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

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by vineyardmike »

claaams wrote: post #656
bjt wrote: post #627

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]

#882

Post by pveierland »

harrouet wrote: post #880
Animats wrote: post #569

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]

#883

Post by theshrike79 »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #654
theshrike79 wrote: post #318

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]

#884

Post by vineyardmike »

callc wrote: post #800
bayindirh wrote: post #689

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.

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

#885

Post by jopsen »

afarah1 wrote: post #306
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 think the insane part is that this is not criminal and the executives are not jailed for it.

Who is to say they won't?

For the record, it's not all the big corps that are this bad.

Many are borderline paranoid about privacy, both for appearance and compliance perspectives.

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

#886

Post by tosti »

mitxela wrote: post #701
tosti wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got lucky. If you've got an apartment in, say, a healthcare facility, they'll install those thermostats and whatnot. Usually the neighbours are clueless about technology so complaining doesn't get very far at all. It's even worse if some staff wrote paranoid in your file, 'cause they'll argue it's good for "exposure".

You mean if you are permanently resident in a mental institute they don't let you control the temperature? That's hardly surprising...

Some day, that could be you.

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

#887

Post by malkia »

Animats wrote: post #569

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…

What about the stores where the TV is sold?

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

#888

Post by chinathrow »

Animats wrote: post #569

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…

Imagine being the lawyer signing this off. Imagine being the head of product signing this off.

What were they thinking? And most importantly: what TV are they using at home?

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

#890

Post by silon42 »

otikik wrote: post #268
recurseP wrote: post #204

Earlier 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

Forget GPS jammers, everyone needs a bluetooth jammer.
Post reply on HN