5 ms·

Yeah even when toggling options to stop tracking, I don’t trust it. I will usually find what it calls out to and block it on my home network with Pi-Hole. I al

Yeah even when toggling options to stop tracking, I don’t trust it. I will usually find what it calls out to and block it on my home network with Pi-Hole. I also am moving to projector which may have less “smart” bs crammed in there. But, I haven’t researched that yet to see if that’s true or not.

AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
I don't think the options are blatantly false, the legal teams at these respective companies would never allow them to be demonstrably false. I do think they are as confusing as possible and designed to be as difficult as possible to place in "max privacy" mode and as easy as possible to place in "max tracking" mode. > block it on my home network with Pi-Hole That's a really good idea. I just configured my firewall (Palo Alto) to block the TV, I'm not sure why I didn't think of that.
- shyn3 7y ago
  Look through this, they seem to connect to open WiFi networks. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/bpr6xs/if_you_choose_to_not_connect_your_samsung_smart/ https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/bpr6xs/if_you_choo...
  - Silhouette 7y ago
    I've been arguing for a long time that the "don't connect it to your network" defence was insufficient because sooner or later these devices will simply start including their own connectivity as well. Various other categories of device, notably cars, already do, and frequently abuse it for tracking purposes. My take on this is that we should impose the kind of draconian restrictions we have here in the UK on products like cigarettes. You can buy them, age restrictions permitting, but they are legally required to cover a large part of their packaging with prominent disclosures of the harm they cause. If devices with consumer-hostile measures like phone home functionality were similarly required to disclose it, and exactly what it is doing, on their packaging and other promotional materials, average consumers might start asking more questions instead of just the relatively small and so usually insignificant class of techie consumers. If that still didn't produce meaningful competition, outright prohibition by law might be the only solution.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      "We collect viewing data when you use our TV in order to recommend other content you might like" will probably not really move the needle for most consumers.
      - Silhouette 7y ago
        And if it doesn't and they accept that by genuine choice, that's fine, it's an informed decision. But equally, maybe some people wouldn't be comfortable with, "This device contains a camera and microphone that are always on and an independent Internet connection that you cannot block. We cannot guarantee that the software in this device is 100% secure and we only guarantee to update that software for 12 months after the date of purchase. We do not control some online services used by this device and Internet-connected features of this device might break at any time with no way to fix them. There is a {regulator-imposed description/statistic} chance that someone will be able to hack your device, watch and listen to the area around it including other nearby rooms, and provide hackers with access to any other devices and activity on your home network. This device will upload information about what you watch and when to {names of business(es)}, which will use the data to profile you including guessing your family make-up, wealth, interests and vulnerability to advertising, and this information will be sold to {list of recipients} who may use it to {purposes}."
        perl4ever 7y ago
        It seems to me like everything already comes with a license agreement and/or other mandated disclosures that are at least as bad as that, and it's too much text to put in large print in a prominent place.
        Silhouette 7y ago
        That is part of the reason I like this approach. If it's too complicated to fit on the outside of the box, maybe the device is doing more shady stuff than it should be and needs to turn it down!
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >the legal teams at these respective companies would never allow them to be demonstrably false Why? It's not like there are any real consequences for these companies when they screw up and either the data gets leaked or they're found to be lying.

AdamJacobMuller 7y ago

I don't think the options are blatantly false, the legal teams at these respective companies would never allow them to be demonstrably false. I do think they are as confusing as possible and designed to be as difficult as possible to place in "max privacy" mode and as easy as possible to place in "max tracking" mode. > block it on my home network with Pi-Hole That's a really good idea. I just configured my firewall (Palo Alto) to block the TV, I'm not sure why I didn't think of that.

shyn3 7y ago
Look through this, they seem to connect to open WiFi networks. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/bpr6xs/if_you_choose_to_not_connect_your_samsung_smart/ https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/bpr6xs/if_you_choo...
- Silhouette 7y ago
  I've been arguing for a long time that the "don't connect it to your network" defence was insufficient because sooner or later these devices will simply start including their own connectivity as well. Various other categories of device, notably cars, already do, and frequently abuse it for tracking purposes. My take on this is that we should impose the kind of draconian restrictions we have here in the UK on products like cigarettes. You can buy them, age restrictions permitting, but they are legally required to cover a large part of their packaging with prominent disclosures of the harm they cause. If devices with consumer-hostile measures like phone home functionality were similarly required to disclose it, and exactly what it is doing, on their packaging and other promotional materials, average consumers might start asking more questions instead of just the relatively small and so usually insignificant class of techie consumers. If that still didn't produce meaningful competition, outright prohibition by law might be the only solution.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    "We collect viewing data when you use our TV in order to recommend other content you might like" will probably not really move the needle for most consumers.
    - Silhouette 7y ago
      And if it doesn't and they accept that by genuine choice, that's fine, it's an informed decision. But equally, maybe some people wouldn't be comfortable with, "This device contains a camera and microphone that are always on and an independent Internet connection that you cannot block. We cannot guarantee that the software in this device is 100% secure and we only guarantee to update that software for 12 months after the date of purchase. We do not control some online services used by this device and Internet-connected features of this device might break at any time with no way to fix them. There is a {regulator-imposed description/statistic} chance that someone will be able to hack your device, watch and listen to the area around it including other nearby rooms, and provide hackers with access to any other devices and activity on your home network. This device will upload information about what you watch and when to {names of business(es)}, which will use the data to profile you including guessing your family make-up, wealth, interests and vulnerability to advertising, and this information will be sold to {list of recipients} who may use it to {purposes}."
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        It seems to me like everything already comes with a license agreement and/or other mandated disclosures that are at least as bad as that, and it's too much text to put in large print in a prominent place.
        Silhouette 7y ago
        That is part of the reason I like this approach. If it's too complicated to fit on the outside of the box, maybe the device is doing more shady stuff than it should be and needs to turn it down!
Mirioron 7y ago
>the legal teams at these respective companies would never allow them to be demonstrably false Why? It's not like there are any real consequences for these companies when they screw up and either the data gets leaked or they're found to be lying.