this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
650 points (99.2% liked)
Open Source
31351 readers
166 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From what I read, this project does help integrate with HA to avoid using the Haier app, but still uses Haier's cloud. Can anyone confirm if this was true?
Based on the documentation on the GitHub, it looks like it does use Haier's cloud. Which, doesn't make Haier's actions any less shitty, but I can understand a company not wanting a bunch of users using their undocumented API, especially if there's potential to have automations hitting it more frequently than their own app does (not that I have any reason to believe this project was actually being inefficient with API calls).
EDIT: sorry, I read it wrong, I thought the reply says the addon "doesn't" use the remote API.
I digged a bit on the code, and every command indeed go through the cloud. So even if you use this addon, Haire can still collect a fair bit of data about you, since there is no way to communicate locally and directly to the AC.
But the addon only sends the minimum amount of data to achieve functionality, so definitely not as much data as using Haire's app.
~~Can you link to where the documentation that specify they don't use API?~~
Because I am looking at pyhOn (dependency of hon, and also being taken down), it seems like when executing a command, they do contact the cloud. Specefically
https://github.com/Andre0512/pyhOn/blob/327d4a181484d49ccbef25e470cfc86d2c5d91fa/pyhon/connection/api.py#L215 . The call to API is later used to send command:
https://github.com/Andre0512/pyhOn/blob/327d4a181484d49ccbef25e470cfc86d2c5d91fa/pyhon/commands.py#L142
And the
API_URL
indeed points to a remote API:https://github.com/Andre0512/pyhOn/blob/327d4a181484d49ccbef25e470cfc86d2c5d91fa/pyhon/const.py#L2
Yeah, so I can kinda understand Haier's position here though they probably could have just set/quoted some ToC's on using their cloud services.
It also means that IMO the plugins weren't offering much other than integration, and this probably would have been a product I'd have avoided even before they started acting like dicks.
Local control or bust (or ability to reprogrammed with FOSS firmware)
Well then I guess it is pretty obvious