
I’m Terrified of My New TV - pastycrinkles
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/im-terrified-my-new-tv-why-im-scared-turn-thing
======
downandout
I wasn't particularly disturbed by this article until I got to the following
passage regarding the "Voice Command" feature:

 _" Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other
sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and
transmitted to a third party."_

I don't think there is a prison horrible enough to send these people to. There
is NO legitimate reason that an always-on audio feed from your home should be
sent to third parties. People shouldn't even be allowed to opt-in to something
like that. No one would EVER knowingly allow this, regardless of the
functionality it enabled.

I cannot envision a circumstance in which this "feature" was not put in at the
direct request of law enforcement. I am extremely disappointed that he did not
name the manufacturer of this TV in the article (unless he made it all up to
get clicks). If this is legitimate, he needs to post the manufacturer's name
and they need be boycotted, immediately, forever. Consumers need to adopt a
scorched earth strategy with companies like this.

~~~
jabjoe
No. Government needs to have laws against this. We can't leave it up to
ignorant and fickle consumers. This is a failure of the system of law, thus
government. Consumer action is no substitute. Voting with wallets is not equal
in anyway to voting. And never should be. We shouldn't be trying to herd
consumers to punish companies, we should be asking governments to do their
job.

~~~
sysk
> We can't leave it up to ignorant and fickle consumers.

People like you infuriate me to no end. The fact is that a lot of consumers
are willing to trade privacy for convenience, price, etc. Privacy just doesn't
weigh much in those people's list of priorities. I'm glad we still have a
semblance of free market capitalism because if people like you had their way,
a lot of modern technologies simply wouldn't exist. That being said, I
personally won't be getting that TV.

~~~
olifante
So if the invisible hand of the market "chooses" to create an Orwellian total
surveillance society, that will be OK, because hey, consumers chose it.

~~~
sysk
First, what comes closest to Orwellian total surveillance today is the NSA
mass surveillance program which was created by government, not the free
market.

Second, I wouldn't personally feel OK with that outcome but I would also
recognize that most people do (given your premise) and that I have no
authority over their personal choices.

~~~
opendais
Government elections are pretty close to the free market in the real world for
many things. The better funded candidate wins 85% of the time which virtually
guarantees every political seat is bought [in the free market]:

[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2011/oct/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2011/oct/17/occupy-wall-street/occupy-wall-street-protesters-
sign-says-94-percent/)

Simply because you don't personally have the wealth to purchase a
congressional seat of your very own doesn't change the fact that when 85% of
them are essentially decided by the money spent that they are basically
"buying" the win at that point.

So to claim the free market doesn't create an Orwellian total surveillance
society is pretty much false across the board.

1) In the "free market", you have Google, Amazon, and a number of other
businesses that try to build that sort of capability to profile their
customers for advertising and sales purposes.

2) In the "government where majority power is purchased through the
application of money", we have the NSA which engages in both commercial and
military espionage.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-
braz...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-
petrobras)
[http://www.bbc.com/news/25907502](http://www.bbc.com/news/25907502)

etc.

So when you say the NSA is divorced from the free market, I think you are
delusional and/or ignorant. I find it scary that people don't seem to
understand that the majority of power in government is essentially paid for
and if your sponsors don't like you...the money dries up. So unless you are
independently wealthy [on the scale of being a billionaire] and can just self-
finance every single campaign, you aren't really an independent agent but
instead doing your best to balance who "bought" your vote to minimize the
damage.

------
click170
The only reason I feel comfortable connecting things like consumer network-
connected cameras, TVs, Bluray players, game consoles, or anything else
"Internet Ready" to my network is because I perform outbound filtering, and
it's a big eye-opener to see first-hand what these devices are trying to
connect to.

Luckily most things use HTTP so you can actually filter based on the URL it's
trying to access. For example, permitting software updates, but denying any
kind of analytics reporting.

And with VPN on your phone (especially Always-On VPN) you can filter the
requests from your phone with the same granularity, which is even more eye-
opening.

Outbound filtering is incredibly useful if you value your security and
privacy.

~~~
kibwen
Can you recommend any resources for getting started?

~~~
click170
Every time I say this I feel like a shill because I worked for them briefly,
but Sophos has a Home version of their UTM firewall (0). It has pros and cons,
but overall I think it's pretty good (even after working there).

Some other options include Sonicwall and pfsense, and I encourage others to
post their suggestions as well. I haven't used SonicWall, though I have used
pfsense strictly as a firewall.

(0) [http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-
utm-h...](http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-utm-home-
edition.aspx)

~~~
nl
Any hardware solution recommendations - or things that will run on a
RPi/router?

I don't like the idea of having to keep a desktop/laptop computer on 24/7.

~~~
corford
[https://www.pfsense.org/hardware/#pfsense-
store](https://www.pfsense.org/hardware/#pfsense-store)

~~~
nl
Yeah, I saw that. Not exactly consumer prices are they?

Reading the forums there are some dual LAN Atom based mini PCs that seem OK.

Edit: Also [http://store.netgate.com/Desktop-
Systems-C83.aspx](http://store.netgate.com/Desktop-Systems-C83.aspx) has some
preconfigured options at under $300.

~~~
listic
Those are the same things.

If you do not want to financially support pfSense, you can buy hardware from
Netgate directly, starting from $299. Even cheaper as a kit or with older
hardware, but you decide for yourself whether it will be adequate for you. I'm
planning on buying an assembled APU from Netgate for myself; right now I'm
using m0n0wall on a separate P3 PC (Celeron 1000), modded for silence.
Probably will try out pfSense beforehand, on a separate CF card I just
ordered.

