4 ms·

This is not the solution. Adding a PiHole to your network is not the solution. Disabling features in other places of your network is not the solution. What if

by cced 6y ago

This is not the solution. Adding a PiHole to your network is not the solution. Disabling features in other places of your network is not the solution. What if Samsung decides that it will try to connect to open networks for updates or what not? What then? Ask your neighbour to install PiHole on his network? No. This is an example of a game of cat and mouse that shouldn't exist - you pay money for a TV and that's not enough? You giving them your money is not enough and so they decide to shove ads down your throat because profits. Simple solution would be just not to buy Samsung.

vinceguidry 6y ago
Until they all start doing it. Real solution is regulation. But that can only happen if the outcry is large enough. Having two revenue streams is always going to be better than one.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
All starts with us accepting the idea that the device you paid for still isn't your property, and if tomorrow samsung decides to show porn on all samsung TV's, there is nothing you can do.
- huhtenberg 6y ago
  ... or, you know, when you can't install a software you want on a smartphone that you own and paid $1000 for.
Nbox9 6y ago
I’m concerned that in the future devices I do not want to be connected to the internet (let my TV) will come with 5g or some other technology and be able to connect itself. I think with IoT and a desire for ease of setup this might be possible if the price of mobile internet drops enough.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Automobiles already do this without your input.
  - Liquix 6y ago
    I think the always-on IoT thing actually makes sense for life-and-death fields such as automotive/medical. There are cases where if an update does not reach the device in time human lives could be at stake. It's definitely not for the consumer's benefit in most cases. No one is going to die because your Smart Keurig or 5G-TV goes unpatched for a month. Hopefully we can avoid the slippery slope and realize that these devices' internet capabilities are not for us - they are primarily for data collection/advertising purposes.
    - bityard 6y ago
      > actually makes sense for life-and-death fields such as automotive/medical. I cannot imagine a worse idea. IoT devices are the richest source of hosts available for botnet operators to compromise because they are numerous and famously insecure. Today it's lightbulbs and security cameras. Tomorrow you wish it to be pacemakers and Toyotas? We already know it is functionally impossible to write bug-free code which is also useful. We also know that attackers relentlessly probe systems until (that is a _when_, not an _if_) a weakness is found to exploit to gain control of that device. It is possible to write provably-correct code, but so far only for somewhat trivial applications. Until this fundamental problem of software security can be solved, an air gap is the _only_ reliable thing that can protect life-critical software from external remote attack.
    - garaetjjte 6y ago
      >I think the always-on IoT thing actually makes sense for life-and-death fields such as automotive/medical. But critical components should be designed as simple as possible, and be thoroughly tested before device release. Releasing garbage and then patching it OTA doesn't really work for safety critical things. Not so long ago cars didn't have capability to upgrade (firmware on mask ROMs) and I don't think something horribly bad happened.
canucker2016 6y ago
Some Samsung TVs already try and connect to open WiFi networks if you don't connect them yourself. see 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... My next idea - Faraday cages for smart TVs
- glitcher 6y ago
  Or Faraday cages for entire rooms in my house!
  - asdff 6y ago
    Faraday cages around the property line. In LA some people already live in houses hidden behind 25 foot tall hedges. They need only a tin foil roof.
- Forbo 6y ago
  You could always try disconnecting the antenna that goes to the wireless module instead.
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    Disconnect may not be enough, best is to wire a resistor in place of the antenna, of the same resistance of the antenna, which will shed the attempt to use the antenna as heat. (I disconnected the antenna on my OnStar, yet found it still connecting to cell towers successfully from time to time. The resister solved that.)
asdff 6y ago
In practice, the samsung TV won't connect to your neighbors wifi if its already connected to yours. So you can firewall away and the TV will be none the wiser. For now, at least.

by cced 6y ago

vinceguidry 6y ago

Until they all start doing it. Real solution is regulation. But that can only happen if the outcry is large enough. Having two revenue streams is always going to be better than one.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

All starts with us accepting the idea that the device you paid for still isn't your property, and if tomorrow samsung decides to show porn on all samsung TV's, there is nothing you can do.

huhtenberg 6y ago
... or, you know, when you can't install a software you want on a smartphone that you own and paid $1000 for.

Nbox9 6y ago

I’m concerned that in the future devices I do not want to be connected to the internet (let my TV) will come with 5g or some other technology and be able to connect itself. I think with IoT and a desire for ease of setup this might be possible if the price of mobile internet drops enough.

mywittyname 6y ago
Automobiles already do this without your input.
- Liquix 6y ago
  I think the always-on IoT thing actually makes sense for life-and-death fields such as automotive/medical. There are cases where if an update does not reach the device in time human lives could be at stake. It's definitely not for the consumer's benefit in most cases. No one is going to die because your Smart Keurig or 5G-TV goes unpatched for a month. Hopefully we can avoid the slippery slope and realize that these devices' internet capabilities are not for us - they are primarily for data collection/advertising purposes.
  - bityard 6y ago
    > actually makes sense for life-and-death fields such as automotive/medical. I cannot imagine a worse idea. IoT devices are the richest source of hosts available for botnet operators to compromise because they are numerous and famously insecure. Today it's lightbulbs and security cameras. Tomorrow you wish it to be pacemakers and Toyotas? We already know it is functionally impossible to write bug-free code which is also useful. We also know that attackers relentlessly probe systems until (that is a _when_, not an _if_) a weakness is found to exploit to gain control of that device. It is possible to write provably-correct code, but so far only for somewhat trivial applications. Until this fundamental problem of software security can be solved, an air gap is the _only_ reliable thing that can protect life-critical software from external remote attack.
  - garaetjjte 6y ago
    >I think the always-on IoT thing actually makes sense for life-and-death fields such as automotive/medical. But critical components should be designed as simple as possible, and be thoroughly tested before device release. Releasing garbage and then patching it OTA doesn't really work for safety critical things. Not so long ago cars didn't have capability to upgrade (firmware on mask ROMs) and I don't think something horribly bad happened.

canucker2016 6y ago

Some Samsung TVs already try and connect to open WiFi networks if you don't connect them yourself. see 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... My next idea - Faraday cages for smart TVs

glitcher 6y ago
Or Faraday cages for entire rooms in my house!
- asdff 6y ago
  Faraday cages around the property line. In LA some people already live in houses hidden behind 25 foot tall hedges. They need only a tin foil roof.
Forbo 6y ago
You could always try disconnecting the antenna that goes to the wireless module instead.
- bbarnett 6y ago
  Disconnect may not be enough, best is to wire a resistor in place of the antenna, of the same resistance of the antenna, which will shed the attempt to use the antenna as heat. (I disconnected the antenna on my OnStar, yet found it still connecting to cell towers successfully from time to time. The resister solved that.)

asdff 6y ago

In practice, the samsung TV won't connect to your neighbors wifi if its already connected to yours. So you can firewall away and the TV will be none the wiser. For now, at least.