13 ms·

I’m Terrified of My New TV

739 points by pastycrinkles 12y ago

walterbell 12y ago
Display projectors are more flexible, easier to secure and it's possible to upgrade the separate media/compute component.
socceroos 12y ago
Yep. This is reason #1 why I haven't upgraded from my 'dumb' LCD TV yet. Give me root access and open firmware drivers and then we can talk.
uptown 12y ago
I think the always watching/listening thing is the major hurdle a lot of these devices are going to have to overcome before a lot of people feel comfortable inviting them into their homes.
- userbinator 12y ago
  Unfortunately a lot of people are not going to read the privacy policies or even care about what their TV is doing beyond "it works" and being drawn in by the promise of convenience and new features... it's to the advantage of the companies doing this that their users remain as complacent and unknowing as possible. This isn't even the government forcing mass-surveillance devices on its citizens; it's the citizens accepting and installing mass-surveillance devices themselves -- which in some ways is quite a bit more disturbing than the government doing it.
  - marak830 12y ago
    Well. . . . What if we find the attack vectors, notify the companies then when they dont remotely patch(or cant/ignore as i assume is the most plausable option), publicly release. I have a "smart" tv my wifw purchased while i was away on business, but theres no way thats being connected.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  I think you overestimate how many people are even going to be aware that their shiny TV is doing 1% of this stuff. Non-techie people assume a TV is a TV -- which is to say, a dumb video terminal. Even "smart" TVs are understood this way, in no small part because most people never bother interacting with their "smart" features. It's all just items on a checklist full of marketing blather, safe to ignore. I fear it's going to take a serious hack of these devices (or twelve) before people start to understand that their new TV is more like a giant, poorly secured PC that happens to be wall-mountable than it is like their trusty old CRT.
mhb 12y ago
No mention of which TV?
- grimman 12y ago
  Searching seems to suggest it's a Samsung device, but I haven't tried to locate the manual in order to verify that notion. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smart+tv+voice+facial+recognition https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smart+tv+voice+facial+recognition
rickdale 12y ago
I have one of the latest sony televisions. I think of the internet features as something for newbs. I would never even consider putting my tv on my network. It doesn't have a camera for facial recognition or the mic for talk to use. It's a really nice tv though and I can access all the functionality and settings without accessing the internet. This aricle is a bit overblown, but I get the point. There is a reason my xbox one's kinnect will never see the light of day.
dsugarman 12y ago
a lot of these are inherent on the laptop you wrote this with coupled with using the internet in general.
- Canada 12y ago
  Yes, and any mobile phone. "Ok Google" RMS was right all along. We need free software, or we will have no control over our computers. And our computers are going to be everywhere.
  - api 12y ago
    But since it's free, nobody will pay for it. If nobody pays for it, it won't get built. Free as in beer is the enemy of free as in freedom.
    - RadioactiveMan 12y ago
      I don't understand your argument. Some of the most popular software in the world is free. Linux, Apache, OpenSSL, Firefox and more are used by millions and got built without charging people to use them. On a personal computer, there is free software to accomplish any desktop computing task. How can you say that it wont get built when it already has been?
      - api 12y ago
        Those are all special cases, and are all subsidized heavily. Ordinary OSS authors are volunteers. You can only go so far that way, but people have to build a viable career around things or they will eventually be given up. Meanwhile, the closed systems people do pay for have a monstrous advantage and will continue to be far ahead. Nowhere are they further ahead than design and user experience, which in my experience are harder and more work to get right than core code. When you make something work you are only maybe 25% of the way to making it usable. That last 75% is the no-fun stuff people have to be paid to do, and it's the stuff that separates products people use from geek projects only a tiny number of enthusiasts play with.
      - 12y ago
joelrunyon 12y ago
> In the meantime, I’ll be in the market for a new tinfoil hat and cone of silence. I know this is meant as a pseudo-joke and I know there are going to be a ton of comments here on why the guy is overreacting, but is the tin foil hat really useful anymore? We have demonstrated proof that things like this have been exploited on purpose in the past few years. Instead of the tin foil being representative of the crazy person - it now almost seems like common sense. Is that scary to anyone else?
- api 12y ago
  If anything, the tinfoil hat conspiracy wackos of yesteryear were far too conservative in their paranoid fever dreams. They'd never have believed this. I wonder sometimes: if things like this had existed in the 50s and 60s would we ever have had a Martin Luther King? Or would such things have been picked up at their earliest stages by the data miners and nipped in the bud? Would Ginsburg have read Howl in Golden Gate Park? Would there have been a summer of love, underground basement punk shows, raves? What new civil rights movements or fascinating spontaneous emergences of culture are being silently suppressed today? Is that kind of culture jamming really going on? I really do wonder. I also wonder about the seeming asymmetry. I see protestors in Hong Kong using mobile phones to organize, yet over here it seems as if the same technologies are being used to enforce the most toxic aspects of the status quo instead of challenging them.
  - monochr 12y ago
    The real problem here isn't Orwell. It's Terry Gilliam[1]. From Google to the NSA you have no recourse against the automated algorithms lumping you in a category which will never put you in jail but will add ridiculous restrictions to your life, for example no fly lists. [1] http://youtu.be/YeY1dxlC7Sg?t=1m40s http://youtu.be/YeY1dxlC7Sg?t=1m40s
    - logn 12y ago
      I worry more about the chilling effects. The things people leave unsaid, the stories that go unwritten, and ultimately the free thinking that never occurs. In addition, being able to completely data mine all communication gives enormous potential to control future action (in a similar/same way to how marketers can influence future choices). Orwell had a quote about that.
dubfan 12y ago
I was in the market for a new TV last year, and I found it difficult to find one that wasn't loaded with "smart" features. I didn't want the smart features since I already had a home theater PC, which I built myself. Plus from my limited prior experience with smart TVs, the UX on those is just awful. I didn't even consider the privacy issues, although I should have considering the Snowden leaks had just hit the news. Lucky me, the TV I ended up with was one of the LG Smart TVs that was caught leaking file names from USB devices (HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6759426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6759426). Edit: It was also logging network folders. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778397
driverdan 12y ago
So what happens if you just don't plug in the network cable or setup WiFi? How does it gather anything?
- accounthere 12y ago
  FBI van with free wifi goes through your neighborhood, the TV happily auto-connects to it and dumps all its data. How can we make the wifi module inside the TV unusable?
  - analog31 12y ago
    DDOS it? I mean something that connects to that WiFi and smothers it with so much data that no other device can get a word in edgewise.
  - joshu 12y ago
    Open it, remove antenna?
- strathmeyer 12y ago
  Well then it doesn't let you watch it, obviously.
  - VLM 12y ago
    Combining two wikipedia articles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_broadband_Internet_subscriptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_households http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_... there are 87 million broadband subscriptions (likely shared) vs 117 million households. So thats at least 30 million permanently un-TVed households. Which would probably be good for the nation. My mother in law got a smart TV about three years ago. No internet access for her. At the time I couldn't figure it out, but it makes more sense now. One interesting problem is there are a lot of TV models out there and none of the software will ever be upgraded in practice, its like Android phones, its unlikely it'll ever be upgraded from what it shipped with. Its likely the "smart" features of her TV are already unusable due to API changes over the years.
malkia 12y ago
1984, 30 years later.
- nandemo 12y ago
  > Telescreens are fictional devices which operate as both televisions and security cameras [... and] are used by the ruling Party in Oceania to keep its subjects under constant surveillance, thus eliminating the chance of secret conspiracies against Oceania. > All members of the Inner Party (upper-class) and Outer Party (middle-class) have telescreens in their homes, but the proles (lower-class) are not typically monitored as they are unimportant to the Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen
- lucb1e 12y ago
  I'm surprised I had to scroll down this far for a 1984 reference, because it is EXACTLY what 1984 was about.
sean_grant 12y ago
Something I've noticed about this however is most tech-literate people who actually care about their privacy tend to leave the wireless disconnected and simply attach the TV to their HTPC device which is from there connected to the internet. Disconnecting it from the internet and possibly even sabotaging the wifi module will ensure that prying eyes will not have access to your information.
- api 12y ago
  It's a two tier world that's coming. Either you know your gear inside and out, or your gear knows you inside and out.
  - zanny 12y ago
    What other option is there? Same could be said about how knowing the internals of your car, or your house, your plumbing system, your electrical connection, hell even your health all matter because not knowing means the providers / maintainers / engineers can take advantage of you. Caveat emptor doesn't go away with time. And I don't believe trying to use the hammer of legislation on the various hooks of businesses is an effective or even ethical way to try to "solve" it.
  - girvo 12y ago
    I'd argue that we already live in that world.
0x0 12y ago
Sounds like there would be a market for an openWRT-like firmware hack for these TVs!
- shurcooL 12y ago
  Or, what about dumb TVs, aka monitors, and computers that run normal operating systems.
- 13 12y ago
  On some Samsung "Smart" TVs you can. http://sourceforge.net/projects/samygo/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/samygo/
- zanny 12y ago
  There are already several projects that have tried this. Probably most famous is Ubuntu TV. All of them crashed and burned, because the tv vendors have a vested interest in denying you your software freedoms on these things.
- Omniusaspirer 12y ago
  A quick search brings up SamyGO, which is apparently a custom firmware for Samsung TVs. Not sure I'm a fan of it not being fully open source but it at least shows that people are working on it. http://www.samygo.tv/ http://www.samygo.tv/
bduerst 12y ago
This if a fluff piece. They write an entire article on why we should be terrified but then they don't even mention the make or manufacturer of this scary new TV, so we can't check the details of the TOS. It's the hypothetical smart TV that everyone owns. They also neglected to mention you could just not connect it to the internet - you know, like the ancient TV he just turned in?