~~~
nl
The Netgate APU2/APU4 devices don't appear to be available directly from
pfsense. They do say money from them goes to pfsense though (and they
advertise them on the pfsense site)

------
bruce511
I'm probably not normal, but frankly I would just leave it unplugged from the
Internet.

At the end of the day my current tv does what I need to do (ie act as a big
monitor) without an internet connection. Given the number of devices already
floating around here for browsing the web, I don't really need my tv to do
that. For streaming I have Chromecast or whatever.

I get that tv makers want to sell me something, but they're really bad anyway
at the convergence - so the best option for me is just to use it as a screen
and get devices to do what I want.

The only real motivation to get a new tv is if the current one breaks. I
replace all the other living room devices a lot more frequently than the tv.

But the point of bothering to read the terms is well worth knowing so I
appreciate the article.

~~~
tmuir
I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They
are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price,
have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few
services.

I suppose the economics aren't as straightforward, but I'm of the opinion that
Chromecast, Roku, AppleTV, etc are the next layer of crippleware. A small form
factor Windows box or a Mac Mini are superior to every set top media player on
the market in every category but price. I've never seen a better interface on
a media appliance. A wireless mouse always trumps a remote. But most
importantly, you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with
Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser. The best interfaces for all of
those services are the full websites. Not to mention all of the other features
you get with a full blown computer.

~~~
freehunter
>A wireless mouse always trumps a remote.

Absolutely not. I do not want a mouse being used at my couch. I do not want my
movie interrupted with Windows Update. I do not want to fiddle with XBMC or
some other hacked together, unintegrated system.

I subscribe to the Unix philosophy when it comes to my home entertainment. I
have a stereo that only plays audio. I have a TV that only plays video. I have
a set-top box that only streams content. I have a DVD player than only plays
discs. The last thing I need is a computer sitting in my living room making
demands of me that are not related to the function I need it for.

I can read ebooks on my phone or desktop, but a Kindle, as a dedicated device,
is much better suited to that purpose. That's why I have a Roku. There will
never be a mousepad on the arm of my couch.

~~~
tmuir
Perhaps Windows would be a problem, but I've been using a Mac Mini in this
fashion for 3 years now, and have never once been interrupted by OSX.

Would you at least concede that everything else being equal, there is no
faster input to start media than with a mouse? Every TV/Set Top remote
interface I've ever used requires at least 3x the steps of the equivalent with
a mouse, because you have a D-Pad. Maybe DVD players are even, but any menu
based system is crippled by design, because you cant scroll or point.

~~~
freehunter
But I don't want to point. That's far too interactive for any media player
design. Even PC-based things like Winamp, iTunes, or Windows Media player,
it's just a list or at best, a grid. I don't need to have more than eight
directions of movement, and just four is sufficient. If I'm going through a
list with a mouse cursor, there's a chance I can move the cursor off that
list, necessitating that I have to then move the cursor back to the list
before making my selection. That's just poor UX.

A mouse is completely unnecessary when you just have a grid or a list, a
directional pad is more than sufficient. You can scroll just by going to the
bottom of the list and continuing to go past that, which is how all menus
work. It's not about how many steps it takes with a remote vs a mouse, it's
about the UX of that specific UI. I don't want a desk in front of my couch.
That's what remotes solve. I have a computer in my office and a media player
in my living room, and I don't want to trade that for anything.

Can media player UIs be improved? Yep. With a mouse? Not in my opinion.

~~~
tmuir
Too interactive? That's like saying a type of food is too healthy. Pointing is
essentially random access. It's the difference between RAM and cassette tapes.
Why punish me for having lots of content?

It is _completely_ about how many steps it takes.

~~~
freehunter
For certain definitions of healthy, food can certainly be too healthy. You
wouldn't want to live off celery and iceberg lettuce, even though they are low
fat, low carb, and high in fiber. Likewise, things can be too interactive. No
one seriously looks at a car and says "if only I could turn my front wheels a
complete 360 degrees." It's only safe to turn them a few degrees in each
direction most of them time. Sure that might mean you need to put the car in
reverse and try again, but at least you don't need to worry about getting
yourself into unexpected situations like starting off with your wheels pointed
straight (but straight behind you). However, I have seen some specialty
vehicles (like some trucks, semi trucks, and forklifts) where these rules
don't apply or only weakly apply.

I'm happy you have the options you want. I also have the options I want. I
don't want a mouse to navigate my media player, and I can't agree that the
mouse is the best option for that use. A mouse is great for navigating a web
page where the links are scattered everywhere or through a document where you
might need to click at any point to begin editing, but for structured lists,
even on a computer, I navigate with the arrow keys (and occasionally
pgup/pgdn/home/endm giving me an 8-way d-pad). My list is straight up and down
and straight side to side, I don't need to go 10 degrees up and to the right.

I use an iPhone and iPad because I don't want to dick around with file
structure and patching and rooting and rom'ing. I use a Roku because I don't
want to organize my own content and make my own media player. I get enough of
all of that when I'm working.

------
pmoriarty
The author is afraid of his smart TV, but probably doesn't think twice about
carrying around a smartphone.

Smartphones have virtually all of the capabilities that make the author fear
his smart TV, only the smartphone is, if anything, even more dangerous because
it is more ubiquitous.

People carry their phones around everywhere, and the phones are usually
constantly on and equally capable of monitoring your every word and action
that you perform on them.

If you value privacy but own a smartphone, you've already lost.

~~~
millstone
Your point about a smartphone's capabilities is well taken. But the TV
straight-up says that your personal information _will_ be captured and
transmitted to a third party.

I value my privacy, and trust (hope?) that my phone isn't transmitting that
sort of stuff. If it did, I think it would be discovered and made public very
quickly, and I would switch phones! But since the TV straight out says that it
transmits my personal information, and I have no reason to doubt it, I'll be
sure to not use that TV, or at least not connect it to the Internet.

We can trust others to safeguard our privacy, as a sort of calculated risk.
But this TV is just saying out loud that it won't do that, so I'll avoid that
model.

