[HN Gopher] Amazon US customers given one week to opt out of mas...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Amazon US customers given one week to opt out of mass wireless
       sharing
        
       Author : haasted
       Score  : 367 points
       Date   : 2021-06-01 15:20 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
        
       | londons_explore wrote:
       | Everyone shares the LTE network... And nobody cares. The fact you
       | pay $90/month and someone else who pays just $40/month might be
       | taking some of your bandwidth probably hadn't even crossed your
       | mind.
       | 
       | Yet ask people to share WiFi and suddenly its totally
       | unacceptable. "This is my bandwidth, I paid for it, nobody else
       | can have any!"
        
       | josefresco wrote:
       | This page on Tom's Guide has good background, a list of devices
       | and instructions on how to opt out.
       | https://www.tomsguide.com/reference/what-is-amazon-sidewalk
       | 
       | Amazon App> More > Settings > Account Settings > Amazon Sidewalk
       | > Disable
        
         | dlhavema wrote:
         | Looks like I don't have the update yet. I don't see this menu
         | option.
        
           | enraged_camel wrote:
           | If you don't see the menu option that means none of your
           | paired devices are compatible with Sidewalk.
           | 
           | List of supported devices at the bottom:
           | https://www.cnet.com/home/smart-home/amazon-sidewalk-will-
           | cr...
        
             | lsaferite wrote:
             | I had the option a few days ago and now it has disappeared
             | in both my phone and my wife's.
        
           | slobiwan wrote:
           | Check the Alexa app, not the Amazon app. Shows up in mine
        
             | ch4s3 wrote:
             | I'm seeing the same issue as the parent. I've check the
             | alexa app under account settings and the option does not
             | appear. The last version on the app store is from 2 weeks
             | ago. I wonder if this is a web view and they're exposing it
             | to different users at different times.
        
               | dlhavema wrote:
               | Maybe. I'm on Android "version 2.2.403931.0" and no
               | option...
        
               | slobiwan wrote:
               | That must be the case. My Alexa app (iPhone) is version
               | 2.2.416595.0, updated on May 20.
        
             | smaccona wrote:
             | It doesn't show up in my Alexa app (iOS), and I am running
             | the latest version (I have auto-update enabled). I only see
             | Recognized Voices, Guest Connect, Voice Purchasing and
             | Workouts. I see online references to this setting as long
             | ago as November 2020[1], so it's concerning that it's still
             | missing for me.
             | 
             | Edit: I just realized that all my Echo devices are 2nd
             | generation, which apparently don't support Sidewalk[2]. I
             | wonder if the menu item only shows up if you have devices
             | that support it?
             | 
             | [1] https://www.aftvnews.com/amazon-has-started-switching-
             | sidewa...
             | 
             | [2] https://www.tomsguide.com/reference/what-is-amazon-
             | sidewalk
        
         | drdec wrote:
         | What does one do it they don't have the Alexa app? It seems
         | counter-productive to install it just to turn this off.
        
       | snegu wrote:
       | I'm curious - is it an altruistic act to leave this functionality
       | enabled? I'm all for making wifi access easier for people.
        
         | thatguy0900 wrote:
         | It's certainly altruistic to ad companies who don't want to pay
         | for internet access for their devices
        
         | Animats wrote:
         | "People like you helping people like us help ourselves" -
         | Processed World slogan.
        
         | asdff wrote:
         | Just run a guest network with your existing router if you want
         | to provide internet to strangers.
        
         | Retric wrote:
         | It's so "smart" TV's etc can send data home even if you don't
         | connect them to the internet. Longer term expect random devices
         | you own to inject even more advertising into your daily life.
        
           | dec0dedab0de wrote:
           | I didn't even think of this. That is terrifying.
        
           | philsnow wrote:
           | Amazon is going to sell access to Sidewalk to e.g. TV
           | manufacturers (and anybody else), making money off of your
           | internet connection.
           | 
           | Before Sidewalk, if a device manufacturer wanted to be able
           | to get sensor/environmental/etc data back to the mothership,
           | it had to either pair to a phone with bluetooth, use wifi
           | (needs creds), or include a 2g modem with a SIM (pretty
           | expensive). A customer who doesn't see a need for that device
           | to have that connection just won't pair / give wifi creds,
           | and the 2g modems/SIMs are expensive enough to keep them out
           | of most devices.
           | 
           | In a world where Sidewalk is a viable option, a lot more
           | devices will be sending whatever information they like that
           | they can sample about you out of your house. Sure, it makes
           | sense to carefully read the privacy policy when you're buying
           | a echo dot or ring whatever, but are you going to be so
           | careful when you're buying a toaster?
           | 
           | This episode of black mirror sucks.
        
             | Dah00n wrote:
             | The fix is GDPR like laws. Then this wouldn't matter.
        
             | philsnow wrote:
             | My only options for escaping Sidewalk are living far enough
             | away from neighbors or convincing all the neighbors within
             | range of my house that they shouldn't have any Sidewalk
             | bridge-able devices.
             | 
             | I would at least be interested in a way of finding out what
             | sidewalk bridges are accessible from my location. Anybody
             | know of a way? Is it just wifi?
        
               | eulers_secret wrote:
               | There's at least 2 other options: Disable (physically)
               | modems/antennas of sidewalk-enabled devices you own, or
               | do not purchase devices that are sidewalk-enabled.
               | 
               | Sidewalk uses LoRa and a 900Mhz other signal (for garage
               | door openers). With an SDR that can use that spectrum,
               | you could probably determine if there are sidewalk
               | endpoints around. Might be able to foxhunt them to
               | certain houses.
               | 
               | My plan is to do my best to avoid these devices (FCC IDs
               | may be helpful here), and if I can't, then physically
               | disable them from being able to communicate. Hopefully
               | other folks do the same, and there will be information/a
               | community online to help.
               | 
               | The rest of the world is up a creek, only the 'techno-
               | elite' have the privilege of privacy and being tracking-
               | free. It probably doesn't amount to much, though...
        
               | philsnow wrote:
               | I had thought that there wouldn't be any labeling
               | requirements for Sidewalk-enabled devices, but you bring
               | up FCC IDs. I've never given them much thought, but
               | that's at least one thing to look out for in the future.
               | 
               | I'm now kind of interested to go look at the boxes for
               | some of the devices I already own to get a feel for
               | what's there. I expect it would probably all come down to
               | a few BT / BLE / wifi chip manufacturers.
        
               | [deleted]
        
           | foobiekr wrote:
           | It is exactly this. It just takes one idiot in the
           | neighborhood to now defeat my "don't connect them to the
           | network" approach to not sharing my data.
        
         | shagie wrote:
         | Various use case stories...
         | 
         | You've got an Alexa, your neighbor has a Ring. The network goes
         | out on your neighbor's house. The Ring can then use your Alexa
         | provided sidewalk network to send a notification to your
         | neighbor about a package or whatever.
         | 
         | Someone makes Tile like product that can use Sidewalk to track
         | its location. The sidewalk extends its range and accuracy.
         | 
         | Right now, it really appears to be just Ring devices that can
         | make use of it.
         | 
         | This isn't a guest Wifi that arbitrary people can connect to...
         | though as we saw with the Apple tags, people have quickly
         | piggybacked other data on it.
         | 
         | ---
         | 
         | While I don't have any devices that extend the Sidewalk
         | network, I've disabled it... just in case I do get one.
        
           | bitL wrote:
           | How do you know you really disabled it? What if it does the
           | same as Google that was recording location data and then
           | uploaded them right after you established a WiFi connection?
           | What if Amazon devices would do that a few times a day
           | without you noticing, and the "disable Sidewalk" button would
           | just mean "do it less frequently"?
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | turdnagel wrote:
       | I could see working on Sidewalk as kind of a dream if you have no
       | morals. A mesh network you can turn on with a flip of a switch,
       | with millions of devices across the world? Seems really cool, if
       | you don't care about privacy or security. But if you do - and we
       | should - it's a disaster.
        
