Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LG denies TV spying claims, says tracking and snooping concerns 'not true'

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 513 posts

Re: LG denies TV spying claims, says tracking and snooping concerns 'not true'

#351

Post by hilbert42 »

ygjb wrote: post #49
seemaze wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who hasn’t owned a television in decades, why would a TV even need a microphone in the first place? How many other household devices have a microphone whose primary function is orthogonal to recording audio?

There are lots of good reasons that are used to paper over the abuse cases. Microphones in tvs are a useful accessibility feature when they enable voice commands for the user, and allow them to be used as voice assistants. They also enable tvs with a camera and microphone to be used as video calling or audio calling interfaces. Used well we get star Trek view screens, used poorly we get little brother monitoring. For…

Like I do with laptops, just snip wires (or pull out header/connector) to microphone and camera. Problem partly solved.

Fully solve it by disconnecting network cable/Wi-Fi so there's no internet.

For me a TV set only receives FTA signals and has connectors for local media/AV input. It ceases to be a TV set when it starts doing what my PCs and laptops do.

(Anonymity is the reason why FTA broadcasting is still so very important, by design it's only one-way — broadcaster to listener/viewer. Unfortunately smart TVs and the internet subvert anonymity by design.)

Re: LG denies TV spying claims, says tracking and snooping concerns 'not true'

#352

Post by 14 »

nyctimus wrote: post #240
cogman10 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they are claiming that ACR is done entirely through audio processing, and no visual data from the screen itself is used? That...doesn't seem plausible. It's probably easier to do and every bit as accurate as just using a screenshot. And it's still exactly what I don't want them doing. There's literally zero reason for LG to be building an advertising profile on me because I was foolish enough to buy one of their…

wouldn't taking screenshots in fact not always be possible depending on the content you are watching? For example netflix with their hardware level drm? (Although its their TV they possibly have ways around that with some custom hardware)

I can assure you while out sailing the high seas I have watched many Netflix titles. So their DRM is literally only there to make the experience shittier for the honest customers.

Re: LG denies TV spying claims, says tracking and snooping concerns 'not true'

#353

Post by rpdillon »

beambot wrote: post #142
rpdillon wrote: post #18

LG's statement: > ACR uses audio fingerprinting technology using the TV’s internal audio processor (not a speaker) to identify content and does not collect screenshots, screen recordings, video recordings, voice recordings, or other audio recordings from the TV. So they are claiming that ACR is done entirely through audio processing, and no visual data from the screen itself is used? That...doesn't seem plausible. Th…

Get saavy...? More like "will require trust that manufacturers are honest" -- which I won't believe for a miliesecond.

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. No one reads the ToS anyway. Just stop buying TVs, now that Sceptre stopped delivering the last models of consumer dumb TVs.

Re: LG denies TV spying claims, says tracking and snooping concerns 'not true'

#354

Post by ryandrake »

rlpb wrote: post #350
ryandrake wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, it's not even about why they're doing it (building an advertising profile). I don't want them doing it at all, for any reason. When I buy something from the store, my relationship is between me and the store, for the 30 seconds it takes for me to pay for it. I don't want an ongoing relationship with the device manufacturer. I don't want to be tethered in any way to the manufacturer. I don't want to have an acc…

> I don't want an ongoing relationship with the device manufacturer. I think it depends on the device. If I buy an iPhone, I have the expectation of installing apps on it after purchase, and that necessarily involves a relationship with the app store provider (ie. Apple), not the store I bought the phone from. With a TV, I suppose it depends on whether I want to install media apps like Prime Video or Netflix on it. I…

> If I buy an iPhone, I have the expectation of installing apps on it after purchase, and that necessarily involves a relationship with the app store provider (ie. Apple)

This is only true because Apple dictates it to be so. The manufacturer of the device should not have a say in what I choose to do with a device I bought. I should be able to install software on a device without asking the manufacturer for permission. Why do they think they should have an opinion? After I purchase the device, it's mine, not theirs. I can throw it off a cliff if I want without asking for Apple's permission, why can't I install software on it?

> At that point, they _do_ want a relationship with some hardware manufacturer so that the third party app can be delivered to run on the hardware.

The device manufacturer should not need to be involved with a user's decision to install software. There should not be this requirement to have a relationship with them. We should never have allowed this idea to be normalized that the device manufacturer needs to be somehow have a say, let alone be the sole path to using the device.

Device manufacturers should sell devices and then get out of the way of what the user is doing with those devices.

Re: LG denies TV spying claims, says tracking and snooping concerns 'not true'

#355

Post by juiceland »

tombardier wrote: post #155

I for one completely believe them. That's why I rooted my C5, disabled all telemetry, and disabled Internet access entirely by default from an isolated vlan on my network that has no access to anything on any other network. I'm tempted to remove the WiFi/BT board if it's an add-on card, and probably unplug the microphones as well. I only need it as a display for my PC and 4K disc player.

Any guide to doing this?

