4 ms·

>As long as it technically doesn't lose functionality that's advertised, there's no problem in terms of consumer protection laws. Disagree. Starting a wifi net

>As long as it technically doesn't lose functionality that's advertised, there's no problem in terms of consumer protection laws. Disagree. Starting a wifi network in my home I have no control over and can't disable was not part of the device feature set when I bought it, and I would not have bought it if it was. The functionality that was lost was my ability to control the wifi my own devices make. >Same as above: the terms didn't change and they aren't what it can do now; the terms are that this device might update functionality and that future change, if applied to your device, will be applied to your device under the current terms that allow it. If you don't like that, you don't have to use the device's software and you still have the right to hit the hardware you possess a hammer. Disagree. The terms changed because the terms never contained an uncontrollable wifi network in my home. Terms of use that allow unending changes with no thought to consideration (in the legal sense) aren't contracts of any merit. Contracts that allow one side to unendingly damage the other side without consideration have no merit, no matter what anyone says. If I hit it with a hammer I'm still out the money due to their changes to the device I purchased. I'm taking a loss due to changes in the terms that have no consideration and are different than the terms I agreed to. >As for if you ethically should be entitled to a refund, well, how do you determine the point where someone is entitled to grievances? There is no such thing as ethically being entitled to a refund. It's fantasy. >That's probably a way to directly stream to the TV The TV does it whether you're streaming or not. You can't disable it, there is no setting to turn it off. The TV is hardwired to the router and isn't streaming anything. Even if I was streaming to the TV, it would be on my own wifi network, on theirs. There's no reason for them to control a wifi network in my house, period. "Smart" devices are just devices that act against your interest interest because 'the terms of service you agreed to when you set it up had unlimited changes for one party'.

judge2020 5y ago
Your disagreement doesn't hold up in terms of false advertising in that the device advertised being able to play music with your voice, not 'granular control over the wifi and other RF waves emitted!'. > Contracts that allow one side to unendingly damage the other side without consideration have no merit, no matter what anyone says. You'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge of damages given you have the option to turn this off and Amazon gave warning to customers about this functionality well in advance (November 24, 2020 is when I received the email https://i.judge.sh/right/Armor/chrome_lbf9jmauwR.png https://i.judge.sh/right/Armor/chrome_lbf9jmauwR.png ). > The TV does it whether you're streaming or not. You can't disable it, there is no setting to turn it off. The TV is hardwired to the router and isn't streaming anything. Even if I was streaming to the TV, it would be on my own wifi network, on theirs. There's no reason for them to control a wifi network in my house, period. Probably just faulty engineering then, ie if !wifi.connected: wifi.enable_wifi_direct() And bad engineering isn't usually tackled by local consumer protection agencies when they can just let the market sort itself out. And this is what I mean by direct play: https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-direct https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-direct
- LegitShady 5y ago
  > Your disagreement doesn't hold up in terms of false advertising in that the device advertised being able to play music with your voice, not 'granular control over the wifi and other RF waves emitted!'. I bought the device just as much for what it didn't do as what it did. It did not create its own wifi network against my wishes. Now it does. I am damaged because I have lost the ability to control the wifi networks in my home, unless I choose to take a loss on this TV and replace it. >You'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge of damages Again, the damages come from the cost of replacing this device with one that doesn't do what it was updated to do against my wishes. My TV isn't made by amazon, and has nothing to do with amazon, so your point about amazon warning users to 'opt-out' of being damaged by amazon doesn't matter. Amazon knows the great majority of old folks and idiots who buy their devices won't turn it off because they can't be bothered to read and 'AMAZON SIDEWALK' doesn't raise alarm bells like 'AMAZON STEAL YOUR INTERNET'. >Probably just faulty engineering then, ie Alternately, as you say, I'm unlikely to convince a judge that it's damage so they have no reason not to do it. They can do whatever they want and as long it wasn't disabling a feature, it's kosher. They could sell my location and browsing habits, they could check the network to see what other devices are on it and when they log in, the could do anything at all apparently. > And this is what I mean by direct play: My idea of direct play is an hdmi cable - its much more secure and doesnt' require any wifi at all.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Generally if you know that a product can do something is going to happen pre-purchase you can't claim damages from that thing happening, and it's no secret that the smart functionality of the device keep it up-to-date. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/advertising-marketing-internet-rules-road https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/adv... > In addition, an act or practice is unfair if the injury it causes, or is likely to cause, is: substantial, not outweighed by other benefits, and not reasonably avoidable. > They could sell my location and browsing habits, they could check the network to see what other devices are on it and when they log in, the could do anything at all apparently. Quite literally, yes, assuming you're in the United States and you check the box that specifies the terms of data collection. If you live in the E.U,, your GDPR rights mean they have to ask for explicit permission to do so. > My idea of direct play is an hdmi cable - its much more secure and doesn't' require any wifi at all. I'm not trying to be witty, i'm showing why devices might create their own wifi network and 'direct play' is just the name used on some TVs for wi-fi direct.

