Tag Archives: autonomous

BitBarista: a fully autonomous corporation

Post Syndicated from Alex Bate original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/bitbarista/

To some people, the idea of a fully autonomous corporation might seem like the beginning of the end. However, while the BitBarista coffee machine prototype can indeed run itself without any human interference, it also teaches a lesson about ethical responsibility and the value of quality.

BitBarista

Bitcoin coffee machine that engages coffee drinkers in the value chain

Autonomous corporations

If you’ve played Paperclips, you get it. And in case you haven’t played Paperclips, I will only say this: give a robot one job and full control to complete the task, and things may turn in a very unexpected direction. Or, in the case of Rick and Morty, they end in emotional breakdown.

BitBarista

While the fully autonomous BitBarista resides primarily on the drawing board, the team at the University of Edinburgh’s Center for Design Informatics have built a proof-of-concept using a Raspberry Pi and a Delonghi coffee maker.

BitBarista fully autonomous coffee machine using Raspberry Pi

Recently described by the BBC as ‘a coffee machine with a life of its own, dispensing coffee to punters with an ethical preference’, BitBarista works in conjunction with customers to source coffee and complete maintenance tasks in exchange for BitCoin payments. Customers pay for their coffee in BitCoin, and when BitBarista needs maintenance such as cleaning, water replenishment, or restocking, it can pay the same customers for completing those tasks.

BitBarista fully autonomous coffee machine using Raspberry Pi

Moreover, customers choose which coffee beans the machine purchases based on quality, price, environmental impact, and social responsibility. BitBarista also collects and displays data on the most common bean choices.

BitBarista fully autonomous coffee machine using Raspberry Pi

So not only is BitBarista a study into the concept of full autonomy, it’s also a means of data collection about the societal preference of cost compared to social and environmental responsibility.

For more information on BitBarista, visit the Design Informatics and PETRAS websites.

Home-made autonomy

Many people already have store-bought autonomous technology within their homes, such as the Roomba vacuum cleaner or the Nest Smart Thermostat. And within the maker community, many more still have created such devices using sensors, mobile apps, and microprocessors such as the Raspberry Pi. We see examples using the Raspberry Pi on a daily basis, from simple motion-controlled lights and security cameras to advanced devices using temperature sensors and WiFi technology to detect the presence of specific people.

How to Make a Smart Security Camera with a Raspberry Pi Zero

In this video, we use a Raspberry Pi Zero W and a Raspberry Pi camera to make a smart security camera! The camera uses object detection (with OpenCV) to send you an email whenever it sees an intruder. It also runs a webcam so you can view live video from the camera when you are away.

To get started building your own autonomous technology, you could have a look at our resources Laser tripwire and Getting started with picamera. These will help you build a visitor register of everyone who crosses the threshold a specific room.

Or build your own Raspberry Pi Zero W Butter Robot for the lolz.

The post BitBarista: a fully autonomous corporation appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

New – AWS Direct Connect Gateway – Inter-Region VPC Access

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-direct-connect-gateway-inter-region-vpc-access/

As I was preparing to write this post, I took a nostalgic look at the blog post I wrote when we launched AWS Direct Connect back in 2012. We created Direct Connect after our enterprise customers asked us to allow them to establish dedicated connections to an AWS Region in pursuit of enhanced privacy, additional data transfer bandwidth, and more predictable data transfer performance. Starting from one AWS Region and a single colo, Direct Connect is now available in every public AWS Region and accessible from dozens of colos scattered across the world (over 60 locations at last count). Our customers have taken to Direct Connect wholeheartedly and we have added features such as Link Aggregation, Amazon EFS support, CloudWatch monitoring, and HIPAA eligibility. In the past five weeks alone we have added Direct Connect locations in Houston (Texas), Vancouver (Canada), Manchester (UK), Canberra (Australia), and Perth (Australia).

Today we are making Direct Connect simpler and more powerful with the addition of the Direct Connect Gateway. We are also giving Direct Connect customers in any Region the ability to create public virtual interfaces that receive our global IP routes and enable access to the public endpoints for our services and updating the Direct Connect pricing model.

Let’s take a look at each one!

New Direct Connect Gateway
You can use the new Direct Connect Gateway to establish connectivity that spans Virtual Private Clouds (VPCs) spread across multiple AWS Regions. You no longer need to establish multiple BGP sessions for each VPC; this reduces your administrative workload as well as the load on your network devices.

This feature also allows you to connect to any of the participating VPCs from any Direct Connect location, further reducing your costs for making using AWS services on a cross-region basis.

Here is a diagram that illustrates the simplification that you can achieve with a Direct Connect Gateway (each “lock” icon represents a Virtual Private Gateway). Start with this:

And end up like this:

The VPCs that reference a particular Direct Connect Gateway must have IP address ranges that do not overlap. Today, the VPCs must all be in the same AWS account; we plan to make this more flexible in the future.

Each Gateway is a global object that exists across all of the public AWS Regions. All communication between the Regions via the Gateways takes place across the AWS network backbone.

Creating a Direct Connect Gateway
You can create a Direct Connect Gateway from the Direct Connect Console or by calling the CreateDirectConnectGateway function from your code. I’ll use the Console!

I open the Direct Connect Console and click on Direct Connect Gateways to get started:

The list is empty since I don’t have any Gateways yet. Click on Create Direct Connect Gateway to change that:

I give my Gateway a name, enter a private ASN for my network, then click on Create. The ASN (Autonomous System Number) must be in one of the ranges defined as private in RFC 6996:

My new Gateway will appear in the other AWS Regions within a moment or two:

I have a Direct Connect Connection in Ohio that I will use to create my VIF:

Now I create a private VIF that references the Gateway and the Connection:

It is ready to use within seconds:

I already have a pair of VPCs with non-overlapping CIDRs, and a Virtual Private Gateway attached to each one. Here are the VPCs (since this is a demo I’ll show both in the same Region for convenience):

And the Virtual Private Gateways:

I return to the Direct Connect Console and navigate to the Direct Connect Gateways. I select my Gateway and choose Associate Virtual Private Gateway from the Actions menu:

Then I select both of my Virtual Private Gateways and click on Associate:

If, as would usually be the case, my VPCs are in distinct AWS Regions, the same procedure would apply. For this blog post it was easier to show you the operations once rather than twice.

The Virtual Gateway association is complete within a minute or so (the state starts out as associating):

When the state transitions to associated, traffic can flow between your on-premises network and your VPCs, over your AWS Direct Connect connection, regardless of the AWS Regions where your VPCs reside.

Public Virtual Interfaces for Service Endpoints
You can now create Public Virtual Interfaces that will allow you to access AWS public service endpoints for AWS services running in any AWS Region (except AWS China Region) over Direct Connect. These interfaces receive (via BGP) Amazon’s global IP routes. You can create these interfaces in the Direct Connect Console; start by selecting the Public option:

After you create it you will need to associate it with a VPC.

Updated Pricing Model
In light of the ever-expanding number of AWS Regions and AWS Direct Connect locations, data transfer pricing is now based on the location of the Direct Connect and the source AWS Region. The new pricing is simpler that the older model which was based on AWS Direct Connect locations.

Now Available
This new feature is available today and you can start to use it right now. You can create and use Direct Connect Gateways at no charge; you pay the usual Direct Connect prices for port hours and data transfer.

Jeff;

 

Twitter makers love Halloween

Post Syndicated from Alex Bate original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/twitter-love-halloween/

Halloween is almost upon us! In honour of one of the maker community’s favourite howlidays, here are some posts from enthusiastic makers on Twitter to get you inspired and prepared for the big event.

Lorraine’s VR Puppet

Lorraine Underwood on Twitter

Using a @Raspberry_Pi with @pimoroni tilt hat to make a cool puppet for #Halloween https://t.co/pOeTFZ0r29

Made with a Pimoroni Pan-Tilt HAT, a Raspberry Pi, and some VR software on her phone, Lorraine Underwood‘s puppet is going to be a rather fitting doorman to interact with this year’s trick-or-treaters. Follow her project’s progress as she posts it on her blog.

Firr’s Monster-Mashing House

Firr on Twitter

Making my house super spooky for Halloween! https://t.co/w553l40BT0

Harnessing the one song guaranteed to earworm its way into my mind this October, Firr has upgraded his house to sing for all those daring enough to approach it this coming All Hallows’ Eve.

Firr used resources from Adafruit, along with three projectors, two Raspberry Pis, and some speakers, to create this semi-interactive display.

While the eyes can move on their own, a joystick can be added for direct control. Firr created a switch that goes between autonomous animation and direct control.

Find out more on the htxt.africa website.

Justin’s Snake Eyes Pumpkin

Justin Smith on Twitter

First #pumpkin of the season for Friday the 13th! @PaintYourDragon’s snake eyes bonnet for the #RaspberryPi to handle the eye animation. https://t.co/TSlUUxYP5Q

The Animated Snake Eyes Bonnet is definitely one of the freakiest products to come from the Adafruit lab, and it’s the perfect upgrade for any carved pumpkin this Halloween. Attach the bonnet to a Raspberry Pi 3, or the smaller Zero or Zero W, and thus add animated eyes to your scary orange masterpiece, as Justin Smith demonstrates in his video. The effect will terrify even the bravest of trick-or-treaters! Just make sure you don’t light a candle in there too…we’re not sure how fire-proof the tech is.

And then there’s this…

EmmArarrghhhhhh on Twitter

Squishy eye keyboard? Anyone? Made with @Raspberry_Pi @pimoroni’s Explorer HAT Pro and a pile of stuff from @Poundland 😂👀‼️ https://t.co/qLfpLLiXqZ

Yeah…the line between frightening and funny is never thinner than on Halloween.

