15 ms·

VIZIO to Pay $2.2M to FTC

186 points by el_duderino 10y ago

HCIdivision17 10y ago
Awesome. Note that this isn't merely a fine, but also comes with the stipulation that they "prominently disclose and obtain affirmative express consent for its data collection and sharing practices, and prohibits misrepresentations about the privacy, security, or confidentiality of consumer information they collect". And they need to destroy the data collected before March, last year. That's pretty good! At the very least, this will make it so people are more aware of the constant telemetry. Some find that sort of feature useful, and others find it chilling, but at least this is a step in the direction of making it obvious.
- ysavir 10y ago
  Sure, they can destroy their data, but everything shared with those 3rd parties is still at those third parties. It's not exactly accomplishing much.
  - bsilvereagle 10y ago
    If Visio made complete backups (say full HDD clones) of all their computers on a weekly basis, do all of the backups need destroyed? Is it feasible to open every backup and delete the relevant information? Is it possible to "forget" that a backup process exists and still maintain the data?
    - derefr 10y ago
      I've always wondered whether a datastore built on an immutable architecture could be designed to cope with an expectation of receiving court orders to delete data. I think you'd arrive at a somewhat "DRM"-like design. That is: 1. the datastore system would be designed as an "appliance", intended to be installed directly on hardware, and would mandate (and check that) the hardware it was installed on provided both a TPM to store disk encryption keys in, and a full Secure Boot trust-chain granting only its bootloader boot privilege; 2. the datastore software would maintain a mutable index within the store (in the Merkle-tree-ref sense) of all data that is to be "considered deleted"—a master "tombstone" record, in the DBMS terminology—and would prevent anyone from accessing said data through the system's API. With such a design, the data is effectively "gone", just as if it was really erased from the disks; the only way for a company running such a datastore to "recover" the data would be to find an exploit in the appliance allowing them to modify either the tombstone list (somewhat easy to thwart by choice of data structure), or the code that applies the tombstone policy.
      - kpil 10y ago
        It's like every service providers wet dream to arbitrarily lock up our private files. Currently only the russian cybercriminals are a bit ahead of the competition.
      - detaro 10y ago
        In addition: Have per-object encryption keys and destroy those when data has to be wiped.
      - daurnimator 10y ago
        Have a look at what datomic does. http://docs.datomic.com/excision.html http://docs.datomic.com/excision.html
    - x0x0 10y ago
      That's unimportant. What is important is legal penalties for accessing or selling that data. No-one with assets and in-house counsel would dare violate an order like this.
  - porpoisemonkey 10y ago
    > Sure, they can destroy their data, but everything shared with those 3rd parties is still at those third parties. Agreed. I think it would be more effective deterrent if VIZIO had to work with those third parties to locate and delete the material that was transferred to them. This 1) would nullify the contract between VIZIO and those parties forcing VIZIO into back payment and 2) create an annoyance for the third-parties, hopefully making them think to ask how any data they're purchasing is being collected. At a minimum I think that customers whose data was collected prior to March 2016 have a right to know which third-party companies purchased their information.
    - ysavir 10y ago
      As one of those customers, I definitely think so!
    - PirateDave 10y ago
      In California, there is the "Shine the Light" law [0] that requires a company to release third-party information to a consumer if there is identifiable information given to third-parties along with the data collected. So in this case, Vizio would be required (at least to California natives) to release those third-parties' names and associated data collected from you. [0] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1798.83 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection....
      - porpoisemonkey 10y ago
        Thanks for the additional information. This is a step in the right direction but it's unfortunate that the obligation to disclose appears to be opt-in and not opt-out as detailed in paragraph (a). > that business shall, after the receipt of a written or electronic mail request, or, if the business chooses to receive requests by toll-free telephone or facsimile numbers, a telephone or facsimile request from the customer, provide all of the following information to the customer free of charge To compile a list of all companies that have their personal information an user would have to identify every business they have a business relationship with that could possibly be gathering this information and then send a written request to each on a regular basis as the request is only valid for information disclosed in the proceeding year. It seems then that this law only really covers consumers in the event that they find one specific and recent instance where they'd like this information disclosed.