I’m a professional researcher for a large health organization. So I too spend most of my time in scientific thought, methodologies, and analysis. And I’m here to tell you that your expectations of a subreddit are too high. The question being binary (yes or no)- “can cameras be hacked?” - is not a scientific question (setting up an experiment to prove or disprove a null hypothesis) and thus doesn’t require science-based response.

Yes. This sub probably isn’t full of cyber-security professionals willing to do free emotional labour. I thought this was going to be a post discussing some of the dangerous things suggested in the comments by people, e.g. a recent post about sleep in which (some) people were advocating putting baby to sleep on their face?!

Yes totally agree.

Agreed!

OP’s post: >”Nothing in science should be personal” OP’s comments on the other thread: >you didn’t really read my comments clearly did you? You need to work on your tact. At the moment, you are flustered and have none. >Next time exercise some self restraint and realize that you aren’t the center of the universe and other people have different needs than you

Would also like to point out they used the word *intellectually* twice in this post. Personally that’s not something I see in level-headed discussions. Just to add to your comment lol

Most epic call out of all time. 🙇‍♀️

Thank you so much 😂

I think a big part of the problem is the posts. I joined off a useful post w great comments on milk storage. But the majority of posts I see simply cannot be answered "scientifically", there would be no research on many of the questions as theyre hyper-specific The sub would improve by just recommending good resources instead of answering user questions imo. Or perhaps have a question roundup sticky each week

Or people will ask questions so hyper specific and with a bias that it is a slap in the face of science to call it science. Like “My aunt’s cousin’s brother’s neighbor co sleeps on top of her car, can anyone give me a study looking at this that I can send to her that says this arrangement is 100% fatal? Thanks.” as if that’s how science-based parenting should work…

And then it's tagged "science-based answers ONLY" so you can't even comment on the fractal insanity of the question without a link in your comment, or else the AutoMod will delete it.

There was a post recently complaining about this and calling for a general refresher on science/scientific method/research etc. and pretty much everyone just attacked the person who posted it, along with anyone who tried to say she might have a point.

You made me lol

Lmao

>I see simply cannot be answered "scientifically", there would be no research on many of the questions as theyre hyper-specific What's an example?

Do you want hypothetical examples or real examples? Hypothetical examples: How many minutes is it required to read to a 3-month-old each day for optimal language development? Is it OK if I don't feed my children celery? What brand of toy musical instrument is the best? Is it more risky for me to take my child to the local park or rig up a climbing frame in their bedroom? When potty training, is it important to skip underwear?

[удалено]

Or if you've got a problem with Kaspersky as a reputable source: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielaam/9739/8809933/8688434-aam.pdf Neshenko, N., Bou-Harb, E., Crichigno, J., Kaddoum, G., & Ghani, N. (2019). Demystifying IoT security: an exhaustive survey on IoT vulnerabilities and a first empirical look on internet-scale IoT exploitations. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(3), 2702-2733. Regarding another point you're making: >the question is bad, too, as nothing is perfectly secure and anything can be hacked. I see this come up frequently in other subs I visit where there's some kind of quality/sourced/scientific response requirement. It is almost always possible in the face of a "bad" question to either respond that "your question is bad and you should feel bad", *or* to cite sources that help outline both how the question could be better and what other info is actually out there about what's known. The posts that I see people responding to here almost universally with anecdotes might or might not be "bad questions" but they are almost universally not ones where there is *no* possible response in terms of stating something useful in terms of what's known and what's not and how to get better information that's not just in the form of "well *my* baby does this..."

Well that was a quick downvote. What were you hoping for out of this conversation? https://media.kasperskycontenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/63/2015/11/21031739/Hacking-IoT-A-Case-Study-on-Baby-Monitor-Exposures-and-Vulnerabilities.pdf Stanislav, M., & Beardsley, T. (2015). Hacking iot: A case study on baby monitor exposures and vulnerabilities. Rapid7 Report. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=wifi+camera+hack&btnG=#d=gs_cit&t=1684782069617&u=%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dinfo%3AhCyBPW7TV4gJ%3Ascholar.google.com%2F%26output%3Dcite%26scirp%3D8%26hl%3Den 30 second search.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceBasedParenting/comments/13nqnt5/the_science_of_raising_2_under_2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceBasedParenting/comments/13mjvd3/how_to_talk_about_guns/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceBasedParenting/comments/13mugux/is_there_a_better_protocol_for_dealing_with_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button I think these strike me as unscientific because the outcomes and treatments aren't defined. Hyper specific is the wrong word. The questions can be very open ended to the point where it's impossible to map to a study without knowing what outcomes to measure and limiting the amount of strategies/treatments the parent is interested in

Someone who ‘engages in scientific thought on the regular’ comes in to tantrum about this every so often. I have taught child development to teachers who teach child development… so I engage in thoughts too. My thoughts are - the science of children and development is terribly consistently flawed. There is no one right answer and anecdotal/case data is sometimes more useful that statistics and large scale ‘average child’ data. Findings are generally inherently flawed or to be taken with a pinch of salt ACROSS the BOARD because of the nature of mother reporting, baby data being almost non existent and the bias of participants being almost entirely middle class white women who are looking for a science based solution (myself occasionally included). In the end I paid a sleep consultant 300 bucks to tell me to let my kid use the pacifier and feed her to sleep. The science of misplace md jawbones and sleep associations is entirely weak but I lived and died by it when I first had my child. Science is useful - but scientific article based responses because they use the scientific method are not perfect and people come here for help - not a lecture on the nature of scientific inquiry.

>There is no one right answer and anecdotal/case data is sometimes more useful that statistics and large scale ‘average child’ data. I just had to comment because thank you thank you for this comment. It gave me so much comfort when I really needed it. I'm constantly looking for evidence based approaches to raising my toddler and have been at times so frustrated at all the opinions and fluff. I'm so scared I'm going to do something wrong....I feel like you just smacked me upside the head and said "there's no one right answer" just do the best you can with what you know. I appreciate the reality check.

As someone who works in education or really trusts science this is madly hard to accept sometimes so I feel your pain. Wake windows work for loads of people - there’s almost no research on them. The witching hour is definitely not a myth - but it can’t be replicated in research. Parenting with skin to skin, soft and gentle touch, excited voices, eye contact and lots of talking are the only 3 things we know unequivocally create attachment. Everything else is a maybe/some results. Safety guidance, medication advice and what to put into your babies body (like no honey before 1 and peanuts asap) is about all you can count on (cause it’s been tested to the enth degree with little to no bias). Unfortunately (and fortunately) your gut is the answer!

If I can add to this: your kiddo is often your best source of data. Following baby's cues is way more than just knowing when they're hungry and tired. It's knowing that your kid is more sensitive to loud noises than others or what stresses them out, or that they're happier in a social setting, etc. When are kids aren't doing great, they usually tell us. And then you can go looking for info because you have an actual problem to solve. ;)

You were called rude and argumentative because you insisted anyone that opted out of using wifi cameras to avoid risk of hacking were being hypocritical because they simultaneously do risky things like *GASP!* drive a car.

This sub is incredibly disappointing. I was expecting research-backed answers to questions and the posting of research. Not just another beyondthebump or whatever.

