LG Smart TV Caught Collecting Data On Files Stored On Connected USB Drives
from the if-you-give-a-TV-an-internet-connection... dept
The growing presence of "smart" devices, each one requiring a connection to the outside world, is a bit alarming (Samsung TV zero day exploit, anyone?). The territory still remains largely uncharted and device manufacturers are still pretty much free to decide just how much data these devices will cough up when phoning home.
A blogger (and developer and Linux enthusiast) going by the name of DoctorBeet noticed his newly-purchased LG Smart TV was displaying ads on the "home" screen. He dug around and found more info on an LG corporate page that described the process in cheery let's-sell-some-ads tones.
LG Smart Ad analyses users favourite programs, online behaviour, search keywords and other information to offer relevant ads to target audiences. For example, LG Smart Ad can feature sharp suits to men, or alluring cosmetics and fragrances to women.The endearingly sexist sales pitch attempting to sell other pitchmen on LG's "smart" ad platform/TV makes it pretty clear that LG's TV is very interested in any "interactions" you have with your device.
What the sales pitch failed to make clear is that LG will be grabbing this behavioral data no matter what.
In fact, there is an option in the system settings called "Collection of watching info:" which is set ON by default. This setting requires the user to scroll down to see it and, unlike most other settings, contains no "balloon help" to describe what it does...Not only was LG sucking up viewer data, it was sending the data on each interaction completely unencrypted. This isn't necessarily a huge problem if the data collection was limited to the channel watched and for what length of time. But as the increasingly creepy sales pitch above points out, LG also wants "search keywords" and a potentially unlimited amount of "other information."
At this point, I decided to do some traffic analysis to see what was being sent. It turns out that viewing information appears to be being sent regardless of whether this option is set to On or Off.
At this point, LG already has a bit of privacy problem. Sending data on channel selection is one thing. Collecting and sending unencrypted web data like search terms is quite another. And it gets even worse.
It was at this point, I made an even more disturbing find within the packet data dumps. I noticed filenames were being posted to LG's servers and that these filenames were ones stored on my external USB hard drive.DoctorBeet tested his hunch by mocking up an .avi file that would be immediately distinguishable from any other "normal" traffic. Plugging in a USB stick with the bait (Midget_Porn_2013.avi) into his TV, DoctorBeet soon saw data on his faux porn headed to LG's servers in unencrypted plain text. DoctorBeet (and his shocked wife) also watched his children's names being harvested from the file name of a Christmas video located on another connected drive. [Click picture to open a full size version in another tab.]
The implications of this data collection are huge. As DoctorBeet points out, it's simply an invasion of privacy at best. Who knows what ads LG might serve when faced with a hard drive full of porn? Who knows what it might do if it goes trolling through media files at the behest of publishers, studios and labels? It's not tough to imagine a scenario where "connected" files become bricked because of a perceived lack of license. As we've seen before, companies are seeking to patent methods of utilizing connected devices (like the now-mandatory Xbox "camera") to determine who's enjoying what content for ad-serving purposes/licensing fee extraction.
If nothing else, a "smart" TV shouldn't be gathering, much less sending, file data back home from customers' non-LG devices. The fact that LG does this in unencrypted form is also troubling. The fact that LG does this even when you specifically tell it not to is the sort of thing that becomes the basis for a class action lawsuit.
LG's pass-the-buck response to DoctorBeet's complaints makes everything so much worse.
Thank you for your e-mail.In other words:
Further to our previous email to yourself, we have escalated the issues you reported to LG's UK Head Office.
The advice we have been given is that unfortunately as you accepted the Terms and Conditions on your TV, your concerns would be best directed to the retailer. We understand you feel you should have been made aware of these T's and C's at the point of sale, and for obvious reasons LG are unable to pass comment on their actions.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause you. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us again.
