| > why is IoT, as an idea, retarded? The usual complaints about IoT as an excuse for surveillance capitalism aside, the key problem with IoT in most products is the (currently obscured) costs do not outweigh the (often novelty) benefits. By benefits I mean actual, significant time or effort savings that need to outweigh the large risks inherent to anything IoT. > underlying platform for secured communication That illustrates a big part of the problem. There is no such think as a "secure platform", because "Security is a process, not a product."[1] The internet is and will always be an incredibly hostile place. If you plan on internetworking on the shared global network or anything that connects to it in any way, you need to plan on a way to maintain vigilance over the devices you created or are responsible for. This means continuous work into the future[2]. > I bet I could [...beneficial outcomes...] You're only listing the positive side. To judge IoT properly also need to enumerate the known problems and possible risks. A few examples of the risk that most IoT devices bring are: * The other end of the supposed "secure communication" being compromised by governments, criminals, disgruntled workers, etc. * Bugs (everything has bugs) allowing assholes of the "swatting" persuasion messing with your power, food, etc "for the LULZ". * All that data being logged - even when stored locally - becoming the target for discovery in a trial (maybe involving you, maybe not). * The manufacturer of your IoT device selling data to your insurance company, or you insurance company requiring that data from you directly (e.g. fitbit data for "cheaper" insurance that now has more ways to deny you coverage). That's just some obvious examples. The real problem is that after data is collected it tends to be permanent. Nobody has thought of the big risks of plugging your devices into a hostile network. You see the potential benefits of IoT devices, but you also need to consider what some black hat (or script kiddie) will do with all of those devices - and the data they collect - in 10+ years with a clever new exploit. [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2000/04/the_process... [2] It might be possible to limit this with products that have a limited lifespan and are guaranteed leave the network. |
Apply the general argument to personal computers. Anyone can attack your PC. Once pawned, they can get valuable information. Your IP could be wrongfully associated to a crime, which brings Jonny Law to your door. Given all of this, I still assume you see the idea of being connected via a PC as a good thing since you wrote a response via a browser.
My question was essentially, why dismiss something whole cloth? You raise valid things to consider, but I don't think that anyone of them is a death stroke to IoT. They are, at least in my opinion, design considerations for products that make sense.