3 ms·

In an age where AI can search vast amounts of data having something in your home or workplace turning what it hears into text looks like a problem waiting to ha

by Lio 1mo ago

In an age where AI can search vast amounts of data having something in your home or workplace turning what it hears into text looks like a problem waiting to happen. E.g. As soon as someone proves LG, Samsung, etc. recorded and stored credit card details and knowingly have weak security this is going to be a massive business liability. That's an easy one to put a compensation figure on but there's probably all sorts of other exploits waiting to happen. I think the most egregious thing here is that if you don't give the TV a network connection that it will actively search for other ways to get the data back to LG such as open WIFI.

ErigmolCt 1mo ago
At that point network isolation stops looking like a privacy preference and starts looking like an adversarial relationship with a product you own
- pferde 1mo ago
  ... product you ownꭞ ꭞ Terms and conditions apply
bilekas 1mo ago
> E.g. As soon as someone proves LG, Samsung, etc. recorded and stored credit card details and knowingly have weak security this is going to be a massive business liability. My tinfoil hat believes that they've already accounted for this as the price of doing business. They will have already budgeted for the fines that they might incur, pay them off and continue as normal while people become accustomed to it.
jiaosdjf 1mo ago
The value of this data to the NSA, Mossad etc is probably the only thing keeping it secure. Never in human history has a government had the means to simultaneously spy on millions of people, to use everyday private conversations to categorise them into various threats to the state, and better yet these tech companies can still sell the commercially valuable side of this to advertisers.
- nannal 1mo ago
  Advertisers are the reason we have this problem. The only way to stop them is legislation.
  - shit_game 1mo ago
    People could return to burning down enterprises that they find unsavory or detrimental to society, such as they did during the industrial revolution, but this is problematic in that it's violent and not something the modern person often considers as viable. A part of why people consider this unviable now is in-part due to the consequences of these surveilance technologies. It's difficult to accomplish a revolution when everyone is being spied on all the time.
    - type0 1mo ago
      “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on” - Larry Ellison (Oracle Corporation)
    - intended 1mo ago
      The shortest path answer is a bit too caveman-esque to survive its application to reality. That said, I think there is a lot of appeal to go hunting for firms, since it really feels like corporations and their owners are engaging in predatory behavior as opposed to customer centric behavior.
  - newsclues 1mo ago
    As much as the problem is advertising the government allows it because the government buys the data!
  - vintermann 1mo ago
    Advertisers may be the reason we got this problem, but the security state is the reason we can't fix this problem and it only gets worse.
  - jjgreen 1mo ago
dgellow 1mo ago
Based on historical records, I would say not much will happen to these companies. Interested to see what the EU will do though
- rickdeckard 1mo ago
  The EU is actually already quite equipped to counter such behavior, with GDPR and CRA (Cyber Resilience Act) regulation they can not only penalize on consumer privacy protection (GDPR) but also on inadequate security practice (CRA), both allow either an absolute fine or a percentage of the annual company revenue. I wonder what chances a consumer in US has though. If the past is any indication, consumer privacy is not a highly regarded good when ranked against a corporate strategy...
- MentalM 1mo ago
  > Interested to see what the EU will do though Will make surveillance mandatory? I mean we definitely should somehow fight terrorism, protect children, and prevent copyright infringement on trillions of dollars per year.
shit_game 1mo ago
>this is going to be a massive business liability. No. this is going to go "unnoticed" or at least unactioned. These are surveilance devices - compromising their value as source of surveilance is neither in the interest of industry (who are selling and buying the surveilance) or government (who are buying and acting on it). The age of shame is over. Current world goernments have flourished under the premise of being terrible, horrible, awful, evil enterprises that do bad for the sake of either being bad or enriching the bad - a consumer device with a ToS that says it will spy on you spying on people is nothing now. Laws be damned, because laws mean nothing now. These devices bery well may soon be the only lawfully available devices in the consumer market precisely because of their surveilance capabilities. Governments are reluctanty catching up to the capabilities of digital technologies, and they're finding them more useful now than ever before. We will be burning witches again before we ever prosecute tech companies for doing bad things.
- Lio 1mo ago
  I'm thinking less about shame, as corporations are dead to shame, and more about proof the TV stored a record of your bank details it got from text to speech. If that's stored as text inside the TV and you lost money because it was copied by a hacker then you have a monetary value to show loss and a trail of liability you can use to sue LG.
  - coldtea 1mo ago
    >I'm thinking less about shame, as corporations are dead to shame, and more about if you can prove the TV stored a record of your bank details it got from text to speech. Then they'll get a joke fine, and continue as before. Maybe cut the price for a while, until they reintroduce it with another pretext a few years down the line.
  - type0 1mo ago
    > a trail of liability you can use to sue LG. The average user would not realize LG was the reason, if they do they will loose more money and effort; LG's reputation and public image won't be even damaged enough for them to take a notice. You are an ant for them and ants are only powerful if they work together.
coldtea 1mo ago
>In an age where AI can search vast amounts of data having something in your home or workplace turning what it hears into text looks like a problem waiting to happen. That's understating the problem. With or without AI, this should be cause enough to shut down a company or at least their specific product division. >E.g. As soon as someone proves LG, Samsung, etc. recorded and stored credit card details and knowingly have weak security this is going to be a massive business liability. They're going to be fine. A slap on the wrist at best.
Eji1700 1mo ago
You would think that would matter, that they’re basically violating all known PII/HIPAA/GDPR/National security standards and god knows what else, but I expect at most some class action down the line.
- FireBeyond 1mo ago
  > HIPAA They're not directly or a business associate of an entity involved in providing you healthcare so not this.
skeptic_ai 1mo ago
At the same time an average citizen can sue and win against these corporations. I never ended up Suing because all companies settled once I showed the evidence. So try it out. Will get expensive for them to use lawyers against ai and still lose.