- eclipxe 12y ago
  Thank you. I agree, this is just scaremongering.
- vilhelm_s 12y ago
  It's pretty easy to find the TOS though, by Googling the quoted text. Apparently it's manufactured by Samsung. http://www.samsung.com/us/common/privacy.html http://www.samsung.com/us/common/privacy.html
  - bduerst 12y ago
    It's still scare mongering. Here's the full context of the personal information, for example: >If you enable Voice Recognition, you can interact with your Smart TV using your voice. To provide you the Voice Recognition feature, some voice commands may be transmitted (along with information about your device, including device identifiers) to a third-party service that converts speech to text or to the extent necessary to provide the Voice Recognition features to you. In addition, Samsung may collect and your device may capture voice commands and associated texts so that we can provide you with Voice Recognition features and evaluate and improve the features. Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition. They then go onto say you can disable this. It's legal speak for working with a vendor to improve the accuracy of their voice recognition, but by taking it out of context you can make a scare piece. It's probably why they neglected to mention or link to the TOS.
- jsmeaton 12y ago
  They kind of did mention that you could not connect it: "The device will not function properly or allow the use of its high-tech features. This leaves consumers with an unacceptable choice between keeping up with technology and retaining their personal privacy." But more fear mongering there too. The features that smart tv's bring to the table are hardly so useful that you would declare it an unacceptable choice to turn them off.
bruce511 12y ago
I'm probably not normal, but frankly I would just leave it unplugged from the Internet. At the end of the day my current tv does what I need to do (ie act as a big monitor) without an internet connection. Given the number of devices already floating around here for browsing the web, I don't really need my tv to do that. For streaming I have Chromecast or whatever. I get that tv makers want to sell me something, but they're really bad anyway at the convergence - so the best option for me is just to use it as a screen and get devices to do what I want. The only real motivation to get a new tv is if the current one breaks. I replace all the other living room devices a lot more frequently than the tv. But the point of bothering to read the terms is well worth knowing so I appreciate the article.
- jsmeaton 12y ago
  I agree with you. Just bought a new TV myself, and I've disconnected it from the network. When it was connected my internet was seeing slowdowns every 30 seconds, completely destroying a hangout I was trying to have at the time. If I didn't have an HTPC in front of my NAS, I would probably connect it again. But I don't need or want any of the network features. The apps are stupid. Browsing with the crappy remote is an exercise in extreme frustration. And I hardly ever watch youtube from my couch, so "throwing" content to the TV is pointless for me. I can understand why some people would really like some of the "smart" tv features, but all my other devices that I connect to the tv have enough smarts in them anyway. Quite happy using my tv as a dumb monitor.
- maerF0x0 12y ago
  And go old school like my mom-- put it on a powerbar and truly turn it off when your done.
- tmuir 12y ago
  I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services. I suppose the economics aren't as straightforward, but I'm of the opinion that Chromecast, Roku, AppleTV, etc are the next layer of crippleware. A small form factor Windows box or a Mac Mini are superior to every set top media player on the market in every category but price. I've never seen a better interface on a media appliance. A wireless mouse always trumps a remote. But most importantly, you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser. The best interfaces for all of those services are the full websites. Not to mention all of the other features you get with a full blown computer.
lurchpop 12y ago
Went through this recently at Best Buy. The salesperson said by next year they may no longer carry any "dumb" tvs. Currently, those options are almost gone. I didn't see any dumb tvs over 40" and there were no 4Ks without "smart" features. I plan on just blocking it in my router, but who knows if the TV scans around for open hotspots. If I were a "smart" developer Id store everything locally if offline, then dump to the manufacturer if it ever does get a connection. Not my problem if the feds happen to be "selecting" for that dump somewhere upstream...really not my problem if they have a dragnet FISA warrant for the data. Where is that noble hacker who'll make a tutorials on how to destroy smart TV WiFI radios?!
- 51Cards 12y ago
  Simple solution is just don't log it into your WiFi.
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    This is what I was going to say. Do you guys really find the "smart" features on your television to be useful? I just, you know... use it as a television.
    - tempestn 12y ago
      I find Netflix and YouTube built into the TV extremely useful. Also the fact that it has a half-decent DLNA client (which I connect to Plex on my home server), and can accept screencasting from my phone. I considered building a HTPC, but realized these features cover 99% of what I would use it for, and for the rest I can just use a laptop.
      - spiritplumber 12y ago
        I've had all these features for years thanks to a netbook with a busted battery and a projector I got off some business or other closing up shop. The netbook runs linux mint and runs what I wants it to, and no more. This stuff doesn't need a butlerian jihad, it needs a DIY surge.
click170 12y ago
The only reason I feel comfortable connecting things like consumer network-connected cameras, TVs, Bluray players, game consoles, or anything else "Internet Ready" to my network is because I perform outbound filtering, and it's a big eye-opener to see first-hand what these devices are trying to connect to. Luckily most things use HTTP so you can actually filter based on the URL it's trying to access. For example, permitting software updates, but denying any kind of analytics reporting. And with VPN on your phone (especially Always-On VPN) you can filter the requests from your phone with the same granularity, which is even more eye-opening. Outbound filtering is incredibly useful if you value your security and privacy.
- kibwen 12y ago
  Can you recommend any resources for getting started?
  - naiyt 12y ago
    Yeah, I'd also be interested in some resources on outbound filtering your network.
    - calgoo 12y ago
      I currently use a Mikrotik 750GL as my main router to the internet. In it i have a list of static DNS entries to send AD networks, and things like google-stats to a local http server to block the traffic. I also use it to block devices that i can not control from connecting to the internet (this is how i will block any "internet if things" crap). I dont need a internet connection on all the "things" in my house. Also, there is no reason why all these functions should be built into a TV. I believe that the TV should be a monitor and thats it. We dont even need to have a TV tuner anymore. Just add 6 HDMI ports or more and I will add whatever function i want. [Edited]
  - click170 12y ago
    Every time I say this I feel like a shill because I worked for them briefly, but Sophos has a Home version of their UTM firewall (0). It has pros and cons, but overall I think it's pretty good (even after working there). Some other options include Sonicwall and pfsense, and I encourage others to post their suggestions as well. I haven't used SonicWall, though I have used pfsense strictly as a firewall. (0) http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-utm-home-edition.aspx http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-utm-h...
p00b 12y ago
> I just bought a new TV...The only problem is that I’m now afraid to use it. You would be too — if you read through the 46-page privacy policy. Wish I had the money to drop hundreds of dollars on a product, and figure out what it does afterward...
- RadioactiveMan 12y ago
  In buying a television I wouldn't fault a person for expecting it to be no more dangerous than the basic televisions they had in the past.
tlrobinson 12y ago
If you're looking for a "dumb" TV, projectors may be one of your last options. I just got a great Sony projector and 92" screen for less than an equivalent quality large TV would cost. The only other consideration is the size of the room and ability to limit ambient light entering the room.
- stock_toaster 12y ago
  Computer monitors are getting pretty darn big these days too., and hooking one up to an htpc+stereo would almost be easier than some TVs!
- gambiting 12y ago
  And also the noise is really a problem with projectors, in quieter scenes you can definitely hear the fans working.
tedks 12y ago
We need a Butlerian Jihad against surveillance. You know what will never stop this? Posts on hacker news. Letters to your congressman (LG can donate a fuqton more to his re-election campaign than you can). Voting with your dollar (people who know what a privacy policy is are few and far between). You know what will? Taking these TVs into the street, smashing and burning them. Mobs storming Best Buy and smashing the surveillance cameras built into these telescreens. Bricks through the window of every mercenary selling your privacy, selling a live feed right to your living room, to the NSA/FBI/creepy internet hackers. It's really hard to get people to commit to sustained, long-term action -- that's why boycotts are not effective and why this trend has continued. But people are actually angry about this and that anger can be fueled into displays of acute disapproval. Like burning a pile of spy TVs in the street and then flipping the cop car that comes to defend the surveillance state and burning that too. Pretty sure this will get downvoted because anything outside the blandly acceptable boring-as-fuck politics always gets downvoted. But just keep in mind that you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and the power structures of the world pretty much only respond to Arab Spring-esque events now. We need to make every digital dictator afraid of becoming the next Gaddafi.
- ilaksh 12y ago
  Well, in my "bat shit insane" reality, the Arab Spring was actually mainly a cyber-intelligence operation on Facebook designed to get Mubarek out of the way so they could get better access to Libya. Mubarek had blocked a previous Libyan invasion attempt in the 80s. And actually Gaddafi was the ultimate non-boring active protester. If you knew what he actually did, instead of the mythological version of events, he is basically your poster child. Gaddafi got got because he wanted to get away from the petrodollar dictatorship. The reality is that there are very serious challenges, not insurmountable, but problems that haven't actually had solutions engineered yet. And the institutions and even deeper, the belief systems that form our global operating framework, are completely outdated. Leading edge technology has already made governments obsolete in some sense. Eventually, I believe that distributed technologies will make traditional governments, and a traditional operating mode based on deadly force and amoral behavior, irrelevant and passe.
  - 12y ago
ilaksh 12y ago
What if its not connected to the internet (ever) and you build a Faraday cage around it? Safe then, right? I'm going to get a projector anyway. Of course, they keep getting "smarter" too.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Glyptodon 12y ago
My only question is why, knowing all that, he still bought that particular TV? Because when I bought my set I saw all that crap and got the dumbest one I could fine. Even if none to be found, I'd totally pay for a large format display instead of a TV just to save the headaches.
