5 ms·

Don't modern internet-connected TV boxes snitch on what people are watching? Surely we don't need a sampling anymore? Just thinking that the elderly population

by cm2187 5y ago

Don't modern internet-connected TV boxes snitch on what people are watching? Surely we don't need a sampling anymore? Just thinking that the elderly population is probably the least likely to use those boxes (though I am not even sure of that), whereas they constitute the (dying) core of traditional TV viewership.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
conradfr 5y ago
You know a connected TV / set-top box is on a channel but you don't know how many / which persons in the house is in front of it.
- yissp 5y ago
  How long until they start putting cameras in them and doing facial recognition?
  - gruez 5y ago
    Put tape over it?
    - jobigoud 5y ago
      They could put an IR camera right next to the remote sensor. Since it's behind a glass that is opaque to visible-light you wouldn't even know the camera's there, and if you put tape on it your remote wouldn't work anymore.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >Since it's behind a glass that is opaque to visible-light you wouldn't even know the camera's there If it's opaque to visible light how does the camera produce an image? >if you put tape on it your remote wouldn't work anymore. Not really? You just have to be more careful placing the tape. Besides, nowadays many smart TV have app remote controls, or RF-based remote controls so the IR sensor being blocked is a non-issue
        bluGill 5y ago
        > If it's opaque to visible light how does the camera produce an image? It isn't opaque to infrared light though. The image is still high enough quality to make out people, it looks funny but it is good enough for their purposes.
      - type0 5y ago
        Thank you for giving such great ideas for free to CIA, I just can't help to wait until it's implemented in my next smart tv /s
  - justanotherguy0 5y ago
    Just use the microphone in the smart tv. That's what the CIA does: https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/07/why-the-cia-is-using-your-tvs-smartphones-and-cars-for-spying/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16304111756151&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fthe-switch%2Fwp%2F2017%2F03%2F07%2Fwhy-the-cia-is-using-your-tvs-smartphones-and-cars-for-spying%2F https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.wa...
    - MiddleEndian 5y ago
      Speaking of tracking, non-amp link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/07/why-the-cia-is-using-your-tvs-smartphones-and-cars-for-spying/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/07...
  - cm2187 5y ago
    Some sort of localised motion sensor would probably be sufficient to tell you how many people are watching without invading too much on people's privacy. You wouldn't know the age, but you already have ton of information by knowing the address and the subscriber already.
    - hnlmorg 5y ago
      > Some sort of localised motion sensor would probably be sufficient to tell you how many people are watching You'd also have pets captured, curtains flapping by an open window captured, and any toys kids are playing with (like balls) potentially captured as another viewer too. Meanwhile pap who likes to sit motionlessly while the kids round around him, isn't detected. > without invading too much on people's privacy Motion detection feels like a pretty major privacy violation to me. > You wouldn't know the age, but you already have ton of information by knowing the address and the subscriber already. Except when you have friends or family over.
  - KallDrexx 5y ago
    So I found out my neighbors were proud to be participating in some new Neilson study. Apparently they pay you to wear these boxes in your pocket that pick up sound. At the end of the day it syncs what it heard to their servers and you get points, which eventually translates to money. Essentially the stated purpose is so that it can pick up what music you listen to throughout the day, but in reality it's picking up everything.
    - touristtam 5y ago
      Oh so like a cell/mobile phone, but only with the purpose stated out right?
      - vel0city 5y ago
        Nah, they get paid to have the box in their pocket, you pay to have your box in your pocket.
  - ta988 5y ago
    Cameras are here and we have no idea what they do with them.
- ta988 5y ago
  Most "smart" TVs have cameras these days...
crtasm 5y ago
> Surely we don't need a sampling anymore? Depends, are the TV networks buying that information? Or just advertisers?
dspillett 5y ago
Modern TVs do snitch but there are two issues with relying on that: 1. There is a disparity between age groups and other demographic dividers who have newer TVs. This could significantly skew the results for some advertisers. 2. The data is going to the TV manufacturer, and they will not share that freely between themselves or with anyone else. This will complicate collating the data as there are several entities to negotiate with in order to get an overall picture.
ok123456 5y ago
And the tech savvy people never connect their "smart" tvs to the internet.
- noir_lord 5y ago
  My "smart" TV has one job - show the signal fed to it via HDMI from my linux box.
dylan604 5y ago
So does your cable provider's set top box. So does your Roku/Fire/AppleTV/etc, except it is at the app level.
JohnFen 5y ago
> Don't modern internet-connected TV boxes snitch on what people are watching? Yes, which is why I will never own one.
- 14 5y ago
  Just wait until 5g is everywhere and companies will just add its functionality to your tv and connect regardless of what you do.
  - JohnFen 5y ago
    They can't add functionality to a device that I don't own.
WorldMaker 5y ago
Ironically, modern streaming apps have far more accurate numbers than anything Nielsen ever cooked up sampling people, but Netflix made the precedence that they should be "secret sauce" and not shared publicly and most of the "Streaming Wars" diaspora today are following that policy/precedent. We're in something of a worst of both worlds situation where Nielsen has an increasingly small number of viewers where traditional TV boxes work to get decent samples, has to rely more than ever on surveys, and distrusts all streaming viewership numbers because they are cloak and dagger white lies between competitors, despite in theory being way more accurate than all the previous tools (the surveys and the TV boxes). It's almost wild. The most forthcoming to shareholders/the general public over the years has been Hulu and Hulu's numbers at times have suggested Nielsen's data is very, very wrong right now, but Nielsen doesn't trust Hulu's data at all because it smells like lies because Netflix does nothing but lie or ghost them.
- nebula8804 5y ago
  I have been exploring ways to avoid sending this data to them. To start: using an instance of Pi-Hole and running all your apps will remove some tracking from them. Following this up with paying for your subscription but pirating all the shows might help remove you from the cycle completely. I understand the second point is not realistic for the majority of people but I wonder if in the future we might have an easy to use version of Pi-Hole that most people can just flip on and strip a large chunk of tracking from the apps.
  - WorldMaker 5y ago
    That just gets us back to the topic way above: if we aren't giving that tracking data to TV producers, it's tough to complain when our favorite nerdy/intelligent shows get cancelled. That's the deep weird irony that we live in a world where we could have the best possible numbers (directly tracked statistics), and yet TV Producers are still relying (for the most part) on Phone and Snail Mail Survey Results because they don't think they can trust streaming provider numbers. Pi-Holing those numbers just gives those Producers even more reason to feel that they are lies or wrong. At what point do you Pi-Hole too many telemetrics to oblivion and aren't allowed to complain when your favorite TV shows get canceled because "no one" was watching it?

