Safety and remote switching of supplies.

[ericmark]

I have like I am sure many others, used some smart devices, in the main they are controlled local, "hey google turn on landing lights" for example when I approach the stairs with two cups of coffee one in each hand, so can turn on lights without risking spilling coffee down the wall.

However although normally used local, I can also turn on the AC for example before returning home, and get the home cool ready. Be it a battery charger, AC, fan, outside light, we have loads of items connected to the mobile phone which can be remotely switched on. Well also off of course, but on is the bit worried about.

Has a dog, cat, or other knocked over a device, has there been a flood, is some one trying to work out why it is not working, when it is remotely turned on, has the radio said hey google, or alexa turn on something, or grandchildren set a timer to give grandma a surprise when TV turns on.

Today anything with a 13 amp plug and be remotely controlled, I have not set the kettle or toaster to turn on with voice commands, but easy enough to set up.

So if anything on a 13 amp plug can be switched on remotely, what about safety should some thing go wrong. I remember a batch of angle grinders being returned to supplier as the on/off switch could be latched on, this was not considered safe, some one could try to use the grinder, find it did not work, and investigate and plug in an extension lead, and grinder start to destroy things until the error is noticed.

This was not considered a problem in the home, only when loads of people working in one place, I try to consider scenarios and do a risk assessment, but does everyone.

 

[SUNRAY]

This is a very valid question, sadly the results you are predicting are happening and at least one (so I suspect all??) insurance company has special conditions for it in their policy. I know of a family went on holiday to Oz, their nasty neighbours had discovered the presence of Alexa and had been identified several times on the Ring doorbell as shoutiing through the letterbox to switch lights and other things on. Fortunately they monitored remotely and able to switch off again.

 

[bernardgreen]

This was not considered a problem in the home, only when loads of people working in one place, I try to consider scenarios and do a risk assessment, but does everyone.

A lot of people do not do a risk assessment and some of those who do a risk assessment then discard the results if the results do not suit them.

 

[RandomGrinch]

Why am I reminded of the film 'Maximum Overdrive'?
I would post a clip, but for a comedy/horror, it is a bit gory!

 

[ericmark]

Mine was grandchildren setting an alarm call for 6 am. I actually did think it was funny, but so many other things they could do.

 

[JohnW2]

Today anything with a 13 amp plug and be remotely controlled .... So if anything on a 13 amp plug can be switched on remotely, what about safety should some thing go wrong.

In some senses, there's not really need for any discussion, since it's quite obvious that such practices come with some (albeit probably extremely small) potential/theoretical risks. ... and it's not necessarily even limited to 13A loads, since a good few people would be capable of using contactors to remotely control much larger loads (maybe even {almost} an entire installation).

However, before we get too carried away, we should consider that there are equally obvious (again, probably extremely small) potential/ theoretical risks associated with leaving anything which is electrically-powered or gas-powered 'running' whilst a building/house is unoccupied - including equipment which is locally controlled by time-switches/'control systems' and/or thermostatic control etc., anyway.

In other words, the problem, when it exists, relates to anything that can be controlled without human involvement (or presence), just as much when the control id by local time switches/control systems/thermostats etc. as when it is controlled by someone via their smartphone from the other side of the world (or town!).

In all these cases, all one can really do is to apply common sense (otherwise known as 'risk assessment') in relation to potentially risks which will generally be extremely small - that's not easy. and is crucially dependent on (very varying) individual attitudes to risk, and 'acceptable levels of risk'. Most (but probably not all!) people would probably agree at the extremes [ e.g. that to remotely switch an LED light represented a trivial risk, but to remotely switch, say, a fan heater or cooking hob would be appreciably more risky (particulate in the presence of pets etc.) ] but it would probably be difficult to get widespread agreement as regards many things.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I have like I am sure many others, used some smart devices, in the main they are controlled local, "hey google turn on landing lights" for example when I approach the stairs with two cups of coffee one in each hand, so can turn on lights without risking spilling coffee down the wall.

The basic risk is no greater than using a time switch to control things. I only use plug-in Smarts, so the operation will be fairly obvious.

 

[RandomGrinch]

The basic risk is no greater than using a time switch to control things. I only use plug-in Smarts, so the operation will be fairly obvious.