       | vincent-toups wrote:
       | I'd rather go without internet than have one of these damned
       | smart devices in my house. I can't believe how popular they are.
        
         | paulcole wrote:
         | I might be the only one here who doesn't care at all about
         | this. I love my Echo and Amazon IOT devices and have got better
         | things to do than wring my hands over what they're doing with
         | my internet connection. They use hardly any bandwidth so
         | whatever, not going to turn this feature off.
        
           | UI_at_80x24 wrote:
           | The threat vector at this time isn't what Amazon does with
           | access to your internet. It's what John Q. Public does.
           | 
           | 'Free Internet' (on your dime), will always lead to abuse.
           | Plus, how much do you trust Amazon's security to NEVER allow
           | access to other resources on your network?
        
         | pugworthy wrote:
         | > I can't believe how popular they are.
         | 
         | I guess you could say they are about like those "new-fangled
         | horseless carriages". You could argue that we sold our souls to
         | the devil at the (now regulated) crossroads with them. But at
         | the time (and now), they bring some real value at a cost that
         | not all are aware of, or willing to pay.
        
         | cduzz wrote:
         | I have an old dot connected to my stereo to stream music. As
         | they say, it is extremely convenient to be able to request some
         | music and have it played.
         | 
         | My amplifier has a switched outlet on the back that I've
         | plugged the USB into; so if I turn off the amplifier the dot is
         | powered off as well (presumably).
         | 
         | And, apparently, 2nd generation dots don't "support" sidewalk
         | anyhow (though of course it is a little snitch hiding in my
         | living room).
         | 
         | The "smart" TV is more of a concern as it is always on...
        
         | wombat-man wrote:
         | they were practically giving them away at times.
        
         | sokoloff wrote:
         | I have my IoT/IoS devices cordoned off onto their own network
         | locally (with internet access, of course) as a matter of trying
         | to protect my LAN from any exploit.
         | 
         | However, I find the convenience of these devices to be
         | extremely high: they play music, they give us convenient
         | timers, they function as a whole house intercom, they tell us
         | the weather and answer (often poorly) some random questions
         | without going to get our phones out.
        
           | cheeze wrote:
           | The whole IoT thing just goes to show how... unique many
           | people on HN are. I get it, it's a risk, etc. but IMO the
           | convenience is massive. I do the same as you do, its a bit
           | more work but it works fine for my use case. Use reputable
           | products and segment them and the attack vector is rather
           | small, IMO. I also try to not use wifi devices and instead go
           | for something like zwave.
        
           | nanidin wrote:
           | Can you give any insight into the solution you're using to
           | achieve this? I've got some noisy gadgets on my network that
           | I want to cordon off, but I'm not sure where to begin.
        
             | sokoloff wrote:
             | Dedicated SSID(s) with that/those SSID configured as a
             | guest network goes pretty far. I happen to use Ubiquiti
             | gear, but most any router is likely capable of creating a
             | dedicated guest SSID (or multiple). That covers wireless
             | devices (which is all the IoT stuff that I have).
             | 
             | The one aggravation I had was trying to get the Chromecasts
             | to work correctly (where I wanted to be able to cast from a
             | machine on the main LAN to a Chromecast on the Google IoT
             | SSID). I would periodically get it working and then it
             | would periodically break. I'm not even sure that it's
             | working right now to be honest, mostly because a lot of the
             | need for that use case (video playback) has shifted to
             | FireTV sticks.
        
               | mercora wrote:
               | > I would periodically get it working and then it would
               | periodically break.
               | 
               | wait a second... it worked sometimes? without doing any
               | routing trickery or something?
               | 
               | If you did some trickery maybe the devices sometimes
               | chose to speak ipv6 but could not?
        
               | sokoloff wrote:
               | Oh no, I was trying different bits of routing trickery.
               | I'm pretty sure if I sat down and gave it a solid 3 hours
               | straight of methodical effort, that I'd have figured it
               | out once and for all. Instead, I would have 5-10 minutes
               | total per attempt, try _something_ , see if it worked or
               | didn't, then the next time I tried the Chromecast
               | (possibly weeks later), it wouldn't always be repeatable.
               | I also had the Casts being powered off the TV, so they
               | got hard shutdown and cold-booted pretty often.
               | 
               | In short, I never really cared enough to get it working
               | right as the FireTV was "winning" the convenience battle
               | by enough to make it not matter most of the time and I
               | always had an HDMI cable for the times when I really had
               | to get a screen "sharing" to work.
        
               | Dah00n wrote:
               | Did you block Google's DNS IPs? That will break
               | Chromecast in strange ways.
        
               | KeepFlying wrote:
               | Maybe someday I'll write a rewrite rule to pass google
               | DNS through my PiHole...maybe.
               | 
               | All of this hardcoded DNS server BS in iot devices is a
               | pain.
        
             | urda wrote:
             | You can place them in a separate VLAN for starters, and
             | block traffic between anything other than the internet.
        
               | [deleted]
        
           | wearywanderer wrote:
           | With the advent of this technology, it's no longer just your
           | data that's being risked. If you have a neighbor who owns a
           | sidewalk-enabled appliance and doesn't want it to connect
           | online, anybody in the neighborhood with sidewalk enabled is
           | now an accomplice in subverting the preferences and desires
           | of that person.
           | 
           | It's no longer enough to think _" Well I didn't give the TV
           | my wifi password, so it can't spy on me."_ Now I have to
           | wonder about what opt-out bullshit buried deep in settings
           | menus my neighbors neglected to disable.
        
           | mdoms wrote:
           | These are such absurdly small conveniences that are all
           | serviced (in very very slightly less convenient fashion) by
           | other less intrusive devices.
        
       | failwhaleshark wrote:
       | 94.9% pure, organic, outrage, clickbait FUD.
       | 
       | This feels like an "you're either with us or you're against us,
       | Amazon B A D"-article.
       | 
       | The central thesis is misleading and wrong because it's NOT
       | "unlimited, direct sharing of your WiFi to whatever Amazon users
       | happen to fall and scrape their knees outside your home because
       | they can't skateboard," it's "likely low-rate connectivity for
       | other Amazon users' devices over Bluetooth or (maybe) Zigbee
       | gated through Echo devices acting as bridges that happen to use
       | WiFi as a backhaul."
       | 
       | Tile does the same thing already with their mobile app over
       | Bluetooth - everyone with the app and BT on participates as a
       | missing tag locator; Amazon is adding Tile into the mix (900 MHz
       | BLE for Tile Pro) for another way to find tags.
       | 
       | Is Amazon going to suddenly allow or support BitTorrent-to-eSATA
       | light dimmers (or some sort of WiFi backdoor)? IDTS. Where's the
       | problem (other than opt-in vs. opt-out)?
       | 
       | PS: I worked in a radio group of a GPS manufacturer at the time
       | when radio modules were in their kindergarten years. 900 MHz of
       | BLE is always going to work better than 2.4 GHz for low rate data
       | because of physics. 900 MHz is awesome.
        
         | howolduis wrote:
         | forcing customers into this feature with a short notice that
         | the majority wouldnt even know about is the MAIN issue here.
         | 
         | "Where's the problem (other than opt-in vs. opt-out)?"
         | 
         | You make it sound like this is a side trivial issue, then it's
         | the main issue here.
        
         | strictnein wrote:
         | > Where's the problem (other than opt-in vs. opt-out)?
         | 
         | What's the problem, other than the major problem?
        
