Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday February 11 2021, @05:40PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-promise-little-to-no-injury-or-your-money-back dept.

Fantastical News Everyone! Remember an earlier SN article about CELLMATE, a male chastity device that got hacked and would not unlock your hardware? Well, now the maker of that IoT device says it's now totally safe to put your equipment into their device once again! They promise! This time for sure! Nothing could go wrong!

Chastity Penis Lock Company That Was Hacked Says It's Now Totally Safe To Put Your Penis Back In That Chastity Lock

While we've covered the Internet of Broken Things for some time, where companies fail to secure the devices they sell which connect to the internet, the entire genre sort of jumped the shark in October of last year. That's when Qiui, a Chinese company, was found to have sold a penis chastity lock that communicates with an API that was wide open and sans any password protection. The end result is that users of a device that locks up their private parts could enjoy those private parts entirely at the pleasure of nefarious third parties. Qiui pushed out a fix to the API... but didn't do so for existing users, only new devices. Why? Well, the company stated that pushing it out to existing devices would again cause them to all lock up, with no override available. Understandably, there wasn't a whole lot of interest in the company's devices at that point.

But fear not, target market for penis chastity locks! Qiui says it's now totally safe to use the product again!

Since this device uses a proprietary API, there is still the issue of Vendor Lock In to be concerned about.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2021, @06:12PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2021, @06:12PM (#1111639)

    You flip the switch on and the female immediately ceases to want to perform procreation-related-actions with you due to your face.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Funny=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 11 2021, @06:25PM (5 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 11 2021, @06:25PM (#1111646) Journal

    Not if one is properly wearing a mask to prevent catching any type of disease from their partner.

    --
    Satin worshipers are obsessed with high thread counts because they have so many daemons.
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 11 2021, @06:29PM (4 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 11 2021, @06:29PM (#1111651) Homepage Journal

      The Roomie is following Whitehouse guidance on double masking now. He started wearing a Hugh Jackman picture with eye holes under his Deadpool mask.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2021, @06:50PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2021, @06:50PM (#1111666)

        "The Roomie"

        suspicious

        we may be coming up on a breakthrough for TMB

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday February 11 2021, @07:00PM (2 children)

          by Freeman (732) on Thursday February 11 2021, @07:00PM (#1111675) Journal

          Considering that's not the first time, he's mentioned having a "roomie", you're reading way too much into it.

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2021, @07:26PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2021, @07:26PM (#1111692)

            It was the proposal for a Whitehouse "Odd Couple" TV show that caused many of us to read too much into it. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But the supporting of bigoted anti-LGBQT Republicans, that is not OK.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2021, @12:08AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2021, @12:08AM (#1111781)

            Considering the context of wearing a mask to avoid getting diseases from your sexual partners, mentioning your "roommate" and their propensity to wear two masks has a certain "Sappho and her friend" vibe.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2021, @08:38PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2021, @08:38PM (#1111712)

    The reason he didn't "get" your joke (and neither did I) is because chastity is SELF-IMPOSED. In your joke, the man wasn't chaste at all; the female refused him. To fix your joke, you should change "chastity" to "birth control device."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2021, @06:54AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2021, @06:54AM (#1111868)

      But, the problem with all of this is, besides the bizarre notion of "chastity devices" outside of succession to the throne in some medieval country, like Formerly Grate Britain, is that "inchaste" has the connotation of a negation, as with "incontinent" "incapable" or "incest". Now in the parlance of our time (but not on Parler, since delenda est), "incel" is a shortening, a, what do you call it? a shortening of "involuntary celibate", which I understand was originally "invcel", but since that is too weird and to pronounce which something in your mouth, as shortened further to "incel". Not the "in" in "incel" has not negatory connotation, and in fact reinforces the fact of celibacy. "Inchaste" on the other hand, runs the risk of being the same as "unchaste", which would suggest the male equivalents of promiscuity, like "man-whore", "gigilo", Bobby, or Proud Boy. None of those are the intended meanings, so I suggest we drop the whole topic, lock it up in a device that would leave no ambiguity about whether one has had sex, or not, like just the term "incel".

      Now, as for an "involuntary involuntary celibate", does the rule of the double negative apply, or no?

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday February 12 2021, @08:48AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday February 12 2021, @08:48AM (#1111888) Homepage
        > "inchaste" has the connotation of a negation, as with "incontinent" "incapable" or "incest"

        Ari (worked it out by /delenda est/, it took so long because of these uncharacteristic slips), there is no "inchaste", only "unchaste", there's no need for any new coinings for distinctions without a difference, your risk is imaginary. I'm also surprised you didn't highlight that "unchaste" is at its core the *same* word as "incest", both were ~"lacking purity" in their latinate origins. And a bonus cookie for those who love racist trivia, it's the same origin as "caste" too.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves