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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by gblargg »

throw93947309 wrote: post #123
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!

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.

I was going to suggest updating firmware initially right after your purchase, but that could also update a list of Wi-Fi credentials so it can continue to connect to the Internet using other nearby access points.

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

#732

Post by gblargg »

account42 wrote: post #351
wavesplash wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch the video the article is based on - not connecting to the internet doesn't keep you safe in many cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IFVTcM28KA

"Watch this two hour long video" is not a particularly useful reply. If you think the TV can exfiltrate your data without an internet connection then you should be able to explain how it could do that in your own words.

That's what the Ask button is for with the summarize option, to not have to watch unnecessarily-long videos. Apparently it does connect to public hotspots, often run by major providers.

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

#733

Post by Gigachad »

hvb2 wrote: post #491
kolinko wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on jurisdiction, just because someone wrote something in a contract doesn’t mean it’s binding. In Poland/EU we have an (ever growing) list of forbidden clauses that even when written and signed by consumer are null and void. And I think these can be enacted retroactively - when corporations invent new shady clauses, government steps in and tells them these are invalid. This helps to even out the consumer-corp…

> we have an (ever growing) list of forbidden clauses that even when written and signed by consumer are null and void I'm pretty sure that's true almost everywhere. Law beats contract. The real question is how strong the laws are. In the US not so much because of small government and stuff, especially in red states.

The US is not small government at all. It’s one of the largest governments in the world. It just exists almost exclusively to serve billionaires.

It’s “small government” when it comes to protecting your individual rights, and full flock powered ai surveillance state when someone has an abortion.

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

#734

Post by toofy »

Zobat wrote: post #405

I managed to watch 14 minutes of the Gamer Nexus video (on my computer) before going into the living room and disconnecting the network cable, OMFG. If there's no legal consequences for LG for this I'll be surprised. I'm in Europe, not counting on the US for this, trust me.

i honestly don’t believe i’m being jaded when i say this: there will be no consequences. in this current moment, companies can treat us however they like.

again, i don’t think that’s hyperbolic or jaded, i think it’s much more based in reality than the opposite.

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

#735

Post by zzo38computer »

Most TV sets should not normally need microphones, and if they have that in some models (as long as there are models without), then there should be a hardware switch to disable them. However, "continuously sweep home networks, map secondary devices, and log microphone audio while appearing to be turned off" is also stealing and wasting your power.

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

#736

Post by DrPhish »

zzo38computer wrote: post #735

Most TV sets should not normally need microphones, and if they have that in some models (as long as there are models without), then there should be a hardware switch to disable them. However, "continuously sweep home networks, map secondary devices, and log microphone audio while appearing to be turned off" is also stealing and wasting your power.

Every speaker is also a microphone

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

#737

Post by mancerayder »

drnick1 wrote: post #473
declan_roberts wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just keep the TV completely disconnected and use something like an Apple TV.

What makes you think the Apple TV isn't also spying on you? It almost certainly is collecting telemetry too. Whether that's more or less than LG I don't know, but my preference is a Linux box with Plasma Bigscreen.

What do you use when you switch between Netflix, AppleTV, etc? Some of those platforms won't even show you HD unless it's through HDCP compliant hardware and OS, which Linux isn't. That happened with the World Cup.

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

#738

Post by hi_hi »

I guess this is unavoidable on today’s internet, but…reading a story that decries the (admittedly really bad) data gathering techniques of an advertiser, from a site that itself is plastered with adverts…I don’t know the right word here, but it feels a bit shit.

Although I’m glad this is getting the visibility it deserves. I hope this hurts LG where it matters and sends a signal to other manufacturers, but I doubt it.

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

#739

Post by zzo38computer »

DPDmancul wrote: post #444
ryandrake wrote: post #433

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.

I think that the fines should be the amount per crime that is being fined, plus the total amount of all revenue from whatever the fines are related to (including indirect, but only counted once).
Post reply on HN