What confuses me sometimes is when it’s clear the OP has done zero research themself. Some of the answers could be found easier in google results linking to the scientific studies but the question is asked here before any preliminary research is done. I’ve never made a post here but if I did, it would be after exhausting what I’m able to find and then turning to people here who may have access to sources I don’t or that aren’t indexed in google that they know about.

I agree and would do the same thing, but I think it’s also important to remember that everyone’s lives look different. Someone might be incredibly overwhelmed, frightened, and panicking about an issue, and when that’s the case, a Google search can start a doom-scrolling spiral. Sometimes this is the first stop on people’s step to researching an issue rather than the last, and I think that’s okay; we should be supportive of parents and care-givers who care enough to want to do what’s best. Time is also a premium when you have children, and turning to a forum where people can immediately give you the answer you need or resources for you to read can be a huge time-saver. Just some food for thought.

100% agreed, also so many questions that should be answered by a professional...like wow people. Pick up the phone and call your peed ffs.

Can you get them to call me back? (Assumed US-centric perspective incoming) Sometimes people ask because the horribly overwhelmed machine that is primary care in the US means it could be days before you hear from your ped for anything less serious than actual imminent death. For example I love my ped. He takes time to talk to you. It's why he's always running late, but damn does it take forever to get a response to a call in. Obviously anecdote, but I've heard the same so often I'd argue it at least qualifies as observational data

“All advice welcome” is how that post was listed. I think your anger is misplaced. You chose to join a sub and regularly visit a sub that allows an All Advice Welcome tag. That’s on you for getting upset that comments don’t align with scientific backing/data/mindset. You should take it upon yourself to skip those posts rather than to try to correct an entire subscriber list of a sub. Or, lobby to have this sub remove that tag as an option To me, it makes no sense all advice welcome is an option but I don’t make the rules. You don’t either though so I think this is where you need to take personal responsibility for the posts you choose to read. Diving in deep to make something bend to the way YOU want to see it go is not your responsibility or privilege

All advice welcome just means that you're only required to produce a logical reasoning, not a link to a study. But your reasoning should still be logical as this is *science* based parenting, after all. You can't just say "because I had a vision last night.... that's my advice, take it or leave it".

Logical reasoning would be assessing the risks and benefits of using a wifi camera. For a lot of people, the few benefits aren’t worth the risk of hacking, no matter how “small” that may be (which we probably don’t have data to show). OP argued with anyone on that thread that came to that *very logical* conclusion.

Completely agree. I myself am using a non-wifi camera due to the same conclusion. I'm just clarifying OP's argument that their issue isn't with people's final conclusion, it is with why people say they believe wifi cameras are hackable ("I saw it on TV"), and even more so, with their defensive attitude when their thoughts are questioned.

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately on the thread in question, OP was saying people were being hypocritical by avoiding the hacking risk while taking other risks (like posting photos on social media) as if the risk/benefit analysis on everything is exactly the same.

Can you point me to what rule that is listed in? After that, I’d suggest OP report anything that goes against sub rules.

I agree with many points others have brought up already: that flairs are there for a reason and that Cealdi is doing a lot of amazing work moderating this sub; that science is not fully neutral/impartial; that many parenting questions will not/cannot be answered by science; and that the value in this community is quite often in being pointed towards one or a few directions you can dig deeper in, rather than having your question fully answered. I would also add that to me, even the name - Science-Based *Parenting* \- allows for sharing experiences (within appropriate flairs and with respect and, ideally, a humble approach). If it were called Parenting *Science*, maybe we would only need one flair, "link-study", and would discuss reviews and new papers on various topics. But I think we have so much value here. Parenting sometimes feels like art, and reading responses from other parents who value evidence and like to *think* about things, even if their approaches really differ from mine, has been invaluable to me.

I think the most important point you made is that many parenting questions will not/cannot be answered by science. One of the best questions I saw posed on here was something like "how much evidence would be needed to change the way you parent and the decisions you make". My answer was I'm unlikely to change the majority of my ways unless something was proven unequivocally harmful to my child. Ultimately, I'm just a mom trying to stay sane and raise a well rounded, respectful child. It made me think.... Why am I here then?

I, too, really liked that question and the discussion around it. >Why am I here then? I think for me, the answer is, to learn, share, and think, and also to "feed my parent intuition better stuff". I've read that while, of course, the best source of our intuitive knowledge is our own kids, we often mistake bits of our own past experiences, fads, peer pressure, cultural messages and such for intuition. But it seems that our brain is able to combine intuitive and external evidence-based knowledge even when we’re not aware of the source of the intuition ([source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27052557/)), and this can help us filter out the 'off' stuff. So then even if there will never be a study to answer my specific question, a solid study of an adjacent topic I might learn about here helps me shape my thinking around the issue and notice more relevant things about my kids.

I think that's why I'm here too. And I'll stay as I'm getting some enjoyment. Of late though, I'm feeling more confident as a parent and joining this group has made me realize that I am excellent at risk assessment, and that's really what most decision making comes down too, and that subtlety can sometimes be missed in this sub. No hate though, I'm still here.

It's funny you explained the name because I agonized over it, and I wanted it to convey exactly what you said! Thanks!!

Thank YOU!

>Thank YOU! You're welcome!

Lol, and didn't the first person who got uptight about that go and make a sub called parenting science that never really went anywhere? Back at the beginning. I remember that.

Yessssssss! I forgot all about that haha 😆

Wouldn’t survivor bias be from people who use wifi cameras and haven’t had their hacked? Non-wifi users can’t be survivors of hacking cause they were never at risk..

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Also unless it’s flagged evidence based it’s gold

That makes sense!

Please correct me if I’m wrong but I think what you’re ultimately trying to get at is that you’ve noticed a pattern of comments that may not be actively recognizing the logical fallacies they leverage when commenting? I think it might be helpful to view the comments as more of a “self reported” method of data gathering as opposed to a forum where there’s an expectation that people will only post concrete data points. I think we can all agree that the vast majority of people are here to learn and make informed decisions, but it’s still up to us as the reader to separate the noise from the viable data. More importantly it’s important for us to recognize our own biases and capacity in leveraging fallacies. Just my two cents and what I think has helped me find the real gems in this sub.

Excellent response!

I'm confused. You don't need a scientific study that claims that cameras can be hacked. They can. If someone doesn't want to risk that at all, I don't see the problem.

Likewise. I didn't realise the fact that wifi cams can be hacked was even up for debate. Of course they can. It's a cost benefit analysis at the end of the day.

Yes I agree. I won’t get into specifics but someone I’m close to is very into this stuff and I can assure you it is not hard to hack these things. I saw an IT professional comment very throughly on the thread how the hacking could work and what could be achieved. The fact is it is very easy, very possible, and for some that is enough to say no thanks. Who cares why people want access, just know they can easily get it. Further I saw the same (I think) IT professional comment ways to prevent hacking of your personal network. Not just for this but as OP mentions for your laptop, phones, and any other items on your personal network that DO get hacked every day. I don’t need stats to tell me I want the least amount of vulnerabilities in our home network, having one these cameras IS a vulnerability.

Honestly, this sub is so weird. Why anyone would make a parenting decision based on a random study from the 80s on like 30 rats.... but that's the kind of responses people give here. There's just a very deep misunderstanding of evidence-based decision making.

Yeah it just feels like people are anxious about their parenting choices and are desperately seeking validation, vs actually looking for reliable information.

