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

It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 434 posts

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#31

Post by Markoff »

contravariant wrote: post #22
lordnacho wrote: post #11

What's frightening is that I can see on my PiHole the huge spike of requests that happens when one of my TVs comes on. Just the standard graph in the front page is enough to see exactly when the kids have turned it on. Most of the requests are rejected though, maybe someone can say whether that is enough to protect me from corporate surveillance.

Blocking the MAC address from making connections outright seems like a more sensible way to prevent surveillance. Assuming of course you are using it as a truly 'dumb' TV and not as a client for Netflix etc.

wouldn't be easier just not set internet connection in first place? I don't think TV can hack into secure WiFi network

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#32

Post by bojangleslover »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #18
jahnu wrote: post #7

Is there a reason I’m not aware of that not connecting a smart to to a network isn’t enough? Do they auto-connect to open Wi-Fi for example?

FTA: > I’m usually told something akin to: “well, just don’t connect the TV to the Internet!” But that route locks you out of firmware updates, and some TV makers remove functionality if you refuse to participate in their online ecosystem. Many smart TV GUIs also need to load before you’re even allowed to switch laggy HDMI inputs. (although this is exactly what I did with the Samsung smart TV I picked up on a bargain…

Who needs firmware updates on a TV?

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#33

Post by scns »

Markoff wrote: post #31
contravariant wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking the MAC address from making connections outright seems like a more sensible way to prevent surveillance. Assuming of course you are using it as a truly 'dumb' TV and not as a client for Netflix etc.

wouldn't be easier just not set internet connection in first place? I don't think TV can hack into secure WiFi network

They have been caught trying to connect to unsecured WiFi before.

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#34

Post by peoplefromibiza »

Markoff wrote: post #31
contravariant wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking the MAC address from making connections outright seems like a more sensible way to prevent surveillance. Assuming of course you are using it as a truly 'dumb' TV and not as a client for Netflix etc.

wouldn't be easier just not set internet connection in first place? I don't think TV can hack into secure WiFi network

they can still hack into open networks around you and monitor the SSIDs to get a sense of your position.

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#35

Post by sjamaan »

Markoff wrote: post #29

Aren't those called nowadays "computer displays"? But I guess it can be problem with larger size, 43-55 are way more expensive than TVs, like 3-4X more than same size smart TV with same resolution. I mean if you worry about spying just don't connect smart TV to internet, but yeah, the interface will be usualyl slower than dumb TV. If you are frustrated by outdated software nothing stops you from plugging whatever And…

> But why would you want TV without speaker

Many people hook up their TV (or media box) to their home audio system which often has much better sound quality. The built-in speakers of TVs are a bit pointless in that context.

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#36

Post by yywwbbn »

izacus wrote: post #13
supersync wrote: post #2

I’m dead serious I’d pay an $80 to $100 premium for a dumb TV I’d even consider replacing a couple Smart TVs are just terrible

The premium for a dumb TV screen is about 500-1000$ though. Are you ready to pay that? Because manufacturers will earn more than your 100$ with ads and all other smart features on you if they don't let you buy a dumb screen.

> Because manufacturers will earn more than your 100$ with ads and all other

Is there any evidence that this is the case?

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#37

Post by andix »

TVs without a tuner are quite popular in Austria. You save around 30€ per month on payments to public TV stations, if your TV is just a monitor and has no tuner.

You can get for example one of those (german, but you probably can read the specs anyway):

https://nogis.at or https://www.gisbefreit.at/

Most devices are not high end though.

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#38

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

bojangleslover wrote: post #30

I have a Panasonic 50" and I just never connected it to the internet. I do everything on my old MacBook plugged in via HDMI which I control via screen sharing on my current Mac.

Ethernet over HDMI is a thing, so this might not work for all smart TVs.

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#39

Post by ben_w »

Markoff wrote: post #31
contravariant wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking the MAC address from making connections outright seems like a more sensible way to prevent surveillance. Assuming of course you are using it as a truly 'dumb' TV and not as a client for Netflix etc.

wouldn't be easier just not set internet connection in first place? I don't think TV can hack into secure WiFi network

That would be illegal. However people here sometimes report that they connect to any nearby open wifi network even if you don’t explicitly connect them to your own.

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#40

Post by 7steps2much »

Markoff wrote: post #29

Aren't those called nowadays "computer displays"? But I guess it can be problem with larger size, 43-55 are way more expensive than TVs, like 3-4X more than same size smart TV with same resolution. I mean if you worry about spying just don't connect smart TV to internet, but yeah, the interface will be usualyl slower than dumb TV. If you are frustrated by outdated software nothing stops you from plugging whatever And…

> But why would you want TV without speaker

I mean, you can grab some dedicated speakers or a sound bar or something? In fact, some people do this instead of using the TV speakers anyways since it usually results in a better experience/higher audio quality.

Post reply on HN