26 ms·

This is a pretty open secret within the industry. Geographic data can be provided via setup (a lot of TV's ask for a zip code on setup) or usually simply via Ge

This is a pretty open secret within the industry. Geographic data can be provided via setup (a lot of TV's ask for a zip code on setup) or usually simply via GeoIP lookup. Dig a bit deeper and you get into service provided by Samba TV and or Inscape and you can find that they're sending back frames of video in a lot of cases to track what you're watching. This data is becoming a huge mechanism for subsidizing TV sales and the interactivity is being looked at as a huge opportunity to recoup some of the ad spend being lost via streaming and fewer 30 second spots. With new TV's its time to view them as private as a browser (With less controls). https://samba.tv/ https://samba.tv/ https://www.inscape.tv/ https://www.inscape.tv/

paxys 7y ago
Not even a secret. A TV manufacturer publicly said a while ago that a TV without "smart" features is more expensive for the company (even if sold at the same retail price) because they cannot make any money from selling usage data.
- phreack 7y ago
  It was the Vizio CTO, while trying to spin it positively it came out a bit too honest. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190114/08084341384/vizio-admits-modern-tv-sets-are-cheaper-because-theyre-spying-you.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190114/08084341384/vizio...
  - bduerst 7y ago
    This is kind of spot on to Succession's "ATN News: We're listening"
    - sk5t 7y ago
      "We hear... for you."
  - conradfr 7y ago
    That assumes that developing the smart system (and supporting the infrastructure) does cost the same as for the dumb one, which seems wrong to me. Or maybe at high volume it becomes negligible anyway.
- flukus 7y ago
  How much do they make per user? I would have have thought it was in the $10-$20 range and not enough to trigger any price sensitivity. I'm a tightass with an aldi TV but wouldn't have cared if it cost $10 more.
  - sharkweek 7y ago
    Not entirely related, but I remember thinking when Hulu was talking about an ad-free version of their streaming library that “this will clearly cost a lot more per month because my eyeballs are worth A LOT!!” Imagine my surprise when it turned out only being $4 a month to remove commercials. It almost hurts my feelings knowing how little I’m worth to advertisers...
    - beagle3 7y ago
      But it was 50% higher... that’s indeed a lot.
      - porlune 7y ago
        But "a lot" can still be insignificant. Imagine an ant falling from 1 meter, it would live, but would have fallen thousands of times its own height.
    - natmaka 7y ago
      Paying to have commercials removed may not imply that your activity is not spied on, then the corresponding data not sold to third parties. You "locally" (on the site you paid) escape from advertising, indeed, but for the rest...
    - squeaky-clean 7y ago
      It's not only about allowing customers to pay for their share of ad revenue in order to remove it the ads. But to also enter new markets of customers. For example I would never subscribe to a service with ads, regardless of price. The Hulu tier that includes ads would have to pay me about $30/mo before I would consider switching from the ad free tier. The number might be unrelated to ad revenue at all and they figured that was the perfect threshold between capturing the highest number of "cheaper" subscribers while also maximizing new ad-free subscribers.
- m-p-3 7y ago
  As long as I can keep the TV offline to operate it I'm fine with it. The day it needs to be online to work is where I'll be seriously pissed enough that I'll return it without hesitation.
  - cm2187 7y ago
    Like Sonos did. And I did what you said. Into the trash can.
    - rsync 7y ago
      Sonos needs to be called out for the dramatic disparity between how they present their products and what those products actually do. Their userbase is almost universally clueless as to what it is these devices are doing and what the goals of Sonos, as a company, must be. They should have been one of the good ones - and I had such enthusiasm for their products - but they have proven to be very, very antagonistic towards their users.
