The spacing in the email screwed up the formatting:
Dear Andre,
I’m Gianpiero Morbello, serving as the Head of IOT and Ecosystem at Haier Europe.
It’s a pleasure to hear from you. We just received your email, and coincidentally, I was in the process of sending you a mail with a similar suggestion.
I want to emphasize Haier Europe’s enthusiasm for supporting initiatives in the open world. Please note that our IOT vision revolves around a three-pillar strategy:
achieving 100% connectivity for our appliances,
opening our IOT infrastructure (we are aligned with Matter and extensively integrating third-party connections through APIs, and looking for any other opportunity it might be interesting),
and the third pillar involves enhancing consumer value through the integration of various appliances and services, as an example we are pretty active in the energy management opening our platform to solution which are coming from energy providers.
Our strategy’s cornerstone is the IOT platform and the HON app, introduced on AWS in 2020 with a focus on Privacy and Security by Design principles. We’re delighted that our HON connected appliances and solutions have been well-received so the number of connected active consumers is growing day after day, with high level of satisfaction proven by the high rates we receive in the App stores.
Prioritizing the efficiency of HON functions when making AWS calls has been crucial, particularly in light of the notable increase in active users mentioned above. This focus enables us to effectively control costs.
Recently, we’ve observed a substantial increase in AWS calls attributed to your plugin, prompting the communication you previously received as standard protocol for our company, but as mentioned earlier, we are committed to transparency and keenly interested in collaborating with you not only to optimize your plugin in alignment with our cost control objectives, but also to cooperate in better serving your community.
I propose scheduling a call involving our IOT Technology department to address the issue comprehensively and respond to any questions both parties may have.
Hope to hear back from you soon.
Best regards
Gianpiero Morbello Head of Brand & IOT Haier Europe
Well, how about having a local API and have no calls at all to your cloud infrastructure? Probably too easy and you cannot lock people into your ecosystem.
From any practical standpoint, this makes so much sense.
Sometimes my Tesla fails to unlock for some reason and I have to disable my VPN and then stand next to it like a God damn idiot for 10 seconds while it calls it’s servers in fucking California to ask it to unlock my car.
As if I needed yet another reason to never ever own a Tesla.
My car has this crazy technology in it: You can stick the key in the door and twist and it’ll unlock. Even if the network is down or the battery is dead. Arcane, right?
Hell yes! My sister-in-law has your same year but the diesel version and that thing is a champ. It’s rated at 45 mpg on the highway but she typically gets 50+, even with nearly 200k miles on it.
I had a 2004 1.8t Jetta for 12 years but I swapped it for a Prius. I love the Prius features and fuel economy but I miss how damn quick that my Jetta was, plus I loved the interior color scheme.
Haha yeah there are other, more reliable methods but the “phone as a key” is also super convenient when it works properly, which is most of the time. It just would be a lot smarter if it worked locally.
…Or if there were an alternative option that didn’t rely on software and electronics is my point.
Cars have had electronic remote keyless entry for decades. It’s not new. Some of them even have phone apps that duplicate that functionality. No one but Tesla has been stupid enough to remove the keyhole, though.
I understood your point. My point is those electronics make it more convenient to use. Would I appreciate ALSO having a physical unlock mechanism? Sure. It also increases the attack surface.
Cars have had electronic remote keyless entry for decades.
I think it could definitely be possible to do locally, and I wouldn’t want a car where I have to connect to servers to connect to it. But I am also not sure I want a car that can be opened with a command on the car itself. The code to access your CAR being stored locally on the car itself, with no server side validation, does seem kinda scary. It’s one thing for someone to manage to get into your online login where you can change the password, it’s another for someone to literally be able to steal your car because they found a vulnerability. It being stored locally would mean people would reverse engineer it, they could potentially install a virus on your car to be able to gain access. Honestly, as a tech guy, I don’t trust computers enough to have it control my car.
The issue you are experiencing likely has nothing to do with the VPN. Network connectivity is not needed to unlock the car. I have been in places with no cell phone signal and it still works.
I do sometimes experience the same issue you are. If I wake up my phone, then it works. So it may be working for you not because you disabled the VPN, but because you woke up your phone and it then sent out the bluetooth signal to let the car know you were nearby.
