Texas is suing all of the big TV makers for spying on what you watch

https://www.theverge.com/news/845400/texas-tv-makers-lawsuit-samsung-sony-lg-hisense-tcl-spying

by tortilla • 7 months ago

1268 620 7 months ago

theverge.com

zephyreon• 7 months ago

Perhaps the one thing Ken Paxton and I agree on.

otterley2• 7 months ago

A broken clock is right twice a day!

buellerbueller6• 7 months ago

It is an important observation, and a reminder: evaluate positions on their merits, and not who is taking the position.

TheAdamist• 7 months ago

No.

.its an insane lawsuit, there are basically two outcomes crazy side effects from his lawsuit:

Tvs are banned. (Possibly can only texas permitted tv)

Or if he loses, which might be his donors goal of him litigating so terribly, all your data now belongs to the companies.

Theres no consumer friendly option here

bsder• 7 months ago

Perhaps. But you also need to ask why Paxton is doing this as this case will vaporize as soon as that is accomplished. I would be much more optimistic if California were also signed onto this.

Paxton, however, doesn't give one iota of damn about individual freedom. So, this is either a misdirection, shakedown or revenge.

Unfortunately, we don't have Molly Ivins around anymore to tell us what is really going on here in the Texas Laboratory for Bad Government.

1659447091• 7 months ago

So, this is either a misdirection, shakedown or revenge

This is about being in the news as much as possible. He is in a close 3 way race for the 2026 Republican spot for US Senate. The other two are current old-school conservative senator John Cornyn, and new comer MAGA Wesley Hunt (but not as MAGA as Paxton). Lots of in-fighting over funding, so Paxton is making sure to get in the news as much as possible.

Throughout the year he has been in the news for things that are useful like this and another suit against a utility company for causing a fire and others for typical maga things like lawsuit to stop harris county (Houston) funding legal services for immigrants facing deportation or immigrant-serving nonprofits or a "tip-line" for bathroom enforcement or lawsuits against doctors...it goes on and on and on. It's a page out of the Trump playblook, its like watching a trump clone. And thats the point.

duxup• 7 months ago

I wish my Apple TV could take multiple pass through inputs.

From there I could pick an app or input on the Apple TV and then I'm good.

That's all I want, nothing these TVs try to provide I want, quite the opposite.

I loathe ending up on the TV menu...

smileybarry3• 7 months ago

That still doesn't escape ACR, AFAIK. These "smart" TVs still capture screenshots from HDMI inputs.

That's one of the reasons I only buy Sony for years now. ACR & the like are opt-out at the first terms/privacy screen, and you can even go into Android/Google TV settings and just disable the APK responsible. (Samba something-something)

danudey• 7 months ago

I googled how to disable ACR on my new Samsung TV. Followed the instructions only to find out that it was disabled already. That, combined with a built-in physical microphone switch (which I noticed in the quick start guide before I'd even attached the wall mount) made me quite impressed with Samsung off the bat.

It does have some weird behaviors, though, like occasionally letting me know it has some kind of AI features or something, or bringing up a pop-up on the screen letting my kid know how to use the volume control on the remote every time he uses the volume control on the remote for the first time since power-on.

Still, a pretty decent TV nonetheless.

drnick16• 7 months ago

It's better not to connect the TV to the Internet at all. This will solve most of your problems. Use a Linux HTPC to stream content (not an Apple box, they collect telemetry and profile users like others).

isk517• 7 months ago

I loathe whenever an older family member ends up at the TV menu, since chances are they will not be able to find their way back to whatever external device they were trying to use the TV as a monitor for. TVs using android seem to be irritated that you even plan on using some external device plugged into the HDMI ports.

ternus• 7 months ago

You may want to look into an AVR (audio/video receiver), also known as a home theater receiver. Aside from powering speakers, that's their core function: connect a variety of inputs (HDMI, AirPlay, radio, composite, etc. etc.) to one or more outputs.

ChrisArchitect• 7 months ago

https://archive.ph/3MRXv

c420• 7 months ago

"The TVs “are effectively Chinese-sponsored surveillance devices, recording the viewing habits of Texans at every turn without their knowledge or consent,” the lawsuits said."

This explains why Vizio, who is owned by Walmart, was not sued.

smileybarry3• 7 months ago

And of course: casual reminder that Vizio does extensive ACR and ad targeting, and even bought a company doing it to facilitate that:

In August 2015, Vizio acquired Cognitive Media Networks, Inc, a provider of automatic content recognition (ACR). Cognitive Media Networks was subsequently renamed Inscape Data. Inscape functioned as an independent entity until the end of 2020, when it was combined with Vizio Ads and SmartCast; the three divisions combining to operate as a single unit.[1]

But I'm sure Texans are fully aware and consented to this, right?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizio

wkat42422• 7 months ago

So.. if it was American companies doing the spying it would be a different story?

jvanderbot2• 7 months ago

Not according to the law. Speeches are not the law.

ToucanLoucan• 7 months ago

Yeah pretty much. No regulators are batting an eye at the industrial data gathering schemes of Meta, Google, Amazon, etc. and they never have. And the only major social network under real legal scrutiny is TikTok.

The American Government wants to have the cake and eat it too, as per usual. They want to leave the massive column of the economy that is surveillance capitalism intact and operating, and making them money, and they want to make sure those scary communists can't do the same. Unfortunately there isn't really a way to take down one without taking down the other, unless you legally enshrine that only American corporations have a right to spy on Americans. And (at time of comment anyway) they seem to not want to openly say the reason is just naked nationalism/racism.

wmf3• 7 months ago

Sony, Samsung, and LG are not Chinese companies but they are being sued. It's more likely that Vizio is not included because they already got hit by the FTC (but not hard enough to disable ACR).

limagnolia2• 7 months ago

From what I understood, ACR on Vizio TVs was disabled, but is available as an opt-in "feature". I don't know what sort of person would opt-in...

stevenjgarner2• 7 months ago

Doesn't the $2 million fine paid by Walmart just make this a cost of doing business? Doesn't seem enough to be a deterrent.

limagnolia2• 7 months ago

That fine was levied years before Walmart acquired Vizio.

smileybarry3• 7 months ago

"All of the big TV makers" except Vizio which is owned by Walmart, of course, who happens to do ACR and ad targeting:

In August 2015, Vizio acquired Cognitive Media Networks, Inc, a provider of automatic content recognition (ACR). Cognitive Media Networks was subsequently renamed Inscape Data. Inscape functioned as an independent entity until the end of 2020, when it was combined with Vizio Ads and SmartCast; the three divisions combining to operate as a single unit.[1]

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizio

babypuncher2• 7 months ago

Well it wouldn't be Texas if there wasn't some grotesque corruption involved. Vizio is the absolute worst of the TV manufacturers when it comes to this shit, so now it's clear Texas is really just trying to bully Walmart's competition rather than do something positive for consumers.

sailfast7• 7 months ago

That does tell me why Paxton brought this suit. Either that or somebody is trying to blackmail him over something he watched.

estimator7292• 7 months ago

Sure but won't this case set precedent that all manufacturers are bound to by law?

If this case succeeds, suing Visio on the same charges would be a cakewalk.

cryptonym3• 7 months ago

If the lawsuit goes forward, it'll be really easy to force the same on Vizio.

kelseyfrog• 7 months ago

Pro plaintif not only because of privacy concerns, but if it raises the cost of televisions by introducing a production inefficiency, it is one step against the Baumol Effect.

jeffbee• 7 months ago

Imagine looking around in the year 2025 and concluding that TV prices are high.

xnx5• 7 months ago

It blew my mind when TVs started being cheaper than windows per square inch.

reallyhuh• 7 months ago

[flagged]

dang• 7 months ago

Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

hulitu• 7 months ago

"This conduct is invasive, deceptive, and unlawful. The fundamental right to privacy will be protected in Texas because owning a television does not mean surrendering your personal information to Big Tech or foreign adversaries."

But, but, but, you agreed to the TOS didn't you, or else you cannot use your TV.

davsti4• 7 months ago

So you buy a big TV, unbox it, and disagree to the TOS. Can it still be used through one of its HDMI ports?

topspin• 7 months ago

I have a cheap samsung from 5 years ago that pops up a dialog when it boots. I've never read it or agreed to it. It goes away after about 5 seconds. After that I stream using HDMI and all is well. It's also never been connected to a network.

Can't say what other TVs do, but this one works fine without TOS etc. If there is some feature or other that doesn't work due to this, I can say I've never missed it.

aerostable_slug2• 7 months ago

As far as I can tell, I'm doing that right now with a new higher-end Samsung television. The installer showed me how to make it boot directly to the active HDMI source and skip the Samsung smart hub. The TV has never been online and I don't see any reason to change that — what possible improvement could a firmware update bring? I don't use any of the television's software-enabled features.

ortusdux• 7 months ago

I just want a somewhat trustworthy organization to develop a "DUMB" certification. I would pay extra for a DUMB TV.

