upvote
It's not "quasi-malware," it is malware.
reply
15 years ago people would've called it spyware.
reply
20 years ago people would've called it a trojan horse.

But then, by standards of two decades ago, every website that cannot legally avoid showing a GDPR popup would be classified as malware. As it should be today. Alas, standards have changed.

reply
> But then, by standards of two decades ago, every website that cannot legally avoid showing a GDPR popup would be classified as malware. As it should be today. Alas, standards have changed.

I don't think you've read GDPR. In Europe (at least my part), *every* organization has a GDPR policy you need to agree to. Your child's school. Summer camps. Etc. Most are also conservative and reasonable.

What's broken is the GDPR popup with a dozen "legitimate interest" toggles for spying on you.

reply
Funny some you can't say no, so I'm like alright guess I'm not going in
reply
There were no cookie popups 20 years ago.
reply
Err, there were, prepare to feel old "Cookie consent pop-ups first started appearing following the adoption of the ePrivacy Directive in 2002" 25 years!
reply
I beg to differ, there absolutely was cookie popups. We also had popup windows, popup ads, java applets that melted your cpu, and browsers with no grid. Oh, and we had Shockwave and Flash…
reply
I think they meant that the use of cookies for analytics/tracking, which is what triggers the popup requirement, would have been considered malicious.
reply
Indeed.
reply
Yes, let's put the Overton window back where it used to be.
reply
It's all above board though, as you, the user, agreed to the terms & conditions for installing said app.

This won't change unless governments create and enforce laws.

reply
Terms and conditions are not the get out of consumer protections free card that you think it is.
reply
They are, unless governments actually crack down.

A lack of enforcement actions has caused situations like this.

Why would LG do better when it's cheaper to not?

reply
Are there laws against clauses in the T&Cs that allow companies to arbitrarily change the said T&Cs? Are there laws against clauses that prevents consumers from suing companies? Unless there are, T&Cs absolutely are the get out of jail free card both on paper and in the real world.
reply
I mostly agree, but it's the lack of enforcement that's the Get out of Jail Free card, not the T&C
reply
It is, though. Why should I not be able to agree, with sufficiently informed consent, to route traffic through a connection I operate via a computer I own using software I've chosen of my own free will to install?

What's the difference between running a Tor exit node and a "residential proxy" except optics?

Look: I'm 100% for banning secret proxies that hide from the user, but stopping people knowingly and voluntarily running these proxies is a violation of fundamental software freedom tenets.

reply
The difference is the user. Your average smart TV user doesn't know what a residential proxy is, hell who's installing/playing the games but children? Consumer regulation to protect consumers from a knowledge disparity that leads to uninformed consent isn't a bad thing imo.
reply
[flagged]
reply
Isn’t this like arguing we shouldn’t have food standards because people should be free to decide what they put in their bodies?

Sure, in principle that’s true.

But in practice, is it really fair to expect everyone to understand the health risks of every possible ingredient?

Likewise here, is it fair to expect the average consumer to understand what it means to host a residential proxy? Or even what a residential proxy is?

reply
The industry has proved again and again and again over the past two decades that surveillance, manipulation, and profiteering is all they care about, and the public is wising up to this fact. "We're screwing you clueless people for your own sake" is no longer effective as a thought terminating cliche and can only create stronger animosity towards the industry.
reply
Did I say that? Regulate the companies that produce the products not the products themselves.
reply
[dead]
reply
We're not talking about people voluntarily installing proxies, we're talking about proxies piggy backing on apps that are marketed for an entirely different purpose.
reply
The article is clear that LG is talking about banning all proxies, even voluntarily installed ones. A smart TV is a computer. Why should the owner of a computer not be allowed to run any program he wants?
reply
That is not the case.

The article is quite clear that LG runs an "app store" where 42% of the "apps" likely contain residential proxies, and LG is going to make its "app store" developers stop doing that. From TFA:

> “A residential proxy network is not an intended use for LG smart TVs, and LG Electronics is working with developers to remove the residential proxy option from their apps on the webOS platform,” Taylor said. “If this option is not removed, these apps will be suspended.”

This says nothing about your own software installed on the TV, should that be possible.

