The owner did not hack the vacuum, he blocked the IP address on his network for the telemetry server. Same thing tons of people do with Pi-Hole DNS blocking, for example.
There's no sane world where it is defensible to remotely brick a device because it can't communicate with a telemetry server.
> There's no sane world where it is defensible to remotely brick a device because it can't communicate with a telemetry server.
Just today: Setting up an old smartphone: "Google assistant cannot work on this device." The only choice was "back". Had to search on the internet the solution: do not connect to wi-fi.
> As the business running the servers of smart vacuums, if I saw an atypical device reporting in, without context, I too would kill that device.
If you want to block a device from accessing your servers because it's behaving in an odd way, such as this one that was contacting the update server but not the telemetry server, that's not entirely unreasonable. Sending it a command to modify its software to stop it from operating entirely is outrageous.
Why would a business have the power to decide what should and what shouldn't be homogeneous about the property of others? A transaction took place, property has legally changed hands and the former owner is exerting control over property that isn't theirs any more.
How about if the builder of your house comes into your home via an access route unknown to you, and starts rearranging where things are placed, or where you and your wife are placed, etc. in order to maintain homogeneous layout?
> How about if the builder of your house comes into your home via an access route unknown to you, and starts rearranging where things are placed, or where you and your wife are placed, etc. in order to maintain homogeneous layout?
And if you complain he kicks you and your wife out of the house you bought. And if you dare to close off the backdoor he sends you to jail.
> How about if the builder of your house comes into your home via an access route unknown to you, and starts rearranging where things are placed, or where you and your wife are placed, etc. in order to maintain homogeneous layout?
I've seen this movie. Only, the twist was that the home was built 100+ years ago and the builder long since dead. The family living in the home currently had to resort to an exorcist.
Edit to say that the sarcasm is direct rebuttal with the preposterous nature of the hypothetical.
This is a cool article, and neat he got it working in the end.
One thing that is odd - if he blocked it calling home, it doesn't make sense that the kill code was issued remotely. It makes more sense that there is a line of code internally that kills the machine when it can't call home (which would be far less malicious).
That would in many ways be even worse because it means that if the manufacturer were to go out of business all of the stuff they sold would stop working. That's more malicious, not less.
He implied they were remoting in after he blocked network traffic. It could easilyl be a standard exception handling approache when it can't call home and fetch latest settings etc. It might not be malicious - not defending the architecture, just think that there is an assumption of intent here.
Whether they remote into his device or it kills itself is irrelevant except that if it's local code that's even worse, as they've programmed in future obsolescence. That is indefensible, full stop, do not pass go.
If you sell me silverware that, unless I share my eating habits with you, automatically disintegrates, or if you break in and steal them back, what truly is the difference?
It's funny you think a vacuum automatically bricking itself if you try to prevent its connection to the mothership is at all equivalent to someone choosing to give someone silverware.
it's funny you read my comment in a way I did not write. User asked for an explanation of the difference between two fairly scenarios, so I provided one.
How has making up things that other people haven't said been working out for you?
Your comments would come off a lot better, and the conversation would be less shitty, if you'd just leave off the last sentence. It's pervasive across HN, so it's not just you, but just FYI. Just write out the whole comment, including the qwip at the end that you just can't help, and post it, and then edit the comment and delete it.
The contrast is that the vacuum isn't a sentient being, and so from there, you don't see the device reaching out, vs being told what to do, as being any different. I'm not a judge in overseeing a court case in your jurisdiction though, so no matter how much of a distinction I personally may think there is, is irrelevant.
Well, no. You can't just revoke a license.
As far as owning the software in the device, I works would argue that you do own a copy of it. I'm sure there is some buried tos claiming you just own a license to run it, and I know this is still being litigated. But when the average person purchases someone their expectation is that they've purchased it, not licensed it.
How does that work? What if the company licenses technology from company A to build product B, but the license is only good for 2 years? What happens 2 years after you buy product B?
Also doesn't Apple, Google, & other remove features from people's smartphones after release all the time in the EU?
Typo. "Feature set", referring to your comment. Functions of software. Quoted below, source is widely available.
“The notion of goods with digital elements should refer to goods that incorporate or are inter-connected with digital content or a digital service in such a way that the absence of that digital content or digital service would prevent the goods from performing their functions.” — Recital 14, Directive (EU) 2019/771.
