Do cars even come with mechanical keys anymore?
Last car I was in had an RFID fob and a button.
Nah, connecting anything to the internet is a massive increase in attack surface.
A plain old deadbolt has basically two defeat modes - pick the lock, smash in. A smart lock adds "hack the lock" without doing anything to mitigate existing defeat cases (it also adds additional failure cases of "botnet" and "glitch" to "mechanical failure").
This is, frankly, straight inferior to existing solutions to the problem. IoT just needs to die.
so... locks don't keep people out. locks delay intruders until someone notices they are being screwed with. much of the time this means locks are pretty much useless.
if a smart lock is configured to report to you that it is being screwed with or opened when you aren't near it, it's now doing something a whole lot more useful than delaying an intruder for a few minutes. You can actually do something about your house being broken into. this system also has a camera so you can see and have a record of who is breaking in.
with a smart lock, you can call the cops on the burglar wherever you are. it would work even better in conjunction with an alarm system, but alone it's not useless.
smart locks are pretty great for air bnb or other guests. you can temporarily grant people access and don't have to worry about physical keys that can be copied or lost, and you never need to call a locksmith to rekey them.
yes, a smart lock is somewhat inferior at delaying an intruder, the point of them is that they are infinity better solution for other tasks.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+3
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
The door lock conversation is interesting but it's starting to become its own rabbit hole. I'd like to see more actual Policy about the Internet.
+1
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Is the GAO's investigation into the FCC's claim that they were DDoSed relivant?
The door lock conversation is interesting but it's starting to become its own rabbit hole. I'd like to see more actual Policy about the Internet.
So, to that end, as long as the lock works in a blackout, my only real hangup is this bit:
The camera talks to the lock over Zigbee, a wireless protocol utilized by many smart home devices.
Because that sounds like it's just another vector for online fuckery. Another vector onto my network, another thing that will eventually need to be secured.
Remember ITA? Acquired by Google 5 years ago for its flight booking software, regulators allowed the sale to go through and mandated that the APIs remain open for 5 years. It's been 5 years, so the axe comes down.
Is that what backends Google Flights or something else?
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Are/were there a lot of people who use/used Google Flights? Did their main use case that they were demonstrating that a user would type in "flights to somewhere sunny for $500 or less in May" actually come to fruition?
I always thought Google Flights was an aggregator like any of the others, and I never saw it really give any prices that were better.
Are/were there a lot of people who use/used Google Flights? Did their main use case that they were demonstrating that a user would type in "flights to somewhere sunny for $500 or less in May" actually come to fruition?
I always thought Google Flights was an aggregator like any of the others, and I never saw it really give any prices that were better.
I assumed it was. I use it, but I just type flight FRM TO date.
Are/were there a lot of people who use/used Google Flights? Did their main use case that they were demonstrating that a user would type in "flights to somewhere sunny for $500 or less in May" actually come to fruition?
I always thought Google Flights was an aggregator like any of the others, and I never saw it really give any prices that were better.
I assumed it was. I use it, but I just type flight FRM TO date.
If you know your airport codes you can actually just do a search for "sfo jfk" or whatever
The head of the Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil plans next week for a final vote to reverse a landmark 2015 net neutrality order barring the blocking or slowing of web content, two people briefed on the plans said.
In May, the FCC voted 2-1 to advance Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's plan to withdraw the former Obama administration's order reclassifying internet service providers as if they were utilities. Pai now plans to hold a final vote on the proposal at the FCC's Dec. 14 meeting, the people said, and roll out details of the plans next week.
On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai's proposal to eliminate the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV station in a major market. The proposal would make it easier for media companies to buy additional TV stations in the same market.
Pai is also expected to call for an initial vote in December to rescind rules that say one company may not own stations serving more than 39 percent of U.S. television households, two people briefed on the matter said.
Here we go again everyone, only it's extra shitty this time around.
+16
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Everyone, please call your representatives because the shit is increasingly closer to hitting the fan. The FCC is not backing down from getting rid of net neutrality and we need all hands on deck to stop this shit.
Looks lie we're going forward with this nightmare.
Edit: this outcome was never really in doubt. Even with the big boys like Netflix, eff, google etc... Against it it's still going forward.
The chairman was hand picked to get this done and no matter the political backlash it's going to get done if he's still there.
I'm usually not doom and gloom but as soon as this guy got put in that chair it was over.
Telecoms just over and over and over and over trying to get rid of net neutrality. Seems like it was a loosing battle from the start. I'm just... I'm sad.
Telecoms just over and over and over and over trying to get rid of net neutrality. Seems like it was a loosing battle from the start. I'm just... I'm sad.
I'm sad as well. How long until news sites with smaller pocketbooks are abandoned because they can't pay the toll to their providers for fast service?
How long until the first package from isp's is rolled out advertising "full speed internet" for only $15 more per month?
Good to know the internet dies like right before my birthday... Like the rest of the world is like "lol merica", but if american companies need to pay more to keep things going here in the U.S. they are just going to raise prices everywhere else too. With american companies dominating everything, this is a global decision. Not to mention the UK will probably do something stupid too since we seem to be in a "who can fuck up the worst" competition with them.
