Samsung Activates TV Block Function To Render All TV Sets That Were Looted and Stolen Useless (blogspot.com) 161
Samsung South Africa has announced that it has activated a TV Block Function on all Samsung TV sets stolen during the looting, violence and unrest in parts of KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng during July that saw TV sets stolen from Samsung warehouses. From a report: Samsung has activated TV Block on all Samsung television sets looted from its Cato Ridge distribution centre in KwaZulu-Natal since 11 July. Samsung's television block technology is already pre-loaded on all Samsung TV products and the company says that all sets taken unlawfully and stolen from Samsung warehouses are being blocked, rendering them useless.
TV Block is a remote, security solution that detects if Samsung TV units have been unduly activated, and ensures that the television sets can only be used by the rightful owners with a valid proof of purchase. Samsung SA says that the aim of the technology is to mitigate against the creation of secondary markets linked to the sale of illegal goods, both in South Africa and beyond its borders.
TV Block is a remote, security solution that detects if Samsung TV units have been unduly activated, and ensures that the television sets can only be used by the rightful owners with a valid proof of purchase. Samsung SA says that the aim of the technology is to mitigate against the creation of secondary markets linked to the sale of illegal goods, both in South Africa and beyond its borders.
Sooo Samsung can brick products remotely eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another excellent argument in favor of never letting a "smart" TV on the internet.
Re:Sooo Samsung can brick products remotely eh? (Score:4, Informative)
Sooo Samsung can brick products remotely eh?
Yes [slashdot.org]
Re: Sooo Samsung can brick products remotely eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Intentionally sometimes!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
and then FOX / FCC can be belamed? (Score:2)
and then FOX / FCC can be blamed?
And what if the FCC says this can not be used to block repair.
Re: (Score:2)
And what if the FCC says this can not be used to block repair.
But this is happening in SA, not the USA. I dont think the FCC has any jurisdiction overseas. That is why its the *F*CC not the *I*CC.
Re: (Score:2)
FOX?
Also ABC / NBC / CW / CBS / PBS / Telemundo / ION etc...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A simple firmware update check and a special firmware pushed as response is quite enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a cellphone connecting to a cell tower, or a cable modem to an ISP.
Re:Sooo Samsung can brick products remotely eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article, it seems you may need to connect it to the internet at least once to activate it.
Still sucks, but Samsung isn't stupid.
Activation? (Score:2)
The flagship 8k QN900A certainly doesn't need activation.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it does for ones sold in SA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sooo Samsung can brick products remotely eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a mixed opinion of this.
I'm not against "activation of device" to ensure that the product was paid for, but "calling home", especially in the case of samsung which downloads ads and unwanted cruft to the TV, is over the line.
One-time activation is fine to ensure that something was paid for, and not merely shoplifted or illegally copied. But when it comes to physical products it leads to a potential problem where the device "deactivates" or the software that ensures the activation was done fails. This ends up with a lot of e-waste as people don't know why it's failing.
Continued "cloud" account cruft is a curse upon software already. The software better have a non-intrusive (eg no chromium-based GUI tool, no python, no node.js, etc) background app that does whatever it needs to do via the cloud no frequent than once a week. Too many damn programs want their auto-update tool active, and the result is logging into the PC and getting spammed by pop-ups about products I don't want, or upgrades I'm not interested in, BY THE SOFTWARE I'M USING. Magix and Epic do this incessantly, and if you don't have family mode enabled on Steam, Steam will do it too. Corel will also do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sooo Samsung can brick products remotely eh? (Score:2)
I do the opposite and require them to right click on me and select the option where they ask me and get my approval.
Re: (Score:2)
One-time activation is fine to ensure that something was paid for, and not merely shoplifted or illegally copied. But when it comes to physical products it leads to a potential problem where the device "deactivates" or the software that ensures the activation was done fails.
What about if a device was stolen and I reported it to the police and then Samsung? If it never checked back with Samsung, then the thief would have gotten away with the loot. I'm not saying I agree with devices phoning home constantly, but there could be an upside, too.