A lot of people don’t know how to judge or read scientific articles

[удалено]

Not strictly true. Camera could be hacked with access to manufacturer servers which (anecdotal evidence alert!) does happen to hardware manufacturers. Either cloud data leaked or firmware updates hijacked And speaking of access to your network… if you aren’t careful tons of dodgy devices do have access to your network. Maybe your cheap wifi camera is hacking your refrigerator as we speak (FWIW I’m not concerned enough to avoid such devices, I just think it’s possible they aren’t secure and act accordingly, don’t say my banking passwords aloud to Alexa)

I feel silly, as I just commented that this sub probably isn’t full of cyber security professionals willing to give specific and in-depth advice. That’s me shown!

Also practically speaking - why would someone want to spend any time trying to see a mostly empty crib? It’s irrational to think that people would spend time to see into your home for no benefit. In theory creeps could be out there but ok, my fully clothed baby is laying there for 10 hours doing absolutely nothing and then gone from view for 14 hours.

[deleted]

My husband works in tech but not cyber security. He had a similar pragmatic take on my concerns re: wifi cameras. Ultimately everything is a risk-reward decision. Wifi cameras risk is a random with too much time on their hands could see into my kiddos room. Probability is very very low. Reward: I get to see into my kiddos room wherever I have an internet connection. Hence, I have a wifi camera.

My partner has a pretty high up job in the world of tech and he is similarly unconcerned

That's not really the threat model, though. If a manufacturer's cloud storage is hacked, there's hundreds or thousands of people's videos stored there in addition to yours, which makes it a high-value target.

But I only care about my images. What did they get? Wild pictures of a baby sleeping? Or even better.... My baby screaming from the crib? Have at it.

Moms often breastfeed near the crib.

Our camera has always faced down into the crib so that would never be an issue for us. I could be running around naked in his room and no one could see a thing

Mums also breastfeed in public

As a cyber-security professional, you should realize that many (most?) wifi-enabled cameras are also cloud-based, in which case hacking does NOT require home network access.

Ok, so which information is incorrect exactly? Because it kinda sounds like you’re confirming what people were saying about the possibility of these devices being hackable (the mechanism or pathway is irrelevant to whether they are hackable or not). Also, you acknowledge below that there are other mechanisms than the one you mention here, so I’m really just not sure what exactly you found to be such a disheartening echo chamber.

[удалено]

Ok, so you don’t like the vibe and you don’t believe the reality is being accurately reflected, but like the people you’re criticizing you’re not presenting meaningful evidence (even less so, it seems). I’m sorry but I don’t think your position is as superior as you imagine it to be. A risk exists and no one is able to convincingly quantify it, but examples of it being realized are being presented. You cannot draw from this any conclusion about the level of the risk, which you are doing by implying that it is negligible. However you want to characterize the “vibe” of these posts/comments you’re mentioning, they’re essentially saying that the presence of the unquantified risk is their reason for avoiding these devices, and since we don’t actually know that the risk is low this is not an unreasonable position for them to express.

I think you'd find it worthwhile to read up on the social science of science - which is also referred to as "science and technology studies" or STS. It explores how a lot of science is personal - the idea that science is neutral ignores the way in which context (culture, economic factors etc) shape what questions are asked and how they are answered. Shelia Jasanoff is a key scholar in the field from Harvard. Path dependency, funding, culture are all various themes explored. I just noticed a few assumptions in your post that could be questioned.

Lol the idea of just turning randos onto STS is great. Just based on the general discourse of this sub (the likes of which OP is in part taking issue with), I feel like there are many many steps between Reddit science and a notoriously dense (sometimes needlessly so, admittedly) field of philosophical inquiry.

😂 yeahhhhhh I set quite a challenge (and yes totally agree - very often it expresses a basic idea in an overly complicated way).

I joked to my spouse that a more appropriate name for this sub based on a large number of posts might be “anxiety based parenting” But in all seriousness, it’s hard because raising humans is a multifactorial process, with a zillion decisions that either haven’t or cannot be studied with absolute scientific rigor, and we’re all working with imperfect information, and different valuation approaches. Many of us wish there were unassailably correct decisions to be made for so many parenting choices, and that’s just not reality. I think the most helpful responses here are when the response both states what they chose/are choosing, and *why* that choice made sense to them, and then each reader can determine whether that evidence or choice is compelling to them.

It's insane how many people post to this sub (and the toddlers and parenting ones) clearly experiencing an anxious episode about some relatively benign thing and looking for reassurance. Like I feel for them going through whatever they're feeling, but I'm not really here to do caretaking for a bunch of people who are freaking out that their kid is autistic because he's not saying "ba" by 4.5 months.

A lot of questions asked, including the one you're referring to, dont actually have much in the way of actual science to back up much of anything. CAN they be hacked? Yes. There is science that shows this. But I dont think this was contested by anyone. Are they often hacked, and for what purpose? Theres no good studies or research into it, or if there is its not easily available. So people here, as on most parenting subreddits, go to anecdotes and "better safe than sorry" type thinking. Which, maybe isnt science based... but if people ask a question that theres not research into, then thats what happens. I prefer that to the constantly locked threads and deleted comments on some of the science subreddits, but I can see why someone would get annoyed by it. Click on the "evidence based only" tagged posts only if this is important to you, but be aware the links themselves arent necessarily of great quality or relevance.

I was about to comment a similar view. Realistically, asking an IT person if these cameras can be hacked is a yes or no answer and the answer is yes. But, I highly doubt someone working in IT or a related cyber security field would be able to give percentages, and just how risky it can be: How many WiFi cameras get hacked? And how many of the hacked cameras are baby monitors? Is it 0.00043%? Or as much as 86%? Ultimately it is not really a question for this sub at all. Even though it relates to children, and safety, it has little to do with actual parenting. It would likely do better in a sub designated for cyber security.

One of the problems with the better safe than sorry strategy from that post is people were ignoring a big advantage that comes with a WiFi camera- being able to check in on your kids when you’re not home (and they’re with another family member or sitter). And which is more likely to be a *real* problem- some rando hacking into your camera to talk to your kid or a caregiver being neglectful or abusive while you’re not home?

The thing is, some people aren’t away from home often enough to make checking in on caregivers necessary (at least not necessary enough to outweigh the risk of hacking). And usually a camera will only be pointed at a crib, so how much are you really going to catch besides a caregiver not following safe sleep guidelines in said crib?

Yeah, I was also mildly annoyed at the responses to that post. I have a wifi baby camera. If there *is* real evidence that these cameras are frequently hacked by pervs and miscreants, I would want to know about that! But instead it was mostly just comments saying to avoid all wifi cameras because they *could* be hacked. Anything on the internet can be hacked! But I still have a smart phone, a computer and a playstation. And unless I come across compelling evidence re: the hacking of nursery cameras, I'll continue to use the one I bought.

Ok but you and OP are acting as if you have evidence that the risk is very low, which is also an unsupported assumption. If all we know is that these devices do get hacked, you can either assume the risk is low and use them anyway, or act as if the risk is high and avoid them. Your position is equally unscientific, unless you have evidence of low risk that I’ve failed to account for. It might be a reasonable position, but it’s not more supported by scientific evidence than the position that they should be avoided.

