Declining LG's New Ad-friendly Privacy Policy Removes Features From Smart TVs 221
BUL2294 (1081735) writes "Techdirt and Consumerist posted articles about a user in the UK who, after a firmware update to his 2-year old LG Smart TV, declined their new Privacy Policy, only to find that most Internet-connected features (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Skype) of the TV now no longer work. From the Techdirt article: 'Does a manufacturer have the right to "brick" certain integral services just because the end user doesn't feel comfortable sharing a bunch of info with LG and other, unnamed third parties? LG certainly feels it has the right to do this. In fact, it makes no secret of this in its long Privacy Policy — a document that spends more time discussing the lack thereof, rather than privacy itself. The opening paragraph makes this perfectly clear.' To add, even declining the policy still results in non-specified information being sent to LG.
LG's policy of spying on the viewing habits of customers, along with sending filenames of videos stored on USB devices connected to TVs, was previously discussed on Slashdot."
Send it back.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Return the TV for a full refund. Under UK law you cannot impose conditions after the point of sale.
It looks like people are going to need 3 VLANs soon... One for WiFi, one for computers with private information and a 3rd with no external access except to addresses specifically allowed.
Re: (Score:3)
I recently got my first Smart TV (I had an almost 20yr old Philips that just would not die, and in the end it never did).
It's a Samsung and I made a point of not accepting the privacy policy. So far I have noticed nothing that does not work, which made me wonder if Samsung actually bothers to check whether or not the policy was accepted.
How would I know if they were selling my viewing habits anyway?
Re:Send it back.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can probably assume that if you connected it to the internet, that it is.
I seem to remember a story not so long ago where even if you said "no, I don't want to", some devices did anyway.
Assume corporations are greedy and evil, and don't give a damn what you want. They probably are.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus if companies do get caught on this kind of thing, they tend to be hardly punished (by regulators nor consumers). So there's almost no reason for them to play fair.
Having said that, not connecting it at all is not an option for me, that would break netflix. If only we could configure our own hosts file on our tv, or something.
Maybe APK can lead the way.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially since courts have upheld EULAs as being valid, even if they basically give themselves the power to do anything they like. And it's all nice and legal. For many consumers, they don't know or care -- sure I'll give you my data, just give me the stuff I want on the interwebs.
See, my ISP give
Re:Send it back.... (Score:5, Informative)
Especially since courts have upheld EULAs as being valid, even if they basically give themselves the power to do anything they like. And it's all nice and legal. For many consumers, they don't know or care -- sure I'll give you my data, just give me the stuff I want on the interwebs.
Actually no, at least in the US they haven't. With the sole (and bizarre) exception of software.
EULAs are hardly a new thing. They have been tried with everything from home appliances to garden shovels (yes, really). And the courts have consistently held that if you buy a product at retail, once you plunk down your money, the manufacturer or supplier cannot impose conditions on the use of the product. (They can void a warranty for activities that might damage the equipment, but that's about it.) There have been 2 exceptions, and they are very different kinds of exceptions:
One has been software. However, that has still not been firmly tested in higher court. There is no rational reason why software should be different from just about every other good that is for sale.
The other is when there is a prior agreement to use a product in a certain way. For example: your company has a contract or license with a software (or hardware!) company that imposes such rules. If you have an up-front agreement that mandates only certain kinds of use, it is enforceable.
"Shrink-wrap licenses" (the most common form of EULA today) are generally not enforceable in the US when it is a retail purchase. But again, as I say, some courts have (bizarrely, irrationally, and against all precedent) upheld them for software, on thin grounds. If it is ever tested in the higher courts, chances are post-sale "licenses" will be struck down for software, just as they have for every other kind of product under the sun.
Re:Send it back.... (Score:4, Informative)
US courts have invalidated "license agreements" or "use restrictions" on retail products, even when those restrictions are clearly visible on a package or label before purchase. Yes, really. The reasoning is: you paid your money, you own it. You have a legal right to use your property in any manner you choose. Although, as I mentioned, some uses can void the warranty, IF the warranty conditions are reasonably tied to possible damage of the product.
