FBI warns that connected televisions can provide hackers a window into homes

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7746531/FBI-warns-citizens-connected-televisions-provide-hackers-window-homes.html

by MEGMOL • 7 years ago

218 270 7 years ago

dailymail.co.uk

sarcasmatwork• 7 years ago

So can peoples FB posts... and the mic on our phones.

Spooks• 7 years ago

what about...

sorry, whataboutism is not helpful or does not add any extra info into the current discussion. It actually tries to devalue the current discussion.

Smart TVs is a very established and popular device, so a study showing how it is a security concern is definitely helpful

itronitron• 7 years ago

what about windows

derision• 7 years ago

"we shouldn't worry about people getting hit by cars because someone can shoot them with a gun" is how you sound

blakesterz• 7 years ago

The actual warning came from Oregon:

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/portland/news/p...

They do provide some solid advice, like checking settings and making sure it gets updated. It's probably good that they send out warnings like these, most people probably don't get any thought to any IoT stuff at all. I don't know how big a target TVs are in reality, but it can't hurt to get people thinking about these things.

gkfasdfasdf2• 7 years ago

This should be the HN link instead of the trashy ad-laden daily mail page

theandrewbailey• 7 years ago

The FBI advocates installing security updates and customising privacy options

That doesn't work when the manufacturer of the smart TV you got 3 years ago stopped providing updates 4 years ago. Then your nephew found a list of all the vulnerabilities it has.

thereisnouser• 7 years ago

It also doesn't work when you have to accept advertising to update your device.

mmsimanga4• 7 years ago

As someone who works in software I have been advising all my friends and anyone who cares to listen NOT to buy a smart tv but rather buy a Fire TV Stick or any another Android TV box or stick. Apart from smart TVs being ridiculously overpriced, my reasoning has been you can always upgrade your TV box for less than you upgrade your Smart TV once software on smart TV no longer being updated.

asdf21• 7 years ago

All the Smart TVs I've bought have been like, ~$300 for 50"-55" on Black Friday sales. How are they overpriced?

robrtsql• 7 years ago

I think you have it backwards--the 'dumb TVs' are the ones that are expensive now. Presumably smart TVs are subsidized by the manufacturer selling the data they collect on you.

For now, I've settled for buying a smart TV and not connecting it to the Internet. Until they come up with a way to phone home without my Wi-Fi, I think I should be safe from spying and vulnerabilities..

kevin_thibedeau• 7 years ago

This is the advantage of RokuTV. They don't treat their platform as abandonware to force you into buying a new TV. They can't afford to piss off their userbase who will just migrate to an alternative.

rbinv• 7 years ago

Not disagreeing with the FBI, but do _that_ many smart TVs actually have cameras in them? Most (if not all) of Samsung's current product lineup, for example. don't.

gadgetoid• 7 years ago

Tried to look for one recently without much luck. The crux of their death seems to be Skype ending support for their smart TV software. They definitely existed, though. And it was also possible to add a camera via USB in some cases.

makerofspoons• 7 years ago

A number of unpatched TVs could already be part of a botnet: https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/internet-o...

While not literally taking video and recordings of you, it's still problematic.

saiya-jin• 7 years ago

Or... don't connect TV into any network. Have external devices as the only source of TV signal. Be it PC (like me), consoles, chromecast/fire/roku etc.

Was there actually ever a TV update that changed anything significant for the better in the mode I describe above? Its an honest question, since I never did it.

NegativeLatency• 7 years ago

I had to connect mine to the network in order to change lighting/contrast settings, as it has very few physical controls.

FernandoTN2• 7 years ago

Not even a remote control to handle basic settings, or were the settings locked until connected to a network?

darkwater• 7 years ago

I prefer to put the smart TV in a dedicated VLAN. There could be useful "apps" (say, Netflix or other online channels) there might be worth having inside the smart TV itself.

squarefoot• 7 years ago

Are we sure that "FBI" and "hackers" weren't swapped around when writing the title?

hajile2• 7 years ago

Isn't this the same FBI that is trying to make encryption illegal and who insists that backdoors are safe?

gmueckl• 7 years ago

The own backdoors are always doubleplusgood. Other's backdoors are bad. Doesn't matter which side you're asking.

Never mind that all backdoors work more or less the same.

bransonf2• 7 years ago

If it has connection to the internet, it can be a channel for hackers into your home.

I know far too many people over the age of 40 that really should know this.

Ididntdothis2• 7 years ago

And people under 40 have full understanding of what the devices they get can be used/abused for?

bransonf2• 7 years ago

Substantially more than the people I know over the age of 40. Of course that’s a relatively arbitrary number.

Many of the younger people I know may not fully understand the vector they create for network penetration, but they often joke about it always listening. For whatever reason, the older the person is (in my experience), they don’t have one inkling of internet security.

My point is that I’ve worked with too many people, roughly 40 and above, who have no regard for their internet security. I know for a fact someone with malicious intent could steal their identity and assets in a matter of hours.

chooseaname2• 7 years ago

Has nothing to do with age. Has only to do with how interested they are in how things work. And most people, no matter their age, don't care how things work.

driverdan2• 7 years ago

Please don't post stuff from The Daily Mail. It's a tabloid with no journalistic integrity.

Lammy7• 7 years ago

Are they factually wrong or providing a slanted view in this article?

driverdan2• 7 years ago

Probably. I'm not going to waste my time reading or fact checking something from them.

