Smart TVs Are Like 'a Digital Trojan Horse' in People's Homes (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0175207195
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/10/07/2014216/smart-tvs-are-like-a-digital-trojan-horse-in-peoples-homes
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/10/streaming-industry-has-unprecedented-surveillance-manipulation-capabilities
> The companies behind the streaming industry, including smart TV and streaming stick manufacturers and streaming service providers, have developed a "surveillance system" that has "long undermined privacy and consumer protection," according to a report from the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) published today and sent to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Unprecedented tracking techniques aimed at pleasing advertisers have resulted in connected TVs (CTVs) [1]being a "privacy nightmare," according to Jeffrey Chester, report co-author and CDD executive director, resulting in calls for stronger regulation.
>
> The 48-page report, [2]How TV Watches Us: Commercial Surveillance in the Streaming Era [PDF], cites Ars Technica, other news publications, trade publications, blog posts, and statements from big players in streaming -- from Amazon to NBCUniversal and Tubi, to LG, Samsung, and Vizio. It provides a detailed overview of the various ways that streaming services and streaming hardware target viewers in newfound ways that the CDD argues pose severe privacy risks. The nonprofit composed the report as part of efforts to encourage regulation. Today, the CDD sent letters [3]to the FTC [PDF], Federal Communications Commission (FCC), [4]California attorney general [PDF], and [5]California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) [PDF], regarding its concerns. "Not only does CTV operate in ways that are unfair to consumers, it is also putting them and their families at risk as it gathers and uses sensitive data about health, children, race, and political interests,â Chester said in a statement.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/10/streaming-industry-has-unprecedented-surveillance-manipulation-capabilities/
[2] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CDD-CTV-Report-Oct24-1.1.pdf
[3] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FTCCHairKhanletter10724Final.pdf
[4] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CAAGletter10724Final.pdf
[5] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CCPAletter10724Final.pdf
User tracking is the root of all evil (Score:5, Insightful)
As per usual now, banning tracking will fix it. Take away the profit motive and the surveillance will vanish.
Re: (Score:1)
It's already illegal under stocking laws. We just need the government to enforce existing laws even when they're violated by extremely wealthy people and their pet companies. Isn't the judicial branch supposed to be a separate pillar of the government?
Re: (Score:2)
And so will free services like Google, GPS navigation, YouTube, news sites, and everything else that's now "free" will no longer be free, or will disappear altogether.
Re:User tracking is the root of all evil (Score:5, Informative)
> And so will free services like Google, GPS navigation, YouTube, news sites, and everything else that's now "free" will no longer be free, or will disappear altogether.
Consumer are adults (or many are or should be) and can decide in the free marketplace how to consider trade-offs for costs and services. The problem is that tracking is done surreptitiously, so the free marketplace is not free because the true costs are intentionally hidden. If consumers are fine with trading off privacy for free services, so let it be. However, this is not what is currently happening.
Re: (Score:3)
I couldn't agree more with your posting. The market is perfectly capable of taming this- but that DOES require clear, prominent, and full disclosure prior to purchase/enrollment/whatever. That is what is not happening. Not even close. A click-through EULA full of jargon is not going to do it. And the time to find out is not AFTER buying something.
With the TV example, I wonder how many consumers will select one that has a large mandatory warning on the box and marketing materials that says something lik
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, we all know we're being tracked, and that is how Big Tech pays for the stuff they give us for "free." And we all do it anyway. The minute facebook or Google decides to start charging a subscription in exchange for not tracking you, guess what people will do...they'll go somewhere else that's free (and tracked).
Re: (Score:2)
> ...free services like Google, GPS navigation , YouTube, news sites...
The GPS satellite network was paid for with my tax dollars already, and my Garmin has lifetime maps paid for as part of the purchase price.
Also there's the OpenStreetMap project. Not seeing why a company deserves to spy on me and my travels 24/7 for maps they update twice a year at best.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had a Garmin, and there's NO way I'm going back to it. Google Navigation is an order of magnitude better.