Make and share this Halloween!

For more Halloween project ideas, check out our free resources including Scary ‘Spot the difference’ and the new Pioneers-inspired Pride and Prejudice‘ for zombies.

Halloween Pride and Prejudice Zombies Raspberry Pi

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of the zombie virus must be in want of braaaaaaains.

No matter whether you share your Halloween builds on Twitter, Facebook, G+, Instagram, or YouTube, we want to see them — make sure to tag us in your posts. We also have a comment section below this post, so go ahead and fill it with your ideas, links to completed projects, and general chat about the world of RasBOOrry Pi!

…sorry, that’s a hideous play on words. I apologise.

The post Twitter makers love Halloween appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

FRED-209 Nerf gun tank

Post Syndicated from Janina Ander original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/nerf-gun-tank-fred-209/

David Pride, known to many of you as an active member of our maker community, has done it again! His FRED-209 build combines a Nerf gun, 3D printing, a Raspberry Pi Zero, and robotics to make one neat remotely controlled Nerf tank.

FRED-209 – 3D printed Raspberry Pi Nerf Tank

Uploaded by David Pride on 2017-09-17.

A Nerf gun for FRED-209

David says he worked on FRED-209 over the summer in order to have some fun with Nerf guns, which weren’t around when he was a kid. He purchased an Elite Stryfe model at a car boot sale, and took it apart to see what made it tick. Then he set about figuring out how to power it with motors and a servo.

Nerf Elite Stryfe components for the FRED-209 Nerf tank of David Pride

To control the motors, David used a ZeroBorg add-on board for the Pi Zero, and he set up a PlayStation 3 controller to pilot his tank. These components were also part of a robot that David entered into the Pi Wars competition, so he had already written code for them.

3D printing for FRED-209

During prototyping for his Nerf tank, which David named after ED-209 from RoboCop, he used lots of eBay loot and several 3D-printed parts. He used the free OpenSCAD software package to design the parts he wanted to print. If you’re a novice at 3D printing, you might find the printing advice he shares in the write-up on his blog very useful.

3D-printed lid of FRED-209 nerf gun tank by David Pride

David found the 3D printing of the 24cm-long lid of FRED-209 tricky

On eBay, David found some cool-looking chunky wheels, but these turned out to be too heavy for the motors. In the end, he decided to use a Rover 5 chassis, which changed the look of FRED-209 from ‘monster truck’ to ‘tank’.

FRED-209 Nerf tank by David Pride

Next step: teach it to use stairs

The final result looks awesome, and David’s video demonstrates that it shoots very accurately as well. A make like this might be a great defensive project for our new apocalypse-themed Pioneers challenge!

Taking FRED-209 further

David will be uploading code and STL files for FRED-209 soon, so keep an eye on his blog or Twitter for updates. He’s also bringing the Nerf tank to the Cotswold Raspberry Jam this weekend. If you’re attending the event, make sure you catch him and try FRED-209 out yourself.

Never one to rest on his laurels, David is already working on taking his build to the next level. He wants to include a web interface controller and a camera, and is working on implementing OpenCV to give the Nerf tank the ability to autonomously detect targets.

Pi Wars 2018

I have a feeling we might get to see an advanced version of David’s project at next year’s Pi Wars!

The 2018 Pi Wars have just been announced. They will take place on 21-22 April at the Cambridge Computer Laboratory, and you have until 3 October to apply to enter the competition. What are you waiting for? Get making! And as always, do share your robot builds with us via social media.

The post FRED-209 Nerf gun tank appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Self-Driving Cars Should Be Open Source

Post Syndicated from Bozho original https://techblog.bozho.net/self-driving-cars-open-source/

Self-driving cars are (will be) the pinnacle of consumer products automation – robot vacuum cleaners, smart fridges and TVs are just toys compared to self-driving cars. Both in terms of technology and in terms of impact. We aren’t yet on level 5 self driving cars , but they are behind the corner.

But as software engineers we know how fragile software is. And self-driving cars are basically software, so we can see all the risks involved with putting our lives in the hands anonymous (from our point of view) developers and unknown (to us) processes and quality standards. One may argue that this has been the case for every consumer product ever, but with software is different – software is way more complex than anything else.

So I have an outrageous proposal – self-driving cars should be open source. We have to be able to verify and trust the code that’s navigating our helpless bodies around the highways. Not only that, but we have to be able to verify if it is indeed that code that is currently running in our car, and not something else.

In fact, let me extend that – all cars should be open source. Before you say “but that will ruin the competitive advantage of manufacturers and will be deadly for business”, I don’t actually care how they trained their neural networks, or what their datasets are. That’s actually the secret sauce of the self-driving car and in my view it can remain proprietary and closed. What I’d like to see open-sourced is everything else. (Under what license – I’d be fine to even have it copyrighted and so not “real” open source, but that’s a separate discussion).

Why? This story about remote carjacking using the entertainment system of a Jeep is a scary example. Attackers that reverse engineer the car software can remotely control everything in the car. Why did that happen? Well, I guess it’s complicated and we have to watch the DEFCON talk.

And also read the paper, but a paragraph in wikipedia about the CAN bus used in most cars gives us a hint:

CAN is a low-level protocol and does not support any security features intrinsically. There is also no encryption in standard CAN implementations, which leaves these networks open to man-in-the-middle packet interception. In most implementations, applications are expected to deploy their own security mechanisms; e.g., to authenticate incoming commands or the presence of certain devices on the network. Failure to implement adequate security measures may result in various sorts of attacks if the opponent manages to insert messages on the bus. While passwords exist for some safety-critical functions, such as modifying firmware, programming keys, or controlling antilock brake actuators, these systems are not implemented universally and have a limited number of seed/key pair

I don’t know in what world it makes sense to even have a link between the entertainment system and the low-level network that operates the physical controls. As apparent from the talk, the two systems are supposed to be air-gapped, but in reality they aren’t.

Rookie mistakes were abound – unauthenticated “execute” method, running as root, firmware is not signed, hard-coded passwords, etc. How do we know that there aren’t tons of those in all cars out there right now, and in the self-driving cars of the future (which will likely use the same legacy technologies of the current cars)? Recently I heard a negative comment about the source code of one of the self-driving cars “players”, and I’m pretty sure there are many of those rookie mistakes.

Why this is this even more risky for self-driving cars? I’m not an expert in car programming, but it seems like the attack surface is bigger. I might be completely off target here, but on a typical car you’d have to “just” properly isolate the CAN bus. With self-driving cars the autonomous system that watches the surrounding and makes decisions on what to do next has to be connected to the CAN bus. With Tesla being able to send updates over the wire, the attack surface is even bigger (although that’s actually a good feature – to be able to patch all cars immediately once a vulnerability is discovered).

Of course, one approach would be to introduce legislation that regulates car software. It might work, but it would rely on governments to to proper testing, which won’t always be the case.

The alternative is to open-source it and let all the white-hats find your issues, so that you can close them before the car hits the road. Not only that, but consumers like me will feel safer, and geeks would be able to verify whether the car is really running the software it claims to run by verifying the fingerprints.

Richard Stallman might be seen as a fanatic when he advocates against closed source software, but in cases like … cars, his concerns seem less extreme.

“But the Jeep vulnerability was fixed”, you may say. And that might be seen as being the way things are – vulnerabilities appear, they get fixed, life goes on. No person was injured because of the bug, right? Well, not yet. And “gaining control” is the extreme scenario – there are still pretty bad scenarios, like being able to track a car through its GPS, or cause panic by controlling the entertainment system. It might be over wifi, or over GPRS, or even by physically messing with the car by inserting a flash drive. Is open source immune to those issues? No, but it has proven to be more resilient.

One industry where the problem of proprietary software on a product that the customer bought is … tractors. It turns out farmers are hacking their tractors, because of multiple issues and the inability of the vendor to resolve them in a timely manner. This is likely to happen to cars soon, when only authorized repair shops are allowed to touch anything on the car. And with unauthorized repair shops the attack surface becomes even bigger.

In fact, I’d prefer open source not just for cars, but for all consumer products. The source code of a smart fridge or a security camera is trivial, it would rarely mean sacrificing competitive advantage. But refrigerators get hacked, security cameras are active part of botnets, the “internet of shit” is getting ubiquitous. A huge amount of these issues are dumb, beginner mistakes. We have the right to know what shit we are running – in our frdges, DVRs and ultimatey – cars.

Your fridge may soon by spying on you, your vacuum cleaner may threaten your pet in demand of “ransom”. The terrorists of the future may crash planes without being armed, can crash vans into crowds without being in the van, and can “explode” home equipment without being in the particular home. And that’s not just a hypothetical.

Will open source magically solve the issue? No. But it will definitely make things better and safer, as it has done with operating systems and web servers.

The post Self-Driving Cars Should Be Open Source appeared first on Bozho's tech blog.

Darth Beats: Star Wars LEGO gets a musical upgrade

Post Syndicated from Janina Ander original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/darth-beats/

Dan Aldred, Raspberry Pi Certified Educator and creator of the website TeCoEd, has built Darth Beats by managing to fit a Pi Zero W and a Pimoroni Speaker pHAT into a LEGO Darth Vader alarm clock! The Pi force is strong with this one.

Darth Beats MP3 Player

Pimoroni Speaker pHAT and Raspberry Pi Zero W embedded into a Lego Darth Vader Alarm clock to create – “Darth Beats MP3 Player”. Video demonstrating all the features and functions of the project. Alarm Clock – https://goo.gl/VSMhG4 Speaker pHAT – https://shop.pimoroni.com/products/speaker-phat

Darth Beats inspiration: I have a very good feeling about this!