It’s a bit of both! Certain commands to the car can be done locally via Bluetooth OR via Tesla servers. The tricky bit is that status always comes from the server. If you are on a VPN that is blocked (like I use NordVPN and it is often blocked) then the app can’t get status and as long as it can’t get status it may not even try a local command. It’s unclear to me under what circumstances it does local vs cloud commands, and it may have to do with a Bluetooth LE connection that you can’t really control.
When you don’t have service, or you’re on VPN, it may be worthwhile to try disabling and reenabling Bluetooth. I have had success with this before. If you’re using android, it seems like the widget also uses Bluetooth, so you could try adding the widget to your home screen and using that. You can also try setting the Tesla app to not be power controlled, so it never gets closed.
Either way, there’s a definite engineering problem here that feels like it should be fixed by Tesla. But I can at least confirm that, even in situations with zero connectivity, you should be able to perform basic commands like unlock and open trunk without data service.
I’m glad the people with this device are getting traction on using it with their HA, but holy hell this is a complete non-starter for me and I cannot understand why they got it in the first place. There’s no climate automation I would ever want that is worth a spying device connected to the internet and a spying app installed on my phone.
Probably more. Your app can use the local API then as well. And AWS is insanely expensive, especially if you forget to block log ingestion to Cloudwatch (ask me how I know).
I’m cynical so I assume they are turning a profit selling user data. So the lost money is not from AWS expenses but from not having installed apps to steal more data.
It’s damage control, they realised what they did was getting them bad PR since news of it started spreading so they are attempting to remedy the bad PR through damage control
Oh absolutely agree, but this is where they can use it.
The dev can say that they obviously need an official plugin, and work with them on that because now they have 1,800 clones of an unofficial one that may not be optimized.
We also get to know that our tiny HA community has hit a critical mass large enough to get a corpo to freak out a bit
I did my part and sent them a “do this and I’ll never buy a Haier product” email. Corporations exist to maximize profits. Communities like ours just have to learn how to make it clear to them that shutting us out will hurt their profitability.
I think we should all be really proud of ourselves. We banded together and, regardless of WHY Haier is doing this, got them to open a line of communication. This is a huge win!
The whole point of spreading the word about an incident like this is to get public attention on it, and make the company realize that the way they’ve handled things was bad.
A letter like this indicates that they’ve realized they fucked up and they want to do things differently going forward. That doesn’t mean they’re suddenly trustworthy, but it does mean they can be negotiated with.
The correct response is to accept the offer of working together. We want to encourage companies to be cooperative and discourage insular, proprietary behavior. If you slap away the offered hand then you discourage future cooperation, and now you’re the roadblock to developing an open system.
When you start getting the results that you want, don’t respond with further hostility.
Keep pummeling them. There’s no integrity behind this, and going along will just let them get away with their bad behaviour.
They played the “We’ll sue your ass off” card first. That means it’s already in the legal realm, they never even triedto work with the OSS community, they basically said “fuck you” until the community replied, very clearly.
Had the community not responded by replicating the repo 1000+ times, and making a story about it, they would’ve continued down the path of slapping the little guy around.
They now realize they can’t compete with potentially 1000 people working on this, against them. They also fear they’ve pissed off some technophile who has some serious skills or connections. Wonder if they saw a sudden increase in probes on their internet interfaces.
Exactly this. I understand the cynicism, but it ultimately doesn’t matter what the motivation of a company walking back a poor decision is. We take the chance for mutual collaboration and hopefully everyone benefits.
On an individual level, that’s when people can evaluate if they still want to boycott and do whatever their own moral compass demands. But refusing to work together at this point just means we definitely don’t get the chance in the future to steer things in a better direction.
And even if the cooperation doesn’t last, it’s an opportunity for the open source developers to work with the product engineers and get direct information from them right now. There’s nothing as valuable as talking to the guy that actually designed the thing, or the guy who can make changes to the product code.
Even if that relationship doesn’t hold long term, the information gathered in the short term will be useful.
If I were part of this project this is what I’d be going for. Push the company to give you direct contact with the relevant engineers, right now while the negative public opinion is fresh and they’re most willing to make concessions, and then get as much out of that contact as you can. Take them at their word, make them actually back it up, take advantage of the offer to cooperate. Sort the rest of it out later.