Is it just a question of perception and acceptance?
Time switches etc. Have been in use for so many years that they have become accepted; smart switches are the (relatively) new-comers, that come with a host of real and imagined security risks.
Whether or not the real risk of devices being turned on and off remotely by a timing device, or smart switch is exactly the same, the perception can be quite different.
Having a ne'er-do-well remotely 'hack' into your device is a huge invasion of privacy; and when some of these devices (through poor design, or user instructions) are actively advertising themselves on the web, it is not that uncommon

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Whether or not the real risk of devices being turned on and off remotely by a timing device, or smart switch is exactly the same, the perception can be quite different.
Having a ne'er-do-well remotely 'hack' into your device is a huge invasion of privacy; and when some of these devices (through poor design, or user instructions) are actively advertising themselves on the web, it is not that uncommon

Weeell, the thing is I have been on the web for decades and no one has managed to hack in during all of that time. Going back around 15 years, there was a concerted attack attempt by a near do well, from a university. The attempt was successfully blacked by my router, all I had to show for it was the routers log. It continued for 10 days, until I traced it to source and complained to the universities authorities and it was put a stop to.

 

[RandomGrinch]

Weeell, the thing is I have been on the web for decades and no one has managed to hack in during all of that time.

Yes, but when the general population are still using passwords such as "123456", I think we may be in the minority!

Most Common Passwords 2022 - Is Yours on the List? | CyberNews

We analyzed more than 15 billion passwords to see the most common password phrases, including city, sports team, year, name, and more.

cybernews.com

Edit: although the PSTI Act should be improving the default security settings of IoT devices.

 

[ericmark]

Personally anything classed as portable designed to be hand held should not be remotly controlled.

@JohnW2 makes a good point, the off peak power has been used for some time to work washing machines and tumble driers and dish washers in spite of some problems with them going on fire.

 

[JohnW2]

@JohnW2 makes a good point, the off peak power has been used for some time to work washing machines and tumble driers and dish washers in spite of some problems with them going on fire.

That's a somewhat different issue, because the risks then are to people who are in the property (but asleep) when these appliances (which very occasionally can cause fires) are running.

The risks you eluded to in your OP (due to the use of remote switching) are arguably somewhat less 'serious', in that they represent risks to (unoccupied) property, not to life and limb. However, as I wrote, when the property is unoccupied, then the risks associate with remote switching via new-fangled technology are identical to the risks that have existed for decades in relation to switching by time switches etc. - so it is certainly no new issue.

I suppose, in fact, that "new-fangled technology" does offer the potential to mitigate the risks, since as well as remote switching, it's possible to have remote access to 'webcams' so that you can see whether or not your house is on fire and/or automated systems which will inform both you and the emergency services if a fire arises when the property is unoccupied (whether or not the fire was the result of 'remote switching' )

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I suppose, in fact, that "new-fangled technology" does offer the potential to mitigate the risks, since as well as remote switching, it's possible to have remote access to 'webcams' so that you can see whether or not your house is on fire and/or automated systems which will inform both you and the emergency services if a fire arises when the property is unoccupied (whether or not the fire was the result of 'remote switching' )

I would be inclined to suggest an easy solution would be to have a sensitive smoke monitor installed and able to disconnect the power to the appliance. I'm surprised with the sheer number of reported fires involving tumble driers, that no manufacturer has not thought to include a smoke monitor within the appliance.

I do have a drier, but other testing it to prove it worked on delivery, it has never been used. Rather I developed my own indoor drying system, which runs for much less cost and avoids the need for expensive heat.

 

[JohnW2]

I would be inclined to suggest an easy solution would be to have a sensitive smoke monitor installed and able to disconnect the power to the appliance. I'm surprised with the sheer number of reported fires involving tumble driers, that no manufacturer has not thought to include a smoke monitor within the appliance.

I've heard that suggested before, but I think a fundamental problem is that for there to be any smoke, there has to already be a 'fire', and that fire will, in many/most cases, persist even if the electricity supply is removed. It therefore might prevent a few fires becoming established but quite possibly not all that many.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RandomGrinch]

as well as remote switching, it's possible to have remote access to 'webcams' so that you can see whether or not your house is on fire

This is a very common setup in the world of 3D printing; when prints take many hours to complete and the printhead is around 200C and the bed 60C.
...and again, there have been security and `hacking` concerns:

Discovery of Thousands of Unsecured 3D Printers Is a Big Problem

Security experts have identified thousands of instances in which owners of 3D printers have made their devices available online and without the need for authentication. That certainly makes remote access to 3D printers convenient, but wow, what an awful idea given the tremendous potential for abuse.

gizmodo.com

With IoT, common devices pose new threats

The world is careening toward the reality that almost all electronics in your home and business are connected to the internet. Many of these devices contain things like heating elements, batteries, and motors that are entirely software-controlled. Do you… trust them?

www.coalfire.com

...although the biggest benefit of monitoring a 3d print, is to remotely shut it off when the print inevitably fails!