Comments on: Dear Bluetooth http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/ Little n desigN Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:54:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Zack http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3484 Zack Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:38:53 +0000 http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3484 Bryan, I'm curious what use cases you're not able to satisfy with a 30 foot range (in reality it's not always so small, but anyway). Make the range much bigger and you'd lose a lot of power and/or bandwidth, no? I like the idea of using a small range for pairing mode. I only really see that being necessary for things like headsets that don't have a display/input mechanism for pairing keys. For larger devices, just know what you're pairing with - if it's your friend's phone, ask her what her phone's name is. As for discoverability, I just don't see it as a problem: when I want to use bluetooth, I turn it on on the device I care about. When it's on, it's discoverable. When it's off, it's not wasting battery power. Are device manufacturers still screwing up bluetooth security? I've tried auditing my phone and haven't been able to break it. I can't imagine what would cause me to ever leave my computer in my car, powered on, with bluetooth enabled. If I ever did, I don't think you would need to rely on bluetooth to tell you that; you could just look in the window. Bryan, I’m curious what use cases you’re not able to satisfy with a 30 foot range (in reality it’s not always so small, but anyway). Make the range much bigger and you’d lose a lot of power and/or bandwidth, no?

I like the idea of using a small range for pairing mode. I only really see that being necessary for things like headsets that don’t have a display/input mechanism for pairing keys. For larger devices, just know what you’re pairing with - if it’s your friend’s phone, ask her what her phone’s name is.

As for discoverability, I just don’t see it as a problem: when I want to use bluetooth, I turn it on on the device I care about. When it’s on, it’s discoverable. When it’s off, it’s not wasting battery power. Are device manufacturers still screwing up bluetooth security? I’ve tried auditing my phone and haven’t been able to break it.

I can’t imagine what would cause me to ever leave my computer in my car, powered on, with bluetooth enabled. If I ever did, I don’t think you would need to rely on bluetooth to tell you that; you could just look in the window.

]]> By: Bryan Clark http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3480 Bryan Clark Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:06:31 +0000 http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3480 Chris: there's already an awkward step of turning your bluetooth device into discoverable mode, then exchanging PIN codes. With a set of bluetooth headphones I picked up I have to press and hold a button to make it available, then type in a static PIN code given with the manual in my computer. Suggesting the headphones scenario isn't already awkward is just stupid, if my headphones had a USB cable to recharge and exchange security keys I wouldn't need any of those steps plus I'd have an extra way to recharge my device. David: I've never looked at USB wireless, but what you're saying sounds pretty interesting. Bastien: After reading about thieves breaking into cars because they could figure out what type of device (laptop or cell phone) is and know it's in my car I'm a bit concerned about always having my devices discoverable. Also on a recent trip to NYC my phone was attacked by several bluetooth stations looking to pair with me in order to deliver advertisements. But I agree it's much better to have bluetooth always discoverable. Camila: Cool stuff! I'd never seen that before. Eugenia: The physical connection shouldn't be required in order to pair, however I think as a recommended method of pairing we could solve a lot of the issues with pairing. I like the proximity idea, maybe combine that with the shaking or touching devices together somehow and I think you could get somewhere. Tim: Yeah, I think having the range limited is a very good thing. Chris: there’s already an awkward step of turning your bluetooth device into discoverable mode, then exchanging PIN codes. With a set of bluetooth headphones I picked up I have to press and hold a button to make it available, then type in a static PIN code given with the manual in my computer. Suggesting the headphones scenario isn’t already awkward is just stupid, if my headphones had a USB cable to recharge and exchange security keys I wouldn’t need any of those steps plus I’d have an extra way to recharge my device.

David: I’ve never looked at USB wireless, but what you’re saying sounds pretty interesting.

Bastien: After reading about thieves breaking into cars because they could figure out what type of device (laptop or cell phone) is and know it’s in my car I’m a bit concerned about always having my devices discoverable. Also on a recent trip to NYC my phone was attacked by several bluetooth stations looking to pair with me in order to deliver advertisements. But I agree it’s much better to have bluetooth always discoverable.

Camila: Cool stuff! I’d never seen that before.

Eugenia: The physical connection shouldn’t be required in order to pair, however I think as a recommended method of pairing we could solve a lot of the issues with pairing. I like the proximity idea, maybe combine that with the shaking or touching devices together somehow and I think you could get somewhere.

Tim: Yeah, I think having the range limited is a very good thing.