If Garmin or OSM is good enough for you, then you do you. Personally, I'll happily give away my so-called, non-existent privacy, in exchange for the high quality work Google has put into their GPS navigation. Nobody else even comes close.
Re: (Score:1)
You want the Feds to ban software features? I'd start with having browsers (voluntarily) including a "sandbox cookies" feature and easily accessible checkbox in the browser for it. Factually, if you limited cookies to being visible only by sites that set them, bad actors have a lot less surveillance opportunities. However, you see that browsers won't touch this feature and keep backing away from implementing it. They approximate the feature without actually giving it to you and call it something else like "
Re: (Score:2)
> As per usual now, banning tracking will fix it. Take away the profit motive and the surveillance will vanish.
Just a nitpick, taking away the profit motive is the correct idea, but that requires a financial penalty and not just a nebulous banning.
Alternative, maybe tracking can be allowed, but there needs to be a requirement for a flashing red light on top of the TV, along with a $1 penalty for every tracking token saved without the red light.
Re: (Score:3)
> Take away the profit motive and the surveillance will vanish.
You're saying the problem is tracking but the fix is removing profit motive. Doesn't that mean that the profit motive is the real problem?
"Privacy Nightmare" (Score:2)
> Unprecedented tracking techniques aimed at pleasing advertisers have resulted in connected TVs (CTVs) being a "privacy nightmare," [...]
And the manufacturers of these "CTVs" are privacy rapists.
Metrics? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have yet to see anything to convince me that the huge value placed on invading privacy and harvesting personal data is actually backed up be increased sales. I keep seeing it as an 'emperor's new clothes' scenario wherein companies are paying lots of money to harvest the data because 'everyone else is doing it so it must be profitable'.
I could easily be wrong, and I'd love to see hard data one way or the other. In the absence of that, I'm assuming that the whole market for personal data is kind of like that for NFTs. The so-called 'value' is consensual rather than inherent - rather like the value of NFT's, Ponzi schemes, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Same here. I never buy things that I see ads for. Honestly, I'm more likely to actively avoid a product or service with ads that annoy me than I am to try it out. As far as I can tell, "targeted advertising" means I buy a vacuum cleaner and suddenly I start getting deluged with vacuum cleaner ads.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea if I buy things that are advertised to me or not, because I completely block out ads (on the rare occasions I can't fast forward through them, and I don't watch much programming that won't let me do that).
I literally have no idea.
Re: (Score:1)
I also wonder if the potential liability is worth it. If I create a device that's listening inside your home all the time do I now have a duty to report if you beat your wife or if there is evidence of incest or drug trafficking? What about if there is a murder in the house, can a court demand the recordings or the runtime log of the AI listener?
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather see the companies criminally prosecuted for violating wire tap laws in all-party consent states. Yeah, the person who buys the set agrees to it, but nobody else in the house does, and they all have an expectation of privacy.
Re: (Score:1)
That sounds viable. As you point out, the laws are already on the books and the lack of consent is a clear issue.
Re: (Score:2)
> I have yet to see anything to convince me that the huge value placed on invading privacy and harvesting personal data is actually backed up be increased sales. I keep seeing it as an 'emperor's new clothes' scenario wherein companies are paying lots of money to harvest the data because 'everyone else is doing it so it must be profitable'.
> I could easily be wrong, and I'd love to see hard data one way or the other. In the absence of that, I'm assuming that the whole market for personal data is kind of like that for NFTs. The so-called 'value' is consensual rather than inherent - rather like the value of NFT's, Ponzi schemes, etc.