by cm2187 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

conradfr 5y ago

You know a connected TV / set-top box is on a channel but you don't know how many / which persons in the house is in front of it.

yissp 5y ago
How long until they start putting cameras in them and doing facial recognition?
- gruez 5y ago
  Put tape over it?
  - jobigoud 5y ago
    They could put an IR camera right next to the remote sensor. Since it's behind a glass that is opaque to visible-light you wouldn't even know the camera's there, and if you put tape on it your remote wouldn't work anymore.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >Since it's behind a glass that is opaque to visible-light you wouldn't even know the camera's there If it's opaque to visible light how does the camera produce an image? >if you put tape on it your remote wouldn't work anymore. Not really? You just have to be more careful placing the tape. Besides, nowadays many smart TV have app remote controls, or RF-based remote controls so the IR sensor being blocked is a non-issue
      - bluGill 5y ago
        > If it's opaque to visible light how does the camera produce an image? It isn't opaque to infrared light though. The image is still high enough quality to make out people, it looks funny but it is good enough for their purposes.
    - type0 5y ago
      Thank you for giving such great ideas for free to CIA, I just can't help to wait until it's implemented in my next smart tv /s
- justanotherguy0 5y ago
  Just use the microphone in the smart tv. That's what the CIA does: https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/07/why-the-cia-is-using-your-tvs-smartphones-and-cars-for-spying/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16304111756151&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fthe-switch%2Fwp%2F2017%2F03%2F07%2Fwhy-the-cia-is-using-your-tvs-smartphones-and-cars-for-spying%2F https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.wa...
  - MiddleEndian 5y ago
    Speaking of tracking, non-amp link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/07/why-the-cia-is-using-your-tvs-smartphones-and-cars-for-spying/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/07...
- cm2187 5y ago
  Some sort of localised motion sensor would probably be sufficient to tell you how many people are watching without invading too much on people's privacy. You wouldn't know the age, but you already have ton of information by knowing the address and the subscriber already.
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    > Some sort of localised motion sensor would probably be sufficient to tell you how many people are watching You'd also have pets captured, curtains flapping by an open window captured, and any toys kids are playing with (like balls) potentially captured as another viewer too. Meanwhile pap who likes to sit motionlessly while the kids round around him, isn't detected. > without invading too much on people's privacy Motion detection feels like a pretty major privacy violation to me. > You wouldn't know the age, but you already have ton of information by knowing the address and the subscriber already. Except when you have friends or family over.
- KallDrexx 5y ago
  So I found out my neighbors were proud to be participating in some new Neilson study. Apparently they pay you to wear these boxes in your pocket that pick up sound. At the end of the day it syncs what it heard to their servers and you get points, which eventually translates to money. Essentially the stated purpose is so that it can pick up what music you listen to throughout the day, but in reality it's picking up everything.
  - touristtam 5y ago
    Oh so like a cell/mobile phone, but only with the purpose stated out right?
    - vel0city 5y ago
      Nah, they get paid to have the box in their pocket, you pay to have your box in your pocket.
- ta988 5y ago
  Cameras are here and we have no idea what they do with them.
ta988 5y ago
Most "smart" TVs have cameras these days...