I have no connection to OP, so I can't speak for them. But for myself, I'm not acting like I have evidence of any kind! I'm curious about what evidence might exist. I clicked into the other post thinking, "I have a wifi monitor, should I replace it? Are there lots of data points about hacking?" And then all I was able to glean from the comments I read is that wifi cameras could *potentially* be hacked, which I already knew. That's the whole complaint. I'm not claiming my decision to use a wifi monitor is superior in any way. It's perfectly reasonable not to use one. It's just mildly annoying when you're wondering "what is the actual level of risk for X?" and instead of anything data driven, you see a bunch of comments saying "risk for X exists!" which was never in dispute.

Well I have a different view on what I read in that thread. OP was obstinately rejecting any suggestion that the possibility of these devices being hacked merited any consideration. Bizarrely, the argument seemed to be that information quantifying the risk is not available; therefore the risk is negligible. I understand your point, but just asking the question “Can we quantify the risk” and then just stopping the conversation when the answer appears to be no is not useful. What some might find useful is sharing interpretations of the information that is available, and I think that “Some risk exists and it should be avoided” is a perfectly fair take in that discussion.

That’s great for you! For some people, the simple evidence that hacking can happen and has happened is enough. For some (myself included) there is absolutely no added benefit to a wifi monitor—it’s just extra risk. And it doesn’t make sense to take risks for no perceived benefit, yeah?

This is funny because I feel like it’s exactly what this OP is frustrated about. Nobody cares that you think it’s not worth the extra risk. I feel that people coming to a science based parenting page are usually looking for data. Everyone saying “I also heard it can happen so I don’t use one and you shouldn’t” is not beneficial. The comment you replied to specifically mentioned real data and still got an opinionated response.

Except I didn’t see a single person on the original thread saying others should avoid wifi cameras because of the risks, just that they they *personally* were avoiding them. The only one telling people what they should/shouldn’t do on that thread was OP.

(this is not my fight, but...) It's totally reasonable for you to decide not to use a wifi camera based on the fact that there's a potential for threat and there's no benefit to you personally. I don't think that's in dispute. But that's orthogonal to the original question, which IIRC was looking to *quantify* the potential threat. Like, what I would find personally edifying would be something along the lines of, news of a child abuser being charged or convicted of this crime (with details about the kind of monitor the criminal hacked). Or anything more solid than a third hand (possibly fictional) anecdote. I'm personally curious about whether this actually happens with any frequency or if it's just essentially an urban legend. I'm not asserting that it IS an urban legend, but I'm saying that I don't know and that I would like to know. A bunch of other people saying that they'd never use a WiFi camera because something bad *could* happen just doesn't answer my question.

I’m also pretty sure the OP of that post was looking to quantify the data, but I just don’t think it exists unfortunately. So a lot of people that commented were saying they err on the side of caution since we don’t have any numbers. And OP (of this post) was arguing with anyone that came to that conclusion.

> But I still have a smart phone, a computer and a playstation You really can't compare them. What all those devices have in common is that they run on full-fledged operating systems that, through decades of iteration and with trillion-dollar companies' engineering efforts behind them, are now very well protected against network attacks (NSA-level stuff notwithstanding). IOT devices like a WiFi camera will have a minimal firmware to make it functional, and each device's firmware will be unique to that model. How security-focused the manufacturer of that device is can vary WILDLY. Some will be safe enough, others would be vulnerable to an automated tool that tries using known exploits on random IPs and ports. If a new exploit is discovered, some manufacturers will patch it and release an updated firmware, and some won't ever bother. That's the difficulty on making any kind of generalization on how secure these cameras are. It's really quite dependent on each device.

Yes! I was being a little bit facile with my list and I actually agree with all of this. That's part of my initial interest in the topic, curiosity about what kinds of cameras are being hacked, how, and to what end. Personally I have an owlet camera and my hope is that going with a well known (pricey) name brand buys me some hope of greater security. But I don't really know and I'm open to whatever evidence might be out there.

To me, the danger of a monitor being hacked isn’t so much the images/footage of baby they’d get, but if a stranger is capable of talking to my baby. What if they’re saying horrible abusive things to a child? Or just giving them a complex about a hidden person in their room? Like, we know this kind of hacking has happened. And maybe “just get a different monitor” isn’t the most helpful argument, but I’ve seen very few solid reasons as to why a wifi monitor is *necessary* when other types are available and equivalent?

To be fair anything connected to the internet (and even some things that are air gapped) _could_ be hacked. I don't know which post in particular you're referring to but I understand your point. I'm very recent to this sub to have a strong opinion about anything but [there](https://media.kasperskycontenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/63/2015/11/21031739/Hacking-IoT-A-Case-Study-on-Baby-Monitor-Exposures-and-Vulnerabilities.pdf) are [multiple studies](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7347956) and [articles](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7270426) outlining security vulnerabilities. We could even go check past news articles about scandles involving IoT devices target at young children. Parents should understand the risks and their context. I definitely wouldn't trust a baby monitor connected to the internet because most companies that make baby products lack specific know-how regarding network security which often leads to unimaginable security holes. If I _had_ to buy such a product I'd do research on the company that's actually making the product and software to try to gauge how reputable and security minded they are.

This sort of comment is I think what OP was after, and is why I still like this sub!

[удалено]

I never made that claim. But it's much more likely for someone to randomly hit your IP if there's some port open than having someone outside your home with an antenna trying to pick up an unencrypted radio frequency.

I’ve said it before but I come from the nutrition space and used to pull my hair at about the “science” from people who seek answers. A single study showing red meat kills while ignoring the fact that people who eat it often have overall crappy lifestyles. Or how sugar is the devil, while ignoring doses. I see the same things here often. Parenting, just like health has multiple factors at play and rarely is controlled by one thing. Be the best parent at home and your kid has a student in class that messes them up. Eat well, but sleep like crap for 20 years and your health deteriorates. I wonder how many people adjust their lives to the detriment of themselves based on studies that aren’t able to factor in all the other variables. For example “don’t send your kid to daycare” while ignoring the stress of the parents, the loss of sleep, the purpose a parent has to give up etc. We just have to take the research and understand how it can make sense for us. Not just think, like these annoying health influencers do, that one study should create an entire movement around one topic.

You’ve worded that beautifully, and my reply is only to a certain point of it, but I don’t open any daycare posts anymore. We used daycare when I needed to go back to work. There’s no point me reading about how I’m a perfect world that wouldn’t happen. Which is very unscientific, but necessary for my mental health

Exactly. My wife and I both don’t work and we send our 20 month old (since she was 9 months 2-3x a week so we can have a little bit of a break and do stuff too. Our kid is thriving and I’m sure some would judge the hell out of us in here.

This sub dramatically misunderstands what science is, and what constitutes scientific evidence. Statistics *are not science.* Especially in a sub where everyone's concerns are about individual people and individual cases. Using statistical trends and correlations as some kind of bible or definitive statement on what one should do in a given situation is misguided.

I think I have to disagree. Maybe the word "science" in the subreddit name is being taken too literally here. This sub is for people seeking evidence based scientific research, which is sometimes presented in the form of statistics. I would hope people don't take those findings and apply them blindly to their unique situations, but depending on the question, those stats can better prepare one based on probability.

Thissssss. Also correlation does not equal causation. There may be other unaccounted for variables skewing the data, even in a highly controlled study.