~~~
fulafel
Are you not counting Googhle or Apple as third parties?

~~~
mmmm
Do they send sound from your phone to their servers non stop? If so, I'm
switching from iPhone straight away.

~~~
budu3
The Moto X has a "Google Now" functionality where the continuously listens for
you commands. Whatever is ships your sound off the Google server is another
question.

~~~
SlashmanX
That's not how that works. There's something on the chip to just detect
keywords, it's not a "always listening" thing

------
lurchpop
Went through this recently at Best Buy. The salesperson said by next year they
may no longer carry any "dumb" tvs. Currently, those options are almost gone.
I didn't see any dumb tvs over 40" and there were no 4Ks without "smart"
features.

I plan on just blocking it in my router, but who knows if the TV scans around
for open hotspots. If I were a "smart" developer Id store everything locally
if offline, then dump to the manufacturer if it ever does get a connection.
Not my problem if the feds happen to be "selecting" for that dump somewhere
upstream...really not my problem if they have a dragnet FISA warrant for the
data.

Where is that noble hacker who'll make a tutorials on how to destroy smart TV
WiFI radios?!

~~~
51Cards
Simple solution is just don't log it into your WiFi.

~~~
EpicEng
This is what I was going to say. Do you guys really find the "smart" features
on your television to be useful? I just, you know... use it as a television.

~~~
tempestn
I find Netflix and YouTube built into the TV extremely useful. Also the fact
that it has a half-decent DLNA client (which I connect to Plex on my home
server), and can accept screencasting from my phone. I considered building a
HTPC, but realized these features cover 99% of what I would use it for, and
for the rest I can just use a laptop.

~~~
spiritplumber
I've had all these features for years thanks to a netbook with a busted
battery and a projector I got off some business or other closing up shop. The
netbook runs linux mint and runs what I wants it to, and no more.

This stuff doesn't need a butlerian jihad, it needs a DIY surge.

~~~
tempestn
Certainly I could hook up a netbook or raspberry pi or whatever to my tv and
get this stuff, after some amount of configuration and likely some amount of
debugging now and then. And indeed I've gone that route in the past. But when
the TV does it all for you, it's hard to argue that that isn't more
convenient.

Of course, one could certainly rationally choose to forgo that convenience in
favour of increased privacy. I'm just saying the smart features aren't
worthless.

------
georgemcbay
I don't even care that much about my personal privacy and yet I'm terrified of
"Smart TVs" because I spent time working on many different models across
various manufacturers and they are all horrible, horrible devices in their own
ways (some far more horrible than others). I still have nightmares about the
Insignia 'Smart' TV we wrote some apps for while working at chumby, the
Samsung and LG models were only mildly better.

My TV should not require a 30 second bootup time before it can do anything if
powered on cold, my TV should not crash because it has been on too long and
there is a memory leak in the YahooWidgets/JavaScript engine it uses for apps,
my TV should just focus on doing a really good job of displaying images from
one or more sources of other boxes which are small and cheap enough to be
upgraded every couple of years (unlike a TV which I upgrade far less).

Let me worry if those external boxes are invading my privacy or not, but my TV
really needs to be stupid enough that it isn't even possible, if only for
practical reasons.

------
dubfan
I was in the market for a new TV last year, and I found it difficult to find
one that wasn't loaded with "smart" features. I didn't want the smart features
since I already had a home theater PC, which I built myself. Plus from my
limited prior experience with smart TVs, the UX on those is just awful. I
didn't even consider the privacy issues, although I should have considering
the Snowden leaks had just hit the news. Lucky me, the TV I ended up with was
one of the LG Smart TVs that was caught leaking file names from USB devices
(HN thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6759426](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6759426)).

Edit: It was also logging network folders.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778397](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778397)

------
socceroos
Yep. This is reason #1 why I haven't upgraded from my 'dumb' LCD TV yet. Give
me root access and open firmware drivers and then we can talk.

------
r0h1n
The solution to this lies in educating & incentivizing the vast majority of
lay consumers who either (a) don't know what their devices are up to, or (b)
don't care.

But looking at the way people buy ACs and refrigerators, I think a "privacy
rating" of some kind might work. So a "smart TV" that monitors & reports
everything you do ought to get a 1-star while another that zealously guards
your privacy and uses explicit opt-ins may get 4- or 5-stars.

------
sean_grant
Something I've noticed about this however is most tech-literate people who
actually care about their privacy tend to leave the wireless disconnected and
simply attach the TV to their HTPC device which is from there connected to the
internet.

Disconnecting it from the internet and possibly even sabotaging the wifi
module will ensure that prying eyes will not have access to your information.

~~~
api
It's a two tier world that's coming. Either you know your gear inside and out,
or your gear knows you inside and out.

~~~
zanny
What other option is there? Same could be said about how knowing the internals
of your car, or your house, your plumbing system, your electrical connection,
hell even your health all matter because not knowing means the providers /
maintainers / engineers can take advantage of you.

Caveat emptor doesn't go away with time. And I don't believe trying to use the
hammer of legislation on the various hooks of businesses is an effective or
even ethical way to try to "solve" it.

------
squiggy22
In the same vein it's worth knowing the privacy policy of providers such as
BSkyB

[https://accessibility.sky.com/privacy-cookie-
notice](https://accessibility.sky.com/privacy-cookie-notice)

Not many people know that an entire profile about what program's you watch on
your sky box are linked with the websites you browse through their broadband
service to build a profile about you. It's one of the reasons their tv +
broadband deal here in the uk is so competitive. Personalised tv ads are then
served.