This...just...I don't get it. More money and political capital is on the side of Net Neutrality. I get that the telecoms are against it, but literally everyone else with a big pocket book is for it. Even from a greed standpoint this doesn't make sense.
LostNinja on
+2
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
It's not policy yet.
We can still call our elected officials, and have it staved off for another year or so.
That is a very optimistic viewpoint, but it isn't an elected official making the decision. So barring an assassination, it's going through. That being said, maybe Google will ramp up its fiber internet roll-out and offer both higher speeds and net neutrality and kill off the rest of the telecoms. Because as soon as the telecoms decide to mess with people's internet even more, the public outcry is going to be insane. People already hate being nickel and dimed to death. EA just got crucified for their lootbox stuff and that is niche to the gamer market. Imagine having to pay an extra fee to access your "games as a service" when that service is just buying lootcrates. Im pretty sure most people will just take a hard pass on paying to pay for the opportunity to buy lootcrates. Then imagine what all the Janets in the US will think when they have to pay extra for whatever they do on the internet.
There will be a bunch of people clamoring for a different option than the current telecoms.
That is a very optimistic viewpoint, but it isn't an elected official making the decision. So barring an assassination, it's going through. That being said, maybe Google will ramp up its fiber internet roll-out and offer both higher speeds and net neutrality and kill off the rest of the telecoms. Because as soon as the telecoms decide to mess with people's internet even more, the public outcry is going to be insane. People already hate being nickel and dimed to death. EA just got crucified for their lootbox stuff and that is niche to the gamer market. Imagine having to pay an extra fee to access your "games as a service" when that service is just buying lootcrates. Im pretty sure most people will just take a hard pass on paying to pay for the opportunity to buy lootcrates. Then imagine what all the Janets in the US will think when they have to pay extra for whatever they do on the internet.
There will be a bunch of people clamoring for a different option than the current telecoms.
I think this is the only way out really. One competitor is going to say "we're net neutral" and they'll eat everyone's lunch.
Calling your politicians every day won't do anything for this. Ajit Pai was put in the chairman seat specifically to deregulate and let corporations have a free hand to Fuck consumers. Unless this changes then net neutrality is dead at the regulatory level.
+7
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
That is a very optimistic viewpoint, but it isn't an elected official making the decision. So barring an assassination, it's going through. That being said, maybe Google will ramp up its fiber internet roll-out and offer both higher speeds and net neutrality and kill off the rest of the telecoms. Because as soon as the telecoms decide to mess with people's internet even more, the public outcry is going to be insane. People already hate being nickel and dimed to death. EA just got crucified for their lootbox stuff and that is niche to the gamer market. Imagine having to pay an extra fee to access your "games as a service" when that service is just buying lootcrates. Im pretty sure most people will just take a hard pass on paying to pay for the opportunity to buy lootcrates. Then imagine what all the Janets in the US will think when they have to pay extra for whatever they do on the internet.
There will be a bunch of people clamoring for a different option than the current telecoms.
I think this is the only way out really. One competitor is going to say "we're net neutral" and they'll eat everyone's lunch.
Calling your politicians every day won't do anything for this. Ajit Pai was put in the chairman seat specifically to deregulate and let corporations have a free hand to Fuck consumers. Unless this changes then net neutrality is dead at the regulatory level.
There would have to be competition for that to happen. As is, telecoms are essentially monopolistic by their very nature. It's too costly for them to build infrastructure in areas where they'd have to compete.
Living in a suburb of a major city I have like 2 options for my ISP, and that's an improvement from the "haha you'll get Frontier, which won't work half the time, and like it!" option I had when living in a college town. Most people don't have even two choices for their ISP.
It literally has to be a new entity though, because time warner, comcast, etc. all basically have non-compete agreements so there are only like 1-2 ISPs in an area, so it would have to basically be a national roll-out of a new ISP, and frankly the only people with the pockets deep enough for that would be like google and amazon. Plus in a lot of places they would probably have to go to court for various reasons to even be allowed to install any new infrastructure since all the telecoms have scummy contracts with more local governments. So again really only the big companies can afford those legal costs as well.
Somehow in the future we're going to come to see Black Mirror as being prophetic...
Getting rid of this is bad for everyone except the Telco companies. It'll turn the internet into a protection racket where the telcos can extort comapnies for money constantly to keep their traffic working well.
so is the reason the FCC can arbitrarily change these rules here because these regulations were just set by executive order, and not coming from a law set by a bill in congress? does that mean that when the occupant of the white house changes it can be changed arbitrarily again ad infinitum?
so is the reason the FCC can arbitrarily change these rules here because these regulations were just set by executive order, and not coming from a law set by a bill in congress? does that mean that when the occupant of the white house changes it can be changed arbitrarily again ad infinitum?
Yes and no. You've basically got it but their will be inevitable court cases from changes like this and there is a whole section of law dealing with federal rule making process and the legal rights involved.
so is the reason the FCC can arbitrarily change these rules here because these regulations were just set by executive order, and not coming from a law set by a bill in congress? does that mean that when the occupant of the white house changes it can be changed arbitrarily again ad infinitum?
