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

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

#641

Post by sgerenser » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 9:38 PM UTC

8fingerlouie wrote: post #637

sgerenser wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this a lot “TVs will just connect to a nearby unprotected WiFi network!” But I ve never seen any evidence of it. It appears to just be speculation, unless you have an actual source?

Because they don't. It's too much guesswork, and honestly pretty complicated. From the user perspective the TV would appear to go offline every now and then, so also somewhat easily detected. It's much easier to just throw a $10 5G modem in there, pay the $2/year subscription fee for service, and extract data that way. Assuming a 5-10 year relevant lifespan of the TV, they'd throw $20-$30 on top of the sales price fo…

Except they don’t do that either. I’m not aware of any TV that bundles a 5G modem. Are you?

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

#642

Post by jfreds » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 9:38 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #615

sbarre wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

[flagged]

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

#643

Post by Akronymus » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 9:39 PM UTC

phony-account wrote: post #585

Animats wrote: post #567

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…

And yet what lawmakers focused on was getting your consent for a cookie on a website you were only going to visit once.

That was the maliciously compliant way that companies chose to do to a reasonable law.

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

#644

Post by taylorfinley » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 9:40 PM UTC

ungreased0675 wrote: post #395

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 would like to send vast amounts of garbage data to the LG servers. They aren’t being respectful of our bandwidth and data, we don’t need to be respectful of theirs. This also applies incentives in the correct direction. Their database of customer information becomes less valuable if there’s bad information in it. Disconnecting your TV from the internet doesn’t affect LG, feeding them bad data does.

I have just launched http://weowntheglass.com, it features an oled-safe screensaver steady stream of public domain images of violent uprisings against an oppressive class. The ACR should enjoy that!

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

#645

Post by colechristensen » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 9:42 PM UTC

empyrrhicist wrote: post #602

Animats wrote: post #567

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…

Can that kind of clause really be enforceable? It really doesn't seem legal in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. (not a lawyer)

are state's attourney's general going to go after them? eh.

you ask if they're enforceable but that's the wrong question, the real question is will anyone do anything to stop them?

This is the kind of thing that states need to make explicitly illegal.

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

#646

Post by msdz » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 9:43 PM UTC

bjt wrote: post #625

empyrrhicist wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can that kind of clause really be enforceable? It really doesn't seem legal in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. (not a lawyer)

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

[dead]

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

#647

Post by lanerobertlane » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 9:47 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #567

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…

tempted to go into my nearest big box electronics store and then sue them when they don't tell me the LG tv's they have on display are eavesdropping on me.

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

#648

Post by jgalt212 » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 9:47 PM UTC

empyrrhicist wrote: post #602

Animats wrote: post #567

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…

Can that kind of clause really be enforceable? It really doesn't seem legal in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. (not a lawyer)

lawyers hope to trap / trick people that are smart enough to read, but not legally smart enough to understand enforceability.

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

#649

Post by rustcleaner » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 9:48 PM UTC

dillutedfixer wrote: post #382

As an owner of 2 LG OLEDs, I am not surprised at all. I neutered these things the first day I was past the return policy. Opened the back and unplugged the WiFi/BT chip, bought a cheap dumb universal remote with no mic in it, disagreed to all T&C in the TV, updated the firmware via USB and just use an AppleTV over HDMI for streaming. Kind of silly to have to go through all of this but hey thats where we are in 2026 i…

GrapheneOS is such a breath of fresh air, truly you don't need the crApple device.

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

#650

Post by anon7000 » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 9:49 PM UTC

titzer wrote: post #320

hn_submit wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe we should push for legislation that prohibits the sale of customer data to third parties. Websites can use the data on their customers but they cannot share it with anyone else. Because aggregators are selling it cross-border after which you lose track and all control over it.

They shouldn't be able to collect it in the first place. The big companies have 10 page agreements that say they "value" your privacy and that they don't sell your data to third parties. They do value it, highly. And they don't sell it--they just hoard it, mine it, and sell increasingly accurate targeting. Why would they give it up? I mean, besides coughing it up with little objection to national security letters.

The problem is that this includes literally everything on a cloud service. My emails and documents on Gmail/Google Drive is my personal data. My email on Fastmail is my personal data, even if they’re privacy friendly. So that service would be illegal.

Even having an account at all, and being able to see that I have a subscription, or that I previously watched that video, is personal data they collected.

So the Privacy Policy is what you “agree” to let the company do with that data. How do you even begin to differentiate the superfluous stuff they track just for ads, on a technical level without workarounds?

And then think about banning “transferring personal data to a 3rd party.” Does that mean I can’t host account data on AWS, or use a hosted database, be causing I’m transferring data to a different company which can presumably also access it? That’s what the privacy policy has to allow, and why sites have so many “partner services”