ck2 12y ago
You know you can buy a TV without ethernet or wifi right? If you think your TV is bad, try powering on a windows phone for the first time and go through the dozen privacy waivers and turn off all the defaults of all the data it sends to Microsoft and Nokia. Pages and pages worth.
georgemcbay 12y ago
I don't even care that much about my personal privacy and yet I'm terrified of "Smart TVs" because I spent time working on many different models across various manufacturers and they are all horrible, horrible devices in their own ways (some far more horrible than others). I still have nightmares about the Insignia 'Smart' TV we wrote some apps for while working at chumby, the Samsung and LG models were only mildly better. My TV should not require a 30 second bootup time before it can do anything if powered on cold, my TV should not crash because it has been on too long and there is a memory leak in the YahooWidgets/JavaScript engine it uses for apps, my TV should just focus on doing a really good job of displaying images from one or more sources of other boxes which are small and cheap enough to be upgraded every couple of years (unlike a TV which I upgrade far less). Let me worry if those external boxes are invading my privacy or not, but my TV really needs to be stupid enough that it isn't even possible, if only for practical reasons.
pmoriarty 12y ago
The author is afraid of his smart TV, but probably doesn't think twice about carrying around a smartphone. Smartphones have virtually all of the capabilities that make the author fear his smart TV, only the smartphone is, if anything, even more dangerous because it is more ubiquitous. People carry their phones around everywhere, and the phones are usually constantly on and equally capable of monitoring your every word and action that you perform on them. If you value privacy but own a smartphone, you've already lost.
- doctorshady 12y ago
  Not to detract from your point, but wouldn't that apply to cell phones in general?
  - pmoriarty 12y ago
    Yes, but to a lesser extent. The more powerful and well connected a device is, the less privacy its users tend to have. Unlike dumb phones, today's smartphones usually have built-in GPS capabilities, with relatively high-speed internet connections, powerful processors, a wealth of apps for their users to put their personal data in, and tight integration with social media. There was a time when spy agencies would have killed to plant devices with these sorts of surveillance capabilities on their marks. Today billions keep them on their persons at all times -- willingly, gladly even.
- zanny 12y ago
  If you get hardware without proprietary radios (which, yeah, is impossible) and install only free software on it, you aren't lost. I use Paranoid Android, and I know my S4 can still use its radio to spy on me, but at least the OS itself isn't.
  - pmoriarty 12y ago
    Enjoy your relative freedom while you can. In the so-called Internet of Things we're headed for, computers may be all-pervasive, wearable, embedded in everything, unobtrusive, practically indetectable and inescapable. They are likely to be always communicating with the other computers all around them, and privacy will be a dream of the past. Unfortunately, counter-surveillance technology does not appear to be keeping pace with surveillance technology, and since most people don't yet seem to care about being surveyed, there isn't much of a market for it. On the other side, most companies (and their oh-so-helpful tech enablers) love to spy on their users, and see nothing wrong with doing so (or at least don't let any moral qualms stand in the way of a profit). So there is a lot of incentive for spying and little incentive for not spying. Consciousness is slowly starting to emerge among the general population that this is happening, but there doesn't seem to be much of a backlash. Few are taking a stand.
rubicon33 12y ago
TV manufactures should stay in the TV business, not the advertising, or data business. Who's for starting a company that adheres to the moral obligation to not treat our customers, as our product?
kimburgess 12y ago
For those looking for a modern TV that doesn't have the 'smart' feature set have a look into into commercial grade panels. They are manufactured for digital signage and usage in meeting room / corporate environments. Generally they will not come with a on-board tuner but for those who can stand free to air programming this can be added with an external tuner for < $100.
- scdoshi 12y ago
  Interesting idea. Any recommendations?
  - buro9 12y ago
    I liked the idea too so just looked around, the NECs seem particularly good, for example: http://www.necdisplay.com/p/large--screen-displays/e464 http://www.necdisplay.com/p/large--screen-displays/e464 A 46" display, for $769, 1080p and 3 x HDMI inputs and all of the necessary sound inputs and outputs. Additionally it's relatively low-power and doesn't actually look bad. I can see me buying something like this in future, it fits with how I use TV anyway, feeding HDMI inputs into it and just considering it a display for other devices.
    - flyinghamster 12y ago
      I like the commercial display idea as well. They probably could have saved some money by not bothering with a tuner, though. At least it isn't full of spy crap, and, being a commercial-grade display, ought to last a good long time. I have one of NEC's 24" monitors (one of the few 1920x1200 panels I could find on the shelf at the time I bought it - 16:10 FTW), and I love it. Aside from my preferred 16:10, the other thing I love about it is that it's matte instead of glossy. Glossy monitors, along with chiclet keyboards, have got to go.
TheTaO 12y ago
TV watching is only one way to consume video. What about YouTube, Netflix, Hulu? They log all of what the author is talking about. That hasn't deterred people from spending millions of hours on it each day. You just don't expect a device like TV to track your viewing habits where as you are not surprised that various websites and apps will do it. I'm sure you can disable tracking on TV if you have concerns.
transfire 12y ago
Perhaps we can all just start being someone else. Make up a few aliases and use those for different accounts. Some mass schizophrenia might really do wonders. We could make it a "thing" with young people and a rally cry for the disenfranchised. We could even get grandma in on the act in the name of "online security".
- lucb1e 12y ago
  > Some mass schizophrenia might really do wonders. Quote of the day.
negamax 12y ago
Whole technology setup from a technical perspective seems like; as if best in the industry got together and wrapped 1984 in a sci-fi story.
cclements 12y ago
You know, reading this and some of the comments, especially about run-away authority with the “cops making stops to take money” make me think. I recoil as I’m sure many do about the increasing ubiquity of potential surveillance technology such as this. I think about the slippery slopes that we have evidence of (see: patriot act). But then another part of me thinks back to the “dirty cop” comment. It seems like cops carrying cameras is a strong mitigation to such behavior. The counter argument that such recordings might “going missing” when convenient for the officer comes up then. The sentiment I read often is the solution to that problem is citizens with cameras as well. And that brought me back to the notion of “ubiquity” again. If and when these things are everywhere, then they aren’t just in “normal citizen’s” homes, they are in NSA agent’s homes too, uploading details to the same manufacturer’s servers, carrying the same vulnerabilities. Of course, there are loopholes and restrictions authorities can implement, but can they get them all? A good chunk of my job is penetration testing, and my experience definitely makes me think not.
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  I think a better solution to the problem of the cop's recording going missing is to automatically find the cop guilty of everything he's accused of when that happens, without a trial. That'll stop that problem right quick.
- GFischer 12y ago
  "The counter argument that such recordings might “going missing” when convenient for the officer comes up then" That's because it's what it is happening right now. See last week's trending HN story, especially the "the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the recording devices malfunctioned" bit (yeah, sure): http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359725475/can-authorities-cut-off-utilities-and-pose-as-repairmen-to-search-a-home http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359725475/can-authorities-cut-... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8527469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8527469
r0h1n 12y ago
The solution to this lies in educating & incentivizing the vast majority of lay consumers who either (a) don't know what their devices are up to, or (b) don't care. But looking at the way people buy ACs and refrigerators, I think a "privacy rating" of some kind might work. So a "smart TV" that monitors & reports everything you do ought to get a 1-star while another that zealously guards your privacy and uses explicit opt-ins may get 4- or 5-stars.
hibiscus 12y ago
Realistically the only thing that will ever change the evolving IOT industry (which is what is breeding the surveillance) is people actively choosing to buy privacy-enhancing or privacy protective products. Do we really need internet connected TV's? Does this author ever plan on using these features or is he just keeping up with the Jones? More importantly -- what does the average user think? Would they ever even bother to find the privacy policy (if you can even call it that at 46 pages) let alone read it? To the author: if you have a problem with your TV, especially if you are actually 'terrified' of it, perhaps consider returning it and buying a normal one?
- neurobro 12y ago
  I wonder if there are enough privacy advocates to convince stores to stop carrying invasive products by buying the product and then returning it, citing the privacy policy. Question is whether the store would actually stop selling the products or just change the return policy.
anoncow 12y ago
"Stop listening" Or some other key phrase to turn off and on voice control with a visible notification light could help solve some of the problem.
- rimantas 12y ago
  and then someone in the family says "Listen to me!" to another family member and TV is all ears again :)
ryanhuff 12y ago
Perhaps I missed something in the article where the television has its own LTE (or other data connection) to call home without the owners knowledge. My "smart tv" stays disconnected from the WIFI. Problem solved.
smsm42 12y ago
OK, I get the surveillance and all that aspect. But how is it a good idea to have voice controls and gesture controls for a TV? First of all, I'm far from the TV. So I'd have to yell to it? Not enough that I'd feel stupid talking to my TV, I should make myself looking as completely gone bananas? And instruct everybody in my home, including the dog, to be quiet around the TV lest it misunderstands and takes something as an "erase all recorded shows" command? But as that is not enough humiliation, I should also try to capture it's attention by gesturing at it from my couch - and never again be able to scratch my knee or turn to the other side without TV switching a channel or making a permanent configuration to record everything Kardashian-related on every channel? How that is a useful feature, all surveillance aspects aside? The article author complains if cameras and microphones in the TV are disabled, it would not function properly. I say, that's the only way it would function properly! I'm ok with my remote, thank you very much, and I don't want to converse with my TV or dance for it. I want it to entertain me, not the other way around.
sspiff 12y ago
