Samsung's Smart TVs Are Collecting And Storing Your Private Conversations
from the I-hear-the-secrets-that-you-keep/when-you-talk-by-the-TV dept
Guess who's eavesdropping on you now? It's not some nefarious government agency (although, rest assured, there has been no downturn in surveillance). Nope, it's that smart TV you paid good money for and invited into your home.The "now" is misleading. Smart TVs have been doing this ever since manufacturers decided customers preferred to order their electronics around orally, rather than using the remote they can never find. And that's just the "eavesdropping" part. Most smart TVs are harvesting plenty of data on top of that, including viewing habits, search terms, browsing history… pretty much anything that makes a TV "smart" is collected and transmitted not just to the manufacturer, but to plenty of unknown third parties. Usually, this information is used to send "relevant ads" to TV owners, as if the several hundred dollars spent on the device wasn't enough of a revenue stream.
Samsung -- which is currently catching a lot of internet heat for its so-called "Privacy Policy" -- is no exception. It's the wording used that's making it the target du jour, turning other recent privacy policy villains (LG: "agree to share damn near everything or enjoy your super-expensive 'stupid' TV"; Microsoft: "why don't we just treat your living room like a movie theater and use our camera technology to count heads and charge increased VOD 'admission'") into distant memories.
Under "Voice recognition," Samsung's privacy policy says this:
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.Obviously, some very temporary "collection" and "transmission" needs to take place to allow a third party service to "recognize" the user's voice and ensure the smart TV does what it's told. But Samsung also collects and captures these communications... and it doesn't really say how, where or for how long these are stored.
The EFF's Parker Higgins noted that Samsung's voice recognition policy sounds eerily like the description of "telescreens" from George Orwell's really-not-supposed-to-be-a-blueprint-for-the-future 1984.
Left: Samsung SmartTV privacy policy, warning users not to discuss personal info in front of their TV
Right: 1984 pic.twitter.com/osywjYKV3W
— Parker Higgins (@xor) February 8, 2015
Compare Samsung's wording...
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.with Orwell's:
The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment…Fun stuff. The only thing missing from the scenario is a government intermediary. But it's not much a stretch to insert one.
You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.
It could certainly be construed that any personal communications collected and stored by Samsung would fall under the Third Party Doctrine. If a government agency (local law enforcement, FBI, etc.) wishes to acquire these, they wouldn't face much of a challenge because of the lowered expectation of privacy. If Suspect X is viewed carrying a Samsung smart TV into his home, law enforcement could issue a subpoena to Samsung to acquire any voice recordings it had collected from that device. Eavesdropping by proxy. Discuss a drug deal in front of the TV? Here come the cops. No warrants or wiretaps needed.
This hypothetical would require law enforcement to know the device's ID number, something that would be hard to obtain without an actual search warrant. In the most likely scenario, the voice recognition data would be collected after a regular search had been completed. Now, previous conversations people thought no one heard could be introduced as evidence against them, thanks to the widescreen narc installed on the premises.
Here's a hypothetical that's even more "fun" to consider: a law enforcement agency is aware certain smart TVs collect and store voice recordings (along with viewing habits, internet browsing history, search terms, etc.) So, officers kick off a gun amnesty program where unregistered weapons can be turned in for free big screen TVs. Now, this law enforcement agency has a small army of hi-def confidential informants installed in numerous homes. All data can be collected at the agency's convenience, using little more than the "unregistered guns must belong solely to criminals" rationale.
But Samsung isn't the only device manufacturer collecting, storing and transmitting its customers' everyday conversations. Others do it, too. Some just hide it better. In LG's 50+ pages of smart TV fine print, it says the following about voice recognition:
I agree that LG Electronics Inc. ("LGE") may process Voice Information in the manner set out in the Privacy Policy and below.And there's your Third Party Doctrine. All anyone arguing for the right to subpoena voice information has to do is point to the User Agreement as clear evidence that the person in question is voluntarily turning over voice recordings to a third party. And away goes the expectation of privacy.
Voice Information refers to the recording of voice commands and associated data, such as information about the input device that is used to record commands (e.g., Magic Remote or built-in microphone), OS information, TV model information, content provider, channel information and service results.