Re: (Score:2)
I constantly see posts on Slashdot claiming this, but also claiming the opposite. Is there a list of relevant cases on the topic? I just checked Wikipedia, and that article could use some help:
Wikipedia: Enforceability of EULAs in the U.S. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problems with the Wikipedia article is that it appears to be ONLY about software EULAs.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the courts have very explicitly stated that they don't give a damn what the license or eula says, you haven't given up your rights, perio
Physical goods don't need to be copied (Score:4, Informative)
There is no rational reason why software should be different from just about every other good that is for sale.
Unlike physical goods, works of authorship in digital form need to be copied into RAM in order to be used, bringing in copyright law. They also often need to be decrypted in order to be used, bringing in anticircumvention law.
Re:Physical goods don't need to be copied (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike physical goods, works of authorship in digital form need to be copied into RAM in order to be used, bringing in copyright law.
Even if that were true, copyright law and EULAs are vastly different things. In fact, the First Sale Doctrine in copyright law says that a EULA is prima facie invalid. So invoking copyright law probably won't get you anywhere here.
They also often need to be decrypted in order to be used, bringing in anticircumvention law.
But the "anticircumvention law" is anticompetitive and against pretty much all legal precedent prior to DMCA. I am pretty sure that one won't last, either.
Re: (Score:3)
The DMCA was enacted in 1998. It's been in effect for over 15 years already. Unfortunately, I think it will last.
That being said, I agree that the anticircumvention language of the DMCA should be removed entirely. It's one thing to say "ripping a DVD and sharing it with fifteen people is against copyright law." It's another thing to say "ripping a DVD
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually even wierder than that. Ripping the DVD is completely legal, however distributing a tool that allows you to rip the DVD is not. It may not even be legal to tell someone h
Re: (Score:2)
See, my ISP gives me a 60GB/month cap, and $10/GB over that every month. Netflix was never an option for me.
60GB a month? Umm, what do you do on the web, email?
A single game download these days can chew up most of that, but of course you probably don't do that. :)
A few apps, some wifi in your house... 60GB wouldn't last me very long... that sucks...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bell and Videotron in Montreal have those limits (they are also TV providers)
Re:Send it back.... (Score:5, Informative)
Having said that, not connecting it at all is not an option for me, that would break netflix.
why plug the smart tv at all, and just get a roku or apple tv? both have way better interfaces than smart tv, offer more features, and better privacy protection. At the very least, the roku/apple tv are their own little boxes, so worst case they can only share information on your activities there and not on your entire living room experience.
srsly, some tvs have a video camera for skype? talk about a telescreen. you never know when they're watching, so you have to assume they're watching all the time.
Re:Send it back.... (Score:5, Insightful)
srsly, some tvs have a video camera for skype? talk about a telescreen. you never know when they're watching, so you have to assume they're watching all the time.
Yeah mine has a camera and mic. But I have duct tape, so that's all right.
Re: (Score:2)
NSA.gov
Re: (Score:3)
My preferred solution is simply to refuse to buy this sort of hardware at all.
That said, having it and apparently being unable to return it, what you want to do is figure out exactly what ports and addresses it needs access to in order to get your netflix, then program your router firewall to default deny that one device, and give it as small a
Re: (Score:3)
That's why when I finally bought a new TV recently I made sure that it was a dumb tv. Then I just added Roku, and the total cost was still less than a smart tv while giving me more control and options. It's easier and cheaper to replace a $99 box if it does something stupid with privacy than to replace the entire tv.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Send it back.... (Score:5, Informative)
For all you know it's a placebo button ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org] ) and they might still collect everything anyway (you many have to look at data sent). I remember news stories about someone who analyzed the network data and found data still being sent (that was an LG though, http://www.tomsguide.com/us/lg... [tomsguide.com]).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly, does the fact that you declined the privacy policy mean that the services function without gathering your personal information or is it gathered regardless of your preference? In a way, the behavior of LG is more honest, since they have to spend money and resources to make the 'smart' services work. If you're not paying a subscription, you're paying with your valuable private information. I suspect that information is too valuable for other vendors like Samsung to ignore despite the pe
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If this is done right (HUGE IF), there's no reason for you to care. If they operate like those of us who work with personal data, but preserve privacy, the data will all be anonymized and aggregated to be useful for analysis without identifying any individual. This may very well not be the case, in which case you do still need to care if you're interested in privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure most if not all American retailers will take it back too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure most if not all American retailers will take it back too.