------
crdb
I was just at a conference where I had a nice conversation with a new, but
already profitable company that builds face recognition for advertisers. Their
customer base basically all wanted the same thing: to be able to target ads to
the people walking past them, such as at bus stops (it's live in Singapore, if
you're wondering).

They eventually admitted they were working on voice recognition after strong
customer demand, because that was much more promising; the machine vision
stuff could only detect things like age, gender and income level. Yes, that's
mining the content of conversations in the public space (like aforementioned
bus stop) and generating ads on nearby real estate accordingly. Launching in
Asia in 2015.

Also had a 1 hour conversation in a private meeting room at another conference
a couple years ago with three sharp representatives from a certain Asian TV
manufacturer that may or may not have been mentioned in this thread. I was
stuck by how far they had already gone applying machine learning to their
customer activity. They were multiplying their efforts and investments in the
space and were very excited about the new generation of TVs that go beyond
passively showing you content, because of all the data they would be able to
get as a result...

------
joelrunyon
> In the meantime, I’ll be in the market for a new tinfoil hat and cone of
> silence.

I know this is meant as a pseudo-joke and I know there are going to be a ton
of comments here on why the guy is overreacting, but is the tin foil hat
really useful anymore? We have demonstrated proof that things like this have
been exploited on purpose in the past few years.

Instead of the tin foil being representative of the crazy person - it now
almost seems like common sense. Is that scary to anyone else?

~~~
api
If anything, the tinfoil hat conspiracy wackos of yesteryear were far too
conservative in their paranoid fever dreams. They'd never have believed this.

I wonder sometimes: if things like this had existed in the 50s and 60s would
we ever have had a Martin Luther King? Or would such things have been picked
up at their earliest stages by the data miners and nipped in the bud? Would
Ginsburg have read Howl in Golden Gate Park? Would there have been a summer of
love, underground basement punk shows, raves? What new civil rights movements
or fascinating spontaneous emergences of culture are being silently suppressed
today? Is that kind of culture jamming really going on? I really do wonder.

I also wonder about the seeming asymmetry. I see protestors in Hong Kong using
mobile phones to organize, yet over here it seems as if the same technologies
are being used to enforce the most toxic aspects of the status quo instead of
challenging them.

~~~
monochr
The real problem here isn't Orwell. It's Terry Gilliam[1]. From Google to the
NSA you have no recourse against the automated algorithms lumping you in a
category which will never put you in jail but will add ridiculous restrictions
to your life, for example no fly lists.

[1] [http://youtu.be/YeY1dxlC7Sg?t=1m40s](http://youtu.be/YeY1dxlC7Sg?t=1m40s)

~~~
logn
I worry more about the chilling effects. The things people leave unsaid, the
stories that go unwritten, and ultimately the free thinking that never occurs.
In addition, being able to completely data mine all communication gives
enormous potential to control future action (in a similar/same way to how
marketers can influence future choices). Orwell had a quote about that.

------
0x0
Sounds like there would be a market for an openWRT-like firmware hack for
these TVs!

~~~
zanny
There are already several projects that have tried this. Probably most famous
is Ubuntu TV. All of them crashed and burned, because the tv vendors have a
vested interest in denying you your software freedoms on these things.

------
talmand
"Users may have the ability to disable data collection, but it comes at a
cost. The device will not function properly or allow the use of its high-tech
features."

In that case, the best thing to do is to return the TV to the retailer
explaining exactly why you are returning it. If the result of disabling a
possibly intrusive feature is as bad as this person suggests, it's a broken TV
anyway.

------
Tepix
The german c't magazine examined smart TVs and what data they send home (and
how to stop them) earlier this year. Check out
[http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Spion-im-Wohnzimmer-
c-t...](http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Spion-im-Wohnzimmer-c-t-ertappt-
schnueffelnde-Fernseher-2096578.html) if you speak german.

------
driverdan
So what happens if you just don't plug in the network cable or setup WiFi? How
does it gather anything?

~~~
accounthere
FBI van with free wifi goes through your neighborhood, the TV happily auto-
connects to it and dumps all its data.

How can we make the wifi module inside the TV unusable?

~~~
analog31
DDOS it?

I mean something that connects to that WiFi and smothers it with so much data
that no other device can get a word in edgewise.

------
netcan
I don't think we really understand the role or the utility of laws regarding
this stuff yet. But, there are two things that I think need to proceed
regardless. (1) One is user control. My android phone is running all sorts of
stuff that I know about mostly because of battery use. There must be a better
way. App permissions isn't the end game. (2) The second is hysterical public
outcry. Sometimes a cold headed analysis is the right way of going about
things, but… A terrifying and unpredictable mob response has always been an
important tool of societal immune systems.

Highlight. Names & Shame. "Samsung is recording your teenagers having sex!"

I realize there isn't one culprit. That doesn't matter, pick one and deliver
mob justice.