This is why 40% of people who buy a smart TV never connect it to the internet, and over 80% don't connect after trying it once for the novelty after unpacking. (These numbers were stats collected internally by a minor TV manufacturer)
Tepix 12y ago
The german c't magazine examined smart TVs and what data they send home (and how to stop them) earlier this year. Check out http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Spion-im-Wohnzimmer-c-t-ertappt-schnueffelnde-Fernseher-2096578.html http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Spion-im-Wohnzimmer-c-t... if you speak german.
Animats 12y ago
NBC News reported this in 2012. http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/your-tv-watching-you-latest-models-raise-concerns-f483619 http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/your-tv-watching-you-l... Nothing happened. Vizio has a much less intrusive system. Some of their TVs have "Vizio apps", which can trigger popups on the screen based on the content being played. This can be completely turned off. They don't have microphones or cameras, just remotes. Still, the TV does phone home to Vizio HQ.
pmontra 12y ago
I have a 10 years old TV (still a CRT because they were better than LCDs back in 2004, but that's not important). It will stop working more sooner than later and I'll have to replace it with some sort of smart TV. Whatever I get inside it I decided what to do with it long ago: keep it off the Internet. Instead I'll hook it the the very same Raspberry PI with OpenELEC I'm using right now. If something breaks because it can't call home, I don't care. Obviously I'll be careful to buy one of the most dumbed down smart TVs on the market. All I need is the screen.
- carlob 12y ago
  If you have the space buy a projector: - They are generally not smart - They cost less than TVs (especially by the inch) - They don't work well during the day (no daytime TV, only movies at night)
- orbifold 12y ago
  In principle it is not that hard to repair a CRT TV, my grandfather owned the same TV for the majority of his life.
harkyns_castle 12y ago
I'd guess they've done their market research on this and I'd also have to guess they figured it wouldn't hurt their sales. Which seems odd to me. Having a TV with the ability to surveil me is a foul feature and one that'd instantly turn me off a purchase, no matter what protections they put in place. Internet-connected, closed as can be, with a possibly open mike and camera into your living room... fuck that. Edit: s/that/they
downandout 12y ago
I wasn't particularly disturbed by this article until I got to the following passage regarding the "Voice Command" feature: "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party." I don't think there is a prison horrible enough to send these people to. There is NO legitimate reason that an always-on audio feed from your home should be sent to third parties. People shouldn't even be allowed to opt-in to something like that. No one would EVER knowingly allow this, regardless of the functionality it enabled. I cannot envision a circumstance in which this "feature" was not put in at the direct request of law enforcement. I am extremely disappointed that he did not name the manufacturer of this TV in the article (unless he made it all up to get clicks). If this is legitimate, he needs to post the manufacturer's name and they need be boycotted, immediately, forever. Consumers need to adopt a scorched earth strategy with companies like this.
- qbrass 12y ago
  Who said it was always on? They can't guarantee what you or anyone in range of the microphone will say while giving the TV a command, which gets sent off to be processed. That's enough to warrant the warning.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
    As with laptop webcams, it probably not so much that it's always on, but that it can be turned on at any time without you knowing.
    - cowabunga 12y ago
      Which is why I unplugged the microphone and webcam on mine (Lenovo X201).
    - justcommenting 12y ago
      if video but not audio surveillance freaks you out, a little piece of black electrical tape goes a long way. that includes your phone's front-facing camera..
edandersen 12y ago
Samsung and co ship non-smart TVs with exactly the same panels for hundreds of dollars less than smart TVs of the same size. Just buy non-smart TVs and couple them with a decent AV amp and games console and you can replicate all the smart TV nonsense with other devices.
squiggy22 12y ago
In the same vein it's worth knowing the privacy policy of providers such as BSkyB https://accessibility.sky.com/privacy-cookie-notice https://accessibility.sky.com/privacy-cookie-notice Not many people know that an entire profile about what program's you watch on your sky box are linked with the websites you browse through their broadband service to build a profile about you. It's one of the reasons their tv + broadband deal here in the uk is so competitive. Personalised tv ads are then served.
junto 12y ago
This demonstrates the need for router firmware to be designed so that it keeps your private data in as well as keeping nasty people oit.!
otikik 12y ago
When I am terrified of something I just bought, I return it.
StudyAnimal 12y ago
Hope it has a very wide viewing angle, or I will have to get creative when watching porn.
dzhiurgis 12y ago
In communist state, TV watches you.
rlpb 12y ago
This is why I want all my devices running a full Free Software stack, and give up functionality for being able to run free(-er) software whenever possible.
netcan 12y ago
I don't think we really understand the role or the utility of laws regarding this stuff yet. But, there are two things that I think need to proceed regardless. (1) One is user control. My android phone is running all sorts of stuff that I know about mostly because of battery use. There must be a better way. App permissions isn't the end game. (2) The second is hysterical public outcry. Sometimes a cold headed analysis is the right way of going about things, but… A terrifying and unpredictable mob response has always been an important tool of societal immune systems. Highlight. Names & Shame. "Samsung is recording your teenagers having sex!" I realize there isn't one culprit. That doesn't matter, pick one and deliver mob justice.
cLeEOGPw 12y ago
Put a black sticker on it's camera and it's mic (make sure voice commands no longer work) and problem solved. I don't see any use of facial and voice recognition anyway. they can send and analyze black screen and silence all they want.
- kabdib 12y ago
  Microphones are incredibly sensitive. You pretty much need to cut their wires.
soneca 12y ago
One more opportunity for my crusade to make the sci-fi webcomic about the future, the internet and the privacy "Private Eye" popular among HN crowd. http://panelsyndicate.com/ http://panelsyndicate.com/ It is a pay what you want directly from the author business-model. I won't tell why this story is so relevant to the story because that would be a huge spoiler. But go read it. It is worthy! PS: I am not affiliated, just a fan.
mariusz79 12y ago
It's important to remember that these privacy violations are not only building a profile of each and everyone of us. /rant mode on It's likely that it's all about controlling us, and using our profiles to adjust not only our spending habits but also our lives. Just imagine how companies like Google, who have almost unlimited access to our data could show you progressively more left or right-leaning websites in response to your queries. Your Netflix, Amazon, Youtube suggestions are keeping you in a bubble of thinks and ideas you already know and like. And if you always go with these suggestions it will be extremely easy to adjust them slightly every time to push you in a direction that corporations and governments prefer. We know that the filter bubble already exists, but do they adjust that bubble to their needs? If you're quick to say that this is unlikely, just think about advertisement. Isn't making us want to buy or do something main goal of advertisement? Of course I don't think that there is some kind of conspiracy to convert everyone to be a tree-hugging left-wing fanatic, but if we have corporations with as much power over our lives as Google, Facebook or Apple it will be easy for them to slightly push us in a direction that benefits their bottom lines. Any company that has power to control our reading and viewing habits has in fact control over us. Now when they know more about our health and location, when they can automatically listen to and analyze everything we say what else is left? Yes, privacy outside of our homes is gone forever. We will never be able to get it back under control. But what we do, read, watch and listen to, what we talk about in our homes should stay private. So next time you think that the conveniences of having a website or a movie suggested to you, think if that suggestion is not making you an obedient, gadget buying drone.
tempodox 12y ago
Wow, I'd be scared too. Like Mr. Finch used to say, “only the paranoid survive”.
talmand 12y ago
"Users may have the ability to disable data collection, but it comes at a cost. The device will not function properly or allow the use of its high-tech features." In that case, the best thing to do is to return the TV to the retailer explaining exactly why you are returning it. If the result of disabling a possibly intrusive feature is as bad as this person suggests, it's a broken TV anyway.
fakeasaur 12y ago
I'm beginning to feel like they should put privacy policies in clear text on the box, like cigarette warnings.
johnnymonster 12y ago
This is the reason why I buy the "Dumb" TV version, and its cheaper too. No reason my tv needs to be hooked up to the internet, have apps, or a camera/microphone! I just need it to display images, I don't even need it to output any sound! If I could pay less for no speakers that would be awesome!
- Rudism 12y ago
  I'm the same way, but this is slowly becoming a non-option. Even the cheap TVs are "smart" these days--it's no longer really a premium feature and just something that every TV has tacked on as a marketing bullet point. If you limit your new TV search to only "dumb" models your selection of options becomes almost comically tiny. Fortunately, leaving the TV unplugged from the internet is still a viable option.
  - rsync 12y ago
    Buy commercial displays / signage displays. Like the ones they have in airports. I have a NEC commercial display as my TV. It's great and is built to last forever. Oh and it has no network capability or "smarts" of any kind. It's as dumb as a monitor gets.
crdb 12y ago
I was just at a conference where I had a nice conversation with a new, but already profitable company that builds face recognition for advertisers. Their customer base basically all wanted the same thing: to be able to target ads to the people walking past them, such as at bus stops (it's live in Singapore, if you're wondering). They eventually admitted they were working on voice recognition after strong customer demand, because that was much more promising; the machine vision stuff could only detect things like age, gender and income level. Yes, that's mining the content of conversations in the public space (like aforementioned bus stop) and generating ads on nearby real estate accordingly. Launching in Asia in 2015. Also had a 1 hour conversation in a private meeting room at another conference a couple years ago with three sharp representatives from a certain Asian TV manufacturer that may or may not have been mentioned in this thread. I was stuck by how far they had already gone applying machine learning to their customer activity. They were multiplying their efforts and investments in the space and were very excited about the new generation of TVs that go beyond passively showing you content, because of all the data they would be able to get as a result...
kabelt21 12y ago
must be joking, but yesterday i had watched tv about an hour long, for no reason. i came to the conclusion...i was not the 'targeted audience'...
krambs 12y ago
I wouldn't trust anyone at Comcast to walk my dog, much less spy on me.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