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    This may or may not help you, but it's typical in these sort of data deals to (1) mostly sell aggregate data (eg these demographics actually watch these shows / actually saw these commercials). You'd probably be more interested in the latter in order to connect commercials with purchasing habits, but you're going to operate at the zip code or grocery store level. (2) If you are selling individual records, make up identifiers and not tie to IP addresses. Both because of privacy concerns and to force your ad-vendor customers to continue to purchase the dataset. (3) from the perspective of someone in the ad industry, I don't buy 11m cookies for ad targeting. These data deals require custom programming on both sides, time from bizdev at both vizio and ad companies, and for ad-company sales to be instructed and helped to sell to their customers. So unless Vizio tv viewing data has pretty high reach, I'm just not interested. I can't really see someone interested in 11m cookies unless that data is integrated with all available tv viewing data from Vizio, Netflix, Samsung, set-top boxes, etc. I'm aware of some pieces of that being sold, but not all of them. (3a) also, from the in-industry perspective, household data is often not that helpful. You're going to get demographics, if you get them, from the person in that household that happens to pay the bills. That's often unrelated to the person that spends time consuming media. So if eg parent X pays the bills in that household, but kids or parent Y spend the most time watching tv, this data is nowhere near as helpful for ad targeting as you would think.
  - samstave 10y ago
    So, I worked there along with the others who are all HN regulars. I cant comment on this fine at all, but I can comment on the reaction: The system for identifying an individual via their digital habits is advanced and (in internet terms) ancient. The credit card industry, for example, is way more an invasion of your privacy than what are effectively Neilsen Ratings on steroids... so I think people over react to this. The fact is, that if you look at netflix, they have way more specific viewing habit info than any random TV which can state what it is watching. They already have their customer info, demographics, if they have kids, if they have account leechers like a brother or a friend who maintains a profile. They can see what IP/Device/app install anything is coming from -- and they have agreements with various device manufacturers to NOT track their (Netflix's) viewership/app use etc... Netflix is probably the most savvy digital media company at this point. While this data will enrich various entities over time at the expense of 100% privacy as to the content one is viewing, I would state that one would be better served to be worried about their chrome and credit card history than the viewing of particular TV shows. Additionally - having a very intimate knowledge of how the vizio system works, I would not be concerned about this at all in the scheme of things as truly, its literally impossible to have a system watching all media streams on TVs throughout the world. Finally, Vizio has done a stand-up job of enforcing opt-in/opt-out in the actual firmware of every set.
    - sib 10y ago
      While Netflix does have a lot of data about what you watch on Netflix, I believe that the reason people react so strongly to things like this is that, as the platform provider, using automated content recognition and other techniques, Vizio (or Samsung, ...) can know everything that you watch across all sources flowing through the TV. Even including things such as YouTube, linear broadcast TV, etc. That's a lot broader surface area than Netflix has...
      - knappe 10y ago
        That and they weren't exactly upfront about their collection.
      - samstave 10y ago
emodendroket 10y ago
That's cool but it feels like drops in the ocean.
- pdimitar 10y ago
  From the amazing "Cloud Atlas" (2012) movie: "But what is an ocean, if not a multitude of drops?" I am feeling a lot of despair and paranoia about this case but there are still reasons to be hopeful and optimistic.
dudurocha 10y ago
There are another cases like these?
sailfast 10y ago
Vizio was sold to LeEco in July, right? Does anybody have an idea about whether this data went along with the purchase or not and/or whether it would have made for a significant boost in the price paid for the firm? Seems like pretty valuable data to re-sell to third parties.
- sp332 10y ago
  Vizio's data service is set to be spun off into its own company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscape_Data_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscape_Data_Services
stevenleeg 10y ago
Foof, this is yet another reason for me to be completely out on smart tvs. I really don't see the appeal of hooking up my tv to the internet if the only thing I'll get in return is buggy service integrations and, worse, the tv spying on my viewing habits. This is on top of the added potential for security exploits on a poorly maintained device connected to my home network.
- mtgx 10y ago
  Smart TVs really need to follow 3D TVs and die as soon as possible. If I want my TV to be "smart". I'll just buy a $50 set top box and change it every 3 years. I don't want a TV that I will keep for 10-12 years to be "smart" and abandoned in terms of updates a year or two after appearing on the market (so not even after purchase).
- cptskippy 10y ago
  I agree that Smart TVs need to die. I think some sort of law or regulation mandating security updates for the average life expectancy of such devices would ago a long way towards killing off Smart TVs. That's assuming the life expectancy is something reasonable like 5-10 years.
  - xenithorb 10y ago
    Or you get TVs that last a lot less ;)
  - DannyB2 10y ago
    It's about more than security updates. And this may seem off topic, but bear with me for a moment. Smart devices, including but not limited to Smart TVs. The manufacturers need to be legally and financially liable for damages caused by their devices getting hacked and used as a botnet. When I buy a toaster, I have a reasonable expectation that it won't burn my house down. When I buy a Smart TV, I have a reasonable expectation that it won't get hacked, become part of a botnet and cause massive damage to someone else, far away that I don't even know. It is not impossible to build a very secure IoT device. Anyone who has ever gone through PCI compliance to build a web site or anything else that accepts credit card data knows this. It's not impossible. It's just a very high bar to jump over. Demonstrating a similar level of security should be enough to be able to get insurance in case your IoT devices do get hacked and cause harm. The costs of this would be passed on to consumers. This would make Smart TVs more secure. But I'm also happy to pay more for a toaster that doesn't burn my house down, instead of a super cheap one that is dangerous. This would either kill smart TVs as an economical consumer item, or it would make them very secure. If it kills them, then the data / privacy issue is solved -- to move this back on topic.