As we all know, anything you love gets better when you add something else you love: chocolate ice cream + caramel sauce, apple tart + caramel sauce, pizza + caramel sau— okay, maybe not anything, but you get what I’m saying.

The formula, in the form of “LEGO + Star Wars”, applies to Dan’s LEGO Darth Vader alarm clock. His Darth Vader, however, was sitting around on a shelf, just waiting to be hacked into something even cooler. Then one day, inspiration struck: Dan decided to aim for exponential awesomeness by integrating Raspberry Pi and Pimoroni technology to turn Vader into an MP3 player.

Darth Beats assembly: always tell me the mods!

The space inside the LEGO device measures a puny 6×3×3 cm, so cramming in the Zero W and the pHAT was going to be a struggle. But Dan grabbed his dremel and set to work, telling himself to “do or do not. There is no try.”

Darth Beats dremel

I find your lack of space disturbing.

He removed the battery compartment, and added two additional buttons in its place. Including the head, his Darth Beats has seven buttons, which means it is fully autonomous as a music player.

Darth Beats back buttons

Almost ready to play a silly remix of Yoda quotes

Darth Beats can draw its power from a wall socket, or from a portable battery pack, as shown in Dan’s video. Dan used the GPIO Zero Python library to set up ‘on’ and ‘off’ switches, and buttons for skipping tracks and controlling volume.

For more details on the build process, read his blog, and check out his video log:

Making Darth Beats

Short video showing you how I created the “Darth Beats MP3 Player”.

Accessing Darth Beats: these are the songs you’re looking for

When you press the ‘on’ switch, the Imperial March sounds before Darth Beats asks “What is thy bidding, my master?”. Then the device is ready to play music. Dan accomplished this by using Cron to run his scripts as soon as the Zero W boots up. MP3 files are played with the help of the Pygame library.

Of course, over time it would become boring to only be able to listen to songs that are stored on the Zero W. However, Dan got around this issue by accessing the Zero W remotely. He set up an online file upload system to add and remove MP3 files from the player. To do this, he used Droopy, an file sharing server software package written by Pierre Duquesne.

IT’S A TRAP!

There’s no reason to use this quote, but since it’s the Star Wars line I use most frequently, I’m adding it here anyway. It’s my post, and I can do what I want!

As you can imagine, there’s little that gets us more excited at Pi Towers than a Pi-powered Star Wars build. Except maybe a Harry Potter-themed project? What are your favourite geeky builds? Are you maybe even working on one yourself? Be sure to send us nerdy joy by sharing your links in the comments!

The post Darth Beats: Star Wars LEGO gets a musical upgrade appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Landmine-clearing Pi-powered C-Turtle

Post Syndicated from Janina Ander original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/landmine-c-turtle/

In an effort to create a robot that can teach itself to navigate different terrains, scientists at Arizona State University have built C-Turtle, a Raspberry Pi-powered autonomous cardboard robot with turtle flippers. This is excellent news for people who live in areas with landmines: C-Turtle is a great alternative to current landmine-clearing robots, since it is much cheaper, and much easier to assemble.

C-Turtle ASU

Photo by Charlie Leight/ASU Now

Why turtle flippers?

As any user of Python will tell you*, turtles are amazing. Moreover, as the evolutionary biologist of the C-Turtle team, Andrew Jansen, will tell you, considering their bulk** turtles move very well on land with the help of their flippers. Consequently, the team tried out prototypes with cardboard flippers imitating the shape of turtle flippers. Then they compared their performance to that of prototypes with rectangular or oval ‘flippers’. And 157 million years of evolution*** won out: the robots with turtle flippers were best at moving forward.

C-Turtle ASU

Field testing with Assistant Professor Heni Ben Amor, one of the C-Turtle team’s leaders (Photo by Charlie Leight/ASU Now)

If it walks like a C-Turtle…

But the scientists didn’t just slap turtle flippers on their robot and then tell it to move like a turtle! Instead, they implemented machine learning algorithms on the Pi Zero that serves as C-Turtle’s brain, and then simply let the robot do its thing. Left to its own devices, it used the reward and punishment mechanisms of its algorithms to learn the most optimal way of propelling itself forward. And lo and behold, C-Turtle taught itself to move just like a live turtle does!

Robotic C-Turtle

This is “Robotic C-Turtle” by ASU Now on Vimeo, the home for high quality videos and the people who love them.

Landmine clearance with C-Turtle

Robots currently used to clear landmines are very expensive, since they are built to withstand multiple mine explosions. Conversely, the total cost of C-Turtle comes to about $70 (~£50) – that’s cheap enough to make it disposable. It is also more easily assembled, it doesn’t need to be remotely controlled, and it can learn to navigate new terrains. All this makes it perfect for clearing minefields.

BBC Click on Twitter

Meet C-Turtle, the landmine detecting robot. VIDEO https://t.co/Kjc6WxRC8I

C-Turtles in space?****

The researchers hope that robots similar to C-Turtle can used for space exploration. They found that the C-Turtle prototypes that had performed very well in the sandpits in their lab didn’t really do as well when they were released in actual desert conditions. By analogy, robots optimized for simulated planetary conditions might not actually perform well on-site. The ASU scientists imagine that C-Turtle materials and a laser cutter for the cardboard body could be carried on board a Mars mission. Then Martian C-Turtle design could be optimized after landing, and the robot could teach itself how best to navigate real Martian terrain.

There are already Raspberry Pis in space – imagine if they actually made it to Mars! Dave would never recover

Congrats to Assistant Professors Heni Ben Amor and Daniel Aukes, and to the rest of the C-Turtle team, on their achievement! We at Pi Towers are proud that our little computer is part of this amazing project.

C-Turtle ASU

Photo by Charlie Leight/ASU Now

* Check out our Turtley amazing resource to find out why!

** At a length of 7ft, leatherback sea turtles can weigh 1,500lb!

*** That’s right: turtles survived the extinction of the dinosaurs!

**** Is anyone else thinking of Great A’Tuin right now? Anyone? Just me? Oh well.

The post Landmine-clearing Pi-powered C-Turtle appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Roombas will Spy on You

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/07/roombas_will_sp.html

The company that sells the Roomba autonomous vacuum wants to sell the data about your home that it collects.

Some questions:

What happens if a Roomba user consents to the data collection and later sells his or her home — especially furnished — and now the buyers of the data have a map of a home that belongs to someone who didn’t consent, Mr. Gidari asked. How long is the data kept? If the house burns down, can the insurance company obtain the data and use it to identify possible causes? Can the police use it after a robbery?

EDITED TO ADD (6/29): Roomba is backtracking — for now.

US Army Researching Bot Swarms

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/07/us_army_researc.html

The US Army Research Agency is funding research into autonomous bot swarms. From the announcement:

The objective of this CRA is to perform enabling basic and applied research to extend the reach, situational awareness, and operational effectiveness of large heterogeneous teams of intelligent systems and Soldiers against dynamic threats in complex and contested environments and provide technical and operational superiority through fast, intelligent, resilient and collaborative behaviors. To achieve this, ARL is requesting proposals that address three key Research Areas (RAs):

RA1: Distributed Intelligence: Establish the theoretical foundations of multi-faceted distributed networked intelligent systems combining autonomous agents, sensors, tactical super-computing, knowledge bases in the tactical cloud, and human experts to acquire and apply knowledge to affect and inform decisions of the collective team.

RA2: Heterogeneous Group Control: Develop theory and algorithms for control of large autonomous teams with varying levels of heterogeneity and modularity across sensing, computing, platforms, and degree of autonomy.

RA3: Adaptive and Resilient Behaviors: Develop theory and experimental methods for heterogeneous teams to carry out tasks under the dynamic and varying conditions in the physical world.

Slashdot thread.

And while we’re on the subject, this is an excellent report on AI and national security.

Dubai Deploying Autonomous Robotic Police Cars

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/07/dubai_deploying.html

It’s hard to tell how much of this story is real and how much is aspirational, but it really is only a matter of time:

About the size of a child’s electric toy car, the driverless vehicles will patrol different areas of the city to boost security and hunt for unusual activity, all the while scanning crowds for potential persons of interest to police and known criminals.

Julia language for Raspberry Pi

Post Syndicated from Ben Nuttall original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/julia-language-raspberry-pi/

Julia is a free and open-source general purpose programming language made specifically for scientific computing. It combines the ease of writing in high-level languages like Python and Ruby with the technical power of MATLAB and Mathematica and the speed of C. Julia is ideal for university-level scientific programming and it’s used in research.

Julia language logo

Some time ago Viral Shah, one of the language’s co-creators, got in touch with us at the Raspberry Pi Foundation to say his team was working on a port of Julia to the ARM platform, specifically for the Raspberry Pi. Since then, they’ve done sterling work to add support for ARM. We’re happy to announce that we’ve now added Julia to the Raspbian repository, and that all Raspberry Pi models are supported!

Not only did the Julia team port the language itself to the Pi, but they also added support for GPIO, the Sense HAT and Minecraft. What I find really interesting is that when they came to visit and show us a demo, they took a completely different approach to the Sense HAT than I’d seen before: Simon, one of the Julia developers, started by loading the Julia logo into a matrix within the Jupyter notebook and then displayed it on the Sense HAT LED matrix. He then did some matrix transformations and the Sense HAT showed the effect of these manipulations.