         | adolph wrote:
         | _When you've left something far behind, like at the beach or
         | the gym, the Find My network -- hundreds of millions of iPhone,
         | iPad, and Mac devices around the world -- helps track down your
         | AirTag. And it's designed to protect your privacy every step of
         | the way._
         | 
         | I wonder if Apple has opt-out/in for the "Find My network?"
         | 
         | https://www.apple.com/airtag/
        
           | kstrauser wrote:
           | Here's how you turn it on (or off):
           | https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210400
        
         | Cthulhu_ wrote:
         | So you're planning on just letting this happen on your devices;
         | I get it, too much hassle, etc. No need to try and get others
         | to not opt out if they choose to though, that sounds like a lot
         | of effort for someone who's okay with it. Or are you paid by
         | Amazon to promote it?
        
           | Dylan16807 wrote:
           | Don't.
        
         | celsoazevedo wrote:
         | The problem is that they're using my hardware, my internet
         | connection and my electricity without paying me or asking for
         | my permission.
        
           | Dylan16807 wrote:
           | Unless it takes significantly more power to do this, you
           | definitely gave it permission to use your electricity.
        
         | jsight wrote:
         | I feel like 20 years ago we would have complimented them for
         | such an ingenious solution to backup network capability for
         | security related devices.
         | 
         | I don't love the lack of consent involved, but the concerns are
         | way overblown here.
        
       | SteveNuts wrote:
       | How does this work with data caps? Is Amazon going to reimburse
       | me for overage charges from my ISP if my neighbors are using my
       | data?
        
         | floatingatoll wrote:
         | No.
        
         | adamredwoods wrote:
         | Amazon notes this in their FAQ: it's capped at 80kbps and max
         | of 500MB per month. I don't know if this includes Bluetooth
         | though.
        
           | asdff wrote:
           | So they are stealing 500MB of your cap if they aren't
           | compensating you.
        
             | ikiris wrote:
             | As exchange for their otherwise unpaid service from those
             | devices, they're using a fraction of your potentially
             | capped internet if you happen to be in a market with such
             | poor competition and/or poor regulatory environment that
             | your service is capped.
        
               | prepend wrote:
               | > unpaid
               | 
               | I paid $200 (although much cheaper now) for my echo years
               | ago. This isn't a free device and the services it
               | provides cost me actual money to be able to use. Pretty
               | funny to spin this as "you paid $200 for this device, but
               | all the services on it are free."
        
               | chasebro wrote:
               | So like 90% of the US?
        
               | Dylan16807 wrote:
               | The US is full of slow internet, but it's not
               | particularly plagued by capped internet.
               | 
               | There are a bunch of 1TB caps around, but a cap like that
               | would suggest that the value of 500MB is 3 to 10 cents at
               | most.
               | 
               | Just using 3 watts at idle is already enough to cost the
               | average person 25 cents a month.
        
           | vbsteven wrote:
           | 500MB per ip or per device?
        
           | switch007 wrote:
           | If you're at 99.9% of your (small) cap, the Amazon device
           | won't know that.
        
           | tkinom wrote:
           | Sounds like a fun project for the future Black Hack conf:
           | Implement tor / torrent on top of Amazon mash network and
           | break all the bandwidth limits.
        
             | ThatPlayer wrote:
             | It's probably not possible. The devices runs on LoRa
             | wireless protocol, which measures bandwidth in single digit
             | kilobits a second.
        
       | foxhill wrote:
       | could you imagine any orginisation just walking up to almost
       | every home in the country and presuming they had the right to "a
       | very small portion" of your property, unless you went through
       | some steps to explicitly opt out?
       | 
       | imagine they paid for their own infra to do this. how much would
       | that cost? in this light, is sidewalk not theft?
       | 
       | amazon, if you want to use my internet - for whichever distopic
       | future plans you may have - you can pay me for it. it will not be
       | cheap.
        
       | detaro wrote:
       | duplicate, please check before submitting:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27328087
        
       | hellisothers wrote:
       | I've seen a couple other articles like this that that to "both
       | sides" this by claiming Apple does it with AirTags. Seems pretty
       | disingenuous, feels like comparing faxing documents to the
       | internet...
        
         | kstrauser wrote:
         | I've seen this, too.
         | 
         | Apple: Their device: "Hi, I'm an AirTag! This is my serial
         | number!" Your device: "hey Apple, I was at (X, Y) when I saw
         | this serial number."
         | 
         | Amazon: Their device: "Hi, can I send traffic through your
         | network?" Your device: "sure, buddy!"
         | 
         | They're so fundamentally different that I pretty much assume a
         | bad faith argument from people who say they're similar.
        
           | beezischillin wrote:
           | The other major difference is that you directly benefit from
           | Find My and you can also turn it off any time you want.
        
             | Dah00n wrote:
             | It's a pretty weak argument when it fits both devices. In
             | reality both are bad, one is just very bad.
        
             | luma wrote:
             | Playing devil's advocate here... aren't those same two
             | things true of Sidewalk? If you purchase an Apple tag, then
             | you benefit from other users who have this feature enabled.
             | If you buy a device that uses Sidewalk, same situation.
             | Both can be disabled.
        
       | dv_dt wrote:
       | This kind of privacy touching feature should be required to be
       | opt in.
        
         | a3n wrote:
         | But not many people would bother to opt in, even if they knew
         | about it, so ...
        
           | thatguy0900 wrote:
           | Well if noone who owns these devices wants to do it it
           | probably shouldn't be done then, right? Or Amazon could give
           | a 5$ credit or something. That would probably be enough.
        
             | xboxnolifes wrote:
             | Reality is, most people who own these devices wouldn't know
             | how or be aware it's even an option, and a mass marketing
             | campaign would need to go into effect to just make people
             | aware of it and why they would potentially want to do it.
             | 
             | Or they can just make it automatic.
        
               | thatguy0900 wrote:
               | If Amazon wants to release a feature that they make a
               | bunch of money off of selling it to advertisers, that
               | uses customer resources and doesn't benefit them, and
               | many/most customers actively don't want it, then they
               | need to convince people to say yes. How is people not
               | wanting to do it justification for Amazon doing it? If
               | they want it done they can offer credits
        
               | a3n wrote:
               | I'm not saying it's justified. It's not. But low
               | likelihood of opting in would be a reason why they'd make
               | it out out. See, for example, UMN vs Linux.
        
       | mulmen wrote:
       | > Users can disable Sidewalk in the settings section of the Alexa
       | or Ring apps, but have until 8 June to do so. After that, if they
       | have taken no action, the network will be turned on and their
       | devices will become "Sidewalk Bridges".
       | 
       | But the setting will still be available, right?
        
         | CharlesW wrote:
         | Yes. It's a scarier way to say that it's opt-out.
        
       | titzer wrote:
       | Big Brother won't be a boot on the face, forever, it will be
       | private enterprise mesh network that comes wrapped in charming
       | corporate market babble.
       | 
       | "Telescreens help keep you connected with your friends and
       | relatives. They monitor activity and upload anonymous usage
       | statistics that help make our products even better. Telescreens
       | help make society safe and secure, ensuring that you can enjoy
       | your choice of government-approved home activities without a
       | worry. Stay protected from roving bands of child-raping coke
       | addicts! Try our new HappyFace(tm) mood-altering brain implants,
       | guaranteed to put a smile on your face and stamp out that pesky
       | thoughtcrime!"
        
         | monkeynotes wrote:
         | All of that sounds like a boot stomping to me. Complete
         | oppression and control.
        
       | rubyfan wrote:
       | The article reads a little alarmist honestly. They have created a
       | low bandwidth mesh network for mostly IOT devices. I don't get
       | how this is suddenly compared with sharing internet. The later of
       | which, Comcast actually did and does.
        
         | bbatsell wrote:
         | Far be it from me to defend Comcast, but it's not equivalent in
         | the slightest. Comcast creates a separate network, with a
         | separate IP, using their cable modem and the DOCSIS bandwidth
         | available on their network. Its third-party usage does not
         | count against your data cap, and any nefarious usage would not
         | be associated with your own account and possibly subject you to
         | civil or criminal sanctions.
        