I understand and agree that Voice Information may be use for the purpose of powering the voice activation feature when used to control, receive, and improve LG Smart TV Services and as described in the Privacy Policy.
I further understand and agree that LGE may share Voice Information with third parties, including providers of voice analytics.
I understand and agree that Voice Information may be transferred to, and used by, third party service providers on LGE's behalf in various countries around the world (including Korea), some of which may not offer the same level of data protection, for the purposes set out in the Privacy Policy.
We don't expect our devices to send overheard conversations to anyone other than the voice recognition technology provider. But they do. And they send it (and store it) without providing any specifics about the unnamed third parties, where they're located, how secure these transmissions are (to protect them from criminals -- the other unwanted "third parties") or how long the manufacturer itself retains this data.
The transparency level of these manufacturers rivals that of the government. And that's not a good thing, because it makes it far too easy for them to become willing partners with agencies that thrive on the abuse of the Third Party Doctrine. Samsung -- and manufacturers like it -- need to provide more than vague assurances. They need to explicitly explain what's happening to all the data they're collecting, especially when the collection involves entertainment devices listening in on private conversations... and calling it a "feature."
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: 1984, 3rd party doctrine, conversations, privacy, smart tvs, surveillance
Companies: lg, samsung
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I do think it's a good thing to have a TV capable of reading stuff from hard drives and running applications such as Netflix, Youtube. But honestly knowing this I'm just avoiding connecting smart tvs altogether (or buy without the smart included). Thinking about it, it seems anything that is smart needs to be avoided if you want a little bit of privacy these days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you know it's not secretly connecting to your wifi or a neighboring open wifi and sending information without your knowledge. Or maybe it connects to a 4G or similar network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That way I don't have to worry if I've blocked all the right IP addresses, and I can determine which addresses to whitelist by examining the router logs to see what was blocked when I was trying to do whatever I was trying to do and engaging in a small amount of trial an error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Expectation of privacy was our trust, which they've lost, now theres an expectation of understanding and change, if they ignore that second chance, what is increasingly becoming an undeserved olive branch, then they reap what they sow as far as im concerned.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While the fact that your TV has been "listening" to you has been true for several years...the fact that Samsung is disclosing exactly what it is doing should alleviate a lot of concern here.
I work for a distributor, catering to custom A/V installers, and I ALWAYS recommend that they disable these features. One, they don't work as well as they should, and two, it invades your privacy. Same goes with the "motion controls" that work with the camera. It will be a cold day in hell before I have an internet connected camera and mic in my bedroom or living room! That being said, I have no problems owning a set like this...as long as the feature is disabled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wouldn't that still encourage them, at least from an economic standpoint?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But how can you be sure?
I, for one, will never purchase a "smart" TV without being very, very certain that there's no way for it to talk to a communications network no matter how hard it tries. I have no reason to trust the manufacturer's word that disabling that stuff actually disables that stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
when you disable it, does it disable the mic from obtaining the sounds, from the service from receiving the sound, or the service from returning information?
I believe Verizon has "opt out" features also, but only to the point of you not knowing what is happening.
Or, is this setup like a CALEA service, where you control the UI, and they control the actual functionality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A similar declaration about unplugging your smart TV from the internet is just a few years away, if not a few months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And they wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And they wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: >_
2. How does that deflection absolve Samsung of any wrongdoing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: >_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: >_
I'm going to guess this is the difference, and it's a big one.
Now, I haven't used either service myself, but from what I understand, using Google's service is a deliberate thing. You'll say what you want to be recognised, then it's processed. With Samsung, the issue seems to be that it's collecting information passively, and it's this ability that's causing the controversy.
Correct me if I'm wrong with my understanding, but even if the underlying technology is the same, there's a huge difference between active and passive participation with this kind of thing. On top of that, there's a huge difference in expectation between what your PC/phone is doing and what your TV is doing. What's acceptable on the former may well be controversial on the latter even if they are doing the same thing.
