How long until they start putting cameras in them and doing facial recognition?

Just use the microphone in the smart tv. That's what the CIA does: https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.wa...

Speaking of tracking, non-amp link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/07...

So I found out my neighbors were proud to be participating in some new Neilson study. Apparently they pay you to wear these boxes in your pocket that pick up sound. At the end of the day it syncs what it heard to their servers and you get points, which eventually translates to money.

Essentially the stated purpose is so that it can pick up what music you listen to throughout the day, but in reality it's picking up everything.

Oh so like a cell/mobile phone, but only with the purpose stated out right?

Nah, they get paid to have the box in their pocket, you pay to have your box in your pocket.

Some sort of localised motion sensor would probably be sufficient to tell you how many people are watching without invading too much on people's privacy. You wouldn't know the age, but you already have ton of information by knowing the address and the subscriber already.

> Some sort of localised motion sensor would probably be sufficient to tell you how many people are watching

You'd also have pets captured, curtains flapping by an open window captured, and any toys kids are playing with (like balls) potentially captured as another viewer too.

Meanwhile pap who likes to sit motionlessly while the kids round around him, isn't detected.

> without invading too much on people's privacy

Motion detection feels like a pretty major privacy violation to me.

> You wouldn't know the age, but you already have ton of information by knowing the address and the subscriber already.

Except when you have friends or family over.

Cameras are here and we have no idea what they do with them.

Put tape over it?

They could put an IR camera right next to the remote sensor. Since it's behind a glass that is opaque to visible-light you wouldn't even know the camera's there, and if you put tape on it your remote wouldn't work anymore.

Thank you for giving such great ideas for free to CIA, I just can't help to wait until it's implemented in my next smart tv /s

>Since it's behind a glass that is opaque to visible-light you wouldn't even know the camera's there

If it's opaque to visible light how does the camera produce an image?

>if you put tape on it your remote wouldn't work anymore.

Not really? You just have to be more careful placing the tape. Besides, nowadays many smart TV have app remote controls, or RF-based remote controls so the IR sensor being blocked is a non-issue

> If it's opaque to visible light how does the camera produce an image?

It isn't opaque to infrared light though. The image is still high enough quality to make out people, it looks funny but it is good enough for their purposes.

Most "smart" TVs have cameras these days...