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

151–160 of 727 posts

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#151

Post by rad_gruchalski »

imglorp wrote: post #107
notyourwork wrote: post #100

I'm on the fence here, I sort of like the premise that looters don't get their booty. I do agree though I don't like the idea that a corporation can remotely disable a piece of hardware I bought.

Really? How about this? Your social media $POST critical of $PARTY is incompatible with Samsung's vision of community. We have therefore disabled your $PHONE, $WATCH, $TV, $DISHWASHER, and $PC. Contact serv.manager@samsung.com or click here for more information" Does that possibility change your position?

Since when is this going on?

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#152

Post by rad_gruchalski »

Teknoman117 wrote: post #46
anonuser123456 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh the tyranny of having to pay…

I don’t have proof of purchase for 90% of the stuff I own. It’s insane to expect people to hang on to receipts for eternity.

No bank statements?

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#153

Post by reaperducer »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #80
zimbatm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Supply chains matter and that has always been true. You have never had recourse for buying stolen goods under law. If you buy stolen goods, the police can seize them and you are out the money.

Samsung is not a police agency. It should not be allowed to virtually seize something that belongs to me.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#154

Post by mdp2021 »

gruez wrote: post #111
imglorp wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? How about this? Your social media $POST critical of $PARTY is incompatible with Samsung's vision of community. We have therefore disabled your $PHONE, $WATCH, $TV, $DISHWASHER, and $PC. Contact serv.manager@samsung.com or click here for more information" Does that possibility change your position?

But if you reached that level of tyranny, shouldn't you be more worried about the state sending Men With Guns to your residence, or blocking you from receiving government services (eg. welfare, healthcare, renewing drivers license)? Not being able to netflix and chill seems like the least of your worries.

You may have not considered that appliances allowing profiling are part of the system that may enable the above.

Which, also, may not be worse: it may be less absurd under some perspective.

Edit: by the way: if you used your handeld and general purpose computers as your extension, which really should be factual, your dismissal would become the least justifiable statement. "Yes, I had an hyppocampus (amygdala etc.) but I probably did not need it that much." Little has more priority than your full ownership of your extensions.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#155

Post by rad_gruchalski »

Ensorceled wrote: post #98
anonuser123456 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, since you didn't steal it why would they disable it? But if you bought it off the back of some guys truck would you honestly expect it to work?

From the parent: > "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" I don't know why they would block me, but apparently it is something they've created a process for, a process I wouldn't be able to participate in.

But they wouldn't. You have a 10 year old Sony TV. This is Samsung.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#156

Post by scns »

plussed_reader wrote: post #112
drewg123 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gigabyte does not do business in good faith. I am extremely leery of anything related to them now; they are not a safe brand. https://www.windowscentral.com/gigabyte-allows-returns-or-ex...

Hm, don't want to side with with Gigabyte here, but drawing a conclusion from a test of a PSU enduring 120% load for an extended period of time failing would not make me dismiss all their products.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#157

Post by Unklejoe »

nicolas_t wrote: post #113
ok123456 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung's appliances have a pretty bad reputation in general, especially the refrigerators and side loading washing machines.

Anecdotal but I've had very good experience with Samsung front loading washing machine, might depend on regions of the world though, I've had one in Asia and one in Europe.

That's crazy because I've had terrible experience with Samsung front loader washing machines. I own a few rental properties, so I tend to go through appliances a lot and I've had more Samsung washers and dryers fail than anything else.

The dryers are the worst. They use a plastic tensioner pulley for the belt, but the pulley doesn't have a bearing...it just rides on a metal sleeve. This eventually wears out and causes the belt to fly off.

The washers have this issue I think due to incompatible metals (aluminum mounting to the stainless drum maybe) that causes them to break after about 5 years.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#158

Post by rad_gruchalski »

gruez wrote: post #116
Lammy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't usually carry your smart TV around with you in your pocket

But TV sets are targets of burglars.

Hence it's good to have a proof of purchase. If your house gets burgled, you can claim the insurance.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#159

Post by turminal »

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.

Other brands are equally bad in my experience sadly.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#160

Post by nate_meurer »

gambiting wrote: post #68
ollien wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't argue with your assessment of thieves, but if you're going to have self-destruct mechanisms in your devices, appliances, or car, do you really trust a company like Samsung with the red button? Wouldn't you rather have that under your own control?
Post reply on HN