      - TheHegemon 7y ago
        Wait, what is Sonos doing that am I missing?
        cm2187 7y ago
        Force you to register and login or they brick your device. Stuff a recording device connecting to amazon in what should otherwise be a speaker.
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    How can you be sure it's offline? Possibly it has wireless capabilities that work without your consent..
    - downtide 7y ago
      We have a house without any Internet connection - that would require at least a mobile link.
- aleem 7y ago
  Nowhere does it mention "usage data". Services revenue in general is where all devices are going. If you subscribe to Netflix on your smart TV, the TV maker gets comms. Again, this referral/conversion model is pretty dated. Otherwise TV maker has no incentive to pre-bundle your app (same as Windows, some Android phones, Lenovo laptops, etc).
  - hakfoo 7y ago
    > Otherwise TV maker has no incentive to pre-bundle your app The big one is "supports popular services out of the box" is a selling point to consumers. Even if it boots up to a store page where you can download them all, a whingy answer for "Does it do Netflix" will drive buyers to the next TV.
obmelvin 7y ago
Roku enabled TVs very clearly send back frames of what you are watching. I've been watching YouTube casted via chromecast plugged into HDMI (NOT the built in chromecast, I have verified multiple times) and the Roku will give me a full width toast saying to press `*` to watch the full movie or some similar contextual option I was pretty put off the first time this happened. That said, I don't even know if I looked through the settings to see if I could turn it off..
- paggle 7y ago
  It may be sending video or audio frames but it’s also possible without it. The Chromecast can send side channel data to the TV.
  - bentpins 7y ago
    That or it could be sending only a fingerprint (still a privacy issue, but less severe)
  - obmelvin 7y ago
    Huh...I feel stupid. I should've realized that HDMI can send additional data... or rather should've put 2 and 2 together
    - voidmain0001 7y ago
      I remember reading a comment some time ago which stated that they were concerned about the trustworthiness of HDMI, Thunderbolt, and the like as they can contain hidden features that could compromise the user. Fascinating. We need a firewall on our gateways, and on our peripheral ports.
- phire 7y ago
  It's probably using fingerprinting rather than uploading the whole frame. And I would guess it's only audio fingerprinting, rather than full video.
- Silhouette 7y ago
cyanbane 7y ago
How do Doctor's that use TVs like this in meeting rooms get around HIPAA? or other places with PII, etc? With so much stuff being thrown to TVs now, a lot of times they are inheriently monitors, and there are very few people who think taking a screenshot of a monitor is not invasive.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The article cites things like location, IP addresses, and the content being watched. That's a far cry from relaying an audio recording of a surgical conference containing HIPAA-sensitive data.
  - glenneroo 7y ago
    The article mentions this bit: > The researchers also found that other smart devices including speakers and cameras were sending user data to dozens of third parties including Spotify and Microsoft. Maybe someone can find the referenced studies to see what data is actually sent...
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      That the devices have speakers and cameras doesn't mean they're sending the speaker and camera data to those third-parties.
      - dgzl 7y ago
        actually, I'm reading this entirely different... > other smart devices including speakers and cameras In my perspective, these are other devices entirely, like smart speakers and those video hubs the FAANG companies produce, or maybe entrance cameras.. Some reasoning: what kind of television doesn't have speakers.
  - cyanbane 7y ago
