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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by 8fingerlouie »

sgerenser wrote: post #242
Eji1700 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then your neighbor spins up an unprotected network or something like xfinity which they could have a deal with and it connects there and phones home anyways.

I hear this a lot “TVs will just connect to a nearby unprotected WiFi network!” But I ve never seen any evidence of it. It appears to just be speculation, unless you have an actual source?

Because they don't. It's too much guesswork, and honestly pretty complicated. From the user perspective the TV would appear to go offline every now and then, so also somewhat easily detected.

It's much easier to just throw a $10 5G modem in there, pay the $2/year subscription fee for service, and extract data that way. Assuming a 5-10 year relevant lifespan of the TV, they'd throw $20-$30 on top of the sales price for the modem and 10 years of service.

The 5G modem could run completely independent of the wifi network, be a completely different circuit, and you'd never know it was there.

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

#642

Post by rustcleaner »

DPDmancul wrote: post #443
ryandrake wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to climb two very difficult hills for there to be any change here: 1. We need our governments to actually start charging companies with crimes, when what they are doing would be illegal for an individual to do, and 2. We need the penalties to be something other than fines, which are ultimately treated by companies as routine costs of business.

> We need the penalties to be something other than fines, which are ultimately treated by companies as routine costs of business. It's true that fines are nothing more than predictable costs, so maybe an option would be fines in percentage of the incoming of the company: this way it could make a real impact. I know in some north Europe countries the speed limit fines are in percentage on the personal net worth.

Income is too small, how about in terms of the highest market capitalization between deciding to do the bad thing and being convicted of the bad thing? Maybe some of these penalties should result in bankruptcies for the most egregious big players, and when I say bankruptcies I don't mean restructuring but actual corporate financial death: firesale auction the assets, debt holders lose much of their value, equity holders get squat, and all employees are out on their asses having been let go. Do it to a Microsoft or Google sized company, scare the piss out of the rest! Then implement protection policies to make it impossible to move headquarters out of the country without having product prices end up 2-4x higher, so domestic competition (which could be let to run tax free) can come up and fill the void. Also tax the hectomillionaires+ more heavily on assets, income, and capital gains!

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

#643

Post by paulryanrogers »

computably wrote: post #563
sbarre wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my conclusion after dealing with them for many years is they will lie, cheat, and steal to get whatever they want Honestly, it's not even that extreme in most cases. I think it's usually not malice, it's incompetence. That's why I don't trust big companies with my data. Nothing to do with some CEO's evil plans, but more to do with the hundreds/thousands of mid-level "not my job" or "doing my best" workers who are a…

> Nothing to do with some CEO's evil plans, but more to do with the hundreds/thousands of mid-level "not my job" or "doing my best" workers who are actually in charge of handling my data. The CEO is responsible for what their company does. If a major breach can occur through the oversight or "incompetence" of one worker, the CEO has already failed, whether through negligence or malice.

Will the CEO suffer consequences? It seems the worst they face is being fired with a golden parachute.

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

#644

Post by rustcleaner »

daemin wrote: post #609
ryandrake wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to climb two very difficult hills for there to be any change here: 1. We need our governments to actually start charging companies with crimes, when what they are doing would be illegal for an individual to do, and 2. We need the penalties to be something other than fines, which are ultimately treated by companies as routine costs of business.

Simplest thing to say is: find all the people responsible for this, from the bottom to the top, and charge them with the same crime as an individual would be. I would include everyone in the chain from the programmers that implemented it, to the VP that authorised it, and finally to the CEO because all responsibility ends with them (that's why they get paid the big bucks right?). I'd like to say look at Volkswagen fo…

I don't blame VW because EPA's requirements were killing diesel cars in the US. There haven't been any new model diesel passenger cars in about ten years now.

Similar policy is why American trucks and SUVs are ridiculusly massive transformer-looking behemoths and there're really no 'small' trucks anymore. The Ford Ranger of today is of similar size to the Ford F-150 of 25 years ago.

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

#645

Post by sgerenser »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #641
sgerenser wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this a lot “TVs will just connect to a nearby unprotected WiFi network!” But I ve never seen any evidence of it. It appears to just be speculation, unless you have an actual source?

Because they don't. It's too much guesswork, and honestly pretty complicated. From the user perspective the TV would appear to go offline every now and then, so also somewhat easily detected. It's much easier to just throw a $10 5G modem in there, pay the $2/year subscription fee for service, and extract data that way. Assuming a 5-10 year relevant lifespan of the TV, they'd throw $20-$30 on top of the sales price fo…

Except they don’t do that either. I’m not aware of any TV that bundles a 5G modem. Are you?

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

#646

Post by jfreds »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #619
sbarre wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my conclusion after dealing with them for many years is they will lie, cheat, and steal to get whatever they want Honestly, it's not even that extreme in most cases. I think it's usually not malice, it's incompetence. That's why I don't trust big companies with my data. Nothing to do with some CEO's evil plans, but more to do with the hundreds/thousands of mid-level "not my job" or "doing my best" workers who are a…

> I think it's usually not malice, it's incompetence. Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, and should be treated accordingly.

[flagged]

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

#647

Post by Akronymus »

phony-account wrote: post #589
Animats wrote: post #571

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…

And yet what lawmakers focused on was getting your consent for a cookie on a website you were only going to visit once.

That was the maliciously compliant way that companies chose to do to a reasonable law.

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

#648

Post by taylorfinley »

ungreased0675 wrote: post #395
spockz wrote: post #172

Okay. This is insane. First the monitor that uses a windows feature to automatically install a small helper tool with root permissions and then starts showing adds in certain regions. Now a tv that is actually actively snooping around on top of the known fingerprinting. What else is next? In the previous topic I got ridiculed for not wanting to buy LG anymore because I could use an agent to modify to strip out the of…

I would like to send vast amounts of garbage data to the LG servers. They aren’t being respectful of our bandwidth and data, we don’t need to be respectful of theirs. This also applies incentives in the correct direction. Their database of customer information becomes less valuable if there’s bad information in it. Disconnecting your TV from the internet doesn’t affect LG, feeding them bad data does.

I have just launched http://weowntheglass.com, it features an oled-safe screensaver steady stream of public domain images of violent uprisings against an oppressive class. The ACR should enjoy that!

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

#649

Post by colechristensen »

empyrrhicist wrote: post #606
Animats wrote: post #571

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…

Can that kind of clause really be enforceable? It really doesn't seem legal in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. (not a lawyer)

are state's attourney's general going to go after them? eh.

you ask if they're enforceable but that's the wrong question, the real question is will anyone do anything to stop them?

This is the kind of thing that states need to make explicitly illegal.

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

#650

Post by msdz »

bjt wrote: post #629
empyrrhicist wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can that kind of clause really be enforceable? It really doesn't seem legal in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. (not a lawyer)

These (and other TOS agreements) fall under the category of "adhesion contracts". Because the buyer has no real ability to negotiate, any ambiguity is resolved in their favor. A judge can also strike provisions that a reasonable buyer would not expect, or that are unconscionable. So it's up to the judge's judgment. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/adhesion-contract.asp

[dead]
Post reply on HN