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

LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 549 posts

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#501

Post by nicwolff »

mschuster91 wrote: post #408
nostrademons wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had an LG TV for work because my team developed some of the software on it. Similar experience - it got progressively worse (including the software my team developed, which in true Google fashion was deprioritized, discontinued, team laid off, and left to rot without anyone bothering to tell LG that it was no longer being maintained) until by the time I left that team it was nearly unusable as a "smart" TV and all…

> but for a TV, I just want a dumb screen that I can hook an HDMI cable to and run off a computer. Look into Digital Signage displays. You pay a brickload more money but get (much) higher quality in return.

My 55" LG Wallpaper signage display is pretty much perfect – it just has HDMI in from an Apple TV and never bothers me. But, it takes ~10 seconds to turn on after a signal is detected, since it was never meant to be turned off!

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#502

Post by inigyou »

jacobgold wrote: post #496
inigyou wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ways you are asking the government to mutilate the internet are quite similar to the ways the media industries asked the government to mutilate the internet.

What I'm calling for is exactly how things are already supposed to work. The US government should already be infiltrating hacker groups and identifying infected American computers. Internet providers should be informing customers that hackers have compromised their devices. Characterizing this as "mutilating the internet" is ridiculous.

You said the ISP should be legally required to shut off their internet.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#503

Post by inigyou »

nemomarx wrote: post #490
inigyou wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: IP range blocking is the bane of the internet, and I'm glad I can get around it by buying residential proxies. They cause very little problem to anyone except for the companies that think they can be the tzar of who gets to view certain information. The most unethical component is that the user often didn't consent to installing the proxy (which causes no problems for him) but this can be resolved and s…

how's it avoid causing problems for the user? it's using their Internet. imagine if they had data caps or so on and you're downloading through that proxy - that's basically taking his money, right?

Is Windows Update basically taking my money? Residential proxy costs per GB are quite high, so traffic isn't.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#504

Post by mrguyorama »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #447
blagie wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But then, by standards of two decades ago, every website that cannot legally avoid showing a GDPR popup would be classified as malware. As it should be today. Alas, standards have changed. I don't think you've read GDPR. In Europe (at least my part), *every* organization has a GDPR policy you need to agree to. Your child's school. Summer camps. Etc. Most are also conservative and reasonable. What's broken is the GD…

That was exactly the point OP was making.

That pop up is not required by GDPR

You only need explicit consent from the user for tracking you do not require for valid business purposes

It's like complaining that OSHA sucks because every time you visit the grocery store you have to sign a waver that if they throw you in a wood chipper, you cant sue them.

That problem is not with liability wavers!

What feels really crummy to me is how many people don't seem to know that websites cannot really prevent you from using them if you reject optional cookies, so average people are afraid that if they say no, they can't use websites.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#505

Post by nemomarx »

inigyou wrote: post #503
nemomarx wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how's it avoid causing problems for the user? it's using their Internet. imagine if they had data caps or so on and you're downloading through that proxy - that's basically taking his money, right?

Is Windows Update basically taking my money? Residential proxy costs per GB are quite high, so traffic isn't.

if windows update was downloading things without my knowledge or consent, kind of? this is why people resent some forced Microsoft software after all.

anyway if the costs are high surely they can pay the end users. at least then there's awareness and agreement. the ones bundled in apps or software seem less ethical to me than offering them some money per month to host it.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#506

Post by zappb »

SoftTalker wrote: post #404
tjoff wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airgapped is harder than you might think. If your TV finds an open network (neigbours?) it will use that one. And it is only a matter of time before they have cellular capabilities too.

Maybe 10 years ago. Very few homes have an open network today, ISPs all ship their routers with random passwords and/or force the customer to create a WiFi password during setup.

Comcast still defaults to adding an Xfinity access point to their routers for other customers to use.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#507

Post by efreak »

inigyou wrote: post #468
efreak wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would your TV always be on? My TV is only on when I'm using it.

Do you mean the screen is on or the processor is on? If it's plugged in, the processor is on.

Technically the processor is on in low power mode, but the TV unit itself is not running. On pressing the power button, the interface does not appear immediately. First the screen displays the Samsung logo, then the system loads, then the (broadcast/HDMI/analog) TV signal appears several seconds later. I can hook up a power meter (if I can find it, unlikely), but if the system was fully running it would be near-instant like when you switch to your cable box that has a fan running 24/7 expelling hot air (in this case it would only have to turn on the screen itself). This is about 3x longer than it takes my monitors of the same age to power on. (Samsung and Acer and Dell).

I do not have the smart features enabled, not do I have it connected to any networks.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#508

Post by [deleted] »

inigyou wrote: post #502
jacobgold wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm calling for is exactly how things are already supposed to work. The US government should already be infiltrating hacker groups and identifying infected American computers. Internet providers should be informing customers that hackers have compromised their devices. Characterizing this as "mutilating the internet" is ridiculous.

You said the ISP should be legally required to shut off their internet.

[deleted]

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#509

Post by secabeen »

bcraven wrote: post #110
matheusmoreira wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they the only TVs that can be jailbroken?

I decided there wasn't much to do if I did: https://www.webosbrew.org/rooting/

I thought this, but random updates and changes for my apps in dev mode got too annoying; switching to full root has made my apps stable and turned off the prompts to upgrade the OS. It was worth it.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#510

Post by lathiat »

Laurel1234 wrote: post #495
nerdsniper wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? Wow.

The other user provided great context but if anyone thinks I'm exaggerating in any way shape or form read the user agreement in LG's own site: https://www.lg.com/uk/lge-terms/ > i. CONSENT REQUIREMENT: You acknowledge and agree that it is your sole responsibility to obtain all necessary consents from any third parties whose voices may be captured by the Product and to notify household members and guests that their vo…

I am so very happy to have a 2010s Samsung TV with no Wi-Fi and an AppleTV.

I do not lock forward to needing to upgrade the TV.

Post reply on HN