Smart Home Automation and the Cloud
While I think the security fanatics are jumping the gun a bit on the fears around smart homes, there are a few points I figure it is worth making.
The first, as usual with me, is the simplest; we will reach a convergence of sorts eventually if smart home tech continues to grow in popularity. In short, we'll have a single standard or even a single provider for most functionality. At that point, the security concerns WILL become a lot more strongly founded. But, that is probably a while off. Smart homes are still the wild west when it comes to interoperability and standards.
So, moving on to more complex points. While I think the security concerns are PRESENTLY overstated. I still think the cloud reliance goes too far with many smart home products.
There are a lot of examples of "smart" systems which become entirely useless during an internet outage. And this shouldn't be the case. In fact, internet based communication should generally be opt-in only and entirely non-required.
As others have pointed out and complained. Smart systems should be designed, such that if there is a failure in the "smart" aspect, that the system can continue to run at least comparably to it's dumb equivalent.
I've been lucky. Most of my smart home devices operate reasonably well even during and after a power outage or internet outage. For instance, devices paired with my Ikea light switches work fine without a hub and thus without any internet connection. In fact, aside from app support and voice control, they function the same with or without internet controls. And, I can of course just plug a bulb in and drive it with a normal light switch. Perfect. The only real beef is after a power outage the lights go back to the on state, even if they were off prior. We seem to have a disproportionate number of late night outages here, so it is quite a pronounced effect. But, ultimately, far from a deal breaker.
Similarly, our Nest thermostat can control the heating and cooling even if the internet is down.
My smart lock is battery powered and can handle both a power AND internet outage. In fact, the internet connected piece was an extra charge.
The one disappointment for me was the Nest cameras. 100% useless without internet. There is no supported means of having them stream locally. Now, I didn't have huge needs or expectations for that particular device. But, it was a little discouraging. I mean, 90% of the time I use my camera... I'm at home. Sure, as a security solution you might think accessing externally is the primary use... but I'd argue you'd probably find both use cases fairly equal in weight.
And, just because I may want to access my feeds remotely, doesn't mean that I necessarily want every feature controllable remotely.
The ideal solution? Options. Buying hubs for every vendor sucks. But, I'd rather be able to have the option to buy a hub and have it controlled by that and control what data I share (if any) with the cloud. If it is a WiFi enabled device as well, then being able to optionally bypass the need for a hub if desired is OK. Many devices need no hub really, in some cases even, just Bluetooth is fine.
As time eventually makes the concerns of the security nuts more and more real, we also approach a time where, to balance convenience and security, we need control and privacy.
For example, I'm OK with being able to check the state of and to lock my smart lock remotely. And OK with being able to issue access codes remotely. If I can do those things, I have no real need to allow the cloud service to unlock my door directly under any conditions. And, if I can make the lock reject any such requests, it it cuts off the easiest access route for cloud based hackers trying to access my home. While I'd still be leaving open some means of attack, I am taking control of the risks I expose myself too.
Same goes with Nest. For my needs, I don't really mind having a feed published to the cloud. When I'm out of the house I definitely want to be able to check-in from time to time. Especially on a vacation. But, being able to turn the camera off? And change the security zones and notifications? For me, and probably most, they don't need that kind of access from the cloud. Now, if my account becomes compromised, they can turn the camera off. Which would disable notifications. I'd rather configure that over some secure Bluetooth connection.
And with cloud based security devices, some form of multi-factor authentication for changes would be nice to be able to enable.
In short, I want all of my smart devices operable on a local connection, AND if my smart devices can be connected to the internet, I want the ability to control what information they publish and what commands can be issued from the cloud.
I don't think any of these are huge requests. And, I think it actually makes the devices more profitable. Nest Camera's mean that every camera is publishing some amount of video data to the cloud. Even if the users aren't paying for a subscription. And, if support for local streaming required an extra hub, then that would mean both more revenue from hardware sales and less cost in cloud infrastructure. If cloud based access can be shut off entirely by a user, then they can claim to have even more security as well. Which may help drive even further sales.
So, as you can see, I'm even fine with, as a starting point, manufacturers allowing to go cloudless with the requirement of an additional external purchase or additional external hardware requirements. With the preference on that front being able to configure a PC or the likes with the Hub software. It doesn't, at this stage need to be the default mode. It just needs to be an option.