Kind Regards
Tom
LG Electronics UK Helpdesk
Tel: 0844 847 5454
Fax: 01480 274 000
Email: cic.uk@lge.com
"Sorry" if you misunderstood the Terms and Conditions you were compelled to accept if you wanted to use your new purchase. "Sorry" these same terms and conditions nullified your preferences on sending data without your permission. Oh, and by the way, not our fault -- the helpful people with the name tags at your local electronics store should have been intimately familiar with the Terms and Conditions of our entire product line and ensured that potential customers knew they were purchasing a SPY TV rather than a SMART TV.LG's representation may not care (at the moment) whether DoctorBeet feels LG's watching him more than he's watching its TV, but as this story continues to spread across the internet, I would imagine its tune will change. And when that changes, hopefully it will alter the Terms and Conditions as well.
If you have any other questions about our intrusive data collections, please don't hesitate to fuck off and die.
People don't implicitly surrender their privacy when they attach a "smart" device to the internet. There are responsible ways to collect data and responsible ways to protect this data and, from what's being shown here, LG is doing neither.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: information sharing, privacy, smart tv, usb drives
Companies: lg
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
stooooopid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO? Like Google, you "agree" whether want to or not!
So just try to 'plain why it's okay for Google to spy on ME and everyone all over teh internets without any consent or possibility of stopping it -- and Google's "opt-out" only applies to its direct "services", besides that you don't know whether it's real or not either, besides that just flags you as someone to watch, and how can it know you've "opted-out" unless knows who you are? HMM?
ALL SPYING IS BAD. Don't try to make examples of other corporations being bad unless include Google and Facebook and other mega-corporations.
Google is in advertising, not freedom. Advertising is commercial propaganda full of deceit.
03:46:27[d-117-0]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Like Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Like Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I Like Google
Now, that's the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I Like Google
It would be nice if all of that crap was opt-in, but at least there are some ways to "opt-out" if you look around a bit. I'll settle for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I Like Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO? Like Google, you "agree" whether want to or not!
You almost had some points in your rant on the police article today, but buried it in some half-sane crap about police states, video games and how Techdirt aren't posting the article you think they should be posting. You almost had a point here, but decided to turn it into whining against Google (a company whose main services you've admitted to willingly using despite your supposed objections to their ancillary advertising services).
If you want to actually get anywhere here without looking like a complete twat, tone it down. LG are clearly in the wrong. Don't defend them just because Tim didn't whine about Google at the same time. Yes, by trying to redirect attention you are DEFENDING this corporation. How do you like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SO? Like Google, you "agree" whether want to or not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SO? Like Google, you "agree" whether want to or not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's rewrite that headline
That's not really a reach: once LG's sold it once, they can't control who will sell it again. I'm sure every potential child-raping kidnapper would just LOVE to know which TVs are tuned into kid shows in their neighborhood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's rewrite that headline
YEah...pedophiles are always buying information from marketers in order to find their victims!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peek behind the curtain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Brand New Marketing Campaign
NEW LG GET SMART TV. The first device joint approved under consumer's privacy normatives by FCC and NSA.
(/PARODY) - or does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Peek behind the curtain
Some Snowden revelations might not have been "news" if the media complex would have stopped giving Obama a 5 year tongue bath(quoted from David Burge @iowahawkblog on Twitter) and DONE THEIR DAMN JOBS...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
Worse yet here, I'll bet that after the Supreme Court's ruling a few years ago, that LG's TOS state that you aren't allowed to engage in a class action lawsuit against LG and must go into arbitration at your own expense for all disputes, where LG picks the arbitrator (which of course has a heavy incentive to side with LG to get more business).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
But forcing a user to accept a ToS to use a product that costs thousands of dollars with no mention of it existing beforehand is just scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
Add to this a very strong, bad review on the product's web page and you can effect the market for the product and perhaps even force the manufacturor to pull back due to the bad publicity and shame...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
Oh, and most places will charge you a 10% restocking fee, just to make your little tirade cost something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
If we decided to go "let the market decide how we deal with polluters" and everyone decided to just pollute anyway to sell cheaper goods, we all lose, especially since businesses can blatantly lie and get away with it (see misleading Comcast commercials claiming cable is faster then Fios according to experts, experts who say Comcast is blatantly lying).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
However, on this point: " when they update the TOS months or years later and make you agree to them to continue using the product."