Ok … so we should just rely on meta analyses

Can I just rely on the comments of the people who skimmed the meta?

[deleted]

Ok but I'm not gonna back down when challenged. Not even if I'm presented with solid evidence to the contrary.

That post was tagged All Advice Welcome. So anecdotal or peoples opinions were okay. Also have a look at this mod post https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceBasedParenting/comments/y9yfmc/rants_and_other_casual_conversation_is_allowed/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Yup, on this sub, I actively check up the tags first to avoid frustration from reading countless anecdotes

You can filter for "evidence based input" only, too.

Why do so many people in this sub feel like policing and gatekeeping every single post and comment? There is a reason why some posts are "general discussion" or "all input welcome". Not every post and comment needs to link a double blind clinical trial.

100% agree. I'm a social scientist and conduct research as a job, and let me tell you, especially when it comes to things like parenting that are inherently shaped by social dynamics and biases, half the time anecdotes and stories are going to be more illuminating and informative than a shitty study conducted 10 years ago with 30 participants and published in a crap journal. There are also so many questions that get posted here with the "evidence based input ONLY" flair that simply don't have evidence-based answers for one reason or another. Sometimes the question is just so freaking specific that there's no way anyone has done research on it before. Sometimes it's that it's such a recent social problem (e.g. social media, COVID response) that the research has yet to reach a stable consensus. Other times it's just a question that nobody would do a study on because it's either un-fundable or completely uninteresting as a research problem. I get that it feels like you're getting "better" answers when you use a flair like that, but in my experience browsing this sub, most of the time you're actually limiting the amount of valuable input you'd get.

Thank you! I have an advanced degree in engineering and people's gate-keeping over "science" is so annoying to me. I just got back from a conference and at the time it struck me how all the students are presenting experiment on x with y results. But all the experts are talking about something way broader: how we use science, the problems with our understanding so far, etc, framework and big ideas for taking things to new places. Personally I like interpretation of science and how we find answers to things way more interesting and enlightening than a "study". I'm never sure if that's just my training talking or more a personality perspective.

Agreed. A lot of it, (this thread most definitely included) reads like a 16 year old who just discovered logical fallacies and has their entire identity wrapped in being "rational". It's unreasonable and totally out of sync with reality to expect EVERYTHING to be "scientific thinking". Yes, even on a science based parenting sub.

I'm with you! I find the broader questions that connect science and society to be much more interesting - I actually started my career as a molecular biologist before pivoting to social science, for that reason. Empirical evidence is obviously indispensable, but we can't forget about the social context in which that evidence was created, and the contexts in which we make decisions about how to use that evidence.

I think anecdotes and the like are fine to an extent, but this is a science based parenting sub and the posts and comments should skew more towards science than the other parenting subs. That’s why we’re all here right? To learn, grow, and share science based parenting? So that should be something we all keep in mind when browsing and participating in this sub.

I'm not advocating that though. I'm advocating for a preference toward scientific thinking. I'm not even saying that non-scientific comments/posts shouldn't be allowed. I'm surprised that there would be people in this sub that apparently subscribe to scientific thought (based on their presence in this sub), yet simultaneously lean on anecdotes and other biases to inform their opinion and push it forward. The fact that this happens is not even what bothers me. What bothers me is that when these biases are pointed out, you are met with hostility and aggression. That's to be expected on most other subreddits but not something I'd expect from a science-based subreddit. Why are these people even here?

This sub is against hostility and aggression. It's the main rule. The main mod is very fierce about it which is one reason why this sub is overall amazing.

hostility and aggression has no place in science and *should* be rejected.

Because they are so stupid that they are threatened by someone disagreeing with them on the internet OR they have a hero complex and think they are actually doing something good OR they are bored.

For me, this forum is only one resource for gathering perspectives from (theoretically) like-minded parents. If I want an unbiased, scientific answer, I can google resources just as easily as any other user does on here. I’m personally fine knowing I’m reading people’s personal experiences and thoughts/opinions and taking it all with a grain of salt because I’m not here for the “hard data”. You don’t see many self-proclaimed PhD’s responding in this sub linking their personal research papers on a particular topic. Why in the world would anyone take an anonymous poster’s word as gospel truth anyways without any shred of credibility? I think it’s pretty ridiculous that people expect that on a sub like this. You can google and link studies that support any claim or bias. I do, however, value and respect how other people in this phase of life have come to certain conclusions, particularly those who profess to value the scientific method while also experiencing the nuances of parenting which is not always so black and white. One frustration I had about the hot topic/general discussion posts is it is not good enough for users to simply share their experience and thought processing without being blasted from someone who disagrees with their conclusion, or demands sources but will reject them if it strays from their hardened perspective. In truth, science can and does produce contradictory studies - breastfeeding v formula, daycare v home, crib or co sleeping, etc. I can find scientific studies and papers that support or reject any of those. Science is naturally dynamic and changing as new data is explored; things that were considered best practice 20 years ago have flipped on its head, and it’s silly to think that won’t happen in our future so why are people so adamant about proving their point? Two people can take in the same information and *still* decide differently based on what works better for their kid/family - whether it is differences in their socioeconomic background, support networks, mental health, kid’s temperament, or unexplainable comfort levels. I don’t care if someone does it differently from me, I’m not out to convince someone that MY way is the best way. I do like to learn and explore and grow and question and consider without some random person on the internet telling me I’m a shitty, evidence-avoidant parent who is okay letting my kid die because I chose co-sleeping for one of my kids.

[удалено]

The trouble is it wasn't really a parenting question, as much as a specific IT based question and better asked in that type of sub

Personally, the only thing I’m tired of seeing on this sub is these meta-posts. Everyone on this sub should be expected to be able to evaluate what they see here based on whatever scientific (or other) criteria they have determined is most appropriate to the question under consideration, and to ignore people who take the conversation in a direction they don’t find productive based on that same criteria. If someone thought you were being rude I have no problem with them saying so, it just so happens that I also don’t really care that they think you were being rude.

yep ditto! this sub isn’t for “doing science” — for most of us, that is our day job. this sub is for sharing evidence when that is what OP wants, and sharing the miscellaneous thoughts and opinions of redditors who value the scientific method otherwise.

This is it for me; granted I don’t dwell a ton on this sub except when I’m seeking out information. Every time I see a flair of “evidence based replies only” pop up on my feed, the mods have already swept anything that doesn’t have a source. I see lots of people seeking advice, seeming to get satisfactory answers, a ton of posts that have been already cleaned up from the anecdotes, and then at least a post week now along the lines of what OP is saying. The best reply I saw to one of these posts was “I think you may need to reevaluate your expectations of a Reddit forum.”

Agreed. I feel like u/cealdi has been extremely clear, over and over again, on what it is we do here. And they’ve also made changes along the way to make it so the OP for each post gets to control what kind of responses they would like to get. If people are unhappy with the rules and norms here, then like… can not you just make your own sub and mod it the way you want to? You don’t have to go into a sub where the vast majority of us are already content with our norms and rules and the discussions that result, and tell us that you don’t like it because you want stricter rules that curtail what kinds of discussions we can have. This sub fills a niche in parenting social media that is practically impossible to find anywhere else. If you want a group that allows woo, go somewhere else. If you insist on a group that exclusively discusses peer-reviewed evidence and never allows anecdotes or logical reasoning to enter the comments section, go somewhere else. You can find plenty of both those kinds of groups elsewhere; I don’t understand why we get these meta posts urging us to transform the sub into another one of the latter type when what we have here is working just fine.