akulbe 10y ago
Interesting. It's fine for the government to collect data and spy on its citizenry (without disclosing that it's doing so), but if a company does it it means millions in fines? Smacks of rank hypocrisy, to me.
- mulmen 10y ago
  The government isn't a corporation. Visio also doesn't have fighter jets and tanks. The rules are different.
- mfringel 10y ago
  The state's exercise of force is typically considered distinct from any other entity's.
beat 10y ago
As a Vizio tv owner who will probably by more Vizio tvs... Meh. I just assume every electronic device I own is spying on my habits and selling the data to whomever. Glad to see them busted on this, because I want to see the line for this stuff set as far back as possible, to be the most trouble and risk possible for businesses. But yeah, you can't really expect corporate ethics or laws to protect you.
- xenithorb 10y ago
  Nothing to hide, huh
- shuntress 10y ago
  Writing off the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like writing off the right to free speech because you have nothing to say.
  - beat 10y ago
    It has nothing to do with whether I have something to hide or not. I don't want them collecting data without my permission. But I assume they will do so. And to the post comparing this to violent crime... um, no. It's not the same. I don't need to be paranoid and assume that everyone is a violent criminal. I do, however, need to be conscious it's possible.
- gph 10y ago
  >But yeah, you can't really expect corporate ethics or laws to protect you. Sure, in a general sense you can't expect human morality or police to protect you all the time either. Do you just assume everyone you meet is a violent pathological criminal? That would be a very paranoid point of view to maintain. The point of the law and in particular this ruling is to be enough of a deterrent to dissuade most actors from doing something bad, thus giving you some level of protection. Cynics look at these types of cases and conclude like you have, that laws and ethics won't protect you. But if we never saw these types of cases come up it would be more likely that no one is enforcing the law, not that everyone is obeying it.
mark-r 10y ago
So they got fined for doing what essentially every internet company is doing? It's a good start, but I'm afraid it won't go nearly far enough.
- kernel_sanders 10y ago
  Yeah, I don't understand this. I read the FTC complaint and it hinged on the issue of collecting the data w/o explicit user consent, ie a pop up or message. Wouldn't nearly all internet companies fall in to this bucket? Ie, log aggregators, analytics SDKs etc?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nfriedly 10y ago
I have a Samsung "smart" TV. A while back, it started opening a pop-up every 10 minutes on top of whatever I was watching to reporting that my internet connection was down. My internet was just fine, but apparently their update server had gone down. I had to factory reset it to make it forget my Wi-Fi password and stop bothering me. Now it just has an computer attached and isn't used for anything other than a dumb screen.
- rottyguy 10y ago
  This will be the last time I buy a Samsung TV. I came home one evening and flicked on the tv to find that it had updated itself. As part of the update, it changed its UA. This one stipulated that I had to acknowledge that it can show popup ads (on a $1200 tv no less). I declined and then it proceeded to wipe out all my apps. Whether this was intentional or a "bug", I was obviously livid. I then spent the better part of 2hrs googling and sitting on tech support until someone walked me through resetting my system. Absolutely dumbfounded how anyone could have thought this was a good idea. One of the few times I seriously would have joined a class action suit.
- computator 10y ago
  Imagine if all wifi were open. Those TVs and other IoT appliances would happily upload whatever the hell they wanted without asking you anything. I used to bemoan that more people don't maintain completely open wifi connections in the spirit of sharing (assuming you have unlimited Internet). But there's the upside to everyone putting a password: You can choke off all those household devices that demand Internet access!
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Do you think they'll just ship LTE radios in the end?
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      If they can get mobile providers on board, they definitely will. Amazon has an option for "free 3G" on their higher-end Kindle devices, I don't see why a smart TV couldn't provide it.
knite 10y ago
This is my old company! Cognitive Networks, acquired by VIZIO and rebranded VIZIO Inscape.
homero 10y ago
I'll never buy a smart tv
- Viper007Bond 10y ago
  Good luck finding one that isn't.
  - homero 10y ago
    I just bought a westinghouse that isn't
- awqrre 10y ago
  It's probably easier to just not get it on the network...
itsmemattchung 10y ago
I feel conflicted. On one hand, my Vizio comes built in with several apps—NetFlix, Hulu, Local News—that improves the overall tv watching experience. Without the apps installed, I doubt that the members of my house hold would be consuming half the amount of entertainment. On the other hand, I hate the fact that data leaks to Vizio. So, what's the best way to strike a balance? Buy a "non-smart" tv and plug in a laptop (or rasberry pi) via an HDMI cable?