    No, the above comment (not article) mentions screenshots. If I have an x-ray of someone on my screen along with patient name then how is that not personal information that could be screen shotted and sent to some endpoint?
thelittleone 7y ago
Shouldn't this be relatively easy to block on an internet route / firewall?
pmart123 7y ago
This headline seems a bit sensational in trying to blame favorite privacy scapegoat, Facebook. I would first blame the device maker for selling such data, but I bet half the reason this occurs is due to figuring out which CDN to use given Akamai is one of the companies receiving the most data?
dontbenebby 7y ago
>This data is becoming a huge mechanism for subsidizing TV sales and the interactivity is being looked at as a huge opportunity to recoup some of the ad spend being lost via streaming and fewer 30 second spots So what are the options for a consumer willing to pay for privacy? Will console manufacturers be more respectful for example? (I've considered a console to serve as a bluray player / host OS for streaming apps that also plays games). Or are we stuck using dumb tvs and connecting out laptops to them via HDMI? (And thus no 4K iirc)
- xxs 7y ago
  pihole (while list DNS, etc.) or not connecting the TV to internet, block it by MAC entirely on the router. >Or are we stuck using dumb tvs and connecting out laptops to them via HDMI? (And thus no 4K iirc) HDMI 2.0 (2013) supports 4k/60Hz. HDMI 2.1 is significantly more ambitious with 8/10k resolution and variable refresh rate.
  - drewmol 7y ago
    The 4K comment was likely in refrence to streaming providers like Netflix, etc. which don't offer 4K content playback on devives which are not deemed to be adequately locked down, which is a typically a stipulation of their content licensing agreements.
- chillydawg 7y ago
  I was watching a ripped Spiderman years ago on my PS3 and the PlayStation refused to play it after 10 mins with an antipiracy message. This was via a network video server. Don't see why Sony would have rolled back that feature since.
  - kingosticks 7y ago
    This is Cinavia audio watermarking. It's designed to survive lossy compression by staying within the human audible range. > If a "theatrical release" watermark is detected in a consumer Blu-ray Disc audio track, the accompanying video is deemed to have been sourced from a "cam" recording. If the "AACS watermark" is present in the audio tracks, but no accompanying and matching AACS key is found on the disc, then it is deemed to have been a "rip" made by copying to a second blank Blu-ray Disc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia Edit: that same page says its now a requirement for all consumer bluray players to use this tech. But I don't remember seeing those messages for years. The pirates must be winning with their methods of changing the signatures.
buro9 7y ago
Also see: My Sony "smart" TV has updated itself and tried to force me to use a new app https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16727319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16727319 How Smart TVs in Millions of U.S. Homes Track More Than What’s On Tonight https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/business/media/tv-viewer-tracking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/business/media/tv-viewer-... I no longer have a TV connected to the internet, I only have a local Plex connected to the TV and a Chromecast for things like Netflix.
accounn 7y ago
Scam & spy business in plain sight. We live in a pretend society where fakeness is worshipped We live in a pretend society that's backstabbing individuals on global scale. We live in AdLandia, AllGoodLandia. Welcome to AdLandia, AllGoodLandia! Where: you have no voice, you have no choice, you have no space, you have no escape, you have no respect. Where history gets deleted, and future censored. Where is the support when you need it? It doesn't exist. Because it is unnecessary as everything is already "fixed."
tenebrisalietum 7y ago
I'm more worried about this eventually being tied into some copyright enforcement mechanism (Cinavia on steroids) than anything else.
celticmusic 7y ago
and this is why I don't allow my televisions to be smart. blocked at the network level.
xtat 7y ago
samba tv yikes

