The solution for smart TVs is to not connect it to the Internet and attach an Apple TV. Sure they’ve gotten expensive, but how much is your privacy worth?
The Shield sucks too, unless you go super nerd and fix all its problems. They treat your home screen like a billboard, and I have no faith that they're not stealing all my data either.
Warren Buffett has often said, "In looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don't have the first, the other two will kill you."
The exact same logic applies to devices you buy. These companies have shown they do not have any integrity. So why would you want buy something from them that is "smart" and never sleeps?
Because our government has failed to protect us from monopolies or duopolies. How many things can you buy with modern technology that you'd say the brand had integrity?
> Oh, there's a driver update for the LG television. Makes sense, right? It's a fairly recent television, and the drivers will help us take advantage of all of the TV's features. Of course, I'd like Microsoft to download it.
At this point I assume the author was making intentionally bad choices out of morbid curiosity. I can't imagine anyone technical thinking drivers should be required to connect to a TV via HDMI. (or maybe I'm not technical enough)
Back when I first started my career, I generally disagreed. My first job was at a connected device startup in the IoT space. The whole ethos around data was pretty good. Maybe it was because the tech side of the company I worked for was 99% ex-gov contractors (aerospace, low level routers, submarines...).
We collected such minimal information. Basically only enough to allow for OTAs, functionality, and debugging. Thinking back, we could've collected so much more.
I remember when Alexa hit the market and we (as a company) thought there's NO WAY amazon was making any money on them.
Today... NO WAY. Along the way the value stopped being "This product is priced so we can make a profit" and became "The data we collect is more valuable than the sale".
It sucks being in an apartment complex because there are always a bunch of unsecured networks floating around that the TV, or whatever, can connect to even if you don't manually do it.
Would using an older wifi router that you have lying around as a anti-smart device network work? Fire it up with no WAN signal. It's just a radio broadcasting an SSID that you can connect a device to. Are the "smart" devices smart enough to know there is no WAN signal and keep searching for a different connection, or will it be tricked into not being able to connect to the internet?
They are likely going to have access. Lots of things have built in cellular modems these days, and your cable provider already uses your cable modem as a hotspot for other people.
You can do things like physically modifying your TV, or seeing if there are undocumented settings to disable things.
The traffic was separated so that anything on the public hotspot was not attributed to the private subscriber network.
Secondly for years I lived somewhere very remote so that meant that hardly anyone ever got to use my broadband connection via such a hotspot, but I got to use hundreds of other peoples hotspots when I was somewhere less isolated.
I was quite happy to opt in to this system as I benefitted hugely from it.
Yes. Xfinity is the big one. Their devices create two hotspots: one for the customer and one to power their Xfinity WiFi service and for bandwidth offloading for their cellular service.
Major ISPs in the US have been doing it for at least a decade. Xfinity Wifi [1] claims over 20 million wifi hotspots provided through customer routers.
Yes. Cox has been doing it for years. They boast citywide hotspot access for all subscribers. I formerly thought that this hotspot network consisted of dedicated APs which they mount and maintain on utility poles in public places. But that’s just the start.
Every Cox customer has a Panoramic WiFi router that advertises as a member of the “CoxWiFi” SSID, and other customers can authenticate there and access the Internet through your connection. This is on a strictly opt-out basis.
I’ve opted-out, and also my router is permanently in Bridge Mode, so there is no technical way for me to provide anyone a WiFi connection. But all my neighbors do, even if they are blissfully unaware.
The best thing about fibre rollout in my region is that the ONT appears to act as the modem so I don't need to set the modem/router into bridge mode any more.
Plus the DNS spying even after disabling their safety stuff (impossible to change DNS on Comcast Xfinity-provided gateway). Still trying to get as good speeds with my own equipment.
Except... some of us like to stream content on TVs. And some of us really don't like the idea of maintaining yet another extra piece of hardware for that.
And so your TV does need Internet access.