If it's an interesting topic find a trustworthy source to post.

iudqnolq3• 7 years ago

In the Amanda Knox case they wrote two stories, one to run if she lost and one if she won. The in case she lost story included quotes in reaction to her losing and a description of her reaction to hearing the verdict. The story was written before the quotes it includes were (it claimed) said. They accidentally ran it when she won demonstrating that they completely invent quotes. This is not the only instance they've been caught completely manufacturing quotes.

Everyone knows that news articles can be selective in how they choose to report, and that therefore they should rely on multiple sources. This is bad but not a fatal error. If a news agency completely invents quotes that destroys the fundamental trust that makes it possible to build on flawed sourcing.

The Press Complaints Commission has upheld a complaint against the Daily Mail
The [incorrect] article ...was live for 90 seconds
[The incorrect article] included quotes attributed to the prosecutors apparently reacting to the guilty verdict, and the description of the reaction in the courtroom to the news, stating that Knox "sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears"
It further stated that the family of Meredith Kercher "remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family".
The newspaper apologised for the mistake. It said that it was standard practice in such high-profile cases for two alternative stories (plus supporting quotes) to be prepared in advance
It had published an online apology and explanation to readers; published the correct verdict in print the following day; launched an immediate internal inquiry (and subsequently changed its practices regarding such 'set and hold' stories); and also disciplined the person responsible for the error.
Although the PCC recognised that the newspaper had acted swiftly and proportionately to correct the breach of the editors' code - and acknowledged that the story had only been live for a short period of time - it nonetheless remained "particularly concerned" about other aspects of the report, most particularly the fictitious account of what had happened in the courtroom.
The attempt to present contemporaneous reporting of events in such a manner was "clearly not acceptable".

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/09/pcc...

dang2• 7 years ago

On HN we go by article quality, not site quality. Many bad sites produce the occasional good article.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

siffland2• 7 years ago

When i got a new TV last year, the kid at Best Buy thought it was funny i wanted a non smart TV. I managed to get a 55" with no networking or applications. I know i am the minority, but i just want the TV to turn on and display a picture. i have a blu-ray player that is like 8 years old. It has netflix and vudu and MLB and about 4 more apps. None can work anymore, they stop updating devices after a year or so. I would rather have a roku or something that gets updated.

Remember when Samsung warned about having conversations around TV sets...

https://theweek.com/speedreads/538379/samsung-warns-customer...

giancarlostoro2• 7 years ago

I just opt for not connecting them to the internet.

hajile2• 7 years ago

I'm guessing it's just a small matter of time before they start adding cell connectivity.

I'd imagine Verizon or ATT wouldn't charge too much since they'd be sending logs, voice snippets, and maybe a few images. If the TV companies offered to share the data, they could probably get cell companies to do it for free.

e2le• 7 years ago

Until they start shipping cellular modems or connecting to open and unsecured networks.

_-___________-_• 7 years ago

I was quite pleased to find that my LG webOS TV doesn't even associate to the Wi-Fi unless it's switched on. Will be interesting to see how well it works in 5-10 years of course, but it does work as a non-smart TV even if I don't connect it to the Internet, so at least that functionality should last.

anonymousab• 7 years ago

I managed to get a 55" with no networking or applications

I'm surprised you managed to find one. They seem quite rare these days outside of some budget brands that don't bother due to cost.

siffland2• 7 years ago

It is an Insignia from Best Buy, so it is a budget brand.

grantuna• 7 years ago

I had a similar experience. Hard if not impossible to find a non-smart tv. Like you said we are probably the minority but I think there is a market for dumb, large screens.

crisnoble• 7 years ago

My 5 year old Roku TV has stopped updating, and the extremely buggy apps are slowing stopping working one by one. I may get a 2019 Roku stick and use it on my once smart, but now pretty dumb, TV.

unwiredben2• 7 years ago

The first Roku TV platform was launched in Fall 2014 with TVs by TCL and Hisense; those TVs are still getting software updates -- 9.1 was released earlier this year, and Roku OS 9.2 is in the process of being pushed to all models now. Releases often occur in stages, with Roku monitoring a release to see if there are blocking issues that need to be fixed before doing a wider push. Also, Roku OS releases do usually arrive for set-top boxes before they arrive on TVs due to the complexity of the TV feature sets and validation on all the models.

You can see a hardware comparison chart at https://developer.roku.com/docs/specs/hardware.md -- Liberty was the platform name of that first generation of Roku TVs.

everdrive2• 7 years ago

I managed to buy a dumb TV in 2018. The model itself was a 2017 model, and it was literally the only dumb TV I could find on Amazon. Now, my only hope is that it works long enough that the smart TV craze dies.