With a restocking fee! Best Buy charged me 10% on the last TV I bought from them that didn't work out of the box. Unfortunately, the Republicans that rule this country won't fix that problem. Corporations keep dumping defective products on us, and the Republicans allow them to charge fees to take their nonfunctioning garbage back.
that's a shocking rip off, if it's non functional out of the box then, as a defective product it should be replaced under the warranty and thus should not be subject to any "restocking fee".. mind you never having paid a restocking fee for anything in my life.. i find the concept crazy to be honest... i live in Scotland btw where if a retailer tried that shit he would not last long..LOL
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you should be able to do a charge-back on your credit/debit card for that if you used one.
Re: (Score:2)
if it's non functional then either they should have swapped it for free or you could have sued for (consumer) fraud.
restocking fee is a tax on the stupid, when applied to non functionin products.
Re:Send it back.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is never buy a smart TV. They offer no advantages over a dumb TV and a Roku box and only offer disadvantages.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is never buy a smart TV. They offer no advantages over a dumb TV and a Roku box and only offer disadvantages.
Or just don't use the features. It's hard to find a "dumb" TV these days when you get past the low end sets. I have an Smart TV and I don't think I've ever used the smart features. It's a monitor for my XBMC and occasionally I will swap over to antenna if something is happening (crazy weather for example) for the local news.
Re: (Score:3)
speaking of shackled and dumb, you know what's a huge pet peeve of mine? When you go to best buy or wherever and they have a huge bank of TVs, but you can't see the most important thing - the remote control! the remote control is something you touch every day and if it doesn't work well then that su
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly unless your TV has a remote that already ties into an audio system it is worthless. That is unless you think that the sound that comes out of TV speakers is acceptable.
If you think that all "universal remotes" are created equal you have not done much research. Get a good programmable remote, like the Logitech line, and don't look back.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is never buy a smart TV. They offer no advantages over a dumb TV and a Roku box and only offer disadvantages.
The problem with that is that the only Dumb TV's left are bottom tier junk. Those of us that actually care about image quality have no other options than Smart TV's.
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't enter your WiFi password. It can't report home if it can't connect to the internet.
i.e. it is easy to turn a smart TV into a dumb one.
Re: Send it back.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But wouldnt it be better if we all just quit buying this crap until they got the message and built something we wanted?
Yes. Unfortunately, as with so many other areas, the "votes" are the purchases, and we only get to vote on the options we are presented. The typical supermarket example: There is so much shelf space taken up with a dozen different sizes of the two most popular product in each category that there are few other options. Then when you ask why your favorite other option was discontinued, the store says that it wasn't selling as much as the popular brand, and they don't seem to see this as circular reasoning
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ, you have to go for high end pro, not low end consumer.
The model you referenced is no where near "high end pro" for Panasonic. It's not even the better than their best consumer model [panasonic.com] (which does have "smart" features).
The "business" displays offered by Panasonic are three model years behind their consumer models as far as picture quality is concerned. Unfortunately, now that 4K TV is taking over, we may never see another truly reference display as far as contrast, black level, and color reproduction are concerned, since those are the three things that LCD TVs
Re: (Score:3)
You're absolutely correct but to be pedantic "high end" is not quite telling the whole story !
Note: I have the Panny 60" VT60 and love it. (Along with an older 42" panny plasma.)
Panasonic's highest end was the ZT60, followed by the VT60. I say 'was' because Panasonic exited the plasma business last year.[1] In March 2014 they were no longer selling plasma TVs (for both consumers and commercial use), so "high end" is becoming "relative". Many videophiles would agree the ZT60 is the Pioneer Kuro Elite "ki
Re: (Score:3)
CRT picture quality is crap. The colors are good and the black level too, but the geometry is completely off and the resolution is crap. For small displays you can get a half-decent resolution at perhaps 80Hz refresh, but as soon as you want something TV-size you have lost -- and even on the small displays the pixels are fuzzy and never in the right place.