I mean anything the FCC does now can be changed/reverted by the FCC if another president decides to put someone new in charge of the FCC who wants net neutrality, right?
so is the reason the FCC can arbitrarily change these rules here because these regulations were just set by executive order, and not coming from a law set by a bill in congress? does that mean that when the occupant of the white house changes it can be changed arbitrarily again ad infinitum?
Basically, although it was the FCC that decided to place internet providers in the same category they place cable tv providers. So get rid of Ajit and they can be reclassified.
Could a hypothetical non-broken congress pass net neutrality laws someday that the executive would not be able to arbitrarily change? I know that feels like a long shot scenario at this point but hypothetically speaking.
Posts
Nah, connecting anything to the internet is a massive increase in attack surface.
A plain old deadbolt has basically two defeat modes - pick the lock, smash in. A smart lock adds "hack the lock" without doing anything to mitigate existing defeat cases (it also adds additional failure cases of "botnet" and "glitch" to "mechanical failure").
This is, frankly, straight inferior to existing solutions to the problem. IoT just needs to die.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
And a good lockpicker can open most home door locks in under a minute. It's also pretty easy to build a lock that doesn't have an open bypass/debug port on the bottom
I still wouldn't use this. It reduces the (literal) barrier of entry (please excuse the pun) from "took the time to become proficient at an obscure but not overly complex skill" to "can push button on pre-packaged software".
Your only real defense in either case is to foster a relationship with your neighbors where you will monitor each other's property while the other is not home.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
if a smart lock is configured to report to you that it is being screwed with or opened when you aren't near it, it's now doing something a whole lot more useful than delaying an intruder for a few minutes. You can actually do something about your house being broken into. this system also has a camera so you can see and have a record of who is breaking in.
with a smart lock, you can call the cops on the burglar wherever you are. it would work even better in conjunction with an alarm system, but alone it's not useless.
smart locks are pretty great for air bnb or other guests. you can temporarily grant people access and don't have to worry about physical keys that can be copied or lost, and you never need to call a locksmith to rekey them.
yes, a smart lock is somewhat inferior at delaying an intruder, the point of them is that they are infinity better solution for other tasks.
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/10/gao-investigate-fcc-comment-hack.html
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
So, to that end, as long as the lock works in a blackout, my only real hangup is this bit:
Because that sounds like it's just another vector for online fuckery. Another vector onto my network, another thing that will eventually need to be secured.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/01/google_to_discontinue_qpx_airline_booking_software/
Why allow the sale at all? This is not innovation, but letting an internet giant continue to grow by acquisition while undercutting all competition.
I always thought Google Flights was an aggregator like any of the others, and I never saw it really give any prices that were better.
I assumed it was. I use it, but I just type flight FRM TO date.
If you know your airport codes you can actually just do a search for "sfo jfk" or whatever
Here we go again everyone, only it's extra shitty this time around.
Contact info for your government can be found in the links below.
https://www.house.gov/representatives
https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
Looks lie we're going forward with this nightmare.
Edit: this outcome was never really in doubt. Even with the big boys like Netflix, eff, google etc... Against it it's still going forward.
The chairman was hand picked to get this done and no matter the political backlash it's going to get done if he's still there.
I'm usually not doom and gloom but as soon as this guy got put in that chair it was over.
I'm sad as well. How long until news sites with smaller pocketbooks are abandoned because they can't pay the toll to their providers for fast service?
How long until the first package from isp's is rolled out advertising "full speed internet" for only $15 more per month?
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
We can still call our elected officials, and have it staved off for another year or so.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
There will be a bunch of people clamoring for a different option than the current telecoms.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
I think this is the only way out really. One competitor is going to say "we're net neutral" and they'll eat everyone's lunch.
Calling your politicians every day won't do anything for this. Ajit Pai was put in the chairman seat specifically to deregulate and let corporations have a free hand to Fuck consumers. Unless this changes then net neutrality is dead at the regulatory level.
"We always knew no constituents ever liked this idea, that's why we're throwing support behind [x]" is helpful.
Still. Fuck.
There would have to be competition for that to happen. As is, telecoms are essentially monopolistic by their very nature. It's too costly for them to build infrastructure in areas where they'd have to compete.
Living in a suburb of a major city I have like 2 options for my ISP, and that's an improvement from the "haha you'll get Frontier, which won't work half the time, and like it!" option I had when living in a college town. Most people don't have even two choices for their ISP.
Somehow in the future we're going to come to see Black Mirror as being prophetic...
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
The only real solution is trust busting.
Yes and no. You've basically got it but their will be inevitable court cases from changes like this and there is a whole section of law dealing with federal rule making process and the legal rights involved.
I mean anything the FCC does now can be changed/reverted by the FCC if another president decides to put someone new in charge of the FCC who wants net neutrality, right?
Basically, although it was the FCC that decided to place internet providers in the same category they place cable tv providers. So get rid of Ajit and they can be reclassified.