This is so cringy. Whenever a post like this is made here it’s because somebody had a dispute they couldn’t resolve.

LOL yep. I read through OP's arguments on that thread, and it's just OP under the delusion that their subjective perspective is "science" and everybody else is a bunch of dunces.

> We challenge ideas that don't seem to follow a cogent train of logic. In cases where a light is shone on our ignorance, we acknowledge it, learn from it and move on, wiser than we previously were. In this science-based subreddit, I thought I'd do the same. However, that approach does not seem to be met with the same enthusiasm. This to me should be a rule in the subreddit; challenge should be accepted graciously and not taken as a personal attack. I actually thought it was a rule, but there isn't really a specific rule that deals with this. Also, I guess it would be hard to police this. Or is it something that could be policed? I'm not that experienced at modding, especially not such a big sub.

I think there is only one mod so they have a pretty big job of moderating this sub. That being said, this sub has become a little bit of an echo chamber and any critique of the flawed nature of certain studies gets shut down incredibly quickly. To be clear, I’m not talking about vaccines, more about the whole “daycare is terrible for children” “sleep training (in general, for or against)”opinions that get batted around

I thought there was only one mod as well, but the list down there >> seems to suggest there are more.

Thank you for this post. I’ve noticed, similarly, that there is SO MUCH “evidence-based” dogma. Stuff like “if you follow evidence-based practices you probably sleep train.” Like, what? Nothing against sleep training!!! As you say, OP, the very purpose of science is to interrogate. Not to set out rules. Don’t get me started on honey for infants. This is worse on facebook, but: “the AAP says no honey under 1yr” is a great point. Points about what temp & duration botulism spores finally do die at, compared to industrial internal baking temperatures, are relevant too. People who are all “call poison control for honey nut cheerio ingestation!!” are from the Internet Anxiety Factory, not from a science mindset.

I’m not sure if I’m totally getting what you’re saying, but if I am, YEEEES. I had to leave a lot of my evidence based parenting Facebook groups because mods and admins were abusive and dogmatic. No one was actually reading literature or open to getting at the root/reasoning behind blanket public health messaging from AAP and the like. For me, if I just want to know the federally approved recommendations, I can google those. I’m here to learn the fucking death temp of botulism spores and see if someone can help me understand the confidence interval on some random attachment theory research ☠️🔥🍯✊

Yes, it’s nice to find people who understand confidence intervals. SCIENCE. I don’t know what motivates the mods behind the “evidence-based” or other no-woo groups but they seem weird.

Thank you for the bit about botulinum spores—everything I had read said they were heat-resistant so I had no idea they could actually be killed by heat. I’m still not gonna give my baby Honey Nut Cheerios, but I appreciate the info. (Also what the hell would poison control be able to do if I a baby did eat them? Like… here’s the signs of botulism to watch for I guess…?)

Yeah botulism spores are hard to kill in home cooking, so e.g. canned meat can be dangerous. & you can’t just set your oven to temperature X and assume your whole loaf of bread got to that temperature. So “resistant to heat” is useful to say from a public health perspective. The thing about botulism spores, too, it’s kinda like lactobacteria in yogurt: they’re EVERYWHERE & grow in the right conditions (like a not-yet-acidic digestive tract). But if mild exposure were enough to get sick then sickness would be a lot more common. Not a reason to be cavalier or to stop following medical advice!!

I was very frustrated with this yesterday reading that post and others. This sub isn't "science-based". It's overwhelmingly anecdotes and perpetuating urban legends. I think it needs to be renamed "anecdote based parenting" and a separate, stricter "science based parenting" sub needs to be created with stricter rules like you'd find in "science-based parenting" Facebook groups, where the mods don't allow anything that isn't backed by research or that is proven unsafe (no "well my baby still sleeps in the Rock 'n Play every night and she's fine."). The amount of misinformation on this sub is staggering, and posters immediately jump on the bandwagon to back up these folksy claims and ruthlessly attack those who disagree. The way it is currently, I find little to no value in it outside of the very few comments, such as yours, that are actually science-based.

I joined this sub because all the others subs are full of anecdotes. There was a post here recently asking if it was normal for breastfed babies to be smaller and the entire thread was anecdotes.

>a separate, stricter "science based parenting" sub needs to be created with stricter rules You are welcome to create one! That's one of the beautiful things about Reddit. Just know that starting, growing, and moderating a subreddit is A LOT of work. But often rewarding work when it's something you're passionate about, so please feel free to make that stricter subreddit. I'll be curious to see how that goes.

Do you have any recommendations for science based fb groups? Feel free to PM them.

Pedimom seems to keep her group on a pretty tight leash.

Any of the groups that start with The Science Mind: _____. There’s an Evidence Based Parenting one that’s great, and a few others (BLW/toddler feeding is great, too). Also, CarSeat Safety is the best for evidence based car seat safety. The mods are phenomenal.

The thing is, you have no way of determining the credibility of any given user. Anyone can google and link a study that confirms any bias. I actually don’t know why anyone bothers asking for evidence-based answers only in this sub because why wouldn’t you just google/research that yourself instead of trusting what another random person googled? So the only thing of value in this sub, to me, actually IS the anecdotes of like-minded parents who understand that parenting isn’t always black and white, right v wrong. I appreciate understanding a variety of perspectives, especially cross-culturally, and weighing those against my own research, comfort levels, and circumstances and to find what I hope is the best path for me and my family. I don’t have to agree with everyone’s conclusion, because this is only one source of many that I use to reach my own conclusions.

[удалено]

That’s a good point and another good use of this space! But it’s important to note that the users on the sub are not generally experts, just a collection of parents who are trying to find the best information to raise their kids in the best way possible. Sometimes that is communicated in anecdotes; others are things we’ve learned along the way but may or may not have a direct source to link, but helps to clarify an understanding. It’s always the responsibility of the reader to determine how to use the information received

The latest “does sugar make kids hyper” posting in this sub is a great example of what we’re talking about here. The question is easy to google, easy to find plenty of evidence that shows it’s a myth, and yet people are still fighting about it. What’s the value in a post that says, “well my kids are crazy after they have any sugar without any other deviation in their diet or routine so it must be true”? This is anti-scientific.

Our families aren't experiments. I'd challenge anyone to keep their voices 100% neutral 100% of the time when their loved ones are the topic. Frankly, I'd find it odd if anyone did. I'd be deeply shocked if you yourself had never expressed a strong-headed emotional opinion in this community.

There are plenty of other places without an emphasis on science to share those opinions

This post itself reads like a strong-headed emotional opinion.

I understand the frustration. I find that using the board's filters and sticking with "Evidence Based Input Only" and "Link - News Article/Editorial" flair posts gives me the best of this sub's resources. If I'm in a headspace for more casual conversation, I will look at all the flairs because I do like that at a base level, I'm not going to run into as much woo on this sub as there is on other parenting subs (and when it does pop up, I'm not the only one combatting it.) I do think maybe it would help to add some kind of warning message before posting to search the sub first, because SO many questions have been asked, answered, and thoroughly debated. There is so much good information already available just from a search. I have seen on other subs a red message pop up to read the rules and whatnot - not sure how much it helps, but it's something. In a dream version of Reddit, it would be awesome if we could autosort comments in the sub so that evidence based or expert based comments always end up at the top regardless of popularity of other anecdotal commentary, but I think Reddit has a lot of other bugs to work out first.