Reminds me of this time I bought a Valentine One radar detector from someone on Craig's list. After using it for a few days, I thought it was giving way too many false alarms, so I sent it to Valentine One in Ohio to fix it for $99. A fe
Re:Sooo Samsung can brick products remotely eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not buying a Samsung TV, that's for sure.
Re:Sooo Samsung can brick products remotely eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
One-time activation is fine to ensure that something was paid for, and not merely shoplifted or illegally copied
To ensure that something was paid for?
Once upon a time, we assumed that something was paid for unless there was clear evidence that it was not. I mean, how do we know you paid for your shoes? Your shirt? The gallon of milk in your refrigerator? Your couch? Your belt? The gum you are chewing? Your microwave?
Should you be required to carry proof of purchase for every product that you control? Who has the right to demand it, me, or a company? What should their market cap be to enjoy this power?
Should someone come over once a year or so to, say, inventory your home and verify that you own everything contained therein?
Would that be reasonable?
Technical opportunity does not change this, in my opinion. Systems are flawed, and not 100% accurate. Disabling some persons legally-owned device is tampering with private property, property that you no longer own. It does not matter what you think, I cannot go in your house and swipe something because I think it is stolen. Nor can I render it inoperable.
Neither should large corporations have this power.
I would be jailed immediately and it is an aberration that corporations get special rights and powers. Yeah, I know it is done all the time and is normal, but acceptance is how the unacceptable becomes acceptable. We are the frogs and the water goes up one degree each month. Out two-tiered justice system where corporations routinely get to thumb their noses at private property rights is not something that anyone should ever champion, imho. The water is close to boiling as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I would only see this as a problem if the company was slow or unable to resolve real errors in the activation process.
can't do the activation process as you paid to low (Score:2)
can't do the activation process as you paid to low if the store sold it under MSRP
Re: (Score:2)
Should you be required to carry proof of purchase for every product that you control? Who has the right to demand it, me, or a company? What should their market cap be to enjoy this power?
Technical opportunity does not change this, in my opinion
I disagree, because it seems like those anti-theft tags in clothing stores. It's just a "one-time activation" when the cashier removes it and deters theft.
I would be jailed immediately and it is an aberration that corporations get special rights and powers.
Well, these aren't mutually exclusive. I can say that corporations do bad things while still not wanting my TV stolen or having people looting businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, we assumed that something was paid for unless there was clear evidence that it was not.
You've never lived in South Africa have you?
Activate-on-setup TVs are actually quite a clever solution for a uniquely SA problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sooo Samsung can [force registration,] eh? (Score:2)
What was the "excellent argument" supposed to be?
Anyway, it didn't lead to any [prior] mention of registration or failing safely. I'm basically opposed to the idea of purchasing products that assume I'm guilty until proven innocent. The presumption of guilt can always be changed, which makes it worse.
Disclaimer needed? My personal experiences with a Samsung smartphone were so negative that I have actively avoided Samsung products ever since. Mostly battery and support failures. (However my new Oppo has fina
Re: (Score:2)
Except when all TVs will need to be activated in order to be used. Coming soon to a TV near you, maybe in the next couple of years.
Re: (Score:2)
They can also probably locate them and record audio and maybe even video. Stealing a modern appliance is a pretty bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would that Samsung TV leaked "weeping angel" exploit let user bypass activation and disable all that call home stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Why connect your TV to the internet? (Score:1)
Profit matters more than enviromental concerns (Score:1, Troll)
The planet is already a dumping ground for devices with planned obsolescence baked in, but this is another level of "If we can't profit off of these, no one can, environmental impact of turning them into useless piles of junk be damned."
At the very least, if they hadn't been disabled, they would be used, instead of pointlessly tur
Re:Profit matters more than enviromental concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Ooooh, gosh darn it, returning them to the place they stole them from. It only becomes E-waste because people don't want to be held responsible for their actions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry. But if Samsung isn't getting paid for their product, they're under no obligation to allow you to keep a functional device.
This isn't a "no harm, no foul" scenario.
And justifying it with "artificial scarcity" is a bullshit reason to allow people to steal from you.