The privacy/ad companies provide their clients the evidence that their marketing dollars lead to sales. Of course, those numbers are necessarily opaque and completely dependent on software and data controlled by the privacy/ad companies. In a strange way, many of the clients don't care about effectiveness. The client marketing dollars are controlled by the marketing folks, and if they don't spend the marketing dollars and promote their effectiveness, they'll soon be out of a job. So, there is a symbiosi
And in things we already knew! (Score:2)
How is this news to anyone? Did we already forget about the company that gave a free TV to people because it tracked what you watched and had a second screen just to show you ads? Hell, Amazon sells TVs that include a microphone "so you can use it hands free" and they definitely are not recording anything else with it.
I don't know I kind of like them (Score:4, Informative)
I get a super huge high quality TV for basically free (literally free in my case because my TV was given to me from somebody who bought themselves a fancy smart TV) and I don't hook it up to the internet cuz I just hook a old PC up to it for any of the multimedia stuff I want to do.
So I get super cheap TVs and none of the advertising or weird privacy issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Same. It's somewhat satisfying that every time I turn on my samsung a registration/whatever screen pops up for a few seconds because the thing has never been connected to a network and has never leaked a byte of data to anyone, anywhere. It cries to phone home and tag everything I ever do on behalf of whomever samsung collects kickbacks from, and their little scheme has somehow failed. Aww.
I will admit having a boot up sequence (Score:2)
For my television is annoying but that was there before all this smart TV bullshit because you have to wait while a freaking SSL handshake is negotiated between my TV and whatever HDMI devices hooked up because heaven forbid anything ever gets pirated so I have to wait two or three seconds every time I flip to a different input.
Non-Smart TVs? (Score:2)
Are there any TV's currently manufactured that are not "Smart". My 10 year old Sharp has some "smart" features, like color balancing but nothing that needs an internet connection, although it has the ability to connect to the WiFi if you want to check for firmware updates, but I only connected once when first setting up the TV and downloaded the newest firmware, then disconnected it. Since it still works, I'm loath to upgrade to a better one (OLED) after reading all the recent articles about the new TVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Here I can find a few models non-smart from white labels, sold below 150 €. I have one, currently sold new 85 €. Someone on slashdot once mentioned that for that price the image quality is not good. I never noticed, but I don't watch movies and for news/talk shows it does the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Why get a TV at all? You actually want to watch broadcast channels? Get an oversized video monitor that just displays HDMI input. Those aren't so hard to find. You can then hook in video sources that are much easier to control. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
> "Are there any TV's currently manufactured that are not "Smart"
Does it matter? Just don't connect it to the Internet and use it as a display, like I do. You might want to connect it once, via wire, just to set up and install new firmware then disconnect it. But the firmware updates are usually just 99.9% about the streaming crap, so it isn't like it will matter.
Then connect the content devices you choose and want to use to display content- things that are mostly or totally under your control. Even s
Re: (Score:2)
They could start putting cell and/or satellite comms in them like the car manufacturers. Then the only option would be putting a Faraday cage around your living room. Or physically removing the networking component, but I imagine they'd design it in such a way that it bricks the device.
Don't buy a "TV" (Score:2)
Get a "digital signage display".
Yes, you'll probably pay a bit more.
Yes (Score:2)
> Are there any TV's currently manufactured that are not "Smart".
I've mentioned this brand here before, but Sceptre offers "dumb" TV devices. I have absolutely no affiliation with the company, but I'm happy with the one I purchased relatively recently, which works exactly as expected.
Kind of like computers and cellphones (Score:2)
And pretty much every other kind of electronic device these days, which is just about everything.
Re: (Score:1)
We need some good solid class action lawsuits to spank ordinary consumer product companies into Chapter 11 to send a message.
One shouldn't need a computer science degree to use a fridge, toaster, or wall TV out of the box. Nor should it require an internet connection to do its advertised job. And features that do need internet should require a big swollen asterisk. (I like big asterisks and I cannot lie.)
Re: (Score:2)
Many of us just don't care as much as you seem to. We accept advertising as a fact of life. This trend started with "free" newspapers and radio programming, then TV, then everything. We learn how to block marketers by not answering our phones, using ad blockers, and just putting up with it. It's annoying, but (for many of us) doesn't rise to the level of a crime.
