Most Smart Device Makers Fail To Reveal Software Support Periods, FTC Finds (ftc.gov)
- Reference: 0175553785
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/11/27/1547232/most-smart-device-makers-fail-to-reveal-software-support-periods-ftc-finds
- Source link: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/11/smart-products-surveyed-fail-provide-consumers-information-how-long-companies-will-provide-software
Basic internet searches failed to uncover this information for two-thirds of the devices. "Consumers stand to lose a lot of money if their smart products stop delivering the features they want," said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. The agency warned that manufacturers' failure to provide software update information for warranted products costing over $15 may violate the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. The FTC also cautioned that companies could violate the FTC Act if they misrepresent product usability periods. The study excluded laptops, personal computers, tablets and automobiles from its review.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/11/smart-products-surveyed-fail-provide-consumers-information-how-long-companies-will-provide-software
Should be illegal (Score:3)
It should be illegal to force devices to use external cloud services. To offer it as an option is fine and good, but a device should ALWAYS be able to have local network command and control without having to ask permission from someone else's server to control something that exists behind your home or business firewall. You have everything from robot vacuums to garage door openers to enphase solar controllers now that are trying to force you to use ask permission from their services outside your homes security to control that device inside. This is really not one bit different than buying a house and a real estate agent refusing to give you a key to your own house and saying they will open the door for you every time you come and go.
Re: (Score:2)
> You have everything from robot vacuums to garage door openers to enphase solar controllers now that are trying to force you to use ask permission from their services outside your homes security to control that device inside.
We're already seeing automobiles that are subject to similar restrictions. How long will it be before "my car won't work because the manufacturer got hacked" is a common complaint?
> This is really not one bit different than buying a house and a real estate agent refusing to give you a key to your own house and saying they will open the door for you every time you come and go.
It's worse than that. You at least have a chance to talk to and reason with the agent. Just try getting in touch with the provider of the service your new appliance depends on. Hell, just try figuring out who the provider of that service is .
This may only help consumers so much .... (Score:2)
I think it's probably good to put pressure on companies to try to provide this information. But realistically? A lot of these "smart devices" are manufactured by companies who end support for them because their entire company was dissolved/bought out by another one or they go under in a bankruptcy.
"Smart" devices? (Score:2)
The only think "smart" about these devices is the way they dupe the customer into purchasing them.
As long as... (Score:2)
Right now, the only real protection for IoT device owners against the often terrible consequences of malicious actions of miscreants is to hope that the manufacturer (who has your money and doesn't care) will provide security and functional updates. Many manufacturers simply don't want to spend the money to hire a competent team to deliver good security. So they don't.
And so the only justifiable recommendation from real cybersecurity professionals is to say "NO" to IoT.
Even if you could find reasons to appl