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

216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]

#631

Post by lazide »

brookst wrote: post #313
otikik wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is not how AirTags work. They do not reach out to Apple servers at all. 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.

uh, that is just all the iphones acting as a mesh network for airtag ID’s?

it means you can’t block the tracking by doing anything yourself - you’d also need to block everyone else’s devices too.

Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]

#632

Post by Glyptodon »

If we aren't there already we're well on our way to a bizarre dystopia where our own internet subscriptions somehow cost more than our devices, which somehow generate enough money for their makers to justify embedding wireless modems for constant surveillance. If you buys a device at loss, for them spend a monthly fee to give it access to spy on you, because the data is so valuable, what on earth are they using it for? Or is everyone losing money?

Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]

#634

Post by toss1 »

joquarky wrote: post #546
rpdillon wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a similar reaction from folks when I don't trust services/devices. Most telling moment was when I refused to upload my license to LinkedIn because I lost 2FA (token on phone, phone destroyed). Microsoft assured me they would "delete the license as soon as it was verified". I've written too many software systems for too many companies, and I do not believe them . Of course, they'd outsourced to AU10TIX, which d…

When are the victims going to start getting significantly compensated for these breaches? They will keep happening as long as the consequences are just the cost of doing business.

It will be when enough people elect enough politicians who take action against this weaponized incompetence and strip-mining of the peoples' assets.

Or, if that does not happen, when enough people rise up in revolution and take the compensation for themselves.

Or, never.

If enough people vote enough or revolt enough, they cannot be stopped. But the incentives for too few people rising up are too costly. They work hard to keep the equilibrium in that balance.

Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]

#636

Post by 8fingerlouie »

uneoneuno wrote: post #352
8fingerlouie wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's never connected to the internet, not even for software updates. If the TV isn't connected to the internet there's no reason to update it, assuming the TV works as expected. It's a trade off I guess. I use Home Assistant to control TVs, so kinda need the access.

Have you noticed that on many home routers there is now a default open, sometimes password protective network named AT&T or Cox Wi-Fi? That’s the backhaul. The TV will join that automatically without asking you because they have an agreement with the network provider. This is how tons of devices phone home now. You don’t ever need to add a device on your network for it to have internet. If there’s a partner Wi-Fi net…

They tried that in Denmark a decade ago (or more). Enabled a "public wifi" on all home routers to provide wifi coverage for that company's customers everywhere.

They gave every assurance that it would be secure, completely separate from the users own network, and the bandwidth consumed would be added on top of whatever the user had a contract for.

It took a couple of days after launch before somebody managed to gain access to someone's private network from the public network and they shut it down again and never opened it again.

Anyway, I may be spoiled from living in Denmark, but I'm using my own router, which is an option when ordering, so I'm fairly certain nobody is sharing additional wifi hotspots.

And it's not just me. The majority of people I know use some kind of 3rd party router with their ISP. Granted, some of them just use whatever the ISP sends them, but even then I haven't ever seen any additional wifi networks, and the ISP prints the router admin password on the box itself, so you can poke around if you like (though the ISP has a backdoor, which is also why 3rd party routers are a thing).

Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]

#637

Post by wiml »

ticulatedspline wrote: post #525

I'm surprised this hasn't run afoul of all-party wiretap laws. Even if you could waive your own rights via ToS other people in the house may not have agreed. Theoretically I could see LG or even the TV's owner being culpable. I'd love to see that case hit the media. Average citizen jailed over wiretap violations because they let their TV record a guest.

The TV's license agreement attempts to shift the burden onto the TV's owner. Taken at face value, it's the owner who is guilty of recording people without their consent.

Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]

#638

Post by vman81 »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #52

My TVs are on the IoT network so that I can control them from Home Assistant, but they're blocked from accessing the internet. DNS lookups are redirected or blocked (53 redirected to my local DNS resolver, 853 blocked), and DoH is blocked as best effort though it's hard to block HTTP DNS traffic, which again is why the devices are blocked in the firewall. All streaming is done via AppleTV, which is a platform I trust…

Blocking DNS doesn't do much if the device isn't resolving hostnames and just pushes data to a bunch of preconfigured IPs tho...

Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]

#639

Post by charcircuit »

Animats wrote: post #572

Here are LG's contract terms for appliances.[1] They are awful. Not only can they listen in. You have a contractual requirement to tell everyone in range of an appliance that they may be eavesdropped upon. 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…

It just reads as legal boilerplate. How else can voice recognition listen for a wake word without being able to process everything it hears.

Re: 216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]

#640

Post by rustcleaner »

ieee2 wrote: post #537
korzinka wrote: post #107

I've bought an LG Smart TV 5 years ago, read t&c where I was supposed to grant them any data they wanted, decided to disagree and kept all network functions disabled. I was ridiculed by my friends for that. At some point, I thought - maybe I'm really crazy to do so? Who am I, a caveman, a luddite? Oh well, I'm not. Not a bad tv though, many HDMI ports!

Just thinking, if this is an issue, how you can dare to buy a modern car with embedded SIM card and GPS? :)

I yanked the OCU (telematics) out of my VW Mk7, and coded out the expectation of its existence from about four other devices with Ross-Tech's VCDS! I also coded out the Bluetooth on my infotainment unit, for good measure. :^)
Post reply on HN