this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
315 points (76.4% liked)

Technology

59735 readers
2693 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

There are probably 3 main groups of people with WiFi appliances:

  1. The vast majority of people don't care, and put it on their normal WiFi router and would never notice something like this
  2. A smaller group of people don't care much, but pay attention to their bandwidth usage and would spot an appliance trying to send 3.7 GB of data a day
  3. A much smaller group of people are paranoid and would put the device on its own isolated subnet, or use firewall-type features to limit the access their appliances have to the Internet.

My guess is that if this were a widespread problem, people in the second group would notice, or would have immediately checked and chimed in and said "holy crap, mine is doing this too". I didn't hear many people saying that, so I'm guessing this is a bug, and it's either a one-off weirdness, or it's a bug related to people in group 3 who are blocking their appliances from being able to connect to the Internet.

It's probably something as simple as a badly programmed firmware update check that doesn't do exponential backoff when it fails. It probably connects, fails, then immediately tries again. A proper exponential backoff would wait before trying again, and if it failed again it would double the wait time down to some minimum value like once per day or something.

Incidentally, this is also why claims about smartphones monitoring people's conversations when they're supposedly off is BS. That would require either huge amounts of bandwidth to transmit all the conversations, or huge amounts of computing power inside the phone to decode the voices. Either way you'd be using tons of battery, and probably a significant amount of bandwidth. There are enough paranoid people out there that if this were a real thing, someone would have caught the devices doing it by now.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think the largest group by far isn't listed: people who bought an appliance and didn't care at all that it had WiFi and never connected it their network.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

"Error: Wi-Fi must be enabled and connected to load detergent."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I am getting annoyed at the constant demands from tech that supposedly is owned by me. My gym has an app. It's cute I guess. It wants to talk to a Fitbit, I blocked access. Every time I go to the gym now I have to confirm again that I don't want it to talk to a Fitbit.

Don't even own a Fitbit

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

The article gets into what actually happened.

Dude’s Asus router was incorrectly reporting bandwidth usage.