The same holds for many other devices, in different shapes. Sure, you can opt out of civilization completely to avoid all the side effects of late stage capitalism, but maybe it's worth applying a bit more nuanced thinking to find a balance that doesn't throw you back to the 1800s. (Unless you like the 1800s, in which case, enjoy)
If the TV only plugged into the wall for electricity and showed the video that was fed into it via one of its inputs, does that TV qualify as "yet another extra piece of hardware that needs to be maintained"? The only reason it needs "maintenance" is because it does all this extra "smart" stuff. A separate device that has the "smarts" and treats the TV as a bare monitor screen would still be only one device to "maintain".
> Except... some of us like to stream content on TVs.
Linux mini-PC running Bigscreen Plasma. No, it can't be used to stream Netflix at native resolution because of DRM. But if you can't live without Netflix content, you can use alternative sources and save money in the process. VacuumTube for YT instead of the official app.
Yes, this is an additional device, but it is not unlike a streaming stick or Android shitbox.
Well, nowadays the purpose of a TV is usually to watch content over the internet, so I wouldn't call it "stupid" to connect the TV to the internet.
You might say it's naive, but is it really naive to buy a TV and expect it to be a device to display audiovisual content and not a spyware/adware machine?
I feel like it's not the user's behavior that should be put into question here, but the borderline criminal behavior of the manufacturer.
You've got to be careful, though. Consider that they have non-deletable apps, tiny amounts of onboard storage, and that every "app" WILL bloat over time. So, with those updates installing the latest version of Netflix, Prime, HBO Max, Paramount, Tubi, LG Channels™ etc... it means it's filling your 4GB or whatever storage fuller and fuller. Eventually the storage will be nearly full, which shouldn't matter, except that it's a computer, and having storage nearly full makes it slow as shit to do everything, even "boot up" and "change inputs".
A periodic reminder that you can buy a TV that's not smart. It won't be the fancy Samsung wall-art one and it won't be the absolute shiniest display tech out there, but it will be good enough, it'll be dirt cheap, and it won't have a network port or an 802.11 radio.
[Sceptre](https://www.sceptre.com/TV/4K-UHD-TV-category1category73.htm...)'s 4K series is sold at Wal-Mart, often for under half the web-listed prices. I’ve bought a few at the 42” scale for like $180 shipped. They’re fine and they’re incapable of all the spyware bullshit.
Yep! Our family is on our second one. First was 42” and lasted five years. Current one is 55” and is going on seven years. Both were around $200-250. Picture quality is great for us. Apple TV takes care of streaming. And easy connection to our stereo gives great audio. Cheers!
A bit into tinfoilhat territory but just because they don't advertise that they have an 802.11 radio doesn't mean the devices can't have one. Or an LTE/4G/5G radio.
If the user data is worth that much then I wouldn't be surprised if some manufacturers put such radios in their non-smart TVs in order to try and gather such data.
I live in a densely populated part of a large UK city and (checks `nmcli dev wifi list`) there are 14 distinct wireless networks near me that aren't mine. There's a good chance that any IOT device could find something nearby, and there's even a whole load of LoRa nodes that it could use for a very slow uplink.
It's not a matter of "cheap", even the high end Sony TVs have spyware on them by default. The best thing you can do is get Claude or Codex to adb into your TV and uninstall all the malware, then keep it disconnected from Wifi and use an external box like Apple TV to watch.
Just disconnecting from Wifi often doesn't work because the TV will connect to insecure wifi to upload data and fingerprint what you're watching and who you are.
> Just disconnecting from Wifi often doesn't work because the TV will connect to insecure wifi to upload data
Is there any evidence of this actually happening? It's oft stated yet I've never seen any proof or specific models where this has been observed.
It made more sense when I first heard this theorized back in the early 2010s when smart TVs were becoming more common and unsecured WiFi hadn't vanished completely yet. Now it would be way more logical to include a cheap 5g radio, which has also been alleged but I haven't seen any model shown to include one.
Interesting, I knew about these EDID devices to use to pair with KVM for a slightly better experience, but never thought about their use on this perspective!
