Facing Backlash And A UK Govt Inquiry, LG Now Claims To Be 'Looking Into' Its Smart TVs' Data-Slurping Habits
from the oh,-NOW-you're-on-it dept
Before companies expend a ton of effort into managing their social media activities, they should spend some time getting acquainted with how the internet actually works. The net provides a framework for information to spread around the world nearly instantaneously. The lesson here is that there's no such thing as an "isolated incident." You can't just blow off one person's complaint simply because it came from one person. Because it's never going to be just one person. It's going to be thousands. Or millions. [There will always be time later to leverage the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to sell products.]
Case in point #1: geek toy boutique KlearGear uses a bogus non-disparagement clause as an excuse to bill a complaining customer $3,500 and wreck her credit rating. One person who complained translated into a internet's-worth of negative press. KlearGear has no social media to "manage" anymore because it has locked down its Twitter account and deleted its Facebook presence. And it's all because they targeted one person with a supremely underhanded "contract."
Case in point #2: A blogger notices data about files on his USB storage device are being transferred to LG's servers (in unencrypted form, no less and without permission) by his LG Smart TV. He contacts LG and receives a letter blowing off his complaints and suggesting he take it up with his local retailer.
Cut to a couple of days later and LG's tune has changed completely.
[W]hen the BBC contacted LG, it indicated it was looking into the complaint.LG originally blew off the blogger's complaint because, hey, it was just one guy. But it's never "one guy." Not anymore. The story has now been covered worldwide and has caught the attention of the UK's regulatory body charged with enforcing data privacy laws.
"Customer privacy is a top priority at LG Electronics and as such, we take this issue very seriously," said a spokesman.
"We are looking into reports that certain viewing information on LG Smart TVs was shared without consent.
The Information Commissioner's Office told the BBC it was looking into the issue.To hugely repurpose a Bible verse, if you do this to the least of my brethren, you've pretty much done it to everyone. Companies can't afford to offhandedly dismiss single complaints. At the very least, their responses need to be tailored to specific issue rather than just a boilerplate regurgitation that lets the complainant know he or she isn't being heard.
"We have recently been made aware of a possible data breach which may involve LG Smart TVs," said a spokesman.
"We will be making enquiries into the circumstances of the alleged breach of the Data Protection Act before deciding what action, if any, needs to be taken."
And when implementing policies or altering terms and conditions, companies need to think each addition or subtraction through very carefully. Rather than assume no one will ever find out because no one reads T&C pages, companies need to ask themselves, "What would happen if EVERYONE found out about this?" Because the likelihood is that everyone will. And unless your social media strategy is solely composed of unplugging accounts when faced with multiple raging fires, whatever you have implemented at the moment isn't going to be up to the task should you opt to do something regrettable.
The world may be composed of individuals, but "getting screwed by a company" is a universal concept. Nothing unites people faster than outrage. Keep that in mind before you start siphoning data without permission or ruining people's credit record with fraudulent charges.
[Update: Things appear to be moving very quickly back at LG HQ. Just as this post was set to roll out the virtual door, news arrives that LG is issuing a firmware update to fix one of its data collection issues.
In a statement, LG said that its smart TVs collect viewing information like channel, TV platform, and broadcast source in order to "deliver more relevant advertisements and to offer recommendations to viewers based on what other LG Smart TV owners are watching."Now, if it can just get it to stop scanning attached drives and gathering that data as well... Until that's addressed, at least simply turning off the data transmission will keep that info from going anywhere.]
The company's TVs include the option to turn off this data collection, but "we have verified that even when this function is turned off by the viewers, it continues to transmit viewing information although the data is not retained by the server," LG said.
"A firmware update is being prepared for immediate rollout that will correct this problem on all affected LG Smart TVs so when this feature is disabled, no data will be transmitted," the company said.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/lg-smart-tv-snooping-extends-to-home-networks-second -blogger-says/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1984 Telescreens
Once upon a time, a running joke on Usenet was about an email that would give you a virus if you merely opened it. Funny, ha, ha. Everyone knew it couldn't happen. But Microsoft made it happen.
Now we have LG tv's that watch you.
It seems funny that LG would scan your network and also report back file names shared on the local network. No mention of that in their official response? Why does LG want to know what files I have on my local servers within my internal home network?
Maybe next LG will upload one of those files to the mother ship?
Or maybe the reverse. If a local file share is writable, your TV could download a file from the mother ship and write it onto one of your file servers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1984 Telescreens
This is really nothing new. Years ago, Real Player & Real Jukebox used to send the name of any file you played back to Real Networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1984 Telescreens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.wired.com/design/2013/11/what-is-microsoft-thinking-with-these-goofy-anti-google-pro ducts/
On the other hand if you receive a communique from a customer with real data you should send in the assassins or pay attention and respond with at least an appearance that you give a fuck.
Also LG has promised to stop scanning files on USB drives and shared folders.
http://grahamcluley.com/2013/11/lg-firmware-update-spy-tv/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=r ss&utm_campaign=lg-firmware-update-spy-tv
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn, I've grown to hate that bit of boilerplate. It makes it sound as if "more relevant advertisements" is a benefit to the user, when it's not.
The phrase sounded insulting to me when I first heard it, and it hasn't grown any better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "more relevant advertisements"
The phrase sounded insulting to me when I first heard it, and it hasn't grown any better.