------
malkia
1984, 30 years later.

~~~
nandemo
> Telescreens are fictional devices which operate as both televisions and
> security cameras [... and] are used by the ruling Party in Oceania to keep
> its subjects under constant surveillance, thus eliminating the chance of
> secret conspiracies against Oceania.

> All members of the Inner Party (upper-class) and Outer Party (middle-class)
> have telescreens in their homes, but the proles (lower-class) are not
> typically monitored as they are unimportant to the Party.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen)

------
Animats
NBC News reported this in 2012.

[http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/your-tv-watching-
you-l...](http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/your-tv-watching-you-latest-
models-raise-concerns-f483619)

Nothing happened.

Vizio has a much less intrusive system. Some of their TVs have "Vizio apps",
which can trigger popups on the screen based on the content being played. This
can be completely turned off. They don't have microphones or cameras, just
remotes. Still, the TV does phone home to Vizio HQ.

------
rickdale
I have one of the latest sony televisions. I think of the internet features as
something for newbs. I would never even consider putting my tv on my network.
It doesn't have a camera for facial recognition or the mic for talk to use.
It's a really nice tv though and I can access all the functionality and
settings without accessing the internet. This aricle is a bit overblown, but I
get the point. There is a reason my xbox one's kinnect will never see the
light of day.

------
smsm42
OK, I get the surveillance and all that aspect. But how is it a good idea to
have voice controls and gesture controls for a TV? First of all, I'm far from
the TV. So I'd have to yell to it? Not enough that I'd feel stupid talking to
my TV, I should make myself looking as completely gone bananas? And instruct
everybody in my home, including the dog, to be quiet around the TV lest it
misunderstands and takes something as an "erase all recorded shows" command?
But as that is not enough humiliation, I should also try to capture it's
attention by gesturing at it from my couch - and never again be able to
scratch my knee or turn to the other side without TV switching a channel or
making a permanent configuration to record everything Kardashian-related on
every channel? How that is a useful feature, all surveillance aspects aside?

The article author complains if cameras and microphones in the TV are
disabled, it would not function properly. I say, that's the only way it would
function properly! I'm ok with my remote, thank you very much, and I don't
want to converse with my TV or dance for it. I want it to entertain me, not
the other way around.

------
cclements
You know, reading this and some of the comments, especially about run-away
authority with the “cops making stops to take money” make me think. I recoil
as I’m sure many do about the increasing ubiquity of potential surveillance
technology such as this. I think about the slippery slopes that we have
evidence of (see: patriot act). But then another part of me thinks back to the
“dirty cop” comment. It seems like cops carrying cameras is a strong
mitigation to such behavior. The counter argument that such recordings might
“going missing” when convenient for the officer comes up then. The sentiment I
read often is the solution to that problem is citizens with cameras as well.
And that brought me back to the notion of “ubiquity” again. If and when these
things are everywhere, then they aren’t just in “normal citizen’s” homes, they
are in NSA agent’s homes too, uploading details to the same manufacturer’s
servers, carrying the same vulnerabilities. Of course, there are loopholes and
restrictions authorities can implement, but can they get them all? A good
chunk of my job is penetration testing, and my experience definitely makes me
think not.

~~~
GFischer
"The counter argument that such recordings might “going missing” when
convenient for the officer comes up then"

That's because it's what it is happening right now. See last week's trending
HN story, especially the "the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the
recording devices malfunctioned" bit (yeah, sure):

[http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359725475/can-authorities-
cut-...](http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359725475/can-authorities-cut-off-
utilities-and-pose-as-repairmen-to-search-a-home)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8527469](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8527469)

------
kimburgess
For those looking for a modern TV that doesn't have the 'smart' feature set
have a look into into commercial grade panels. They are manufactured for
digital signage and usage in meeting room / corporate environments. Generally
they will not come with a on-board tuner but for those who can stand free to
air programming this can be added with an external tuner for < $100.

~~~
scdoshi
Interesting idea. Any recommendations?

~~~
buro9
I liked the idea too so just looked around, the NECs seem particularly good,
for example:

[http://www.necdisplay.com/p/large--screen-
displays/e464](http://www.necdisplay.com/p/large--screen-displays/e464)

A 46" display, for $769, 1080p and 3 x HDMI inputs and all of the necessary
sound inputs and outputs. Additionally it's relatively low-power and doesn't
actually look bad.

I can see me buying something like this in future, it fits with how I use TV
anyway, feeding HDMI inputs into it and just considering it a display for
other devices.

~~~
flyinghamster
I like the commercial display idea as well. They probably could have saved
some money by not bothering with a tuner, though. At least it isn't full of
spy crap, and, being a commercial-grade display, ought to last a good long
time.

I have one of NEC's 24" monitors (one of the few 1920x1200 panels I could find
on the shelf at the time I bought it - 16:10 FTW), and I love it. Aside from
my preferred 16:10, the other thing I love about it is that it's matte instead
of glossy. Glossy monitors, along with chiclet keyboards, have got to go.

------
mariusz79
It's important to remember that these privacy violations are not only building
a profile of each and everyone of us.

/rant mode on It's likely that it's all about controlling us, and using our
profiles to adjust not only our spending habits but also our lives. Just
imagine how companies like Google, who have almost unlimited access to our
data could show you progressively more left or right-leaning websites in
response to your queries. Your Netflix, Amazon, Youtube suggestions are
keeping you in a bubble of thinks and ideas you already know and like. And if
you always go with these suggestions it will be extremely easy to adjust them
slightly every time to push you in a direction that corporations and
governments prefer.

We know that the filter bubble already exists, but do they adjust that bubble
to their needs? If you're quick to say that this is unlikely, just think about
advertisement. Isn't making us want to buy or do something main goal of
advertisement?

Of course I don't think that there is some kind of conspiracy to convert
everyone to be a tree-hugging left-wing fanatic, but if we have corporations
with as much power over our lives as Google, Facebook or Apple it will be easy
for them to slightly push us in a direction that benefits their bottom lines.
Any company that has power to control our reading and viewing habits has in
fact control over us. Now when they know more about our health and location,
when they can automatically listen to and analyze everything we say what else
is left?

Yes, privacy outside of our homes is gone forever. We will never be able to
get it back under control. But what we do, read, watch and listen to, what we
talk about in our homes should stay private.

So next time you think that the conveniences of having a website or a movie
suggested to you, think if that suggestion is not making you an obedient,
gadget buying drone.

------
transfire
Perhaps we can all just start being someone else. Make up a few aliases and
use those for different accounts. Some mass schizophrenia might really do
wonders. We could make it a "thing" with young people and a rally cry for the
disenfranchised. We could even get grandma in on the act in the name of
"online security".

