I’m concerned that in the future devices I do not want to be connected to the internet (let my TV) will come with 5g or some other technology and be able to connect itself. I think with IoT and a desire for ease of setup this might be possible if the price of mobile internet drops enough.

Automobiles already do this without your input.

I think the always-on IoT thing actually makes sense for life-and-death fields such as automotive/medical. There are cases where if an update does not reach the device in time human lives could be at stake.

It's definitely not for the consumer's benefit in most cases. No one is going to die because your Smart Keurig or 5G-TV goes unpatched for a month. Hopefully we can avoid the slippery slope and realize that these devices' internet capabilities are not for us - they are primarily for data collection/advertising purposes.

> actually makes sense for life-and-death fields such as automotive/medical.

I cannot imagine a worse idea.

IoT devices are the richest source of hosts available for botnet operators to compromise because they are numerous and famously insecure. Today it's lightbulbs and security cameras. Tomorrow you wish it to be pacemakers and Toyotas?

We already know it is functionally impossible to write bug-free code which is also useful. We also know that attackers relentlessly probe systems until (that is a _when_, not an _if_) a weakness is found to exploit to gain control of that device. It is possible to write provably-correct code, but so far only for somewhat trivial applications.

Until this fundamental problem of software security can be solved, an air gap is the _only_ reliable thing that can protect life-critical software from external remote attack.

>I think the always-on IoT thing actually makes sense for life-and-death fields such as automotive/medical.

But critical components should be designed as simple as possible, and be thoroughly tested before device release. Releasing garbage and then patching it OTA doesn't really work for safety critical things. Not so long ago cars didn't have capability to upgrade (firmware on mask ROMs) and I don't think something horribly bad happened.

Some Samsung TVs already try and connect to open WiFi networks if you don't connect them yourself.

see https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/bpr6xs/if_you_choo...

My next idea - Faraday cages for smart TVs

Or Faraday cages for entire rooms in my house!

Faraday cages around the property line. In LA some people already live in houses hidden behind 25 foot tall hedges. They need only a tin foil roof.

You could always try disconnecting the antenna that goes to the wireless module instead.

Disconnect may not be enough, best is to wire a resistor in place of the antenna, of the same resistance of the antenna, which will shed the attempt to use the antenna as heat.

(I disconnected the antenna on my OnStar, yet found it still connecting to cell towers successfully from time to time. The resister solved that.)

Until they all start doing it.

Real solution is regulation. But that can only happen if the outcry is large enough. Having two revenue streams is always going to be better than one.

All starts with us accepting the idea that the device you paid for still isn't your property, and if tomorrow samsung decides to show porn on all samsung TV's, there is nothing you can do.

... or, you know, when you can't install a software you want on a smartphone that you own and paid $1000 for.

In practice, the samsung TV won't connect to your neighbors wifi if its already connected to yours. So you can firewall away and the TV will be none the wiser. For now, at least.