Viral says:

The combination of Julia’s performance and Pi’s hardware unlocks new possibilities. Julia on the Pi will attract new communities and drive applications in universities, research labs and compute modules. Instead of shipping the data elsewhere for advanced analytics, it can simply be processed on the Pi itself in Julia.

Our port to ARM took a while, since we started at a time when LLVM on ARM was not fully mature. We had a bunch of people contributing to it – chipping away for a long time. Yichao did a bunch of the hard work, since he was using it for his experiments. The folks at the Berkeley Race car project also put Julia and JUMP on their self-driving cars, giving a pretty compelling application. We think we will see many more applications.

I organised an Intro to Julia session for the Cambridge Python user group earlier this week, and rather than everyone having to install Julia, Jupyter and all the additional modules on their own laptops, we just set up a room full of Raspberry Pis and prepared an SD card image. This was much easier and also meant we could use the Sense HAT to display output.

Intro to Julia language session at Raspberry Pi Foundation
Getting started with Julia language on Raspbian
Julia language logo on the Sense HAT LED array

Simon kindly led the session, and before long we were using Julia to generate the Mandelbrot fractal and display it on the Sense HAT:

Ben Nuttall on Twitter

@richwareham’s Sense HAT Mandelbrot fractal with @JuliaLanguage at @campython https://t.co/8FK7Vrpwwf

Naturally, one of the attendees, Rich Wareham, progressed to the Julia set – find his code here: gist.github.com/bennuttall/…

Last year at JuliaCon, there were two talks about Julia on the Pi. You can watch them on YouTube:

Install Julia on your Raspberry Pi with:

sudo apt update
sudo apt install julia

You can install the Jupyter notebook for Julia with:

sudo apt install julia libzmq3-dev python3-zmq
sudo pip3 install jupyter
julia -e 'Pkg.add("IJulia");'

And you can easily install extra packages from the Julia console:

Pkg.add("SenseHat")

The Julia team have also created a resources website for getting started with Julia on the Pi: juliaberry.github.io

Julia team visiting Pi Towers

There never was a story of more joy / Than this of Julia and her Raspberry Pi

Many thanks to Viral Shah, Yichao Yu, Tim Besard, Valentin Churavy, Jameson Nash, Tony Kelman, Avik Sengupta and Simon Byrne for their work on the port. We’re all really excited to see what people do with Julia on Raspberry Pi, and we look forward to welcoming Julia programmers to the Raspberry Pi community.

The post Julia language for Raspberry Pi appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

"Fast and Furious 8: Fate of the Furious"

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/04/fast-and-furious-8-fate-of-furious.html

So “Fast and Furious 8” opened this weekend to world-wide box office totals of $500,000,000. I thought I’d write up some notes on the “hacking” in it. The tl;dr version is this: yes, while the hacking is a bit far fetched, it’s actually more realistic than the car chase scenes, such as winning a race with the engine on fire while in reverse.

[SPOILERS]


Car hacking


The most innovative cyber-thing in the movie is the car hacking. In one scene, the hacker takes control of the cars in a parking structure, and makes them rain on to the street. In another scene, the hacker takes control away from drivers, with some jumping out of their moving cars in fear.

How real is this?

Well, today, few cars have a mechanical link between the computer and the steering wheel. No amount of hacking will fix the fact that this component is missing.

With that said, most new cars have features that make hacking possible. I’m not sure, but I’d guess more than half of new cars have internet connections (via the mobile phone network), cameras (for backing up, but also looking forward for lane departure warnings), braking (for emergencies), and acceleration.

In other words, we are getting really close.

As this Wikipedia article describes, there are levels for autonomous cars. At level 2 or 3, cars get automated steering, either for parking or for staying in the lane. Level 3 autonomy is especially useful, as it means you can sit back and relax while your car is sitting in a traffic jam. Higher levels of autonomy are still decades away, but most new cars, even the cheapest low end cars, will be level 3 within 5 years. That they make traffic jams bearable makes this an incredibly attractive feature.

Thus, while this scene is laughable today, it’ll be taken seriously in 10 years. People will look back on how smart this movie was at predicting the future.

Car hacking, part 2

Quite apart from the abilities of cars, let’s talk about the abilities of hackers.

The recent ShadowBrokers dump of NSA hacking tools show that hackers simply don’t have a lot of range. Hacking one car is easy — hacking all different models, makes, and years of cars is far beyond the ability of any hacking group, even the NSA.

I mean, a single hack may span more than one car model, and even across more than one manufacturer, because they buy such components from third-party manufacturers. Most cars that have cameras buy them from MobileEye, which was recently acquired by Intel.  As I blogged before, both my Parrot drone and Tesla car have the same WiFi stack, and both could be potential hacked with the same vulnerability. So hacking many cars at once isn’t totally out of the question.

It’s just that hacking all the different cars in a garage is completely implausible.

God’s Eye

The plot of the last two movies as been about the “God’s Eye”, a device that hacks into every camera and satellite to view everything going on in the world.

First of all, all hacking is software. The idea of stealing a hardware device in order enable hacking is therefore (almost) always fiction. There’s one corner case where a quantum chip factoring RSA would enable some previously impossible hacking, but it still can’t reach out and hack a camera behind a firewall.

Hacking security cameras around the world is indeed possible, though. The Mirai botnet of last year demonstrated this. It wormed its way form camera to camera, hacking hundreds of thousands of cameras that weren’t protected by firewalls. It used these devices as simply computers, to flood major websites, taking them offline. But it could’ve also used the camera features, to upload pictures and video’s to the hacker controlling these cameras.

However, most security cameras are behind firewalls, and can’t be reached. Building a “Gody’s Eye” view of the world, to catch a target every time they passed in front of a camera, would therefore be unrealistic.

Moreover, they don’t have either the processing power nor the bandwidth to work like that. It takes heavy number crunching in order to detect faces, or even simple things like license plates, within videos. The cameras don’t have that. Instead, cameras could upload the videos/pictures to supercomputers controlled by the hypothetical hacker, but the bandwidth doesn’t exist. The Internet is being rapidly upgraded, but still, Internet links are built for low-bandwidth webpages, not high-bandwidth streaming from millions of sources.

This rapidly changing. Cameras are rapidly being upgraded with “neural network” chips that will have some rudimentary capabilities to recognize things like license plates, or the outline of a face that could then be uploaded for more powerful number crunching elsewhere. Your car’s cameras already have this, for backup warnings and lane departure warnings, soon all security cameras will have something like this. Likewise, the Internet is steadily being upgraded to replace TV broadcast, where everyone can stream from Netflix all the time, so high-bandwidth streams from cameras will become more of the norm.

Even getting behind a firewall to the camera will change in the future, as owners will simply store surveillance video in the cloud instead of locally. Thus, the hypothetical hacker would only need to hack a small number of surveillance camera companies instead of a billion security cameras.

Evil villain lair: ghost airplane

The evil villain in the movie (named “Cipher”, or course) has her secret headquarters on an airplane that flies along satellite “blind spots” so that it can’t be tracked.

This is nonsense. Low resolution satellites, like NOAA satellites tracking the weather, cover the entire planet (well, as far as such airplanes are concerned, unless you are landing in Antartica). While such satellites might not see the plane, they can track the contrail (I mean, chemtrail). Conversely high resolution satellites miss most of the planet. If they haven’t been tasked to aim at something, they won’t see it. And they can’t be aimed at you unless they already know where you are. Sure, there are moving blind spots where even tasked satellites can’t find you, but it’s unlikely they’d be tracking you anyway.

Since the supervillain was a hacker, the airplane was full of computers. This is nonsense. Any compute power I need as a hacker is better left on the Earth’s surface, either by hacking cloud providers (like Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, or Rackspace), or by hiding data centers in Siberia and Tibet. All I need is satellite communication to the Internet from my laptop to be a supervillain. Indeed, I’m unlikely to get the bandwidth I need to process things on the plane. Instead, I’ll need to process everything on the Earth anyway, and send the low-bandwidth results to the plane.

In any case, if I were writing fiction, I’d have nuclear-powered airplanes that stayed aloft for months, operating out of remote bases in the Himalayas or Antartica.

EMP pulses

Small EMP pulse weapons exist, that’s not wholly fictional.

However, an EMP with the features, power, and effects in the movie is, of course, fictional. EMPs, even non-nuclear ones, are abused in films/TV so much that the Wikipedia pages on them spend a lot of time debunking them.

It would be cool if, one day, they used EMP realistically. In this movie, real missile-tipped with non-nuclear explosively-pumped flux compression generators could’ve been used for the same effect. Of course, simple explosives that blow up electronics also work.

Since hacking is the goto deus ex machina these days, they could’ve just had the hackers disable the power instead of using the EMP to do it.

Conclusion

In the movie, the hero uses his extraordinary driving skills to blow up a submarine. Given this level of willing disbelief, the exaggerated hacking is actually the least implausible bits of the movie. Indeed, as technology changes, making some of this more possible, the movie might be seen as predicting the future.

Acoustic Attack Against Accelerometers

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/04/acoustic_attack.html

Interesting acoustic attack against the MEMS accelerometers in devices like FitBits.

Millions of accelerometers reside inside smartphones, automobiles, medical devices, anti-theft devices, drones, IoT devices, and many other industrial and consumer applications. Our work investigates how analog acoustic injection attacks can damage the digital integrity of the capacitive MEMS accelerometer. Spoofing such sensors with intentional acoustic interference enables an out-of-spec pathway for attackers to deliver chosen digital values to microprocessors and embedded systems that blindly trust the unvalidated integrity of sensor outputs. Our contributions include (1) modeling the physics of malicious acoustic interference on MEMS accelerometers, (2) discovering the circuit-level security flaws that cause the vulnerabilities by measuring acoustic injection attacks on MEMS accelerometers as well as systems that employ on these sensors, and (3) two software-only defenses that mitigate many of the risks to the integrity of MEMS accelerometer outputs.

