IIRC it doesn't actually send the content, just a hash of it that can be checked against popular channels or on-demand content. So text contained within a screen wouldn't be identifiable.

They are just feeding image through an alogrithm. Saving it would incur legal problems like copyright and have storage costs.

Most people don't use their TV to look at that kind of thing anyways.

Why are you making excuses for them? They're bad excuses anyway:

>They are just feeding image through an alogrithm [sic]

You don't know that.

>Saving it would incur legal problems like copyright

That's not how copyright works.

>and have storage costs

Negligible.

>Most people don't use their TV to look at that kind of thing anyways.

Irrelevant.

What about when they are hacked/compromised and now an attacker has access to the actual images? Seems way too risky.

If we are talking about what aboutisms what about if they didn't send screenshots and then they were hacked and an attacker deployed a new update that spied on everyone.

Also true, which is why they shouldn't be allowed to join any old wifi network and not try to workaround firewall policies on the network the user wants them on.

That's an entirely different issue, but yes, automatic updates are an attack vector. But that's another step that would need to be performed by an attacker, rather than already having the images available without designing custom firmware.

My point is that making up theoretical situations is not useful. You can make up theoretical situations where it's bad with it and I can make up theoretical situations where it's bad without it.