There is more to a good picture than color.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for being tracked, it is sad, but there are no (legal) options for watching on-demand programming without be tracked. Let's check out Roku's (so-called) Privacy Policy [roku.com], shall we? "Cookies enable Roku and others to track usage patterns and deliver customized content, marketing, and advertising to you.... We may use information collected using third party cookies and Web beacons on Roku Sit
Re: (Score:3)
How is buying a Roku box any different? You still have to agree to an EULA, they can still fuck you over at any time on a whim. Maybe if you had said "buy a Raspberry Pi and install XBMC" you might have had a point, assuming you never want to use services like Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have similar as well. The devices that have a static IP are allowed to access out the gateway at will. However, anything using a DHCP-provided address will have all packets dropped, except for port 80 with an empty page on it. That way, a device can do all the POST or GET with data being sent as part of the URL all it likes, but it won't leave the LAN.
Of course the next step we will see are smart TVs that require activation via a server, and constant contact with the server, perhaps as part of the next
Nope. (Score:5, Funny)
Does a manufacturer have the right to "brick" certain integral services just because the end user doesn't feel comfortable sharing a bunch of info with LG and other, unnamed third parties?
Of course they don't.
I am sure that just in 3-4 years, after a lawsuit, affected customers will be able to get a $7.50 credit good towards purchase of a new LG TV.
Re: (Score:2)
look at it this way. software is written, and it contains code that will capture users' usage data. you, as the end user, have a choice. use the software, or not. seems pretty reasonable.
LG is just formally giving you that choice. the software of their device, as written, will capture usage data. if you don't agree to that, fine, but guess what you can't use the software in that case.
Re:Sony did it with OtherOS (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, good, someone pointed this out already. Of course... you got down-modded because you gave like ZERO useful information, so here's some elaboration:
Sony upgraded the PS3 software and removed the capability to dual-boot into Linux (the "OtherOS" feature). There was a class action lawsuit that was dismissed apparently because the plaintiffs didn't do a good job showing actual damage [courthousenews.com].
I remember some good analysis of the issue at the time. One analysis concluded that the PS3 owners had the right to reject the upgrade, and that the system itself could function as normal, but the ongoing use of the Sony servers represented a "continuing relationship" whereby the company did have the right to change the agreement and the users could either accept the changes or stop using the service entirely. The "service" was free, or paid monthly, and differentiated from the "hardware" which performed precisely as it was sold _if you didn't upgrade the firmware_.
Of course this varied from country to country, but I know of no country where Sony was held liable (someone should correct me -- I could easily have missed one).
I'm sure there was more nuance, but I'm paraphrasing something I read long ago. Anyway, the same logic may or may not apply here... did the LG TV advertise these features? Could the streaming "features" be considered a subscription based service, rather than tied to the hardware advertising? LG can argue that every online service faces some time-dependant obsolescence and change; they may end up being in the clear.
Re:Sony did it with OtherOS (Score:4, Informative)
What is this "LG" you speak of? (Score:2)
Wait, I remember now. A long long ago, in the before-time, there was a manufacturer named "LG." They "competed" with Samsung and Sony. But then the rains came, and their factories slowed, and then finally ground to a stop. The old books told of it with their ink-words. And some elders say you can still hear their slogans at night--and that they might even still be around--hiding in the woods, foraging for scraps, surviving as best they can.
Re: (Score:3)
Why I Prefer Dumb Displays (Score:5, Insightful)
Shit like this is exactly why, so long as they're available, I will always opt for a 'dumb display' rather than a 'smart tv.'
Just give me a decent size screen with a good resolution, refresh rate, and a handful of various input types.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it's only a matt
Re:Why I Prefer Dumb Displays (Score:5, Insightful)
Right up until they put something in the TV which says "I haven't connected to the internet in a while, I'm stopping working until I do". Kinda like Microsoft was talking about with the XBone.
And to whom would the phone companies send the bill? No way they're giving something free access to the cellular network ... and no way I'd pay for it.
The point of the SIM is to figure out who to bill. I don't think they could just sneakily connect to it without someone paying for it.
