10 ms·

Never allow a TV or monitor to connect to your Wi-Fi network and you'll be able to avoid these two issues

jiggawatts 4y ago
Well yes, but then you're basically buying an expensive monitor and will need a second device to be the "smarts". I personally use an Apple TV for this, but in general this can be frustrating for users that just want their Smart TV to work without spying on them or implementing centrally triggered scheduled obsolescence. This is a bit like saying you should "never" turn on your new car's engine and should immediately swap it out for a third-party one, because every knows Manufacturer X leaves ticking time bombs in their engines. This is why consumer protection agencies are created by governments!
- interpol_p 4y ago
  Exactly. I purchase an Apple TV for each screen in the house, whether that screen is dumb or smart. Actually, I have three screens and two Apple TVs, so for movie nights I move one Apple TV over to the projector so we can watch a movie there (Apple TVs are expensive!) I also had a Fire Stick and a Roku but refused to keep using them after reading their privacy policies (their UIs are also complete and utter trash, they are so terrible compared to Apple TV) I think the advice to never allow a screen to connect to Wi-Fi is reasonable, and I tell my family the same. In the past I have give them old Apple TVs or help them set one up to ensure that they are not allowing spyware on their network Agreed that this needs to be handled by government, as the level of data abuse by these companies is unacceptable
- dataflow 4y ago
  > This is why consumer protection agencies are created by governments! Enjoy them while they last (see Part III): https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fifth-circuit-decision-threatens-to-upend-sec-s-use-administrative-proceedings https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fifth-circuit-decision-...
- cesarb 4y ago
  > Well yes, but then you're basically buying an expensive monitor and will need a second device to be the "smarts". If all you want is a TV (as in, connecting to an antenna and tuning to over-the-air channels), you don't need any "smarts". (The main difference between a TV and a monitor is that a TV has a tuner, while a monitor doesn't.)
- oneoff786 4y ago
  I find this argument weird. Most people don’t want smart TVs. Dedicated smart devices are just better. Even non techies will probably feel this way because the TVs suck and the remote control interface is clunky and confusing. There’s simply no option to buy a dumb tv that isn’t something weird like a monitor or digital signage. Imo nothing beats a laptop with a wireless mouse and keyboard. So much better than a shitty remote. Browsers and Google are familiar. Can also do games. Can access whatever sites you want or things the smart device wouldn’t approve of. All of these devices like Apple TV and fire sticks seem pretty dumb to me.
  - evandijk70 4y ago
    Please provide a source that 'most people don't want a smart TV'. That is not my experience at all.
    - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
      I'll add some nuance: - Most people don't know what they're missing re: clunky interface controls - Most people want a single feature-complete device that doesn't take up an HDMI port or require another set of cables to connect (yes, that's trivial, even enjoyable, for 'us', but 'they' are not 'us').
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      Most people have no idea what their smart tv can do, and are confused by how to use it. In my experience it’s hardly something they sought. Just anecdata
  - throwaway675309 4y ago