           | detaro wrote:
           | Devices can only talk to specific Amazon APIs (which then
           | hand the request to manufacturer APIs) with Sidewalk, they
           | don't get to arbitrarily use your internet connection either.
        
         | throwaway3699 wrote:
         | Here in the UK, BT does the same thing and nobody seems to
         | complain. If you're a BT customer you can use your own data
         | through somebody else's router. Maybe actually giving something
         | in return is the answer for Amazon?
        
       | r00fus wrote:
       | Does this include echo-capable devices like car entertainment
       | systems?
        
         | floatingatoll wrote:
         | No. The "Sidewalk Bridge" devices that will share your internet
         | to the Sidewalk are, as of today:
         | 
         | > _Ring Floodlight Cam (2019), Ring Spotlight Cam Wired (2019),
         | Ring Spotlight Cam Mount (2019), Echo (3rd gen and newer), Echo
         | Dot (3rd gen and newer), Echo Dot for Kids (3rd gen and newer),
         | Echo Dot with Clock (3rd gen and newer), Echo Plus (all
         | generations), Echo Show (all models and generations), Echo
         | Spot, Echo Studio, Echo Input, Echo Flex._
         | 
         | -- https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Sidewalk/b?node=21328123011
        
           | gertrunde wrote:
           | This link is also helpful:
           | 
           | https://www.cnet.com/home/smart-home/amazon-sidewalk-will-
           | cr...
           | 
           | It's interesting that only a few devices, mostly the newer
           | ones, are capable of using LoRa. All the older ones are just
           | BLE (i.e. technically <100m range, but in real world
           | conditions probably 10-30m max).
        
           | aatharuv wrote:
           | Thanks. I was wondering why the sidewalk didn't show up on my
           | Alexa app (I have an unsupported device, luckily.)
        
       | bernardv wrote:
       | Another disaster waiting to happen. Time to cap the Amazon's and
       | Googles at the knees.
        
       | jkaplan wrote:
       | Can someone elaborate on the privacy concerns (e.g. with Amazon
       | "becoming a pseudo-ISP")? It seems like most (if not all) of the
       | network use would be Amazon devices anyway, which is data they
       | already have. Additionally, as far as I know, Amazon isn't really
       | in the business of selling ads or customer data, so they seem
       | like they'd be _relatively_ trustworthy (compared with, say
       | Google, who literally sell routers.) Is the concern just the
       | threat that they _could_ abuse this data? Is it just general
       | "big company getting even bigger / having more data is bad"
       | sentiment? Genuinely curious.
       | 
       | (The security concerns make sense to me -- most people and
       | businesses assume their home network is closed, and this
       | theoretically opens an attack vector. Asking specifically about
       | privacy.)
        
       | philsnow wrote:
       | So the opt-out period is only only one week, and I presumably
       | won't be able to opt out later?
       | 
       | I don't own any of these devices, but if I want to have the
       | option to buy one later but not have it be a sidewalk bridge, I
       | guess I have to download the Alexa app and... oh in order to opt
       | out, I have to log in to the Alexa app with my Amazon account,
       | and in order to log in, I have to agree to:                 -
       | Alexa Terms of Use       - Amazon Conditions of Use       -
       | Amazon Privacy Notice       - Children's Privacy Disclosure
       | - Amazon Prime Terms       - Amazon Music Terms of Use       -
       | Kindle Store Terms of Use       - Audible Service Conditions of
       | Use       - Amazon Dash Replenishment Terms of Use       - Amazon
       | Kids+ Terms & Conditions (F/K/A FreeTime Unlimited)       -
       | Amazon PHotos Terms of Use            - Amazon Device Terms of
       | Use            - IMDb Legal Information       - Amazon Video
       | Terms of Use
       | 
       | (all are links to legelese documents)
       | 
       | ... I'll just commit today to never buying any of those sidewalk
       | devices in the future.
        
         | lucasmullens wrote:
         | >in order to opt out, I have to log in to the Alexa app with my
         | Amazon account, and in order to log in, I have to agree to:
         | 
         | If you already have an Alexa device running on your network,
         | you've already agreed to all those terms. That concern seems
         | fairly unrelated.
         | 
         | Also I wouldn't assume you can't opt-out later. Pretty sure you
         | can, actually.
        
           | philsnow wrote:
           | > If you already have an Alexa device running on your network
           | 
           | I don't, which is why I was installing the Alexa app on my
           | phone.
           | 
           | > I wouldn't assume you can't opt-out later
           | 
           | ah, I was thrown by the headline "given one week to opt out".
        
       | eloeffler wrote:
       | This is such a great plot beginning for a new Skynet story :)
        
         | unyttigfjelltol wrote:
         | That Skynet is funnelling data & connections into a network it
         | constructed out of junk electronics it sold under the guise of
         | other functionality, and thus is removing the ability of humans
         | to airgap other Skynet devices? Seems like we're in the middle
         | of the book to me.
        
           | eloeffler wrote:
           | I'll wait for the movie on streaming :D
        
       | bcrosby95 wrote:
       | So I gotta install their piece of shit apps to opt out of this
       | when all I use my Alexa for is a kitchen timer? Figures.
        
       | kokanator wrote:
       | Here is the white paper from Amazon
       | 
       | https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
        
       | Kye wrote:
       | I used to get annoyed every time Amazon would push an OS update
       | to my old Kindle fire only to patch a root exploit I could use to
       | install an up to date Android, but it's probably for the best
       | that they lost me as a customer with their hostile practices.
        
       | shiado wrote:
       | What will happen is some high profile company that has a few
       | Amazon devices on their network will have these devices exploited
       | to gain network access and get hit with some ransomware/data
       | theft/etc... and then there will be a big legal battle between
       | Amazon and the hacked company and this whole idea will be shut
       | down and consumers will get a $10 class action settlement for
       | each device.
        
         | mercora wrote:
         | this is not different for any other internet connected device
         | on your network. although i doubt its about connectivity to the
         | internet but about connectivity to some backend _over_ the
         | internet. I think it is quite common to assume these risks to
         | be your own problem as is mitigating them. I mean i would
         | probably like it if there is some responsibility for
         | manufactures to make sure it does not happen but i doubt we are
         | even close to something like that.
        
         | billh wrote:
         | >consumers will get a $10 class action settlement for each
         | device.
         | 
         | Worse, it would likely be settled in the same way the
         | Ticketmaster case was settled ... with a 10% off coupon for a
         | Prime membership.
        
         | twiddling wrote:
         | $10? Ha. How about another year of credit monitoring!
        
         | dv_dt wrote:
         | More likely, telecom will think, this is against our
         | residential TOS and we can use that to get a slice of the
         | Amazon's mesh revenue. Especially because most of the telecoms
         | offer side access to wireless routers of their customer for
         | other customers of theirs too. Maybe this is a play by Amazon
         | to be in a better position in this set of future negotiations -
         | one which the average consumer is really a bystander for all
         | the input they have.
        
         | shoto_io wrote:
         | I would assume that Amazon has looked into this problem from a
         | legal risk perspective before doing this.
         | 
         | Generally, when it comes to risks, you can do 4 things:
         | 
         | ARAT
         | 
         | (a) Accept the risk
         | 
         | (b) Reduce the risk
         | 
         | (c) Avoid the risk
         | 
         | (d) Transfer the risk (e.g. buy insurance)
         | 
         | I guess they do a mix of (a) and (b), since they have deep
         | pockets.
        
         | buildbuildbuild wrote:
         | This could be somewhat mitigated by VPN tunneling all traffic
         | through Amazon's edge, not sure of their implementation here
         | but I highly doubt that Amazon overlooked this threat model.
         | 
         | The exploit attack vector mentioned is already a risk to any
         | device connected to a sensitive network. VLAN your consumer
         | devices, conference room screens, at minimum.
        
