3 ms·
> I never liked (or even understood) the concept of a smart tv. It's perfectly understandable from the manufacturer point of view: a more complex, programmable
by squarefoot 6y ago
> I never liked (or even understood) the concept of a smart tv.
It's perfectly understandable from the manufacturer point of view: a more complex, programmable, platform that can be instructed to show ads or grab personal data. I'm expecting the same behavior from every connected piece of technology we will put in our homes/cars/bodies.
> I duct taped it’s Ethernet port, and shielded it from wifi. (Just an image... but never let it connect).
Thanks to 5G (which is a good thing in itself) most of them will connect anyway, and some already attempt to find unprotected WiFi hotspots to get online.
- cced 6y agoSource on the claim?
- squarefoot 6y agoI couldn't find the reference, sorry, however I'm sure I read it here from some user who wanted to keep offline his Smart TV by not giving it any encrypted WiFi credentials, but found it attempting to connect anyway through open ones. Someone already found Smart TVs using hardcoded DNS addresses (although they obtain their own address through a DHCP request) which has the side effect of bypassing anti-adware/malware tools such as Pi-Hole. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25313480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25313480 Ignoring the user choice of keeping a SmartTV offline by looking for the nearest open network (or possibly using 5G in the future) would be just one step away.
- Dylan16807 6y agoPutting in a sim would cost more than the ad revenue, wouldn't it? > some Which?