I like the suggested "Don't Upload My Bits" backronym.

ge962• 7 months ago

They say you can just get a large PC monitor, for me it's the ads that would drive me nuts

clhodapp• 7 months ago

I would agree if they would sell them over 55 inches with the latest panel technology in a similar pricing ballpark.

raw_anon_11117• 7 months ago

Just don’t connect your TV to the internet.

Yes I know there is a theoretical capability for it to connect to unsecured WIFI. No one still has unsecured WIFI anymore

peacebeard2• 7 months ago

This theoretical capability could connect to a neighbor's WIFI in an apartment or condo.

afarah12• 7 months ago

That's not a good answer, unless you just want cable. YouTube, Netflix, etc won't work. Buying hardware is paying extra which is already a deterrent, but anyway just shifts the problem to that piece of hardware - is the stick vetted to not do any harm? Other solutions are often impractical or overly complex for non-technical people. I haven't seen any good answers to date. I guess your TV just shouldn't spy on everything you watch? Seems like a reasonable expectation.

bradfitz• 7 months ago

Until they start using Sidewalk/LPWAN type things automatically instead of your home WiFi.

crote2• 7 months ago

We've already had TVs which only started serving ads after a few months of use. What's stopping them from selling TVs which stop working if it hasn't been able to connect to the mothership for a few weeks?

And instead of a full brick, let's just downgrade to 360p and call it an "expiration of your complementary free Enhanced Video trial".

Ajedi32• 7 months ago

The thing is, I want smart features, I just don't want those smart features to be tied to the display. A separate box allows more consumer choice, which is generally a better experience. Easily flashable firmware would be an acceptable alternative for the same reason.

dfxm122• 7 months ago

A separate box allows more consumer choice, which is generally a better experience.

In the life of my last TV (10+ yrs), I've had to switch out that separate box three times. It would have sucked & been way more expensive to have had to replace the TV each time.

Firmware can be updated, sure, but there's the risk of some internal component failing. There's the risk of the services I want to use not being compatible. I'd also prefer to use an operating system I'm familiar with, because, well, I'm familiar with it, rather than some custom firmware from a TV company whose goal is to sell your data, not make a good user experience...

Of course, this ties back to the enshittification of the Internet. Every company is trying to be a data broker now though, because they see it as free passive income.

autoexec7• 7 months ago

I'd be happy with a setup box giving me the ability to add apps for streaming services or whatever, but I don't want that STB spying on my either. I feel like even if all TVs were dumb monitors we'd just be moving the real problem of insane levels of data collection and spying to another device. We need strong regulation with real teeth to prevent the spying at which point all of our devices should be protected.

globular-toast5• 7 months ago

Hi-fi and AV enthusiasts have known that "separates" is where it's at since the beginning. Unfortunately it's such a small segment compared to mass market junk "content" devices and it's only shrinking as more people are seduced by the convenience of the shit stuff.

6510• 7 months ago

I have this article growing in the back of my head that is currently mostly a rant about how impractical technology turned out by comparing the current state with the old days. It's hard as there are countless examples and I want to address only the most embarrassing ones. Dumb vs smart TV alone could fill a tomb worth of downgrades. Do you remember the variable resistor, the rotary knob that provided volume control? The ease of use, the granularity, the response time!

I currently have volume control on my TV, one on the OS on the computer that drives it and one on the application that makes the picture. That is only half the problem

https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/pblj86/windows...

I own a 60 year old black and white tv. If the volume knob vanished people would know the problem is in my head.

mrinterweb• 7 months ago

I would much rather buy a dumb TV. I feel that the smart TV experience is an opportunity it eventually make TVs feel dated and slow. I would rather buy a standalone streamer that I can plug in. Buying a new $100 dollar streamer every couple years is cheaper and produces less e-waste than buying a new giant TV.

I isolate smart TVs and other IOT devices to a separate network/subnet, and usually block their network access unless they need an update.

askvictor• 7 months ago

The exist, for commercial/enterprise use (usually digital signage and meeting rooms). They cost a few times more than consumer-grade, because of the word 'enterprise'

JumpCrisscross2• 7 months ago

They cost a few times more than consumer-grade, because of the word 'enterprise'

They cost more because they aren’t subsidised by this junk.

kovvy• 7 months ago

A related alternative would be that the listed tv price included the price of time spent viewing ads, and the sale price of your usage data (and that changing the price, say by showing more ads, required agreement).

A DUMB TV costs $x, while a badly behaved smart TV costs $y up front, plus $z per hour for the next few years, where y is potentially slightly less than x.

platevoltage4• 7 months ago

Look at "Commercial" TVs. This is what they call dumb TV's nowadays. I guess they're mainly targeted at businesses who want a TV to for things like informational displays, conferences, etc.

I only found this out because I thought my 15 year old plasma TV had died, but it ended up being the power cord.

adastra222• 7 months ago

But a commercial TV - the ones used, ironically, for ad displays in malls and things like that.

stevenjgarner2• 7 months ago

Did they exclude the makers of video projectors (Epson, BenQ, Optoma, etc) simply because the market segment is too small?

drnick16• 7 months ago

As long as the firmware is proprietary and cannot be inspected or modified, the only reliable way to avoid snooping by tech industry is not to connect any "smart" device to the Internet. Use the TV as a dumb monitor for a PC under your control (running Linux). If streaming service X will not run on Linux because DRM is not implemented or enforceable on a free device, do without it, or find alternative sources for the content (hint: Linux ISOs).

jvanderbot2• 7 months ago

You say "only", but if it is illegal, optional, and can be detected freely, it is very likely to not happen. For all the snark one can muster about DOJ, with those three things in place, it could get expensive very quickly to try to circumvent the law.

peterhadlaw• 7 months ago

What about cheap cellular modems built in?

drnick16• 7 months ago

Is there any evidence those exist in TVs and other home appliances?

Modern cars have cellular modems, I unplugged mine, and would not hesitate to take apart a TV and physically rip off the modem.

tehlike• 7 months ago

Eventually these will use mesh networks to figure this out.

irl_zebra• 7 months ago

I've been using my pi-hole as my DNS and then also firewall blocking the TV from phoning out on port 53 in case the manufacturer has hardcoded DNS. Though I agree with the point and I shouldn't have to do this. This is just mitigation.

gruez9• 7 months ago

and then also firewall blocking the TV from phoning out on port 53 in case the manufacturer has hardcoded DNS

I'm surprised they haven't switched to using DoH, which would prevent this from working.

username135• 7 months ago

At the very least, i would assume the majority of folks here were pi-holing devices on their network.

DougN72• 7 months ago

It seems like there is a big business opportunity for someone to create a box you attach to your network to filter outgoing info, and incoming ads. Too much work for a tiny team to research what everything is talking to, and MITM your devices and watch DNS queries, etc, but if there was something dead simple to block a Samsung fridge from getting to its ad server, I have to think it would sell.

packetlost• 7 months ago

You probably overestimate the market for something like that. Most people don't know or care. Those that do are more likely to hang out on HN or adjacent places and know how to deal with it themselves anyways.

brewdad• 7 months ago

Until Samsung builds a fridge that won't cool if it goes more than some period of time (a week?) without pinging their servers. They'd probably get away with it given the friction of getting a large appliance out of your home and back to the store. Bonus evil points for making this feature active only after the return/warranty period expires.

sxates• 7 months ago

That exists, it's called a pi-hole, and it's very popular. It will block the 'tv spy' apps.

jimt12342• 7 months ago

I tried using a Pi-hole for this exact reason: prevent bullcrap TV ads. My Roku TV wouldn't stopped working. I had to whitelist so many roku-related domains that it basically became pointless.

DougN72• 7 months ago

I thought of pi-hole but I’m not sure it is dead simple. I’m thinking a box that your incoming internet connections connects to and an outgoing connection to your wifi router.

The market probably isn’t big enough yet, but I’ll bet it grows. I mean _Texas_ is bringing it up!

adolph• 7 months ago

A sibling comment says "just use Pi-hole" which kind of works and is also inadequate. A similar system is Ad Guard Home. These work at the DNS level with preset lists of bad domains. They aren't necessarily going to catch your TV calling out to notanadserver.samsung.com because that domain name is not recorded in the list of naughty domains. They are definitely not going to help if your device reaches out via IP.

Another approach is to disallow all DNS or only allow *.netflix.com for the TV. In my experience attempting to only allow certain domains is a game of whackamole where everyone in the house complains their stuff is broken because it needs undocumentedrandomdomain.com.

gruez9• 7 months ago

Another approach is to disallow all DNS or only allow *.netflix.com for the TV. In my experience attempting to only allow certain domains is a game of whackamole where everyone in the house complains their stuff is broken because it needs undocumentedrandomdomain.com.

