Back in 2017 a security researcher found 40 zero-day vulnerabilities in Samsung's Tizen OS. [1][2]

[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/04/samsungs-tizen-is-ri...

[2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/xy9p7n/samsung-tizen-operati...

Practically every TV does this. It makes them look better in brightly lit shops, and any TV that doesn't will look washed out next to all the ones that do even if they are actually better. Always review display settings when you get a new visual device, even if you buy online (devices are set this way out of the box rather than relying on the showroom making any tweaks, so all purchase methods are affected).

[1] https://gist.github.com/peteryates/b44b70d19ccd52f62d66cdd4b...

Whereas I fall into the "I could, but why should I?" category of people who mostly try to buy devices that don't actively spy on me in the first place (doesn't work so well for modern phones or games consoles).

Same here.

I've three Samsung TVs of various age none of which has been connected to the internet (in fact, only one has that capability). Knowing what I know now I would never connect a Samsung TV to the internet - in fact I'd never buy another Samsung TV set, phone or other appliance again.

The people behind Samsung who authorized the spying as well as those who've attempted to fool testers into believing the specs are better than they actually are have shit ethics - there's no other way of putting it more politely (as this is a public forum, I've toned down my language considerably).

I've been around in tech and engineering quite some time and I am alarmed at how the ethics of engineering people have waned over recent decades. In recent decades, we've regularly seen unethical engineering practices introduced into products in ways that in the past would never have even been considered let alone that would have ever made their way to market. Samsung is not alone, remember the Volkswagen fiasco; now it's commonplace - Microsoft et al.

In this laissez faire environment sans ethics it seems that almost any behavior is acceptable. I often wonder why those in my profession who are responsible for the introduction of such products no longer object to designing them in unethical ways. (If engineers objected on mass to such practices, management would have difficulties enforcing such policies.)

As I see it, two approaches are needed: the first is the need for proper legislation that would outlaw such practices with the aim of protecting consumers, and the second is publicly exposing those who are responsible for them (legislation should ensure violators cannot hide behind a corporate façade). Engineers would object to designing unethical products if they knew their names were associated with them and that they were being held responsible.

Moreover, professional bodies such as ACM and IEEE, etc. should be proactive in this by expelling members found guilty of unethical practices associated with their profession. This would go a long way to stopping such practices, I reckon.

Incidentally, for some decades I was a member of both the IEEE and ACM and I withdrew from their membership because they failed to uphold their own ethics. Especially the IEEE, it rarely, if ever, questioned unethical and questionable engineering practices. It seems to me these organizations should be embarrassed into actively doing something to stop the slide in ethics amongst their members.

I'm also of the opinion that we need some deep research into exactly what has happened to the engineering ethos over past decades. Laws and sanctions as mentioned above may provide a partial solution but finding the underlying cause and rectifying it is clearly the ideal one.

Isn't this a gross violation of privacy and be clearly illegal? I could be playing my home videos with very private content. Add to that copyright violation if they are using screenshots of my content for commercial purposes.

The bigger danger is that you could be watching something on a streaming system that could land you in jail in an authoritarian country. No amount of HTTPS encryption or VPNs will save you if the decoded image is sent raw back to Samsung — where it is not safe and secure!

Now I have the internet disabled on it and just use an Xbox for smart stuff, will probably get an Apple TV next time they upgrade it.

Mind you, the Xbox does just as much snooping, but at least the Xbox fetches updates over encrypted channels and doesn't let anyone on the same network have root access to the TV's linux installation.

The best thing to do is not support this immoral garbage through apathy or ignorance.

I'm not saying they wouldn't do it but I'd prefer some proof before judging them (without having to shell out to be the guinea pig).

If you're really concerned about proof, just go to a hifi store and turn on your mobile hotspot without a password - I bet you could get a TV somewhere to connect with minimal effort.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190521054343/https://www.reddi...

The reason there are likely so few reports is because a)open wifi networks are very rare b)you can't really tell that the TV has done it, until it shows its hand (as in the case above, notifying the user that it auto-updated itself.)

