Caring vs snooping - smartapp collects data from devices and sensors of another person's home

MrsWooster

DI Simon Mason
@ DAWarksPolice
Something to be aware of. A member of staff from a local refuge told us at a conference recently that it is now part of their welcome procedures to take any new resident's vehicle to a local garage to be checked. Shockingly, a significant proportion had been fitted with trackers.
DI Simon Mason Retweeted Integrated Anti-Stalking Unit

Sort of connected:
twitter.com/DAWarksPolice/status/1085102441492819968?s=20

Just wanted to say that in the experience of experts working in this area, none of these devices (whether that's a smart meter for your electricity or monitoring devices as described here) have security features designed into them from the outset that makes them safe from being hacked or accessed remotely by third parties.

Read a novel once about how you could hack smart meters to crash the entire European power grid with the resulting catastrophic collapse of infrastructure etc. Then asked one of those experts about it and they confirmed, the premise is not fiction but based on available facts. And they were urgently trying to convince power companies to change their approach to security.

So now, every time I get offered a smart meter installation, I ask them what measures are in place to protect the smart meter from remote access/hacking by third parties and the answer is either complete ignorance, shock or the admission that there is nothing in place (got told once that's because there'd be no reason for anyone to do such a thing).

Also, my mother runs a care company. Respecting the dignity and privacy of her clients is at the heart of everything they do. Their service aims to allow the elderly to live out their lives with as much autonomy as is possible and these devices stand in the way of that. Yes, it does provide peace of mind. But something that monitors adherence to routine is one of the more extreme intrusions into the privacy of your home and life.

And as discussed by PP there is a range of other, non-monitoring options, too.

I looked up IoT womanformerly and yes exactly. Weaponised. Not happy with any of that stuff.

I belong to an IOT (Internet of Things) meetup and specifically asked the geeks there about the technical ins and outs - I am appalled at the lack of any sort of standards in place meaning it's made real easy by lazy implementation for any joeblow to weaponise them.

They are already being used to horrendously monitor, stalk and harass in DV/coercive control. It's also very hard to get evidence unless you have access to technical resource who think as deviously as the predators.

Any device can be turned into a tracking/listening/spying station and GPS devices especially in cars, phones etc are extensively abused to monitor and then stalk/harass. Tech abuse is prevalent in around 90% of DV cases where I am and there is no expertise women can call on easily to help them out normally. The police have zero expertise and most guys who could assist withhold their expertise.

Thanks, Ereshkigal. I'll have a poke around later myself, too.

Technology designed to record, remotely store, and learn the typical behaviour pattern of someone in multiple points throughout their property, and actively send alerts when the person does anything different, is potentially as intrusive as a fixed camera in a single room which would then have to be viewed to be interpreted.

And you know, it's not like there's any rule saying an abuser is only allowed to fit one technology.

As a genuine choice, there can be a use for some of this technology. But I echo what others say above about the gung-ho installation of IoT with very little thought for the implications. Often with a chocolate-box label of "for the sake of the children!" or "for the sake of the elderly". Or a cool-cat label: "It's a speaker for your-music-that-is-your-life, dude."

Yeah. No.

It's a surveillance device, and increasingly a control device too.

I'm trying to find it, Perking

I'm chuckling a little as I remember my strong willed grandad. He moved into sheltered accommodation with my grandma, due to his poor health. They had an alarm they could pull, which we occasionally did accidentally, and a disembodied voice would say 'Hello Jim, everything ok?'. I think they did a morning call too- pretty much the same. "Morning Joan, how are you today?".
He got triple bolts and locks fitted on the front door, so no one could have got in if needed, anyway!

If I were going to fit a system without consent, it wouldn't be this one.

I see it with relation to DM at the moment, and I think she would like it too (as long as it didn't cost her anything!) because she's afraid of no one noticing if she's had a fall.

I was afraid when I was pregnant or had small children. I didn't want the children to be on their own with my body until DH comes in from work. If I were a single parent I'd definitely want it.

I'd see the risk of needing help as greater than the risk of being abused, and see this system as a plus. Given that controlling abusive people are fitting tracking devices and cameras already, I'd say this is an improvement as it is more accountable and overseen.

So, popcorn's mum might decide she would benefit from one sensor, either on the downstairs kettle socket or on a mat at the bottom of the stairs.

And from one on the front door.

And that they should only send you alerts if she hasn't used them for X hours: you and she would decide between you what would work best for her and for you getting the alert.

What the Centrica system proposes, monitoring the whole bedtime routine and telling a carer about it...

Well, the carer might feel they want to know about it. It might reassure them. But at this point, we're now treating the carer.

The monitored person might feel like they don't want people to know about it, and have come to this conclusion during periods when they are quite well and lucid.