...not to mention that apps have random third party SDKs that are required, and might not work if you block those domains. A/B testing/feature flags SDKs, and DRMs (for provisioning keys) come to mind.

Lapsa• 7 months ago

reminder: there's tech that reads your mind. who gives a fuck about some Smart TV bullcrap

spike0212• 7 months ago

I've had the advertising settings disabled on my LG C2 for a while and yesterday I decided to browse the settings menu again and found that a couple new ones had been added and turned on by default.

Good times.

BloondAndDoom• 7 months ago

I’m using my tv with all the stuff disabled (the ones it’s possibly disable), but even then I realize I don’t trust them and I don’t trust their choices. Because they get to say sorry and not held responsible.

I want smart tv because I want use my streaming services but that’s it. I also want high quality panels. Maybe the solution is high quality TVs where you just stick a custom HDMI device (similar to Amazon fire stick) and use it as the OS. Not sure if there are good open source options since Apple seems to be another company that keeps showing you ads even if you pay shit load of money for their hardware and software, Jobs must turning in his grave

chasing0entropy• 7 months ago

The solution is a separate, internet connected device to play media connected to a non-connected tv.

pton_xd• 7 months ago

This is what seemingly every app does. They add 15 different categories for notifications / emails / whatever, and then make you turn off each one individually. Then they periodically remove / add new categories, enabled by default. Completely abusive behavior.

bradleyankrom• 7 months ago

LinkedIn does the same thing re emails, notifications, etc that they send. I think I turned off notifications that connections had achieved new high scores in games they play on LinkedIn. Absurd.

ipython3• 7 months ago

Yep. Had that happen with the United app a few weeks ago. Unsolicited spam sent via push notification to my phone. Turns out that they added a bunch of notification settings - of course all default to on.

Turned them all off except for trip updates that day.

Best part is- yesterday I received yet another unsolicited spam push message. With all the settings turned off.

So these companies will effective require you to use their app to use their service, then refuse to respect their own settings for privacy.

wmeredith• 7 months ago

Want to unsubscribe from this email? Ok, you can do it in one click, but we have 16 categories of emails we send you, so you'll still get the other 15! It's a dark pattern for sure.

fragmede• 7 months ago

I especially like how they add it to the bottom of a widget with hidden scrollbars, just to make it totally missable that they added them at all!

hansvm• 7 months ago

That behavior is what finally got me off Facebook awhile back.

Edit: And something similar with Windows now that I think about it; there was a privacy setting which would appear to work till you re-entered that menu. Saving the setting didn't actually persist it, and the default was not consumer-friendly.

josephg3• 7 months ago

When I get email like that, I mark it as spam. That trains the spam filters to remove their marketing email from everyone's inbox. I see it as a community service.

babypuncher2• 7 months ago

The real trick is to never connect your TV to the internet under any circumstances. These things are displays, they don't need the internet to do their job. Leave that to the game consoles and streaming boxes.

m4632• 7 months ago

I worry about the new cellular standards that support large scale iot.

Search for 5g miot or 5g massive iot or maybe even 5g redcap

spike0212• 7 months ago

It's going to happen on any device. It's a software thing. If LG isn't doing it, it's Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. My PS5 basically shows ads on some system ui screens (granted mostly for "game" content but it still counts).

mgiampapa• 7 months ago

I firewall my TV from my Printer just so they don't get any ideas.

myself248• 7 months ago

I call this Zucking.

When a new permission appears without notice and defaults to the most-violating setting, gaslighting you into the illusion of agency but in fact you never had any, you've been Zucked.

steve_adams_86• 7 months ago

I have a Hisense TV which recently did the same. It turned on personal recommendations and advertising. I have no idea where the ads are or how it works; I only use devices over HDMI. I'm sure the TV is spying on me incessantly nonetheless.

thinkingtoilet• 7 months ago

I literally only buy computer monitors for TVs. No nonsense. Yeah, they're usually a bit more expensive but at least it doesn't spy on me.

xnx5• 7 months ago

Same behavior seen with spam email. You unsubscribe from one "list", but you're added to infinity new ones.

lifestyleguru• 7 months ago

Smart TVs turned into computers with monitors and microphones, except the whole computer part is out of our control and they barely work as a monitor.

rootusrootus4• 7 months ago

Sadly, it seems like the contingent of people who have a problem with Smart TVs is small but noisy, and has no real market power. If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.

Sort of reminds me how we complain loudly about how shitty airline service is, and then when we buy tickets we reliably pick whichever one is a dollar cheaper.

buellerbueller6• 7 months ago

Dumb TVs are hard to find: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/12/the-ars-technica-gui...

stonogo• 7 months ago

This isn't really an accurate analysis because it assumes the only parties involved are the TV manufacturers and the purchasing consumers. In fact the third party is ad brokers and so the calculus to alienate some users in pursuit of ad dollars is different.

rossdavidh• 7 months ago

A situation in which many people care a little,but a few people care a lot in the other direction,is almost exactly what government is for. Ken Paxton has issues, for sure, but good on him in this case.

dfxm122• 7 months ago

If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.

I don't think they would. There are some TV manufacturers that are better about not nagging you (which is one of the reasons why I bought a Sony last year), but as time moves forward, companies have been less likely to leave money on the table. This is just the logical result of capitalism. Regulation will be the only way to protect consumer privacy.

Similarly, air travel gets worse as consumer protection regulations gets rolled back

m4632• 7 months ago

I think government is the only way to regulate below pain threshold nonsense that weighs down society.

but I think small issues in society might translate to small issues for government action, and regulatory capture has a super-high roi overturning "minor" stuff.

I suspect only showing real harm for something is the only way to get these things high-enough priority for action.

I kind of wonder if the pager attacks, or the phone nonsense in ukraine/russia might make privacy a priority?

johnea2• 7 months ago

Hope does spring eternal, doesn't it 8-/

If no one manufactures such a product, how does the "market" express this desire?

Buying one toaster, that would last your lifetime, is easily manufactured today, and yet no company makes such a thing. This is true across hundreds of products.

The fact is, manufacturing something that isn't shit, is less profitable, so what we're gonna get is shit. It doesn't really matter what people "want".

This is true for toasters and TVs...

floxy5• 7 months ago

How often are you replacing toasters?

josho• 7 months ago

The problem is that consumers are not savvy. They go to the store, and compare TVs based on features presented. Colors, refresh rate, size, etc.

Its only when they get home (and likely not even right away) that they discover their TV is spying on them and serving ads.

This is a perfect situation where government regulation is required. Ideally, something that protects our privacy. But, minimally something like a required 'nutrition label' on any product that sends our data off device.

IshKebab• 7 months ago

I wouldn't say they aren't savvy. Many aren't, but also I don't blame them. Often you can buy a perfectly reasonable device and then they ad spying and adverts after you bought it. Most reviewers also don't talk about this stuff, and there are no standards for any of it (unlike e.g. energy consumption).

I agree more legislation is required.

janalsncm2• 7 months ago

As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent Samsung from selling you a TV, then sending out a software update in two years which forces you to accept a new terms of service that allows them to serve you ads. If you do not accept, they brick your TV.

So it’s not a question of being savvy. As a consumer you can’t know what a company will choose to do in the future.

The lawsuit seems to be about using ACR, not the presence of ads.

wmf3• 7 months ago

a required 'nutrition label'

This didn't work for GDPR cookie warnings.

jMyles• 7 months ago

The problem is that consumers are not savvy...
...This is a perfect situation where government regulation is required.

Isn't this precisely the dynamic which causes governments to have an interest in ensuring that consumers don't become savvy?

MisterTea• 7 months ago

Sadly, it seems like the contingent of people who have a problem with Smart TVs is small but noisy, and has no real market power.

No one cares. Smart TVs are super awesome to non tech people who love them. Plug it in, connect to WiFi - Netflix and chill ready. I have a friend who just bought yet another smart TV so he can watch the Hockey game from his bar.

If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.

What happened to that Jumbo (dumbo?) TV person who was on here wanting to build these things? My guess is they saw the economics and the demand and gave up. I applaud them for trying though. I still cling to my two dumb 1080 Sony TVs that have Linux PC's hooked to them.

sailfast7• 7 months ago

Wouldn’t smart TVs that didn’t spy on you also be awesome? Seems like a knowledge gap to me. This gets solved as soon as people realize what’s happening. Right now they don’t realize TVs are cheap because of the ad subsidy.

order-matters2• 7 months ago

If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.