Re: (Score:2)
They were always going to end up as waste. This just accelerates the process; it doesn't change it.
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least, if they hadn't been disabled, they would be used, instead of pointlessly turned into waste.
The first time. After that, they just aren't a target for theft any more.
Just look at how hard it is to resell a stolen (iCloud-locked) iPhone. Thieves literally have to resort to phishing attacks against the former owner to have a chance at making the phone viable for resale.
TV Activation? (Score:2)
TV Block is a remote, security solution that detects if Samsung TV units have been unduly activated
Samsung TV's require activation now? Is this something new? I haven't purchased a Samsung TV in about a decade.
You can't do that! (Score:3, Funny)
You're ruining the second hand market in South Africa!
First rob doctrine and all that!
One more reason to avoid Samsung TVs. (Score:3)
I'd really like it if someone didn't fat finger something in a console somewhere and cause my TV to be rendered useless.
No thanks, guess I'll go with a manufacturer that doesn't go out of their way to make products worse.
Name one. (Score:2)
They all do the same shit, and mostly worse than Samsung.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, this skirts around due process.
(You think Samsung would never make a mistake?)
Re: (Score:3)
There's no due process issue here. No one is charged with a crime. Samsung can verify that their own products were stolen (these are unsold TVs, remember) and chooses to brick them. It's no different than if you were to remote brick your own cell phone if it got stolen.
Re:One more reason to avoid Samsung TVs. (Score:4, Interesting)
This capability is in pretty much ANY internet connected device.
You've stated that as if it's a foregone conclusion that TVs should be connected to the Internet. They shouldn't.
Barring the vanishing minority who invest in high-end audio, a TV is far and away the single most expensive component in most people's home entertainment setups, so you'd hope that TVs would represent a solid investment that could last for many years. Unfortunately, they don't if you're relying on the smarts in your "smart" TV to access your content and services. If you do so, you'll be forced to replace your TV every few years because they all have paltry software support. And that's before we get to the fact that even the entry-level dongles from Google and Roku have better UX, better app selection, and better support, despite costing hundreds or thousands of dollars less. And because they're so much cheaper, if/when they do fail or fall out of date, they're significantly cheaper and less disruptive to replace.
The only thing you should do with the smarts in your smart TV is turn them off. Turn off frame interpolation. Turn off content scanning. Turn off network connectivity. Turn off mics. Turn off cameras. They're nothing but trouble when they're on a TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Barring the vanishing minority who invest in high-end audio, a TV is far and away the single most expensive component in most people's home entertainment setups
Not anymore. Even a humble Nintendo Switch rivals a cut-rate TV. Even ignoring things like a PS5. TV screens are cheap, generally - even though there are still high end models.
Re: (Score:2)
So, without having seen the code Samsung is using, the documentation for using it, or the procedure in which it is used, you can affirm that there is absolutely no way they could make a mistake when doing this in order to disable a legitimately purchased unit by accident?
No?
Would you like to get ready to watch a movie only to find out your TV won't work because some random person somewhere fucked up some data entry, or some developer fucked up a database query, and now you get the pleasure of explaining to
Re: (Score:2)
Because something bad might happen, we should just not try?
Re: (Score:2)
Is something bad happening significantly more probable than something useful happening?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I connect a TV to the internet?
Do new Samsung TVs require internet connection to operate? Why? Do I only need to connect a TV to the internet for first-time activation (to check if it isn't stolen) and can then safely disconnect it or will I then need to connect it every week or month (to allow it ti check if it still isn't stolen)?
Whatever program material I watch on a TV comes from the cable (DVB-C or analog), over the air (DVB-T), HDMI or composite (if the TV has this input).
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't what happened here and you know it.
This capability is in pretty much ANY internet connected device. And why should someone be allowed to profit off product that was looted from Samsung? Whether the person using the device was the one who stole it or not.
Fitbit bricked my $150 Charge device with a bad update that put it into an infinite boot loop. It was two months out of warranty. There was a huge outcry online with others having the exact same issue on the very same update. Their solution was, "Buy a new one." My solution was to mark Fitbit off my approved seller list forever and warn every human being who would listen that Fitbit customer service was total shit and they will fuck up your investment with bad firmware and refuse to make it right.