739 points by pastycrinkles 12y ago

Display projectors are more flexible, easier to secure and it's possible to upgrade the separate media/compute component.

socceroos 12y ago

Yep. This is reason #1 why I haven't upgraded from my 'dumb' LCD TV yet. Give me root access and open firmware drivers and then we can talk.

uptown 12y ago

I think the always watching/listening thing is the major hurdle a lot of these devices are going to have to overcome before a lot of people feel comfortable inviting them into their homes.

userbinator 12y ago
Unfortunately a lot of people are not going to read the privacy policies or even care about what their TV is doing beyond "it works" and being drawn in by the promise of convenience and new features... it's to the advantage of the companies doing this that their users remain as complacent and unknowing as possible. This isn't even the government forcing mass-surveillance devices on its citizens; it's the citizens accepting and installing mass-surveillance devices themselves -- which in some ways is quite a bit more disturbing than the government doing it.
- marak830 12y ago
  Well. . . . What if we find the attack vectors, notify the companies then when they dont remotely patch(or cant/ignore as i assume is the most plausable option), publicly release. I have a "smart" tv my wifw purchased while i was away on business, but theres no way thats being connected.
smacktoward 12y ago
I think you overestimate how many people are even going to be aware that their shiny TV is doing 1% of this stuff. Non-techie people assume a TV is a TV -- which is to say, a dumb video terminal. Even "smart" TVs are understood this way, in no small part because most people never bother interacting with their "smart" features. It's all just items on a checklist full of marketing blather, safe to ignore. I fear it's going to take a serious hack of these devices (or twelve) before people start to understand that their new TV is more like a giant, poorly secured PC that happens to be wall-mountable than it is like their trusty old CRT.

mhb 12y ago

No mention of which TV?

grimman 12y ago
Searching seems to suggest it's a Samsung device, but I haven't tried to locate the manual in order to verify that notion. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smart+tv+voice+facial+recognition https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smart+tv+voice+facial+recognition

rickdale 12y ago

I have one of the latest sony televisions. I think of the internet features as something for newbs. I would never even consider putting my tv on my network. It doesn't have a camera for facial recognition or the mic for talk to use. It's a really nice tv though and I can access all the functionality and settings without accessing the internet. This aricle is a bit overblown, but I get the point. There is a reason my xbox one's kinnect will never see the light of day.

dsugarman 12y ago

a lot of these are inherent on the laptop you wrote this with coupled with using the internet in general.

Canada 12y ago
Yes, and any mobile phone. "Ok Google" RMS was right all along. We need free software, or we will have no control over our computers. And our computers are going to be everywhere.
- api 12y ago
  But since it's free, nobody will pay for it. If nobody pays for it, it won't get built. Free as in beer is the enemy of free as in freedom.
  - RadioactiveMan 12y ago
    I don't understand your argument. Some of the most popular software in the world is free. Linux, Apache, OpenSSL, Firefox and more are used by millions and got built without charging people to use them. On a personal computer, there is free software to accomplish any desktop computing task. How can you say that it wont get built when it already has been?
    - api 12y ago
      Those are all special cases, and are all subsidized heavily. Ordinary OSS authors are volunteers. You can only go so far that way, but people have to build a viable career around things or they will eventually be given up. Meanwhile, the closed systems people do pay for have a monstrous advantage and will continue to be far ahead. Nowhere are they further ahead than design and user experience, which in my experience are harder and more work to get right than core code. When you make something work you are only maybe 25% of the way to making it usable. That last 75% is the no-fun stuff people have to be paid to do, and it's the stuff that separates products people use from geek projects only a tiny number of enthusiasts play with.
    - 12y ago

joelrunyon 12y ago

> In the meantime, I’ll be in the market for a new tinfoil hat and cone of silence. I know this is meant as a pseudo-joke and I know there are going to be a ton of comments here on why the guy is overreacting, but is the tin foil hat really useful anymore? We have demonstrated proof that things like this have been exploited on purpose in the past few years. Instead of the tin foil being representative of the crazy person - it now almost seems like common sense. Is that scary to anyone else?

api 12y ago
If anything, the tinfoil hat conspiracy wackos of yesteryear were far too conservative in their paranoid fever dreams. They'd never have believed this. I wonder sometimes: if things like this had existed in the 50s and 60s would we ever have had a Martin Luther King? Or would such things have been picked up at their earliest stages by the data miners and nipped in the bud? Would Ginsburg have read Howl in Golden Gate Park? Would there have been a summer of love, underground basement punk shows, raves? What new civil rights movements or fascinating spontaneous emergences of culture are being silently suppressed today? Is that kind of culture jamming really going on? I really do wonder. I also wonder about the seeming asymmetry. I see protestors in Hong Kong using mobile phones to organize, yet over here it seems as if the same technologies are being used to enforce the most toxic aspects of the status quo instead of challenging them.
- monochr 12y ago
  The real problem here isn't Orwell. It's Terry Gilliam[1]. From Google to the NSA you have no recourse against the automated algorithms lumping you in a category which will never put you in jail but will add ridiculous restrictions to your life, for example no fly lists. [1] http://youtu.be/YeY1dxlC7Sg?t=1m40s http://youtu.be/YeY1dxlC7Sg?t=1m40s
  - logn 12y ago
    I worry more about the chilling effects. The things people leave unsaid, the stories that go unwritten, and ultimately the free thinking that never occurs. In addition, being able to completely data mine all communication gives enormous potential to control future action (in a similar/same way to how marketers can influence future choices). Orwell had a quote about that.

dubfan 12y ago

I was in the market for a new TV last year, and I found it difficult to find one that wasn't loaded with "smart" features. I didn't want the smart features since I already had a home theater PC, which I built myself. Plus from my limited prior experience with smart TVs, the UX on those is just awful. I didn't even consider the privacy issues, although I should have considering the Snowden leaks had just hit the news. Lucky me, the TV I ended up with was one of the LG Smart TVs that was caught leaking file names from USB devices (HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6759426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6759426). Edit: It was also logging network folders. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778397

driverdan 12y ago

So what happens if you just don't plug in the network cable or setup WiFi? How does it gather anything?

accounthere 12y ago
FBI van with free wifi goes through your neighborhood, the TV happily auto-connects to it and dumps all its data. How can we make the wifi module inside the TV unusable?
- analog31 12y ago
  DDOS it? I mean something that connects to that WiFi and smothers it with so much data that no other device can get a word in edgewise.
- joshu 12y ago
  Open it, remove antenna?
strathmeyer 12y ago
Well then it doesn't let you watch it, obviously.
- VLM 12y ago
  Combining two wikipedia articles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_broadband_Internet_subscriptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_households http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_... there are 87 million broadband subscriptions (likely shared) vs 117 million households. So thats at least 30 million permanently un-TVed households. Which would probably be good for the nation. My mother in law got a smart TV about three years ago. No internet access for her. At the time I couldn't figure it out, but it makes more sense now. One interesting problem is there are a lot of TV models out there and none of the software will ever be upgraded in practice, its like Android phones, its unlikely it'll ever be upgraded from what it shipped with. Its likely the "smart" features of her TV are already unusable due to API changes over the years.

malkia 12y ago

1984, 30 years later.

nandemo 12y ago
> Telescreens are fictional devices which operate as both televisions and security cameras [... and] are used by the ruling Party in Oceania to keep its subjects under constant surveillance, thus eliminating the chance of secret conspiracies against Oceania. > All members of the Inner Party (upper-class) and Outer Party (middle-class) have telescreens in their homes, but the proles (lower-class) are not typically monitored as they are unimportant to the Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen
lucb1e 12y ago
I'm surprised I had to scroll down this far for a 1984 reference, because it is EXACTLY what 1984 was about.

sean_grant 12y ago

Something I've noticed about this however is most tech-literate people who actually care about their privacy tend to leave the wireless disconnected and simply attach the TV to their HTPC device which is from there connected to the internet. Disconnecting it from the internet and possibly even sabotaging the wifi module will ensure that prying eyes will not have access to your information.

api 12y ago
It's a two tier world that's coming. Either you know your gear inside and out, or your gear knows you inside and out.
- zanny 12y ago
  What other option is there? Same could be said about how knowing the internals of your car, or your house, your plumbing system, your electrical connection, hell even your health all matter because not knowing means the providers / maintainers / engineers can take advantage of you. Caveat emptor doesn't go away with time. And I don't believe trying to use the hammer of legislation on the various hooks of businesses is an effective or even ethical way to try to "solve" it.
- girvo 12y ago
  I'd argue that we already live in that world.