Grazester2• 7 years ago

Do do know you don't have to connect your Smart TV to the Internet and could use it as a dumb tv?

bluetidepro• 7 years ago

I don't understand why you were down-voted. I agree with you. That's what I did, I just don't allow my "Smart TV" to connect to the internet, and now it's "dumb". Am I missing something? Who cares if it's smart or not, if it has no connection to the internet, it's always "dumb."

sli2• 7 years ago

What brand/model TV?

everdrive2• 7 years ago

"TCL 49D100 49-Inch 1080p LED TV (2017 Model)"

It's an "ok" TV. The picture is pretty decent, but not great. The sound is fine. The refresh rate is usually ok, but isn't suitable for fast paced games.

endymi0n• 7 years ago

It won't. As a manufacturer, you can sell the same display cheaper as a Smart than a Dumb TV due to existing preinstallation and tracking agreements with third parties. Just don't connect it to the net — as long as that still works. Also considering the Fitbit disaster (I own a device), I think we'll eventually need new legislation on devices that get worthless without a connection.

dylan6042• 7 years ago

Also considering the Fitbit disaster

I'm assuming the disaster is being bought by Google. What is needed is some sort of regulation that prevents the new owner to use the newly acquired data in a way that the user did not originally agree to. If the original agreement stated that the data would not be sold, then the new owner just can't go off and sell the data. This is what the regulation needs to protect, as well as the new company cannot retrospectively remove the option either.

DoofusOfDeath4• 7 years ago

I wonder if there's a market for some company to resell smart TVs that they've lobotomized.

I.e., they have a list of TV models that they know how to disable network connectivity without causing any other problems. You order from them, and for some reasonable fee they'll make the change, verify everything is okay, and ship you the unit.

Personally, I'd be willing to pay a $100-200 premium for that, especially for a TV that (pre-lobotomy) sells for over $600.

tootie2• 7 years ago

Can't you just not connect it to wifi?

CaptainMarvel• 7 years ago

I give it five years before TVs with built-in 5G are mainstream. In addition, some TVs automatically connect to open WiFi.

swebs• 7 years ago

Many of them connect to 3G automatically.

Edit: I guess I was mistaken. They were not caught doing that yet.

hart_russell2• 7 years ago

My TCL TV blinked an annoying light when I didn't connect it to wifi

lgl• 7 years ago

I'm probably missing something here but why not just disconnect the TV from the ethernet/wifi? Are these things connecting themselves to the network?

ygjb• 7 years ago

Many of them throw continuous error messages and warnings about connectivity, and some features just plain don't work without it.

imglorp2• 7 years ago

In theory, that's not enough to keep them offline, if coded deviously enough.

If your neighbor, for example, has a syndicated WIFI like Fios or Xfinity, your TV can try those. Also, it has 24/7 free time to sit there and break passwords, if needed. Even a slow CPU would score some eventually. And finally, the room is probably full of other devices which themselves may have connections; a TV can communicate ultrasonically with those to exfiltrate your data.

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/113502/how-to-p...

https://www.aircrack-ng.org

https://www.securityweek.com/stealthy-data-exfiltration-poss...

soylentcola• 7 years ago

I'd imagine a big part of this is because people like watching Netflix or Prime Video via the nifty apps built right into their TVs. To many owners, disabling those would be like disabling the cellular and WiFi radios on a smartphone.

A big selling point (for better or worse) is not requiring you to buy more boxes or hook up wires. Just as you see with cheap IP cameras which neglect to steer users toward secure setup and only tout the "easy wireless setup! Just point to the picture on your iPhone screen!" It's the flip side of the ubiquitous marketing bullet points: Easy! No wires! Apps!

kgwxd2• 7 years ago

Why companies don't just continue to manufacture screen-only TV's baffles me. I'd love to see some existing privacy-oriented company that already has to deal with screen manufactures start selling "privacy-oriented TVs".

some-guy• 7 years ago

They exist, they're called "commercial displays", and they're quite expensive.

cameldrv• 7 years ago

Ultimately, few people understand that this is a problem or that they should want a dumb TV. The manufacturers make money from the smart features by selling the data and by getting a cut of subscription revenue, so smart TVs can be sold cheaper than dumb TVs.

The FBI issuing a warning about this is helpful. It may help create a market for dumb TVs that cost more than smart TVs.

thrownblown• 7 years ago

They can make more money off smart tvs by selling advertising profile info from things like the TV shows watched. Thats why.

smolder• 7 years ago

I bought a cheap 42" 4k dumb tv made by an off brand which is no longer available anywhere, one of the only ones that I could find without network connectivity, but it's by no means a great TV in other respects. I think if I used it heavily it'd have burnt out a capacitor by now or something. Reviews indicate they are not too reliable.

guelo• 7 years ago

I suspect that the advertising industry is offering the TV manufacturers incentives to add tracking "smarts". The dream of tracking TV ad views and even personalized TV ads is worth billions.

amelius• 7 years ago

I'd love to see some existing privacy-oriented company that already has to deal with screen manufactures start selling "privacy-oriented TVs".

Apple TV?

blihp• 7 years ago

If you're a manufacturer are you going to go after the 95-99% of the market that wants a set that's cheaper due to the bundled spyware or the 1-5% that are willing to pay a premium not to include it? Granted, I'm guessing as to the percentages... but I doubt I'm that far off.

tzs• 7 years ago

Besides the nefarious reasons they might not want to make dumb TVs, there are some decent reasons.

Most TVs include speakers. Even the non-smart ones. By adding networking and apps, that TV can be used stand-alone.

For people starting out with their first home theater setup, they can get started with just the TV. With a dumb TV, they'd need the TV, and a receiver/speakers setup or a soundbar, and something to provide content like a Blu-ray player or cable box or Roku.

By making the TV smart, the TV maker has a better chance of having people start out with a higher end stand-alone TV and then adding other components later. I presume that the TV maker would rather have the consumer spend all of their initial budget on the TV, instead of splitting it between TV, receiver, and Blu-ray player.