I guess theyre talking about all the electronics being used to populate the various data centre's popping up about the place. The GPUs, RAM and what not
The reason this keeps happening btw is because we haven't sent anyone to jail over it. Not even when it's clearly criminal, like when Google tracked location data despite opt-out [1], or when LG did what they're doing now but forgot to bury something about it deep in the EULA [2] (we're all totally on board with click-through EULAs having such power, right?)
The 2nd story is crazy - I wonder if I hack LG and start downloading all their trade secrets, when caught, the government would just let me stop the download and face no punishment, if I say I just forgot to ask them for consent. Or maybe it's different if I do the hacking through a backdoored cable I sell them, like they hack us through backdoored TVs.
This is an exhausting read. From the diminishing use of the word “rape” to the steam of conscious delivery to the blogspam cliches of hyperbole and exclamation.
The malware installed by LG on Microsoft PCs and the spying by smart TVs are both despicable. But I couldn’t get through this article.
I find it so incredibly short sighted to implement such shenanigans. I was set to buy a LG 39GX950B as an upgrade to my current ultrawide until I read that they will automatically install an installer that will ask whether you want to install additional tools every freaking time you plug in the monitor. Absurd.
> Hah! I don't have to worry about this! I got Linux! For now.. That's true. But EDID transmission still happens
EDID transmission is how monitors communicate their specs to the computer, how is that an issue?
In fact, EDID transmission is one of the reasons you can plug a monitor into your computer and have it "just work", without needing to install additional proprietary drivers (why do this?)
> But what stops LG from convincing the Ubuntu maintainers to make an LG variant of their supposed driver to magically appear in your snap or apt package repository? You hope to God they don't, but the danger is always there.
So the whole argument there is that yes, it is safe, but there exists a nonzero possibility that it won't be in the future? Couldn't the author have just written "this is not an issue on linux" and saved paragraphs of breathless purple prose?
I don't actually believe the claims of this blog. A driver for a monitor from Windows update allowing mcafee antivirus and/or other programs to be installed automatically? I think more details should be shared. Also contains a long rant about EDID which I think is unwarranted.
It does sound totally ridiculous. Sadly it may not be. Previously discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48956688 "LG monitors silently install software through Windows Update without consent".
You can argue if it actually installs the software or just nags the user to install it, but neither are things microsoft would allow a monitor "driver" to do if they had any integrity.
The exact same logic applies to devices you buy. These companies have shown they do not have any integrity. So why would you want buy something from them that is "smart" and never sleeps?
At this point I assume the author was making intentionally bad choices out of morbid curiosity. I can't imagine anyone technical thinking drivers should be required to connect to a TV via HDMI. (or maybe I'm not technical enough)
That is just stupid to give internet access to a "smart" tv or a "smart" phone. You have zero control over it.
We collected such minimal information. Basically only enough to allow for OTAs, functionality, and debugging. Thinking back, we could've collected so much more.
I remember when Alexa hit the market and we (as a company) thought there's NO WAY amazon was making any money on them.
Today... NO WAY. Along the way the value stopped being "This product is priced so we can make a profit" and became "The data we collect is more valuable than the sale".
On a related note, you should absolutely remove the cellular modem from your car as well.
The smart here really isnt the issue.
You can do things like physically modifying your TV, or seeing if there are undocumented settings to disable things.
The traffic was separated so that anything on the public hotspot was not attributed to the private subscriber network.
Secondly for years I lived somewhere very remote so that meant that hardly anyone ever got to use my broadband connection via such a hotspot, but I got to use hundreds of other peoples hotspots when I was somewhere less isolated.
I was quite happy to opt in to this system as I benefitted hugely from it.
How does this work legally when you get in trouble for someone else's activity?
Is this for real? This does not affect me as I use my own equipment, but I still find it hard to believe.
Instructions for disabling it: https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/disable-xfinity-wif...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfinity#Xfinity_WiFi
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/comcasts-new-neighborh...
Every Cox customer has a Panoramic WiFi router that advertises as a member of the “CoxWiFi” SSID, and other customers can authenticate there and access the Internet through your connection. This is on a strictly opt-out basis.