0x0 12y ago

Sounds like there would be a market for an openWRT-like firmware hack for these TVs!

shurcooL 12y ago
Or, what about dumb TVs, aka monitors, and computers that run normal operating systems.
13 12y ago
On some Samsung "Smart" TVs you can. http://sourceforge.net/projects/samygo/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/samygo/
zanny 12y ago
There are already several projects that have tried this. Probably most famous is Ubuntu TV. All of them crashed and burned, because the tv vendors have a vested interest in denying you your software freedoms on these things.
Omniusaspirer 12y ago
A quick search brings up SamyGO, which is apparently a custom firmware for Samsung TVs. Not sure I'm a fan of it not being fully open source but it at least shows that people are working on it. http://www.samygo.tv/ http://www.samygo.tv/

bduerst 12y ago

This if a fluff piece. They write an entire article on why we should be terrified but then they don't even mention the make or manufacturer of this scary new TV, so we can't check the details of the TOS. It's the hypothetical smart TV that everyone owns. They also neglected to mention you could just not connect it to the internet - you know, like the ancient TV he just turned in?

eclipxe 12y ago
Thank you. I agree, this is just scaremongering.
vilhelm_s 12y ago
It's pretty easy to find the TOS though, by Googling the quoted text. Apparently it's manufactured by Samsung. http://www.samsung.com/us/common/privacy.html http://www.samsung.com/us/common/privacy.html
- bduerst 12y ago
  It's still scare mongering. Here's the full context of the personal information, for example: >If you enable Voice Recognition, you can interact with your Smart TV using your voice. To provide you the Voice Recognition feature, some voice commands may be transmitted (along with information about your device, including device identifiers) to a third-party service that converts speech to text or to the extent necessary to provide the Voice Recognition features to you. In addition, Samsung may collect and your device may capture voice commands and associated texts so that we can provide you with Voice Recognition features and evaluate and improve the features. Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition. They then go onto say you can disable this. It's legal speak for working with a vendor to improve the accuracy of their voice recognition, but by taking it out of context you can make a scare piece. It's probably why they neglected to mention or link to the TOS.
jsmeaton 12y ago
They kind of did mention that you could not connect it: "The device will not function properly or allow the use of its high-tech features. This leaves consumers with an unacceptable choice between keeping up with technology and retaining their personal privacy." But more fear mongering there too. The features that smart tv's bring to the table are hardly so useful that you would declare it an unacceptable choice to turn them off.

bruce511 12y ago

I'm probably not normal, but frankly I would just leave it unplugged from the Internet. At the end of the day my current tv does what I need to do (ie act as a big monitor) without an internet connection. Given the number of devices already floating around here for browsing the web, I don't really need my tv to do that. For streaming I have Chromecast or whatever. I get that tv makers want to sell me something, but they're really bad anyway at the convergence - so the best option for me is just to use it as a screen and get devices to do what I want. The only real motivation to get a new tv is if the current one breaks. I replace all the other living room devices a lot more frequently than the tv. But the point of bothering to read the terms is well worth knowing so I appreciate the article.

jsmeaton 12y ago
I agree with you. Just bought a new TV myself, and I've disconnected it from the network. When it was connected my internet was seeing slowdowns every 30 seconds, completely destroying a hangout I was trying to have at the time. If I didn't have an HTPC in front of my NAS, I would probably connect it again. But I don't need or want any of the network features. The apps are stupid. Browsing with the crappy remote is an exercise in extreme frustration. And I hardly ever watch youtube from my couch, so "throwing" content to the TV is pointless for me. I can understand why some people would really like some of the "smart" tv features, but all my other devices that I connect to the tv have enough smarts in them anyway. Quite happy using my tv as a dumb monitor.
maerF0x0 12y ago
And go old school like my mom-- put it on a powerbar and truly turn it off when your done.
tmuir 12y ago
I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services. I suppose the economics aren't as straightforward, but I'm of the opinion that Chromecast, Roku, AppleTV, etc are the next layer of crippleware. A small form factor Windows box or a Mac Mini are superior to every set top media player on the market in every category but price. I've never seen a better interface on a media appliance. A wireless mouse always trumps a remote. But most importantly, you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser. The best interfaces for all of those services are the full websites. Not to mention all of the other features you get with a full blown computer.

lurchpop 12y ago

Went through this recently at Best Buy. The salesperson said by next year they may no longer carry any "dumb" tvs. Currently, those options are almost gone. I didn't see any dumb tvs over 40" and there were no 4Ks without "smart" features. I plan on just blocking it in my router, but who knows if the TV scans around for open hotspots. If I were a "smart" developer Id store everything locally if offline, then dump to the manufacturer if it ever does get a connection. Not my problem if the feds happen to be "selecting" for that dump somewhere upstream...really not my problem if they have a dragnet FISA warrant for the data. Where is that noble hacker who'll make a tutorials on how to destroy smart TV WiFI radios?!

51Cards 12y ago
Simple solution is just don't log it into your WiFi.
- EpicEng 12y ago
  This is what I was going to say. Do you guys really find the "smart" features on your television to be useful? I just, you know... use it as a television.
  - tempestn 12y ago
    I find Netflix and YouTube built into the TV extremely useful. Also the fact that it has a half-decent DLNA client (which I connect to Plex on my home server), and can accept screencasting from my phone. I considered building a HTPC, but realized these features cover 99% of what I would use it for, and for the rest I can just use a laptop.
    - spiritplumber 12y ago
      I've had all these features for years thanks to a netbook with a busted battery and a projector I got off some business or other closing up shop. The netbook runs linux mint and runs what I wants it to, and no more. This stuff doesn't need a butlerian jihad, it needs a DIY surge.

click170 12y ago

The only reason I feel comfortable connecting things like consumer network-connected cameras, TVs, Bluray players, game consoles, or anything else "Internet Ready" to my network is because I perform outbound filtering, and it's a big eye-opener to see first-hand what these devices are trying to connect to. Luckily most things use HTTP so you can actually filter based on the URL it's trying to access. For example, permitting software updates, but denying any kind of analytics reporting. And with VPN on your phone (especially Always-On VPN) you can filter the requests from your phone with the same granularity, which is even more eye-opening. Outbound filtering is incredibly useful if you value your security and privacy.

kibwen 12y ago
Can you recommend any resources for getting started?
- naiyt 12y ago
  Yeah, I'd also be interested in some resources on outbound filtering your network.
  - calgoo 12y ago
    I currently use a Mikrotik 750GL as my main router to the internet. In it i have a list of static DNS entries to send AD networks, and things like google-stats to a local http server to block the traffic. I also use it to block devices that i can not control from connecting to the internet (this is how i will block any "internet if things" crap). I dont need a internet connection on all the "things" in my house. Also, there is no reason why all these functions should be built into a TV. I believe that the TV should be a monitor and thats it. We dont even need to have a TV tuner anymore. Just add 6 HDMI ports or more and I will add whatever function i want. [Edited]
- click170 12y ago
  Every time I say this I feel like a shill because I worked for them briefly, but Sophos has a Home version of their UTM firewall (0). It has pros and cons, but overall I think it's pretty good (even after working there). Some other options include Sonicwall and pfsense, and I encourage others to post their suggestions as well. I haven't used SonicWall, though I have used pfsense strictly as a firewall. (0) http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-utm-home-edition.aspx http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-utm-h...

p00b 12y ago

> I just bought a new TV...The only problem is that I’m now afraid to use it. You would be too — if you read through the 46-page privacy policy. Wish I had the money to drop hundreds of dollars on a product, and figure out what it does afterward...

RadioactiveMan 12y ago
In buying a television I wouldn't fault a person for expecting it to be no more dangerous than the basic televisions they had in the past.

tlrobinson 12y ago

If you're looking for a "dumb" TV, projectors may be one of your last options. I just got a great Sony projector and 92" screen for less than an equivalent quality large TV would cost. The only other consideration is the size of the room and ability to limit ambient light entering the room.

stock_toaster 12y ago
Computer monitors are getting pretty darn big these days too., and hooking one up to an htpc+stereo would almost be easier than some TVs!
gambiting 12y ago
And also the noise is really a problem with projectors, in quieter scenes you can definitely hear the fans working.

tedks 12y ago

We need a Butlerian Jihad against surveillance. You know what will never stop this? Posts on hacker news. Letters to your congressman (LG can donate a fuqton more to his re-election campaign than you can). Voting with your dollar (people who know what a privacy policy is are few and far between). You know what will? Taking these TVs into the street, smashing and burning them. Mobs storming Best Buy and smashing the surveillance cameras built into these telescreens. Bricks through the window of every mercenary selling your privacy, selling a live feed right to your living room, to the NSA/FBI/creepy internet hackers. It's really hard to get people to commit to sustained, long-term action -- that's why boycotts are not effective and why this trend has continued. But people are actually angry about this and that anger can be fueled into displays of acute disapproval. Like burning a pile of spy TVs in the street and then flipping the cop car that comes to defend the surveillance state and burning that too. Pretty sure this will get downvoted because anything outside the blandly acceptable boring-as-fuck politics always gets downvoted. But just keep in mind that you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and the power structures of the world pretty much only respond to Arab Spring-esque events now. We need to make every digital dictator afraid of becoming the next Gaddafi.

ilaksh 12y ago
Well, in my "bat shit insane" reality, the Arab Spring was actually mainly a cyber-intelligence operation on Facebook designed to get Mubarek out of the way so they could get better access to Libya. Mubarek had blocked a previous Libyan invasion attempt in the 80s. And actually Gaddafi was the ultimate non-boring active protester. If you knew what he actually did, instead of the mythological version of events, he is basically your poster child. Gaddafi got got because he wanted to get away from the petrodollar dictatorship. The reality is that there are very serious challenges, not insurmountable, but problems that haven't actually had solutions engineered yet. And the institutions and even deeper, the belief systems that form our global operating framework, are completely outdated. Leading edge technology has already made governments obsolete in some sense. Eventually, I believe that distributed technologies will make traditional governments, and a traditional operating mode based on deadly force and amoral behavior, irrelevant and passe.
- 12y ago

ilaksh 12y ago

What if its not connected to the internet (ever) and you build a Faraday cage around it? Safe then, right? I'm going to get a projector anyway. Of course, they keep getting "smarter" too.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Glyptodon 12y ago

My only question is why, knowing all that, he still bought that particular TV? Because when I bought my set I saw all that crap and got the dumbest one I could fine. Even if none to be found, I'd totally pay for a large format display instead of a TV just to save the headaches.

