But then, by standards of two decades ago, every website that cannot legally avoid showing a GDPR popup would be classified as malware. As it should be today. Alas, standards have changed.
I don't think you've read GDPR. In Europe (at least my part), *every* organization has a GDPR policy you need to agree to. Your child's school. Summer camps. Etc. Most are also conservative and reasonable.
What's broken is the GDPR popup with a dozen "legitimate interest" toggles for spying on you.
You only need explicit consent from the user for tracking you do not require for valid business purposes
It's like complaining that OSHA sucks because every time you visit the grocery store you have to sign a waver that if they throw you in a wood chipper, you cant sue them.
That problem is not with liability wavers!
What feels really crummy to me is how many people don't seem to know that websites cannot really prevent you from using them if you reject optional cookies, so average people are afraid that if they say no, they can't use websites.
To sue them you'd have to show some actual, concrete harm. For example you contact a site that is blocking you and they tell you it's due to a certain request and you trace that request to the proxy.
> Plus, IP addresses rotate once a day
And I would be miserable if I were subjected to the volume of captchas and blocks on my regular internet connection that I see on the occasion I use Tor.
This won't change unless governments create and enforce laws.
What's the difference between running a Tor exit node and a "residential proxy" except optics?
Look: I'm 100% for banning secret proxies that hide from the user, but stopping people knowingly and voluntarily running these proxies is a violation of fundamental software freedom tenets.
The article is quite clear that LG runs an "app store" where 42% of the "apps" likely contain residential proxies, and LG is going to make its "app store" developers stop doing that. From TFA:
> “A residential proxy network is not an intended use for LG smart TVs, and LG Electronics is working with developers to remove the residential proxy option from their apps on the webOS platform,” Taylor said. “If this option is not removed, these apps will be suspended.”
This says nothing about your own software installed on the TV, should that be possible.
But even if you ran your own software on your TV, would you run a proxy service? Given you already have a residential ISP, you wouldn't need to hook your TV up to a botnet and buy residental ISP access for your scrapers via your own, or other unwitting suckers', TVs.
Your hypothetical of wanting to run a Tor exit node is silly. Most Tor exit node operators run them knowingly on dedicated hardware, usually in a datacentre, not their own home, and prepare themselves legally for when they inevitably get emails from law enforcement, or worse, raided. You'd almost certainly firewall the destinations it can reach, you wouldn't let it have access to your own network, and you wouldn't run it on your TV.
There is certainly a conversation to be had regarding consumer protection laws, the nature of an appliance, and the trade-offs thereof but this is not that conversation and I don't think you engaged in good faith with the comment you replied to.
Read it again: "LG Electronics is working with developers to remove the residential proxy option from their apps on the webOS platform"
It is working with developers it has a contractual relationship with, and has approved their apps for download from its "app store" -- this one: https://gb.lgappstv.com/main/tvapp
...where 42% seem to be ADDING THE TV TO A BOTNET.
LG TVs form a substantial botnet, and LG didn't appear to know or care.
This is not about a person using their own TV to add it to a botnet (WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?), it's about "app developers" knowing that LG is lax in checking what "apps" do, and putting out trojan horse apps that, if the TV user installs them, adds the TV to a botnet, without the TV owner's knowledge.
This is entirely orthogonal to "can I run my own choice of software on my LG TV?", which is not addressed in the article at all.
It takes one look at the App Store on these TV to know all these apps are sketchy...
I do not have the smart features enabled, not do I have it connected to any networks.
A lack of enforcement actions has caused situations like this.
Why would LG do better when it's cheaper to not?
I have an LG TV, about 6 years old now. For a while it was connected to the internet. Every time I turned it on, after a ~20s delay, it would pop up asking me to install an update and I would press RIGHT + OK to select the "No" button because it worked fine and previous updates just made it slower, added ads etc.
Eventually, the remote dropped the button press for RIGHT, and just got the OK. Or maybe I just pressed the buttons too fast -- the interface is laggy and I'd developed muscle memory. This started the software update with no way to cancel from the UI. Once it updated, it made me accept a new EULA just to continue using the TV in the way I already used it (which was mostly as an HDMI display). There was no way to even get to the settings dialog to perform a factory reset without accepting the EULA. The device was held hostage until I said "Accept."
This is the level of consent implied by accepting the EULA on a TV: none. It's bullshit. Computers should never have been put in TVs, and a smart TV should never be connected to the internet.
This is for a fucking TV.
Very unfortunate.
Glad my 2007 Sony Bravia still works, even if only standard HD.
Besides, there's no shortage of dumb phones and featurephones on the market. We want the same for TVs.
I own an airgapped LG TV. Does anyone actually want to go class action/mass arb?
Probably. The LG TV I have doesn't have cellular, but does have a removeable Wifi/Bluetooth module [1]. You have to disconnect a ribbon, unscrew the module and then pop it out.
[1] https://www.manualslib.com/manual/3140596/Lg-Oled83g3-Series...
An antenna may be obvious and external (like one on the fender of a 1979 Ford Pinto), or built with very deliberate PCB traces (as with a Raspberry Pi), or incidental (some component of the device behaves as an antenna, even if unintentionally), or a combination of these things, or something else entirely.
But whatever its form: An antenna must be present or wireless RF communication simply can't occur.
I looked into this last year while researching TVs and couldn’t find anything to substantiate it.
This seems a little like worrying about getting Dodo poisoning.
I have family who get frustrated with their home Wi-fi and about every other year conclude the solution is to unsecure the connection.