4 ms·

What? The content of your screen is personal data. There could be anything on that - name, address, passwords, photos of your living room, nudes...

• charcircuit 5y ago
  They are just feeding image through an alogrithm. Saving it would incur legal problems like copyright and have storage costs. Most people don't use their TV to look at that kind of thing anyways.
  • yardstick 5y ago
    What about when they are hacked/compromised and now an attacker has access to the actual images? Seems way too risky.
    • charcircuit 5y ago
      If we are talking about what aboutisms what about if they didn't send screenshots and then they were hacked and an attacker deployed a new update that spied on everyone.
      • MereInterest 5y ago
        That's an entirely different issue, but yes, automatic updates are an attack vector. But that's another step that would need to be performed by an attacker, rather than already having the images available without designing custom firmware.
        • charcircuit 5y ago
          My point is that making up theoretical situations is not useful. You can make up theoretical situations where it's bad with it and I can make up theoretical situations where it's bad without it.
      • yardstick 5y ago
        Also true, which is why they shouldn't be allowed to join any old wifi network and not try to workaround firewall policies on the network the user wants them on.
  • dTal 5y ago
    Why are you making excuses for them? They're bad excuses anyway: >They are just feeding image through an alogrithm [sic] You don't know that. >Saving it would incur legal problems like copyright That's not how copyright works. >and have storage costs Negligible. >Most people don't use their TV to look at that kind of thing anyways. Irrelevant.
• Mindwipe 5y ago
  IIRC it doesn't actually send the content, just a hash of it that can be checked against popular channels or on-demand content. So text contained within a screen wouldn't be identifiable.