           | mikem170 wrote:
           | I'm more worried about this amazon mesh network being used
           | for access by other internet devices.
           | 
           | For example, it's not easy to get a dumb TV. If I had one I
           | wouldn't want it online. It appears that Amazon would sell
           | access to the TV manufacturer so that it could spy on me via
           | my neighbours Amazon Sidewalk device.
           | 
           | To me this is new threat vector. I don't take kindly to
           | corporations spying on me.
        
         | rudyfink wrote:
         | Maybe not? Most consumer arbitration agreements these days ban
         | asserting class claims. This has been on the rise since 2011: h
         | ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepc....
         | 
         | In my opinion, this legal change is a huge sleeper story that
         | is behind a number of changes in how customers are getting
         | treated. Since customers can no longer economically avail
         | themselves of the courts to protect themselves en-masse,
         | certain companies find it in their interest to exploit that
         | asymmetry for profit.
         | 
         | In other words, a company could always impose a harm on all of
         | its customers for its profit. But, now, if that that company
         | imposes a class ban through arbitration, those customers
         | cannot, collectively, seek recourse for that harm.
        
           | csharptwdec19 wrote:
           | It's amazing to watch companies admit they abuse this
           | pattern.
           | 
           | A couple years ago I got into it with Comcast over an
           | Identity fraud issue. When I threatened to take them to court
           | for harrassment (I'd sent them more than what was needed to
           | prove I never resided at the address in question) they tried
           | to throw the 'binding arbitration' clause out there... When I
           | told them I never was or would be a customer of theirs and
           | thus wasn't held to their arbitration, they didn't quite know
           | what to say next.
        
             | 1123581321 wrote:
             | Was this a conversation with their legal department?
        
           | zdragnar wrote:
           | Is that really enforceable? Maybe. I suspect that customers
           | are better off not going through class claims anyway, as few
           | of them actually yield amounts close to the harm done, and
           | lawyers walk away with absurd amounts.
           | 
           | "Collective" is merely a tool for not clogging courtrooms;
           | there really isn't any other benefit to consumers here.
        
             | giantg2 wrote:
             | Civil and criminal court systems are very overwhelming and
             | just broken in general in my opinion.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | adrr wrote:
           | Depends who clicked the agreement and what the company bylaws
           | of who can agree to terms. Some low level IT person will not
           | have the authority to bind the company into an agreement and
           | the injured party is the company.
           | 
           | https://www.binadox.com/blog/clickwrap-held-unenforceable-
           | na...
        
           | alpha_squared wrote:
           | Another story on the front page right now[0] from the WSJ[1]
           | seems to imply that arbitration clauses fall apart when faced
           | with a mountain of arbitration demands (75k+). Amazon is now
           | seeking to remove its own arbitration clause for customers so
           | that these can be consolidated into a class action lawsuit.
           | 
           | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27356550
           | 
           | [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-
           | faced-75-000-arbitration...
        
             | tzs wrote:
             | Something like that happened to Doordash a little over a
             | year ago [1] [2]. Workers wanted to start a class action,
             | Doordash used their arbitration clause to stop that. Over
             | 5000 workers then asked for arbitration, which would have
             | cost Doordash around $10 million in arbitration fees.
             | 
             | Doordash then tried to get a judge to make it a class
             | action. The judge felt that this Doordash was in this mess
             | due to their own hypocrisy and declined their request.
             | 
             | [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/12/21135474/doordash-
             | workers...
             | 
             | [2] https://www.courthousenews.com/doordash-ordered-to-
             | pay-12m-t...
        
             | jquery wrote:
             | absolutely brilliant
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | kergonath wrote:
           | > Most consumer arbitration agreements these days ban
           | asserting class claims.
           | 
           | This really ought to be illegal.
        
           | setr wrote:
           | I believe there was a successful recent strategy for dealing
           | with this clause by submitting a new lawsuit for each harmed
           | user, to overwhelm everything (courts, company lawyers, etc).
        
           | thathndude wrote:
           | Some attorneys are starting to specialize in consumer
           | arbitration. The attorneys will eventually find a way to put
           | the squeeze on these companies as they try to change the
           | rules.
        
       | wnevets wrote:
       | The Security Now podcast has a great episode [1] about why this
       | isn't as scary as the headlines make it out to be. I'm actually
       | quite disappointed at the sheer amount of fearmongering
       | surrounding this technology here on HN of all places. For some
       | reason I expected HN to be better than the general tech press
       | when it came to these things.
       | 
       | [1] https://twit.tv/shows/security-now/episodes/796
        
         | thepasswordis wrote:
         | It's not "scary". It's my fucking network hardware, the power
         | comes from my house, the data comes from my house.
         | 
         | I pay for all of this stuff. Amazon wants to resell it without
         | asking me. NO.
        
           | slownews45 wrote:
           | It's very unlikely that you have title to amazon's software.
           | You may have a license to use their device and the related
           | software subject to their terms, but that is VERY different
           | than classical ownership.
           | 
           | All the megacorps have gone this direction.
           | 
           | Amazon is going to give you a constantly improving Alexa
           | system and ecosystem and in return you are going to let them
           | use sidewalk in most cases.
        
             | howolduis wrote:
             | this is the equivalent of saying: "in return of living in a
             | well-maintained nice neighborhood, you should not password-
             | lock your wifi"
        
               | slownews45 wrote:
               | Traffic over sidewalk will egress to internet from Amazon
               | AS numbers.
               | 
               | You need to be careful about open wifi which despite the
               | claims is different - traffic will egress as you - so if
               | someone jumps on and does some stupid stuff, you can
               | create a fair bit of pain for yourself.
               | 
               | Most folks experience free improvements to echo after
               | purchase. That is part of the value people see in these
               | devices. The network effects get stronger with time. All
               | of the use of these systems requires agreements to TOS
               | that mean you really don't own / control the device,
               | amazon does. Worst cast, when the megacorps close your
               | accounts, you can actually lose access to lots of stuff
               | that it feels like you "own". All your photos, all your
               | email, maybe media content, books etc.
        
         | duxup wrote:
         | Care to summarize? (I'll be honest I'm not going to listen)
         | 
         | Most of the articles I've seen that argue that it 'isn't scary'
         | are along the lines of.
         | 
         | - It's not a lot of bandwidth.
         | 
         | - It seems pretty secure.
         | 
         | For me the concern is that if either of those become not the
         | case, intentionally or not... that's a very bad thing.
        
         | ww520 wrote:
         | It's not just the security. It's the blatant "utilization" of
         | the consumers' devices, bandwidth, and electricity.
         | 
         | What's next? How about, hey, we'll mine bitcoin while your Echo
         | is idle.
        
           | dec0dedab0de wrote:
           | It's bad enough when internet providers do it with the rented
           | modem/router/AP/VOIP combo devices, and then it's only the
           | power they're stealing.
        
         | teachingassist wrote:
         | I don't particularly find it "scary", but it is monopolistic
         | practice.
         | 
         | Amazon are using their devices to get a lead on the
         | competition, and in a way which consumers are unlikely to think
         | is fair.
         | 
         | If a company approaches me wanting to put infrastructure in my
         | house (that only benefits them and may incur charges to me),
         | they should normally expect to pay rent.
        
           | aorth wrote:
           | I think it's definitely scary. How is this even legal? In
           | what world is it OK for Amazon to co-opt _my_ internet
           | connection and share it with random passers-by? Even if it 's
           | only 80kbps and 500MB/month (as another commenter pointed
           | out), this will be just the beginning if they get their way.
           | It will set a precedent for them and others. And they _know_
           | that most people won 't notice or care enough to turn it off!
           | This is just disgusting arrogance from Amazon.
        