~~~
lucb1e
> Some mass schizophrenia might really do wonders.

Quote of the day.

------
tlrobinson
If you're looking for a "dumb" TV, projectors may be one of your last options.

I just got a great Sony projector and 92" screen for less than an equivalent
quality large TV would cost. The only other consideration is the size of the
room and ability to limit ambient light entering the room.

~~~
stock_toaster
Computer monitors are getting pretty darn big these days too., and hooking one
up to an htpc+stereo would almost be _easier_ than some TVs!

------
cLeEOGPw
Put a black sticker on it's camera and it's mic (make sure voice commands no
longer work) and problem solved. I don't see any use of facial and voice
recognition anyway. they can send and analyze black screen and silence all
they want.

~~~
kabdib
Microphones are incredibly sensitive. You pretty much need to cut their wires.

------
hibiscus
Realistically the only thing that will ever change the evolving IOT industry
(which is what is breeding the surveillance) is people actively choosing to
buy privacy-enhancing or privacy protective products. Do we really need
internet connected TV's? Does this author ever plan on using these features or
is he just keeping up with the Jones? More importantly -- what does the
average user think? Would they ever even bother to find the privacy policy (if
you can even call it that at 46 pages) let alone read it?

To the author: if you have a problem with your TV, especially if you are
actually 'terrified' of it, perhaps consider returning it and buying a normal
one?

~~~
neurobro
I wonder if there are enough privacy advocates to convince stores to stop
carrying invasive products by buying the product and then returning it, citing
the privacy policy. Question is whether the store would actually stop selling
the products or just change the return policy.

------
pmontra
I have a 10 years old TV (still a CRT because they were better than LCDs back
in 2004, but that's not important). It will stop working more sooner than
later and I'll have to replace it with some sort of smart TV. Whatever I get
inside it I decided what to do with it long ago: keep it off the Internet.
Instead I'll hook it the the very same Raspberry PI with OpenELEC I'm using
right now. If something breaks because it can't call home, I don't care.
Obviously I'll be careful to buy one of the most dumbed down smart TVs on the
market. All I need is the screen.

~~~
carlob
If you have the space buy a projector:

\- They are generally not smart

\- They cost less than TVs (especially by the inch)

\- They don't work well during the day (no daytime TV, only movies at night)

------
ryanhuff
Perhaps I missed something in the article where the television has its own LTE
(or other data connection) to call home without the owners knowledge.

My "smart tv" stays disconnected from the WIFI. Problem solved.

------
uptown
I think the always watching/listening thing is the major hurdle a lot of these
devices are going to have to overcome before a lot of people feel comfortable
inviting them into their homes.

~~~
userbinator
Unfortunately a lot of people are not going to read the privacy policies or
even care about what their TV is doing beyond "it works" and being drawn in by
the promise of convenience and new features... it's to the advantage of the
companies doing this that their users remain as complacent and unknowing as
possible.

This isn't even the government forcing mass-surveillance devices on its
citizens; it's the citizens accepting and installing mass-surveillance devices
themselves -- which in some ways is quite a bit more disturbing than the
government doing it.

~~~
marak830
Well. . . . What if we find the attack vectors, notify the companies then when
they dont remotely patch(or cant/ignore as i assume is the most plausable
option), publicly release.

I have a "smart" tv my wifw purchased while i was away on business, but theres
no way thats being connected.

------
rubicon33
TV manufactures should stay in the TV business, not the advertising, or data
business.

Who's for starting a company that adheres to the moral obligation to not treat
our customers, as our product?

------
dzhiurgis
In communist state, TV watches you.

------
soneca
One more opportunity for my crusade to make the sci-fi webcomic about the
future, the internet and the privacy "Private Eye" popular among HN crowd.

[http://panelsyndicate.com/](http://panelsyndicate.com/) It is a pay what you
want directly from the author business-model.

I won't tell why this story is so relevant to the story because that would be
a huge spoiler. But go read it. It is worthy!

PS: I am not affiliated, just a fan.

------
harkyns_castle
I'd guess they've done their market research on this and I'd also have to
guess they figured it wouldn't hurt their sales.

Which seems odd to me. Having a TV with the ability to surveil me is a foul
feature and one that'd instantly turn me off a purchase, no matter what
protections they put in place. Internet-connected, closed as can be, with a
possibly open mike and camera into your living room... fuck that.

Edit: s/that/they

------
tedks
We need a Butlerian Jihad against surveillance.

You know what will never stop this? Posts on hacker news. Letters to your
congressman (LG can donate a fuqton more to his re-election campaign than you
can). Voting with your dollar (people who know what a privacy policy is are
few and far between).

You know what will? Taking these TVs into the street, smashing and burning
them. Mobs storming Best Buy and smashing the surveillance cameras built into
these telescreens. Bricks through the window of every mercenary selling your
privacy, selling a live feed right to your living room, to the NSA/FBI/creepy
internet hackers.

It's really hard to get people to commit to _sustained_ , _long-term_ action
-- that's why boycotts are not effective and why this trend has continued. But
people are actually angry about this and that anger can be fueled into
displays of acute disapproval. Like burning a pile of spy TVs in the street
and then flipping the cop car that comes to defend the surveillance state and
burning that too.