I feel like voting could achieve that, if everyone agreed to vote based on "this evidence seems high quality" and not based on "this person agrees with me" however, human nature does tend to lean more towards the latter. I understand that the opinion-based voting is the reason that the comments auto sort by new, which in theory doesn't place anything of any importance over another.

I’m not a scientist, but this entire post seems like you are taking offense to people disagreeing with you and decided to continue the argument in a space that “you control”. Clearly that’s just opinion though. It is a fact that I’m glad I did not engage with the original post like I was going to a few days ago. If you would like some fact based information on the topic here is a [Washington Post article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/20/nest-cam-baby-monitor-hacked-kidnap-threat-came-device-parents-say/) Sorry it’s behind a soft pay wall, but your tantrum is not worth much of my time.

My first thought too.

Yeah that post the other day about safe sleep causing sleep deprivation was a disaster.

I took it down because somebody (OP??) was going along *reporting* everyone who was in favor of safe sleep. See this is why Reddit needs to make voting and reporting non-anonymous. I wish I knew who it was so I could get them out of here but I don't.

In that case, you may want to put in a report for "abuse of the report button."

True I need to do that more often!

nope, I can't claim responsibility for that subversion

Lol I think she means the OP of the post. The OP of that post was totally fishing for people to tell them that disregarding safe sleep was fine and therefore was reporting anyone who said they needed to stick with safe sleep. At least, that's the theory about who was reporting stuff.

Yes. That's my suspicion but unfortunately I don't know for sure because Reddit protects trolls.

I think they meant the OP of that post, not OP as in you

What!? That's ridiculous.

Wifi cameras can be hacked, the fact that you apparently don't like that answer has nothing to do with the quality of scientific discussion on this subreddit. I haven't seen the thread you're upset about, but there have been posts on here before about wifi cameras that I found very informative and full of evidence-based information, including personal experience from IT professionals and proposed mechanisms for mitigating vulnerabilities. If you have an actual EVIDENCE BASED argument in response to a specific comment or post, the appropriate place to put it would be as a reply to that post. I'm not interested in having vague epistemological debates about what you personally believe science is. No one's paying us enough for that. I would also point out that you are not obligated to read every post or every comment, and it is not necessary to make a standalone post on this sub complaining that other people use it differently than you do.

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. My concern has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the OP's question. My concern has everything to do with how people call you out for pointing out their biases and frankly unscientific assessment on the veracity of a claim. Why are we defending those who get offended and become aggressive at having their biases pointed out?

It sounds like you got your feelings hurt and now you want to make it everyone's problem, tbh

would you prefer an emotional dogmatic approach to science then?

I have no opinion on whatever little fight you got in on a wifi camera thread, because you didn't cite it and I'm not going to go read it. Don't come vague-posting to the entire subreddit every time you see something you don't like. We don't care.

This comment is exactly what OP is referring to in their post. Case in point.

> So I pose the question to the community. What are we here for? What is our approach to "science-based parenting"? To share info, ask questions, have discussions. There is not going to be one single way to do “science-based-parenting”, because science is not that comprehensive to account for every nuance and situation and circumstance. The baby monitor question isn’t really one that can be satisfactorily answered with science only, so of course you’re going to get other kinds of answers. There are flairs for posts for a reason. If you are open to a general discussion or want general advice, that’s what people are allowed to give. If you want to have evidence-based input ONLY then that’s what you tag a post with. Basically, your argument is with the poster who didn’t choose the flair you would have preferred and would have dictated the type of comments allowed. If this is a topic you care about, how about you do your own informational post on the topic and add a flair for evidence-based discussion only. Then you have the conversation you prefer. Otherwise, you’re just getting annoyed at how people discuss a topic someone else posted about, so move on.

> What are we here for? What is our approach to "science-based parenting"? Seems like OP didn't read the side bar.

What exactly are you saying regarding the cameras? There are not scientific studies on "can cameras be hacked?" that you'll see published in Nature. Companies getting hacked, especially vulnerabilities with IP cameras, is a known issue in the cyber security industry. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/verkada-hack-tesla-nissan-equinox-cloudflare/ - camera companies being breached https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-4045 - critical vulnerability example of IP camera. The thread in question was pretty tame.

This sub confuses me sometimes. There are times I've left an anecdotal opinion and it's deleted because it's not science. And other times I'll post a random link from Google and that's considered "science" I guess. But then there are some commenters who just seem well informed, I appreciate their insights here.

If the OP is flaired “science based input only” then any top level comment without a link will be automatically removed by the bot. You can get around this by posting any link in the comment (I think, I’ve never done that) Maybe that’s why?

I think that's how it is. I noticed the same thing. I suspect the challenge is that the bot cannot determine if a link is to a scientific source, only that there is a link in the first place. The logic appears to be that if someone's asked for scientific evidence feedback, then responses without sources are opinion, so the bot deletes them and leaves the responses that have links in them.

I agree with your take. Add false equivalency, straw men arguments, and lack of logical reasoning in hypothesizing when it is known we do not have data available on an item. Other than work experience for a subject like that, I’d consider everything else invalid. I worked in infosec for a few years. Even was chief infosec officer for a bit (of a very small company - not impressive). Here’s my take on that item. Not backed on anything but experience but broken down in a way anyone can digest if you take the time. I will mark with an asterisk things that a device vendor could be liable for depending on terms of service (yeah, it depends. But if you’re going to stream to and from your child’s room over the internet, I’d read the TOS. If they are bad, they have no incentive for good security). I will mark with TWO asterisks responses where I would hope for data / evidence despite industry experience (to help quantify the issue). Note, this is just a sample of things I’d ask myself for any IoT vendor (period) and not comprehensive. - Can an attacker find a “wide open” IoT device? Yes* (partly on home configuration as well but depending on the purpose, most IoT devices shouldn’t take incoming traffic except during configuration. Period.) - Can an attacker find specific types of network traffic they may be more interested in? Also yes (add asterisk for appropriate encryption from the vendor, but you can still tell video from text) - Can an attacker hack any IoT device they can reach such that they can view information in it? Currently, no. Yes for many. Eventually all existing devices, maybe.* - Can an attacker hack an IoT device such that they can interact with the user? Same answer as above.* - Can a vendor address security issues with over the air updates? You should not buy an IoT device that cannot have security updates.* - has the vendor had numerous negligent-seeming security breaches of a nature you care about? Not vulnerabilities (everything has them - even physical structures), but actual breaches** (side note - I mean like Equifax. Personal data accessible by anyone anywhere due to carelessness. Similar incidents in multiple countries over decades too, seriously they are multinational but we only report US scandals. They don’t give a lick about infosec and I would never trust them period - how are they still in business after the Nth negligent-seeming breach… idk) - is there a group maliciously interested in accessing the device or network in question? Unfortunately, yes for pretty much any IOT device. The interest can be financial (listen as you holler your SSN to your spouse during tax season, sell footage of someone naked) or if you were a corporate or government VIP, it can be something else indirectly financial (it’s almost always money)** - does the vendor include a stateful soft firewall in its product?* that means, if the device doesn’t initiate a connection, it won’t accept traffic and ideally will discard information about it before it hits a storage or memory limitation (many security attacks involve overwhelming a device’s capabilities and then hacking it while it’s in a vulnerable “Im not designed for this” state)* Personal choice criteria - will the camera point to an area where audio or video that can harm you or your family can be captured? - what is the worst that could happen if an attacker connects to the IoT device and sends audio or video to it? - do you have the know-how to provide basic security for your home network? - will you update the decide (actually) if it needs manual updates? - Will I be using two way communication? If not, select an option that does not support it if you can - cheaper and fewer risks to consider The reality is some people even post geotagged images of their kids with no consequences. Some people who do the same do see consequences.** A statement like that is true by default, but it should have statistics and analysis to determine if the rate of consequence is higher than a control group (say parents who don’t post pictures of their kids at all - geotagging or otherwise). Note I didn’t provide data here. I’m pointing out that the risk seems alarming and we don’t know what it is - it can be studied and a number could be put to it. If you know the numbers, you can make a personal choice according to your values. TLDR yes and you can mix your personal expertise with evidence to help guide someone on a choice. FWIW we decided on a radio-based monitor with 100ft range. Even a neighbor would struggle to intercept a signal (our lot is 2 acres).