             | teachingassist wrote:
             | There once was a time when I was happy to share my wi-fi
             | with my neighbours.
             | 
             | Everyone pays for their own household now, only because of
             | general corporate scaremongering and specific lobbying to
             | claim that the owner is liable for misuse.
             | 
             | I remain surprised there isn't a bigger movement and open
             | source infrastructure for sharing connections locally.
             | 
             | If I was able to share a few connections with my apartment-
             | neighbours, that would be cheaper and more reliable than my
             | current setup.
        
               | VRay wrote:
               | That's a good point
               | 
               | Personally, I'd be happy to share my connection with
               | another human being
               | 
               | This isn't really the same thing though, it's Amazon
               | treating all its customers like a harvestable resource,
               | and reselling that resource as a value-add for their
               | other products
        
         | kstrauser wrote:
         | Really? I think it's worse than most headlines make it out to
         | be. I wrote up some thoughts at
         | https://honeypot.net/post/tripping-on-cracked-sidewalk/ , but
         | the TLDR is you're allowing unknown parties to bridge their
         | network with yours. That's one single mistake in the protocol
         | or implementation away from all sorts of horrid failure modes.
        
       | bobthechef wrote:
       | Incidentally, how do people working at Amazon and other FAANGs
       | justify their cooperation or even direct role in BigTech's onward
       | march toward total control and saturation and its use of abusive
       | and coercive practices? I'm sure many of them frequent HN. I'm
       | sure many on HN would like to hear what they have to say.
        
         | InitialLastName wrote:
         | 1) It's green and smells like paper
         | 
         | 2) [This is also true of military-industrial work] they get to
         | solve all the best problems
        
       | gertrunde wrote:
       | Is this massively different from the way Apple tags are tracked
       | by Apple devices that are not the tag owners devices?
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | azinman2 wrote:
         | It seems to be. It can use up to 500mb/month of data, and is
         | more than just for tracking something with tiny payloads of
         | anonymized data.
         | 
         | But it doesn't seem to be sharing your internet like a lot of
         | people seem to claim. I guess the fear is that there's some
         | security vulnerability that makes that more possible?
        
           | kstrauser wrote:
           | From their FAQ: https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-
           | Sidewalk/b?ie=UTF8&node=213281...
           | 
           | > When Sidewalk is on, your Bridge can share a low-bandwidth
           | connection with Sidewalk-enabled devices, like sensors and
           | smart lights that are installed in locations around and
           | outside your home where wifi may not be available. Amazon
           | Sidewalk does not support high-bandwidth connections like a
           | wifi or cellular network would, so you would still use those
           | connections for streaming movies, posting on social media or
           | sending email.
           | 
           | It does share your Internet connection. By default, an Alexa
           | device in my house would be negotiating a connection sharing
           | arrangement with my neighbor's. If/when a vulnerability is
           | found in these devices, an attacker on my neighbor's network
           | will have connectivity to a node on my network. Now imagine
           | the case where a small business has a vulnerable Alexa on
           | their network to play some music in the office. Anyone who
           | could get a hacked Alexa within 900MHz range of that office
           | would have access to that office, open file shares, etc.
        
       | methodin wrote:
       | Anyone know what happens if you don't have a device that supports
       | Sidewalk (I have a really old Alexa) but want to opt out for the
       | future? I don't see the Sidewalk option on the Alexa app.
        
       | remarkEon wrote:
       | Article doesn't mention it, but this is how you opt-out (there
       | are others but this one has screenshots).
       | 
       | https://www.tomsguide.com/reference/what-is-amazon-sidewalk
       | 
       | Added to my list for the next time I'm on the phone with my
       | parents, for our (weekly at this point) how-to sessions on
       | "stopping the industry I work in from spying on you". I really,
       | really wish product managers would understand the kind of
       | ecosystem they're building, and the kind of customer blow-back
       | they will enable by optimizing for $$$ under the guise of "making
       | things easier".
       | 
       | Side question: what problem does Amazon thinks this solves? Bad
       | connectivity experiences for Ring users?
       | 
       | Edit: changed the link to a better guide linked elsewhere in the
       | thread
        
         | nanidin wrote:
         | Every time this Sidewalk concern style story crops up (which it
         | has several times over the last 6-12 months), I have rechecked
         | that Sidewalk is disabled. So far I have not found it set to
         | anything except for disabled. I hope Amazon isn't doing a
         | gradual roll out to enable, as if I find it enabled at any
         | point in the future, I am done with Amazon devices in my home.
         | 
         | As far as I'm concerned based on Amazon Logistics performance
         | in my area and the impact to the quality of other delivery
         | carriers in my area, Amazon is not afraid to engage in a race
         | to the bottom in the name of market share and profits. Opting
         | me in to Sidewalk will be the straw that breaks the camel's
         | back and sends me to anyone else except for Amazon when
         | shopping.
        
           | remarkEon wrote:
           | I bought my mom an Echo for Christmas last year for the
           | kitchen, since she likes making lists and setting timers for
           | baking and her hands are starting to show their age (she's
           | 63, 'bout that time I guess). Really grating that what was at
           | one time a helpful device for older folks is now
           | retroactively being turned into yet another internet
           | surveillance device.
        
             | philwelch wrote:
             | With all due respect, it's a microphone connected to the
             | internet that you are meant to install in your home. How
             | are you surprised to see it used as a surveillance device?
        
               | teknopaul wrote:
               | no no no, you should not expect people to behave badly.
               | 
               | I agree with the sentiment that it is a crying shame this
               | technology could be used to help people for whom
               | keyboards become complicated but instead it's used to
               | trick them.
        
               | philwelch wrote:
               | > no no no, you should not expect people to behave badly
               | 
               | Should you not?
               | 
               | There's a bit of a spectrum of that. On one end of the
               | spectrum, we all leave our front doors unlocked and our
               | car keys in our parked cars in case someone is stranded
               | and needs to borrow our car. Most of us don't do that,
               | but that's what a truly high trust society looks like.
               | 
               | I think it's prudent to expect any large tech company to
               | violate our privacy to exactly the degree they are
               | physically capable of. It doesn't mean we should morally
               | approve of them living down to our low expectations of
               | them, any more than we should morally approve of burglars
               | and car thieves exploiting the naivety of people who
               | think they don't need to lock up their homes and
               | vehicles.
               | 
               | And yes, it is a crying shame that we live in a low-trust
               | world.
        
             | ryanianian wrote:
             | > retroactively being turned into yet another internet
             | surveillance device.
             | 
             | Oh, and an ad-delivery mechanism. Ask Alexa to set a timer,
             | and sometimes she'll rebut with "while you wait why not try
             | Amazon Music!" It's absolutely infuriating.
             | 
             | I emailed jeff@amazon.com (VIP support team) and they
             | confirmed it could not be disabled by normal means. They
             | disabled it on their end but then had to do it again when
             | somehow it got unset.
             | 
             | The "start with the customer and work backward" mantra that
             | used to be strong in the company is now completely ignored
             | for Alexa it seems. The first domino has fallen. I suspect
             | we'll see many more fall as a result.
        
         | philsnow wrote:
         | > what problem does Amazon thinks this solves? Bad connectivity
         | experiences for Ring users?
         | 
         | I wrote my guess elsewhere in this thread:
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27358758
         | 
         | tl;dr Amazon will resell access to Sidewalk to device
         | manufacturers, allowing them to cost-effectively bridge the
         | "telemetry gap".
        
           | stingrae wrote:
           | 100% this. as a device maker, sidewalk is a potential game
           | changer for low power connectivity and finally a path to
           | lorawan finding wide spread adoption
        
             | Taniwha wrote:
             | except that, unlike ble, lora lives on bands that are not
             | the same world wide - there is no region 3 ISM band - here
             | in NZ the US ISM band is right in the middle of one of my
             | cell phone company's bands
        
               | stingrae wrote:
               | this is true but in practice it's not a big deal.
               | Companies don't usually do a single sku for the whole
               | world especially with the certification requirements.
        
