6 ms·

While I agree that smart TVs are a cancer, I'm confused by your take. Do you have the same opinion towards locking stolen iPhones? If not, why? https://www.mar

While I agree that smart TVs are a cancer, I'm confused by your take. Do you have the same opinion towards locking stolen iPhones? If not, why? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-is-reportedly-disabling-and-tracking-looted-iphones-2020-06-03 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-is-reportedly-disabl...

prepend 5y ago
iPhones are necessarily cloud connected, TVs not so much. Activating my iPhone is something I normally do and provides me value (payment, location services, etc etc) so there’s a natural place. All this is bloat on a tv. Also the iPhone bricking requires a police report and has a pretty defined process and I’m not aware of any overreach by Apple to brick phones like this story.
- itsyaboi 5y ago
  Ah, I see. It's mainly the lack of due process and the implication that legitimately purchased units might have been included in the bulk lockout. Thank you for explaining!
kodah 5y ago
I think it depends on who initiates the lock. If a company can choose to arbitrarily lock my device then inevitably it will be misused. In the case of phones it is usually the customer initiating a lock, either from Find My Phone style apps or through the carrier itself. My TV phoning home doesn't really seem like it accomplishes much, and will likely be misused in the future, not to mention is an entire layer to vectorize in terms of fleet device attacks.
- gruez 5y ago
  >I think it depends on who initiates the lock. If a company can choose to arbitrarily lock my device then inevitably it will be misused. In the case of phones it is usually the customer initiating a lock, either from Find My Phone style apps or through the carrier itself. why does this matter? In either case the entity responsible for handling the lock request is the company itself.
  - kodah 5y ago
    The company has to coordinate it because otherwise I would need to have a server that supports some remote locking protocol and my phone configured for it. Who initiates it matters because if a TV vendor can arbitrarily brick your TV for something after you've paid cash for it, then that smells of theft. The same thing if a TelCo could or would arbitrarily brick a device I paid for. The distinction is that I'm telling them to do this to my phone.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >Who initiates it matters because if a TV vendor can arbitrarily brick your TV for something after you've paid cash for it, then that smells of theft. The same thing if a TelCo could or would arbitrarily brick a device I paid for. The distinction is that I'm telling them to do this to my phone. What happened in south africa: * TVs are sitting inside a factory * TVs are owned by samsung * factory gets robbed * the owner (samsung) tells the manufacturer (samsung) to brick the devices I fail to see how it's different than: * iPhone is sitting in your pocket * iPhone is owned by you * you get robbed * the owner (you) tells the manufacturer (apple) to brick the device
      - kodah 5y ago
        > Should a customer’s TV be incorrectly blocked, the functionality can be reinstated once proof of purchase and a valid TV license is shared to serv.manager@samsung.com or click here for more information This statement is from the source: https://news.samsung.com/za/samsung-supports-retailers-affected-by-looting-with-innovative-television-block-function https://news.samsung.com/za/samsung-supports-retailers-affec... That means the Samsung TV's call home. How do they know when to stop calling home? The answer is they don't. That's one layer of the problem. The second layer being that they can "incorrectly" brick someone's TV. Remote device administration when done by a TelCo requires a whole ton of validation, your eSIM goes through a fairly extensive validation check when it logs onto a network, which is why it has this capability in the first place. They are not the same thing in this way either. If TelCo's started accidentally bricking peoples phones I think you'd see similar criticism of the practice. The third layer, as mentioned in other threads, is that most people don't keep receipts. A TelCo knows you went through an activation process with a certain phone number. It's a little easier to target at that point. You don't need to dig up a receipt from months or years ago.
dmos62 5y ago
Not OP, but I'd say the problem is that someone, doesn't matter if it's the manufacturer, can disable your device remotely or that he has access to it at all.
- itsyaboi 5y ago
  My confusion was why this is considered to be a positive feature in some cases (e.g. iPhones), but not in this case.
Lammy 5y ago
You don't usually carry your smart TV around with you in your pocket
- gruez 5y ago
  But TV sets are targets of burglars.
  - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    Hence it's good to have a proof of purchase. If your house gets burgled, you can claim the insurance.