ck2 12y ago

You know you can buy a TV without ethernet or wifi right? If you think your TV is bad, try powering on a windows phone for the first time and go through the dozen privacy waivers and turn off all the defaults of all the data it sends to Microsoft and Nokia. Pages and pages worth.

georgemcbay 12y ago

I don't even care that much about my personal privacy and yet I'm terrified of "Smart TVs" because I spent time working on many different models across various manufacturers and they are all horrible, horrible devices in their own ways (some far more horrible than others). I still have nightmares about the Insignia 'Smart' TV we wrote some apps for while working at chumby, the Samsung and LG models were only mildly better. My TV should not require a 30 second bootup time before it can do anything if powered on cold, my TV should not crash because it has been on too long and there is a memory leak in the YahooWidgets/JavaScript engine it uses for apps, my TV should just focus on doing a really good job of displaying images from one or more sources of other boxes which are small and cheap enough to be upgraded every couple of years (unlike a TV which I upgrade far less). Let me worry if those external boxes are invading my privacy or not, but my TV really needs to be stupid enough that it isn't even possible, if only for practical reasons.

pmoriarty 12y ago

The author is afraid of his smart TV, but probably doesn't think twice about carrying around a smartphone. Smartphones have virtually all of the capabilities that make the author fear his smart TV, only the smartphone is, if anything, even more dangerous because it is more ubiquitous. People carry their phones around everywhere, and the phones are usually constantly on and equally capable of monitoring your every word and action that you perform on them. If you value privacy but own a smartphone, you've already lost.

doctorshady 12y ago
Not to detract from your point, but wouldn't that apply to cell phones in general?
- pmoriarty 12y ago
  Yes, but to a lesser extent. The more powerful and well connected a device is, the less privacy its users tend to have. Unlike dumb phones, today's smartphones usually have built-in GPS capabilities, with relatively high-speed internet connections, powerful processors, a wealth of apps for their users to put their personal data in, and tight integration with social media. There was a time when spy agencies would have killed to plant devices with these sorts of surveillance capabilities on their marks. Today billions keep them on their persons at all times -- willingly, gladly even.
zanny 12y ago
If you get hardware without proprietary radios (which, yeah, is impossible) and install only free software on it, you aren't lost. I use Paranoid Android, and I know my S4 can still use its radio to spy on me, but at least the OS itself isn't.
- pmoriarty 12y ago
  Enjoy your relative freedom while you can. In the so-called Internet of Things we're headed for, computers may be all-pervasive, wearable, embedded in everything, unobtrusive, practically indetectable and inescapable. They are likely to be always communicating with the other computers all around them, and privacy will be a dream of the past. Unfortunately, counter-surveillance technology does not appear to be keeping pace with surveillance technology, and since most people don't yet seem to care about being surveyed, there isn't much of a market for it. On the other side, most companies (and their oh-so-helpful tech enablers) love to spy on their users, and see nothing wrong with doing so (or at least don't let any moral qualms stand in the way of a profit). So there is a lot of incentive for spying and little incentive for not spying. Consciousness is slowly starting to emerge among the general population that this is happening, but there doesn't seem to be much of a backlash. Few are taking a stand.

rubicon33 12y ago

TV manufactures should stay in the TV business, not the advertising, or data business. Who's for starting a company that adheres to the moral obligation to not treat our customers, as our product?

kimburgess 12y ago

For those looking for a modern TV that doesn't have the 'smart' feature set have a look into into commercial grade panels. They are manufactured for digital signage and usage in meeting room / corporate environments. Generally they will not come with a on-board tuner but for those who can stand free to air programming this can be added with an external tuner for < $100.

scdoshi 12y ago
Interesting idea. Any recommendations?
- buro9 12y ago
  I liked the idea too so just looked around, the NECs seem particularly good, for example: http://www.necdisplay.com/p/large--screen-displays/e464 http://www.necdisplay.com/p/large--screen-displays/e464 A 46" display, for $769, 1080p and 3 x HDMI inputs and all of the necessary sound inputs and outputs. Additionally it's relatively low-power and doesn't actually look bad. I can see me buying something like this in future, it fits with how I use TV anyway, feeding HDMI inputs into it and just considering it a display for other devices.
  - flyinghamster 12y ago
    I like the commercial display idea as well. They probably could have saved some money by not bothering with a tuner, though. At least it isn't full of spy crap, and, being a commercial-grade display, ought to last a good long time. I have one of NEC's 24" monitors (one of the few 1920x1200 panels I could find on the shelf at the time I bought it - 16:10 FTW), and I love it. Aside from my preferred 16:10, the other thing I love about it is that it's matte instead of glossy. Glossy monitors, along with chiclet keyboards, have got to go.

TheTaO 12y ago

TV watching is only one way to consume video. What about YouTube, Netflix, Hulu? They log all of what the author is talking about. That hasn't deterred people from spending millions of hours on it each day. You just don't expect a device like TV to track your viewing habits where as you are not surprised that various websites and apps will do it. I'm sure you can disable tracking on TV if you have concerns.

transfire 12y ago

Perhaps we can all just start being someone else. Make up a few aliases and use those for different accounts. Some mass schizophrenia might really do wonders. We could make it a "thing" with young people and a rally cry for the disenfranchised. We could even get grandma in on the act in the name of "online security".

lucb1e 12y ago
> Some mass schizophrenia might really do wonders. Quote of the day.

negamax 12y ago

Whole technology setup from a technical perspective seems like; as if best in the industry got together and wrapped 1984 in a sci-fi story.

cclements 12y ago

You know, reading this and some of the comments, especially about run-away authority with the “cops making stops to take money” make me think. I recoil as I’m sure many do about the increasing ubiquity of potential surveillance technology such as this. I think about the slippery slopes that we have evidence of (see: patriot act). But then another part of me thinks back to the “dirty cop” comment. It seems like cops carrying cameras is a strong mitigation to such behavior. The counter argument that such recordings might “going missing” when convenient for the officer comes up then. The sentiment I read often is the solution to that problem is citizens with cameras as well. And that brought me back to the notion of “ubiquity” again. If and when these things are everywhere, then they aren’t just in “normal citizen’s” homes, they are in NSA agent’s homes too, uploading details to the same manufacturer’s servers, carrying the same vulnerabilities. Of course, there are loopholes and restrictions authorities can implement, but can they get them all? A good chunk of my job is penetration testing, and my experience definitely makes me think not.

FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
I think a better solution to the problem of the cop's recording going missing is to automatically find the cop guilty of everything he's accused of when that happens, without a trial. That'll stop that problem right quick.
GFischer 12y ago
"The counter argument that such recordings might “going missing” when convenient for the officer comes up then" That's because it's what it is happening right now. See last week's trending HN story, especially the "the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the recording devices malfunctioned" bit (yeah, sure): http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359725475/can-authorities-cut-off-utilities-and-pose-as-repairmen-to-search-a-home http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359725475/can-authorities-cut-... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8527469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8527469

r0h1n 12y ago

The solution to this lies in educating & incentivizing the vast majority of lay consumers who either (a) don't know what their devices are up to, or (b) don't care. But looking at the way people buy ACs and refrigerators, I think a "privacy rating" of some kind might work. So a "smart TV" that monitors & reports everything you do ought to get a 1-star while another that zealously guards your privacy and uses explicit opt-ins may get 4- or 5-stars.

hibiscus 12y ago

Realistically the only thing that will ever change the evolving IOT industry (which is what is breeding the surveillance) is people actively choosing to buy privacy-enhancing or privacy protective products. Do we really need internet connected TV's? Does this author ever plan on using these features or is he just keeping up with the Jones? More importantly -- what does the average user think? Would they ever even bother to find the privacy policy (if you can even call it that at 46 pages) let alone read it? To the author: if you have a problem with your TV, especially if you are actually 'terrified' of it, perhaps consider returning it and buying a normal one?

neurobro 12y ago
I wonder if there are enough privacy advocates to convince stores to stop carrying invasive products by buying the product and then returning it, citing the privacy policy. Question is whether the store would actually stop selling the products or just change the return policy.

anoncow 12y ago

"Stop listening" Or some other key phrase to turn off and on voice control with a visible notification light could help solve some of the problem.

rimantas 12y ago
and then someone in the family says "Listen to me!" to another family member and TV is all ears again :)

ryanhuff 12y ago

Perhaps I missed something in the article where the television has its own LTE (or other data connection) to call home without the owners knowledge. My "smart tv" stays disconnected from the WIFI. Problem solved.

smsm42 12y ago

OK, I get the surveillance and all that aspect. But how is it a good idea to have voice controls and gesture controls for a TV? First of all, I'm far from the TV. So I'd have to yell to it? Not enough that I'd feel stupid talking to my TV, I should make myself looking as completely gone bananas? And instruct everybody in my home, including the dog, to be quiet around the TV lest it misunderstands and takes something as an "erase all recorded shows" command? But as that is not enough humiliation, I should also try to capture it's attention by gesturing at it from my couch - and never again be able to scratch my knee or turn to the other side without TV switching a channel or making a permanent configuration to record everything Kardashian-related on every channel? How that is a useful feature, all surveillance aspects aside? The article author complains if cameras and microphones in the TV are disabled, it would not function properly. I say, that's the only way it would function properly! I'm ok with my remote, thank you very much, and I don't want to converse with my TV or dance for it. I want it to entertain me, not the other way around.

sspiff 12y ago

This is why 40% of people who buy a smart TV never connect it to the internet, and over 80% don't connect after trying it once for the novelty after unpacking. (These numbers were stats collected internally by a minor TV manufacturer)

Tepix 12y ago

The german c't magazine examined smart TVs and what data they send home (and how to stop them) earlier this year. Check out http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Spion-im-Wohnzimmer-c-t-ertappt-schnueffelnde-Fernseher-2096578.html http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Spion-im-Wohnzimmer-c-t... if you speak german.