Of course, the guy above has not responded to my second point, which is why try to deflect by raising Google. Even if they are doing exactly the same thing, why try to deflect attention away from Samsung? "But they do it too!" is not an argument that works outside of the playground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: >_
I don't know the details of how Samsung's TVs work, but my assumption is that they provide a verbal phrase to activate voice recognition, like Google's "OK Google" and Siri's "Hey Siri". To do that, the devices have to be listening all the time, not just when you're actively using the recognition -- so Samsung's stuff would be doing precisely the same thing as Google and Siri.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: >_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: >_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: >_
Buy a new phone, or root your current phone and remove it.
same with your $2000 tv.
root it, or buy a new one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: >_
"When you first start Speech, we ask if you want to enable the speech recognition service. If you accept, the words you speak and supporting data, including recent contact names, will be sent to Microsoft to provide and improve the service. You can turn it off at any time by going to Settings Settings icon > Speech and clearing the Enable Speech Recognition Service check box. "
http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/how-to/wp8/apps/use-speech-on-my-phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- listen to me
- talk to me
- be connected to the internet
I'll stick to the remote for the timebeing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christ almighty
That's embarrassing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Christ almighty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they need to stop gathering data of any sort and anything they already have should be destroyed immediately. i suppose a class action would perhaps get the manufacturers to agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would be perfectly fine if all data collection were "opt-in" rather than the crazy "opt-out" that they all prefer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130827/09282724323/not-content-with-gutting-fourth-amendment- government-continues-its-attack-fifth-sixth.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the mic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the mic?
Thats assuming its not something added to specific orders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the mic?
I would advise either—
• Diagonal pliers
• X-Acto knife
Depending, of course, on whether the microphone is a discrete component connected by individual wires, or a surface mount component connected by PC board traces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With so many other devices, "Smart TV" seems really dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've yet to find any Smart TV which auto-connects without the user's input.
There are a few which won't start unless a connection is made, but that's why stores have a return policy.
Oh, and for the record: Kinect has the same kind of ToS and it's been out for several years now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullsheeet!!!
Except they are giving it away freely or by pay to unknown parties. Just exactly how difficult do we really expect finding out your TV model and how to tap it would be?
Not hard at all! Especially for someone that pays a legion of hackers to do nothing but mass attack its citizens private NON STOP!
Block your Smart TV or become a dumb-ass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish this site wasn't so hung up on 1984...
You know what IS the worst-case scenario, to me? Not some theoretical (and admittedly likely!) hobgoblin of the cops, or FBI, or CIA getting their hands on that data. The worst-case scenario is the one that has a 100% chance of being true - that SAMSUNG has the data they're collecting. That a private company - with no responsibility to me, no safeguards or checks, and an explicit motive to monetize every drop of that information would be spying on me in my own house. There is no action the US - or any other - government has taken which is so bad it hasn't been matched by some corporation out to make a buck.
It feels stupid to have to say this, but I will - OF COURSE I don't want the cops, or FBI, or CIA, to have access to this data. OF COURSE I wish I lived in a country where the 4th and 5th amendments were better-respected. But as an average, everyday Joe, I will walk my data over to the NSA myself before I hand it over to Samsung.
Really, though - if you buy a TV, or phone, or whatever, explicitly advertised as spying on everything you say... what else do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wish this site wasn't so hung up on 1984...
That isn't the nightmare that the book (or the article) presents at all. In the book, only a small percentage of people with telescreens were being spied on. The actual nightmare is the fact that you could never tell if you were in that percentage or not.
Just like we have right now in real life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wish this site wasn't so hung up on 1984...
Turns out reality is even worse than fiction in this case... all that's missing is a government mandate to have these in our homes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wish this site wasn't so hung up on 1984...
Except it isn't being advertised as such. It's buried in the privacy policy or other terms, which nobody reads. If this article helps spread awareness of the issue, then it has served its purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wish this site wasn't so hung up on 1984...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would indeed be most surprising if the NSA, FBI, and other government agencies were not already engaged (or at least planning to be) in exploiting a smart-TV's voice recognition capabilities. And the NSA would, of course, be doing this without any search warrants, subpoenas, or other legally-required procedures.
And of course hackers (the kind not working for the government) will do as hackers have always done, and smart-TVs will become just one more entry point to break into and exploit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Note that in the US, it's not even necessary to hack them. A NSL with attached gag order will suffice to cause Samsung to provide a complete feed of everything.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correspondence by paper and pen...right back to where we started. What's next, hand signs? stone and chisel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
yeah, right back where we started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old News!