But even if you ran your own software on your TV, would you run a proxy service? Given you already have a residential ISP, you wouldn't need to hook your TV up to a botnet and buy residental ISP access for your scrapers via your own, or other unwitting suckers', TVs.

Your hypothetical of wanting to run a Tor exit node is silly. Most Tor exit node operators run them knowingly on dedicated hardware, usually in a datacentre, not their own home, and prepare themselves legally for when they inevitably get emails from law enforcement, or worse, raided. You'd almost certainly firewall the destinations it can reach, you wouldn't let it have access to your own network, and you wouldn't run it on your TV.

reply
It very much is the case. Your own quote contradicts you. A smart tv is definitely a computer (one of the selling points is literally that it runs arbitrary apps) and LG is declaring that this "is not an intended use for LG smart TVs" and banning it.

There is certainly a conversation to be had regarding consumer protection laws, the nature of an appliance, and the trade-offs thereof but this is not that conversation and I don't think you engaged in good faith with the comment you replied to.

reply
I don't think a bunch of dodgy app vendors who put TVs in botnets is who you should be going to bat for.

Read it again: "LG Electronics is working with developers to remove the residential proxy option from their apps on the webOS platform"

It is working with developers it has a contractual relationship with, and has approved their apps for download from its "app store" -- this one: https://gb.lgappstv.com/main/tvapp

...where 42% seem to be ADDING THE TV TO A BOTNET.

LG TVs form a substantial botnet, and LG didn't appear to know or care.

This is not about a person using their own TV to add it to a botnet (WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?), it's about "app developers" knowing that LG is lax in checking what "apps" do, and putting out trojan horse apps that, if the TV user installs them, adds the TV to a botnet, without the TV owner's knowledge.

This is entirely orthogonal to "can I run my own choice of software on my LG TV?", which is not addressed in the article at all.

reply
Some people do run Tailscale proxies in their home, and an always-on device like a TV is a good place to run it.
reply
It all comes back to this. I pay for the network, I'm liable for it: I decide what comes through it.
reply
> You'd think there might be legal consequences

I own an airgapped LG TV. Does anyone actually want to go class action/mass arb?

reply
Airgapped is harder than you might think. If your TV finds an open network (neigbours?) it will use that one. And it is only a matter of time before they have cellular capabilities too.
reply
Maybe 10 years ago. Very few homes have an open network today, ISPs all ship their routers with random passwords and/or force the customer to create a WiFi password during setup.
reply
> If your TV finds an open network (neigbours?) it will use that one

I looked into this last year while researching TVs and couldn’t find anything to substantiate it.

reply
> Airgapped is harder than you might think

Probably. The LG TV I have doesn't have cellular, but does have a removeable Wifi/Bluetooth module [1]. You have to disconnect a ribbon, unscrew the module and then pop it out.

[1] https://www.manualslib.com/manual/3140596/Lg-Oled83g3-Series...

reply
Sometimes those "modules" are just the antenna, and the Wifi is quite capable of connecting with no antenna at all.
reply
Make it a tinfoil hat :-)
reply
When was the last time you saw a completely open residential wifi access point in the wild?

This seems a little like worrying about getting Dodo poisoning.

reply
> When was the last time you saw a completely open residential wifi access point in the wild?

I have family who get frustrated with their home Wi-fi and about every other year conclude the solution is to unsecure the connection.

reply
I'm not sure Comcast would even let me do that today, though I haven't tried. I gave up running my own home router and WiFi a few years ago, they just made it too much of a PITA.
reply
Aah yes, the ol' "Emergency Wi-Fi Connection" Nintendo uses to make really scary anti-piracy screens where they dial 911 and call the cops on you playing a pirated version of New Super Mario Bros U.
reply
LG's own code is quasi-malware
reply
They've seen the ruckus that follows from controlling / curating the app store experience. For example, see the comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028
reply
That's for a general purpose computing platform that a smartphone is.

This is for a fucking TV.

reply
Phone is now smart phone. TV is now smart TV.

Very unfortunate.

Glad my 2007 Sony Bravia still works, even if only standard HD.

reply
[dead]
reply