paxys 7y ago

Not even a secret. A TV manufacturer publicly said a while ago that a TV without "smart" features is more expensive for the company (even if sold at the same retail price) because they cannot make any money from selling usage data.

phreack 7y ago
It was the Vizio CTO, while trying to spin it positively it came out a bit too honest. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190114/08084341384/vizio-admits-modern-tv-sets-are-cheaper-because-theyre-spying-you.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190114/08084341384/vizio...
- bduerst 7y ago
  This is kind of spot on to Succession's "ATN News: We're listening"
  - sk5t 7y ago
    "We hear... for you."
- conradfr 7y ago
  That assumes that developing the smart system (and supporting the infrastructure) does cost the same as for the dumb one, which seems wrong to me. Or maybe at high volume it becomes negligible anyway.
flukus 7y ago
How much do they make per user? I would have have thought it was in the $10-$20 range and not enough to trigger any price sensitivity. I'm a tightass with an aldi TV but wouldn't have cared if it cost $10 more.
- sharkweek 7y ago
  Not entirely related, but I remember thinking when Hulu was talking about an ad-free version of their streaming library that “this will clearly cost a lot more per month because my eyeballs are worth A LOT!!” Imagine my surprise when it turned out only being $4 a month to remove commercials. It almost hurts my feelings knowing how little I’m worth to advertisers...
  - beagle3 7y ago
    But it was 50% higher... that’s indeed a lot.
    - porlune 7y ago
      But "a lot" can still be insignificant. Imagine an ant falling from 1 meter, it would live, but would have fallen thousands of times its own height.
  - natmaka 7y ago
    Paying to have commercials removed may not imply that your activity is not spied on, then the corresponding data not sold to third parties. You "locally" (on the site you paid) escape from advertising, indeed, but for the rest...
  - squeaky-clean 7y ago
    It's not only about allowing customers to pay for their share of ad revenue in order to remove it the ads. But to also enter new markets of customers. For example I would never subscribe to a service with ads, regardless of price. The Hulu tier that includes ads would have to pay me about $30/mo before I would consider switching from the ad free tier. The number might be unrelated to ad revenue at all and they figured that was the perfect threshold between capturing the highest number of "cheaper" subscribers while also maximizing new ad-free subscribers.
m-p-3 7y ago
As long as I can keep the TV offline to operate it I'm fine with it. The day it needs to be online to work is where I'll be seriously pissed enough that I'll return it without hesitation.
- cm2187 7y ago
  Like Sonos did. And I did what you said. Into the trash can.
  - rsync 7y ago
    Sonos needs to be called out for the dramatic disparity between how they present their products and what those products actually do. Their userbase is almost universally clueless as to what it is these devices are doing and what the goals of Sonos, as a company, must be. They should have been one of the good ones - and I had such enthusiasm for their products - but they have proven to be very, very antagonistic towards their users.
    - TheHegemon 7y ago
      Wait, what is Sonos doing that am I missing?
      - cm2187 7y ago
        Force you to register and login or they brick your device. Stuff a recording device connecting to amazon in what should otherwise be a speaker.
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  How can you be sure it's offline? Possibly it has wireless capabilities that work without your consent..
  - downtide 7y ago
    We have a house without any Internet connection - that would require at least a mobile link.
aleem 7y ago
Nowhere does it mention "usage data". Services revenue in general is where all devices are going. If you subscribe to Netflix on your smart TV, the TV maker gets comms. Again, this referral/conversion model is pretty dated. Otherwise TV maker has no incentive to pre-bundle your app (same as Windows, some Android phones, Lenovo laptops, etc).
- hakfoo 7y ago
  > Otherwise TV maker has no incentive to pre-bundle your app The big one is "supports popular services out of the box" is a selling point to consumers. Even if it boots up to a store page where you can download them all, a whingy answer for "Does it do Netflix" will drive buyers to the next TV.

obmelvin 7y ago

Roku enabled TVs very clearly send back frames of what you are watching. I've been watching YouTube casted via chromecast plugged into HDMI (NOT the built in chromecast, I have verified multiple times) and the Roku will give me a full width toast saying to press `*` to watch the full movie or some similar contextual option I was pretty put off the first time this happened. That said, I don't even know if I looked through the settings to see if I could turn it off..

paggle 7y ago
It may be sending video or audio frames but it’s also possible without it. The Chromecast can send side channel data to the TV.
- bentpins 7y ago
  That or it could be sending only a fingerprint (still a privacy issue, but less severe)
- obmelvin 7y ago
  Huh...I feel stupid. I should've realized that HDMI can send additional data... or rather should've put 2 and 2 together
  - voidmain0001 7y ago
    I remember reading a comment some time ago which stated that they were concerned about the trustworthiness of HDMI, Thunderbolt, and the like as they can contain hidden features that could compromise the user. Fascinating. We need a firewall on our gateways, and on our peripheral ports.
phire 7y ago
It's probably using fingerprinting rather than uploading the whole frame. And I would guess it's only audio fingerprinting, rather than full video.
Silhouette 7y ago

cyanbane 7y ago

How do Doctor's that use TVs like this in meeting rooms get around HIPAA? or other places with PII, etc? With so much stuff being thrown to TVs now, a lot of times they are inheriently monitors, and there are very few people who think taking a screenshot of a monitor is not invasive.