Suddenly I'm thinking of Reg the Blank from Max Headroom and thinking he had the right idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Right up until they put something in the TV which says "I haven't connected to the internet in a while, I'm stopping working until I do". Kinda like Microsoft was talking about with the XBone.
True, that's likely coming down the road. But there are a LOT of people who's access to broadband is still at work or the local library--assuming they even bother. The reason M$ decided against this, at this time, is because there are a LOT of places in the US (let alone the world) that still don't have broadband, or have crazy restrictions like 2GB/month that you'd associate with cellular networks (e.g. Alaska, Canadian Territories).
And to whom would the phone companies send the bill? No way they're giving something free access to the cellular network ... and no way I'd pay for it.
Well, to start off, the smart TV manufacturer would consider buying a bu
Re: (Score:2)
Bulk access to MVNO is pretty cheap, it's more expensive to get the sim cards provisioned for each country they operate in, and make sure they are paired with the right country.
Re: (Score:2)
And to whom would the phone companies send the bill? No way they're giving something free access to the cellular network ... and no way I'd pay for it.
Some car manufacturers do already install SIMs in their cars. Nissan and Tesla, for example. They have a deal with the phone company where they pay a reduced rate and carefully control the data connection, doing major updates at night when the network is mostly idle anyway and things like that.
Of course the cost can be absorbed on a car costing tens of thousands, but eventually it will get down to TV prices too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why I won't own one ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The primary purpose of an internet connected TV is to generate ad revenue and marketing data about you -- or at least in my cynical view it is.
Basically they've said "if you don't consent to give us this data, we're taking away features". Probably because they can't (or won't) make the services work without it, and it's just easier to cut you off.
Connected devices have always been a huge privacy hole, and an opportunity to have someone continue to make money off you after they've sold you the TV.
It's also why my last TV wasn't a "smart" TV. My TV receives inputs from sources, but otherwise is essentially just a monitor with speakers.
I view this as more or less a predictable outcome of smart TVs, because companies view them as something you're using under license, and will only give you these services if they're getting what they want in return.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. My old Vizio is dying, so I'm looking for a replacement. I watch only OTA (digital) broadcasts. One feature of the old TV is a 24 hour on screen program guide. Most OTA digital signals include this programming data in their broadcast stream. So I went to the TV store looking for a new one with the same feature. Not available. If you want any such features, you must now connect your TV to the Internet. Or its crippled.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically they've said "if you don't consent to give us this data, we're taking away features". Probably because they can't (or won't) make the services work without it, and it's just easier to cut you off.
no they aren't. they are saying that there is software on this device, much of it delivered by 3rd parties BTW, that will capture usage data. if you don't like that, here's the option to opt-out, which is not using the software.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, OK, so "if you don't consent to give them this data, we're taking away features".
I see, totally different. How foolish of me.
It's not the 3rd parties disabling the functionality in the TV though, is it? It's LG, and it's in response to their updated privacy policy. Which means
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if part of it is punishment. Don't give them the data they ask for, and your TV that you paid good money for won't work. This way, people hit "accept" without question the next time a dialog like that pops up. Operant conditioning 101.
Does a manufacturer have the right? (Score:5, Informative)
No. Not in UK law, I'm pretty sure, though IANAL.
The Data Protection Act (DPA) means you have to be able to opt out of this kind of intrusive data harvesting and if the disabling of advertised functionality isn't covered by the Sale of Goods Act, it would seem that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations would apply. The DPA applies to your relationship with the data processor (LG) while the functionality of the TV is the responsibility of the retailer.
The correct remedy would be to return the TV to the retailer and demand a refund or a "repair" and to go to the small claims court if they refuse. LG won't be happy when retailers start pushing back.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
LG (Score:3)
I won't be buying anything marked LG for quite some time; I had one of their phones about ten years ago. Buggiest piece of shit I ever saw, made Windows 95 look good by comparison. The screen would often turn upside down, backwards, all white, all black, do all sorts of strange things. Thinking "factory defect" I sent it back, and the replacement was even worse. So I'm going to have to have a whole lot of people I trust telling me how well built their LG is before I buy anything from them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
As to their privacy policy, it's pretty obvious they stupidly and arrogantly hold their customers in contempt.
