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

Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

news.samsung.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 727 posts

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#61

Post by itsyaboi »

prepend wrote: post #52
itsyaboi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that smart TVs are a cancer, I'm confused by your take. Do you have the same opinion towards locking stolen iPhones? If not, why? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-is-reportedly-disabl...

iPhones are necessarily cloud connected, TVs not so much. Activating my iPhone is something I normally do and provides me value (payment, location services, etc etc) so there’s a natural place. All this is bloat on a tv. Also the iPhone bricking requires a police report and has a pretty defined process and I’m not aware of any overreach by Apple to brick phones like this story.

Ah, I see. It's mainly the lack of due process and the implication that legitimately purchased units might have been included in the bulk lockout. Thank you for explaining!

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#62

Post by debarshri »

ipaddr wrote: post #34
debarshri wrote: post #15

What are the chances that someone would phish an admin user to the platform that blocks all the TV systems and block the all samsung TV devices. What are the chances that they could be snooping and monitoring what I am watching. It would be nice to see some more transparency in these remote monitoring and management systems. The system setup is very similar to Teamviewer or kaseya where you accept them to manage your…

What leads you to believe they are not monitoring eveything you watch now?

Jeez. I am going off the grid.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#63

Post by prepend »

netr0ute wrote: post #33
BeefySwain wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only works until every "smart" device has a cellular modem built in.

Who pays for the cellular plans?

We do as part of the device cost. 5G makes it pretty cheap so a manufacturer adding in a radio ups their cost by a dollar or two. The revenue from surveillance is marginally profitable including data costs.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#64

Post by itsyaboi »

dmos62 wrote: post #58
itsyaboi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that smart TVs are a cancer, I'm confused by your take. Do you have the same opinion towards locking stolen iPhones? If not, why? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-is-reportedly-disabl...

Not OP, but I'd say the problem is that someone, doesn't matter if it's the manufacturer, can disable your device remotely or that he has access to it at all.

My confusion was why this is considered to be a positive feature in some cases (e.g. iPhones), but not in this case.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#65

Post by drewg123 »

dthul wrote: post #48
wait_a_minute wrote: post #36

I bought one of Samsung's smart televisions a couple years ago. I think I paid $1500 for it. Anyway, it started showing me ads and the TV eventually became sluggish less than a month after owning it. Returned it as defective. Ever since that experience, I swore of all smart televisions and will never buy another Samsung television or smartphone again if I can help it.

The issue is that it's hard to find any not-too-smart TVs with up to date technology (4k, OLED, HDR etc). Unless you spend a fortune on a luxury brand like Bang and Olufsen.

One alternative is the Gigabyte AORUS FO48U 48" 4K OLED. This essentially an LG OLED, minus the smart TV stuff, plus better inputs. It seems to have a ~15% price premium over the TV.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#66

Post by hhsbz »

drewg123 wrote: post #57
wait_a_minute wrote: post #36

I bought one of Samsung's smart televisions a couple years ago. I think I paid $1500 for it. Anyway, it started showing me ads and the TV eventually became sluggish less than a month after owning it. Returned it as defective. Ever since that experience, I swore of all smart televisions and will never buy another Samsung television or smartphone again if I can help it.

I bought a high-end Samsung 4K tv in 2015 or so for about $3000. I picked it after a week of research that showed it had the highest quality panel. After taking delivery of the TV, we noticed it had bright lower left and right corners that we later found out were due to new packaging that pinched the TV and caused most of the TVs in that batch to be ruined. Samsung claimed that the corners were "in spec" and refused…

What do you expect Samsung to do, throw away a $3000 product for a defect most consumers wouldn't notice?

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#67

Post by argomo »

mc32 wrote: post #2

On the one hand this is understandable and sort of "evil genius", on the other hand, this will also affect grey market buyers who cannot produce a legitimate receipt. It's also problematic because this means they can alter your property at will.

Yep. This hurts all SmartTV owners because it lowers the resale value of their property. Buyers have to stick to official retailers or risk getting a product that will be remotely bricked.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#68

Post by gambiting »

ollien wrote: post #39
anonuser123456 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh the tyranny of having to pay…

Obviously that's not the point, here. The fact that Samsung has the ability to brick a TV remotely _at all_ is ridiculous. It's not hard to imagine this being used by an attacker to shut down all Samsung TVs remotely, or for planned obsolescence if you want to be more cynical.

Or.....against thieves. As someone who had stuff stolen, I'd pay money for electronics that catches fire once reported stolen, thieves are literally scum of the earth and only one step above murderers and rapists in my books. Great step by Samsung here.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#69

Post by zimbatm »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #31
mrkramer wrote: post #19

"Should a customer’s TV be incorrectly blocked, the functionality can be reinstated once proof of purchase and a valid TV license is shared to serv.manager@samsung.com or click here for more information" Fuck off. This is a wake up call for us to make free and open source Smart TV operating system so we can stop this tyranny.

Oh the tyranny of having to pay…

You might have paid the TV second hand, and not be aware of the theft. What recourse do you have then? You're out of pocket, the seller might not be reachable anymore, and you have no proof of purchase.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#70

Post by mrkramer »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #31
mrkramer wrote: post #19

"Should a customer’s TV be incorrectly blocked, the functionality can be reinstated once proof of purchase and a valid TV license is shared to serv.manager@samsung.com or click here for more information" Fuck off. This is a wake up call for us to make free and open source Smart TV operating system so we can stop this tyranny.

Oh the tyranny of having to pay…

Apple remotely scanning our phones for "suspicious" content, Samsung remotely disabling our TVs on the suspicion of TV being stolen what is next?!

This is akin to Crypto Wars from the 1990s but this time the enemy is far more dangerous. In the 1990s we had a centralized enemy the government which decided to turn against us this time the enemy is decentralized in the form of private corporations which are turning against us one by one.

Government can be tamed but private corporations can not; they only see profit and now they think they can get more of it by lying to us they do it in the name of social justice.

Post reply on HN