Animats 12y ago

NBC News reported this in 2012. http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/your-tv-watching-you-latest-models-raise-concerns-f483619 http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/your-tv-watching-you-l... Nothing happened. Vizio has a much less intrusive system. Some of their TVs have "Vizio apps", which can trigger popups on the screen based on the content being played. This can be completely turned off. They don't have microphones or cameras, just remotes. Still, the TV does phone home to Vizio HQ.

pmontra 12y ago

I have a 10 years old TV (still a CRT because they were better than LCDs back in 2004, but that's not important). It will stop working more sooner than later and I'll have to replace it with some sort of smart TV. Whatever I get inside it I decided what to do with it long ago: keep it off the Internet. Instead I'll hook it the the very same Raspberry PI with OpenELEC I'm using right now. If something breaks because it can't call home, I don't care. Obviously I'll be careful to buy one of the most dumbed down smart TVs on the market. All I need is the screen.

carlob 12y ago
If you have the space buy a projector: - They are generally not smart - They cost less than TVs (especially by the inch) - They don't work well during the day (no daytime TV, only movies at night)
orbifold 12y ago
In principle it is not that hard to repair a CRT TV, my grandfather owned the same TV for the majority of his life.

harkyns_castle 12y ago

I'd guess they've done their market research on this and I'd also have to guess they figured it wouldn't hurt their sales. Which seems odd to me. Having a TV with the ability to surveil me is a foul feature and one that'd instantly turn me off a purchase, no matter what protections they put in place. Internet-connected, closed as can be, with a possibly open mike and camera into your living room... fuck that. Edit: s/that/they

downandout 12y ago

I wasn't particularly disturbed by this article until I got to the following passage regarding the "Voice Command" feature: "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party." I don't think there is a prison horrible enough to send these people to. There is NO legitimate reason that an always-on audio feed from your home should be sent to third parties. People shouldn't even be allowed to opt-in to something like that. No one would EVER knowingly allow this, regardless of the functionality it enabled. I cannot envision a circumstance in which this "feature" was not put in at the direct request of law enforcement. I am extremely disappointed that he did not name the manufacturer of this TV in the article (unless he made it all up to get clicks). If this is legitimate, he needs to post the manufacturer's name and they need be boycotted, immediately, forever. Consumers need to adopt a scorched earth strategy with companies like this.

qbrass 12y ago
Who said it was always on? They can't guarantee what you or anyone in range of the microphone will say while giving the TV a command, which gets sent off to be processed. That's enough to warrant the warning.
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
  As with laptop webcams, it probably not so much that it's always on, but that it can be turned on at any time without you knowing.
  - cowabunga 12y ago
    Which is why I unplugged the microphone and webcam on mine (Lenovo X201).
  - justcommenting 12y ago
    if video but not audio surveillance freaks you out, a little piece of black electrical tape goes a long way. that includes your phone's front-facing camera..

edandersen 12y ago

Samsung and co ship non-smart TVs with exactly the same panels for hundreds of dollars less than smart TVs of the same size. Just buy non-smart TVs and couple them with a decent AV amp and games console and you can replicate all the smart TV nonsense with other devices.

squiggy22 12y ago

In the same vein it's worth knowing the privacy policy of providers such as BSkyB https://accessibility.sky.com/privacy-cookie-notice https://accessibility.sky.com/privacy-cookie-notice Not many people know that an entire profile about what program's you watch on your sky box are linked with the websites you browse through their broadband service to build a profile about you. It's one of the reasons their tv + broadband deal here in the uk is so competitive. Personalised tv ads are then served.

junto 12y ago

This demonstrates the need for router firmware to be designed so that it keeps your private data in as well as keeping nasty people oit.!

otikik 12y ago

When I am terrified of something I just bought, I return it.

StudyAnimal 12y ago

Hope it has a very wide viewing angle, or I will have to get creative when watching porn.

dzhiurgis 12y ago

In communist state, TV watches you.

rlpb 12y ago

This is why I want all my devices running a full Free Software stack, and give up functionality for being able to run free(-er) software whenever possible.

netcan 12y ago

I don't think we really understand the role or the utility of laws regarding this stuff yet. But, there are two things that I think need to proceed regardless. (1) One is user control. My android phone is running all sorts of stuff that I know about mostly because of battery use. There must be a better way. App permissions isn't the end game. (2) The second is hysterical public outcry. Sometimes a cold headed analysis is the right way of going about things, but… A terrifying and unpredictable mob response has always been an important tool of societal immune systems. Highlight. Names & Shame. "Samsung is recording your teenagers having sex!" I realize there isn't one culprit. That doesn't matter, pick one and deliver mob justice.

cLeEOGPw 12y ago

Put a black sticker on it's camera and it's mic (make sure voice commands no longer work) and problem solved. I don't see any use of facial and voice recognition anyway. they can send and analyze black screen and silence all they want.

kabdib 12y ago
Microphones are incredibly sensitive. You pretty much need to cut their wires.

soneca 12y ago

One more opportunity for my crusade to make the sci-fi webcomic about the future, the internet and the privacy "Private Eye" popular among HN crowd. http://panelsyndicate.com/ http://panelsyndicate.com/ It is a pay what you want directly from the author business-model. I won't tell why this story is so relevant to the story because that would be a huge spoiler. But go read it. It is worthy! PS: I am not affiliated, just a fan.

mariusz79 12y ago

It's important to remember that these privacy violations are not only building a profile of each and everyone of us. /rant mode on It's likely that it's all about controlling us, and using our profiles to adjust not only our spending habits but also our lives. Just imagine how companies like Google, who have almost unlimited access to our data could show you progressively more left or right-leaning websites in response to your queries. Your Netflix, Amazon, Youtube suggestions are keeping you in a bubble of thinks and ideas you already know and like. And if you always go with these suggestions it will be extremely easy to adjust them slightly every time to push you in a direction that corporations and governments prefer. We know that the filter bubble already exists, but do they adjust that bubble to their needs? If you're quick to say that this is unlikely, just think about advertisement. Isn't making us want to buy or do something main goal of advertisement? Of course I don't think that there is some kind of conspiracy to convert everyone to be a tree-hugging left-wing fanatic, but if we have corporations with as much power over our lives as Google, Facebook or Apple it will be easy for them to slightly push us in a direction that benefits their bottom lines. Any company that has power to control our reading and viewing habits has in fact control over us. Now when they know more about our health and location, when they can automatically listen to and analyze everything we say what else is left? Yes, privacy outside of our homes is gone forever. We will never be able to get it back under control. But what we do, read, watch and listen to, what we talk about in our homes should stay private. So next time you think that the conveniences of having a website or a movie suggested to you, think if that suggestion is not making you an obedient, gadget buying drone.

tempodox 12y ago

Wow, I'd be scared too. Like Mr. Finch used to say, “only the paranoid survive”.

talmand 12y ago

"Users may have the ability to disable data collection, but it comes at a cost. The device will not function properly or allow the use of its high-tech features." In that case, the best thing to do is to return the TV to the retailer explaining exactly why you are returning it. If the result of disabling a possibly intrusive feature is as bad as this person suggests, it's a broken TV anyway.

fakeasaur 12y ago

I'm beginning to feel like they should put privacy policies in clear text on the box, like cigarette warnings.

johnnymonster 12y ago

This is the reason why I buy the "Dumb" TV version, and its cheaper too. No reason my tv needs to be hooked up to the internet, have apps, or a camera/microphone! I just need it to display images, I don't even need it to output any sound! If I could pay less for no speakers that would be awesome!

Rudism 12y ago
I'm the same way, but this is slowly becoming a non-option. Even the cheap TVs are "smart" these days--it's no longer really a premium feature and just something that every TV has tacked on as a marketing bullet point. If you limit your new TV search to only "dumb" models your selection of options becomes almost comically tiny. Fortunately, leaving the TV unplugged from the internet is still a viable option.
- rsync 12y ago
  Buy commercial displays / signage displays. Like the ones they have in airports. I have a NEC commercial display as my TV. It's great and is built to last forever. Oh and it has no network capability or "smarts" of any kind. It's as dumb as a monitor gets.

crdb 12y ago

I was just at a conference where I had a nice conversation with a new, but already profitable company that builds face recognition for advertisers. Their customer base basically all wanted the same thing: to be able to target ads to the people walking past them, such as at bus stops (it's live in Singapore, if you're wondering). They eventually admitted they were working on voice recognition after strong customer demand, because that was much more promising; the machine vision stuff could only detect things like age, gender and income level. Yes, that's mining the content of conversations in the public space (like aforementioned bus stop) and generating ads on nearby real estate accordingly. Launching in Asia in 2015. Also had a 1 hour conversation in a private meeting room at another conference a couple years ago with three sharp representatives from a certain Asian TV manufacturer that may or may not have been mentioned in this thread. I was stuck by how far they had already gone applying machine learning to their customer activity. They were multiplying their efforts and investments in the space and were very excited about the new generation of TVs that go beyond passively showing you content, because of all the data they would be able to get as a result...

kabelt21 12y ago

must be joking, but yesterday i had watched tv about an hour long, for no reason. i came to the conclusion...i was not the 'targeted audience'...

krambs 12y ago

I wouldn't trust anyone at Comcast to walk my dog, much less spy on me.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]