The rise of Big Tech and the proliferation of smart home technologies has brought about many convenient and exciting innovations. However, it has also raised significant concerns about personal privacy, liberty, and freedom.
One of the biggest dangers posed by Big Tech is the creation of proprietary smart home ecosystems. These ecosystems are controlled by a single company, which has the ability to monitor and collect data on everything that happens within them. This data can be used for a variety of purposes, including targeted advertising and even surveillance.
Right-To-Repair advocate, Rossmann Repair Group Inc. business owner, and FUTO Director of Community Outreach, Louis Rossmann, made a video detailing a real-world, ongoing example of a large company (Amazon) doing just this by providing citizen’s camera footage to law enforcement without the camera owner’s consent or approval.
“If I have a camera that is in my house or apartment and it is recording, I do not want anybody getting access to anything there without asking me first, or getting a warrant. It’s my footage. You’re either going to ask me for it, or get a warrant. You’re not just going to willy-nilly take it from me.”
Louis Rossmann
To give legal grounds to Louis’ stance on requiring law enforcement to obtain footage directly through the primary resident through request or warrant, let’s review the Fourth Amendment to see what our rights are:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
United States Constitution, Amendment IV
Writing this takes copious amounts of self-restraint to not highlight, underline, and embolden the above text as every phrase of the Fourth Amendment proclaims in righteous clarity how disingenuous and immoral the actions of these publicly traded tech giants really are. Now I understand if you may be thinking “Digital data privacy isn’t mentioned anywhere there, so even if nobody likes it, aren’t they above board here?” Not so fast! Let’s dive a little deeper. The protections of the Fourth Amendment cover the following: Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects. If your video doorbell is installed on your house or apartment, then it is a part of your residence just as much as an outdoor light fixture or kitchen sink. “But video footage is digital data, not a tangible part of your residence…” This is true, however, the next item covered is “Papers”. Papers are information, data, and how you verify who you say you are, or rather, your identity. A corporation handing over your data to law enforcement, and generally not allowing you to own your own data, is a violation of your rights, freedoms, and privacy.
Amazon isn’t the only one though…
Eufy, a smart home and appliance manufacturer, was featured on the WAN Show Podcast. Linus Sebastian and Luke Lafreniere discuss in detail Eufy’s dreadfully insecure methods of handling customer data, and how Eufy’s own website directly lies to customers about how their data stays on their devices. In fact, Eufy uploads customer footage to the cloud unencrypted and even has the audacity to use facial recognition to develop unique facial ID tags of their customers.
Update on 12/2/2022
“…Eufy is storing images of faces with usernames attached to them on public-facing servers without encryption. They expose their own encryption keys in their API calls and allow users to access unencrypted streams without authentication.”
Linus Sebastian, CEO of Linus Media Group
How can you trust any company in the digital age when practically every company is having some kind of data leak or scandal? You can’t. But, that’s not necessarily a bad thing… Enter open-source. What even is that? Open source is a philosophy, a method, and a principle. You use and participate in open-source already without even knowing it. When you prepare food by following a recipe, you are practicing the principle of open-source. Allow me to explain. A shared recipe is open-source in nature, as it is a set of instructions that produces a repeatable result, and can be modified and/or redistributed at will, for free. If you don’t like a recipe, you can change and improve it. And I bet you’ll also tell your friends about the changes you made.
FOSS (Free Open-Source Software) is much the same; the code (instructions) of the software is made publicly available (i.e. GitHub) for all to inspect, audit, and compile independently. Trust isn’t required, because you are empowered to verify the software yourself. Now, do I expect you to read every line of code of every piece of software you run? No. It’s alright to rely on those with more programming skills than yourself to audit the software for you. Great open-source software naturally attracts the majority of users, while poorly made software hardly ever picks up momentum.
Open-source is the ultimate accountability tool.
How does open-source software increase security while also being transparent? If the code can be read by anyone, doesn’t that make it easy for bad actors to design malware? Simply put: no, it doesn’t. Due to the distributed and collaborative nature of FOSS projects, people from many perspectives look at the code and see mistakes that others overlooked, and submit modifications (patches) to the code that benefits everyone.
Proprietary (non-FOSS) smart home ecosystems often come with strict rules and restrictions on what devices and services can be used within them. This means that people are often forced to use only the products and services offered by the company that controls the ecosystem, limiting choices.
In contrast, a FOSS smart home ecosystem puts privacy, encryption, and customization first. Instead of being controlled by a single company, an open-source ecosystem is developed and maintained by a community of users and developers who are committed to protecting people’s privacy and security. Open-source smart home systems also offer a wider selection of devices and services that are not limited to the products and services of a single company. Additionally, FOSS devices don’t suffer from companies discontinuing support for products, as the community is involved in the development of the firmware and software of the device.
Overall, while the convenience and innovations brought about by proprietary smart home ecosystems are undeniable, the vulnerability and blindspots they pose to personal privacy, liberty, and security should not be ignored. Open-source ecosystems offer greater protection for people’s privacy, security, and freedom of choice. Ask yourself: “If it isn’t open-source, why isn’t it open-source?”
You alone own your information. Don’t let anyone take that right from you.