I agree wholeheartedly. Once agreed to, it should be illegal to change the terms of the agreement unilaterally, with or without notice. If the terms need to be changed, then another active agreement form the customer should be required, not simply a notification. If the customer doesn't agree with the new terms, then the customer should be able to cancel the service and be refunded for anything they paid for but haven't used yet.
If this renders a piece of hardware they purchased less usable, then they should be able to return the hardware for a full refund.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
The PS3 MUST receive firmware updates to play new games. Every firmware update requires the end user to accept the new EULA. If they do not, then the console is useless. They can not even downgrade to the original firmware.
Worse, this new firmware can remove features. This was the big thing when Sony removed the ability to run Linux on the PS3. The courts found that there's nothing wrong with any of this. You can't even get your money back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
As for this situation LG most likely have committed numerous offenses under Privacy, Telecommunication Interception, and Consumer Statutes (some criminal some otherwise) in the EU and more definitely in my own country of Australia. In fact it's in the process of now being verified here with LG devices and if correct LG Aust are in for a pile of hurt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
"I'm altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it further."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
And it's Not a service if it is an always ON system that cannot be turned off other than by removing the actual connection to the Internet. You purchase a product for specific purpose based on what is advertised, if that product requires extra structures & consideration after the sale then it is not fit for designed purposes and can be construed as false and misleading. Not in the USA no, but nearly everywhere else that has equitable consumer laws this is the law of the land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
I agree, and if you can't read the TOS until after the purchase, then return the TV. If they don't accept the return, sue in small claims. There's plenty of precedent for this sort of thing. It would be an easy win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
This isn't a "service". It is a Television set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
A large-enough group of consumers could band together, though, and threaten a boycott of any business that won't agree to the terms. If we can find at least one that will, things could change.
Of course, that "large-enough group of consumers" should actually be represented by *our* government, but as we know the government conceives of itself in an adversarial position with respect to citizens, not as our *representatives*.
Corporations have the power imbalance: "agree to our (onerous) terms of service" or you get nothing. Consumers should be able to balance that power: "agree to our (hopefully not onerous) terms of purchase" or you get no sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LG SmartTV spying on you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LG SmartTV spying on you
Actually, no. Look up Digital Economy Act, Richard O'Dwyer, ACTA, and David Miranda on the search engine of your choice to find out who is really calling the shots. It's not us.
Now look in the mirror to find the solution. Stop voting the chumps responsible for this state of affairs into office every. Bloody. Time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you fucking kidding me?
My response to LG would've been:
Dear LG,
If I set something to OFF, I expect it to be OFF. It is clearly not OFF, as it is STILL transmitting data. As a result, this is NOT a TOS thing. You have a bug, and you need to fix it - you're welcome.
Sincerely,
Customer doing your QA testing, since you guys seem to suck at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
am going to be in the market for a teevee after the holidays, and i sent LG an email telling them which brand i will NOT be considering...
told'em to FOAD...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Individuals like, say, the ones that are in charge of a corporation? ^^
Indeed. my desktop lacks a microphone or camera (unless I plug one in), myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ahh...
...but for who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ahh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's what's going to happen:
There will be some consumer backlash because of this and LG will probably issue a firmware update that makes the opt out setting actually work. All other TV manufacturers will add similar data gathering to their smart TVs. They will all collect some level of data that you can't opt out of, which the company will assure users is just for statistics. Little by little, the amount and type of data collection that you can't opt out of will expand. People will accept this because no one change will be big enough to make them complain. A decade from now there won't be an opt out setting and smart TVs (as well as other smart devices) will regularly collect and send data on everything you do back to the company.
They will be able to do this because people will have no other choice if they want to continue watching TV. It will also happen because people will get tired of fighting a never-ending battle against the corporations who are trying to erode their privacy and because enough people simply won't care as long as they can watch the latest Honey Boo-Boo reality crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Until yesterday. I turned on the TV and was presented with a new EULA. To continue using most of the "smart" features of the TV (including paid apps---fortunately I don't buy "apps" for the tv), I have to agree to their spying.