For people with existing home theater setups, a similar thing goes on with upgrades. For example, I have a Denon AVR-1913 receiver, a Comcast X1 DVR, and a Sony Blu-ray player, and a Samsung TV.

It was a smart TV but I never used it as anything other than a dumb monitor. I used apps, not but on the TV. The Blu-ray player had a full set of streaming apps, and so does the X1. The Denon receiver has an internet radio app, and also supports Spotify Connect, and supports Airplay. So there was never any need to use an app on the TV. (Also, when I tried it once out of curiosity I could not get ARC to work to send sound back to the Denon receiver).

But then the TV died. I ended up getting another Samsung, but this new one is 4K UHD.

None of my other components are 4K. I didn't want to upgrade the rest to 4K at that time, so for things I wanted to watch in 4K I used apps on the TV [1].

With dumb TVs, I probably would not have bought a 4K TV. I would have waited until my other components were 4K, and that could have taken quite a while. I tend to keep receivers until they die.

In summary, with smart TVs, the TV can meet the needs of a wider class of consumer. As long as they don't make it so you have to give the TV network access or use its smart features, it can meet the needs of almost every class of consumer. That's attractive to the manufacturers.

[1] ...which meant that I did need to figure out ARC. As with the old Samsung, it just did not seem to want to work. Then I noticed something in the Denon manual:

When the ARC function is used, connect a device with a "Standard HDMI cable with Ethernet" or "High Speed HDMI cable with Ethernet" for HDMI.

I made sure to use such a cable...and it worked, which makes no sense. It would make sense if we were talking eARC, but with plain ARC--which is all my 6 or 7 years old Denon supports--it should work with any regular old HDMI cable.

egdod• 7 years ago

TVs are only as cheap as they are because the cost is subsidized by the data they collect. A dumb TV would be more expensive to buy, and most people would balk at that.

paulmd3• 7 years ago

screen-only TVs are undesirable because content providers like Netflix gate their content to locked-down devices that present a lower risk of piracy.

Unless you run Netflix in MS Edge (or the netflix windows store app, which wraps MS Edge) and use a Skylake or newer CPU with a secure enclave / AMD PSP, Netflix won't stream you their highest-quality content.

Or they will happily deliver it to whatever Android device or smart TV that you like.

(also, PC support for HDR content is... "lacking", shall we say)

MisterTea2• 7 years ago

I opened a more modern cheap smart TV. Inside were three boards: Power supply & backlight inverter, LCD/LVDS(?) interface board, CPU & video IO board. I'm not sure if the screen interface was actual LVDS but it sure looked like it.

So a smart TV is nothing more than an LCD with Arm SoC. Of course that SoC it's completely locked down and there are no specs outside of NDA's.

It got me thinking, how hard would it be to go to a big manufacturer that makes these smart TV's for chains like best buy and contract them to make the same set without the proprietary garbage hardware board? Instead a board built around an open SoC and software ecosystem is installed so the ethernet and USB ports do what they're supposed to do. That or pick a very common TV model, figure out the LCD interface and build a retrofit board. All of this is easier said than done.

Then imagine how fun it would be to hack your TV to do whatever because it's a regular computer? Of course the big issue that stands in the way is the HDMI and DRM burdens.

(cue someone replying with: just don't connect the smart TV to the internet and hook up a raspberry pi.)

notyourday2• 7 years ago

Cut the Wifi antennas and shield connection points in the module.

hart_russell2• 7 years ago

My dad just bought a cheap "Sceptre" brand TV that's 4k and as dumb as can be

rchaud2• 7 years ago

Because TVs are commodity hardware that makes exactly $0 the second after it's sold. We now live in a business hellscape where "recurring revenue" is everything. Since TVs still last for 5 years or more, they might as well start selling off your viewing data to make the quarterly numbers look better.

mensetmanusman4• 7 years ago

That’s why we use projectors in our home :)

Also, side benefit of no large black rectangle :)

DoofusOfDeath4• 7 years ago

Can you comment on the image quality of that vs. a modern LCD TV?

I'm looking to add a TV, large computer monitor, or similar to our living room for PC gaming, XBox gaming, and movies.

I assumed that a projector would be washed out whenever the room's lights were on. Which would be a hassle for people who wanted to be in the living room at the time but were doing other activities.

lostgame2• 7 years ago

The heat emission of projectors makes using them as a TV replacement pretty much DOA for me.

I throw cult movie nights and recently ditched the projector for a 42” screen - by the time there were 15-20 people in my living room, the heat of the projector made us keep windows open in Canadian winter.

Not to mention the usability issues during daylight, which make a projector (there’s a lot of light in my living room) mostly useless 50% of the time.

The large black rectangle has its own use - it clearly defines where the screen is occupying space, something you’ve gotta configure for a projector.

Unless you are privileged af enough to have a room you can dedicate to a home theatre setup - (in which case, good for you, housing/rent prices here in Toronto make that out of reach for me even as a low triple digit salary individual, four times higher than most of my similarly aged friends) - a projector’s disadvantages far outweigh its benefits.

Even if visibility wasn’t a glaring issue, the heat is practically unbearable. Worst idea I’d had was to try it in my bedroom as a TV replacement. :P

I went through several models of projectors in an attempt to see if any of them would be tolerable, but no.

Large TV’s emit heat as it is; but it’s really like a small heater in a room on low, instead of an industrial scale heater.