Pretty sure this will get downvoted because anything outside the blandly
acceptable boring-as-fuck politics always gets downvoted. But just keep in
mind that you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and the power
structures of the world pretty much only respond to Arab Spring-esque events
now. We need to make every digital dictator afraid of becoming the next
Gaddafi.

~~~
ElDiablo666
I'm totally fine with your exciting-as-fuck politics but it will be difficult
to get people to that point any time soon, me thinks. I think the problem is
that when you say things like "these things don't work" you're glossing over
the key to why they don't work: people aren't organized. That's it. It may not
be glamorous or fun like tossing over the pigmobile but it's proven to work
every single time throughout history.

Let's look at boycotts. The problem with boycotts isn't that they're not
effective; they can be. My family participated in a successful one against
Iceland's whaling policies in the 80s and even though I was young, I never
forgot why we did it and that it was right. So what's the problem? They ignore
institutional structures that persist despite our actions. If one particular
corporation strays too far, boycott pressure is effective. Don't forget how it
played into bringing down South African apartheid.

My point here is that we don't need to go looking for new solutions. Good old
fashioned organizing works. It _does_ combat LG's bought politicians--remember
my friend, we still have democratic institutions and we can vote anyone we
want into office. People don't like to be reminded of what really works, I
think. We need socialism. We need to vote them into office and make good
privacy laws. That's that. No need to reinvent the wheel. Then we can talk
about an informal technocracy democratically dissolving the state into
libertarian socialist anarcho-communism.

~~~
authatheist
He already pointed out that voting or writing to "your" representatives
doesn't work, but ypu're still calling for some sort of democratic solution.
Please stop.

~~~
sounds
Actually it's interesting to watch you take the contrary position on an
internet forum, but without a concrete call to action. That was his point:
what are you going to _do_?

I work on a solution to this particular problem every day. I don't just write
on the internet about it.

Put up or shut up.

~~~
authatheist
My "solution" is to wake people up to the fact that we should not have rulers
at all. That's the only way to achieve a non-nightmarish future in the long
term.

People see tyranny creeping up all over the West, for example, but it doesn't
occur to them that instead of asking our rulers to please not oppress us, we
should stop believing in their authority altogether.

You have your activism, and I have mine.

~~~
rhizome
What are some historical examples of "waking" people up to a "fact?"

I'm not so sure lack of belief is enough to dissipate authority. As the old
saying goes, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Within my lifetime, the surest way to invite a tiny war into your life is act
as if political and/or legal authority doesn't exist. Hell, just _implying_
that authority should _change_ was enough to get projectiles and tear gas
loosed in Ferguson MO.

~~~
authatheist
If a large enough percentage of people decide to disregard govts and
forcefully defend themselves against their enforcers if necessary, then govts
just cease to function and exist. I'm not saying we're there now, or even near
a point where that's feasible, but it is one way out.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Good luck trying to convince people to merely get rid of their government. We
need an alternative, and the mere lack of government is not it. It will be
perceived as chaos, and few people actually want chaos.

In other words, even if we don't want rulers we still need rules. We need a
system. Actually, we _will_ have a system, anyway. even "no system" is a
system. It's just not clear how it would actually work at the moment
(possibilities ranges from "Libertarian Utopia" to "mob rule", including "gang
rule" and "local warlords").

~~~
authatheist
We keep having to tell people that having no ruleRs doesn't mean having no
ruleS. If by "no system" you mean "freedom", that's fine with me. Sure, we
need rules and negative consequences for breaking them, but that does _not_
require rulers.

~~~
loup-vaillant
You're different from that straw-man libertarian I once met.

"Freedom" is an ideal, not a mechanism. The question is, which mechanism
promotes freedom?

Personally, I currently bet on democracy. Not representative governments, but
_democracy_ , which we don't currently have. Like in ancient Athens, where
people where chosen by random trial, instead of elections. (Plus a host of
checks and balances, before during, and after whatever short mandate was
given.)

~~~
authatheist
A straw-man libertarian you met?

Freedom just means that no one forcefully intervenes in your life, assuming
that you're not harming anyone yourself, of course.

Demoracy is just mob rule. You'll find it unacceptable any time you're being
forced to comply with what the majority wants. You know most people are
idiots, right? You don't want idiots making decisions that affect your life.
Does that help?

------
TheTaO
TV watching is only one way to consume video. What about YouTube, Netflix,
Hulu? They log all of what the author is talking about. That hasn't deterred
people from spending millions of hours on it each day.

You just don't expect a device like TV to track your viewing habits where as
you are not surprised that various websites and apps will do it. I'm sure you
can disable tracking on TV if you have concerns.

------
negamax
Whole technology setup from a technical perspective seems like; as if best in
the industry got together and wrapped 1984 in a sci-fi story.

------
johnnymonster
This is the reason why I buy the "Dumb" TV version, and its cheaper too. No
reason my tv needs to be hooked up to the internet, have apps, or a
camera/microphone! I just need it to display images, I don't even need it to
output any sound! If I could pay less for no speakers that would be awesome!

~~~
Rudism
I'm the same way, but this is slowly becoming a non-option. Even the cheap TVs
are "smart" these days--it's no longer really a premium feature and just
something that every TV has tacked on as a marketing bullet point. If you
limit your new TV search to only "dumb" models your selection of options
becomes almost comically tiny.

Fortunately, leaving the TV unplugged from the internet is still a viable
option.

~~~
rsync
Buy commercial displays / signage displays. Like the ones they have in
airports.

I have a NEC commercial display as my TV. It's great and is built to last
forever. Oh and it has no network capability or "smarts" of any kind. It's as
dumb as a monitor gets.

------
dsugarman
a lot of these are inherent on the laptop you wrote this with coupled with
using the internet in general.