If it’s not showing you ads, it might not be connected. It could still be connected and performing all sorts of shenanigans without necessarily showing you any ads.

When we have proof of one manufacturer connecting to an open wi-fi network to send its snooping data, we’ll have a a reckoning on our hands. I guarantee it.

Wireless networking is something I usually avoid in a technical capacity, but this seems like something worth messing around with (and reporting back on).

Then she sat down nearby and used her iPhone. Immediately a message popped up on the monitor telling her it had detected her iPhone and did she want to set up some app or remote thing

It was incredibly creepy and I imagine it was implemented by scanning for nearby Bluetooth devices

Yes, this should not be necessary, but actual legislated protections for this kind of behaviour don't exist, and aren't even being discussed at any high-enough level that makes it appear that action may be closer than a decade away (unless maybe in Europe, in which case may be only five years away).

I personally use an Apple TV for this, but in general this can be frustrating for users that just want their Smart TV to work without spying on them or implementing centrally triggered scheduled obsolescence.

This is a bit like saying you should "never" turn on your new car's engine and should immediately swap it out for a third-party one, because every knows Manufacturer X leaves ticking time bombs in their engines.

This is why consumer protection agencies are created by governments!

I don’t think it’s at all like that.

If anything, it’s more like saying don’t use your car’s built-in navigation, and instead, use another connected device for navigation.

The engine is a critical part of a car — without it, it can’t function. Period.

A TV doesn’t have to be smart to operate it, and you can’t buy a TV without it, even though it’s 100% not necessary, especially if you already have another device for that.

Again, it’s like cars with navigation — completely unnecessary, especially if you have another device for that.

Imo nothing beats a laptop with a wireless mouse and keyboard. So much better than a shitty remote. Browsers and Google are familiar. Can also do games. Can access whatever sites you want or things the smart device wouldn’t approve of. All of these devices like Apple TV and fire sticks seem pretty dumb to me.

Cost of chromecast+remote: $30

Cost of secondhand laptop + wireless keyboard/mouse: $250

To me it’s an obvious choice.

- Most people don't know what they're missing re: clunky interface controls

- Most people want a single feature-complete device that doesn't take up an HDMI port or require another set of cables to connect (yes, that's trivial, even enjoyable, for 'us', but 'they' are not 'us').

Enjoy them while they last (see Part III): https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fifth-circuit-decision-...

I also had a Fire Stick and a Roku but refused to keep using them after reading their privacy policies (their UIs are also complete and utter trash, they are so terrible compared to Apple TV)

I think the advice to never allow a screen to connect to Wi-Fi is reasonable, and I tell my family the same. In the past I have give them old Apple TVs or help them set one up to ensure that they are not allowing spyware on their network

Agreed that this needs to be handled by government, as the level of data abuse by these companies is unacceptable

If all you want is a TV (as in, connecting to an antenna and tuning to over-the-air channels), you don't need any "smarts".

(The main difference between a TV and a monitor is that a TV has a tuner, while a monitor doesn't.)

You don't feel the same about FAANG? And by state-level spy agencies you mean government spy agencies, or something else?

At minimum it would require consent

Source / Proof?

I just recently upgraded my LG B8 OLED TV to a C9 model by switching out the main board with one I got from eBay. Now I have 4K@120Hz, HDMI 2.1, and VRR ;)

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

What a weird thing to say. Are you suggesting that it's fine that FAANG companies also spy on you mercilessly, because their security is ostensibly better?

BTW, I'm pretty sure the only Samsung TVs that are five figures are the 98" beasts. My 75" QN90A was $1600, and the middle tier models are much cheaper and look great.

This doesn't parse. It's like saying 'this apple is rotten but it's fine'.

If the apple is rotten, then it is not fine.

If the television has annoying ads, then it is not fine.

"Hey earlier today you fell down, how's your elbow feeling?"

"Not too bad, it's annoying but it's fine"

The use of double negatives stood out as something more commonly used in British English however I accept it was a very small sample size!

It's up to you how you feel about the privacy issue, of course, but that's not how risk works. It's additive. The fact that you take other risks, bigger or smaller, doesn't rationally change the value of this risk.