Iwillgetby• 7 years ago

This is fairly trivial for packet nerds using bro/zeek, pihole and iptables.

Zeek (or wireshark) can revel what domains and ip addresses are being accessed. Pihole and iptables can block those addresses. Pihole needs to be the only DNS allowed and iptables needs to be running in between the TV and its path to the internet.

PeterStuer• 7 years ago

Easily bypassed with Wifi or 4G.

dylan6042• 7 years ago

I'm guessing lawyers would get involved to shut that type of service down. Right to repair laws might help, but this sounds like the model for people selling modified PlayStations. There are companies that will re-house a photography lens to be cinema friendly. The lens manufactures don't stop this, because it doesn't really affect their bottom line. TV manufactures would lose the money they made agreements with 3rd party people, so you know they would be more litigious to protect that income.

travisporter• 7 years ago

Yes, this! I asked in another thread if there was a faraday cage we could use for the tv or at least tamper with the wifi antenna. I know CRTs have dangerous levels of voltage, so I hope it's not the case for lcd/led TVs

Merrill• 7 years ago

You could wrap the TV in aluminum foil.

Perhaps the best April Fools’ joke of the (Youth) Journal [a Dutch news program] came in 1969. Special cars would drive around with scanners to track down television owners who hadn’t paid the license fee [it’s like in the UK, where you have to pay a fee to the BBC]. But if you wrapped the TV in aluminum foil, you could fool the scanners. Before long there was no foil to be found in stores. http://business.time.com/2007/08/21/why_dutch_people_wrapped...

wil4212• 7 years ago

How about you don’t connect your TV to the internet? Here’s a consumer reports article that tells you how to turn off most tracking if you must connect it to the internet.[1]

Get a decent set of network hardware so you can monitor everything that’s going on. I can recommended UniFi by Ubiquiti, despite the recent blow back about crash reports being sent to them.

[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smar...

GrayShade• 7 years ago

How about you don’t connect your TV to the internet?

Then we'll see the manufacturers include SIM cards, at least in countries where it's affordable.

paulmd3• 7 years ago

Hope you're not connecting it to any internet-connected device (PC, console, etc) either because most HDMI cables nowadays have pins to carry an ethernet signal as well.

mitchty3• 7 years ago

You could also sabotage the wifi chip or antenna if you wanted to make 100% sure the tv doesn't connect. Good luck trying to connect to wifi without an antenna connected.

burk96• 7 years ago

Most of the TVs provide a software update functionality, maybe custom firmware that disables networking hardware could become a thing.

olivermarks• 7 years ago

I often put tape over my laptop cameras for on location business meetings etc but you can't do this with my HCL smart TV at home as it is hidden behind the screen, hard to know where the microphone is located too. I'd like to know and think this sort of information should be legally enforced in personal digital rights legislation and the right to disable all outbound connectivity

chooseaname2• 7 years ago

I have a Samsung and didn't normally have it connected to the network. One day I got curious to see what apps it had and set it up on my wireless network thinking I can just restore the tv to it's factory settings. Nope. A factory restore keeps your network info stored. It doesn't connect, mind you, but it doesn't wipe it.

nikofeyn2• 7 years ago

it isn’t just connected TVs. it’s those with a camera as well. not all smart TVs have a camera. i have a relatively high-end smart TV that doesn’t have a camera.

mrec2• 7 years ago

Sorry, I've been out of the loop here for the best part of 20 years. Why on earth would any TV have a camera? What's it used for?

detaro• 7 years ago

Gesture control

video chat (many models had Skype a while back, as far as I remember that was shut down though)

nikofeyn2• 7 years ago

mostly for video chatting. it felt like a fad a few years ago. with the ubiquity or phones, tablets, and laptops, it seems like a pointless feature anyway.

FpUser• 7 years ago

In my hosehold TVs are only used as large monitors connected to computers by HDMI/DisplayPort . Any other connectivity is disabled. We've stopped using the actual television whether over the air or IP based years ago.

Of course computers can be broken into as well but at least those are the beasts I know how to maintain.

gibspaulding• 7 years ago

Same set up here. You turn on the TV and are greeted by the Ubuntu desktop. From there you can launch Firefox and sign into Jellyfin or whatever streaming service you prefer.

nickthegreek• 7 years ago

I setup a Pi Hole this weekend in preparation for a black friday deal on a Roku and because I heard my smart TV was chatty. This wont protect you from a TV that will connect to open wifi around you (or one that uses a hardcoded DNS), but it was an easy project (20mins) that is already providing me with a wealth of data points about my home network.

MR4D• 7 years ago

I don't have the technical capability to do it, but it would be great to know how to cover the wifi transmitter on the TV (like we do cameras on our laptops), but with an electrical barrier tape (Yes, i'm trying to avoid saying "tinfoil.")

Maybe someone could even put together a repository of diagrams to show which areas need to be covered.

Would be a fun to see for us paranoid people.

leggomylibro• 7 years ago

I don't think that would be likely to work very well - besides being somewhat impractical, most RF electronics are already covered by metal 'cans' to prevent excessive EMI from escaping. You might be able to find the antenna and wrap foil around it, but that just sounds like a recipe for shorting something out once the foil gets unwedged/unstuck.

Plus, tin foil hats can actually improve signal reception around the 2.5GHz range used by WiFi :P

https://web.archive.org/web/20130126025620/http://berkeley.i...

ct520• 7 years ago

vlan, vlan it all! serious note glad i went ubiquiti setup when i moved into new home.