The first, as usual with me, is the simplest; we will reach a convergence of sorts eventually if smart home tech continues to grow in popularity. In short, we'll have a single standard or even a single provider for most functionality. At that point, the security concerns WILL become a lot more strongly founded. But, that is probably a while off. Smart homes are still the wild west when it comes to interoperability and standards.
So, moving on to more complex points. While I think the security concerns are PRESENTLY overstated. I still think the cloud reliance goes too far with many smart home products.
There are a lot of examples of "smart" systems which become entirely useless during an internet outage. And this shouldn't be the case. In fact, internet based communication should generally be opt-in only and entirely non-required.
As others have pointed out and complained. Smart systems should be designed, such that if there is a failure in the "smart" aspect, that the system can continue to run at least comparably to it's dumb equivalent.
I've been lucky. Most of my smart home devices operate reasonably well even during and after a power outage or internet outage. For instance, devices paired with my Ikea light switches work fine without a hub and thus without any internet connection. In fact, aside from app support and voice control, they function the same with or without internet controls. And, I can of course just plug a bulb in and drive it with a normal light switch. Perfect. The only real beef is after a power outage the lights go back to the on state, even if they were off prior. We seem to have a disproportionate number of late night outages here, so it is quite a pronounced effect. But, ultimately, far from a deal breaker.
Similarly, our Nest thermostat can control the heating and cooling even if the internet is down.
My smart lock is battery powered and can handle both a power AND internet outage. In fact, the internet connected piece was an extra charge.
The one disappointment for me was the Nest cameras. 100% useless without internet. There is no supported means of having them stream locally. Now, I didn't have huge needs or expectations for that particular device. But, it was a little discouraging. I mean, 90% of the time I use my camera... I'm at home. Sure, as a security solution you might think accessing externally is the primary use... but I'd argue you'd probably find both use cases fairly equal in weight.
And, just because I may want to access my feeds remotely, doesn't mean that I necessarily want every feature controllable remotely.
The ideal solution? Options. Buying hubs for every vendor sucks. But, I'd rather be able to have the option to buy a hub and have it controlled by that and control what data I share (if any) with the cloud. If it is a WiFi enabled device as well, then being able to optionally bypass the need for a hub if desired is OK. Many devices need no hub really, in some cases even, just Bluetooth is fine.
As time eventually makes the concerns of the security nuts more and more real, we also approach a time where, to balance convenience and security, we need control and privacy.
For example, I'm OK with being able to check the state of and to lock my smart lock remotely. And OK with being able to issue access codes remotely. If I can do those things, I have no real need to allow the cloud service to unlock my door directly under any conditions. And, if I can make the lock reject any such requests, it it cuts off the easiest access route for cloud based hackers trying to access my home. While I'd still be leaving open some means of attack, I am taking control of the risks I expose myself too.
Same goes with Nest. For my needs, I don't really mind having a feed published to the cloud. When I'm out of the house I definitely want to be able to check-in from time to time. Especially on a vacation. But, being able to turn the camera off? And change the security zones and notifications? For me, and probably most, they don't need that kind of access from the cloud. Now, if my account becomes compromised, they can turn the camera off. Which would disable notifications. I'd rather configure that over some secure Bluetooth connection.
And with cloud based security devices, some form of multi-factor authentication for changes would be nice to be able to enable.
In short, I want all of my smart devices operable on a local connection, AND if my smart devices can be connected to the internet, I want the ability to control what information they publish and what commands can be issued from the cloud.
I don't think any of these are huge requests. And, I think it actually makes the devices more profitable. Nest Camera's mean that every camera is publishing some amount of video data to the cloud. Even if the users aren't paying for a subscription. And, if support for local streaming required an extra hub, then that would mean both more revenue from hardware sales and less cost in cloud infrastructure. If cloud based access can be shut off entirely by a user, then they can claim to have even more security as well. Which may help drive even further sales.
So, as you can see, I'm even fine with, as a starting point, manufacturers allowing to go cloudless with the requirement of an additional external purchase or additional external hardware requirements. With the preference on that front being able to configure a PC or the likes with the Hub software. It doesn't, at this stage need to be the default mode. It just needs to be an option.
Comments
Post a Comment