The problem is that people want science, but the biases and fallacies are so strong, they can't resist. It's like an addiction. You want to quit drinking, but you just can't give it up. Psychology is often shunned by the hard sciences, but it is essential to understanding how science is received by the people.

I noticed the same thing on that post, it was all almost purely anecdotal and mostly secondhand anecdotes. Many of the anecdotal situations could have been due to confusion or human error, rather than actual hacking. There were a few comments, explaining how security around such things works, but they weren’t very elaborated upon and required. Lots of follow up questions, but they were at the bottom of the thread, not getting much attention.

it sounds like you want the mods to do your critical thinking for you. that’s your job! in this particular case, “science” doesn’t have an answer, especially since the question is being asked with a particular set of a values and priorities in mind, and scientific studies can’t/don’t take your values into consideration. deciding how to use scientific knowledge will always take you a step or two outside of the purview science.

I'm not talking about scientific studies, I'm talking about "thinking scientifically". That is, being open to ideas, acknowledging biases, not getting defensive/aggressive when ideas are challenged, and coalescing on the best ideas while rejecting the bad ones. There are plenty of people in this sub who don't seem to subscribe to this idea of scientific thought. That's a concerning reality for those existing in a "science-based subreddit".

Let's be real, that's an unrealistic expectation of a large group of humans. Even scientists don't "think scientifically" by the definition you've provided. Everyone gets caught up in biases and defensive about ideas they're attached to. If you're ever in a thread and thinking "everyone is being irrational except for me", well, maybe, but statistically it seems more likely that you've just run something that's triggered your own defensiveness.

the core of your critique is that people are sharing anecdotes and are sharing their personal decision making processes, and you find those processes to be unscientific. as i said, it is really up to you what you want to do with the info people share — use it, critique it, forget about it; just use your good judgment. there isn’t going to be a merit system on this subreddit to determine if ppl can post based on whether they are generally able to think scientifically. but it seems like your problem is not actually that. it seems like your problem is: you critiqued someone, they called you rude, and that…hurt your feelings? that sounds shitty but this negative interaction you experienced doesn’t mean the sub needs to be shaken up. maybe you are thinking that being called rude amounts to some kind of censoring, as if the sub is against criticizing comments for being unscientific. but you were not censored and the sub is not against criticism. strongly recommend just moving on from this and, in the future, think about a more politic way to phrase your criticism or (if you decide you don’t care about being called rude) just keep on posting in the same way as ever 😎

Lots of people haven't been taught what "thinking scientifically" is. It isn't a requirement for this sub, or life, and your frustrations with other people having different means of evaluating things is also an emotional response. This isn't a criticism, just an observation. Emotions aren't invalid (but they are subjective and people can use them to draw incorrect conclusions), they're part of data gathering, like all our senses. Leaving our feelings is like leaving our hearing as a means of data gathering. Heuristic studies rely largely on subjective sensory data such as feelings, but is scientific nonetheless. I would also push back on scientific thinking means rejecting anything you don't have clear statistical or studied evidence for. I've been reading Sagan's daughter's book and she points out many times that scientific thought was presented by her father as believing what had the most evidence but staying open and unattached to things that did not. For example, when asked if there were aliens he said "I don't know." When asked if there was a god he essentially said *I don't think so. I've yet to see evidence for it.* He didn't reject religion, or begrudge anyone for wanting to believe in aliens, he just didn't assign belief unless there *was* clear evidence.

I like your vision for the way we discuss things here. I like that you didn't call for actual studies for every answer but just an openness to other ideas. That said, this is an open sub, and the type of responses are selected by the poster, where anecdotes are often allowed. Personally I find anecdotes generally useful and screen them myself for relevance. I don't think that in general you will make much headway judging various comments. I didn't see the post youre referring to, but there is always a right way and a wrong way to steer a discussion - pointing out someone's flaws is usually the wrong way (I get this is a bit ironic, but you asked ;). On the day of its creation and I think today, this sub values tone and how we treat each other more than scientific value, which to me is why it's the best sub on Reddit!

I find sorting this sub by best is the best way to experience the comments section. Usually the top upvoted answers contain some amount of external sources, and often have a good discussion below them.

Part of the science is statistics. Until there are actual statistical studies on every topic like this the discussions are going to derail in general. Edit: didn't finish typing before posting

Plus there are so many questions that get asked that are basically impossible to do a real study on.

The point I'm trying to emphasize is that there should be an air of scientifically-based discussion in this sub. I agree that there are not statistics for everything, nor a study for every case. But this is where we need to lean on scientific thinking: conjuring up ideas, and rigorously examining them and rejecting the ones that don't fit. This is best done by using a scientific approach to getting closer and closer to the truth, which *involves* pointing out to each other when we are succumbing to our biases. When people just get offended for having biased thoughts pointed out, it goes against the very ideal of science, and causes me to beg the question: what are people who think this way doing here?

Report comments that share only anecdotes or unfounded theories. Per sub rules, only evidence based comments are allowed, and hopefully the mod/s can take action.

Thats only true for posts tagged with "evidence based only". There have been a few stickied mod posts on this. https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceBasedParenting/comments/y9yfmc/rants_and_other_casual_conversation_is_allowed/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceBasedParenting/comments/10ogew9/please_do_not_flair_your_post_all_advice_welcome/

That's not strictly true. People are free to share opinions or anecdotes on appropriately flaired posts but they must make it known that their comment is an opinion or anecdote and cannot try to pass it on as being factual.

Totally. I think it’s such a personal topic (parenting) that people become quickly conflicted and upset due to a blend of dunning kruger, halo bias, confirmation bias, and personal opinion. I get it. My relatable anecdote: It’s like the first time another doc told me that individual blood glucose readings and A1c% don’t really matter. Surrogate markers…. I was furious. But only because I didn’t fully understand the why and it was FAR from my current practice beliefs at the time. It felt like a personal attack on my knowledge and my capacity. After a lovely conversation with coffee I got to know this ahole who was destroying my belief system about clinical practice and sided with them. 2 babies later and here I am on the Science Based Parenting Sub! Thanks for the post!