FernandoTN2• 7 years ago

I understand the terrible breach in privacy that comes with smart appliances (Looking at you Alexa), it could be argued that through a standard we could make this appliances "safer" or more secure to breaches.

The reality is that as long as there is any profit to be made from selling them, corners will be cut and people by trying to save will end up with smart appliances that end up being windows to unknown actors.

In this scenario I find it way more comforting for big corporations and governments to have access over individuals who could target specific people. Abstinence seems like the only solution from an individuals POV.

dang2• 7 years ago

Recent and related (but different): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21657930

maz1b• 7 years ago

I've always wondered why more people don't go for projectors. It's not (or less) prone to bloatware, tracking scripts, and unsavory things of the sort.

Plus, you can get bigger screensizes. Is there something I'm missing apart from the bulb hours?

peterwwillis2• 7 years ago

Replace "connected televisions" with "Internet of Things" and yes exactly

paulie_a2• 7 years ago

FBI just dropped cia "secrets"

ComputerGuru• 7 years ago

All this talk of TVs using your neighbor’s unencrypted wifi, am open hotspot, default ISP network credentials, or onboard 2G transmitters is making me seriously start to think it’s not a bad idea to build a huge faraday cage into the insulation/structure of a home with access-controlled, hardwired points of ingress/egress for your own traffic.

arminiusreturns• 7 years ago

Yep, I am leaning towards this as well. I talked about this sort of thing so much my non tech mom build a faraday cage electronics box. In the future these are going to be much more common topics.

bob1029• 7 years ago

Hypothetically, this could also serve to vastly improve the WiFi performance within your home as well. All of your neighbors' 2.4/5 GHz noise would be substantially attenuated at your walls.

The only real annoyance (aside from installing a huge faraday cage throughout your home) would be the need for a way to relay cell communications via your hardwired ingress/egress paths. Or, you simply designate your home a cell-free zone and walk outside when you wish to receive your SMS payloads or make a phone call. WiFi calling is probably a good solution for a lot of people too.

skraelingjar• 7 years ago

This is why I monitor what my pihole is and isn't blocking. I've blocked all the domains my TV uses to send tracking data.

dessant• 7 years ago

Customers are powerless even if the FBI warns them. Real change will come when manufacturers will be forced to deliver security updates for their devices in a timely manner for at least 5 years.

Not even new devices are kept secure, high-end Sony TVs manufactured in 2019 are still on the Android security patch level of June 1, 2019. No new updates are available from Sony, despite multiple high-severity security issues being publicly documented and ready to exploit.

And more importantly, nobody is liable when security updates are not delivered and customers are exploited using public CVEs.

vinayan3• 7 years ago

Are there TV models which really connect to open Wifi? People keep mentioning this but it's a situation where it'd be more useful to have some facts.

Another option connect it to a dedicated subnet which cannot route to the internet or another device.

majewsky• 7 years ago

Hackers warn that connected televisions can provide FBI a window into homes

FTFY

PretzelFisch• 7 years ago

It's unfortunate that most consumers want a smart tv and don't want to deal with the hassle of a box. At least when there were dumb tvs with a box set you could vote with your money as to what was important ie channels or security/privacy.

dillonmckay• 7 years ago

Maybe they enjoy upgrading tvs as often as smartphones?

cardiffspaceman• 7 years ago

I am skeptical that an attachment from Google, Amazon, Roku, or the like would be any less chatty than the integrated processing in a smart TV. So you need a TV that connects by HDMI to an HTPC with software you trust running on it, if you're going to distrust stuff.

3fe9a03ccd14ca55• 7 years ago

This is relevant to me. I just hooked up a TCL (Chinese state owned TV company) to the internet yesterday for firmware updates. Even though I reset the internet connection afterwards, I have no idea what type of nefarious thing it can do, or if it truly forgot my WiFi password.

To rest easier, I actually banned it’s MAC from accessing my network. Even that is probably not sufficient.

All of my viewing is through my Apple TV, which in my opinion is the most privacy-centered company in silicone valley.

e40• 7 years ago

To rest easier, I actually banned it’s MAC from accessing my network. Even that is probably not sufficient.

I'm curious why that is (possibly) not sufficient? Anyone?

3fe9a03ccd14ca55• 7 years ago

MACs can be changed.

solotronics• 7 years ago

it can easily use a different source MAC if there is some network enumeration / scanning / vuln test happening. it could even keep the same MAC you set for the normal traffic and use a hidden second MAC for its nefarious traffic.

you beat this by setting a MAC and then doing macsec ( swithcport security by MAC address ) on that switch port the TV is connected to.

Akababa• 7 years ago

If you're really paranoid, maybe you could remove the wifi card.

3fe9a03ccd14ca55• 7 years ago

I don’t want to go through the hassle of installing it again in a few months to do a firmware upgrade.

gatesphere• 7 years ago

My TV is blocked from communicating outside my network by a MAC-based IPTABLES rule on my router.

I would just entirely disable WiFi on the thing, but guess what? Once you set the wireless up, there's no way to erase that data from the TV again. But allowing the TV to be on the network but not on the internet allows me to use some IoT features locally, so it's an alright compromise by me for now.

I would buy a dumb TV in a heartbeat, next time I upgrade. If there's one available.

pulse7• 7 years ago

"If there's one available."