    Because it's just so convenient to have to plug your laptop in via an HDMI cable and have it permanently tethered to your TV, and I just love sitting on the couch attempting to move a basically nonresponsive laser mouse on the furniture surface. Cost of chromecast+remote: $30 Cost of secondhand laptop + wireless keyboard/mouse: $250
    - 4y ago
- jader201 4y ago
  > This is a bit like saying you should "never" turn on your new car's engine and should immediately swap it out for a third-party one, because every knows Manufacturer X leaves ticking time bombs in their engines. I don’t think it’s at all like that. If anything, it’s more like saying don’t use your car’s built-in navigation, and instead, use another connected device for navigation. The engine is a critical part of a car — without it, it can’t function. Period. A TV doesn’t have to be smart to operate it, and you can’t buy a TV without it, even though it’s 100% not necessary, especially if you already have another device for that. Again, it’s like cars with navigation — completely unnecessary, especially if you have another device for that.
- silisili 4y ago
  IMO, not a big deal. Google was basically giving away chromecasts with google tv, and if that's still not happening, ONN makes one that works fantastic for 20 dollars. With voice search and all if that's your thing. Both are way faster and easier to use than a built in smarts, and both you can take with you on the go if you want.
throwmeaway1212 4y ago
HDMI can carry ethernet, so not connecting to wifi isn't a 100% fix.
- buildbot 4y ago
  At least with an Apple TV and a Samsung 900r, it is unable to network between the two.
- throwaway742 4y ago
  Gotta make a HDMI firewall.
- stormbrew 4y ago
  It's pretty unlikely that you'll have ethernet over hdmi happening unless you go way out of your way to have it. It's not really something that just happens spontaneously, you need your devices to have it and the cable to support it. I think eARC canibalized the channels it used too?
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  Ethernet over HDMI is basically dead. Just because the standard supports it doesn’t mean the devices do.
buildbot 4y ago
They could connect to nearby open wifi if they really wanted :/
Geonode 4y ago
Every thread dozens of people say, "just don't connect!" They can connect to open networks such as Amazon sidewalk and other deliberate corporate IoT sabotage, and soon I'm sure we'll see the first televisions that require connection to even pass a signal from the HDMI port. The best thing to do is not support this immoral garbage through apathy or ignorance.
- deadbunny 4y ago
  And every thread says they can connect to open WiFi without providing any proof that they do. It would be trivial to test and prove but no-one ever does. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it but I'd prefer some proof before judging them (without having to shell out to be the guinea pig).
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    What would be the proper way to test this? Wireless networking is something I usually avoid in a technical capacity, but this seems like something worth messing around with (and reporting back on).
    - livueta 4y ago
      Should be a fairly straightforward bit of airodump. Even if you don't capture the handshake, you can cross-reference the macs of stations associated with the AP of interest against the mac of your device. If the mac is randomized to a sufficient degree that you can't cross-reference it I guess you'd need to capture the association, but that shouldn't be a problem if you can turn the tv off/on and it does the thing consistently.
      - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
        Thank you kindly, that’s exactly the start I needed. Cheers
      - deadbunny 4y ago
        Even easier than that, set up an open WiFi network, see if the TV connects to it. Super easy for anyone that claims TVs are doing this to do.