Recently, we've observed a substantial increase in AWS calls attributed to your plugin, prompting the communication you previously received as standard protocol for our company, but as mentioned earlier, we are committed to transparency and keenly interested in collaborating with you not only to optimize your plugin in alignment with our cost control objectives,
i get it; their amazon account gets hit hard by some plugin data stream, they trace the source and kill it for monetary reasons. makes total sense. handled terrible, but still, i also completely understand getting some giant bill from amazon and freaking the fuck out.
I’m glad the threat of being on a FOSS Hall of Shame is effective for some companies, and that they can’t just frivolous lawsuit away a hobby developer without consequences to their bottom line, which would have set a bad precedent against small-time FOSS developers everywhere.
Now their status to me is moved from “Shitlist” to “Shitlist Pending”, they’ve talked their talk so now it’s time to see them walk their walk. Best would be to allow users to control their Haier products from their own servers rather than Haier’s. That will reduce their cloud computing bills from 3rd party users but they can still offer “compelling value” in their walled garden ecosystem as a simple one-and-done setup. Win-win right?
Yeah, they can fuck off. When their opening salvo was threats and legal bluster, I don’t see why anyone should trust an alleged olive branch now. The right thing to do was not to send this email second.
I have to work with Haier in my business now as well ever since they bought GE. They’re a shitty company that goes back on their word constantly (at least within the B2B space), and nobody should be giving them one thin dime.
Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, indeed this first message is PR damage control, but there is something to be gained here for the FOSS community.
This backtrack sends the message out, discouraging other companies with legal departments from trying the same trick else they risk sales. If a positive resolution comes out of this (A. Andre’s project becomes officially supported by Haier with more features whilst being more efficient with API calls, or B. Haier develops a local API option) then it shows other companies there is value in working together with the FOSS community rather than viewing them as an adversary or as competition to be eliminated.
Nah, this is Haier trying to save face. They saw how the story went, that the repo was forked a thousand times in a few hours. They know their engineering team can’t win, long term, against dedicated, pissed off geeks.
Would they play nice with you if the tables were reversed? No.
They already played the legal card, engaging with them at this point would be extremely naive.
Fuck them. Now is the time to pummel them even harder. Making them eat their words is what will send a message to the rest of the jackasses designing garbage and tracking us relentlessly for access to what should be trivial to engineer features.
Generally, an engineer wants their product to work well and work efficiently. They put effort into a product, and it feels good to see people benefit from that work. The ones making the decisions have money on their mind. If a FOSS version of their paid platform costs them too much money, they will shut it down. Not because it was the engineers decision, but because the one’s making the decision likely don’t even know what github is and just know it’s taking away that sweet subscription money.
They both represent the company. The company came on strong all ban-hammery, the news flashed around, his repo got forked over a thousand times in a matter of hours.
Haier found themselves on the defensive suddenly, so they got one of their engineers to play nice.
They now know they have 300k users who are pissed at them. People are choosing other products over this already.
Fuck them. With a pineapple. Corporations aren’t people, I owe them no consideration, no courtesy, especially when they act like this.
It gets weird fast, because before privacy controls in the Lemmy source code mean anything, we need trusted third party verification of a server’s patch level, and security controls.
That can be done, and I think Lemmy has a shot at getting to that point, but it’ll be awhile.
In the meantime, I suspect the Lemmy developers are hesitant to add and advertise features that you can’t be sure are actually correctly enabled on your instance.
But yeah, let’s not let perfect be the enemy of moving toward better.
Edit: Assuming you completely trust your instance admin, we could start adding some basic privacy to actions taken on your home instance.
But as soon as the user starts interacting via federation, all bets are off - because the federated instance may he malicious.
I think we might see one or more “trusted fediverse” groups emerge in the next few years, with instance admins making commitments to security controls, moderation, code of conduct, etc.
So, in theory, the lemmy software could start implementing privacy controls that allow users to limit their visibility to whichever part of the fediverse their instance admin has marked as highly trusted.
But even then, there’s risks from bad actors on highly trusted instances that still allow open signups.
Anyway, I totally agree with you. It’s just a genuinely complex problem.
If all the people complaining would just contribute to the codebase this wouldn’t even be an issue.