I am not convinced of this. there is more recurring revenue involved in spying on people

bluGill7• 7 months ago

There is a market and people pay for it. However they are mostly not TVs, but monitors and those paying for it have the budget to pay far more. However this market will always exist because some of those are showing safety messages in a factory and if the monitor in any way messes those up there will be large lawsuits.

janalsncm2• 7 months ago

I don’t agree with this. The only way this would make sense is if consumers were made aware of spying vs not spying prior to purchase.

But TV manufacturers can change the TV’s behavior long after it is purchased. They can force you to agree to new terms of service which can effectively make the TV a worse product. You cannot conclude the consumer didn’t care.

rootusrootus4• 7 months ago

We're past the point when most people can claim ignorance. And surely we have enough protection to at least defend against the "changed the terms and conditions after purchase" situation? They can't force me to do anything, and then stop working if I refuse.

hilbert425• 7 months ago

This 'Wild West' is easily solved with decent consumer law. Spying could be shut down over night if laws levied fines on TV manufacturers pro rata—ie fines would multiply by the number of TV sets in service.

If each TV attracted a fine two to three times the amount manufacturers received from selling its data the practice would drop stone dead.

All it takes is proper legislation. Consumers just lobby your politicians.

dfee• 7 months ago

isn't a smart TV that's not connected to the internet just a dumb TV?

htrp2• 7 months ago

wait until your TV has it's 5g modem to bypass your wifi

hilbert425• 7 months ago

"If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one."

The problem is easily solved and I'm surpised more people don't do it. For years I've just connected a PVR/STB (set top box) to a computer monitor. It's simple and straightforward, just connect the box's HDMI output into a computer monitor.

Moreover, PVR/STBs are very cheap—less than $50 at most, I've three running in my household.

If one wants the internet on the same screen just connect a PC to another input on your monitor. This way you've total isolation, spying just isn't possible.

rootusrootus4• 7 months ago

This is okay if you want a small TV, and/or are willing to forgo the picture quality of a modern big TV.

ajsnigrutin• 7 months ago

..and constant notifications that the network is not connected, that there are wifi APs nearby, do you want to configure one(?), and that it's been 157 days since the last software update, and that you should connect your tv to the internet to get newest bestest firmware with 'new features'.

sailfast7• 7 months ago

Do you have a nice 65” OLED monitor option with solid display settings supporting Dolby modes, etc I can examine? I tried to find one and nobody is selling.

zhivota• 7 months ago

The problem is lack of information at time of purchase, in both cases. It's so onerous to figure out what these products are doing that people give up. Same in the airline case. If any of the airlines actually provided better service at a higher price, they'd have a market, but it's impossible to assess that as an end user with all the fake review bullshit that's all over the Internet these days.

The only cases where it's clearcut are a few overseas airlines like Singapore Airline who have such a rock solid reputation for great service that people will book them even if the price is 2x.

globular-toast5• 7 months ago

This sounds like victim blaming to me. "What do you mean you don't understand how software and the internet works and thought this was just a TV?!"

If you want to make a free market argument you need to look up what a free market is. In particular, consumers need to have perfect information. Do you really think if manufacturers were obligated to make these "features" clear that most people wouldn't care?

kittikitti• 7 months ago

I've been shopping around specifically for this type of thing. There's two options: one is to buy a monitor display similar to what's in restaurants and retail stores and the other is to switch to a projector without smart features. The monitor displays, like your computer monitor, is even more expensive than regular TV's because they have special features that make them better to have on all the time at retail stores. They don't even have sound systems. The other option is projector displays which are generally the more sane option but they are not as easily installed. I suspect that privacy conscious consumers will go for projector displays as they aren't bundled with spyware. There's still risks like with the Roku TV box but it's much easier to replace the streaming unit. Apple TV claims that it doesn't utilize ACR so that's a solid choice but I would personally go for a Linux box with an HDMI out.

1yvino• 7 months ago

surprising to see that this lawsuit hasn't originated from CA given the privacy laws that was established such as CCPA.

dredmorbius3• 7 months ago

California is friendlier to both advertising (Google, Facebook) and entertainment (Hollywood, generally), which might tip the balance.

But yes.

gambiting4• 7 months ago

Ha, we had a company email to all employees saying that we are not allowed to view any company confidential material on any Samsung TVs and appliances because they will take a screenshot of whatever it is you are watching and send it back to Samsung, unless explicitly disabled in settings but that setting is frequently "bugged" and just turns itself back on after some firmware updates.

sidewndr462• 7 months ago

Do they also block using Microsoft Windows ?

gambiting4• 7 months ago

Does windows take screenshots of my activity and send it to Microsoft to sell me ads?

tonyplee• 7 months ago

Any good options for wifi/wire gateway (opensource) that can filter and block spying?

a45646310• 7 months ago

https://pi-hole.net/

wkat42422• 7 months ago

Yeayyyy now for the EU to finally do the same. But they're too busy nerfing privacy laws to appease trump.

indoordin0saur• 7 months ago

In Soviet Russia TV watches YOU!

autoexec7• 7 months ago

I'm happy to see it. They should have included Roku in that too!

Roughly twice per second, a Roku TV captures video “snapshots” in 4K resolution. These snapshots are scanned through a database of content and ads, which allows the exposure to be matched to what is airing. For example, if a streamer is watching an NFL football game and sees an ad for a hard seltzer, Roku’s ACR will know that the ad has appeared on the TV being watched at that time. In this way, the content on screen is automatically recognized, as the technology’s name indicates. The data then is paired with user profile data to link the account watching with the content they’re watching.

https://advertising.roku.com/learn/resources/acr-the-future-...

I wouldn't be surprised if my PS5 was doing the same thing when I'm playing a game or watching a streaming service through it.

ms7m• 7 months ago

This is especially annoying and just incredibly creepy -- I was watching a clip of Smiling Friends on YouTube (via my Apple TV), and I suddenly got a banner telling me to watch this on HBO Max.

I never felt more motivated to pi-hole the TV.

gruez9• 7 months ago

I never felt more motivated to pi-hole the TV.

Or just disconnect from the internet entirely? You already have an apple tv. Why does your tv need internet access?

ribosometronome• 7 months ago

A banner from Apple or your TV trying to navigate you back to its own HBO app?

danielscrubs2• 7 months ago

You could try getting an European TV, at least then it will ask and you can say no.

nrhrjrjrjtntbt2• 7 months ago

So potentially completely noncompliant if used in a business. E.g. it may have HIPAA, top secret etc.

gruez9• 7 months ago

Sending 4k screenshots twice a second to a server would be tremendously bandwidth hungry. My guess is that it's all done locally.

kevin_thibedeau• 7 months ago

It is a violation of the VPPA to collect this for streaming services and prerecorded media. Scheduled broadcast and cable TV aren't covered.

cluckindan4• 7 months ago

Boardroom presentation TVs in publicly traded companies would yield insider information.

Spooky233• 7 months ago

Yeah that’s why Webex is still in business. TVs are a great entry point to LANs.

MangoToupe3• 7 months ago

HIPAA

Are health providers using PS5s in a context where information may be leaked to other providers? What kind of information would you expect to be displayed that might violate HIPAA?

nitwit0052• 7 months ago

That sounds so expensive it's hard to see it making money. You'd processing a 2fps video stream for each customer. That's a huge amount of data.

And all that is for the chance to occasionally detect that someone's seen an ad in the background of a stream? Do any platforms even let a streamer broadcast an NFL game like the example given?

0cf8612b2e1e• 7 months ago

I assume these systems are calculating an on device perceptual hash. So not that much data needs get flown back to the mothership.

nemomarx2• 7 months ago

I don't think they mean that kinda streamer - the idea is the roku tv can tell you're watching an ad even if it's on amazon prime, apple tv, youtube, twitch, wherever, and associate the ad watching with your roku account to potentially sell that data somehow?

That way they aren't cut out of the loop by you using a different service to watch something and still have a 'cut'.

htrp2• 7 months ago

Attribution is very painful and advertisers will pay lots of money to close that loop.

bequanna2• 7 months ago

The actual screenshot isn’t sent, some hash is generated from the screenshot and compared against a library of known screenshots of ads/shows/etc for similarity.

Not super tough to pull off. I was experimenting with FAISS a while back and indexed screenshots of the entire Seinfeld series. I was able take an input screenshot (or Seinfeld meme, etc) and pinpoint the specific episode and approx timestamp it was from.