               | Taniwha wrote:
               | I (pre-covid) visit the US a lot and often bring stuff
               | back. I'm used to turning off/switching the US-DECT/etc
               | when required but in this case Amazon has snuck extra
               | functionality into my home without my knowledge.
               | 
               | Of course when the radio inspector comes knocking on my
               | door because Amazon has loaded the wrong firmware into my
               | box (without my knowledge) it's me who's breaking the
               | law, not Amazon
        
             | duped wrote:
             | I don't like the idea of my neighbors piggybacking off my
             | data and power hookups. Why aren't device manufactures
             | figuring out how to make things that don't require
             | something like sidewalk to exist?
             | 
             | It's not that difficult to run cable and use power over
             | ethernet.
        
               | stingrae wrote:
               | the key use case for sidewalk is away from your home.
               | Ethernet doesn't fix this. Presently cellular is the only
               | real solution.
        
           | wearywanderer wrote:
           | No bones about it, this is Amazon's response to
           | 
           | > _If you don 't want your smart tv to spy on you, then don't
           | give it your wifi password._
        
             | twoWhlsGud wrote:
             | "the street finds its own uses for things" (Gibson) is
             | rapidly becoming "the wall street finds its own uses for
             | things"
        
             | teknopaul wrote:
             | How's does it stand legally stealing people's Internet
             | connection and selling it to people who don't have the
             | password.
        
               | prepend wrote:
               | Legally, every Amazon device user agreed to a TOS that
               | lets Amazon do whatever they want and change at any time.
               | 
               | So we're kind of lucky they at least announced it as they
               | could have just turned it on and opted everyone in.
        
         | criley2 wrote:
         | It's the same thing Apple is doing. They want every device to
         | be a part of a low-power BLE network for Apple AirTags or
         | Amazon Echo Tiles or whatever they are. They want a huge
         | network so that these small low power devices can use everyones
         | devices to connect to the internet.
         | 
         | For what it's worth, the only way to Opt-Out from Apple's broad
         | network like this is to disable all "Find My" network tracking,
         | so you'll never be able to remote control your own phone using
         | its standard radios if you wish to disable the tag network
         | stuff.
        
           | caylus wrote:
           | > the only way to Opt-Out from Apple's broad network like
           | this is to disable all "Find My" network tracking,
           | 
           | Not true. I just checked on my own phone, and the toggles for
           | "Find My iPhone" and "Find My network" are separate.
           | Disabling the latter only warns you you can't locate your
           | phone "even if it's offline", i.e. if the "standard radio" is
           | off.
        
           | Scoundreller wrote:
           | To be honest, I find these ad hoc mobile mesh networks
           | fascinating.
           | 
           | With cheap flash, we could do a lot of high-latency high-
           | bandwidth data transport with just existing movements.
           | 
           | We could eliminate telecoms overnight but we just don't have
           | the organization to do it. Like, every house used to have a
           | VHF/UHF receiving tower on it.
        
             | drivingmenuts wrote:
             | Does it not also introduce the possibility of introducing
             | possible vulnerabilities by sharing connections? I
             | generally have a pretty good idea of what I'm doing on a
             | network, but now my neighbor might be up to no good on my
             | network and that seems like it would be a potentially big
             | problem.
        
               | Scoundreller wrote:
               | Depends how it's structured. At best, you're like a TOR
               | relay and have no real idea of what's going in or out.
               | 
               | But if you act like an exit node, you could be screwed if
               | you live in a place where an IP is enough to be found
               | guilty and nobody runs a public wifi. But you can always
               | tunnel your outside traffic out over TOR.
        
             | dasudasu wrote:
             | There are tons of cellular network antennas hidden atop
             | buildings in regular urban environments. Thankfully, in the
             | current paradigm, telcos pay rent to put down these
             | antennas and occupy the space.
        
             | FredPret wrote:
             | A content "delivery" network running on human movements.
             | Now that'd be an interesting routing problem.
        
               | Scoundreller wrote:
               | Not just human movements, but any movements. In Northern
               | Canada, we have tons of fly-in communities that
               | exclusively use satellite internet.
               | 
               | And few good opportunities for caching either.
               | 
               | Would be cool to have a seamless system where you put in
               | your Netflix request and a couple days later, the shows
               | arrive because the aircraft has a Pi loaded with SD cards
               | on it and boots at ground level.
        
               | bellyfullofbac wrote:
               | Hah. Well, humans have easily predictable movement
               | patterns right? Home, work, grocery store.
               | 
               | Imagine wanting to move data from city A to city B, so
               | they'd decide to do a Tinder match of a girl from City B
               | to this guy from City A, so he'd visit her a lot and be
               | the data conduit...
        
               | debo_ wrote:
               | This is a terrific idea for a short story.
        
           | a4isms wrote:
           | The idea of a mesh network is not what concerns most people.
           | It's the idea that devices from Amazon connect to it
           | automatically and can do whatever they want with it.
           | 
           | The canonical anti-example is this: You buy a smart TV, but
           | don't give it your WiFi password. No problem, it connects to
           | any Amazon device whether in your house or next door, and now
           | it can sell information about what you watch, how many people
           | its camera can see are in the room, words you say aloud in
           | its presence, &c.
           | 
           | At the engineering level, Apple's mesh looks like Amazon's
           | mesh in exactly the same way that at the engineering level,
           | an iPhone looks a lot like a high-end Android phone. What's
           | different between them is what Amazon uses its mesh network
           | _for_ , just as what's different between an iPhone and an
           | Android phone is what Google uses its access to your devices
           | for.
           | 
           | Apple obstructs adtech and tracking. Google builds its
           | business on adtech and tracking. Apple uses its mesh network
           | to find items. People fear that Amazon will use its mesh
           | network to spy on you in the name of revenue.
        
             | bootaccount wrote:
             | Amazon's Ad business is a monster that is growing faster
             | and faster [1] so they'll want to track and absorb as much
             | data as possible. FireTV is one of the noisiest devices in
             | my home, second only to Roku, constantly phoning home.
             | 
             | Selling access to a mesh network to other providers will
             | become an additional source of recurring revenue from what
             | would have otherwise been one time revenue source (hardware
             | sale).
             | 
             | It will be no different than Amazon competing w/ FedEx and
             | UPS using it's delivery engine
             | 
             | [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/amazons-ads-business-
             | nears-7...
        
             | deanCommie wrote:
             | > People fear that Amazon will use its mesh network to spy
             | on you in the name of revenue.
             | 
             | Amazon's track record with privacy and security is much
             | more Apple-esque than Google-esque
        
         | aplorbust wrote:
         | Do the parents understand that spying on people is how the
         | industry makes money? Surely, "the industry" would not spy on
         | people without a "business" reason. There seeems to be a belief
         | by every participant in "the industry" that they must learn
         | things about users and they should not always have to ask
         | permission to gather such information.
         | 
         | Sometimes people on HN try to analogise to something like a
         | retail industry where a customer can be observed through their
         | purchases. However there is a major difference. The purchase.
         | That is the ultimate goal of the retailer attained. A purchase.
         | Users of "free" products and services generally do not make
         | purchases. They are not fulfilling the goal of a business: to
         | make money. Thus, the company must find paying customers
         | somewhere else.
         | 
         | Particularly amusing is the oft-used "justification" of [we spy
         | on you] "to make our ["free"] products and services better."
         | Sometimes participants in "the industry" suggest they are
         | trying to make products and services better for users. Other
         | times it less clear exactly who the improvements are
         | (purportedly) intended to benefit. Of course the ultimate goal,
         | because this "industry" of spying is considered by them as a
         | "business", is to make things better for paying customers. If
         | they fail to collect information from users, they do not make
         | money and the "business" fails. Even non-profits supported by
         | deals with advertising companies feel compelled to conduct
         | "telemetry". Not learning about users is deemed unacceptable.
         | 
         | "Spy or die".
        