~~~
Canada
Yes, and any mobile phone. "Ok Google"

RMS was right all along. We need free software, or we will have no control
over our computers. And our computers are going to be everywhere.

~~~
api
But since it's free, nobody will pay for it. If nobody pays for it, it won't
get built.

Free as in beer is the enemy of free as in freedom.

~~~
RadioactiveMan
I don't understand your argument. Some of the most popular software in the
world is free. Linux, Apache, OpenSSL, Firefox and more are used by millions
and got built without charging people to use them.

On a personal computer, there is free software to accomplish any desktop
computing task. How can you say that it wont get built when it already has
been?

~~~
Canada
Those examples you mention exist mainly because interests with money decided
it was cheaper to support communal infrastructure upon which they could build
proprietary offerings. Even if they started for the joy of hacking, a lot of
people were paid good money to make those projects what they are today.

That will not automatically happen for a lot of classes of software. You point
out that any desktop computing task can be done with free software. So what?
That doesn't even matter anymore. It's 2014 and we can't accomplish a
significant amount of mobile computing tasks with free software, and those are
more intimately connected to us than desktops ever were.

~~~
RadioactiveMan
Those projects do have a lot of money behind them. The point there is that
there is room to make money with open source projects. There are business
models besides selling software directly.

You make an excellent point about mobile computing. However, interest in free
mobile software is growing and we'll see more options available to mirror the
demand.

~~~
Canada
Definitely. We've certainly seen great examples of open source projects
turning into successful commercial ventures, while remaining committed to free
software.

What I'm trying to say here is that I hope to see even more business models
that work well so we can get free alternatives in more areas of computing
sooner rather than later.

------
edandersen
Samsung and co ship non-smart TVs with exactly the same panels for hundreds of
dollars less than smart TVs of the same size. Just buy non-smart TVs and
couple them with a decent AV amp and games console and you can replicate all
the smart TV nonsense with other devices.

------
Glyptodon
My only question is why, knowing all that, he still bought that particular TV?
Because when I bought my set I saw all that crap and got the dumbest one I
could fine.

Even if none to be found, I'd totally pay for a large format display instead
of a TV just to save the headaches.

------
ck2
You know you can buy a TV without ethernet or wifi right?

If you think your TV is bad, try powering on a windows phone for the first
time and go through the dozen privacy waivers and turn off all the defaults of
all the data it sends to Microsoft and Nokia. Pages and pages worth.

------
sspiff
This is why 40% of people who buy a smart TV never connect it to the internet,
and over 80% don't connect after trying it once for the novelty after
unpacking.

(These numbers were stats collected internally by a minor TV manufacturer)

------
ilaksh
What if its not connected to the internet (ever) and you build a Faraday cage
around it? Safe then, right?

I'm going to get a projector anyway. Of course, they keep getting "smarter"
too.

------
rlpb
This is why I want all my devices running a full Free Software stack, and give
up functionality for being able to run free(-er) software whenever possible.

------
anoncow
"Stop listening"

Or some other key phrase to turn off and on voice control with a visible
notification light could help solve some of the problem.

~~~
rimantas
and then someone in the family says "Listen to me!" to another family member
and TV is all ears again :)

------
junto
This demonstrates the need for router firmware to be designed so that it keeps
your private data in as well as keeping nasty people oit.!

------
walterbell
Display projectors are more flexible, easier to secure and it's possible to
upgrade the separate media/compute component.

------
fakeasaur
I'm beginning to feel like they should put privacy policies in clear text on
the box, like cigarette warnings.

------
tempodox
Wow, I'd be scared too. Like Mr. Finch used to say, “only the paranoid
survive”.

------
krambs
I wouldn't trust anyone at Comcast to walk my dog, much less spy on me.

------
StudyAnimal
Hope it has a very wide viewing angle, or I will have to get creative when
watching porn.

------
mhb
No mention of which TV?

~~~
grimman
Searching seems to suggest it's a Samsung device, but I haven't tried to
locate the manual in order to verify that notion.

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smart+tv+voice+facial+recognition](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smart+tv+voice+facial+recognition)

------
otikik
When I am terrified of something I just bought, I return it.

------
bduerst
This if a fluff piece.

They write an entire article on why we should be terrified but then they don't
even mention the make or manufacturer of this scary new TV, so we can't check
the details of the TOS. It's the hypothetical smart TV that everyone owns.

They also neglected to mention you could just not connect it to the internet -
you know, like the ancient TV he just turned in?

~~~
vilhelm_s
It's pretty easy to find the TOS though, by Googling the quoted text.
Apparently it's manufactured by Samsung.

[http://www.samsung.com/us/common/privacy.html](http://www.samsung.com/us/common/privacy.html)

~~~
bduerst
It's still scare mongering.

Here's the full context of the personal information, for example:

>If you enable Voice Recognition, you can interact with your Smart TV using
your voice. To provide you the Voice Recognition feature, some voice commands
may be transmitted (along with information about your device, including device
identifiers) to a third-party service that converts speech to text or to the
extent necessary to provide the Voice Recognition features to you. In
addition, Samsung may collect and your device may capture voice commands and
associated texts so that we can provide you with Voice Recognition features
and evaluate and improve the features. _Please be aware that if your spoken
words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will
be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use
of Voice Recognition._

They then go onto say you can disable this.

It's legal speak for working with a vendor to improve the accuracy of their
voice recognition, but by taking it out of context you can make a scare piece.
It's probably why they neglected to mention or link to the TOS.

------
p00b
> I just bought a new TV...The only problem is that I’m now afraid to use it.
> You would be too — if you read through the 46-page privacy policy.

Wish I had the money to drop hundreds of dollars on a product, and figure out
what it does afterward...

~~~
RadioactiveMan
In buying a television I wouldn't fault a person for expecting it to be no
more dangerous than the basic televisions they had in the past.