This is not that a big deal with things like FitBits, but as IoT devices get more autonomous — and start making decisions and then putting them into effect automatically — these vulnerabilities will become critical.

Academic paper.

Congress Removes FCC Privacy Protections on Your Internet Usage

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/03/congress_remove.html

Think about all of the websites you visit every day. Now imagine if the likes of Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon collected all of your browsing history and sold it on to the highest bidder. That’s what will probably happen if Congress has its way.

This week, lawmakers voted to allow Internet service providers to violate your privacy for their own profit. Not only have they voted to repeal a rule that protects your privacy, they are also trying to make it illegal for the Federal Communications Commission to enact other rules to protect your privacy online.

That this is not provoking greater outcry illustrates how much we’ve ceded any willingness to shape our technological future to for-profit companies and are allowing them to do it for us.

There are a lot of reasons to be worried about this. Because your Internet service provider controls your connection to the Internet, it is in a position to see everything you do on the Internet. Unlike a search engine or social networking platform or news site, you can’t easily switch to a competitor. And there’s not a lot of competition in the market, either. If you have a choice between two high-speed providers in the US, consider yourself lucky.

What can telecom companies do with this newly granted power to spy on everything you’re doing? Of course they can sell your data to marketers — and the inevitable criminals and foreign governments who also line up to buy it. But they can do more creepy things as well.

They can snoop through your traffic and insert their own ads. They can deploy systems that remove encryption so they can better eavesdrop. They can redirect your searches to other sites. They can install surveillance software on your computers and phones. None of these are hypothetical.

They’re all things Internet service providers have done before, and they are some of the reasons the FCC tried to protect your privacy in the first place. And now they’ll be able to do all of these things in secret, without your knowledge or consent. And, of course, governments worldwide will have access to these powers. And all of that data will be at risk of hacking, either by criminals and other governments.

Telecom companies have argued that other Internet players already have these creepy powers — although they didn’t use the word “creepy” — so why should they not have them as well? It’s a valid point.

Surveillance is already the business model of the Internet, and literally hundreds of companies spy on your Internet activity against your interests and for their own profit.

Your e-mail provider already knows everything you write to your family, friends, and colleagues. Google already knows our hopes, fears, and interests, because that’s what we search for.

Your cellular provider already tracks your physical location at all times: it knows where you live, where you work, when you go to sleep at night, when you wake up in the morning, and — because everyone has a smartphone — who you spend time with and who you sleep with.

And some of the things these companies do with that power is no less creepy. Facebook has run experiments in manipulating your mood by changing what you see on your news feed. Uber used its ride data to identify one-night stands. Even Sony once installed spyware on customers’ computers to try and detect if they copied music files.

Aside from spying for profit, companies can spy for other purposes. Uber has already considered using data it collects to intimidate a journalist. Imagine what an Internet service provider can do with the data it collects: against politicians, against the media, against rivals.

Of course the telecom companies want a piece of the surveillance capitalism pie. Despite dwindling revenues, increasing use of ad blockers, and increases in clickfraud, violating our privacy is still a profitable business — especially if it’s done in secret.

The bigger question is: why do we allow for-profit corporations to create our technological future in ways that are optimized for their profits and anathema to our own interests?

When markets work well, different companies compete on price and features, and society collectively rewards better products by purchasing them. This mechanism fails if there is no competition, or if rival companies choose not to compete on a particular feature. It fails when customers are unable to switch to competitors. And it fails when what companies do remains secret.

Unlike service providers like Google and Facebook, telecom companies are infrastructure that requires government involvement and regulation. The practical impossibility of consumers learning the extent of surveillance by their Internet service providers, combined with the difficulty of switching them, means that the decision about whether to be spied on should be with the consumer and not a telecom giant. That this new bill reverses that is both wrong and harmful.

Today, technology is changing the fabric of our society faster than at any other time in history. We have big questions that we need to tackle: not just privacy, but questions of freedom, fairness, and liberty. Algorithms are making decisions about policing, healthcare.

Driverless vehicles are making decisions about traffic and safety. Warfare is increasingly being fought remotely and autonomously. Censorship is on the rise globally. Propaganda is being promulgated more efficiently than ever. These problems won’t go away. If anything, the Internet of things and the computerization of every aspect of our lives will make it worse.

In today’s political climate, it seems impossible that Congress would legislate these things to our benefit. Right now, regulatory agencies such as the FTC and FCC are our best hope to protect our privacy and security against rampant corporate power. That Congress has decided to reduce that power leaves us at enormous risk.

It’s too late to do anything about this bill — Trump will certainly sign it — but we need to be alert to future bills that reduce our privacy and security.

This post previously appeared on the Guardian.

EDITED TO ADD: Former FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler wrote a good op-ed on the subject. And here’s an essay laying out what this all means to the average Internet user.

Pi Wars 2017 is just a few days away!

Post Syndicated from Alex Bate original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/pi-wars-2017/

On 1-2  April, Cambridge Raspberry Jam will be hosting Pi Wars 2017, the latest iteration of their successful robotics challenge competition.

For those unfamiliar with the setup, Pi Wars contestants use home-brew Raspberry Pi-powered robots to compete across seven challenge courses. There’s also a host of other categories, including prizes for Artistic and Technical Merit, as well as an award for ‘Funniest Robot’!

With only a few days to go until the big weekend, we’ve wrangled Pi Wars 2017 hosts, Mike and Tim, to give us the lowdown on everything you need to know before the main event.

Pi Wars 2015 obstacle course Pi Wars 2017

Crowds gather around the Obstacle Course from the 2015 competition

Pi Wars 2017

This is the third time the competition has been run, and this time we’re running the event over two days:

  • Saturday – School teams.
  • Sunday – Beginner, Intermediate and Pro/Veteran teams.

With teams coming all the way from the USA, Germany, Switzerland, Wales and Scotland as well as England, it truly is an international competition! There are more than 65 teams competing across the weekend. Judging by some of the tweets we’ve been seeing, there’s likely to be some fierce competition!

Special guest and head judge

Doctor Lucy Rogers Pi Wars 2017

Lucy rightly running from House Robot, Sir Killalot, on the set of BBC Robot Wars

We are very fortunate to welcome BBC Robot Wars judge Dr. Lucy Rogers as our special guest and head judge. Away from Robot Wars, Lucy is an independent designer and maker, and famously introduced Raspberry Pi-controlled animatronics to the Blackgang Chine theme park on the Isle of Wight.

Get tickets, come along and watch the action

If you’re in the Cambridge area, or even if you’re further afield, you can come along and watch. Pi Wars 2017 spectator tickets are available from Eventbrite. Children aged 16 and under go free, as do volunteers, and it’s just £5 per day (or £7 for the whole weekend) for everyone else.

What else is happening?

In addition to the competing teams, there will be plenty of show-and-tell tables featuring robotics projects, plus an extensive marketplace featuring your favourite vendors.

Where is it?

The event takes place at the Cambridge Computer Laboratory (William Gates Building). There is free parking a (very) short walk away, and there is catering on site (or bring a packed lunch!). It’s a nice family-friendly day out. You can chat to the stall holders and teams (when they’re not running between challenges!), and generally find out what is possible with the Raspberry Pi, some robotics components, a healthy dose of programming and a maker’s mindset!

The William Gates Building Pi Wars 2017

The William Gates Building

What have we been doing to prepare?

Tim has been hard at work designing and building courses for our seven challenges, which are:

  • Straight-line speed test (autonomous) – get down the course as fast as possible without touching the walls.
  • The minimal maze (autonomous) – get around the maze without touching the walls.
  • The line follower (autonomous) – follow the black line for as many circuits as possible.
  • Slightly deranged golf (remote-controlled) – a beautiful, mystery course that will have a special component added to it by Pi Borg!
  • The obstacle course (remote-controlled) – who knows what’s in store this year?
  • Skittles (remote-controlled) – knock the pins down, score points.
  • Pi Noon – the robot vs robot duel (remote-controlled) – pop the other robot’s balloon before the time runs out.
Pi Wars 2015 Pi Noon competition Pi Wars 2017

2015’s Pi Noon competition

Find out more about the courses and the rules on the Pi Wars 2017 website.

Mike has been fiercely sending out emails to competitors, exhibitors, volunteers, vendors and our wonderful Pi Wars 2017 sponsors, without whom we would be unable to run the event. He’s also busy constructing individual timetables for each team, so everyone knows exactly where they need to be for their challenge runs.

We’re really looking forward to the weekend – it’s all coming together, and with the help of our volunteers, you can be assured of a warm welcome to the venue. So, grab your tickets and prepare for an epic showdown between dozens of robots, all powered by your favourite single-board computer!

The future of Pi Wars

There is an upcoming Pi Wars-style competition in Pennsylvania, USA on 3 June (The MagPi Magazine published a blog about this today), and we’re expecting another USA competition at some point, as well as a possible Pi Wars Scotland. As for the future of the Cambridge-based event? Let’s get this one out of the way first!

Any questions? The best way to contact us is via the Pi Wars 2017 website. Alternatively, give us a shout on Twitter!