- jusuchin 10y ago
  Try finding any newer "non-smart" tvs.
  - itsmemattchung 10y ago
    You're probably right. The last time I hunted for a new TV was about 3-4 years ago; I'm guessing nowadays, most (if not all) TVs are now "smart."
    - marceldegraaf 10y ago
      Look for the Humax Pure Vision Display. Comes in 43", 49", and 55". 4K, with a bunch of HDMI/USB ports, and no more.
- pm24601 10y ago
  > Without the apps installed, I doubt that the members of my house hold would be consuming half the amount of entertainment. Maybe not "consuming" the content would be healthier? Would the time be used for other more productive activities?
- Lavinski 10y ago
  Console or media center
thinkloop 10y ago
2,200,000 / 11,000,000 = 0.2 Stealing entire viewing privacy is only worth 20 cents - painfully low for my tastes, but I guess it's about right given what people currently expose to get "free".
- tedmiston 10y ago
  Exactly. 20¢ per TV, which might correspond to multiple users, is a slap on the wrist.
  - awqrre 10y ago
    very light slap...
throthrowaway 10y ago
Likely related to Samba TV, connecting viewing data for advertising.
turc1656 10y ago
I'm sick and tired of hearing about fines for clearly criminal activity. This is most likely a felony issue at hand, here. The executives who green-lighted this activity should be held accountable and charged accordingly. That's the only thing people understand. That, or ruinous fines. Not a paltry $2.2M for a company with revenues of $3.1B - that's less than 0.1%!!! That's a rounding error to them. $10,000 per occurrence for the company would be much better, and jail for the executive(s) who are responsible, and then this crap might actually stop.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  Only in America is locking people up the solution to all life's problems.
  - turc1656 10y ago
    No, but it is definitely a solid solution to criminal problems, which is exactly what this is. These are most certainly criminal acts. Why should I not expect criminal activity to be charged as such? Most criminal activity is done for profit, and that's certainly the case here. For-profit crimes have two solutions. You either make them unprofitable by fining the offender(s) more than they are making from the illegal activity or you give them a free, extended stay at the Gray Bar Motel, courtesy of the US taxpayer. I am more than happy to help foot that bill if necessary.
    - throwaway160303 10y ago
      I'm unclear on something - you've said that these are "clearly" criminal acts. What would the charge be?
      - 0xCMP 10y ago
        How about fraud? Why is tricking someone to give you a password and using it enough to go to jail, but recording everything someone watches without their permission and selling to 3rd parties not?
huehehue 10y ago
Super interesting to see the population's attitude shift over time with regards to privacy. Feels like even the HN crowd is starting to get worn down and accept this sort of thing as a fact of life. It's absolutely going to get worse, and I'm surprised TVs aren't already using their cameras to measure physical movement during suspenseful scenes, or track how many people leave the room during commercial breaks. Of course, most non-technical end users I know 100% just don't care about this sort of thing, which bums me out. "Well, I know I'm being spied on, but if it makes my life easier then does it matter?"
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > "Well, I know I'm being spied on, but if it makes my life easier then does it matter?" That is still a somewhat defensible attitude. But most tracking, Vizio included, doesn't give you any benefits. It doesn't make your life easier in any way. It exists so that other people can make more money selling information about you to people who make money trying to sell useless shit to you.
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    > But most tracking, Vizio included, doesn't give you any benefits. It makes the products you want cheaper/more commercially viable. It's usually not completely obvious, but look at the Kindle Fire tablets which have ads on the home screen for a $10 discount. It's the same reason many computers come preinstalled with crapware; consumers want the cheapest price and are willing to tolerate crapware being installed by default for a cheaper computer.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Here's the thing with consumer "wants" - I feel it often is portrayed backwards. Consumers tend to not "want" stuff - they choose from what's available. There are no polls made in which consumers express an opinion that they'd happily buy a TV that tracks their watching habits if it was cheaper. Instead, somebody introduces such user-hostile way to make money on the side, allowing them to sell the product cheaper, and people start buying it because it's cheaper. Competition has to follow suit. The point being, companies are guilty of putting such products on the market in the first place; you can't then turn around and say "look at the sales figures, it's obviously what people want!".
randyrand 10y ago
why not to their customers? why does the FTC deserve this money?
OliverJones 10y ago
I know it's a pipe dream: It would be good for their retail and distribution channels to drop their product lines; it would be a noticeable way for outfits like Best Buy and Walmart to brand themselves with a "we care about our customers" aura. Loss of access to markets is also a suitable consequence for this kind of monkey business. Like I said, pipe dream.
keyle 10y ago
Does your Samsung TV turns itself on in the middle of the day to make updates? (screen stays black but you can hear the click). About once a week I hear it click on and then click off 5 minutes later... It's just spooky. Why would anyone buy a TV with voice control?!
asher_ 10y ago
Can anyone recommend good non-smart TVs?

