upvote

points

by sudonem11 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby duskwuff11 hours ago|
next
[-]
Do you have any specific examples of devices where this has been implemented? Because I've heard this idea thrown around a lot as a hypothetical, but never any concrete evidence that it's been done.
reply
upvoteby _dain_9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Hypothetical is beside the point. The hardware is there, the software is closed and you can't verify what is really happening, so the potential threat exists.
reply
upvoteby duskwuff5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Connecting to open wireless networks is exactly the sort of behavior that would be trivial to confirm the presence of, if it were actually present. You wouldn't even need any unusual tools - just set up an open access point and see if the TV connects to it.
reply
upvoteby kazinator10 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Why would I care that some device to which I never gave a shred of my personal information of any kind (e.g. not logging it into any online account) found an open public network that I don't use and that has no connection to me?

Sure, I would be disturbed that it's doing that sort of thing in spite of Wi-Fi being explicitly turned off.

What is the threat to me though?

reply
upvoteby __MatrixMan__8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Because it's acting with your IP address, so attempts to prevent whatever shady botnet things it gets up to may also interfere with legitimate use by humans on your network.
reply
upvoteby x3n0ph3n310 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
It can record audio, sometimes video, and fingerprint what you watch on it. Proximity can be enough to identify you.
reply
upvoteby mmooss8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
They have your location, and can detect your interests from what you watch, and fingerprint you. Things like this are pieces of a larger, comprehensive picture of your life.

Also, how do you pay for streaming channels, etc., if you don't give it any information?

reply
upvoteby kazinator7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The assumption here is that we don't give the TV any personal information; it's just used as a monitor. The content comes from some other device connected to an input (e.g. HDMI1). (That device may raise privacy issues, but we are concerned with the TV).

Without either doing the fingerprinting from surreptitious audio recording in the room that other commenters mention, or else matching the unit serial number to the purchaser (requiring the retailer to leak personal info to the manufacturer), they can't match the unit's location to our identity.

reply
upvoteby mmooss6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I see. Roku, for example, takes screenshots of the TV N times per second (and sends them home).

Remember that it doesn't take much to identify someone: Gender, birthdate, and (zip code?) uniquely identify ~80% of Americans. From viewing habits, it should be easy to fingerprint someone - Chicago Bears fan; strong technology interest; on your city block; likes AI porn with Lara Croft; home during day Sa, Su, Tu, Th; watches YouTube videos about ...

reply
upvoteby 7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby kortilla8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Samsung TVs were literally recording people with microphones and doing voice recognition. Unless you don’t speak in your home, it will have you identified quite quickly.
reply
upvoteby kazinator7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If we want privacy, should we be buying a TV which has these peripherals? I don't think a TV should have such things, so I would sooner rip out or damage the microphone and camera if I had to get such a TV. The ability to connect to a network could be useful; I'd not mess with it.
reply
upvoteby mcv4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Is that even legal? It shouldn't be.
reply
upvoteby lowbloodsugar10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Because the TV is recording your voice, what you watch and possibly taking pictures, depending on the brand, and it needs a connection to send that information to whoever will pay for it.
reply