Mike and Tim

The post Pi Wars 2017 is just a few days away! appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Security and the Internet of Things

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/02/security_and_th.html

Last year, on October 21, your digital video recorder ­- or at least a DVR like yours ­- knocked Twitter off the internet. Someone used your DVR, along with millions of insecure webcams, routers, and other connected devices, to launch an attack that started a chain reaction, resulting in Twitter, Reddit, Netflix, and many sites going off the internet. You probably didn’t realize that your DVR had that kind of power. But it does.

All computers are hackable. This has as much to do with the computer market as it does with the technologies. We prefer our software full of features and inexpensive, at the expense of security and reliability. That your computer can affect the security of Twitter is a market failure. The industry is filled with market failures that, until now, have been largely ignorable. As computers continue to permeate our homes, cars, businesses, these market failures will no longer be tolerable. Our only solution will be regulation, and that regulation will be foisted on us by a government desperate to “do something” in the face of disaster.

In this article I want to outline the problems, both technical and political, and point to some regulatory solutions. Regulation might be a dirty word in today’s political climate, but security is the exception to our small-government bias. And as the threats posed by computers become greater and more catastrophic, regulation will be inevitable. So now’s the time to start thinking about it.

We also need to reverse the trend to connect everything to the internet. And if we risk harm and even death, we need to think twice about what we connect and what we deliberately leave uncomputerized.

If we get this wrong, the computer industry will look like the pharmaceutical industry, or the aircraft industry. But if we get this right, we can maintain the innovative environment of the internet that has given us so much.

**********

We no longer have things with computers embedded in them. We have computers with things attached to them.

Your modern refrigerator is a computer that keeps things cold. Your oven, similarly, is a computer that makes things hot. An ATM is a computer with money inside. Your car is no longer a mechanical device with some computers inside; it’s a computer with four wheels and an engine. Actually, it’s a distributed system of over 100 computers with four wheels and an engine. And, of course, your phones became full-power general-purpose computers in 2007, when the iPhone was introduced.

We wear computers: fitness trackers and computer-enabled medical devices ­- and, of course, we carry our smartphones everywhere. Our homes have smart thermostats, smart appliances, smart door locks, even smart light bulbs. At work, many of those same smart devices are networked together with CCTV cameras, sensors that detect customer movements, and everything else. Cities are starting to embed smart sensors in roads, streetlights, and sidewalk squares, also smart energy grids and smart transportation networks. A nuclear power plant is really just a computer that produces electricity, and ­- like everything else we’ve just listed -­ it’s on the internet.

The internet is no longer a web that we connect to. Instead, it’s a computerized, networked, and interconnected world that we live in. This is the future, and what we’re calling the Internet of Things.

Broadly speaking, the Internet of Things has three parts. There are the sensors that collect data about us and our environment: smart thermostats, street and highway sensors, and those ubiquitous smartphones with their motion sensors and GPS location receivers. Then there are the “smarts” that figure out what the data means and what to do about it. This includes all the computer processors on these devices and ­- increasingly ­- in the cloud, as well as the memory that stores all of this information. And finally, there are the actuators that affect our environment. The point of a smart thermostat isn’t to record the temperature; it’s to control the furnace and the air conditioner. Driverless cars collect data about the road and the environment to steer themselves safely to their destinations.

You can think of the sensors as the eyes and ears of the internet. You can think of the actuators as the hands and feet of the internet. And you can think of the stuff in the middle as the brain. We are building an internet that senses, thinks, and acts.

This is the classic definition of a robot. We’re building a world-size robot, and we don’t even realize it.

To be sure, it’s not a robot in the classical sense. We think of robots as discrete autonomous entities, with sensors, brain, and actuators all together in a metal shell. The world-size robot is distributed. It doesn’t have a singular body, and parts of it are controlled in different ways by different people. It doesn’t have a central brain, and it has nothing even remotely resembling a consciousness. It doesn’t have a single goal or focus. It’s not even something we deliberately designed. It’s something we have inadvertently built out of the everyday objects we live with and take for granted. It is the extension of our computers and networks into the real world.

This world-size robot is actually more than the Internet of Things. It’s a combination of several decades-old computing trends: mobile computing, cloud computing, always-on computing, huge databases of personal information, the Internet of Things ­- or, more precisely, cyber-physical systems ­- autonomy, and artificial intelligence. And while it’s still not very smart, it’ll get smarter. It’ll get more powerful and more capable through all the interconnections we’re building.

It’ll also get much more dangerous.

**********

Computer security has been around for almost as long as computers have been. And while it’s true that security wasn’t part of the design of the original internet, it’s something we have been trying to achieve since its beginning.

I have been working in computer security for over 30 years: first in cryptography, then more generally in computer and network security, and now in general security technology. I have watched computers become ubiquitous, and have seen firsthand the problems ­- and solutions ­- of securing these complex machines and systems. I’m telling you all this because what used to be a specialized area of expertise now affects everything. Computer security is now everything security. There’s one critical difference, though: The threats have become greater.

Traditionally, computer security is divided into three categories: confidentiality, integrity, and availability. For the most part, our security concerns have largely centered around confidentiality. We’re concerned about our data and who has access to it ­- the world of privacy and surveillance, of data theft and misuse.

But threats come in many forms. Availability threats: computer viruses that delete our data, or ransomware that encrypts our data and demands payment for the unlock key. Integrity threats: hackers who can manipulate data entries can do things ranging from changing grades in a class to changing the amount of money in bank accounts. Some of these threats are pretty bad. Hospitals have paid tens of thousands of dollars to criminals whose ransomware encrypted critical medical files. JPMorgan Chase spends half a billion on cybersecurity a year.

Today, the integrity and availability threats are much worse than the confidentiality threats. Once computers start affecting the world in a direct and physical manner, there are real risks to life and property. There is a fundamental difference between crashing your computer and losing your spreadsheet data, and crashing your pacemaker and losing your life. This isn’t hyperbole; recently researchers found serious security vulnerabilities in St. Jude Medical’s implantable heart devices. Give the internet hands and feet, and it will have the ability to punch and kick.

Take a concrete example: modern cars, those computers on wheels. The steering wheel no longer turns the axles, nor does the accelerator pedal change the speed. Every move you make in a car is processed by a computer, which does the actual controlling. A central computer controls the dashboard. There’s another in the radio. The engine has 20 or so computers. These are all networked, and increasingly autonomous.

Now, let’s start listing the security threats. We don’t want car navigation systems to be used for mass surveillance, or the microphone for mass eavesdropping. We might want it to be used to determine a car’s location in the event of a 911 call, and possibly to collect information about highway congestion. We don’t want people to hack their own cars to bypass emissions-control limitations. We don’t want manufacturers or dealers to be able to do that, either, as Volkswagen did for years. We can imagine wanting to give police the ability to remotely and safely disable a moving car; that would make high-speed chases a thing of the past. But we definitely don’t want hackers to be able to do that. We definitely don’t want them disabling the brakes in every car without warning, at speed. As we make the transition from driver-controlled cars to cars with various driver-assist capabilities to fully driverless cars, we don’t want any of those critical components subverted. We don’t want someone to be able to accidentally crash your car, let alone do it on purpose. And equally, we don’t want them to be able to manipulate the navigation software to change your route, or the door-lock controls to prevent you from opening the door. I could go on.

That’s a lot of different security requirements, and the effects of getting them wrong range from illegal surveillance to extortion by ransomware to mass death.

**********

Our computers and smartphones are as secure as they are because companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Google spend a lot of time testing their code before it’s released, and quickly patch vulnerabilities when they’re discovered. Those companies can support large, dedicated teams because those companies make a huge amount of money, either directly or indirectly, from their software ­ and, in part, compete on its security. Unfortunately, this isn’t true of embedded systems like digital video recorders or home routers. Those systems are sold at a much lower margin, and are often built by offshore third parties. The companies involved simply don’t have the expertise to make them secure.

At a recent hacker conference, a security researcher analyzed 30 home routers and was able to break into half of them, including some of the most popular and common brands. The denial-of-service attacks that forced popular websites like Reddit and Twitter off the internet last October were enabled by vulnerabilities in devices like webcams and digital video recorders. In August, two security researchers demonstrated a ransomware attack on a smart thermostat.

Even worse, most of these devices don’t have any way to be patched. Companies like Microsoft and Apple continuously deliver security patches to your computers. Some home routers are technically patchable, but in a complicated way that only an expert would attempt. And the only way for you to update the firmware in your hackable DVR is to throw it away and buy a new one.

The market can’t fix this because neither the buyer nor the seller cares. The owners of the webcams and DVRs used in the denial-of-service attacks don’t care. Their devices were cheap to buy, they still work, and they don’t know any of the victims of the attacks. The sellers of those devices don’t care: They’re now selling newer and better models, and the original buyers only cared about price and features. There is no market solution, because the insecurity is what economists call an externality: It’s an effect of the purchasing decision that affects other people. Think of it kind of like invisible pollution.

**********

Security is an arms race between attacker and defender. Technology perturbs that arms race by changing the balance between attacker and defender. Understanding how this arms race has unfolded on the internet is essential to understanding why the world-size robot we’re building is so insecure, and how we might secure it. To that end, I have five truisms, born from what we’ve already learned about computer and internet security. They will soon affect the security arms race everywhere.

Truism No. 1: On the internet, attack is easier than defense.

There are many reasons for this, but the most important is the complexity of these systems. More complexity means more people involved, more parts, more interactions, more mistakes in the design and development process, more of everything where hidden insecurities can be found. Computer-security experts like to speak about the attack surface of a system: all the possible points an attacker might target and that must be secured. A complex system means a large attack surface. The defender has to secure the entire attack surface. The attacker just has to find one vulnerability ­- one unsecured avenue for attack -­ and gets to choose how and when to attack. It’s simply not a fair battle.

