upvote
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