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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by konfusinomicon »

Obscurity4340 wrote: post #605
Animats wrote: post #572

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 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?

there is a tiny physical switch right next to the power button on my lg tv that supposedly turns off the tv microphone. the remote mic has no such switch though

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

#943

Post by emmaexe »

maxgashkov wrote: post #922

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.

Connect it to the network to let it talk to local devices but block it from connecting to the internet. That should still let you control the TV from your phone via the LAN, or if you have a HomeAssistant server, it will be able to control it.

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

#944

Post by mapt »

phkahler wrote: post #831
Animats wrote: post #572

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…

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.

A strong implication of this consent implicitly involves the device recording me when I tell the device to record me.

If the device is recording me all the time and silently uploading it, and I'm not aware, I can't give my consent. That's wiretapping, zero-person-consent.

Ask how you (or for that matter, a jury) would feel about your phone doing the same.

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

#945

Post by mapt »

gchamonlive wrote: post #688
Animats wrote: post #572

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…

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 reasonableness limits inherent in contract law, under "Consideration".

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

#946

Post by mapt »

godelski wrote: post #872
3RTB297 wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be willing to bet the TV's demo mode used by most box box retailers disables that by default, specifically to avoid such an issue.

Someone needs to find out. Presumably by the TOS it's in the settings, so verifiable

Finding out would no doubt involves a violation of the CFAA or anti-circumvention or other measures imposed by the corpos.

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

#947

Post by maxgashkov »

emmaexe wrote: post #943
maxgashkov wrote: post #922

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.

Connect it to the network to let it talk to local devices but block it from connecting to the internet. That should still let you control the TV from your phone via the LAN, or if you have a HomeAssistant server, it will be able to control it.

Yeah, I have been doing this with a naive firewall rule blocking its IP from egress, but how long until they'll wise up to it and start truly nefarious shit like using hidden MACs to acquire multiple addresses in the background? Then you could probably VLAN it off, but most people don't have managed gear on their networks.

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

#948

Post by brookst »

HPsquared wrote: post #671
charcircuit wrote: post #639

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.

Yes that's giving me a bit of pause. I wonder what, say, Apple's ToS has for this kind of functionality.

Apple (and Google, and most others) process wake words on device. Imagine the technical complexity and expense of a billion devices streaming audio that is like 0.01% wake words.

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

#950

Post by sbarre »

dfxm12 wrote: post #847
sbarre wrote: post #559

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…

It's probably both, vis a vis negligence. I just wish it was treated as criminal negligence. This will continue as long as CEO's face no real punishment for mishandling PII.

100% agreed. I'm definitely not making excuses for malice here (as I said in another thread, I think I wasn't clear enough in my original post)..

I think there should be much harsher punishments for PII mishandling, no matter why it happened.

Post reply on HN