There are other, more general, reasons why attack is easier than defense. Attackers have a natural agility that defenders often lack. They don’t have to worry about laws, and often not about morals or ethics. They don’t have a bureaucracy to contend with, and can more quickly make use of technical innovations. Attackers also have a first-mover advantage. As a society, we’re generally terrible at proactive security; we rarely take preventive security measures until an attack actually happens. So more advantages go to the attacker.

Truism No. 2: Most software is poorly written and insecure.

If complexity isn’t enough, we compound the problem by producing lousy software. Well-written software, like the kind found in airplane avionics, is both expensive and time-consuming to produce. We don’t want that. For the most part, poorly written software has been good enough. We’d all rather live with buggy software than pay the prices good software would require. We don’t mind if our games crash regularly, or our business applications act weird once in a while. Because software has been largely benign, it hasn’t mattered. This has permeated the industry at all levels. At universities, we don’t teach how to code well. Companies don’t reward quality code in the same way they reward fast and cheap. And we consumers don’t demand it.

But poorly written software is riddled with bugs, sometimes as many as one per 1,000 lines of code. Some of them are inherent in the complexity of the software, but most are programming mistakes. Not all bugs are vulnerabilities, but some are.

Truism No. 3: Connecting everything to each other via the internet will expose new vulnerabilities.

The more we network things together, the more vulnerabilities on one thing will affect other things. On October 21, vulnerabilities in a wide variety of embedded devices were all harnessed together to create what hackers call a botnet. This botnet was used to launch a distributed denial-of-service attack against a company called Dyn. Dyn provided a critical internet function for many major internet sites. So when Dyn went down, so did all those popular websites.

These chains of vulnerabilities are everywhere. In 2012, journalist Mat Honan suffered a massive personal hack because of one of them. A vulnerability in his Amazon account allowed hackers to get into his Apple account, which allowed them to get into his Gmail account. And in 2013, the Target Corporation was hacked by someone stealing credentials from its HVAC contractor.

Vulnerabilities like these are particularly hard to fix, because no one system might actually be at fault. It might be the insecure interaction of two individually secure systems.

Truism No. 4: Everybody has to stop the best attackers in the world.

One of the most powerful properties of the internet is that it allows things to scale. This is true for our ability to access data or control systems or do any of the cool things we use the internet for, but it’s also true for attacks. In general, fewer attackers can do more damage because of better technology. It’s not just that these modern attackers are more efficient, it’s that the internet allows attacks to scale to a degree impossible without computers and networks.

This is fundamentally different from what we’re used to. When securing my home against burglars, I am only worried about the burglars who live close enough to my home to consider robbing me. The internet is different. When I think about the security of my network, I have to be concerned about the best attacker possible, because he’s the one who’s going to create the attack tool that everyone else will use. The attacker that discovered the vulnerability used to attack Dyn released the code to the world, and within a week there were a dozen attack tools using it.

Truism No. 5: Laws inhibit security research.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a terrible law that fails at its purpose of preventing widespread piracy of movies and music. To make matters worse, it contains a provision that has critical side effects. According to the law, it is a crime to bypass security mechanisms that protect copyrighted work, even if that bypassing would otherwise be legal. Since all software can be copyrighted, it is arguably illegal to do security research on these devices and to publish the result.

Although the exact contours of the law are arguable, many companies are using this provision of the DMCA to threaten researchers who expose vulnerabilities in their embedded systems. This instills fear in researchers, and has a chilling effect on research, which means two things: (1) Vendors of these devices are more likely to leave them insecure, because no one will notice and they won’t be penalized in the market, and (2) security engineers don’t learn how to do security better.
Unfortunately, companies generally like the DMCA. The provisions against reverse-engineering spare them the embarrassment of having their shoddy security exposed. It also allows them to build proprietary systems that lock out competition. (This is an important one. Right now, your toaster cannot force you to only buy a particular brand of bread. But because of this law and an embedded computer, your Keurig coffee maker can force you to buy a particular brand of coffee.)

**********
In general, there are two basic paradigms of security. We can either try to secure something well the first time, or we can make our security agile. The first paradigm comes from the world of dangerous things: from planes, medical devices, buildings. It’s the paradigm that gives us secure design and secure engineering, security testing and certifications, professional licensing, detailed preplanning and complex government approvals, and long times-to-market. It’s security for a world where getting it right is paramount because getting it wrong means people dying.

The second paradigm comes from the fast-moving and heretofore largely benign world of software. In this paradigm, we have rapid prototyping, on-the-fly updates, and continual improvement. In this paradigm, new vulnerabilities are discovered all the time and security disasters regularly happen. Here, we stress survivability, recoverability, mitigation, adaptability, and muddling through. This is security for a world where getting it wrong is okay, as long as you can respond fast enough.

These two worlds are colliding. They’re colliding in our cars -­ literally -­ in our medical devices, our building control systems, our traffic control systems, and our voting machines. And although these paradigms are wildly different and largely incompatible, we need to figure out how to make them work together.

So far, we haven’t done very well. We still largely rely on the first paradigm for the dangerous computers in cars, airplanes, and medical devices. As a result, there are medical systems that can’t have security patches installed because that would invalidate their government approval. In 2015, Chrysler recalled 1.4 million cars to fix a software vulnerability. In September 2016, Tesla remotely sent a security patch to all of its Model S cars overnight. Tesla sure sounds like it’s doing things right, but what vulnerabilities does this remote patch feature open up?

**********
Until now we’ve largely left computer security to the market. Because the computer and network products we buy and use are so lousy, an enormous after-market industry in computer security has emerged. Governments, companies, and people buy the security they think they need to secure themselves. We’ve muddled through well enough, but the market failures inherent in trying to secure this world-size robot will soon become too big to ignore.

Markets alone can’t solve our security problems. Markets are motivated by profit and short-term goals at the expense of society. They can’t solve collective-action problems. They won’t be able to deal with economic externalities, like the vulnerabilities in DVRs that resulted in Twitter going offline. And we need a counterbalancing force to corporate power.

This all points to policy. While the details of any computer-security system are technical, getting the technologies broadly deployed is a problem that spans law, economics, psychology, and sociology. And getting the policy right is just as important as getting the technology right because, for internet security to work, law and technology have to work together. This is probably the most important lesson of Edward Snowden’s NSA disclosures. We already knew that technology can subvert law. Snowden demonstrated that law can also subvert technology. Both fail unless each work. It’s not enough to just let technology do its thing.

Any policy changes to secure this world-size robot will mean significant government regulation. I know it’s a sullied concept in today’s world, but I don’t see any other possible solution. It’s going to be especially difficult on the internet, where its permissionless nature is one of the best things about it and the underpinning of its most world-changing innovations. But I don’t see how that can continue when the internet can affect the world in a direct and physical manner.

**********

I have a proposal: a new government regulatory agency. Before dismissing it out of hand, please hear me out.

We have a practical problem when it comes to internet regulation. There’s no government structure to tackle this at a systemic level. Instead, there’s a fundamental mismatch between the way government works and the way this technology works that makes dealing with this problem impossible at the moment.

Government operates in silos. In the U.S., the FAA regulates aircraft. The NHTSA regulates cars. The FDA regulates medical devices. The FCC regulates communications devices. The FTC protects consumers in the face of “unfair” or “deceptive” trade practices. Even worse, who regulates data can depend on how it is used. If data is used to influence a voter, it’s the Federal Election Commission’s jurisdiction. If that same data is used to influence a consumer, it’s the FTC’s. Use those same technologies in a school, and the Department of Education is now in charge. Robotics will have its own set of problems, and no one is sure how that is going to be regulated. Each agency has a different approach and different rules. They have no expertise in these new issues, and they are not quick to expand their authority for all sorts of reasons.

Compare that with the internet. The internet is a freewheeling system of integrated objects and networks. It grows horizontally, demolishing old technological barriers so that people and systems that never previously communicated now can. Already, apps on a smartphone can log health information, control your energy use, and communicate with your car. That’s a set of functions that crosses jurisdictions of at least four different government agencies, and it’s only going to get worse.

Our world-size robot needs to be viewed as a single entity with millions of components interacting with each other. Any solutions here need to be holistic. They need to work everywhere, for everything. Whether we’re talking about cars, drones, or phones, they’re all computers.

This has lots of precedent. Many new technologies have led to the formation of new government regulatory agencies. Trains did, cars did, airplanes did. Radio led to the formation of the Federal Radio Commission, which became the FCC. Nuclear power led to the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission, which eventually became the Department of Energy. The reasons were the same in every case. New technologies need new expertise because they bring with them new challenges. Governments need a single agency to house that new expertise, because its applications cut across several preexisting agencies. It’s less that the new agency needs to regulate -­ although that’s often a big part of it -­ and more that governments recognize the importance of the new technologies.

The internet has famously eschewed formal regulation, instead adopting a multi-stakeholder model of academics, businesses, governments, and other interested parties. My hope is that we can keep the best of this approach in any regulatory agency, looking more at the new U.S. Digital Service or the 18F office inside the General Services Administration. Both of those organizations are dedicated to providing digital government services, and both have collected significant expertise by bringing people in from outside of government, and both have learned how to work closely with existing agencies. Any internet regulatory agency will similarly need to engage in a high level of collaborate regulation -­ both a challenge and an opportunity.

