4 ms·

Overall I'm not against such a thing because at the end of the day this makes theft less attractive and thus protects consumers. However not like this: "Should

Overall I'm not against such a thing because at the end of the day this makes theft less attractive and thus protects consumers. However not like this: "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 [...]". That's flipping the burden of proof around. Clearly not the way to go about this. Also of course things should work by default and not require you to go online.

mminer237 5y ago
They've all been reported stolen. That already satisfies the burden of proof in Samsung's view. What more proof do you want Samsung to have? They can't prove customers don't have a receipt. It's up to the potential legitimate customer to overcome Samsung's evidence.
- chmod775 5y ago
  Then having that avenue would not be necessary, would it? It's likely Samsung only has a rough idea which serial numbers were stolen, or there is at least considerable room for mistakes. As a company you don't set up a process for a few outliers.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    What? All the big tech companies on HN get lambasted all the time for excessive automation and not having a process for a few outliers. Why would you NOT want to setup a process for outliers (other than to save money like the big tech companies)?
    - chmod775 5y ago
      If that's supposed to be a rhetorical question, you are missing the point. I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm saying they wouldn't. If this process was properly implemented they would not help you unlock your TV if you complain. Instead they would be calling the cops because you just gave them a lead on where those TVs went. Which in some universe where typical warehouse management keeps track of serial numbers may actually be what they're planning.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        It was not rhetorical. I assumed they might have planned for a situation where the warehouse or Samsung made a mistake.

mminer237 5y ago

They've all been reported stolen. That already satisfies the burden of proof in Samsung's view. What more proof do you want Samsung to have? They can't prove customers don't have a receipt. It's up to the potential legitimate customer to overcome Samsung's evidence.

chmod775 5y ago
Then having that avenue would not be necessary, would it? It's likely Samsung only has a rough idea which serial numbers were stolen, or there is at least considerable room for mistakes. As a company you don't set up a process for a few outliers.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  What? All the big tech companies on HN get lambasted all the time for excessive automation and not having a process for a few outliers. Why would you NOT want to setup a process for outliers (other than to save money like the big tech companies)?
  - chmod775 5y ago
    If that's supposed to be a rhetorical question, you are missing the point. I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm saying they wouldn't. If this process was properly implemented they would not help you unlock your TV if you complain. Instead they would be calling the cops because you just gave them a lead on where those TVs went. Which in some universe where typical warehouse management keeps track of serial numbers may actually be what they're planning.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      It was not rhetorical. I assumed they might have planned for a situation where the warehouse or Samsung made a mistake.