Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 340 posts

Re: What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen

#11

Post by Smerity »

abandonliberty wrote: post #8

This is promising and is a good start towards IOT precedent, and perhaps even operating systems of our devices (Windows 10). - Explain your data collection practices up front. - Get consumers’ consent before you collect and share highly specific information about their entertainment preferences. - Make it easy for consumers to exercise options. - Established consumer protection principles apply to new technology. I w…

To note, they were also forced to delete the collected data, though the insights they've already extracted / profits from data they've already sold may offset both the point and the $2.2 million fine.

Re: What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen

#12

Post by teach »

vonklaus wrote: post #9
troydavis wrote: post #5

It's amazing this was settled for a few million dollars. It's easy to imagine an alternative press release where the settlement was 10x or even 100x larger.

but then Vizio wouldn't make a profit. The FTC has to make sure these companies continue to be profitable while itself appears to be semi-competent. Similarly, Verizons supercookie "crackdown" was laughable. FTC stands for Fuck the Consumer because that is their primary objective. edit: I phrased the above incorrectly. I meant to imply that the FTC is beholden to these companies and largely does their bidding. Except…

I suspect if you rewrote this comment without using such emotionally-charged and loaded language you might have gotten more upvotes.

Let me give it a try.

"Unfortunately, the FTC has an interest in keeping companies profitable, so any punitive measures take a back seat."

Re: What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen

#13

Post by PhantomGremlin »

jeanvaljean2463 wrote: post #2

Huge schocker /s Pretty sure that Samsung does very similar things. I've been interested in actually capturing outgoing pcap data for this purpose. Looks like I have a new project to add the pile.

capturing outgoing pcap data

Why wouldn't that data be encrypted? All you would see is packets going to specific IP addresses. No way to analyze the contents.

Of course, the data might not be encrypted. Why go thru the effort? Because of the large quantity of data being passed back and forth by almost all Internet connected devices, it's tedious to interpret what's happening even if the flows are completely open.

Re: What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen

#14

Post by PhantomGremlin »

teach wrote: post #12
vonklaus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but then Vizio wouldn't make a profit. The FTC has to make sure these companies continue to be profitable while itself appears to be semi-competent. Similarly, Verizons supercookie "crackdown" was laughable. FTC stands for Fuck the Consumer because that is their primary objective. edit: I phrased the above incorrectly. I meant to imply that the FTC is beholden to these companies and largely does their bidding. Except…

I suspect if you rewrote this comment without using such emotionally-charged and loaded language you might have gotten more upvotes. Let me give it a try. "Unfortunately, the FTC has an interest in keeping companies profitable, so any punitive measures take a back seat."

without using such emotionally-charged and loaded language

Except that "Fuck the Consumer" seems like a nice clear description of the situation.

Re: What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen

#15

Post by passivepinetree »

The amount of money they made from that data is probably orders of magnitude more than the paltry $2.2 million penalty.

I hate to get all paranoid, but it seems like every day there's news of a company's data being hacked, and what information isn't being hacked is being actively sold.

What can an average citizen do (short of living Ron Swanson-style in a cabin in the woods) to protect their privacy?

Re: What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen

#16

Post by acdha »

troydavis wrote: post #5

It's amazing this was settled for a few million dollars. It's easy to imagine an alternative press release where the settlement was 10x or even 100x larger.

Call (not email, not Twitter) your Congressional representatives and remind them. Agencies act within laws which make certain things easier or harder and they're probably going to settle if the alternative is a lot more work.

Re: What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen

#17

Post by tps5 »

teach wrote: post #12
vonklaus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but then Vizio wouldn't make a profit. The FTC has to make sure these companies continue to be profitable while itself appears to be semi-competent. Similarly, Verizons supercookie "crackdown" was laughable. FTC stands for Fuck the Consumer because that is their primary objective. edit: I phrased the above incorrectly. I meant to imply that the FTC is beholden to these companies and largely does their bidding. Except…

I suspect if you rewrote this comment without using such emotionally-charged and loaded language you might have gotten more upvotes. Let me give it a try. "Unfortunately, the FTC has an interest in keeping companies profitable, so any punitive measures take a back seat."

Sometimes "fuck" isn't emotionally charged. Sometimes it's just the more accurate term.

Re: What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen

#18

Post by jeanvaljean2463 »

modoc wrote: post #10
jeanvaljean2463 wrote: post #2

Huge schocker /s Pretty sure that Samsung does very similar things. I've been interested in actually capturing outgoing pcap data for this purpose. Looks like I have a new project to add the pile.

Why do you think Samsung is doing this as well?

http://www.myce.com/news/users-fix-samsung-smart-tv-time-two...

( See comments about said Samsung TVs ) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13581771

Re: What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen

#19

Post by 1_2__3 »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #13
jeanvaljean2463 wrote: post #2

Huge schocker /s Pretty sure that Samsung does very similar things. I've been interested in actually capturing outgoing pcap data for this purpose. Looks like I have a new project to add the pile.

capturing outgoing pcap data Why wouldn't that data be encrypted? All you would see is packets going to specific IP addresses. No way to analyze the contents. Of course, the data might not be encrypted. Why go thru the effort? Because of the large quantity of data being passed back and forth by almost all Internet connected devices, it's tedious to interpret what's happening even if the flows are completely open.

Experience would suggest the chances of the data being encrypted are very low.

Re: What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen

#20

Post by joering2 »

abandonliberty wrote: post #8

This is promising and is a good start towards IOT precedent, and perhaps even operating systems of our devices (Windows 10). - Explain your data collection practices up front. - Get consumers’ consent before you collect and share highly specific information about their entertainment preferences. - Make it easy for consumers to exercise options. - Established consumer protection principles apply to new technology. I w…

> I wonder how many technical teams are scrambling to undo their spying now

I bet the one that truly have to worry in terms of size calculated that the cost of undoing it will overweight the cost of eventual penalty, underscoring word "eventual".

Post reply on HN