I’ve opted-out, and also my router is permanently in Bridge Mode, so there is no technical way for me to provide anyone a WiFi connection. But all my neighbors do, even if they are blissfully unaware.
I'm sure that'll end.
And so your TV does need Internet access.
The same holds for many other devices, in different shapes. Sure, you can opt out of civilization completely to avoid all the side effects of late stage capitalism, but maybe it's worth applying a bit more nuanced thinking to find a balance that doesn't throw you back to the 1800s. (Unless you like the 1800s, in which case, enjoy)
Linux mini-PC running Bigscreen Plasma. No, it can't be used to stream Netflix at native resolution because of DRM. But if you can't live without Netflix content, you can use alternative sources and save money in the process. VacuumTube for YT instead of the official app.
Yes, this is an additional device, but it is not unlike a streaming stick or Android shitbox.
You might say it's naive, but is it really naive to buy a TV and expect it to be a device to display audiovisual content and not a spyware/adware machine?
I feel like it's not the user's behavior that should be put into question here, but the borderline criminal behavior of the manufacturer.
Smart TVs are to be plugged in to be updated, and that's it.
Their default state is to be permanently offline.
Hook up an Apple TV if you want apps.
Your statement is false. There are reasons to update.
[Sceptre](https://www.sceptre.com/TV/4K-UHD-TV-category1category73.htm...)'s 4K series is sold at Wal-Mart, often for under half the web-listed prices. I’ve bought a few at the 42” scale for like $180 shipped. They’re fine and they’re incapable of all the spyware bullshit.
If the user data is worth that much then I wouldn't be surprised if some manufacturers put such radios in their non-smart TVs in order to try and gather such data.
I live in a densely populated part of a large UK city and (checks `nmcli dev wifi list`) there are 14 distinct wireless networks near me that aren't mine. There's a good chance that any IOT device could find something nearby, and there's even a whole load of LoRa nodes that it could use for a very slow uplink.
[edit: or whatever UK FCC would be]
I don't know where you are, so I can't say what availability is like there. But it's worth doing a basic search.
Just disconnecting from Wifi often doesn't work because the TV will connect to insecure wifi to upload data and fingerprint what you're watching and who you are.
It made more sense when I first heard this theorized back in the early 2010s when smart TVs were becoming more common and unsecured WiFi hadn't vanished completely yet. Now it would be way more logical to include a cheap 5g radio, which has also been alleged but I haven't seen any model shown to include one.
Checks out, and I mean that in the kindest way possible
What is it talking about? What boom?
If anything it's the opposite, as memory components become obscenely expensive.
The 2nd story is crazy - I wonder if I hack LG and start downloading all their trade secrets, when caught, the government would just let me stop the download and face no punishment, if I say I just forgot to ask them for consent. Or maybe it's different if I do the hacking through a backdoored cable I sell them, like they hack us through backdoored TVs.
[1] https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/how-to-stop-google-from-...
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/smart-tvs-that-send-data-wit...
Connect a mini-PC to provide any "smarts" required.
The malware installed by LG on Microsoft PCs and the spying by smart TVs are both despicable. But I couldn’t get through this article.
Even if they were convenient shenanigans, in the longer term:
Political action > Purchasing Choices > Individual modifications
> Hah! I don't have to worry about this! I got Linux! For now.. That's true. But EDID transmission still happens
EDID transmission is how monitors communicate their specs to the computer, how is that an issue?
In fact, EDID transmission is one of the reasons you can plug a monitor into your computer and have it "just work", without needing to install additional proprietary drivers (why do this?)
> But what stops LG from convincing the Ubuntu maintainers to make an LG variant of their supposed driver to magically appear in your snap or apt package repository? You hope to God they don't, but the danger is always there.
So the whole argument there is that yes, it is safe, but there exists a nonzero possibility that it won't be in the future? Couldn't the author have just written "this is not an issue on linux" and saved paragraphs of breathless purple prose?
A non-cohesive angry rant
You can argue if it actually installs the software or just nags the user to install it, but neither are things microsoft would allow a monitor "driver" to do if they had any integrity.