Check out:
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/im-terrified-my-new-tv-why-im-scared-turn-thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dunno if any Smart TVs come with Wi-Fi. But if so, turn that off. Or don't give it your Wi-Fi password, and hope that it doesn't connect through a nearby open Wi-Fi connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You could test for this: set up your own open WiFi, then look at the list of devices that are connected to it and see if the TV appears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
starts SCREAMING
come on everyone now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breach of law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Breach of law
All they can do is pass some new laws on how that data gets used by private industry. With, no doubt, exceptions for law enforcement and "anti-terrorism."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Breach of law
Heh, laws are for the little people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Obviously"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Obviously"
Personally, I find it very curious that Samsung is steadfastly refusing to say who is doing their VR for them. I think that's an important piece of information -- unless we know at least that, it's impossible to tell how risky using the VR actually is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Obviously"
Well the NSA are experts in the field, and have this new computer center in Bluffdale...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Obviously"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no way in hell that I will ever connect my home to a NET to be spied upon .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nevermind, I would never sing a kp song.
Wait, what if we are having a birthday party and we sing happy birthday (i know, its illegal, but sometimes we take the risk in our own home). Might we go to jail if samsung captures us singing Happy birthday to our baby?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please keep the SMART out of the TV
Reasons why:
Competition and open market. I can buy whatever choice of "smart tv" box that I want. Amazon Fire Stick. Chromecast. Google TV. Roku. PS/3, Xbox, MythTV, Etc. I can even have more than one. Even with overlapping functions. Or even no smart tv at all for those who don't want one.
Competition for the smart TV boxes is important for the future. Just think of what happens if there is a new "Microsoft" of smart tv boxes, and maybe then only one major streaming platform (think "Comcast" of streaming platforms).
The price of the TV is cheaper without building in the smart tv.
If the smart tv box is spying on me, it is not part of the TV and I can get rid of it. It probably cost about $100 which is way less than the cost of the TV.
The Smart TV box becomes obsolete long before the expensive TV does. In fact, the TV might last multiple generations of smart TV box. (This is why I also think buying a computer built into a monitor is a dumb idea.) I can replace the inexpensive smart tv box without throwing out the expensive TV part.
If I don't like the EULA of a smart tv, I don't have to forego the nice TV just because it has a smart TV component with a ridiculous EULA.
Keeping the prices unbundled prevents various pricing games that are played when things are bundled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please keep the SMART out of the TV
you'd probably be interested in project ara if you own an android and not seen it before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please keep the SMART out of the TV
Like I did with laptop PCs, since I swore that I would never buy one that had a camera and microphone. Which means that I might never again buy a new one, since camera and microphone free laptops have not been sold for many years and might never be sold again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please keep the SMART out of the TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please keep the SMART out of the TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please keep the SMART out of the TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please keep the SMART out of the TV
That seems a bit hard to believe, considering that putting one's hand (which is much thicker and presumably more soundproof than duct tape) over a telephone only muffles, but does not eliminate sound (which will always to a lesser degree be transmitted through the back and sides of the device the speaker/microphone is mounted in).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please keep the SMART out of the TV
No, I never did that analysis. I handle my privacy needs another way altogether.
"That seems a bit hard to believe, considering that putting one's hand (which is much thicker and presumably more soundproof than duct tape) over a telephone only muffles"
That's a completely different situation. If your phone has the same tiny little opening that laptop microphones do, then putting your hand over it will have just the effect you describe, but putting your fingertip over the little hole will be incredibly effective. There are sound reasons why this is the case, but that's probably diving deeper than I should in a comment.
In any case, this -- like all security measures -- isn't a case of "it's perfect or it's useless". If an unusual amount of processing is required to recover the original signal, then it's still going to be effective against wholesale surveillance. It just won't be effective if someone is interested enough in you to pay special attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please keep the SMART out of the TV
You mean 'telescreens'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it in the ToS.”
* “The choice for mankind lies between freedom and HDTV, and for the great bulk of mankind, HDTV is better.”
* "We've always been at war with your Sony."
Nobody seems to have done this yet, so I've been forced to give it a try.
(http://i.imgur.com/I2KBdAZ.jpg?1)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take that you spying CEO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Take that you spying CEO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]