In an ideal world they are entitled to an expectation of privacy, but in the world we live in, they had better not count upon it. That’s exactly the argument I’m making.
There’s privacy, and then there’s privacy.
If someone hacks the data stream that shows me watching a hockey game on my laptop, that’s one thing. If someone hacks into your child’s bedroom monitor to talk to her at night, that’s something else.
Those who use internet-of-things stuff should evaluate the benefit versus the possible risk before throwing the switch. If they don’t do so, my sympathy meter is gonna read in the low range.
Let me respectfully interject:
I certainly don’t blame people in their role as parents of attempting to capitalize on technology to fill a need, mitigate risk/fear or just plain old make life easier.
Regardless of the reason (valid or not, and really who gets to decide what valid is?) for using these devices, at this point, trusting smart devices is turning out to be a silly thing to do.
We can’t trust smart TV´s not to ( inadvertintly) to listen in to our conversations, we can´t trust our smartphones to not report our location to whoever requests it wherever we go and learning that baby monitors are not their own special kind of magic technology that will allow you and only you to monitor your kids at will is silly too.
On a semi serious note here: The kid is the victim here, not the parents. The crime isn’t that the parent’s (Rightly so) feel outraged at what somebody did to their kid. That doesn’t make the parents fair game, I get it. But their trust in technology is unwarranted.
You seem to be an expert on how people should live to avoid being the subject of a crime. So, please pick the next set of victims to blame and explain for all those folks on this thread:
I reckon that’s the salient point. I can see the cloud capable application for home security, but for baby monitors it just seems to be adding this incredible risk for no tangible gain. The old school one we are using transmits via radio frequency, and OK a neighbour with a scanner could theoretically eavesdrop on us, but that cuts the potential pool of ‘griefers’ by around 7 billion…
We have a radio based one as well. Although it works ok, having it connected to wifi would address a number of problems like the persistent interference we experience with our laptops, microwave, etc. Depending on the construction of your home, internet enabled devices may make sense as well. Also, the internet enabled devices were cheaper (IIRMC) because another device is used for the screen.
In between we had a unit that transmitted digitally on 2.4 ghz but wasn’t wifi enabled, that is technically the best of both worlds because it was long range and the signal is encrypted, however it died after 18 months or so. The radio frequency unit soldiers on…
Edit: Although obviously it is still limited by radio frequency transmission if you really live in a bunker… so yeah you are right, there are applications for the technology.
Basically if it can get out, someone else will find a way to get back in. I don’t blame the parents as what seems like basic duh don’t use the default password, basic internet security learnin’ is lost on a lot of people.
I am honestly surprised we haven’t seen a lot more of this considering how often we find out all kinds of other internet things are about as secure as an unlocked door.
Seriously shocked by the quickness with blaming the parents. The company is culpable and the griefer is, well, a griefer. I don’t think there should be an unreasonable expectation of privacy by parents. Don’t we all expect our photos stored in private accounts to remain private, our private emails to remain private, etc? Forregular people (i.e., not sys admins or other computer geeks) who live most of their lives on internet connected devices, it is not crazy or irresponsible to use an internet enabled system like this in your home. At some point in everyone’s daily life there is some piece of technology that we take for granted is safe, works, etc. Same thing here.
Lets agree, you and I that the parents are not to blame here. They’re not.
Yes. And no.
My argument is that regular folk expect privacy, they are not wrong to expect security.
Every day, manufacturers show that they are not interested in providing privacy and that security is hard, it is double plus hard when privacy takes a back seat to monetizing customer data.
They are not. This is hard to ignore post snowden.
It is silly to not understand how it works and presume it works as its intended to. Regular plain old folk do well in mistrusting technology. It’s reasonable.
I disagree. I don’t know how my car works and I don’t need to, I just know it does. If it stops working I take it to a specialist who fixes it for me. The VAST majority of people who own a computer and/or computer based, so called “internet of things” devices are the same.
Edit: To claim people who, for instance, buy a video baby monitor must understand the full communications technology and all its potential risks before they are allowed to use it, is idiotic.
After a couple more years of this sort of thing happening, perhaps “regular people” will learn that “connecting your baby’s bedroom monitor to the Internet” is akin to “driving on tires that are so worn the cord is showing” or “trying to drag a raccoon out from under your porch with your bare hands”.
Every last piece of hardware is hackable. Especially so those that are connected to the internet.
While I’m absolutely not out to victim blame, I personally don’t believe there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy for any device I’ve connected to the internet. I’ve seen too much shit man.
Now, it’s still completely outrageous that this happened, and parents should be able to assume that their baby monitor is adequately protected from external threats. But I personally wouldn’t have that expectation.
I’ll accept we disagree, but I didn’t say people should understand, I only said smart devices and cloud technology don’t have a reputation for security and privacy. Any assumption to the contrary is unfounded.