That said, I don't want a "smart TV" at all. I'll stick with my old kubuntu computer I have plugged into my old TV's S-Video and the stereo with the big speakers, and when the TV finally dies I'll try to find one without a built-in computer, just because it makes vile shit like this possible.
A "right"? (Score:2)
Does a manufacturer have the right to "brick" certain integral services just because the end user doesn't feel comfortable sharing a bunch of info with LG and other, unnamed third parties?
If by "right" you mean "legal right", then yes. Next question.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, right there in the terms of service you never read but nonetheless agreed to.
Because you don't "own" anything anymore, you use it at the indulgence of the manufacturer, and they can and will make any changes they see fit in order to maximize revenue.
Welcome to the future!
Re: (Score:2)
Because you don't "own" anything anymore, you use it at the indulgence of the manufacturer, and they can and will make any changes they see fit in order to maximize revenue.
not really. the difference is that TVs used to be a product, but now they are both a product and a service. You own the product but don't own the service. This british man is free to unplug the tv from the internet and use it like he's always used it. It has a great display, integrated speakers, a digital tuner for OTA or basic cable, inputs for external devices, outputs of sound or video to external devices, a stylish design, and a remote control. this is what he owns.
I think the actual complaint is not w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question, if anything, is not "can they brick services if you don't agree to the terms?" It's "can you sell a TV advertising certain features, then change your terms in the future making those features unavailable to certain people?"
I am no lawyer but I am inclined to say "yes". The legal precedent seems to be "you can change your terms of service AS LONG AS you no
They are bad actors (Score:2)
to break feature the preexisted the new firmware update should not be allowed. Maybe a fine off 200 dollars per TV they disabled.
They should put the policy up front, and if people decline they just don't get any new features, just bug(manufacture defects) fixes.
Sounds like Sony and the PS3 (Score:2)
I bought the Playstation 3 because of the ability to run other OSs. I liked my LG TVs because they gave me a DB-9 serial connection. I'm just old, I suppose. I still prefer openness.
Accept no computer you don't control (Score:2)
I was glad to grab my LG TV - because it was the last one at Best Buy that wasn't a "smart" TV, no internet connectivity at all. Just a monitor.
I really hate my $129 media player that adds 20 new for-pay services every time it updates....also LG, but I am so getting rid of it when I pull the $ together for a little computer I'll build on FLOSS from scratch, and that'll be the only thing with any smarts in my media life. Not a privacy fanatic, but it all just makes me uncomfortable and suspicious.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why, did you get one of those piece of shit ROKU boxes? I had one, for exactly one day. Turns out the piece of shit was directly engineered to separate me from my cash. The first thing it wanted was a fucking credit card so they could start happily billing me even more for the device I just paid $100 for. The final straw was after digging through it and all the stupid "apps" for it you have to buy, I finally figured out the only way it would play my LOCAL MEDIA that I specifically purchased it for was t
Re: (Score:3)
Just got a Roku 3 yesterday. Things may have changed, but here's the latest:
* The credit card is clearly marked as an optional feature to allow convenient purchases across many apps. .MPG,
* I didn't have to buy any apps. Yes, there were some for sale, but I didn't pay for anything. (And Vudu gave me 5 free movies that I haven't seen. Thanks.)
* I found 2 apps that would play from a USB drive for free. And I found one that will play from a Windows network share as well.
* The app I saw claims to support
Hardware as a service (Score:2)
When you buy hardware as a service, I guess you should expect that your hardware could fail if the service goes away for whatever reason. The problem is, the hardware isn't advertised as "working until we brick it, which may be sooner than you think". The more this happens, the more consumers will demand a firmer guarantee. Or balk at "smart" stuff altogether. Or at least expensive "smart" stuff.
My Mom had a "Memory Frame" that used a 3rd party service to display pictures from Flickr, facebook, etc. Actuall
Re: (Score:2)
Block their addresses (Score:5, Informative)
Most consumer routers have a simple blacklist for ip's per pc ip. Simply block their addresses. Google them or run a wireshark on an isolated hub+pc and make note.