Spooky233• 7 months ago

You only need to grab a few pixels or regions of the screen to fingerprint it. They know what the stream is and can process it once centrally if needed.

klik99• 7 months ago

Are there video "thumbprints" like exists for audio (used by soundhound/etc) - IE a compressed set of features that can reliably be linked in unique content? I would expect that is possible and a lot faster lookup for 2 frames a second. If this is the case, the "your device is taking a snapshot every 30 seconds" sounds a lot worse (not defending it - it's still something I hope can be legislated away - something can be bad and still exaggerated by media)

micromacrofoot3• 7 months ago

it's hashed on the tv then they compare hashes in aggregate

vrosas4• 7 months ago

I used to work for an OTT DSP adtech company i.e. a company that bid on TV ad spots in real time. The bidding platform was handling millions of requests per second, and we were one of the smaller fish in the sea. This system is very real. Your tv is watching what you’re watching. I built the attribution pipeline, which is what this is. If you go buy a product from one of these ads, this is how they track (attribute) it. Not to be alarmist butttt you have zero privacy.

airza• 7 months ago

Is it? I don’t think you need particularly high fidelity to fingerprint ads/programs.

Cthulhu_2• 7 months ago

Not necessarily, it can be done on-device, the screenshot hashed, and the results deduplicated and accumulated over time, then compressed and sent off in a neat package. It'd still be a huge amount of data when you add it all up, but not too different from the volume that e.g. web analytics produces.

Then server-side the hash is matched to a program or ad and the data accumulated and reduced even further before ending up in someone's analytics dashboard.

alias_neo3• 7 months ago

That's the thing about scaling; you offload the work to the "client" (the TV in this case) and make it do the work, it need not send back more than a simple identifier or string in an API call (of course they'll send more), so they get to use a little bit of your electricity and your TVs processing power to collect data on you and make money, with relatively little required from them, other than some infra to handle the requests, which they would have had anyway to collect the telemetry that makes them money.

Client side processing like this is legitimate and an excellent way to scale, it just hits a little different when it's being used for something that isn't serving you, the user.

source: backend developer

ozim• 7 months ago

Confirming how many people actually seen the ad is worth big bucks. No one wants to pay for ads they cannot confirm and publisher can make up impressions - if you can catch publisher making up numbers you might get a huge discount or loads of money back.

metabagel• 7 months ago

Time for me to get Apple TV.

cluckindan4• 7 months ago

As if it didn’t track your habits as well.

fn-mote• 7 months ago

This is not sufficient because the TV you are showing the video on can (does/will) take the screencaps.

jgalt212• 7 months ago

> Roughly twice per second, a Roku TV captures video “snapshots” in 4K resolution.

Isn't that too much data to even begin to analyze? The only winner here seems like S3.

nativeit6• 7 months ago

It runs a hashing algorithm locally, I believe, rather than transmitting the entire image. pHash or something similar would work.

VTimofeenko4• 7 months ago

Most likely case is that the tv is computing hash locally and sending the hash. Judging by my dnstap logs, roku TV maintains a steady ~0.1/second heartbeat to `scribe.logs.roku.com` with occasional pings to `captive.roku.com`. The rest are stragglers that are blocked by `*.roku.com` DNS blackhole. Another thing is `api.rokutime.com`, but as of writing it's a CNAME to one of `roku.com` subdomains.

The block rates seem to correlate with watch time increasing to ~1/second, so it's definitely trying to phone home with something. Too bad it can't since all its traffic going outside LAN is dropped with prejudice.

If your network allows to see stuff like that, look into what PS5 is trying to do.

CursedSilicon• 7 months ago

Hashing might not work since the stream itself would be a variable bitrate, meaning the individual pixels would differ and therefore the computed file hash

clbrmbr• 7 months ago

What system do you use to get that level of visibility?

NuclearPM• 7 months ago

I don’t know why you quoted the addresses.

godelski8• 7 months ago

  > Most likely ... sending the hash

If you're tracking packets can't you tell by the data size? A 4k image is a lot more data than a hash.

I do suspect you're right since they would want to reduce bandwidth, especially since residential upload speeds are slow but this is pretty close to verifiable, right?

Also just curious, what happens if you block those requests? I can say Samsung TVs really don't like it... but they will be fine if you take them fully offline.

micromacrofoot3• 7 months ago

The PS5 doesn't need to, they get it all in metadata because they control the full stack — TVs do it because they have less control over sources.

dontlaugh• 7 months ago

The PS5 does actually record video all the time in a ring buffer. That’s how when you press the share button, it includes a video of the recent past.

brcmthrowaway• 7 months ago

Is the PS5 not jailbroken?

TimPC• 7 months ago

It’s far less important for ad-free content. They mainly want to connect your ad watching behaviour to an email and then have loyalty program data connected to the same email so that they can identify which ads convert vs not.

afavour• 7 months ago

It’s still a privacy violation a lot of people would be outraged by if they knew it. Tracking what shows you are watching is a valuable data set.

gausswho• 7 months ago

I'd like to weaponize all this scanning into a force for good. Instead of phoning home to Roku, send the fingerprints up to an ADID database registering every ad on the planet. Open up an API so that any video stream can detect an ad and inject Max Headroom replacement clips.

Come on hackers. We could murder the global economy with this shit.

lodovic4• 7 months ago

I've been thinking about this as well - make a small device that in real time detects ads and turns off audio an video while it's playing. I'd rather see a blank screen than an ad. That way, the whole ad pyramid scheme stays intact while the conversion rates plummet.

RataNova5• 7 months ago

The only real question is whether they're doing screen-level analysis or just relying on app telemetry

the_gastropod2• 7 months ago

If I’m understanding you right, I’m confident it’s screen analysis. I have a Hisense Roku TV I exclusively use with an AppleTV. I get creepy intrusive popups telling me: “you could be watching this on other streaming providers!” all the time. So it “knows” what’s being displayed on the screen regardless of what app (or HDMI input) is being used.

IX-103• 7 months ago

They're definitely doing screen level analysis.

I work for a company that does some work on Internet advertising and one of the main issues that came up when we discussed supporting smart TV platforms was how we could protect our proprietary advertising audience data while still showing ads on these devices. Knowing what ads we show the user tells them what the user is interested in, which is valuable information for our competitors.

Unfortunately, we were not able to solve that problem, and instead to just use lower fidelity user models for advertising on smart TVs. That makes smart TV ads less valuable, but allows us to keep our competitive advantage on desktop and mobile.

mapt2• 7 months ago

Does this apply for external video inputs, outside of the smart TV OS?

I guess I can always just refuse the TV OS access to the wifi, assuming they're not using 4G modems.

next_xibalba• 7 months ago

I'm fairly puzzled by my own reaction to this.

I'm indifferent to YouTube have frame-by-frame nanodata about me.

But as a Roku user, this snap shotting makes me very angry.

Maybe because much of what I watch on my TV via my Roku is content I own and stream from my personal server?

B-Con• 7 months ago

For me, I despise having different abstractions get crossed.

I expect my media app, ie. YouTube, to know what I watch from the media app. YouTube knows about YouTube.

My operating system, ie. Roku, should not know about what's happening inside a given app. ie. Roku does not know about YouTube.

When they start crossing layers, that greatly upsets me.

order-matters2• 7 months ago

It should be illegal to set information collection settings to on by default. Being watched is considered a threat almost universally across all animals.

you would be incredibly uncomfortable with someone wide-eyed staring you down and taking notes of your behavior, wouldnt you? This is what tech companies are doing to everyone by default and in many cases they actively prevent you from stopping them. It is the most insane thing that people only seem to mildly complain about.

idle_zealot• 7 months ago

Humans are intensely social creatures, and are not adapted to feel the same way about things done invisibly versus visibly. That's how you end up in weird situations where people know the pervasive spying we're subjected to is wrong, but can't muster the will to act on it most of the time. It's cases like these where "voting with your wallet" produces terrible results. On one end you have organized groups of people figuring out chinks in human instincts, and on the other you have an unorganized mass of people doing what feels right or is expedient. You need coordination on both ends for competition and optimization to play out and find an acceptable compromise.

Razengan• 7 months ago

Humans are intensely social creatures, and are not adapted to feel the same way about things done invisibly versus visibly.

This is why the EFF or some other privacy watchdog should fund a ad campaign depicting Google, Facebook etc. as a creepy stalker character peeking through someone's window, following them around, noting everything they do, gaslighting them etc.

Expose this abnormal norm for the disgusting behavior it is.

nyeah7• 7 months ago

It's always amazing how many people plop anti-consumer comments out here. Like, of course you bastards deserve to be served ads on your own TV that you just paid $800 for. Because why? Because ... the market is wise, and "the market" is screwing us, so ... we must ... deserve to be screwed?

Whatever is being offered to us must be the best deal we can get, because ... it's being offered to us?

What drives this sentiment? Is it Stockholm Syndrome?

wmf3• 7 months ago

HN is a haven for principled libertarians but I don't see many such comments in this thread.

stevage• 7 months ago

It's driven by the fact that many of these people work for companies doing similar things, and this is how they resolve the cognitive dissonance. Otherwise they'd have to accept that their work is unethical.

nyeah7• 7 months ago

I've wondered about cognitive dissonance. Another "cog diss" possibility is, maybe I have a strong aversion to admitting that I'm getting screwed. Maybe I can relieve those feelings by arguing publicly that I'm not getting screwed. Or that it's "inevitable" for me to be screwed.