As for the required internet connections, this is a problem for the free market to solve. My refrigerator and toaster don't have an internet connec
Raspberry Pi as my smart TV (Score:3)
I use a Raspberry PI connected to my "Smart" TV. A 4T byte USB3 hard disk stores my movies. Dumb TV, smart control
Seriously (Score:1)
Where is my shocked look when I need it?
Like that Samsung tv I bought (Score:3)
No ads when I bought it, but to continue to receive security updates and streaming service app updates a year later, I had to agree to Samsung putting ads in the main UI.
Re: (Score:2)
You hooked it up to the internet? On purpose?
ATSC 3.0 (Score:1)
You won't even be safe just using OTA as the new ATSC 3.0 standard, AKA, Nextgen, has surveillance built in. It automatically sends information on what you watch back to the broadcasters.
Not really... (Score:2)
...I ain't seen no Greek soldiers lurking inside no TV waiting for their moment to strike once they're inside the city walls.
They'll have to find a better metaphor to really convince the FTC. For now, it looks like the spy-TV companies are safe from the FTC.
Semi-Old Saying (Score:2)
"Anything 'Smart x' will leave you, your x, and your ex smarting."
In capitalist America... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anyone really surprised by the direction things are going? They're going to keep going this way until we stop letting the media and politicians use wedge issues to divide the American people into tow competing camps, select who runs for those two parties, and use advertising to convince us of who to vote for.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Aside from 401ks the middle class doesn't invest in stocks enough to dictate what companies do. Very few of the (rapidly shrinking) middle class are showing up to stockholder meetings to say, "This thing you're doing is evil, stop doing it or I'll take my $100k retirement account to a different fund". Since the middle class isn't and the upper class won't, the government is needed to reign in the excesses of our version of capitalism. Calling me communist doesn't address this argument.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well pointing out that we live in a political duopoly designed for Divide-and-Conquer by elites isn't communist at all. It's an accurate political observation with no partisanship attached as far as I can tell. There is also a big problem: you appear to be correct on those points at least. If you are a Communist, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean your forgoing point was incorrect.
I'd say the way to mitigate the issue is to keep government extremely small and do as much possible to break up the powe
Re: (Score:2)
The problem also lies in companies, and their default settings. In my home, I use Sony TVs exclusively, and they are firewall'd off from the internet, in an IoT VLAN. All of my media consumption happens on Apple TVs. If they are violating my privacy, they sure aren't getting compensated for it. All of my home devices that don't need to talk to the internet, can't. That is what my IoT VLAN is for, and that is what HomeKit does very well.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh don't kid yourself, your smart TV in Europe (and every other place) does the exact same thing.
Re:In capitalist America... (Score:4, Insightful)
I refer to the old joke, "in communist Russia, television watches you!" and point out the irony of that situation happening in a country wherein capitalism has gone under-regulated.
Re: (Score:3)
Get down off your high horse. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with idiots who don't understand what is going on and/or keep buying this shit even if they do. They move the bar a little at a time so that people willingly give in to a few features that they don't like until we finally end up with this shit. Stop using windows, stop using anything that has spyware or phone home routines and keep your damn wallet in your pants if there is. Simple. The public is the cause of this, not c
Re:In capitalist America... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop using toll roads, they scan your plates and sell the travel data to advertisers.
Stop driving at all, as all modern cars spy on you
in the future:
Stop going to stores as they sell your facial data to advertisers
Stop sending your kids to school as public schools now sell your children's data to advertisers so they can pre-emptively build a portfolio of their likes for their future of capitalist consumption.
See where this thinking gets you... Abstention will accomplish nothing and market forces will always favor the companies profiting from this data and will be the default as regardless of how savvy consumers are, their intrests will be drowned out in the sea of apathetic consumers who just want X widget to do Y thing.
The correct answer is regulation. Voteing with the wallet will never work as the companies and the apethatic will always be greater!