crtasm 5y ago

> Surely we don't need a sampling anymore? Depends, are the TV networks buying that information? Or just advertisers?

dspillett 5y ago

Modern TVs do snitch but there are two issues with relying on that: 1. There is a disparity between age groups and other demographic dividers who have newer TVs. This could significantly skew the results for some advertisers. 2. The data is going to the TV manufacturer, and they will not share that freely between themselves or with anyone else. This will complicate collating the data as there are several entities to negotiate with in order to get an overall picture.

ok123456 5y ago

And the tech savvy people never connect their "smart" tvs to the internet.

noir_lord 5y ago
My "smart" TV has one job - show the signal fed to it via HDMI from my linux box.

dylan604 5y ago

So does your cable provider's set top box. So does your Roku/Fire/AppleTV/etc, except it is at the app level.

JohnFen 5y ago

> Don't modern internet-connected TV boxes snitch on what people are watching? Yes, which is why I will never own one.

14 5y ago
Just wait until 5g is everywhere and companies will just add its functionality to your tv and connect regardless of what you do.
- JohnFen 5y ago
  They can't add functionality to a device that I don't own.

WorldMaker 5y ago

Ironically, modern streaming apps have far more accurate numbers than anything Nielsen ever cooked up sampling people, but Netflix made the precedence that they should be "secret sauce" and not shared publicly and most of the "Streaming Wars" diaspora today are following that policy/precedent. We're in something of a worst of both worlds situation where Nielsen has an increasingly small number of viewers where traditional TV boxes work to get decent samples, has to rely more than ever on surveys, and distrusts all streaming viewership numbers because they are cloak and dagger white lies between competitors, despite in theory being way more accurate than all the previous tools (the surveys and the TV boxes). It's almost wild. The most forthcoming to shareholders/the general public over the years has been Hulu and Hulu's numbers at times have suggested Nielsen's data is very, very wrong right now, but Nielsen doesn't trust Hulu's data at all because it smells like lies because Netflix does nothing but lie or ghost them.

nebula8804 5y ago
I have been exploring ways to avoid sending this data to them. To start: using an instance of Pi-Hole and running all your apps will remove some tracking from them. Following this up with paying for your subscription but pirating all the shows might help remove you from the cycle completely. I understand the second point is not realistic for the majority of people but I wonder if in the future we might have an easy to use version of Pi-Hole that most people can just flip on and strip a large chunk of tracking from the apps.
- WorldMaker 5y ago
  That just gets us back to the topic way above: if we aren't giving that tracking data to TV producers, it's tough to complain when our favorite nerdy/intelligent shows get cancelled. That's the deep weird irony that we live in a world where we could have the best possible numbers (directly tracked statistics), and yet TV Producers are still relying (for the most part) on Phone and Snail Mail Survey Results because they don't think they can trust streaming provider numbers. Pi-Holing those numbers just gives those Producers even more reason to feel that they are lies or wrong. At what point do you Pi-Hole too many telemetrics to oblivion and aren't allowed to complain when your favorite TV shows get canceled because "no one" was watching it?