So, consumer "backslash" did nothing. Those of us stuck with a TV after the store return window have little choice, and I don't think most new buyers will remember this (or read the eulas).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop the abuse!!
No one buys another LG TV, Fridge, Washer/Dryer, phone, or other electronic device
When they respect their customers then we the people will buy their products. We have the power... let's use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the abuse!!
What about not connecting to it your router? Do these TV's require an always on data connection to function?
What about using restrictive (whitelist) settings on the router firewall to prevent the phoning home part, but allowing the content access?
Is this even possible? I only have "dumb" TV's, so I'm curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stop the abuse!!
Won't someone think of the Grandparents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stop the abuse!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stop the abuse!!
I don't know, but I wouldn't think so. However I wouldn't put it past them to have the TV just automatically connect to any open WiFi network it might stumble across in order to phone home. So it just might connect to your neighbor's WiFi without your knowledge.
Also, I would think that if you do connect it to the net, but block connections to the LG site, that you would get near constant nag messages complaining that it can't connect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the abuse!!
Then it would run afoul of those pesky anti-hacking laws then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stop the abuse!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stop the abuse!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the abuse!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the abuse!!
I think previous poster was referring to the charges connected to allegations that Swartz was abusing the MIT wireless network rules by spoofing his MAC address (or similar).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the abuse!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the abuse!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the abuse!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New from LG!
Not only do you watch your new TV in HD, your TV watches you!!
You! Winston Smith #2059830, why are you not doing your exercises!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, I guess I'll just have to...
Vote with your wallet!
And DoctorBeet should return the TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, I guess I'll just have to...
You think the other TV manufacturers aren't going to do the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, I guess I'll just have to...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh by the way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the security world, one of the important concepts to increase security is reducing the attack surface. This means presenting the most minimal connection to the outside world possible while still accomplishing what you need to accomplish.
People need to take this to heart. As a matter of habit, you should have nothing connected to the internet unless you have a really good, solid reason to do so -- and even then, it should only be connected during the time that you actually need to use the connection, not all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's crap just like this which ensures it will stay that way. BTW, my computer does not have a camera attached, a microphone, nor speakers. It's to the point that yes, you do have to be paranoid as demonstrated by this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nor will I have an appliance that connects to the internet, other than a computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an alternative to a smart TV, you can get a dumb TV, a set top box, and load up a FREE open source XBMC that does NOT phone home, does NOT sell your information, does NOT give you shit, and does NOT cost you anything. Oh, and it likely supports way more video formats and codecs than any smart tv out there.
Why anyone pays big companies anything any more to be spied on just astounds me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security by Obscurity - FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Gwiz
It was in an article I read yesterday but cannot find it now. Hmmph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://doctorbeet.blogspot.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great excuse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attempt to see said Terms and Conditions
Ana: Hello S. Fox. Welcome to LG Electronics U.S.A. Support only. How may I provide you with excellent service today?
ME: I am trying to find the terms and conditions for the smart tv series prior to purchase, but do not see the information on your website
Ana: HI
Ana: What terms and conditions are you referring to ?
ME: the terms and conditions related to the smart tv software
Ana: That is not available in the website. That only comes up in the TV when you are setting it up for the first time
ME: the ones that must be accepted to use the smart tv software, but arent accessible until after purchase of the television, at which point i would be out a restocking fee
Ana: I can email you the TV warranty statement if you want to
ME: So if I am unwilling to accept them because i find parts objectionable, is the tv eligible for a full refund?
Ana: Refunds or exchanges depends of the store policy
ME: so they must be agreed to in order to use the device, but are not available until after purchase, at which point i may or may not be out of money based off of the retailers policy on returning open-box items.
ME: is this correct?
Ana: Yes, you need to agree to continue the TV setup
ME: Is LG able to provide me these prior to purchase so that I can decide if they are acceptable?
Ana: No, those are not available
ME: So I have to accept them to use the product, but they will not be made available to me before I purchase the product. Do you not see a problem with this ?
Ana: That is right.
