216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video] • Hacker News Board

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

#881

Post by Razengan » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 5:56 AM UTC

johnecheck wrote: post #817

bbor wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

\#BanAdvertising, my friends. It sounds absurd until you think about it for a minute. If billboards and vice ads and this sort of monitoring should be banned, shouldn't it all?

How much time, money, and human effort has been spent on the Pepsi/coke advertising arms race? All for what? To maintain the same market share they've had since the 80s? What a waste.

This is what I've been saying since forever:

Who the fuck ever buys anything just because of an ad??

That they didn't ALREADY know about or were going to buy anyway?

The ads industry is a racket. At best it's a case of the emperor with no clothes: every one believes it works because everyone says that it works.

At worst, it's a thin veil for obnoxious privacy-raping constant global surveillance.

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

#882

Post by necovek » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 5:56 AM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #723

JoshTriplett wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, and should be treated accordingly. I disagree with this as stated. Maybe in the right context you could make a case for it, but in general? Heck no. Intent matters a great deal, and there is no justice in treating someone incompetent (or negligent) the same as someone who is actually malicious. Both things are bad, but the latter is worse than the…

One could say that simply incentives are wrong so people turn negligent and/or are out of their breadth on a topic.

But is there someone accountable for it being so? Are they malicious? Who is ultimately to blame?

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

#883

Post by necovek » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 6:02 AM UTC

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 becomes tricky fast.

There is obviously a fine that could bankrupt the company: this would be a clear signal "do not do this".

There are also many cases where people have been doing everything they should have been, and still got hacked (zero days, for instance).

Now, I do not think people should only be slapped on the wrist in that case: it still needs to be significant so companies carefully decide to store only the data they really do need!

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

#884

Post by tosti » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 6:03 AM UTC

kolinko wrote: post #395

imglorp wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely no reason to read those contracts any more. As Louis Rossman keeps pointing out, most of them now include the ability for them to change terms at any time. That's basically the null contract. Since the legal system has once again failed to protect users from corporations, it's up to users to use technical means for self defense.

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…

Funny how the type system works in a legislative framework: null AND void

I'm never going to interpret that one with a straight face.

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

#885

Post by ButlerianJihad » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 6:05 AM UTC

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.

Listening https://m.xkcd.com/1807/

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

#886

Post by harrouet » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 6:09 AM UTC

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…

But isn't it the same as Facebook letting you consent (without actually reading the ToS) that your friends on that freshly-uploaded photo agreed to appear online and have their face scanned?

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

#887

Post by vineyardmike » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 6:15 AM UTC

claaams wrote: post #659

bjt wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The cool thing is that they make you go into forced arbitration rather than through the legal system.

The cooler thing is that if a substantial amount of the 216M TV owners tried to arbitrate across the country/world, they'd cave so fast. Arbitration is cheaper than an individual law suit, but much much more expensive than a class-action.

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

#888

Post by pveierland » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 6:16 AM UTC

harrouet wrote: post #886

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…

But isn't it the same as Facebook letting you consent (without actually reading the ToS) that your friends on that freshly-uploaded photo agreed to appear online and have their face scanned?

Clearly not. A person posting a picture is performing an explicit act of sharing a specific piece of content. Even in the case where the person doesn't know what that entails, they have made a choice to share specific content. With smart TVs it will be unclear to the person that recording is even happening, much less how that data is used and for what purpose - so the likelihood of them realizing that data is being shared or that they need to show consideration for how data about others in presence of the TV is shared will be close to nil.

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

#889

Post by theshrike79 » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 6:17 AM UTC

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #657

theshrike79 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple TV is the best one. No ads, full OS updates for a long time.

Those aren't exactly cheap.

Just a cursory search on my local used stuff marketplace says I can grab a Gen 3 ATV for 10€. A 1st gen 4k (which is the one I have) is about 100€ and still runs the latest tvOS.

It's more expensive than a 40€ Chromecast, but also SO MUCH BETTER.

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

#890

Post by vineyardmike » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 6:24 AM UTC

callc wrote: post #805

bayindirh wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's Wifi and Bluetooth one-touch toggle off for now buttons? This comparison rubs me off the wrong way every time I see, because. 1. The notifications clearly tell the behavior (doing $THING until tomorrow). 2. There's a way to turn them "really off". What LG does is completely different. IIRC from the teaser of this video, the microphone is never "completely" off or apps can re-enable them somehow.

Respectfully disagree. Toggle buttons have an expected behavior that everyone understands. It should work just like a physical button. I don’t appreciate the “we know better for you so we’ll adjust the behavior accordingly” MITM.

> we know better for you so we’ll adjust the behavior accordingly

9/10 times I've used this setting, what I've actually wanted was to temporarily change the behavior. This just saves me from the need to remember to undo it (which I won't remember in a timely manner).

This isn't "we know better than you" paternalistic control - the default/easy behavior should cater to the actions and situation we do regularly. I'm sure they do, in fact, know that for most of their customers, when they disable wifi it's because that user wants to temporarily disconnect from the current wifi, but will want to use wifi shortly after, but won't necessarily remember to go into settings and re-enable.