My LG C5 is in a separate VLAN, with no access to the rest of my home network. I've never accepted the terms and conditions, and I don't need anything from it other than to be a display for my 4k player and PC. I guess now I'm going to remove Internet access from it altogether! The thing I'd like is if the remote didn't have 4 buttons for crappy streaming services I will never use, but instead had 4 buttons to select…
You can root your LG and install an app that allow remapping any button to do anything, including selecting specific HDMI input.
216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]
311–320 of 1001 posts
Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really?
Well that is how Airtags work. Any iphone/ipad/mac nearby will act as a router for them[1] Given that we have already established that LG is a shady company, I wouldn't put it beyond them to try to use the same trick. [1] https://lifehacker.com/tech/how-apple-airtags-actually-work
AirTags broadcast an encrypted ID. Phones build lists of ID’s they’ve seen and send the list to Apple.
There is no routing, no ability to send arbitrary data, no active communication of any sort. It’s not a mesh network.
The link you posted makes that pretty clear.
Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]
#313Just don't buy a smart TV. Buy a good "dumb" TV (or just get a good large monitor), then hook it up to a set top box (with TV capabilities as needed).
Unfortunately, you can't have one without the other. The best, image quality -wise, TVs are all "smart".
Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]
#314Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]
#315Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]
#316This sort of blanket data collection needs to be made illegal in every single jurisdiction, and have _very_ robust penalties for anyone found in breach of them.
Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]
#317Funny, published on a site with 1745 'partners' who fully respect our privacy of course
I believe we should push for legislation that prohibits the sale of customer data to third parties. Websites can use the data on their customers but they cannot share it with anyone else. Because aggregators are selling it cross-border after which you lose track and all control over it.
Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. Why would you even connect TV to the network? It is well known for like 5 years. Smsrt TVs go through your movies library, and upload screenshots and filenames to internet. Some will start showing ads after firmware upgrade.
> This. Why would you even connect TV to the network? I happen to have a NAS with family pictures I like to display. I can (and do) firewall that thing, but then you hit other issues like the apps you need to show pictures and movies in the first place not to install/run. I've yet to hear of a reasonable recipe to isolate and secure such connected TVs. And don't get me started on Chromecast or other Android dongles,…
Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
>this is going to be a massive business liability. No. this is going to go "unnoticed" or at least unactioned. These are surveilance devices - compromising their value as source of surveilance is neither in the interest of industry (who are selling and buying the surveilance) or government (who are buying and acting on it). The age of shame is over. Current world goernments have flourished under the premise of being…
I'm thinking less about shame, as corporations are dead to shame, and more about proof the TV stored a record of your bank details it got from text to speech. If that's stored as text inside the TV and you lost money because it was copied by a hacker then you have a monetary value to show loss and a trail of liability you can use to sue LG.
The legal systems that are in place (at least, those in the US) are not sufficient or even designed to act in any amount of favor of individuals. Even leveraging collective action (class action cases), most individuals are left worse off after judgement when they are wronged. Signalling that you are an affected class is effectively an admission of, at minimum, association - and worse guilt, of whatever an inteligence agency may suspect you of. Intelligence is not justice, and does not "protect" individuals under the same standards. If a government wants you to be wronged, they will accomplish it regardless of law, and the information they have regarding you will be leveraged as aggressively as possible. If you are simply wronged, the cost of accomplishing justice is often insurmountable.
In the most innocent case of wrongdoing by one of these surveilance devices, what would you, as an individual, do if your bank details were compromised as a result of a "smart" device exposing your credentials to bad actors? Obviously, you would contact your banking institution and try your best to rememedy the situation. But say, for example, this smart device is on your home network, has your login details, and possibly used your 2fa details because you used it to log in to your banking institution. That is You™. You logged in. You actioned something. It's verifiable because of your IP and your cookies and your 2fa code and the heuristics of your device usage (time of day, and the previous factors, and more). Many smart device applications already include SDKs that act as residential proxies - it's not impossible to believe that malicious ones may act as MITM or such. The possibility of 0Day expoloits or even backdoors can never be ruled out as you do not own these devices.
People should be subject to shame. Every government and every company are composed of people (for now) - these people are what action these possible futures, and who action the exploits of now. They are shameless by trade because that is their value. Much like the adtech industry thrives on the compromise of compensation to overcome the shame of doing wrong, so does intelligence and clandestine commercial exploitation. Money affords people the things that they want and need, which are becoming ever more impossible to acquire without succumbing to the shame of doing Bad Things™ to acquire it. You are never going to be able to sue LG because your bank details were leaked by a public DB or some other endpoint. Nobody will. Because the value of the information that LG provides to governments circumventing established anti-surveilance law (in the US, the 4th Amendment) through sales is worth more than any dollar amount it costs these parties.
Shame on every fucking one of you stains who implements this, if you can feel it, hidden in the walls of your owned property.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_espionage_in_the_Unite...
Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]
#320Funny, published on a site with 1745 'partners' who fully respect our privacy of course
I believe we should push for legislation that prohibits the sale of customer data to third parties. Websites can use the data on their customers but they cannot share it with anyone else. Because aggregators are selling it cross-border after which you lose track and all control over it.