I don’t really get why everything need to be IOT nowadays.

I’ve read that the coffee machine use internet for being used remotely to get your coffee ready at the time you want it. Bro, it takes 15 minutes to use it directly.

If you want your coffee ready for an exact time, why not adding a simple as f$ck clock to the machine and set the clock for the especific time when you want it to make your coffee?

I admit that some things are pretty useful with IOT, but not a coffee machine bro, wtf?

I’ve seen multicast amplification bugs flood an AP like that

Anyone stupid enough to connect a coffee machine to the internet deserves a coffee machine that is connected to the internet.

Y’all know the first ever IOT device was a coffee maker right?

HTTP Status 418: I’m a teapot was added way back in 1998 as part of the Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol

Coffee is so cheap and easy to make I have made it several times without even using a coffee maker.

Was it good? Fuck no. Honestly it was probably pretentious as hell.

Was it coffee? Yeah it was pretty good in that regard.

But honestly who needs a thing that will torrent a terabyte of data from your internet? Especially in the day and age where Americans have data caps unlike the rest of the world. I cannot imagine suddenly being hit with nonsense fees because your coffee pot decided that it needed to scrape the entire internet or something stupid like that.

wtf are you torrenting now, coffee pot???

The title of that text makes no sense.

• Data can’t be used up, only stored, transmitted, read, written etc.
• No transmission allotment from an ISP was used up either, as the traffic was sent locally.

Why net connection for coffee machine, to download recepie for coffee?

This article is extremely short, misleading, and ultimately pointless.

The owner of the coffee machine was unable to determine why it had generated approximately 1 TB of network traffic in just 10 days. However, the data reportedly remained within his own Wi-Fi network and was never transmitted over the internet. The owner himself acknowledged that it was likely some kind of error, software malfunction, or defective unit.

More importantly, he admitted that he never investigated the issue further. Instead, he simply unplugged the machine and replaced it rather than attempting to determine what was actually happening.

So what, exactly, does this article accomplish? It provides no technical explanation, identifies no underlying cause, and offers no evidence that the manufacturer was collecting, transmitting, or doing anything nefarious with the data. It presents an unexplained technical anomaly and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions.

The implication is obvious: look at how much data this coffee machine is generating! What could the manufacturer possibly be doing with all that information? The article encourages suspicion without providing the evidence necessary to justify it.

And the irony is that the sheer volume of traffic makes the most sensational interpretation less plausible, not more. One terabyte of data in 10 days is an extraordinary amount for a coffee machine. Without knowing what the traffic consisted of, the most reasonable starting point is a software bug, a malfunctioning device, or some other technical error, not a manufacturer secretly harvesting an unprecedented amount of information about someone’s coffee-drinking habits.

Could there be a legitimate privacy concern? Certainly. But establishing one requires examining the traffic, identifying its destination, determining what information was being exchanged, and explaining why. None of that appears to have happened here.

Instead, we are left with an unexplained anomaly, an owner who chose not to investigate it, and an article that invites readers to fill in the blanks with their own conspiracy theories.

If the goal was to inform readers about the privacy risks of connected appliances, the author had an opportunity to do so. Instead, the article generates suspicion without generating any meaningful understanding.

That is the real problem with this kind of reporting: it teaches people to be afraid of technology without teaching them how to evaluate the evidence. There is a legitimate conversation to be had about connected devices, data collection, and consumer privacy. Stories like this do little to advance it.

Why tf would a coffee machine need internet? My espresso machine has like 5 buttons.

He found that while the coffee maker had generated 1TB of traffic, most of it stayed within his parents’ home network rather than being sent over the internet.

“This is likely a bug with this unit,” he explained. “It did saturate my AP, that sucked.”

In simpler terms, the coffee maker was generating so much traffic that it overwhelmed part of the home Wi-Fi setup.

Why give it the wifi password on the first place?

Something something joke about long Java variable names

I honestly think that some smart devices could be really useful. But, there are 2 major changes needed before they’re worth buying:

1. Meaningful privacy laws. By default any device should be locked down otherwise the companies are in deep trouble for privacy violations. Any agreements you make to allow them to do something should be ones you can easily revoke at any time.

2. Right to repair / modify anything you own without any issues. If you buy a Samsung washer with “smarts”, the same store that sells you the washer should be able to offer you alternative firmware from a number of different vendors. If the washer breaks, you should be able to fix it yourself, or hire someone to fix it, whether it’s a mechanical fix or a software fix. If you want to go in there and modify it yourself, or go online to some standard site to download a new feature, you should be able to do that. It your hardware, you should have full control over it. Same with printers, which would end the expensive ink fiasco. Same with Apple’s app store monopoly.

As consumers, we’ve got to start saying no to connected devices that really don’t need to be connected (and most don’t need to be connected anyway).