Hacker News Reader

Comment by matthewmacleod | Hacker News Reader

I am pretty sceptical of this specific rumour and I suspect it's an urban legend.

But regardless of that… it's totally plausible that a manufacturer could end up doing this, and as such it presents a risk vector. I can even see how it might be done semi-accidentally by a bad engineering team.

An even bigger risk is corporate-owned mesh networks, like Amazon Sidewalk. It's quite possible that TVs with Alexa support will end up also having access to this network, and will use your neighbour's Echo to ship data back even without you knowing. Or even a built-in LTE/5G transceiver.

Without strong regulation of privacy and consent, this will be a persistent and dangerous issue.

View on HN

> I can even see how it might be done semi-accidentally by a bad engineering team.

I can totally see this being done as a "usability" feature.

Automated telemetry, noticed by the marketing department, scooped up an analysed is how I usually picture it.

> Without strong regulation of privacy and consent, this will be a persistent and dangerous issue.

It won't be a dangerous issue because no one can force a TV inside your house/office.

Meanwhile leave the rest of us the option to make this trade-off

My ability to watch content produced by one company should not be impinged upon because I don’t consent to frankly gross privacy violations by another entirely unrelated company. This is exactly what regulation is for. Privacy should be protected. You and I can make this trade-off. My parents? They don’t. We protect those who aren’t well versed in a topic through regulation for this reason.

You are not obligated to buy anything you disapprove of

> We protect those who aren’t well versed in a topic through regulation for this reason.

You're still missing the crux of the matter. You can't disapprove of something you don't know about.

In addition (Slightly OT, but related), there are many people who do disapprove, but have to have access to a product/service in order to do their job. The only way to protect them is regulation.

I get it -- beyond a certain point this sort of thing becomes fraud, which is already illegal.

Regarding the job example -- the employer is also a human being, and if they want to get that TV they may. If you disapprove of that, you don't have to work there. Either way, best if you keep your private conversations out of the office.

> I get it -- beyond a certain point this sort of thing becomes fraud, which is already illegal.

True. I suppose that the people asking for more regulation (myself included in this instance) would mostly just like for those laws to actually have teeth in this sort of situation. Unfortunately, lawmakers/enforcers mostly fall in the "not knowing" category.

Also, my apologies if I came across as overly combative, that was not my intention.

> If you disapprove of that, you don't have to work there.

Unfortunately, many people do not have the option to drop a job and find a better work environment. I have some other views on this, but that would be OT for this thread.

> Either way, best if you keep your private conversations out of the office.

Definitely agree on that.

> You're still missing the crux of the matter. You can't disapprove of something you don't know about.

Well, it sounds like the regulation you might want is something that oDot could also live with: a requirement for full disclosure and clear labeling, but not a ban on anything.

I would be quite fine with that. Maybe something akin to the labels required on cigarettes (in the US at least).

Affordable Care Act

Like poisoned water? Consumer protection exist for a good reason.

1) If it is dangerous in his situation is not up to you to decide. Saying he shouldn't get a TV is like saying to someone to not get internet. Please...

2) Being OPT-in would not stop you from using it.

I'm very curious why you feel so strongly that SmartTV's should be allowed to send data without anyone's knowledge?

Sometimes I'm worried my gf will get upset that I can't watch something on the projector and want to get a TV. I could absolutely see that happening if something weird happens with widevine.

No, it is dangerous because it subverts even quite well-informed expectations of a product.

If I purchase and install an appliance, and do not connect it to a network, I have a reasonable expectation that it will not not send my personal data to the manufacturer.

It is unlikely that consumers will anticipate hidden data-gathering being performed by products. We already enforce standards to validate that products will not do things like burst into flames, or emit toxic gases. It is equally reasonable to require that products being sold to customers meet acceptable levels of protection for private data.

Additionally, you are still welcome to make that trade-off for yourself. Regulation requires that you are informed and in some cases consent to data-gathering. It does not require it to not exist.

That sounds like borderline fraud, which does not require any additional regulation

> Additionally, you are still welcome to make that trade-off for yourself. Regulation requires that you are informed and in some cases consent to data-gathering. It does not require it to not exist.

Nobody mentioned yet what kind of regulation they are talking about.

I reckon oDot was objecting to an outright ban, but would accept a disclosure requirement.

> It won't be a dangerous issue because no one can force a TV inside your house/office.

No, but the government forces me to pay for the public TV stations and there is no way to opt out. So yes, I do want a TV in my home.

Inb4 sunk cost fallacy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com