LG says it will push out firmware update for spy TVs, but no apologies
grahamcluley.com
grahamcluley.com
EDIT: Okay, for Danieru's & verandaguy's replies to my comment[1], be sure to set in your wireshark filter "ip.addr == [IP of TV]" so we don't see anything random internet-folk are not suppose to see. That filter is traffic that is only coming from or going to the TV. Also Danieru, if your CC is flying around unencrypted in network traffic... something and/or someone has made a mistake elsewhere.
EDIT2: I'll also take this time to promote http://cloudshark.org/ , not because I have anything to do with the website. I just think it's super cool. You can upload a pcap file and it'll give you a unique url you can share with others.
EDIT3: It'd be cooler still if you could actually capture the firmware binary being downloaded to the TV!
90's: "You should talk to a psychiatrist."
2013: "You should talk to my cousin Ernie, he's an IT whiz."
via https://twitter.com/kennwhite/status/403584069923270656
Says something about whats happened in technology and privacy over the last few decades.
Wrong. If you would otherwise have to be in my house to know something, what you have is personal information.
So in FCC land cable operators know what you watch, their box is tuning to it and they're able to log this information for diagnostic purposes. They're also allowed to share some of this information as long as its not personally identifiable information. IE "2000 people viewed CSI NY" not J. Rockway from 123 Main St. viewed CSI NY".
They're trying to make the distinction here (though doing in poorly) likely to save themselves some privacy complaints later.
Which DVRs? Mine had better not be doing that.
http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_...
-----------------------------------
Personal data means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified –
(a) from those data, or
(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller
------------------------------------------
... the big question is whether an IP address can be used to identify someone. It certainly can for ISPs, because they lease IP addresses. And IP addresses can certainly identify people down to neighbourhoods. But LG might be able to claim they have anonymised it sufficiently.
Of course, it's also possible that:
a) LG customers have registered their TV with LG, including identifying information, leading LG to be able to put two and two together.
or
b) There's data sharing between LG and a third party such as an ISP.
>Well, that’s something I suppose. Although presumably it is retained for some period of time, otherwise how would the adverts and recommendations be possible? " //
So, basically they flat-out lied about the data retention.
If the UK Information Commission doesn't apply the largest fine ever recorded it will show they're entirely toothless.
When will government stop protecting the financial interests of mega-corps and start doing something to favour the demos.
That isn't the case. The system could build a representation of the viewers preferences when the data is received, then discard the data. That means the data isn't retained (for any normal definition of "retained").
~"Data is not retained" here should mean something like the port that data is being sent on is closed, or the packets input on that port are dropped by a firewall.
Minimal retention is still "retention".
The more common term for what you describe is "processed"
Additionally, there are legal issues around that definition. For example, redefining "retention" to really mean "processed" means that things like proxies may suddenly become liable for things like copyright violation.
In the case at hand if they're processing it then they've "retained" it long enough to do that which is contrary to the spirit of the statement that it was 'fine that data was being sent to them as they weren't using it'. They used different words but this is the point of contention.
Either they discarded the data without further processing, amalgamation, statistical analysis, model construction, archiving or anything else or they used the data.
If they used the data in any way then it's a constructive lie even if there is some weaselling way in which their statement can be construed to be true.
Hope LG made up the $ difference by selling customers' info, or whatever else they do/did/continue doing with this data.
(Don't worry, the Australian economic stimulus where people were given $900 resulted in a boom in TV sales, too.)
Also, I'm fairly sure my roku is sniffing my netflix usage as well: I recently started seeing ads on the roku start page for TV shows and movies that I'd just watched on netflix: has anyone else seen this behavior?
Does anyone buy the claim that their servers weren't retaining the data?
For this to be true, the TV would need to transmit to the server a notification that data should no longer be stored. While it's possible, I find it implausible that they would go to the trouble to do all of that, rather than just make it a simple client-side switch that just stops transmitting the snooped data.
So to make this true, they just need to wipe their logs and not set up the database until the firmware has been pushed out.
I do wonder if erasing those logs would violate the data retention directive, though.
Shameless.