prepend 5y ago

iPhones are necessarily cloud connected, TVs not so much. Activating my iPhone is something I normally do and provides me value (payment, location services, etc etc) so there’s a natural place. All this is bloat on a tv. Also the iPhone bricking requires a police report and has a pretty defined process and I’m not aware of any overreach by Apple to brick phones like this story.

itsyaboi 5y ago
Ah, I see. It's mainly the lack of due process and the implication that legitimately purchased units might have been included in the bulk lockout. Thank you for explaining!

kodah 5y ago

I think it depends on who initiates the lock. If a company can choose to arbitrarily lock my device then inevitably it will be misused. In the case of phones it is usually the customer initiating a lock, either from Find My Phone style apps or through the carrier itself. My TV phoning home doesn't really seem like it accomplishes much, and will likely be misused in the future, not to mention is an entire layer to vectorize in terms of fleet device attacks.

gruez 5y ago
>I think it depends on who initiates the lock. If a company can choose to arbitrarily lock my device then inevitably it will be misused. In the case of phones it is usually the customer initiating a lock, either from Find My Phone style apps or through the carrier itself. why does this matter? In either case the entity responsible for handling the lock request is the company itself.
- kodah 5y ago
  The company has to coordinate it because otherwise I would need to have a server that supports some remote locking protocol and my phone configured for it. Who initiates it matters because if a TV vendor can arbitrarily brick your TV for something after you've paid cash for it, then that smells of theft. The same thing if a TelCo could or would arbitrarily brick a device I paid for. The distinction is that I'm telling them to do this to my phone.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Who initiates it matters because if a TV vendor can arbitrarily brick your TV for something after you've paid cash for it, then that smells of theft. The same thing if a TelCo could or would arbitrarily brick a device I paid for. The distinction is that I'm telling them to do this to my phone. What happened in south africa: * TVs are sitting inside a factory * TVs are owned by samsung * factory gets robbed * the owner (samsung) tells the manufacturer (samsung) to brick the devices I fail to see how it's different than: * iPhone is sitting in your pocket * iPhone is owned by you * you get robbed * the owner (you) tells the manufacturer (apple) to brick the device
    - kodah 5y ago
      > Should a customer’s TV be incorrectly blocked, the functionality can be reinstated once proof of purchase and a valid TV license is shared to serv.manager@samsung.com or click here for more information This statement is from the source: https://news.samsung.com/za/samsung-supports-retailers-affected-by-looting-with-innovative-television-block-function https://news.samsung.com/za/samsung-supports-retailers-affec... That means the Samsung TV's call home. How do they know when to stop calling home? The answer is they don't. That's one layer of the problem. The second layer being that they can "incorrectly" brick someone's TV. Remote device administration when done by a TelCo requires a whole ton of validation, your eSIM goes through a fairly extensive validation check when it logs onto a network, which is why it has this capability in the first place. They are not the same thing in this way either. If TelCo's started accidentally bricking peoples phones I think you'd see similar criticism of the practice. The third layer, as mentioned in other threads, is that most people don't keep receipts. A TelCo knows you went through an activation process with a certain phone number. It's a little easier to target at that point. You don't need to dig up a receipt from months or years ago.

dmos62 5y ago

Not OP, but I'd say the problem is that someone, doesn't matter if it's the manufacturer, can disable your device remotely or that he has access to it at all.

itsyaboi 5y ago
My confusion was why this is considered to be a positive feature in some cases (e.g. iPhones), but not in this case.

Lammy 5y ago

You don't usually carry your smart TV around with you in your pocket

gruez 5y ago
But TV sets are targets of burglars.
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  Hence it's good to have a proof of purchase. If your house gets burgled, you can claim the insurance.