Often, you even see the devs coming into threads like this and making suggestions, like “make a pull request.” They want more people contributing.
It’s tons of people whining, very few people contributing. Guess what? While at a certain point, adding developers stops increasing productivity, there’s a small window where adding developers does increase productivity.
If I am correct, Lemmy only has four main developers. That’s well within the range to add more developers and increase the productivity, making new features and security come faster.
So I get it, but things take time, and are complicated, which you thankfully can see.
People whinging about it in threads does nothing to change it. Donating to Lemmy’s development costs or contributing code does.
So much of it sounds like it sounds like its from less-technically-inclined people (some of its valid critique from experts, but they generally… write bug reports and do pull requests…) who just want it to be better but the only way they know how is to “bring awareness.” Well, all that “awareness-bringing” just amounts to spreading FUD.
I think we might see one or more “trusted fediverse” groups emerge in the next few years, with instance admins making commitments to security controls, moderation, code of conduct, etc.
There is now at least one system in place for admins to vouch for other instances being non-malicious, and to report suspected instances. It is called the fediseer: gui.fediseer.com
When you have privacy settings, what you really have is a lie.
It starts out with good intentions, like those in this post, but eventually everyone forgets that the platform still sees your posts and does not give a shit about selling them.
I would rather acknowledge from the very beginning that this entire system is not private, so there is never such a misunderstanding.
Everyone should post and comment with caution, just like you use caution with what you say in public places.
The way you use caution saying something in a public place that you don’t want everyone to hear is by keeping your voice down so that only certain people can hear it. Without privacy settings there is no equivalent to that.
Sup. And all this data would still be federating, it has to be. That just means that some data-collecting company could make a fake instance and get everything together. Or someone could just fork it back.
The way I see it, community-based social media is a public forum, where every post / comment is public (Obviously less applicable on an individualized platform like Instagram). Everyone has an inherent right to privacy, but not when they’re using a platform like Lemmy. Twitter and Facebook are fundamentally different platforms. You can’t expect privacy while using lemmy, so use a different platform to post private content.
These people should be looking into spinning up Matrix servers if they want a private club with real privacy so bad.
It’s definitely a weird thing to constantly be upset about: “People can see what I posted in public when I post them publicly!”
It’s like complaining about people being able to take photos with you in the background in public. It’s a public space, there is no expectation of privacy.
If you want a private internet experience, you have to put some work in.
I have a feeling that you might be misunderstanding what the actual purpose of lemmy is. lemmy has taken quite a few design decisions from Reddit which is exactly the same way. Both platforms are public places where all content is shared. Anyone using them needs to be aware of that fact. Mastodon might be a better fit for you as it is more focused on individuals rather than public communities.
If you’re not running your own server privacy policies are not even worth the pixels they’re presented on.
Literally, you’re just taking a random person’s word for it (whoever the admin is). A website is a black box, you have no idea what’s going on on the back-end.
The only way to be in complete control of your user data is to run your own server and be literally the only user on it.
Even then, any public comments you make are, you know… public.
Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies. It asks much less of my instance admins if it’s understood that my information was never private to begin with.
All your data will pass over other hardware owned by other people. The only real online privacy is not connecting to the internet to begin with.
And now we’re entering into the realm of encryption, especially end-to-end. Generally speaking, just because you’re sending information that touches other people’s hardware, doesn’t mean it’s public and readable.
Even then, AMD, Intel and now Apple CPU chips are suspected to be backdored. NIST has been slow to adapt a standard post-quantun E2EE algorithm, with some rumours of self-sabotage mandated by NSA (like they have already done in the past). The Tor network is extremely vulnerable to traffic correlation by big parties.
Encryption theoretically gives you what you describe, but in reality you still need to put a lot of thrust in things like your own hardware.
I think that’s worth considering: an open-source volunteer project requires and leaks way more data than a private corporation it’s mimicking.
It couldn’t be that one has had loads of VC funding for *checks notes… 15 years. Whereas one has been barely funded for five years and has more people complaining than adding code.
Actually, it makes perfect sense that an open source project that doesn’t have a big organization behind it isn’t going to have the same capability anywhere near as quickly. Reddit also makes money from advertising. The money for Lemmy is from donations and an abysmally small set of grants.