186 points by el_duderino 10y ago

Awesome. Note that this isn't merely a fine, but also comes with the stipulation that they "prominently disclose and obtain affirmative express consent for its data collection and sharing practices, and prohibits misrepresentations about the privacy, security, or confidentiality of consumer information they collect". And they need to destroy the data collected before March, last year. That's pretty good! At the very least, this will make it so people are more aware of the constant telemetry. Some find that sort of feature useful, and others find it chilling, but at least this is a step in the direction of making it obvious.

ysavir 10y ago
Sure, they can destroy their data, but everything shared with those 3rd parties is still at those third parties. It's not exactly accomplishing much.
- bsilvereagle 10y ago
  If Visio made complete backups (say full HDD clones) of all their computers on a weekly basis, do all of the backups need destroyed? Is it feasible to open every backup and delete the relevant information? Is it possible to "forget" that a backup process exists and still maintain the data?
  - derefr 10y ago
    I've always wondered whether a datastore built on an immutable architecture could be designed to cope with an expectation of receiving court orders to delete data. I think you'd arrive at a somewhat "DRM"-like design. That is: 1. the datastore system would be designed as an "appliance", intended to be installed directly on hardware, and would mandate (and check that) the hardware it was installed on provided both a TPM to store disk encryption keys in, and a full Secure Boot trust-chain granting only its bootloader boot privilege; 2. the datastore software would maintain a mutable index within the store (in the Merkle-tree-ref sense) of all data that is to be "considered deleted"—a master "tombstone" record, in the DBMS terminology—and would prevent anyone from accessing said data through the system's API. With such a design, the data is effectively "gone", just as if it was really erased from the disks; the only way for a company running such a datastore to "recover" the data would be to find an exploit in the appliance allowing them to modify either the tombstone list (somewhat easy to thwart by choice of data structure), or the code that applies the tombstone policy.
    - kpil 10y ago
      It's like every service providers wet dream to arbitrarily lock up our private files. Currently only the russian cybercriminals are a bit ahead of the competition.
    - detaro 10y ago
      In addition: Have per-object encryption keys and destroy those when data has to be wiped.
    - daurnimator 10y ago
      Have a look at what datomic does. http://docs.datomic.com/excision.html http://docs.datomic.com/excision.html
  - x0x0 10y ago
    That's unimportant. What is important is legal penalties for accessing or selling that data. No-one with assets and in-house counsel would dare violate an order like this.
- porpoisemonkey 10y ago
  > Sure, they can destroy their data, but everything shared with those 3rd parties is still at those third parties. Agreed. I think it would be more effective deterrent if VIZIO had to work with those third parties to locate and delete the material that was transferred to them. This 1) would nullify the contract between VIZIO and those parties forcing VIZIO into back payment and 2) create an annoyance for the third-parties, hopefully making them think to ask how any data they're purchasing is being collected. At a minimum I think that customers whose data was collected prior to March 2016 have a right to know which third-party companies purchased their information.
  - ysavir 10y ago
    As one of those customers, I definitely think so!
  - PirateDave 10y ago
    In California, there is the "Shine the Light" law [0] that requires a company to release third-party information to a consumer if there is identifiable information given to third-parties along with the data collected. So in this case, Vizio would be required (at least to California natives) to release those third-parties' names and associated data collected from you. [0] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1798.83 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection....
    - porpoisemonkey 10y ago
      Thanks for the additional information. This is a step in the right direction but it's unfortunate that the obligation to disclose appears to be opt-in and not opt-out as detailed in paragraph (a). > that business shall, after the receipt of a written or electronic mail request, or, if the business chooses to receive requests by toll-free telephone or facsimile numbers, a telephone or facsimile request from the customer, provide all of the following information to the customer free of charge To compile a list of all companies that have their personal information an user would have to identify every business they have a business relationship with that could possibly be gathering this information and then send a written request to each on a regular basis as the request is only valid for information disclosed in the proceeding year. It seems then that this law only really covers consumers in the event that they find one specific and recent instance where they'd like this information disclosed.
- x0x0 10y ago
  This may or may not help you, but it's typical in these sort of data deals to (1) mostly sell aggregate data (eg these demographics actually watch these shows / actually saw these commercials). You'd probably be more interested in the latter in order to connect commercials with purchasing habits, but you're going to operate at the zip code or grocery store level. (2) If you are selling individual records, make up identifiers and not tie to IP addresses. Both because of privacy concerns and to force your ad-vendor customers to continue to purchase the dataset. (3) from the perspective of someone in the ad industry, I don't buy 11m cookies for ad targeting. These data deals require custom programming on both sides, time from bizdev at both vizio and ad companies, and for ad-company sales to be instructed and helped to sell to their customers. So unless Vizio tv viewing data has pretty high reach, I'm just not interested. I can't really see someone interested in 11m cookies unless that data is integrated with all available tv viewing data from Vizio, Netflix, Samsung, set-top boxes, etc. I'm aware of some pieces of that being sold, but not all of them. (3a) also, from the in-industry perspective, household data is often not that helpful. You're going to get demographics, if you get them, from the person in that household that happens to pay the bills. That's often unrelated to the person that spends time consuming media. So if eg parent X pays the bills in that household, but kids or parent Y spend the most time watching tv, this data is nowhere near as helpful for ad targeting as you would think.
- samstave 10y ago
  So, I worked there along with the others who are all HN regulars. I cant comment on this fine at all, but I can comment on the reaction: The system for identifying an individual via their digital habits is advanced and (in internet terms) ancient. The credit card industry, for example, is way more an invasion of your privacy than what are effectively Neilsen Ratings on steroids... so I think people over react to this. The fact is, that if you look at netflix, they have way more specific viewing habit info than any random TV which can state what it is watching. They already have their customer info, demographics, if they have kids, if they have account leechers like a brother or a friend who maintains a profile. They can see what IP/Device/app install anything is coming from -- and they have agreements with various device manufacturers to NOT track their (Netflix's) viewership/app use etc... Netflix is probably the most savvy digital media company at this point. While this data will enrich various entities over time at the expense of 100% privacy as to the content one is viewing, I would state that one would be better served to be worried about their chrome and credit card history than the viewing of particular TV shows. Additionally - having a very intimate knowledge of how the vizio system works, I would not be concerned about this at all in the scheme of things as truly, its literally impossible to have a system watching all media streams on TVs throughout the world. Finally, Vizio has done a stand-up job of enforcing opt-in/opt-out in the actual firmware of every set.
  - sib 10y ago
    While Netflix does have a lot of data about what you watch on Netflix, I believe that the reason people react so strongly to things like this is that, as the platform provider, using automated content recognition and other techniques, Vizio (or Samsung, ...) can know everything that you watch across all sources flowing through the TV. Even including things such as YouTube, linear broadcast TV, etc. That's a lot broader surface area than Netflix has...
    - knappe 10y ago
      That and they weren't exactly upfront about their collection.
    - samstave 10y ago