by Lio 1mo ago

ErigmolCt 1mo ago

At that point network isolation stops looking like a privacy preference and starts looking like an adversarial relationship with a product you own

pferde 1mo ago
... product you ownꭞ ꭞ Terms and conditions apply

bilekas 1mo ago

> E.g. As soon as someone proves LG, Samsung, etc. recorded and stored credit card details and knowingly have weak security this is going to be a massive business liability. My tinfoil hat believes that they've already accounted for this as the price of doing business. They will have already budgeted for the fines that they might incur, pay them off and continue as normal while people become accustomed to it.

jiaosdjf 1mo ago

The value of this data to the NSA, Mossad etc is probably the only thing keeping it secure. Never in human history has a government had the means to simultaneously spy on millions of people, to use everyday private conversations to categorise them into various threats to the state, and better yet these tech companies can still sell the commercially valuable side of this to advertisers.

nannal 1mo ago
Advertisers are the reason we have this problem. The only way to stop them is legislation.
- shit_game 1mo ago
  People could return to burning down enterprises that they find unsavory or detrimental to society, such as they did during the industrial revolution, but this is problematic in that it's violent and not something the modern person often considers as viable. A part of why people consider this unviable now is in-part due to the consequences of these surveilance technologies. It's difficult to accomplish a revolution when everyone is being spied on all the time.
  - type0 1mo ago
    “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on” - Larry Ellison (Oracle Corporation)
  - intended 1mo ago
    The shortest path answer is a bit too caveman-esque to survive its application to reality. That said, I think there is a lot of appeal to go hunting for firms, since it really feels like corporations and their owners are engaging in predatory behavior as opposed to customer centric behavior.
- newsclues 1mo ago
  As much as the problem is advertising the government allows it because the government buys the data!
- vintermann 1mo ago
  Advertisers may be the reason we got this problem, but the security state is the reason we can't fix this problem and it only gets worse.
- jjgreen 1mo ago

dgellow 1mo ago

Based on historical records, I would say not much will happen to these companies. Interested to see what the EU will do though

rickdeckard 1mo ago
The EU is actually already quite equipped to counter such behavior, with GDPR and CRA (Cyber Resilience Act) regulation they can not only penalize on consumer privacy protection (GDPR) but also on inadequate security practice (CRA), both allow either an absolute fine or a percentage of the annual company revenue. I wonder what chances a consumer in US has though. If the past is any indication, consumer privacy is not a highly regarded good when ranked against a corporate strategy...
MentalM 1mo ago
> Interested to see what the EU will do though Will make surveillance mandatory? I mean we definitely should somehow fight terrorism, protect children, and prevent copyright infringement on trillions of dollars per year.

shit_game 1mo ago

>this is going to be a massive business liability. No. this is going to go "unnoticed" or at least unactioned. These are surveilance devices - compromising their value as source of surveilance is neither in the interest of industry (who are selling and buying the surveilance) or government (who are buying and acting on it). The age of shame is over. Current world goernments have flourished under the premise of being terrible, horrible, awful, evil enterprises that do bad for the sake of either being bad or enriching the bad - a consumer device with a ToS that says it will spy on you spying on people is nothing now. Laws be damned, because laws mean nothing now. These devices bery well may soon be the only lawfully available devices in the consumer market precisely because of their surveilance capabilities. Governments are reluctanty catching up to the capabilities of digital technologies, and they're finding them more useful now than ever before. We will be burning witches again before we ever prosecute tech companies for doing bad things.

Lio 1mo ago
I'm thinking less about shame, as corporations are dead to shame, and more about proof the TV stored a record of your bank details it got from text to speech. If that's stored as text inside the TV and you lost money because it was copied by a hacker then you have a monetary value to show loss and a trail of liability you can use to sue LG.
- coldtea 1mo ago
  >I'm thinking less about shame, as corporations are dead to shame, and more about if you can prove the TV stored a record of your bank details it got from text to speech. Then they'll get a joke fine, and continue as before. Maybe cut the price for a while, until they reintroduce it with another pretext a few years down the line.
- type0 1mo ago
  > a trail of liability you can use to sue LG. The average user would not realize LG was the reason, if they do they will loose more money and effort; LG's reputation and public image won't be even damaged enough for them to take a notice. You are an ant for them and ants are only powerful if they work together.

coldtea 1mo ago

>In an age where AI can search vast amounts of data having something in your home or workplace turning what it hears into text looks like a problem waiting to happen. That's understating the problem. With or without AI, this should be cause enough to shut down a company or at least their specific product division. >E.g. As soon as someone proves LG, Samsung, etc. recorded and stored credit card details and knowingly have weak security this is going to be a massive business liability. They're going to be fine. A slap on the wrist at best.

Eji1700 1mo ago

You would think that would matter, that they’re basically violating all known PII/HIPAA/GDPR/National security standards and god knows what else, but I expect at most some class action down the line.

FireBeyond 1mo ago
> HIPAA They're not directly or a business associate of an entity involved in providing you healthcare so not this.

skeptic_ai 1mo ago

At the same time an average citizen can sue and win against these corporations. I never ended up Suing because all companies settled once I showed the evidence. So try it out. Will get expensive for them to use lawyers against ai and still lose.