Hell, Matrix, an actual open source communications protocol is 9 years old and they still haven’t gotten encrypted video group chats working properly and if I recall correctly still offload a lot of that to JitsiMeet. I was using Matrix/Riot.IM (now Element) in 2016 and it was garbage that barely worked, and updates constantly broke what previously worked, etc. It took time to become better and Matrix does have a whole ass organization backing it.
For comparison, Lemmy has been around for about five years and they’ve had far less financial backing and developers contributing to the project. Matrix has governments like France and Germany lining up for services for private communications, which means they’ve literally got people paying them for the service of helping manage their Matrix servers. Lemmy doesn’t have the same advantages. They don’t have a service or ads to sell (no ads is part of the appeal.).
For what its worth, Veilid exists, if you’re looking for a better framework to start with than ActivityPub.
I prefer the complete lack of privacy settings because it is open and honest about the reality of what Lemmy is able to provide.
Even if you’re running your own instance, you are necessarily submitting your data to another party. I don’t have to trust the platform as much when my data isn’t private. It’s much easier to engineer a system around that assumption.
If we suppose that anything I submit to Lemmy is submitted to the public, I can’t be misled. My data cannot be leaked because I’m presenting it to the world already. Lemmy is a young social project with many problems to solve, still trying to gain traction and hold on to users and with an uncertain future. In brief: bigger fish to fry.
Maybe privacy controls could be on the list, but I don’t think it addresses the main problems or applications of the platform and creates its own set of issues. Keep it simple and stupid.
Lemmy has many privacy problems that have nothing to do with public comments you make. For example, the “hide posts that you have already read” option requires that the server track what posts you have read. There is no public activity involved in reading a post. So the Lemmy server should not track that info. If that feature is to exist at all, it should be implemented purely on the client. The same can be said about subscriptions, and for that matter about voting (server should discard voting info after a brief interval for abuse detection). The Lemmy software in many ways naive about this stuff.
I don’t disagree on those points, but I think it’s the nature of Lemmy being decentralized that makes all those things necessary.
server should discard voting info after a brief interval for abuse detection
What if the server has not federated out the votes yet? Some of that stuff can get backed up in a queue. There’s definitely a possibility that votes could get “lost” on the way. Hell, that already happens, and that’s with a system that tracks them.
Servers have to keep a lot of this info to pass to other servers. If I upvote something on Lemmy.blahaj.zone, it doesn’t mean that upvote has been federated outward to hundreds of other servers yet. I would assume this is part of how Lemmy is able to keep things “organized” between all servers.
In other words, a lot of the privacy complaints come from technical limitations of how Lemmy works. Lemmy, by it’s decentralized nature, has to transfer tons of data back and forth between all Lemmy instances.
However, there are technologies that are trying to work around this kind of technical limitation. You might be interested in something like Veilid. I’m not sure about the details of putting together a Veilid-based social-network, but I’m willing to believe it’s possible.
I don’t see anything in your post that indicates any reason to track what posts a person has read. That should not be tracked at all. Reading posts should be completely anonymous.
I don’t see why voting necessarily has to track who casts the votes. But, because untracked voting can be abused so easily, I can understand deciding to retain the info for let’s say 24 hours. Hopefully that is also enough to handle those propagation issues.
Really, imho, server instances shouldn’t have a web interface at all, just an API. Web apps would make API calls to the server and reformat the response for use by the browser. The API call to read a post should not require any identifying info or require the user to be logged in. Read tracking and subscriptions should be handled by the client, and in the case of a public client (web app shared by many users), the private user info should be encrypted in case of a server breakin or seizure. The encryption key would be based on the user password and transformed to a browser cookie when the user logs in, so it is never stored by the web app. With most people using mobile clients these days, alternatively, the info can be kept completely on the client device and maintained by the mobile app.
From the previous issue it sounds like the developer has proper legal representation, but in his place I wouldn’t even begin talking with Haier until they formally revoke the C&D, and provide enforceable assurances that they won’t sue in the future.
Also I don’t know what their margins are like, but even if this cost them an extra $1000 in AWS fees on top of what their official app would have cost them (I seriously doubt it would be that much unless their infrastructure is absolute bananas), then it would probably only be a single-digit number of sales that they would have needed to loose to come out worse off from this.
github.com
Oldest