judge2020 5y ago

Your disagreement doesn't hold up in terms of false advertising in that the device advertised being able to play music with your voice, not 'granular control over the wifi and other RF waves emitted!'. > Contracts that allow one side to unendingly damage the other side without consideration have no merit, no matter what anyone says. You'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge of damages given you have the option to turn this off and Amazon gave warning to customers about this functionality well in advance (November 24, 2020 is when I received the email https://i.judge.sh/right/Armor/chrome_lbf9jmauwR.png https://i.judge.sh/right/Armor/chrome_lbf9jmauwR.png ). > The TV does it whether you're streaming or not. You can't disable it, there is no setting to turn it off. The TV is hardwired to the router and isn't streaming anything. Even if I was streaming to the TV, it would be on my own wifi network, on theirs. There's no reason for them to control a wifi network in my house, period. Probably just faulty engineering then, ie if !wifi.connected: wifi.enable_wifi_direct() And bad engineering isn't usually tackled by local consumer protection agencies when they can just let the market sort itself out. And this is what I mean by direct play: https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-direct https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-direct

LegitShady 5y ago
> Your disagreement doesn't hold up in terms of false advertising in that the device advertised being able to play music with your voice, not 'granular control over the wifi and other RF waves emitted!'. I bought the device just as much for what it didn't do as what it did. It did not create its own wifi network against my wishes. Now it does. I am damaged because I have lost the ability to control the wifi networks in my home, unless I choose to take a loss on this TV and replace it. >You'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge of damages Again, the damages come from the cost of replacing this device with one that doesn't do what it was updated to do against my wishes. My TV isn't made by amazon, and has nothing to do with amazon, so your point about amazon warning users to 'opt-out' of being damaged by amazon doesn't matter. Amazon knows the great majority of old folks and idiots who buy their devices won't turn it off because they can't be bothered to read and 'AMAZON SIDEWALK' doesn't raise alarm bells like 'AMAZON STEAL YOUR INTERNET'. >Probably just faulty engineering then, ie Alternately, as you say, I'm unlikely to convince a judge that it's damage so they have no reason not to do it. They can do whatever they want and as long it wasn't disabling a feature, it's kosher. They could sell my location and browsing habits, they could check the network to see what other devices are on it and when they log in, the could do anything at all apparently. > And this is what I mean by direct play: My idea of direct play is an hdmi cable - its much more secure and doesnt' require any wifi at all.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- judge2020 5y ago
  Generally if you know that a product can do something is going to happen pre-purchase you can't claim damages from that thing happening, and it's no secret that the smart functionality of the device keep it up-to-date. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/advertising-marketing-internet-rules-road https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/adv... > In addition, an act or practice is unfair if the injury it causes, or is likely to cause, is: substantial, not outweighed by other benefits, and not reasonably avoidable. > They could sell my location and browsing habits, they could check the network to see what other devices are on it and when they log in, the could do anything at all apparently. Quite literally, yes, assuming you're in the United States and you check the box that specifies the terms of data collection. If you live in the E.U,, your GDPR rights mean they have to ask for explicit permission to do so. > My idea of direct play is an hdmi cable - its much more secure and doesn't' require any wifi at all. I'm not trying to be witty, i'm showing why devices might create their own wifi network and 'direct play' is just the name used on some TVs for wi-fi direct.