Just don't connect the network - use only HDMI. This will turn a "smart TV" into a "dump TV".

Lammy7• 7 years ago

I've got bad news for you :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI_Ethernet_Channel

RHSeeger• 7 years ago

Smart TVs have been seen connecting to any open network automatically, like a neighbors.

s_gourichon• 7 years ago

If you just change the WiFi password, the TV should probably become something like a dumb TV, shouldn't it ?

sliken2• 7 years ago

Yes, assuming there's not an open wifi around.

TremendousJudge• 7 years ago

What local IoT features are you referring to?

I would buy a dumb TV in a heartbeat, next time I upgrade. If there's one available.

There are none that I could find when I bought my TV some months ago. I hope that eventually some anonymous heroes start flashing open source OSs to their smart TVs and make us owners of our hardware again.

tracker13• 7 years ago

That would be nice... all the TVs with nicer displays seem to have the integrated internet crap.

greycol• 7 years ago

One such feature is the ability to play from local network storage. Possibly also ambient lighting control.

I guess if we were talking about possible features rather than actual one's: the ability to use the tv's tuner to stream to other devices would be another intranet feature that could be on someone's wishlist.

I agree the equivalent of cyongenmod/LineageOS for smart tv's would be great.

RandomBacon• 7 years ago

They exist, in 4K too! I bought mine through Amazon.

Psyladine• 7 years ago

Thank you for reminding me I need to treat my old bricked smart tvs like computers and destroy their data storage in a shredder rather than dumping them in the monitor graveyard at the transfer station.

dathinab• 7 years ago

I had that problem with a stupid alarm clock. I wanted to change it to winter time and accidentally pressed the wrong button for a view seconds and voila now it wants to setup all it's IoT features and constantly blinks... Disconnecting power and removing internally battery didn't help. I guess I need a new alarm clock with "sunrise feature" (Or maybe build it myself).

delecti• 7 years ago

Change your router's password. If you're really attached to your current password then switch the TV to the new password, and then change it back. Either way your TV won't have your WiFi information anymore.

TheRealSteel• 7 years ago

Please don't post links from The Daily Mail, it's a tabloid with no integrity at all.

3fe9a03ccd14ca55• 7 years ago

Tl;dr to all of this: unplug your “smart” TV and use an Apple TV or other privacy-focused box.

kstrauser6• 7 years ago

1. I refuse to say "smart TV". It is a "sly TV"

2. Sly TVs never get Internet access in my house. I don't plug Ethernet into them, and I don't set configure their wifi. If I must give one access because it needs a firmware update to fix a bug or something, I temporarily set my guest wifi network's password to something random, configure the TV to use that, apply the fix, then reset the guest wifi password back to the old value.

3. I trust literally any other video device in my house more than a sly TV. While we use Apple TVs, there are plenty of excellent alternatives that have reputations for being decent about privacy. Apple hasn't been sued for spying on my TV watching; Vizio has. The FBI hasn't warned me about Apple.

4. All sly TV OSes are junk with terrible apps. Seriously, slap an Apple TV (or Roku or Fire Stick or ...) in the HDMI jack and your viewing experience will be better in every way. I'm not suggesting you make your TV worse, but to make it much, much nicer.

I don't want to come across as paranoid, but sly TVs have a history of one headline after another of reporting your viewing habits, injecting advertising, and otherwise bringing spyware into your living room. This isn't some big new explosive revelation, it's a normal Tuesday in the news. Don't put up with it! There are much better alternatives.

pentae3• 7 years ago

Although I agree with you on points 1-3, point 4 is no longer the case as of this last year or two. Most people are only interested in the main apps such as YouTube, Netflix, Disney+ etc. My 2019 Samsung TV OS is not only fast and smooth but those apps are as good, if not better than the same ones found on an Apple TV. Compared to a crappy Android box the experience is far better.

Why have a seperate device and two remotes when you don't have to? I'm convinced that the marketshare for these external media devices will flatline and steadily decline. In the case of Apple, the only way they can try to compete in the future is releasing their own standalone TV panel. I suppose they saw the writing on the wall which is why AirPlay and Apple TV are now available on Samsungs TV OS

kstrauser6• 7 years ago

I'm surprised to hear that. The LG we bought earlier this year has a Netflix app that can barely keep up with the display. It looks much better streamed from the Apple TV than from the TV's own app.

I think it'll be a long time before any TV has a native app store as decent as Apple's (and probably Amazon's, but I don't have personal experience with that so can't vouch for it).

CWuestefeld• 7 years ago

This might be true for some apps, from the biggest developers. But even there, it only holds for a given point in time.

It's been shown time and again that developer support of past products is atrocious. You just can't count on getting your apps updated through the whole lifecycle of the device. This is partly understandable, as older hardware just isn't going to be able to handle some things (say, H.265). But even so, the developers seem to be doing little more than paying lip service.

The best strategy is to have a dumb monitor, and a device like Roku that you can upgrade very cheaply every year or two.

d1zzy2• 7 years ago

Although I agree with you on points 1-3, point 4 is no longer the case as of this last year or two. Most people are only interested in the main apps such as YouTube, Netflix, Disney+ etc. My 2019 Samsung TV OS is not only fast and smooth but those apps are as good, if not better than the same ones found on an Apple TV. Compared to a crappy Android box the experience is far better.