I don't know. It's one guess among many.

benced4• 7 months ago

Because the companies are selling technology to us cheaper than cost in exchange for this? I do think they should be required to offer a revenue-neutral way to turn off ads but it would cost several hundred dollars and only me & 5 other weirdos on this website would buy it.

You can look at Vizio's quarterly statements before Walmart bought them: their devices were margin negative and "Platform+" (ads) made up for it: https://investors.vizio.com/financials/quarterly-results/def...

itopaloglu834• 7 months ago

We all know that they would artificially increase the price of those models and exclude tons of features to punish users and say it’s not profitable.

They should not be allowed to track user at all as a hardware manufacturer, let the users purchase the tracking software themselves and get a rebate back.

nyeah7• 7 months ago

That may be a good point. But I don't think it's an answer to my question.

My question was, Why do people get so passionate about being screwed? Say consumers really are receiving a $300 discount in exchange for being forced to watch say 30 hours of ads. Is that really such a fantastic opportunity that I'm going to go cheer for it publicly, or claim it's consumers' fault, or it should be mandatory, or we must just accept it because (whatever)?

anon70003• 7 months ago

Exactly. The free market has very little recourse when companies basically all start doing the same thing, and more or less don’t tell you about it. You certainly don’t see “takes a screenshot of your TV every 2s and uploads it for us to analyze” plastered all over the boxes! I guess the idea is the consumer will be omniscient and that a company will come along offering a privacy protecting alternative… but those incentives just doooo not work!

Seriously, totally deranged to think the “free market” is capable of protecting humans against widespread nefarious behavior from colluding actors with vast amounts of money and power.

globular-toast5• 7 months ago

A free market would be great and perfectly capable of serving the public. The problem is free market is a theoretical concept and markets like electronics are nowhere near free. Collusion is something that happens in an oligopoly. The fact many markets degenerate into oligopolies and monopolies is why we need government. 30 years ago I feel like people understood this. Now it seems everyone thinks they know what free market means just because they heard the term one time.

savanaly• 7 months ago

I can not like something without wanting to make it illegal to do it. Simple as that. My preferences aren't necessarily someone else's preferences.

nyeah7• 7 months ago

But I didn't really ask "why do some consumers prefer not to make certain unwanted features illegal"? I asked why some consumers are so wildly positive about being forced to adopt features they hate.

Lemme example. In the weed space, I don't think anybody would take this seriously: "well it's illegal and there's nothing we can do about that so it's pointless to discuss dissenting views." Or "it's going to be legalized and there's nothing anybody can do about that, so there is no possibility of debate." People would just laugh at that.

But when it's normal consumer activity, those same arguments seem to cut ice. Why?

hdgvhicv• 7 months ago

HN tell me people want adverts, they are for my benefit so I can benefit from them.

zaptheimpaler• 7 months ago

I don't like ACR at all.. but after reading all the raging about ads on TVs I thought they would be terrible. Then I got one recently - the ads are literally just links to watch movies & TV series I might be interested in, on my TV? Like yes I do want my TV to show me some things I might be interested in watching, the same way Youtube does. I don't like the increasing privacy violations like ACR being used to tune those "ads", but seeing recommendations on my TV is a feature I like..

Heck if I had strong guarantees that the data generated by ACR was used only to tune recommendations/ads using an anonymous advertising ID like IDFA and not linked to any personally identifying information, I would want that too. But sadly there is no privacy and no way of ensuring that now.

lodovic4• 7 months ago

Not everyone feels like that. Yesterday the app of my tv provider on my Samsung TV home screen suddenly shows a Prime icon in its place, prompting to install the app if you use muscle memory to control the TV. I am unable to remove this annoying ad. I really really hate ads and will go to great lengths to avoid seeing any in my private home. So I see this as an invasion of my privacy. Not buying Samsung anymore.

moooo992• 7 months ago

I feel this is a generally strange situation. TVs seem to be pretty much the only tech that is somehow inflation proof, and that is largely due to the surveillance capitalist approach they come with.

I am a strong privacy advocate, but I also believe in customers choice. Hence, the primary issue I have with this technology is not its existence, but the lack of transparency in the pricing and the inability to truly properly opt out of this data collection.

At some point in the past year, I‘ve read someone suggest a „privacy label“ for electronics, akin to the energy efficiency labels that exist around the world. The manufacturers should be forced to disclose the extend of the data collection as well as the purpose and the ability to opt out on the product packaging, before the customer makes the purchase

bobro• 7 months ago

My guess is that most people on HN work for companies that are in some meaningful way doing the same thing. What would be called spying 50 years ago is now the bedrock of how tech either makes money or improves their products.

moomoo11• 7 months ago

Is this the Californication of Texas?

platevoltage4• 7 months ago

I mean, I expect it to happen in my lifetime.

dramm• 7 months ago

Excellent. Badly needed. Thank you Texas.

frndsprotocol• 7 months ago

This is exactly why the current ad model is broken.

Users are tracked without real consent, advertisers still waste budgets, and everyone loses except the platforms collecting the data.

What’s interesting is that you can actually build effective ads without spying at all — by targeting intent signals instead of identities, and rewarding users transparently for engagement.

The tech is already there, but the incentives are still backwards.

mateo411• 7 months ago

This is called contextual advertising. It's becoming more popular as cookies are becoming less effective.

cma• 7 months ago

Wiretapping laws should apply; you could have an HDMI capture card hooked up to camera with mic etc.

SunshineTheCat• 7 months ago

It has been increasingly interesting to me how aligned the interests of platforms are with advertisers against the end consumer.

I don't think I have ever heard a person say they enjoy watching ads (except maybe the super bowl and even then it's a pretty short list).

Despite that, it seems like ads continue to multiply and companies get even more annoying and slimy with how they integrate them.

I guess what I'm wondering is where the breaking point is, when people start abandoning ad-filled platforms all together and ads become less profitable to sell/purchase.

The person or company to figure out a way other than ads to monetize eye balls (and its not just data, that's only used to make better ads) will be the next Google.

nhumrich• 7 months ago

they will be the next Google

No, Google will copy them and shut them down.

tyjen• 7 months ago

It's absurd, I've blocked outgoing connections for all home devices and appliances by default. The printer and TV were some of the worst culprits.

mmooss3• 7 months ago

How do you watch streaming content? If you choose a movie in Netflix, I expect it makes an outgoing connection to Netflix's servers.

a45646310• 7 months ago

They typically use different dns domain and subdomains or subpaths, because the same server cannot ingest analytics and stream data at the same time. So, keep roku.com but block scribe.roku.com

jmward01• 7 months ago

I've said it before and I will probably say it again, this is digital assault and should be thought of and treated that way. Companies, and their officers, should be treated criminally for things like this. Most people do not know/understand this is happening and that is by design. Is this view a little hyperbolic? Possibly, but the privacy scales are so far tipped against the average person right now that we need more extreme views and actions to start fixing things.

mmooss3• 7 months ago

Why focus on TV makers and not include social media and other computer/phone surveillance?

platevoltage4• 7 months ago

Probably because Ken Paxton has no issue with surveillance.

CGMthrowaway• 7 months ago

Next do Smart TVs listening to you. This is the #1 cause of "uncanny" ads that people get on Facebook, etc. when they think their phone is listening to them. It's usually their TV doing the listening.

edit: why the downvotes?

mark_l_watson• 7 months ago

Good for Texas. State governments often protect us from the federal government. Many laws that we have now were only passed at the federal level when about 2/3 of states previously passed the same laws (e.g., women's voting rights).

nneonneo• 7 months ago

ACR needs to die. It’s an absurd abuse of the privileged position that a TV has - a gross violation of privacy just to make a few bucks. It should be absolutely nobody’s business to know what you watch except your own; the motivation behind the VPPA was to kill exactly this type of abuse.

The greatest irony is that HDCP goes to great lengths to try and prevent people from screenshotting copyrighted content, and here we have the smart TVs at the end just scraping the content willy-nilly. If someone manages to figure out how to use ACR to break DRM, maybe the MPAA will be motivated to kill ACR :)

sailfast7• 7 months ago

This is an excellent idea.

DrewADesign12• 7 months ago

Next stop: auto manufacturers and location data.

patrickk• 7 months ago

The ship has sailed on that one. The telematics from the car can also be sent back to the mothership, i.e. if you’re driving like a lunatic, pulling donuts, harsh acceleration and so on.

aDyslecticCrow2• 7 months ago

It's faar worse. Automotive manufacturers and live IP camera feed. (See also tesla motors)

amelius3• 7 months ago

Next stop google analytics.

doctorpangloss• 7 months ago

another POV is, stop using a TV

thomasahle• 7 months ago

ACR — Automatic Content Recognition: tech in some smart TVs/apps that identifies what’s on-screen (often via audio/video “fingerprints”) and can report viewing data back to vendors/partners.