emodendroket 10y ago

That's cool but it feels like drops in the ocean.

pdimitar 10y ago
From the amazing "Cloud Atlas" (2012) movie: "But what is an ocean, if not a multitude of drops?" I am feeling a lot of despair and paranoia about this case but there are still reasons to be hopeful and optimistic.

dudurocha 10y ago

There are another cases like these?

sailfast 10y ago

Vizio was sold to LeEco in July, right? Does anybody have an idea about whether this data went along with the purchase or not and/or whether it would have made for a significant boost in the price paid for the firm? Seems like pretty valuable data to re-sell to third parties.

sp332 10y ago
Vizio's data service is set to be spun off into its own company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscape_Data_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscape_Data_Services

stevenleeg 10y ago

Foof, this is yet another reason for me to be completely out on smart tvs. I really don't see the appeal of hooking up my tv to the internet if the only thing I'll get in return is buggy service integrations and, worse, the tv spying on my viewing habits. This is on top of the added potential for security exploits on a poorly maintained device connected to my home network.

mtgx 10y ago
Smart TVs really need to follow 3D TVs and die as soon as possible. If I want my TV to be "smart". I'll just buy a $50 set top box and change it every 3 years. I don't want a TV that I will keep for 10-12 years to be "smart" and abandoned in terms of updates a year or two after appearing on the market (so not even after purchase).
cptskippy 10y ago
I agree that Smart TVs need to die. I think some sort of law or regulation mandating security updates for the average life expectancy of such devices would ago a long way towards killing off Smart TVs. That's assuming the life expectancy is something reasonable like 5-10 years.
- xenithorb 10y ago
  Or you get TVs that last a lot less ;)
- DannyB2 10y ago
  It's about more than security updates. And this may seem off topic, but bear with me for a moment. Smart devices, including but not limited to Smart TVs. The manufacturers need to be legally and financially liable for damages caused by their devices getting hacked and used as a botnet. When I buy a toaster, I have a reasonable expectation that it won't burn my house down. When I buy a Smart TV, I have a reasonable expectation that it won't get hacked, become part of a botnet and cause massive damage to someone else, far away that I don't even know. It is not impossible to build a very secure IoT device. Anyone who has ever gone through PCI compliance to build a web site or anything else that accepts credit card data knows this. It's not impossible. It's just a very high bar to jump over. Demonstrating a similar level of security should be enough to be able to get insurance in case your IoT devices do get hacked and cause harm. The costs of this would be passed on to consumers. This would make Smart TVs more secure. But I'm also happy to pay more for a toaster that doesn't burn my house down, instead of a super cheap one that is dangerous. This would either kill smart TVs as an economical consumer item, or it would make them very secure. If it kills them, then the data / privacy issue is solved -- to move this back on topic.