That's more a criticism of "crappy Android boxes" rather than a praise of builtin TV applications. The latter are still barely usable and quickly become obsolete (with updates stopping 1-2 years down the line), compare that to a good Android box like Nvidia Shield.

Why have a seperate device and two remotes when you don't have to? I'm convinced that the marketshare for these external media devices will flatline and steadily decline.

You may be right long term but it's been years since we've had "Smart TVs" and they are still far from being as good as decent media boxes. That to me means there's an underlying reason, probably a misalignment of incentives.

And btw, depending on your needs you can use a single remote just fine (I use an Fire TV stick bluetooth remote, connected to the Nvidia Shield, for controlling the Shield, the Sony TV and the Yamaha amplifier through HDMI-CEC). With such a combination of different parts from different manufacturers I'm surprised how well it all works.

tlrobinson• 7 years ago

I refuse to say "smart TV". It is a "sly TV"

I call them telescreens, comrade.

yumraj3• 7 years ago

2. Sly TVs never get Internet access in my house ....

I'm with you. The challenge is or is going to be when (unless they already do) TVs start embedding 4G/5G SIM cards into the TV to bypass such requirements.

My only hope is that enough people use the Smart TVs as designed, with Internet configured, that TV manufacturers never see ROI in going the SIM card route. fingers crossed

kstrauser6• 7 years ago

I hope you're right. I'm also fortunately in a position to have access to radio gear that would let me sniff that out and apply copper foil tape until it's fixed.

magduf9• 7 years ago

The challenge is or is going to be when (unless they already do) TVs start embedding 4G/5G SIM cards into the TV to bypass such requirements.

Are the cellular providers going to give free cellular access to these manufacturers or something? Consumers aren't going to pay for that. No one's going to buy a TV that requires an additional $30/month for a data plan.

somehnguy• 7 years ago

Regarding point 4:

My TV runs RokuOS. I've recommended it to everyone I know in the TV market and none have been disappointed so far. They treat the 'smart tv' aspects as first class rather than a buggy afterthought. I'm much more optimistic about it being updated for a long time as well.

gambiting3• 7 years ago

Wasn't there an article on here the other day saying that you literally can't use a RokuOS-equipped TV without creating an account first? Or have I imagined this?

d1zzy2• 7 years ago

If I must give one access because it needs a firmware update to fix a bug or something, I temporarily set my guest wifi network's password to something random, configure the TV to use that, apply the fix, then reset the guest wifi password back to the old value.

I use USB based updating for the TV to avoid ever having to give it Internet access. Since it's never connected to the Internet I don't need to care much if it's running the latest version or not, for all I care it could be running the same version until it stops working as long as the current version is good enough.

lonelappde• 7 years ago

#2 now they piggyback on any open network they find

nesky3• 7 years ago

I mean how common is an open network anymore? I live in a relatively suburban area and each of my neighbors networks are password protected. Unless I'm in an office park, doctors office, mall I rarely encounter an open network. Maybe apart from something like a Optimum/Verizon/Comcast wifi hotspot.

nesky3• 7 years ago

2. Sly TVs never get Internet access in my house. I don't plug Ethernet into them, and I don't set configure their wifi. If I must give one access because it needs a firmware update to fix a bug or something, I temporarily set my guest wifi network's password to something random, configure the TV to use that, apply the fix, then reset the guest wifi password back to the old value.

Are there any negatives to doing this? I'm running into issues with a Vizio soundbar working with a Vizio V Series tv and was contemplating connecting to the internet to see if there's any updates but was holding out on finding a fix. I may have to try your method though.

tracker13• 7 years ago

Given connected home appliances are about the only things with worse update schedules and practices than home routers/wifi, I frankly don't trust any of them... I'd rather use my NVidia Shield TV or a Fire TV device that at least gets regular updates.

gwenaelp• 7 years ago

previously on internet : hackers warns that connected televisions can provide FBI a window into homes

tracker13• 7 years ago

By the way, for anyone wanting just a plain dumbtv/monitor, there are options. Mostly more expensive and/or better than a lot of TV options, depending on your needs.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/shop/big-screen-monitors

germinalphrase• 7 years ago

This certainly feels underhanded - if par for the course for US data privacy - but what is the fundamental risk here?

StacyRoberts• 7 years ago

I didn't even know tvs had cameras. I just got A new 4k tv and it was hard to find a dumb one. All the higher quality one's in the store are smart. This one was cheap but the refresh rate is low and the picture stutters.

It's getting harder to escape the surveillance. Quality of life will increasingly diverge from the main stream.

TurkishPoptart• 7 years ago

But if we don't connect our TVs to the internet, how can we stream Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon video?

majortennis• 7 years ago

Sad to see a daily mail link on hacker news

stunt• 7 years ago

connected televisions can provide hackers a window into homes

Yes! Like almost all other connected devices we are using. (Computers, Phones, Routers, DSL Modems, WiFi Access Points, Smart speakers, Cars, Modern cameras, ...)

rchaud2• 7 years ago

I've realized that I can still buy dumb TVs (for now), but their resolution will top out at 1080p. And that's fine as it's still Blu-ray resolution. Despite having a Chinese brand 4K TV since 2014, I haven't come across a single piece of video content that I felt I "must have" in 4K.

For video games, you can still buy 4K monitors and play them on that.

FBI warns that connected televisions can provide hackers a window into homes

Related Stories