ceejayoz 7y ago
The article cites things like location, IP addresses, and the content being watched. That's a far cry from relaying an audio recording of a surgical conference containing HIPAA-sensitive data.
- glenneroo 7y ago
  The article mentions this bit: > The researchers also found that other smart devices including speakers and cameras were sending user data to dozens of third parties including Spotify and Microsoft. Maybe someone can find the referenced studies to see what data is actually sent...
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    That the devices have speakers and cameras doesn't mean they're sending the speaker and camera data to those third-parties.
    - dgzl 7y ago
      actually, I'm reading this entirely different... > other smart devices including speakers and cameras In my perspective, these are other devices entirely, like smart speakers and those video hubs the FAANG companies produce, or maybe entrance cameras.. Some reasoning: what kind of television doesn't have speakers.
- cyanbane 7y ago
  No, the above comment (not article) mentions screenshots. If I have an x-ray of someone on my screen along with patient name then how is that not personal information that could be screen shotted and sent to some endpoint?

thelittleone 7y ago

Shouldn't this be relatively easy to block on an internet route / firewall?

pmart123 7y ago

This headline seems a bit sensational in trying to blame favorite privacy scapegoat, Facebook. I would first blame the device maker for selling such data, but I bet half the reason this occurs is due to figuring out which CDN to use given Akamai is one of the companies receiving the most data?

dontbenebby 7y ago

>This data is becoming a huge mechanism for subsidizing TV sales and the interactivity is being looked at as a huge opportunity to recoup some of the ad spend being lost via streaming and fewer 30 second spots So what are the options for a consumer willing to pay for privacy? Will console manufacturers be more respectful for example? (I've considered a console to serve as a bluray player / host OS for streaming apps that also plays games). Or are we stuck using dumb tvs and connecting out laptops to them via HDMI? (And thus no 4K iirc)

xxs 7y ago
pihole (while list DNS, etc.) or not connecting the TV to internet, block it by MAC entirely on the router. >Or are we stuck using dumb tvs and connecting out laptops to them via HDMI? (And thus no 4K iirc) HDMI 2.0 (2013) supports 4k/60Hz. HDMI 2.1 is significantly more ambitious with 8/10k resolution and variable refresh rate.
- drewmol 7y ago
  The 4K comment was likely in refrence to streaming providers like Netflix, etc. which don't offer 4K content playback on devives which are not deemed to be adequately locked down, which is a typically a stipulation of their content licensing agreements.
chillydawg 7y ago
I was watching a ripped Spiderman years ago on my PS3 and the PlayStation refused to play it after 10 mins with an antipiracy message. This was via a network video server. Don't see why Sony would have rolled back that feature since.
- kingosticks 7y ago
  This is Cinavia audio watermarking. It's designed to survive lossy compression by staying within the human audible range. > If a "theatrical release" watermark is detected in a consumer Blu-ray Disc audio track, the accompanying video is deemed to have been sourced from a "cam" recording. If the "AACS watermark" is present in the audio tracks, but no accompanying and matching AACS key is found on the disc, then it is deemed to have been a "rip" made by copying to a second blank Blu-ray Disc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia Edit: that same page says its now a requirement for all consumer bluray players to use this tech. But I don't remember seeing those messages for years. The pirates must be winning with their methods of changing the signatures.

buro9 7y ago

Also see: My Sony "smart" TV has updated itself and tried to force me to use a new app https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16727319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16727319 How Smart TVs in Millions of U.S. Homes Track More Than What’s On Tonight https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/business/media/tv-viewer-tracking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/business/media/tv-viewer-... I no longer have a TV connected to the internet, I only have a local Plex connected to the TV and a Chromecast for things like Netflix.

accounn 7y ago

Scam & spy business in plain sight. We live in a pretend society where fakeness is worshipped We live in a pretend society that's backstabbing individuals on global scale. We live in AdLandia, AllGoodLandia. Welcome to AdLandia, AllGoodLandia! Where: you have no voice, you have no choice, you have no space, you have no escape, you have no respect. Where history gets deleted, and future censored. Where is the support when you need it? It doesn't exist. Because it is unnecessary as everything is already "fixed."

tenebrisalietum 7y ago

I'm more worried about this eventually being tied into some copyright enforcement mechanism (Cinavia on steroids) than anything else.

celticmusic 7y ago

and this is why I don't allow my televisions to be smart. blocked at the network level.

xtat 7y ago

samba tv yikes