akulbe 10y ago

Interesting. It's fine for the government to collect data and spy on its citizenry (without disclosing that it's doing so), but if a company does it it means millions in fines? Smacks of rank hypocrisy, to me.

mulmen 10y ago
The government isn't a corporation. Visio also doesn't have fighter jets and tanks. The rules are different.
mfringel 10y ago
The state's exercise of force is typically considered distinct from any other entity's.

beat 10y ago

As a Vizio tv owner who will probably by more Vizio tvs... Meh. I just assume every electronic device I own is spying on my habits and selling the data to whomever. Glad to see them busted on this, because I want to see the line for this stuff set as far back as possible, to be the most trouble and risk possible for businesses. But yeah, you can't really expect corporate ethics or laws to protect you.

xenithorb 10y ago
Nothing to hide, huh
shuntress 10y ago
Writing off the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like writing off the right to free speech because you have nothing to say.
- beat 10y ago
  It has nothing to do with whether I have something to hide or not. I don't want them collecting data without my permission. But I assume they will do so. And to the post comparing this to violent crime... um, no. It's not the same. I don't need to be paranoid and assume that everyone is a violent criminal. I do, however, need to be conscious it's possible.
gph 10y ago
>But yeah, you can't really expect corporate ethics or laws to protect you. Sure, in a general sense you can't expect human morality or police to protect you all the time either. Do you just assume everyone you meet is a violent pathological criminal? That would be a very paranoid point of view to maintain. The point of the law and in particular this ruling is to be enough of a deterrent to dissuade most actors from doing something bad, thus giving you some level of protection. Cynics look at these types of cases and conclude like you have, that laws and ethics won't protect you. But if we never saw these types of cases come up it would be more likely that no one is enforcing the law, not that everyone is obeying it.

mark-r 10y ago

So they got fined for doing what essentially every internet company is doing? It's a good start, but I'm afraid it won't go nearly far enough.

kernel_sanders 10y ago
Yeah, I don't understand this. I read the FTC complaint and it hinged on the issue of collecting the data w/o explicit user consent, ie a pop up or message. Wouldn't nearly all internet companies fall in to this bucket? Ie, log aggregators, analytics SDKs etc?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nfriedly 10y ago

I have a Samsung "smart" TV. A while back, it started opening a pop-up every 10 minutes on top of whatever I was watching to reporting that my internet connection was down. My internet was just fine, but apparently their update server had gone down. I had to factory reset it to make it forget my Wi-Fi password and stop bothering me. Now it just has an computer attached and isn't used for anything other than a dumb screen.

rottyguy 10y ago
This will be the last time I buy a Samsung TV. I came home one evening and flicked on the tv to find that it had updated itself. As part of the update, it changed its UA. This one stipulated that I had to acknowledge that it can show popup ads (on a $1200 tv no less). I declined and then it proceeded to wipe out all my apps. Whether this was intentional or a "bug", I was obviously livid. I then spent the better part of 2hrs googling and sitting on tech support until someone walked me through resetting my system. Absolutely dumbfounded how anyone could have thought this was a good idea. One of the few times I seriously would have joined a class action suit.
computator 10y ago
Imagine if all wifi were open. Those TVs and other IoT appliances would happily upload whatever the hell they wanted without asking you anything. I used to bemoan that more people don't maintain completely open wifi connections in the spirit of sharing (assuming you have unlimited Internet). But there's the upside to everyone putting a password: You can choke off all those household devices that demand Internet access!
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Do you think they'll just ship LTE radios in the end?
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    If they can get mobile providers on board, they definitely will. Amazon has an option for "free 3G" on their higher-end Kindle devices, I don't see why a smart TV couldn't provide it.

knite 10y ago

This is my old company! Cognitive Networks, acquired by VIZIO and rebranded VIZIO Inscape.

homero 10y ago

I'll never buy a smart tv

Viper007Bond 10y ago
Good luck finding one that isn't.
- homero 10y ago
  I just bought a westinghouse that isn't
awqrre 10y ago
It's probably easier to just not get it on the network...

itsmemattchung 10y ago

I feel conflicted. On one hand, my Vizio comes built in with several apps—NetFlix, Hulu, Local News—that improves the overall tv watching experience. Without the apps installed, I doubt that the members of my house hold would be consuming half the amount of entertainment. On the other hand, I hate the fact that data leaks to Vizio. So, what's the best way to strike a balance? Buy a "non-smart" tv and plug in a laptop (or rasberry pi) via an HDMI cable?

