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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by gsliepen »

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…

> Intent matters a great deal,

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

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

#912

Post by bigbinary »

TonyStr wrote: post #899
godelski wrote: post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but I believe the argument is that agreeing to the TOS constitutes consent. Even though no reasonable person would believe such a thing would be in the TOS and no reasonable person reads the full TOS (no person actually could...). Perhaps we start suing one another for not disclosing the wire tapping, forcing the lawsuit upwards towards LG. It'd be more efficient to sue LG, but lawyers don't seem to be done th…

IANAL, but only the owner can consent through the TOS. The owner does not collect or process the data, so it's entirely on LG to ensure proper consent, not the owner. Breaking a TOS is not a crime, and can only be punished by restricting or disallowing access to a service, but collecting personal data without consent is a huge problem in the EU.

II could hit someone and say it was someone else’s fault, but delusion isn’t a legal defense.

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

#913

Post by spockz »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #850
spockz wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this enough to actually considering buying one to get it to identify the endpoints. Maybe better to see first if we can find it in the firmware update downloads.

Have Claude or Astra reverse engineer the firmware?

I started asking Astra and Terra about this, including the idea of spoofing the data that was mentioned in this thread and got slammed with a warning for Cyber Abuse on my account, the thread is here https://chatgpt.com/s/cx_6a9fc635825481918c84187765645d5c.

I will be very careful going forward with what I use open ai for and what I phrase how.

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

#914

Post by m000 »

sbarre wrote: post #559
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…

> 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…

It's malice. Compliance tends to not "maximize the shareholder value". Why pay millions/year to maintain a compliance team when you can get away with paying a small fine from time to time?

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

#915

Post by jjav »

phkahler wrote: post #832
dghlsakjg wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are limits. You can’t waive certain rights, and you can’t overwrite certain laws. The issue is that we haven’t made this shit against the law yet.

Ask LG who has agreed to their wiretapping. They can't tell you if some guest in front of a TV has agreed or not. How can that be concent?

Because LG is a large corporation and if there is something we have learned (or had proven) in 2026 is that laws don't apply if you oligarch hard enough.

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

#916

Post by akimbostrawman »

klausa wrote: post #852
dylan604 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're only using it as a screen for the AppleTV, why connect it to the network at all?

So I can turn it on/off using Home Assistant and my phone.

What a useless feature. Reinventing a worse remote.

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

#917

Post by danaris »

godelski wrote: post #870
phkahler wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but without concent I think LG is comitting a crime here. The owner who ostensibly agreed to obtain concent through the ToS might be breaking their agreement, but wouldn't that be a separate issue? ToS and other click licenses have been making shit up for way too long.

IANAL, but I believe the argument is that agreeing to the TOS constitutes consent. Even though no reasonable person would believe such a thing would be in the TOS and no reasonable person reads the full TOS (no person actually could...). Perhaps we start suing one another for not disclosing the wire tapping, forcing the lawsuit upwards towards LG. It'd be more efficient to sue LG, but lawyers don't seem to be done th…

Various courts have already invalidated clauses of click-through agreements that no reasonable person would expect to find in such an agreement.

Terms of service are not an absolute "I'm rubber you're glue" type shield against all possible accusations of wrongdoing, however much companies would love us to believe they are.

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

#918

Post by codfrantic »

robinpie wrote: post #760

Stuff like smart TVs always go in their own VLAN on my home network. Not because I don't trust the manufacturer, but I cannot be bothered to babysit some Android device on my LAN that I'll keep using years after end-of-support.

unless this VLAN doesn't allow internet access the issue persists. And if it doesn't, not connecting it would be the more logical choice.

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

#919

Post by maxgashkov »

PSA for the home automation enthusiasts who keep smart TVs connected to the network to turn them on or off remotely: a lot of other sources that are likely connected to HDMI ports (Apple TVs, gaming PCs etc.) could do the same via HDMI-CEC, so unless you're truly using the 'smart' features there is less and less reasons to keep the TV itself connected to any network.

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

#920

Post by trashb »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #758
gchamonlive wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's absurd is that this doesn't void the terms by default. There should be limits to what companies can put in their ToS beyond which those terms aren't enforceable.

There are limits. You can’t waive certain rights, and you can’t overwrite certain laws. The issue is that we haven’t made this shit against the law yet.

The problem is the ToS can be overruled by the law. But you can still put wild stuff in there without consequence, it just won't hold up in court of course. However this makes it so that companies use the ToS as a scare tactic to deter people going to court in the first place, "look you agreed to us being able to do something illegal, you will lose court against our expensive lawyers".

ToS from a lot of tech companies say the wildest shit that doesn't hold up in court and they should get a penalty for putting that into these documents, as it is misleading and misrepresenting the agreement that the customer has with them.

Until some responsibility for illegal statements in the ToS happens I will read most comments from a ToS with a grain of salt and a lot of skepticism.

Post reply on HN