If the carer decides that they know best and they're going to do it for the monitored person's own good, against their wishes... Well, the whole pretext there's consent is out of the window now, isn't it?

The advantages of this system for carers

Interesting formulation.

Isn't the advantage supposed to be to the cared-for person?

When you imagine this situation, do you see yourself in the role of the carer? Rather than in the role of the monitored person?

I'm disabled. I see this situation from the role of the monitored person.

I see what you mean perking, and probably many people would need less than is offered. However, DM has an upstairs kettle for when she is under the weather. If she stopped going downstairs at all, the motion sensor could tell me. It's something I'd need to know. I'd also like to know if she stopped going out, or if she left the front door wide open for hours on a regular basis.

Sadly people aren't always aware when their routine changes to the point of needing more support or intervention.

Blegh, can't write coherently today.

If the monitored person isn't in general at a well enough level to remember to say open a window daily as a "signal", then chances are they need daily human help with other things too. Which rather obviates the need for surveillance (unless it's the behaviour of the helpers which is in doubt – whole other kettle of fish).

So these are from the blurb? (Sorry, don't have time to read all now).

"it lets you know if the morning or night-time routine is being followed"

"Our engineer will walk around your home and after asking a few questions will identify the best place to install 3 x Hive Plugs, 2 x Hive Motion Sensors, 2 x Hive Window or Door Sensors and the Hive Hub."

So, 7 monitors and then the mapping, storing and continuous monitoring of someone's whole morning or night-time routine.

That's a lot.

What's the purpose?

People ARE ALLOWED to not follow their normal routine. Whether because the postman's rung the bell early or because they stayed up watching a film.

What is this technology trying to protect against?

Obvious answers would be:
a) a fall
b) becoming too ill to get up from bed all day.

Neither of these needs such full-on monitoring. Having one sensor on, say the bathroom door, which only triggers if bathroom hasn't been used for (say) 12 hours at a stretch, would be enough to send an alert. Possibly one other sensor somewhere else, only sending an alert if neither sensor is triggered for (say) 6 hour period in daytime. Receiver of alert then phones monitored person; if no satisfactory reply someone investigates in person.

Bear in mind the monitored person is supposed to be happy to have this tech, and therefore will be happy to eg open a window when they get up, as a "signal". If the person isn't well enough to do that, chances are they need people coming in daily anyway to make sure they're fed, etc.

I'm not saying the service shouldn't exist, pickle. Just that they need to be aware of potential safeguarding issues and have a process.

The internet of things has always given me the horrors. Everything, from CCTV to a black box from the car insurance company, to webcams on your laptop, to the fridge monitoring your food and your Strava app tracking your run route live - every bit of it has the potential to be insecure. Not just from hackers, but from bloody stupid and careless coding, and decisions made by people who don't understand security and safeguarding. And there's a lot more of that about than malice. Factor in the general slant of totalitarianism governments or unscrupulous companies, and the dystopia writes itself.

Take Amazon's latest cock-up with Ring, for example: theintercept.com/2019/01/10/amazon-ring-security-camera/

An abuser wouid go for something like Nest, which is already widely available, rather than something like this.

The advantages of this system for carers are pretty obvious s add nothing for abusers that t already cheaply and widely available.

actually I find the premise a bit alarming given that much of society is largely so ignorant to safeguarding and coercion etc

Agreed. Much of my experience researching and trying to discuss this has been that people completely dismiss any safeguarding element (and behave like you're mad to even think of it), because it's "in a good cause."

They simply don't want to think about unintended consequences. No matter how obvious.

Ereshkigal, could you possibly link that thread, or help me find it?

It's an area I'm interested in generally.

I looked into dumber, less finely grained versions of this sort of monitoring a few years back for an elderly relative. That was just stuff like sending a text alert if a particular floor pad hadn't been stepped on for 24 hours or the like. We decided even that was going to be difficult to implement without being intrusive.

This bit about the Carers UK / Centrica device, "The blurb says it lets you know if the morning or night-time routine is being followed," makes this version sound like it collects much more data, and is much more intrusive.

I think the risk of abuse is outweighed by the help it offers. Abusers will abuse. They will find ways to do it without this tech.

We no longer live in a world where neighbours, the milkman, notice if someone disappears. I'd love to be able to check that DM has used a kettle, when I've not been able to get her on the phone for a couple of days. Then I can ring a neighbour and ask them to pop in and check all is well.

But then I just think of some of these bastards that can sweet talk or coerce. And the possible link up with other technologies or hacks bothers me. So much potential for creepiness

There was a good thread here about the potential of domestic abuse via IOT.

Yes I agree they need to be aware there is a safeguarding risk and have a process.