jusuchin 10y ago
Try finding any newer "non-smart" tvs.
- itsmemattchung 10y ago
  You're probably right. The last time I hunted for a new TV was about 3-4 years ago; I'm guessing nowadays, most (if not all) TVs are now "smart."
  - marceldegraaf 10y ago
    Look for the Humax Pure Vision Display. Comes in 43", 49", and 55". 4K, with a bunch of HDMI/USB ports, and no more.
pm24601 10y ago
> Without the apps installed, I doubt that the members of my house hold would be consuming half the amount of entertainment. Maybe not "consuming" the content would be healthier? Would the time be used for other more productive activities?
Lavinski 10y ago
Console or media center

thinkloop 10y ago

2,200,000 / 11,000,000 = 0.2 Stealing entire viewing privacy is only worth 20 cents - painfully low for my tastes, but I guess it's about right given what people currently expose to get "free".

tedmiston 10y ago
Exactly. 20¢ per TV, which might correspond to multiple users, is a slap on the wrist.
- awqrre 10y ago
  very light slap...

throthrowaway 10y ago

Likely related to Samba TV, connecting viewing data for advertising.

turc1656 10y ago

I'm sick and tired of hearing about fines for clearly criminal activity. This is most likely a felony issue at hand, here. The executives who green-lighted this activity should be held accountable and charged accordingly. That's the only thing people understand. That, or ruinous fines. Not a paltry $2.2M for a company with revenues of $3.1B - that's less than 0.1%!!! That's a rounding error to them. $10,000 per occurrence for the company would be much better, and jail for the executive(s) who are responsible, and then this crap might actually stop.

forgetsusername 10y ago
Only in America is locking people up the solution to all life's problems.
- turc1656 10y ago
  No, but it is definitely a solid solution to criminal problems, which is exactly what this is. These are most certainly criminal acts. Why should I not expect criminal activity to be charged as such? Most criminal activity is done for profit, and that's certainly the case here. For-profit crimes have two solutions. You either make them unprofitable by fining the offender(s) more than they are making from the illegal activity or you give them a free, extended stay at the Gray Bar Motel, courtesy of the US taxpayer. I am more than happy to help foot that bill if necessary.
  - throwaway160303 10y ago
    I'm unclear on something - you've said that these are "clearly" criminal acts. What would the charge be?
    - 0xCMP 10y ago
      How about fraud? Why is tricking someone to give you a password and using it enough to go to jail, but recording everything someone watches without their permission and selling to 3rd parties not?

huehehue 10y ago

Super interesting to see the population's attitude shift over time with regards to privacy. Feels like even the HN crowd is starting to get worn down and accept this sort of thing as a fact of life. It's absolutely going to get worse, and I'm surprised TVs aren't already using their cameras to measure physical movement during suspenseful scenes, or track how many people leave the room during commercial breaks. Of course, most non-technical end users I know 100% just don't care about this sort of thing, which bums me out. "Well, I know I'm being spied on, but if it makes my life easier then does it matter?"

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> "Well, I know I'm being spied on, but if it makes my life easier then does it matter?" That is still a somewhat defensible attitude. But most tracking, Vizio included, doesn't give you any benefits. It doesn't make your life easier in any way. It exists so that other people can make more money selling information about you to people who make money trying to sell useless shit to you.
- Eridrus 10y ago
  > But most tracking, Vizio included, doesn't give you any benefits. It makes the products you want cheaper/more commercially viable. It's usually not completely obvious, but look at the Kindle Fire tablets which have ads on the home screen for a $10 discount. It's the same reason many computers come preinstalled with crapware; consumers want the cheapest price and are willing to tolerate crapware being installed by default for a cheaper computer.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Here's the thing with consumer "wants" - I feel it often is portrayed backwards. Consumers tend to not "want" stuff - they choose from what's available. There are no polls made in which consumers express an opinion that they'd happily buy a TV that tracks their watching habits if it was cheaper. Instead, somebody introduces such user-hostile way to make money on the side, allowing them to sell the product cheaper, and people start buying it because it's cheaper. Competition has to follow suit. The point being, companies are guilty of putting such products on the market in the first place; you can't then turn around and say "look at the sales figures, it's obviously what people want!".

randyrand 10y ago

why not to their customers? why does the FTC deserve this money?

OliverJones 10y ago

I know it's a pipe dream: It would be good for their retail and distribution channels to drop their product lines; it would be a noticeable way for outfits like Best Buy and Walmart to brand themselves with a "we care about our customers" aura. Loss of access to markets is also a suitable consequence for this kind of monkey business. Like I said, pipe dream.

keyle 10y ago

Does your Samsung TV turns itself on in the middle of the day to make updates? (screen stays black but you can hear the click). About once a week I hear it click on and then click off 5 minutes later... It's just spooky. Why would anyone buy a TV with voice control?!

asher_ 10y ago

Can anyone recommend good non-smart TVs?