Well yes, but then you're basically buying an expensive monitor and will need a second device to be the "smarts". I personally use an Apple TV for this, but in general this can be frustrating for users that just want their Smart TV to work without spying on them or implementing centrally triggered scheduled obsolescence. This is a bit like saying you should "never" turn on your new car's engine and should immediately swap it out for a third-party one, because every knows Manufacturer X leaves ticking time bombs in their engines. This is why consumer protection agencies are created by governments!

interpol_p 4y ago
Exactly. I purchase an Apple TV for each screen in the house, whether that screen is dumb or smart. Actually, I have three screens and two Apple TVs, so for movie nights I move one Apple TV over to the projector so we can watch a movie there (Apple TVs are expensive!) I also had a Fire Stick and a Roku but refused to keep using them after reading their privacy policies (their UIs are also complete and utter trash, they are so terrible compared to Apple TV) I think the advice to never allow a screen to connect to Wi-Fi is reasonable, and I tell my family the same. In the past I have give them old Apple TVs or help them set one up to ensure that they are not allowing spyware on their network Agreed that this needs to be handled by government, as the level of data abuse by these companies is unacceptable
dataflow 4y ago
> This is why consumer protection agencies are created by governments! Enjoy them while they last (see Part III): https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fifth-circuit-decision-threatens-to-upend-sec-s-use-administrative-proceedings https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fifth-circuit-decision-...
cesarb 4y ago
> Well yes, but then you're basically buying an expensive monitor and will need a second device to be the "smarts". If all you want is a TV (as in, connecting to an antenna and tuning to over-the-air channels), you don't need any "smarts". (The main difference between a TV and a monitor is that a TV has a tuner, while a monitor doesn't.)
oneoff786 4y ago
I find this argument weird. Most people don’t want smart TVs. Dedicated smart devices are just better. Even non techies will probably feel this way because the TVs suck and the remote control interface is clunky and confusing. There’s simply no option to buy a dumb tv that isn’t something weird like a monitor or digital signage. Imo nothing beats a laptop with a wireless mouse and keyboard. So much better than a shitty remote. Browsers and Google are familiar. Can also do games. Can access whatever sites you want or things the smart device wouldn’t approve of. All of these devices like Apple TV and fire sticks seem pretty dumb to me.
- evandijk70 4y ago
  Please provide a source that 'most people don't want a smart TV'. That is not my experience at all.
  - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
    I'll add some nuance: - Most people don't know what they're missing re: clunky interface controls - Most people want a single feature-complete device that doesn't take up an HDMI port or require another set of cables to connect (yes, that's trivial, even enjoyable, for 'us', but 'they' are not 'us').
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Most people have no idea what their smart tv can do, and are confused by how to use it. In my experience it’s hardly something they sought. Just anecdata
- throwaway675309 4y ago
  Because it's just so convenient to have to plug your laptop in via an HDMI cable and have it permanently tethered to your TV, and I just love sitting on the couch attempting to move a basically nonresponsive laser mouse on the furniture surface. Cost of chromecast+remote: $30 Cost of secondhand laptop + wireless keyboard/mouse: $250
  - 4y ago
jader201 4y ago
> This is a bit like saying you should "never" turn on your new car's engine and should immediately swap it out for a third-party one, because every knows Manufacturer X leaves ticking time bombs in their engines. I don’t think it’s at all like that. If anything, it’s more like saying don’t use your car’s built-in navigation, and instead, use another connected device for navigation. The engine is a critical part of a car — without it, it can’t function. Period. A TV doesn’t have to be smart to operate it, and you can’t buy a TV without it, even though it’s 100% not necessary, especially if you already have another device for that. Again, it’s like cars with navigation — completely unnecessary, especially if you have another device for that.
silisili 4y ago
IMO, not a big deal. Google was basically giving away chromecasts with google tv, and if that's still not happening, ONN makes one that works fantastic for 20 dollars. With voice search and all if that's your thing. Both are way faster and easier to use than a built in smarts, and both you can take with you on the go if you want.

throwmeaway1212 4y ago

HDMI can carry ethernet, so not connecting to wifi isn't a 100% fix.

buildbot 4y ago
At least with an Apple TV and a Samsung 900r, it is unable to network between the two.
throwaway742 4y ago
Gotta make a HDMI firewall.
stormbrew 4y ago
It's pretty unlikely that you'll have ethernet over hdmi happening unless you go way out of your way to have it. It's not really something that just happens spontaneously, you need your devices to have it and the cable to support it. I think eARC canibalized the channels it used too?
colejohnson66 4y ago
Ethernet over HDMI is basically dead. Just because the standard supports it doesn’t mean the devices do.

buildbot 4y ago

They could connect to nearby open wifi if they really wanted :/

Geonode 4y ago

Every thread dozens of people say, "just don't connect!" They can connect to open networks such as Amazon sidewalk and other deliberate corporate IoT sabotage, and soon I'm sure we'll see the first televisions that require connection to even pass a signal from the HDMI port. The best thing to do is not support this immoral garbage through apathy or ignorance.

deadbunny 4y ago
And every thread says they can connect to open WiFi without providing any proof that they do. It would be trivial to test and prove but no-one ever does. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it but I'd prefer some proof before judging them (without having to shell out to be the guinea pig).
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  What would be the proper way to test this? Wireless networking is something I usually avoid in a technical capacity, but this seems like something worth messing around with (and reporting back on).
  - livueta 4y ago
    Should be a fairly straightforward bit of airodump. Even if you don't capture the handshake, you can cross-reference the macs of stations associated with the AP of interest against the mac of your device. If the mac is randomized to a sufficient degree that you can't cross-reference it I guess you'd need to capture the association, but that shouldn't be a problem if you can turn the tv off/on and it does the thing consistently.
    - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
      Thank you kindly, that’s exactly the start I needed. Cheers
    - deadbunny 4y ago
      Even easier than that, set up an open WiFi network, see if the TV connects to it. Super easy for anyone that claims TVs are doing this to do.