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.
My robot vac will not operate when not connected to the Internet so it’s only allowed to communicate when actually in use. As soon as it returns to the charger the vacuum is immediately blocked via firewall.
Unfortunately the manufacturer has deliberately made this as inconvenient as possible. If communication is blocked for more than a few hours the vacuum loses all maps and will no longer load saved maps from the Tuya app. To use it the vac must be powered down and the app killed. Only then can a saved map be restored.
It’s too bad it’s so useful .
GreenShimada@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The fact that this isn’t considered outright fraud is disturbing. This person OWNS the device, yes? They’re not leasing it.
FFS, this should be illegal.
Vorticity@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Terms of service need to stop being treated like law.
dan@upvote.au 3 weeks ago
Just because something’s written in the terms of service, doesn’t mean it’s legal.
GreenShimada@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
Zier@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
There needs to be a huge neon orange warning on the Front of these products that explains, clearly, that you don't own it, your privacy will be invaded and the company can disable it at anytime.
This will stop people from buying this garbage, and hopefully companies will stop if they want our money.
My life rule is, if it says Smart on it, it's never going to be smart. It will always cause trouble.
GreenShimada@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
IMO “Smart” refers to the lawyers that got paid to write a 900-page TOS that lets a company do whatever they want.
Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
If it were illegal, that would be a huge infraction to FREEDOM®🦅🦅
artyom@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Too bad he’s an engineer and not a lawyer.
theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Unfortunately this is from a Chinese company and China will never make it illegal; hell they’re more likely to pass a law requiring ILIFE to share the personal data with the government than tell them not to collect them. This could be enforced for US based companies but as long as we buy luxury goods from China this is going to be a fact of life.