Re: LG denies TV spying claims, says tracking and snooping concerns 'not true'

#356

Post by zzo38computer »

ryandrake wrote: post #354
rlpb wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want an ongoing relationship with the device manufacturer. I think it depends on the device. If I buy an iPhone, I have the expectation of installing apps on it after purchase, and that necessarily involves a relationship with the app store provider (ie. Apple), not the store I bought the phone from. With a TV, I suppose it depends on whether I want to install media apps like Prime Video or Netflix on it. I…

> If I buy an iPhone, I have the expectation of installing apps on it after purchase, and that necessarily involves a relationship with the app store provider (ie. Apple) This is only true because Apple dictates it to be so. The manufacturer of the device should not have a say in what I choose to do with a device I bought. I should be able to install software on a device without asking the manufacturer for permission…

I mostly agree, although if the manufacturer has a catalog of software (which they have managed to check for quality, classification, etc) that you can optionally use for installing software (which others can also choose to do, e.g. in the case of Android there is also F-Droid), but that you can also install anything that you want to do by yourself (including software that you wrote by yourself) without needing to be able (or willing) to contact (or have anything further to do with) the manufacturer (for any reason), then it can be helpful.

Also, if someone provides a service (e.g. Netflix) that some might want to use and some might not, then you have the option to use that service might be helpful but even that should not require any relationship with the manufacturer unless they are also providing the service. If the manufacturer is separate then they should not have anything to do with it (e.g. they should not add a button on the remote control specific for Netflix; if they have user programmable buttons that you can add your own labels, then it would be possible to use such a thing like that if the end user decides to install Netflix). (There are other problems with Netflix too but I am ignoring them for now because that would be a separate discussion.)

Re: LG denies TV spying claims, says tracking and snooping concerns 'not true'

#357

Post by hilbert42 »

qlte wrote: post #318
GreenVulpine wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no practical reason for most people. Spying is the primary function. Edge cases like accessibility or conferencing can be easily enabled with an add on USB mic. You'd need a USB webcam with mic for conferencing anyway.

People use voice commands on TV remotes all the time if they're using streaming apps. At this point it's the default way to interact with the UI for many people. Typing out the show you're searching for with an awkward onscreen keyboard is a huge pain compared to just clicking a button and speaking. HN users are very much in a bubble if it's surprising to learn consumers expect voice control functionality on a new TV…

"HN users are very much in a bubble if it's surprising if it's learn consumers expect voice control functionality on a new TV."

Perhaps a few are unaware but most know. As I said in my post, some (like me) only want traditional FTA — and with it comes anonymity by default.

Smart TVs undermine and subvert the virtues of FDA services. It should be mandated that it's possible for modern smart TVs to switch to FTA-only mode if viewers so desire. Similarly, regulation should ensure that dumb TVs always be available for those who want them.

Re: LG denies TV spying claims, says tracking and snooping concerns 'not true'

#358

Post by cogman10 »

lazide wrote: post #311
ryandrake wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manufacturers just need to realize that LANs exist and allow their devices to be used with the Internet turned off. When I'm sitting in my home and I want to turn off the AC unit in the other room or close my garage door, there's no reason I should have to do an IP roundtrip to the manufacturer's server. Both devices are on my LAN. They should just talk to each other. This has been a solved problem for decades.

Lowest common denominator? They have to round trip due to various NAT/router/firewall/App BS. Your average ‘idiot’ can barely get a managed App to work, and that typically requires some kind of cloud endpoint to co-ordinate. Other stuff is the land of prosumer.

You only need an external server if you want to make it so the end user can access their device remotely. Otherwise, an app can very easily just scan the network for the device. Heck, the app itself could be the thing that sets up the device on the network in the first place.

Re: LG denies TV spying claims, says tracking and snooping concerns 'not true'

#359

Post by djtango »

yakk0 wrote: post #321
ryandrake wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manufacturers just need to realize that LANs exist and allow their devices to be used with the Internet turned off. When I'm sitting in my home and I want to turn off the AC unit in the other room or close my garage door, there's no reason I should have to do an IP roundtrip to the manufacturer's server. Both devices are on my LAN. They should just talk to each other. This has been a solved problem for decades.

I have a Vizio TV that was advertised as a Chromecast TV, and I got it because of that. It was HDMI and Chromecast only. A few years later they did a silent update that added apps and generally made the UI much slower. I mainly use it with an AppleTV or game consoles, but it still irks me that they completely changed what was in my mind a nearly perfect TV.

Why was it connected to the network?

Re: LG denies TV spying claims, says tracking and snooping concerns 'not true'

#360

Post by ryandrake »

cogman10 wrote: post #358
lazide wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lowest common denominator? They have to round trip due to various NAT/router/firewall/App BS. Your average ‘idiot’ can barely get a managed App to work, and that typically requires some kind of cloud endpoint to co-ordinate. Other stuff is the land of prosumer.

You only need an external server if you want to make it so the end user can access their device remotely. Otherwise, an app can very easily just scan the network for the device. Heck, the app itself could be the thing that sets up the device on the network in the first place.

Remote access should also be do-able without having a manufacturer-run server. We over-complicate things with NAT and with ISPs sabotaging inbound connections to our networks. At least with IPv6 every device on my network is addressable by the outside world, and I can (and should be allowed to) make the decision about whether they are accessible. The device manufacturer should not have to insert themselves into this conversation.
Post reply on HN