VPPA — Video Privacy Protection Act: a U.S. law aimed at limiting disclosure of people’s video-viewing/rental history.

HDCP — High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection: an anti-copy protocol used on HDMI/DisplayPort links to prevent interception/recording of protected video.

DRM — Digital Rights Management: a broad term for technical restrictions controlling how digital media can be accessed, copied, or shared.

MPAA — Motion Picture Association of America: the former name of the main U.S. film-industry trade group (now typically called the MPA, Motion Picture Association).

TV / TVs — Television(s).

lodovic4• 7 months ago

Thank you

RataNova5• 7 months ago

Appreciate this breakdown

robgibbons• 7 months ago

U.S. — United States (of America)

RataNova5• 7 months ago

Enormous effort goes into stopping users from capturing a single frame, while manufacturers quietly sample the screen multiple times a second by design

intothemild• 7 months ago

Reminder. Just don't connect a smart tv to the internet.

Easy fix

demurgos• 7 months ago

What are TV brands/OSes that complain the least when not connected to the internet?

a45646310• 7 months ago

My LG and Samsung TVs have never been connected to wifi. They don't complain at all.

Tempest1981• 7 months ago

Nevada has a gaming dept that certifies the firmware in "slot" machines. It shouldn't be hard to do the same for TVs. Maybe include cars too... they like to phone home more than they should.

mschuster912• 7 months ago

One does not want to end up on the bad side of Nevada's Gaming Commission [1]. They can and will rip you apart.

[1] https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000298248/hearing-in-la...

robomartin• 7 months ago

It's about time. They should include Vizio as well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/VIZIO_Official/search/?q=ads

https://www.reddit.com/r/VIZIO_Official/search/?q=advertisin...

It's amazing to see what they have gotten away with in the last few years. The average consumer has no choice and now way to opt out of the nonsense.

wileydragonfly• 7 months ago

“How many times is he gonna watch that Kathy Ireland swimsuit special for 2-3 minutes?”

“X + 1”

I hope they’re enjoying the video footage.

ch2026• 7 months ago

This is the same AG who sued Tylenol over autism. While we can applaud the effort (broken clock theory?), it’s all but guaranteed he’s getting paid for helping another entity. Corruption is on the menu and fully expected these days.

29athrowaway• 7 months ago

Disable Internet connection and just use them as a display.

pier25• 7 months ago

It’s not spying. You agree to that in the tos!

navaed01• 7 months ago

Fundamentally how is this any different from what Google or Meta or Comcast or AT&T do? Comcast knows everything that goes to the TV and sells that data. At&T sells your browsing data… Those are services you pay for monthly.

Sure the method is different but it’s the same goal. Company x learns your interests so It can monetize you by selling to advertisers

anon70003• 7 months ago

AT&T sounds like the same thing, Google sounds different because they theoretically claim to not sell your data, and instead sell ads, and Google can show you an ad you want to see because Google knows you so well. It doesn’t precisely sell you to advertisers in the same way.

Anyways, the whole thing sucks for consumer privacy and needs to be outlawed. The problem is that companies come up with unique, tricky ways of exploiting you, and people can never fully understand it without a lot of effort. Someone might be ok using Google and seeing contextual ads, but wouldn’t be ok if they knew Google was saving a screenshot of their browser every second and uploading and reselling it. The first can feel innocuous, the second feels evil.

criddell• 7 months ago

Why do you think it's different? At first glance it seems more or less the same thing to me.

jjulius• 7 months ago

Fundamentally how is this any different from what Google or Meta or Comcast or AT&T do?

It's all garbage all the way down.

StanislavPetrov• 7 months ago

I've got two more dumb TVs sitting in my closet for when this one burns out for exactly this reason.

sroussey3• 7 months ago

Do they mention tagging your Bluetooth IDs at the same time?

p0w3n3d• 7 months ago

I wonder why it takes a one state to wake up legally speaking. Why the Federal Government is not speaking about this... Or EU for that matter

9dev• 7 months ago

In other news, Americans discover why the GDPR isn’t such a bad idea after all!

jsrozner5• 7 months ago

Seriously, why can't we just have a law that makes entirely illegal the retention of any personally identifiable information in any way that is legible to the retainer.

You can store my data for me, but only encrypted, and it can be decrypted only in a sandbox. And the output of the sandbox can be sent only back to me, the user. Decrypting the personal data for any other use is illegal. If an audit shows a failure here, the company loses 1% of revenue the first time, then 2%, then 4, etc.

And companies must offer to let you store all of your own data on your own cloud machine. You just have to open a port to them with some minimum guarantees of uptime, etc. They can read/write a subset of data. The schema must be open to the user.

Any systems that have been developed from personal user data (i.e. recommendation engines, trained models) must be destroyed. Same applies: if you're caught using a system that was trained in the past on aggregated data across multiple users, you face the same percentage fines.

The only folks who maybe get a pass are public healthcare companies for medical studies.

Fixed.

(But yeah it'll never happen because most of the techies are eager to screw over everyone else for their own gain. And they'll of course tell you it's to make the services better for you.)

leogiertz• 7 months ago

You mean like GDPR but stronger?

NooneAtAll3• 7 months ago

like GDPR, but cookie banners are by law preemptively answered with no

jsrozner5• 7 months ago

i mean that the business models of google and facebook would go poooof

itopaloglu834• 7 months ago

I want my TVs to track me as much as a 1970s toaster. They have no business knowing who I am or anything about my life, yet alone twice a second capturing what I watch.

Once a generation starts to accept that everything they do is getting tracked, things may never go back, it may even lead autocracy.

hopelite2• 7 months ago

Arguably we already have autocracy (call it emergent, if you like) in both the EU and America due to a combination of abdication and subversions of democratic will, self-governance, and sovereign nationhood over the last many decades, which is really starting to show its ugly nature just recently.

People forget, autocracies don’t just show up one day and announce “ok, we’re going to do autocracy now and I’m your dictator. Ok? Good?” They are conditions that have a long tail setup and preparation and then an accelerating escalation (where it seems we are now) and then, if not adequately countered, it bursts into place almost overnight.

That has resulted in the state of, in the EU, unelected (popularly) Commission Presidents dictating and dominating all of Europe, and the Presidency using powers it wasn’t supposed to have to tariff and threaten countries with destruction, conferred upon the office by a Congress that has also failed its core function.

Shallow thinkers tend to think in terms of the past archetypes, but it is unlikely that we will ever see anything like one of the middle eastern or Latin American autocrats with a clownish amount of metals on their chests ruling the West. It is a small cabal of people that manage a new kind of patronage system where everyone gets a piece of the plunder of the peasants. Call it neo-aristocracy if you like, until a better term emerges. Remember, the new tricks and lies tend to not be the same as the old tricks and lies.

andrepd2• 7 months ago

It's exhausting getting "normies" to care about that. Frankly that ship has sailed, on a cultural level. Things that were unthinkable 20 years ago are just... yeah that's normal whatever.

RataNova5• 7 months ago

The hard part isn't the crypto or the sandboxing, it's enforcement and incentives

cassonmars• 7 months ago

The hard part _includes_ the crypto and the sandboxing. Short of playing security theater games like "chuck it in a TEE", the moment your data needs any kind of processing, or possesses relationships with other users data (or their ability to view your data, like a social media feed), the complexity increases exponentially.

IAmBroom• 7 months ago

And the "convincing politicians to support the public good over the wishes of the lobbyists who fund their careers".

forgotusername6• 7 months ago

Sending packages in the mail would be interesting. Though I suppose the only person that really needs to know your exact address is the delivery company, so maybe you could mail things with the address encrypted with the delivery company's public key..

amelius3• 7 months ago

Certainly doable.

tekawade• 7 months ago

Agree. Also they say it’s not personally identifiable if they know everything about you but associates it as anonymously. Basically renaming you to random artifact. Fees La like major loophole. That’s why I don’t like chrome.

Saying that I think I am already hooked on free and/or easy to search etc etc BS. Basically take my data for convenience and some advanced tech. Honestly feels like addiction.

hopelite2• 7 months ago

Not enough people care…ironically, largely because they’re in the modern opium den … watching and playing things on their screens.

theptip• 7 months ago

You don’t even need to go this far. Just make deletion a right and clear consent a requirement like GDPR did. That’ll kill all these systems that depend on collecting information about people without their knowledge.

(Same goes for the credit bureaus and all the information brokers that slurp up every bit of de-anonymize information they can get.)

mondrian• 7 months ago

Sounds like this: https://solidproject.org/about

But yea privacy is a silly thing to propose to a surveillance industry.