]]> By: Tim http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3452 Tim Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:52:21 +0000 http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3452 The range of bluetooth depends on what class the device is, a Class 1 device has a range of 100 metres. Further info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth. The distance limitation is a deliberate design, especially for phones accessories. If you want more than 30ft then realistically you want a different device or protocol. The range of bluetooth depends on what class the device is, a Class 1 device has a range of 100 metres. Further info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth. The distance limitation is a deliberate design, especially for phones accessories. If you want more than 30ft then realistically you want a different device or protocol.

]]> By: ! http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3448 ! Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:57:18 +0000 http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3448 I think that this is a great idea, but I think it would be neat if rather than a USB cable you just had to touch the devices together. The way that immediately popped into my head is, like some devices with cradle chargers always have contacts exposed that are used to charge, if you just had to touch the bluetooth synchronizing contacts on two devices together it would be even easier. I think that this is a great idea, but I think it would be neat if rather than a USB cable you just had to touch the devices together. The way that immediately popped into my head is, like some devices with cradle chargers always have contacts exposed that are used to charge, if you just had to touch the bluetooth synchronizing contacts on two devices together it would be even easier.

]]> By: Eugenia http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3435 Eugenia Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:39:44 +0000 http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3435 I don't think there's a need for a physical connection. You can simply implement a variable proximity protocol, so when devices go into pairing mode, their proximity goes down to 1 meter or something, instead of the usual 10 meters. Then, the pairing is a lot more "personal". I personally do not agree that BT devices should always be discoverable. The other day I was trying to send some files from my PocketPC phone to my Mac, and two other devices were in the list every time the app would ask me where to send the file. I don't need to see these, I don't want to see these. I don’t think there’s a need for a physical connection. You can simply implement a variable proximity protocol, so when devices go into pairing mode, their proximity goes down to 1 meter or something, instead of the usual 10 meters. Then, the pairing is a lot more “personal”.

I personally do not agree that BT devices should always be discoverable. The other day I was trying to send some files from my PocketPC phone to my Mac, and two other devices were in the list every time the app would ask me where to send the file. I don’t need to see these, I don’t want to see these.

]]> By: Camila Acolide http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3434 Camila Acolide Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:22:17 +0000 http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3434 No need for a physical connection. Take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktJC0S4_X58 No need for a physical connection.

Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktJC0S4_X58

]]> By: Bastien http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3432 Bastien Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:28:54 +0000 http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3432 Bluetooth should always be discoverable, but then you'd need the device makers to plug their security holes. Security through obscurity is the way they work, can't really help that. As for the ranting about the cable pairing, that's already what some devices (such as the Playstation 3 Sixaxis controllers) use, needing proprietary software support (ie. you can use those in Linux, but they don't work on Macs or Windows), and it's also what will be in the next revision of Bluetooth (3.0 aka Lisbon, look for Simple Pairing), either through cables or proximity. Bluetooth should always be discoverable, but then you’d need the device makers to plug their security holes. Security through obscurity is the way they work, can’t really help that.

As for the ranting about the cable pairing, that’s already what some devices (such as the Playstation 3 Sixaxis controllers) use, needing proprietary software support (ie. you can use those in Linux, but they don’t work on Macs or Windows), and it’s also what will be in the next revision of Bluetooth (3.0 aka Lisbon, look for Simple Pairing), either through cables or proximity.

]]> By: davidz http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3431 davidz Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:17:54 +0000 http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3431 FWIW, this is how Wireless USB works; the standard mandates that there needs to be a physical cable connection and pairing is done through exchanging keys on the wire. FWIW, this is how Wireless USB works; the standard mandates that there needs to be a physical cable connection and pairing is done through exchanging keys on the wire.

]]> By: Chris Cunningham http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3429 Chris Cunningham Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:22:26 +0000 http://clarkbw.net/blog/2007/11/27/dear-bluetooth/#comment-3429 I'm having difficulty coming up with any analogy for this more fitting than an optional variation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Act" rel="nofollow">Red Flag Act</a>, but I suppose that will do at a pinch. You're suggesting an optional and staggeringly awkward additional step. Adoption outside of the kind of communities who would shun wireless communication altogether anyway would be zero. - Chris I’m having difficulty coming up with any analogy for this more fitting than an optional variation of the Red Flag Act, but I suppose that will do at a pinch. You’re suggesting an optional and staggeringly awkward additional step. Adoption outside of the kind of communities who would shun wireless communication altogether anyway would be zero.

- Chris

]]>