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

191–200 of 727 posts

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#191

Post by kossTKR »

skyboy101 wrote: post #137
peregrine wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I purchased a Samsung tv, I connected it to Wifi one time to download any 'updates' then I disabled WIFI and all of the smart features via the menu and went the extra mile to block its MAC Address on the router. I never once touched any of the smart features and it has been fine so far. This has been my rule for any devices that requires WIFI. I should really setup a special guest network for them and disable WAN acc…

If I'm not mistaken, smart TVs can still communicate by via inaudible sound signals directly to other devices. Spooky.

Really? That's dystopian, but in a cool way. A little like Amazons own internet sharing network or what it was.

It's terrible though. We really live in a panopticon now.

Any links?

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#192

Post by leephillips »

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.

Can you avoid these problems by not allowing the TV to connect to the internet?

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#194

Post by foobarian »

rangerelf wrote: post #143
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.

Never again will I buy anything Samsung. They have steadfastly refused to fix my fridge's ice maker even though they have admitted it's a design fault, and retailers will not take it back as faulty because the ice maker is not considered vital to the functioning of the refrigerator in general.

Me neither! I got their fridge, and in my case the deicing functionality is faulty. There is a little metal tab behind the back panel that heats up an ice dam to keep the condensation flowing out, that happens to be too short by about 2cm. They skimped on 2cm of aluminum and now I will never buy anything Samsung ever again.

So in short, it seems that they can neither make a proper ice maker nor ice un-maker :-)

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#195

Post by mminer237 »

anshumankmr wrote: post #4

I am quite ambivalent to this feature. On one hand, if someone steals your TV, you can deactivate it. But now there is also a benefit to having a dumb TV. Imagine if you have too old of a model, so Samsung decides to remotely disable your TV.

Then the millions of old TV owners sue Samsung for trespass to chattels? That would be a horrible decision both financially and publicity-wise.

The benefit this gives to having a dumb TV is that it makes it more attractive to thieves.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#196

Post by akira2501 »

josephcsible wrote: post #3

This technology was used for good this time, but there's nothing stopping it from being used for evil next time. The fact that Samsung is even capable of doing this means you don't have control over your Samsung TV even if you do own it legally.

What good was served here? The products are still stolen and are still going on the books as a loss. Since they can't be used, they're likely going in a dumpster. And none of this apparently led the arrest of any perpetrators.

Hard to imagine what purpose was served here, other than Samsung broadcasting what kind of power they have over devices you own.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#197

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

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.

That's akin to a booby trap, and US law does not look kindly on such machinations.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#198

Post by pcurve »

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.

Seems like LG makes better appliance than Samsung in general... but I guess mileage varies between model and customer.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#199

Post by josephcsible »

akira2501 wrote: post #196
josephcsible wrote: post #3

This technology was used for good this time, but there's nothing stopping it from being used for evil next time. The fact that Samsung is even capable of doing this means you don't have control over your Samsung TV even if you do own it legally.

What good was served here? The products are still stolen and are still going on the books as a loss. Since they can't be used, they're likely going in a dumpster. And none of this apparently led the arrest of any perpetrators. Hard to imagine what purpose was served here, other than Samsung broadcasting what kind of power they have over devices you own.

It reduced the criminals' ability to profit from their crimes.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#200

Post by mrkramer »

PeterisP wrote: post #188
mrkramer wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On your phone you might have unencrypted private content and information on the other hand on Smart TV you have entertainment apps and entertainment content no private information at least that is what I think most people have and do. I don't anybody who stores private information on the Smart TV so when stolen Smart TVs start to circulate on the market no private information can be acquired or accessed(besides maybe…

IMEI blacklisting has nothing to do with private information or user of previous phone number, it does not try to do that, it's a technique that attempts to prevent stolen phones to be used by anyone as the operators would refuse to allow that device (identified by the device's IMEI number) to connect to their network.

But the crucial question is when was device stolen; "a priori" of someone using it or "a posteriori" of someone using it.

Samsung refers to TV being stolen "a priori" of consumer using it("A TV blocking system has been activated on Samsung television sets stolen from our warehouse") but if a TV is stolen posteriori of someone using it maybe blocking can come in handy in order to protect consumer's private information on the device. But when remotely disabling someone's TV you should be 100% sure you are doing it for the right reason and you should inform the consumer before you do it.

Samsung explains "a priori" blocking of Smart TV like this:

Samsung Television Block works as follows:

A TV blocking system has been activated on Samsung television sets stolen from our warehouse

The blocking will come into effect when the user of a stolen television connects to the internet, in order to operate the television

Once connected, the serial number of the television is identified on the Samsung server and the blocking system is implemented, disabling all the television functions

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

Post reply on HN