1970-01-01• 7 months ago

So, you can. This is GDPR in a nutshell. You have that protection if you have dual EU/US citizenship.

zkmon• 7 months ago

Did they sue Google for reading all your emails? Or Meta for seeing all your personal history? Or Walmart for determining someone's very personal relationships based on their buying patterns? Or just every salesman out there whose job is to be nosy about customer's life and work?

wtcactus• 7 months ago

Sincerely, for anyone technical competent, I don't even see the reason to connect your TV to the internet (or even the local network).

I do have a smart TV, but I have no use for it since my NVIDIA Shield does all the lifting.

A good enough android TV dongle will cost €30. So...

emsign• 7 months ago

Thanks, Texas.

Cthulhu_2• 7 months ago

accusing them of “secretly recording what consumers watch in their own homes.”

Secret? There's T's&C's that people agree to when starting up their TV that tells them.

That doesn't make it right of course and it shouldn't just be opt-in, it should be banned entirely. If you want to analyse my viewing behaviour, pay me.

moooo992• 7 months ago

I would be curious to see a comparison of the T&Cs in these TVs.

I generally agree that reading the T&C is on the user and you cannot blame the lack if transparency onto the company, IF the T&C are sufficiently comprehensible. Some T&Cs I‘ve read are written in obscure enough legalese that it might as well be considered hidden information

lodovic4• 7 months ago

So you buy a new TV, unpack and install it, and then when the whole family is gathered around, you suddenly get this confirmation on the TV if you agree with their T&C. Are you supposed to reject them and return the TV at this point? T&C should be part of the purchase agreement, instead of being forced upon the user while using the product after purchase. Any one-sided change of T&C after purchase should be invalid and punishable.

rcMgD2BwE72F• 7 months ago

It's secret because they don't tell you exactly what they record and how. Can you?

nottorp2• 7 months ago

I skimmed through what the TX governor/attorney general/whatever it's called said, and I don't think he even understands "privacy". All he's bothered about is that the data is going to China instead of American companies.

pnt12• 7 months ago

But they named companies that are not Chinese eg Samsung. I think the claims are well spirited and the China argument is an aggravating factor for many, so no harm in having it. Will likely lead to higher interest in the case, so that's good.

nottorp2• 7 months ago

Samsung is still Korean, which means the money made off your data are not going to an all american company :)

Also, if i remember what I read well, he may not be aware that Samsung is not Chinese.

delis-thumbs-7e• 7 months ago

What American TV manufacturers is there? LG is from Korea as well, Sony is originally from Japan and there two smaller (I assume, since Koreans dominate display market) Chinese manufacturers. But together those five are most of the units manufactured globally, so makes sense to sue them to have the biggest impact.

not_so_34• 7 months ago

“Companies, especially those connected to the Chinese Communist Party, have no business illegally recording Americans’ devices inside their own homes,” Paxton said. “This conduct is invasive, deceptive, and unlawful. The fundamental right to privacy will be protected in Texas because owning a television does not mean surrendering your personal information to Big Tech or foreign adversaries.”

cestith• 7 months ago

Saying especially one subgroup does not negate other subgroups being included in a larger group.

dawnerd• 7 months ago

Of course they don’t understand privacy, they’re the same ones also trying to verify gender to use a restroom.

I appreciate them caring about what you watch being recorded but it’s pretty clear too they only care because the tv manufacturers are not “American Companies”. Walmart is getting special treatment and will be allowed to operate

RataNova5• 7 months ago

The China angle will grab headlines, but the more uncomfortable truth is that the entire smart TV ad model seems to depend on surveillance most users never fully understood they were opting into

jwr• 7 months ago

As a reminder if you own an LG TV, turn off the sneakily named "Live Plus" thing. This "option" makes your LG TV spy on you, tracking and reporting what you watch based on the image that is shown on the TV.

You need to go to Settings -> All Settings -> General -> System -> Additional Settings to make sure the "Live Plus" option is OFF.

Check it periodically, as it sometimes turns itself back on again after updates.

he0001• 7 months ago

Isn’t this a thing for all providers? YouTube definitely spies on what you look at and Netflix knows as well. Or is this just because a TV actually doesn’t provide the content, just the view? And is there’s a difference if you have a streaming device like Roku?

lingrush4• 7 months ago

Content providers knowing when I watch their content is not concerning to me. They're on the other side of a transaction with me; they have as much a right to store the details of the transaction as I do. Even Blockbuster had that information.

What's concerning is when third parties start snooping on transactions that they are not involved in.

cknives1• 7 months ago

I just assume everything is spying on me. It doesn’t change my behavior much, but I definitely don’t try to do anything illegal if I can help it.

a45646310• 7 months ago

What is _illegal_? And who defines _illegal_? And would you know when something legal is made _illegal_?

thdrtol• 7 months ago

Good.

As long as there are no clear laws this will only get worse. Imagine a TV with an e-sim. There will be no way to turn the connection off unless you pack it in aluminum foil.

Talking about e-sim, Texas should also sue all modern car brands. Most cars today are online and spy on your driving behavior.

arein3• 7 months ago

This is scary, but very likely in the future.

qwertox• 7 months ago

Sounds like a thing the EU could regulate for us Europeans.

Though I do not understand why this isn't categorizes as illegitimate spying.

firesteelrain• 7 months ago

US needs something like GPDR.

HardwareLust• 7 months ago

This is yet another case of people clicking through the TOS without reading or understanding it.

immibis• 7 months ago

Isn't that legal in Texas though?

csallen• 7 months ago

Vizio, which is now owned by Walmart, paid $2.2 million to the Federal Trade Commission and New Jersey in 2017 over similar allegations related to ACR.

Lmao $2.2m is less than nothing to Walmart.

gosub100• 7 months ago

All of the big TV makers? So spying is okay if it's done on a smaller screen? (/S sorry couldn't resist a little context sensitive Grammer joke.)

herodotus• 7 months ago

What bugs me is that it is impossible to buy a TV these days that is not "smart". (Of course I know I can just not connect it to the internet, and I don't, but I wish there was a company in the TV market which would make privacy a selling point).

stevetron• 7 months ago

Maybe I'm a little slow, but assuming that everything I watch on TV is copyrighted content, wouldn't that make every screen-grab a DRM violation?

queuebert• 7 months ago

The sheer amount of compute spent on advertising on this planet boggles my mind.

padjo2• 7 months ago

Also all the smart people spending a career trying to get other people to buy things that they don’t want or need l, the relentless consumption of which degrades the very environment which supports us. It’d be funny if you didn’t have to play the game too.

justinc8687• 7 months ago

I personally have a Samsung TV, but this ACR and ad stuff is why ever since the moment I took it out of the box, it has never and will never, be plugged into the internet. I simply use an Google TV plugged into it for my actual streaming, and avoid all of this ACR nonsense (yes Google has their own tracking but I want Tailscale and SmartTube). I think this is the way to do it. Just use your smart TV as a dumb TV, and move on.

sycren• 7 months ago

So what if a large TV is being used to cast business information in a meeting?

It's ironic that Sony as a media producer and TV maker could be streaming copyrighted images for an algorithm to use.

Could this be used as an example from AI companies on the use of copyrighted images for training data?

realo• 7 months ago

Hello Texas!

What about cars? Tesla, in particular does record an awful lot of personal data about you...

a45646310• 7 months ago

Do NOT connect a machine you don't have control over to the internet. Every machine these days will spy on you

M95D• 7 months ago

There are no more machines over which we still have control.

a45646310• 7 months ago

A plain old linux PC. It can be installed on anything. I do have to give up on HDCP and DRM some times, as mentioned somewhere else in this thread.

But yes, you are right!

danielodievich• 7 months ago

It gives me distinct pleasure to see the little network cable plug from the cable coming from TV be sticking just so half-way out of the network switch enough so that I can easily plug it back in without hunting for it behind all the equipment, but also enough to know it can't talk to anything.

molind• 7 months ago

After this article I installed AdBlock Home to my HA unit and moved DHCP to it. Filtered LG domains and few thousands others. Apparently LG TV actively uses internet even in switched off state.

a45646310• 7 months ago

It's bonkers to say the least and unacceptable.

8bitsrule• 7 months ago

I remember a time when the word "smart" referred to a high level of intelligence. Rather than a marketing ploy aimed at the innocent.

saghm• 7 months ago

If I had been told I'd an article today with the phrase "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claims..." and asked to predict the remainder of the sentence, a reasonable pro-consumer stance would probably not have been in my top 20 guesses.

richvos• 7 months ago

Can you stop this type of activity with DNS blocking or is it just inescapable?

poppafuze• 7 months ago

They'll introduce a "privacy-class" TV soon enough.

Texas is suing all of the big TV makers for spying on what you watch

Related Stories