ME: In other words, by purchasing the TV I am entering into a contract that I am not allowed to read.
ME: Thus am unable to make an informed decision whether to proceed
Ana: You can check with the distributor what are their policies for return in the event you are not satisfy with the product
ME: I can state unequivocally that LG has been removed from lists of potential products. I find this lack of transparency to be unacceptable.
Ana: Thank you for your feedback. I have forwarded your comments to our corporate public relations office
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attempt to see said Terms and Conditions
Oh sure the sellers and manufacturers go on and on about how 'You have no cause to complain, it's in the TOS, which you signed', but they knowingly go out of their way to make actually reading said TOS as difficult as possible, burying any important information in legalese, and only actually showing the TOS at all once you've purchased the item in question and gotten it home.
It's even worse of course with digital stuff, which is increasing in number, as you can't return that, so you either agree to the TOS, and use the product, or refuse, and are completely out the money you paid for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attempt to see said Terms and Conditions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attempt to see said Terms and Conditions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An ideal marketplace relies on good "default" rules of transaction, which means that for example purchasing a certain item does not require any additional terms of service or contractual obligations, certain rules automatically apply. Arrangements like that have served us well in marketplaces we encouter every day (like buying bananas or t-shirts or getting a haircut). Marketplaces where standard rules are uncommon or impossible (like fitness club memberships or telco services) tend to yield undesired results such as hidden fees, arbitrary suspensions of service and so on.
The current trend towards the latter model (many transactions that used to rely on standard rules increasingly and unnecessarily have their own terms of service now) is one we should not encourage or defend. Many markets are far from the academic ideal and lack the ability to punish such abusive practices.
Terms of service are very often to the detriment of the customer, lead to more unnecessary litigation and generally decrease a market's performance by obscuring the facts and restricting the customer's ability to punish bad behaviour. The law should discourage the use of terms of service unless it is absolutely necessary. An ordinary TV or a music album should rarely if ever be bundled with custom contractual obligations.
Instead we should encourage "default" rules for marketplaces that were traditionally dominated by terms of service. For example I see no good reason why it should be impossible to boil down internet access to a few simple standard cases. This would allow case law to accumulate quickly around these few core features instead of being spread out among a multitude of contractual tricks and phrasings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Connect a small computer [Raspberry Pi, or similar] to your network and program it to constantly send garbage info to the LG address that is set up to receive the spy data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pAYING FOR PRODUCT
SO you pay for a Product. $1000.
And it has some interesting features.
It can use CERTAIN features that access the internet and NET services..
I warn people about the IDEA' of a SMART product.
Its a computer inside..do you have CONTROL over that computer?
HOW much protection do you have on your HOME computer? TONS? Good.
And you CANT protect the data in/on that SMART product?
AND it reads your EXTERNAL DATA FILES???
SHOOT IT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pAYING FOR PRODUCT
The Software he is using is optional..Smartshare is run on your computer..
I would bypass this. Just use a remote keyboard and wonder the net tot he sites you wish..MOST dont need this interface program.
ALSO..I could NOT find a TOS listed on their site for any of their product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SmartShare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry LG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now LG is building a database of all file names ever connected yo your tv...
Yep this'll work out fine. o_O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
public networks..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: public networks..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: public networks..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: public networks..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: public networks..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any other makes doing this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just an idea...
--
TAZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would anyone own even a "normal" spyware smart tv?
If you give such people an inch, you've already lost the battle. So ..... scrap the "smart" appliances .... starting with these darn TV's!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ads
Why would I want my TV to show me ads?
It's bad enough that so much of each TV broadcast "hour" is ad breaks rather than "proper" content.
The idea of paying for a TV, that then shows me additional unwanted ads is just bizarre and shows the buyer is being treated as the product.
You being the product may be potentially OK in some circumstances, e.g. you can decide for yourself to use Facebook, Google etc based on your data mining viewpoint, if what you get in return is free, but not when you are already paying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
problem?
Either my reading skills are impaired or you indeed didn't specify where the problem is. You're already been tracked. As in everywhere. If you don't like that watch VHS tapes you paid for cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]