         | deanCommie wrote:
         | "extend the low-bandwidth working range of devices to help find
         | pets or valuables with Tile trackers, and help devices stay
         | online even if they are outside the range of their home wifi"
         | 
         | Seems like a genuine customer problem. If you want to set up
         | smart lights through your back yard, or a smart sensor at the
         | edge of your driver, they might not have WiFi connectivity to
         | the rest of your house.
         | 
         | Hence the Sidewalk metaphor - a mesh network allows the devices
         | to hop access from one another.
         | 
         | There is also a pretty detailed Privacy/Security Whitepaper and
         | it's important to point out this before any alarmist "Amazon is
         | spying on you!" pearl clutching: https://m.media-
         | amazon.com/images/G/01/sidewalk/final_privac...
        
           | hermitdev wrote:
           | > Seems like a genuine customer problem. If you want to set
           | up smart lights through your back yard, or a smart sensor at
           | the edge of your driver, they might not have WiFi
           | connectivity to the rest of your house.
           | 
           | That sounds like a "you" problem, not a "me" problem. If
           | "you" are setting up smart devices where "you" don't have
           | connectivity, "you" should provide the connectivity, not
           | "me". (Note: I don't have a problem with devices piggy
           | backing on/extending their owner's network).
           | 
           | TFA mentions possible issues with FTC and TOS violations with
           | customers' ISPs. But what about overages? Who's liable for
           | those? Is there going to be a metered breakdown of network
           | usage? Will AMZN cover costs of overages due to neighbor
           | usage? What about potential liability issues? Infosec issues?
           | 
           | This just sounds like a too easy setup for a class action
           | lawsuit.
        
             | barbazoo wrote:
             | I agree. And what, you're gonna rely on some neighbor's
             | AMZN device proxying the internet for you? I hope the
             | availability of that "smart" sensor or whatever isn't too
             | important.
        
             | Spivak wrote:
             | Can Apple devices use your mobile data to participate in
             | the FindMy network? This seems like a weird line to draw.
        
         | amelius wrote:
         | Can't we have a strong consumer organization which can actually
         | enforce that companies are not building stuff that works
         | against the consumer?
        
       | giantg2 wrote:
       | Ew, no thank you. Another reason to buy 'dumb' devices or
       | homebrew your own solution.
        
       | system2 wrote:
       | That's it. I am unplugging all amazon devices now.
        
       | derekp7 wrote:
       | Question -- I'm assuming most ISPs have something in their terms
       | that prohibit a customer from sharing the connection. So with
       | Amazon inducing a violation of customer terms of service, I
       | wonder if ISPs will go after the customers, or go directly after
       | Amazon for triggering the violations?
        
         | Aissen wrote:
         | If the traffic is tunnelled, then customers aren't really
         | sharing their IP address, and undetectable at the network
         | level. What remains is a purely legal question.
        
       | warmfuzzykitten wrote:
       | This is a terrific example of a permission that should be opt in.
        
       | surround wrote:
       | A thread from last year describing this tactic:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22798118
       | 
       | Stack overflow's TOS has a binding arbitration clause, [1]
       | despite overwhelming user feedback to the contrary. [2] Y
       | Combinator's TOS has an arbitration clause. [3] This also applies
       | to Hacker News.
       | 
       | [1] https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public
       | 
       | [2] https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/309756
       | 
       | [3] https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/
        
       | monkeynotes wrote:
       | Why the dickens isn't this opt-in? Now we live in a world where a
       | corp can sit on your own home network and do business using your
       | bandwidth without you explicitly agreeing. Not to mention the
       | potential for security issues.
        
         | local_dev wrote:
         | We all know the answer to this. It absolutely should be opt-in,
         | but they know that around 96% of people will never opt-in. See:
         | iOS 14.5 privacy changes.
        
           | kergonath wrote:
           | Making something opt-out because you know that people would
           | not opt in voluntarily is a class of evil on its own. It is
           | simply fraud and deception.
        
           | Dah00n wrote:
           | Like Apple Amazon will change to OPT-IN when it is in their
           | own interest and likely only after killing off some
           | competitors. So maybe in a few years time..
        
       | williesleg wrote:
       | I'm sure they all do that under the covers.
        
       | toddh wrote:
       | This option does not exist on my alexa app. So...
        
         | atkailash wrote:
         | Somewhat confusingly (intentionally I'm sure) it's not a device
         | setting but an Account Setting in the app
        
       | noobermin wrote:
       | I'm honestly surprised this is legal at all.
        
         | thatguy0900 wrote:
         | Has anyone ever tried to do something like it to see? Maybe it
         | won't be
        
       | siavosh wrote:
       | Doesn't this break the terms of service for most ISPs? I remember
       | during the last crypto-craze, there were attempts to monetize
       | this resharing with tokens of some sort and the ISP's put an end
       | to that real quick with legal threats against anyone reselling
       | their internet. Even if this is free Amazon sharing, I'm sure
       | some business is being built off of it?
        
         | topspin wrote:
         | > Doesn't this break the terms of service for most ISPs?
         | 
         | Probably.
         | 
         | Amazon is operating on the premise that it's easier to ask
         | forgiveness than obtain permission.
        
       | atomicnumber3 wrote:
       | I just disabled Sidewalk on mine a few days ago. This feels like
       | it could be part of the plot of one of RMS's short stories a-la
       | Right to Read. Jeez. What a joke. Not a ha-ha joke, you know what
       | I mean.
       | 
       | That said, part of me (a very small part, mind you. Infinitesimal
       | even.) wonders if in some weird way this will be good for the
       | internet? Suddenly, thanks to Amazon, an IP address is no longer
       | a person and you can point to Sidewalk as a concrete example that
       | isn't just owner negligence.
       | 
       | Mind you that's a very thin silver lining for such an absurdly
       | large can of worms, but I digress.
        
         | Buttons840 wrote:
         | Establishing that precedent can't hurt mesh networks.
        
         | atkailash wrote:
         | Mesh networks would be great. But should be opt in
        
       | sys_64738 wrote:
       | T1000: Hey Alexa, you're Terminated.
        
       | kiseleon wrote:
       | I noticed this option in my settings months ago and disabled it
       | then.
        
         | jnet wrote:
         | I had disabled it as well, but just checked and it was re-
         | enabled.
        
       | batmaniam wrote:
       | > Users can disable Sidewalk in the settings section of the Alexa
       | or Ring apps, but have until 8 June to do so. After that, if they
       | have taken no action, the network will be turned on and their
       | devices will become "Sidewalk Bridges".
       | 
       | Wait so what if a user buys Alexa after June 8? Are they
       | automatically enrolled into this mass wireless sharing program
       | with no way out?
        
       | forengi wrote:
       | If you buy a Helium hotspot you can get paid crypto (HNT token)
       | to provide the same service Amazon is extracting from your Alexa
       | for free
        
       | landonxjames wrote:
       | I was worried that my Eero routers were going to get roped into
       | this, but thankfully the CEO confirmed on Reddit[0] that there
       | are currently no plans to involve their products in Sidewalk.
       | 
       | [0]https://www.reddit.com/r/eero/comments/nnvs20/amazon_sidewal..
       | .
        
         | wearywanderer wrote:
         | No plans... at least until Amazon offers them a big enough
         | bribe.
        
           | 1123581321 wrote:
           | Amazon owns them. If you knew that, apologies, it wasn't
           | clear to me.
           | 
           | Regardless, Sidewalk doesn't make much sense for Eero since
           | it provides the traditional Internet access points for the
           | IoT devices that make up the Sidewalk mesh.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-06-01 23:01 UTC)