"Tech companies large and small have long been trying to use smartphones to connect consumers� online activity to what they do in �real� life. Google is now telling advertisers it has a way to do just that � and it involves tracking consumers� smartphone locations all the time, wherever they go, even when they�re not using a Google app."
http://digiday.com/platforms/google-tracking/
Guess you'll go with the "has permission" excuse for Google's spying, but it's exactly what you seem to object to in the phrase: TARGETED CORPORATE SPYING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "more relevant advertisements"
This is a highly misleading bit of copy. The rest of the article makes it plain that they're talking about using Google's location services data to match up with what you search for in the Google search app. Technically, the location services is not an app -- but it is a setting that can be (and should be) disabled. Google search is, obviously, an app.
All of it is still optional, and can be easily avoided by people who care. Do I think these things should be opt-in rather than opt-out? Absolutely. But still, you can opt out.
You really have no clue what I think, do you? I've never, ever "excused" Google's spying. I probably object to it more than you do, since I go to extremes to avoid it.
What I have said, and continue to assert, is that it is different in kind from governmental spying, and that governmental spying is worse, because you can avoid Google's spying, and you cannot avoid governmental spying.
That is a far cry from excusing anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "more relevant advertisements"
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/google-pay-17-million-settle-user-tracking-allegations-2D1 1620230
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "more relevant advertisements"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "more relevant advertisements"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "more relevant advertisements"
What makes it really funny this time, is that despite Blue always going on and on about how evil google is for spying on you, here they are trying to divert attention away from a company that... wait for it... spies on it's customers, and in a manner that was impossible to notice without a some hefty digging and tech know-how.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "more relevant advertisements"
There's a fractal of stupidity with each of his posts, but I want to make sure he's aware that he's defending a spying corporation first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A while back, we started looking at ways to implement "addressable ads," or targeted advertising like this. I always thought that was kind of creepy, but hey, it's a living. Then the NSA scandals started to break, and that's when I started looking for another line of work.
I found one. Next week is my last week here. After that I'll be doing software to help improve medical diagnoses and lab research. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it *is* difficult to escape the maw of capitalist imperialism because of their dominance and prevalence...
i have nothing but sympathy -particularly for parents with kids- for people who are working for institutions which they feel uncomfortable being associated with, but they have no practical choice...
The Man has us by the short and curlies...
particularly these days, job prospects are for shit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder if the Information Commissioner will be carrying out an investigation on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Held for moderation with absolutely no link whatever in the text. Seems to be happening more frequently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Case in point #3 through 5000: Google, once people wake up!
Kids, I bring up Google so often here because of otherwise near complete lack of mention. ALL SPYING IS BAD, and one can't possibly seriously worry about LG in comparison to Google's core business. So why is there no mention of Google?
Google's ability to target you for advertising is EXACTLY what NSA needs to target you as political dissident, NOT coincidentally.
11:20:24[m-401-6]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Case in point #3 through 5000: Google, once people wake up!
In the case of LG in this story, the data was harvested WITHOUT permission or knowledge, overstepped the bounds of what might be acceptable and served no useful function for the end user (Most people would agree that additional advertising on your TV is excessive).
Google is very transparent about what they collect and how they use the info - LG has been dishonest and overstepped the mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You really couldn't make this stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misunderstanding
LC Proudly Sponsored by the National Security Agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misunderstanding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misunderstanding
Are we sure it's not LC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LG's Data collection is on by Default
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LG's Data collection is on by Default
That will never happen. If they made Off the default, nobody would ever turn it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LG's Data collection is on by Default
This!
They obviously know that nobody in their right mind would agree to it so they hide it. Cunts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LG's Data collection is on by Default
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small Sidenote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why opt-in is better than opt-out
Guess which I would prefer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why opt-in is better than opt-out
Opt in is certainly better, but it's meaningless unless you know everything you're opting in to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
too damn late
really, we've seen their heart already.� with no one holding a gun to their corporate head, you obviously can't trust them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: too damn late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would the EULA have made it alright?
Does the EULA make it alright?
Because I think these EULAs need to be once and for all killed. They are not contracts they are attempting to turn a sale into a contract after the fact. But one that isn't negotiated or even read, and comes after the sale. Without reading or negotiation a contract before the sale how can you have agreed to it?
Then of course there's the NSA. The NSA can 'seize' data with 'compensation' to catch 'terrorists'. So can it simply compel a company to turn on the camera remotely? Onstar listened in on drivers without their knowing so the answer is likely yes, technically possible and the courts don't bat an eye.
So we're surrounded by Telescreens that are enabled by EULAs, and legal doesn't matter anymore because the supplier claims you waived your legal rights in the EULA.
Your phones, your laptops, your TVs, your Xbox, all repurposed as surveillance devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would the EULA have made it alright?
This is having a definite adverse effect on my olfactory apparatus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Would the EULA have made it alright?
EULA's are not worth the paper they are written on and do not stand up in court (at least here in the EU).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Would the EULA have made it alright?
essentials only, version.
"EULA's are not worth the paper they are written on and do not stand up in court (at least here in the EU)."
That's true. I wonder if the "open box" policy of that dealer could be legally challenged based on the fact that the "agreement" wasn't available or visible until said box was opened and the device fired up for setup?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth about the UK "government"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how superior old tech really is to today's in so many ways. No cameras and mics secretly recording, no onerous user "agreements," no GPS tracking, no microtransactions, no remotely erasing things after a transaction was made. Seems to me that the more a company respects people's rights/privacy, the more successful they'll be going into the future. Respect is a two-way street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not good enough
People buy your products and you make a profit. That does NOT give you the right to treat them like sheep to be sheared for a continueing income stream. If you want that business model let people know what you're doing and give them the products.
"The company's TVs include the option to turn off this data collection, but "we have verified that even when this function is turned off by the viewers, it continues to transmit viewing information although the data is not retained by the server," LG said. "
And we should believe this why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second the Tv is apparently scanning network drives and sending those file names back as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want a refund on my spy TV!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]