4 ms·

So this gets prosecuted as a crime, while https://www.pcworld.com/article/2066400/lg-smart-tvs-share-data-about-users-files-and-viewing-habits-with-the-company.

by deogeo 7y ago

So this gets prosecuted as a crime, while https://www.pcworld.com/article/2066400/lg-smart-tvs-share-data-about-users-files-and-viewing-habits-with-the-company.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/2066400/lg-smart-tvs-share-d... doesn't? Why? Both cases involve someone buying something sabotaged, and would fit nicely under the CFAA.

danso 7y ago
Where in your article does it describe something being sabotaged?
- deogeo 7y ago
  "But even after turning off the feature, the TV continued to share viewing habits with the company"
  - danso 7y ago
    Where is the sabotage? The article you're sharing is from 2013. In the 6 years since, has there been a followup that shows that this malfunction was intentional, i.e. not a bug? And any documents that describe the intended malbehavior? The Boeing 737 MAX crashes killed a lot of people, but the corporate behavior behind that is going to be treated differently than an airport mechanic who tries to sabotage a plane's equipment (nevermind leaves evidence of intent, and later pleas guilty to it)
    - deogeo 7y ago
      > In the 6 years since, has there been a followup that shows that this malfunction was intentional, i.e. not a bug? Why assume it's a bug? That should be for them to prove. And why would there be a follow-up if they never get prosecuted in the first place? Follow up by who? > And any documents that describe the intended malbehavior? Selling devices that betray their owners isn't enough - they'd have to also be incompetent enough to create documents that is what they intended? Just what kind of insane standard of proof do you require for a prosecution to start (not convict, start)?
      - danso 7y ago
        > Just what kind of insane standard of proof do you require for a prosecution to start (not convict, start)? Cite the relevant criminal statute.
        deogeo 7y ago
        I already have, in the very first post.
        danso 7y ago
        So are you going to cite the specific section, or are you avoiding it because you don't want to talk about the parts that say "knowingly and with intent"?
        deogeo 7y ago
        They knowingly and with intent implemented spying functionality, and knowingly and with intent made a button that claims to turn it off. The only part they might not have done knowingly and with intent is the part where that button does nothing. Now they're free to argue that was a bug, but they should do so in court - just how much benefit of the doubt do you think they should get before a prosecution is launched? If there's a murder, do you just assume it was in self-defense, without any evidence offered to that effect?

by deogeo 7y ago

danso 7y ago

Where in your article does it describe something being sabotaged?

deogeo 7y ago
"But even after turning off the feature, the TV continued to share viewing habits with the company"
- danso 7y ago
  Where is the sabotage? The article you're sharing is from 2013. In the 6 years since, has there been a followup that shows that this malfunction was intentional, i.e. not a bug? And any documents that describe the intended malbehavior? The Boeing 737 MAX crashes killed a lot of people, but the corporate behavior behind that is going to be treated differently than an airport mechanic who tries to sabotage a plane's equipment (nevermind leaves evidence of intent, and later pleas guilty to it)
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > In the 6 years since, has there been a followup that shows that this malfunction was intentional, i.e. not a bug? Why assume it's a bug? That should be for them to prove. And why would there be a follow-up if they never get prosecuted in the first place? Follow up by who? > And any documents that describe the intended malbehavior? Selling devices that betray their owners isn't enough - they'd have to also be incompetent enough to create documents that is what they intended? Just what kind of insane standard of proof do you require for a prosecution to start (not convict, start)?
    - danso 7y ago
      > Just what kind of insane standard of proof do you require for a prosecution to start (not convict, start)? Cite the relevant criminal statute.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        I already have, in the very first post.
        danso 7y ago
        So are you going to cite the specific section, or are you avoiding it because you don't want to talk about the parts that say "knowingly and with intent"?
        deogeo 7y ago
        They knowingly and with intent implemented spying functionality, and knowingly and with intent made a button that claims to turn it off. The only part they might not have done knowingly and with intent is the part where that button does nothing. Now they're free to argue that was a bug, but they should do so in court - just how much benefit of the doubt do you think they should get before a prosecution is launched? If there's a murder, do you just assume it was in self-defense, without any evidence offered to that effect?