gryfft 5 days ago

Seems to me like the overhead it would add would way outweigh the benefit for the use case. I wouldn't want to wait an extra 10 seconds for the audio to finish transmitting every time just to prevent nonexistent spies in my kitchen from listening in.

1
Retr0id 5 days ago

The data/time overhead would be negligible. Engineering overhead to implement it on the other hand, perhaps not.

gryfft 5 days ago

> The data/time overhead would be negligible.

Doubling or tripling the amount of data sent would be negligible over a wire, but an audio protocol won't be as snappy. Then there's the matter of trust/decryption. How are those keys being kept safe? What happens if I lose access?

stavros 5 days ago

You can encrypt data and keep the exact same original byte size.

gryfft 5 days ago

If you're using symmetric encryption, sure. And then every dishwasher has the same symmetric key, guaranteeing it'll leak.

stavros 5 days ago

Everything uses symmetric encryption, including asymmetric encryption. Using symmetric encryption doesn't mean you'd use the same key for every dishwasher, you'd obviously just pair the devices and generate a new key, like everything does nowadays. Also, my dishwasher doesn't use any sort of encryption, and it still leaks.

Retr0id 5 days ago

Then don't double or triple the amount of data sent. There's simply no need.