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

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by godelski »

bayindirh wrote: post #690
Obscurity4340 wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you actually even turn and keep the microphone off or does it toggle itself back on like Apple's Wifi and Bluetooth one-touch toggle off for now buttons?

> 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.

Norman Doors.

Good design communicates even without language. It is reasonable to see a toggle switch and think it... you know... toggles. The same reason you see a handle on a door a pill before you read the sign that says push. The sign is literally there because the physical design is telling you something different. It is literally mixed signals.

Apple could have done many different things to make the design clearer. Hell, if they really wanted to keep the toggle like design, make it look like a spring.

But no matter what, the current design is abhorrent because they use the same design language for a temporary toggle and a real toggle. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why people get confused. It is also crazy considering how much Apple prides themselves on design. If it was good design, you wouldn't need the sign...

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

#872

Post by gf000 »

godelski wrote: post #871
bayindirh wrote: post #690

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.

Norman Doors. Good design communicates even without language. It is reasonable to see a toggle switch and think it... you know... toggles. The same reason you see a handle on a door a pill before you read the sign that says push. The sign is literally there because the physical design is telling you something different. It is literally mixed signals. Apple could have done many different things to make the design clea…

Could you sketch a spring-loaded button? I just have a hard time imagining how could this time dimension be added properly to a button - not that I would disagree with you in general.

Also, is this really different from a button that reflects state? E.g. you have a battery saver button that automatically turns on at <20%, is that fundamentally different than a button that resets to a given value at 0:00? I genuinely don't know, just asking questions here.

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

#874

Post by [deleted] »

Terr_ wrote: post #693
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law has been unable to keep up with tech changes. Let's hope for the irony of AI helping them figure this stuff out.

> The law has been unable to keep up with tech changes. Nah, for the most part the law has been unable to keep up with (or choose to oppose) corporate power , and new ways it's being used. Usually there's no magic quantum doohickey which demands fundamentally new legal theory.

[deleted]

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

#875

Post by hunter2_ »

garciansmith wrote: post #852
charcircuit wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just reads as legal boilerplate. How else can voice recognition listen for a wake word without being able to process everything it hears.

Keep all the processing on device? Do so in a way that is legal in the jurisdiction you are selling the devices in without claiming it's the owner's responsibility to get consent from all individuals (even if they cannot legally consent because they are, say, a child!?) to comply with wiretapping laws in their own home? Choose not to sell an object that comes with software made to spy on you and sell all it learns to…

In a place where recording audio requires consent from all parties, I don't think it matters whether "all the processing is on-device" given that the law was probably written with tape recorders in mind. If I buy a device that can record audio, and place it in my home where unsuspecting guests are recorded by it, whether that recording is transmitted to the manufacturer or stays within my home seems irrelevant.

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

#876

Post by Terr_ »

Terr_ wrote: post #693
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law has been unable to keep up with tech changes. Let's hope for the irony of AI helping them figure this stuff out.

> The law has been unable to keep up with tech changes. Nah, for the most part the law has been unable to keep up with (or choose to oppose) corporate power , and new ways it's being used. Usually there's no magic quantum doohickey which demands fundamentally new legal theory.

For example, take this TV spyware thing, and rewind to the year 1986, and imagine RCA started selling televisions with microphones in them that recorded what was in your room and radioed it back to headquarters for some reason.

Obviously the costs wouldn't have worked at the time, but is there anything that was missing in our ability to describe the risks and wrongness? The concepts of privacy and consent, contracts and monopolies, ownership and licensing... They were all there 40 years ago.

In other words, the bee in my bonnet involves how the phrase "keeping up with the technology" sometimes becomes way to shift blame and a false target. It distracts us from the immediate political alignment problem towards a nebulous future technological one, which is so ill-defined it can never arrive. ("Once technology finally stops changing, then we'll legislate for our individual constituents' rights.")

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

#878

Post by Razengan »

johnecheck wrote: post #815
bbor wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

\#BanAdvertising, my friends. It sounds absurd until you think about it for a minute. If billboards and vice ads and this sort of monitoring should be banned, shouldn't it all?

How much time, money, and human effort has been spent on the Pepsi/coke advertising arms race? All for what? To maintain the same market share they've had since the 80s? What a waste.

This is what I've been saying since forever:

Who the fuck ever buys anything just because of an ad??

That they didn't ALREADY know about or were going to buy anyway?

The ads industry is a racket. At best it's a case of the emperor with no clothes: every one believes it works because everyone says that it works.

At worst, it's a thin veil for obnoxious privacy-raping constant global surveillance.

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

#879

Post by necovek »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #721
JoshTriplett wrote: post #618

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…

One could say that simply incentives are wrong so people turn negligent and/or are out of their breadth on a topic.

But is there someone accountable for it being so? Are they malicious? Who is ultimately to blame?

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

#880

Post by necovek »

joquarky wrote: post #544
rpdillon wrote: post #398

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…

When are the victims going to start getting significantly compensated for these breaches? They will keep happening as long as the consequences are just the cost of doing business.

It becomes tricky fast.

There is obviously a fine that could bankrupt the company: this would be a clear signal "do not do this".

There are also many cases where people have been doing everything they should have been, and still got hacked (zero days, for instance).

Now, I do not think people should only be slapped on the wrist in that case: it still needs to be significant so companies carefully decide to store only the data they really do need!

Post reply on HN