I have and LG TV and the new eula needs someone to go after it. It even sends audio recording if you use the mic to their servers.
Re: (Score:3)
"It even sends audio recording if you use the mic to their servers."
How did you expect the voice recognition to work? That's not exactly a local-capable function on a lower power machine like a TV.
mess with them (Score:5, Funny)
You could agree and then record/watch lots of Teletubbies or Barney Miller reruns while you aren't home. That will shew their data and maybe they will eventually give up.
Looks like no 3D TV for me (Score:2)
I was planning on buying one eventually, but I don't care about active 3D so LG was the only manufacturer. Since I can't touch a LG product any more, that means I'll stick with 2D TVs.
Or can you buy a dumb 3D TV anywhere? I really don't need the smart features to slow me down. I have a multipurpose external player for that.
Stupidity != righteous anger (Score:2, Insightful)
It's kinda hard to have any sympathy when only an idiot connects these 'smart' consumer devices to the internet in the first place. These devices do not have any functionality that I can't already get simply using a Roku or AppleTV or Airplay or Chromecast.
I have a bunch of these... VCRs, Receivers (for the integrated Pandora), etc. I leave them all disconnected from the internet, and so should everyone.
Having just one media device be connected to the internet is kinda like picking your poison, but at lea
So I guess Lucky Goldstar show their true colors (Score:2)
I never had a beef with LG before.
Now I know I never will. I won't buy any of their connected gadgets. Bad fucking attitude towards consumers.
Re:It's not a privacy policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Terms of use for physical product changed after purchase in such a way as to cripple said product? That's called "bait and switch."
Re:It's not a privacy policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Terms of use for physical product changed after purchase in such a way as to cripple said product? That's called "bait and switch."
Ho ho ho! Silly consumer! Does the physical product you purchased look at all crippled to you? Every pixel and transistor and unecessarily ugly bezel is exactly as it should be! It's only the software, which is licensed, not sold, and subject to the terms and conditions of the EULA, modifiable at any time by us, without notice, that has changed!
(And this is why the 'licensed not sold' bullshit with software is ultimately so dangerous. If it just applied to stuff you bought on floppy disks and shoved into a computer, it'd be mostly a nuisance with occasional abuses. The fact that the same legal reasoning can be extended to cover firmware, which is just as much software; but also more or less entirely critical to the operation of a very large, and increasing, percentage of the 'hardware' devices you 'own', is where it really shows its teeth. Nearly anything of nontrivial complexity probably has some firmware in it somewhere, without which it isn't much good, and for which your replacement options are limited, sometimes by obscurity, sometimes by crypto bootloaders, which rather undermines the 'ownership' you might hope to have.)
Re: (Score:3)
Who? who goes to Jail? the shareholders? the majority shareholder? the CEO? the Lawyer? The Engineer?
It's a corporation, they understand money. Fine them 250 pounds per impacted TV. Give them 30 days to enable preexisting feature or fine them again.
It will solve this problem, and it will mean other competitors won't do it.
Putting people in jail for this is a waste of time, money, jail space ad will accomplish very little.
Re: (Score:2)
All or some of them. Aren't there laws to deal with this type of situation?
Re:It's not a privacy policy (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's time for "corporate jail" - the company's operations get suspended for the time it's in "jail" but it's required to continue paying employees. That might finally start getting their attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover what about Terms of Use for the other content? I have not read the LG ToU, but it could be something as simple as 'hey we need to pass this information on and we will store it on your TV for you so you can use Netflix, iPlayer, etc. but we won't receive or store anything.'
Without a copy of the agreement, it's hard to tell how nefarious this is.
Re: (Score:2)
With a little luck they'll be called "the declining LG" ever after.
Re: (Score:2)
For a SEC? What does the Securities and Exchange Commission have to do with it?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because a LOT of people are full of outrage, lately. There's a lot of bullshit going on that average individuals feel that they have absolutely no control over, and it's true. They are outraged for a good reason. Unfortunately, internet outrage is like pissing in the wind, it's not very effective and can get messy very quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Our fta set top box had one firmware update and that was it. So a three year update history sounds amazing from our point of view.