I don’t think any of us can predict the totality of the regulations we need to ensure the safety of this world, but here’s a few. We need government to ensure companies follow good security practices: testing, patching, secure defaults -­ and we need to be able to hold companies liable when they fail to do these things. We need government to mandate strong personal data protections, and limitations on data collection and use. We need to ensure that responsible security research is legal and well-funded. We need to enforce transparency in design, some sort of code escrow in case a company goes out of business, and interoperability between devices of different manufacturers, to counterbalance the monopolistic effects of interconnected technologies. Individuals need the right to take their data with them. And internet-enabled devices should retain some minimal functionality if disconnected from the internet

I’m not the only one talking about this. I’ve seen proposals for a National Institutes of Health analog for cybersecurity. University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo has proposed a Federal Robotics Commission. I think it needs to be broader: maybe a Department of Technology Policy.

Of course there will be problems. There’s a lack of expertise in these issues inside government. There’s a lack of willingness in government to do the hard regulatory work. Industry is worried about any new bureaucracy: both that it will stifle innovation by regulating too much and that it will be captured by industry and regulate too little. A domestic regulatory agency will have to deal with the fundamentally international nature of the problem.

But government is the entity we use to solve problems like this. Governments have the scope, scale, and balance of interests to address the problems. It’s the institution we’ve built to adjudicate competing social interests and internalize market externalities. Left to their own devices, the market simply can’t. That we’re currently in the middle of an era of low government trust, where many of us can’t imagine government doing anything positive in an area like this, is to our detriment.

Here’s the thing: Governments will get involved, regardless. The risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. Government already regulates dangerous physical systems like cars and medical devices. And nothing motivates the U.S. government like fear. Remember 2001? A nominally small-government Republican president created the Office of Homeland Security 11 days after the terrorist attacks: a rushed and ill-thought-out decision that we’ve been trying to fix for over a decade. A fatal disaster will similarly spur our government into action, and it’s unlikely to be well-considered and thoughtful action. Our choice isn’t between government involvement and no government involvement. Our choice is between smarter government involvement and stupider government involvement. We have to start thinking about this now. Regulations are necessary, important, and complex; and they’re coming. We can’t afford to ignore these issues until it’s too late.

We also need to start disconnecting systems. If we cannot secure complex systems to the level required by their real-world capabilities, then we must not build a world where everything is computerized and interconnected.

There are other models. We can enable local communications only. We can set limits on collected and stored data. We can deliberately design systems that don’t interoperate with each other. We can deliberately fetter devices, reversing the current trend of turning everything into a general-purpose computer. And, most important, we can move toward less centralization and more distributed systems, which is how the internet was first envisioned.

This might be a heresy in today’s race to network everything, but large, centralized systems are not inevitable. The technical elites are pushing us in that direction, but they really don’t have any good supporting arguments other than the profits of their ever-growing multinational corporations.

But this will change. It will change not only because of security concerns, it will also change because of political concerns. We’re starting to chafe under the worldview of everything producing data about us and what we do, and that data being available to both governments and corporations. Surveillance capitalism won’t be the business model of the internet forever. We need to change the fabric of the internet so that evil governments don’t have the tools to create a horrific totalitarian state. And while good laws and regulations in Western democracies are a great second line of defense, they can’t be our only line of defense.

My guess is that we will soon reach a high-water mark of computerization and connectivity, and that afterward we will make conscious decisions about what and how we decide to interconnect. But we’re still in the honeymoon phase of connectivity. Governments and corporations are punch-drunk on our data, and the rush to connect everything is driven by an even greater desire for power and market share. One of the presentations released by Edward Snowden contained the NSA mantra: “Collect it all.” A similar mantra for the internet today might be: “Connect it all.”

The inevitable backlash will not be driven by the market. It will be deliberate policy decisions that put the safety and welfare of society above individual corporations and industries. It will be deliberate policy decisions that prioritize the security of our systems over the demands of the FBI to weaken them in order to make their law-enforcement jobs easier. It’ll be hard policy for many to swallow, but our safety will depend on it.

**********

The scenarios I’ve outlined, both the technological and economic trends that are causing them and the political changes we need to make to start to fix them, come from my years of working in internet-security technology and policy. All of this is informed by an understanding of both technology and policy. That turns out to be critical, and there aren’t enough people who understand both.

This brings me to my final plea: We need more public-interest technologists.

Over the past couple of decades, we’ve seen examples of getting internet-security policy badly wrong. I’m thinking of the FBI’s “going dark” debate about its insistence that computer devices be designed to facilitate government access, the “vulnerability equities process” about when the government should disclose and fix a vulnerability versus when it should use it to attack other systems, the debacle over paperless touch-screen voting machines, and the DMCA that I discussed above. If you watched any of these policy debates unfold, you saw policy-makers and technologists talking past each other.

Our world-size robot will exacerbate these problems. The historical divide between Washington and Silicon Valley -­ the mistrust of governments by tech companies and the mistrust of tech companies by governments ­- is dangerous.

We have to fix this. Getting IoT security right depends on the two sides working together and, even more important, having people who are experts in each working on both. We need technologists to get involved in policy, and we need policy-makers to get involved in technology. We need people who are experts in making both technology and technological policy. We need technologists on congressional staffs, inside federal agencies, working for NGOs, and as part of the press. We need to create a viable career path for public-interest technologists, much as there already is one for public-interest attorneys. We need courses, and degree programs in colleges, for people interested in careers in public-interest technology. We need fellowships in organizations that need these people. We need technology companies to offer sabbaticals for technologists wanting to go down this path. We need an entire ecosystem that supports people bridging the gap between technology and law. We need a viable career path that ensures that even though people in this field won’t make as much as they would in a high-tech start-up, they will have viable careers. The security of our computerized and networked future ­ meaning the security of ourselves, families, homes, businesses, and communities ­ depends on it.

This plea is bigger than security, actually. Pretty much all of the major policy debates of this century will have a major technological component. Whether it’s weapons of mass destruction, robots drastically affecting employment, climate change, food safety, or the increasing ubiquity of ever-shrinking drones, understanding the policy means understanding the technology. Our society desperately needs technologists working on the policy. The alternative is bad policy.

**********

The world-size robot is less designed than created. It’s coming without any forethought or architecting or planning; most of us are completely unaware of what we’re building. In fact, I am not convinced we can actually design any of this. When we try to design complex sociotechnical systems like this, we are regularly surprised by their emergent properties. The best we can do is observe and channel these properties as best we can.

Market thinking sometimes makes us lose sight of the human choices and autonomy at stake. Before we get controlled ­ or killed ­ by the world-size robot, we need to rebuild confidence in our collective governance institutions. Law and policy may not seem as cool as digital tech, but they’re also places of critical innovation. They’re where we collectively bring about the world we want to live in.

While I might sound like a Cassandra, I’m actually optimistic about our future. Our society has tackled bigger problems than this one. It takes work and it’s not easy, but we eventually find our way clear to make the hard choices necessary to solve our real problems.

The world-size robot we’re building can only be managed responsibly if we start making real choices about the interconnected world we live in. Yes, we need security systems as robust as the threat landscape. But we also need laws that effectively regulate these dangerous technologies. And, more generally, we need to make moral, ethical, and political decisions on how those systems should work. Until now, we’ve largely left the internet alone. We gave programmers a special right to code cyberspace as they saw fit. This was okay because cyberspace was separate and relatively unimportant: That is, it didn’t matter. Now that that’s changed, we can no longer give programmers and the companies they work for this power. Those moral, ethical, and political decisions need, somehow, to be made by everybody. We need to link people with the same zeal that we are currently linking machines. “Connect it all” must be countered with “connect us all.”

This essay previously appeared in New York Magazine.

Hacker House Smartphone-Connected Door Lock

Post Syndicated from Alex Bate original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/smartphone-connected-door-lock/

The team at YouTube channel Hacker House always deliver when it comes to clear, detailed tutorials, and their newest project, ‘How to Make a Smartphone-Connected Door Lock’, is no exception.

HackerHouse Raspberry Pi Door Lock

Using a Raspberry Pi-powered deadbolt actuator, multiple users can remotely unlock a door via a smartphone app.

The build can be attached to your existing lock, so there’s no need to start pulling out the inner workings of your door.

Hacker House Raspberry Pi Door Lock

The app will also notify you when the door has been unlocked, offering added peace of mind when you’re away from home.

For a full run-through, check out their video below.

How to Make a Smartphone Connected Door Lock

In this video, we show you how to make a smartphone-controlled, internet-connected deadbolt actuator powered by a Raspberry Pi that can be added onto your existing door lock without any modifications to the door. The door lock can be controlled by multiple smartphones, and even notify you whenever someone locks/unlocks the door.

You’ll need access to a 3D printer for some of the parts and, as a way to support their growing channel, the team provide printed parts for sale on eBay.

You may also wish to check out their other Raspberry Pi projects too. They’ve made a lot of cool things, including a Facebook Chatbot, a Portable Arcade Console, a Smart Mirror, and a Motion-tracking Nerf Turret.

How to Make a Raspberry Pi Motion Tracking Airsoft / Nerf Turret

In this video we show you how to build a DIY motion tracking airsoft (or nerf gun) turret with a raspberry pi 3. The airsoft turret is autonomous so it moves and fires the gun when it detects motion. There is also an interactive mode so that you can control it manually from your keyboard.

And in celebration of hitting 50k subscribers, the team are giving away two Raspberry Pis! Just subscribe to their channel and tell them how you would use one in your own project to be in with a chance of winning.

If you have built your own Raspberry Pi-powered lock or security system, we’d love to see it. So go ahead and share it in the comments below, or post it across social media, remembering to tag us in the process.

The post Hacker House Smartphone-Connected Door Lock appeared first on Raspberry Pi.