Nev
i guess when you're selling stolen TVs (Score:2)
You should include a complimentary pi-hole to separate out Samsung traffic.
An Nvidia Shield or chromecast, or Google TV device doesn't need anything from Samsung.
Don't add the TV to WIFI or plug it into your local network. Treat it as a dumb TV.
I think Apple does something similar for stolen phones?
No Steal I (Score:3)
So they're trying to convince people that Samsung TVs are so useless they aren't even worth stealing?
Re:No Steal I (Score:4, Insightful)
Well since technically it's their property by slashdot rules they can do whatever they want including bricking it. Once they have sold it then it's a different matter, but that's not this story. It's like when people install kill switches in their vehicles to stop thieves.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait a while (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait a while (Score:4, Interesting)
The screen will display, "Send $100 in bitcoin to release your television" . . .
Re:Wait a while (Score:5, Insightful)
You jest, but let's be honest, that's what this hardware disable feature is really about.
Samsung (and I'm sure other manufacturers) would love to turn equipment enablement into a subscription service. "For just $9.95/month or $99.95/year your Samsung smart TV will open up a world of entertainment for you, your family, and friends." Then they'll claim that they sell the hardware at a loss but make money on the subscription service, thereby justifying their rent-seeking behavior. I mean, how else are they going to continue to invest in software updates and product improvements -- they're practically a bankrupt charity you know.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, it's more prediction than jest.
Following the inevitable data breach, it would be perhaps the quickest way for malevolent actors to cash in.
Re: Wait a while (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Along with a threat that the TV's camera caught you doing something embarrassing in front of the TV and it will also be released.
Hope it's sooner and this is why (Score:2)
Absent painful consequences there will be no blowback.
Re: (Score:2)
What ?!? (Score:3)
Secondary market for replacement panel controllers (Score:2)
Expet a sudden surge of interes in south africa for replacement controller boards for said TV and/or generic controllers for the LCD pannel used...
No biggie.
Will Swatting TVs Become A Thing Now? (Score:2)
Shortly af
Re: (Score:2)
Major vendors and manufacturers already do serial tracking at point of sale. Partly to start warranty at time of purchase, partly to catch scammers who buy a product and return a different broken one.
It would take more than knowing the serial number to get a device marked as stolen. At least if they're doing things right, they should be able to ask basic questions to correlate ownership like the store where it was purchased or date of purchase.
In other words, if you have one of these TV's... (Score:2)
Disconnect it from Wi-Fi ASAP and get a Roku for "Smart" TV functionality.
Hell... you should probably do that anyway, as Samsung's "Smart" TV functions are getting more flaky and ad filled by the day.
OK to lock? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Once it's no longer Samsung's TV, it seems unreasonable that they would continue to be able to disable it.
They aren't disabling the TV, they disabling the software that runs on the TV. When setup your TV, you have to agree to their terms of service which no doubt includes allowing them to remotely deactivate your TV.
Welcome to the shitty world of End User License Agreements!
Re: (Score:2)
> Welcome to the shitty world of End User License Agreements!
I don't remember any other world of End User License Agreements.
It seems to have worked for iPhone (Score:2)
Why is life good? (Score:2)
Car radios had this for ages (Score:2)
Millions of car audio systems require you to enter a PIN or code if it loses power, which is what happens when it is stolen.
I speculate that the Samsung system is similar.
they should do it at the worst possible time too (Score:2)
For those who don't know - DirecTV Hack (Score:2)
I think he means like this ...
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Second-hand market (Score:2)
Internet? (Score:2)
I've never plugged a TV into the Internet or given it my wireless password, so these things will still have a resale value if thieves are basic enough to just do the same.
And this is one of the reasons WHY I don't plug things into the Internet... because I don't want a product that only works while Samsung et al wants it to work (not because I stole them, but because the damn TV belongs to me, not Samsung).
It's also the reason that I don't own a TV. I *do* own a projector, a monitor, a series of devices wi
Fine in their wearhouse (Score:2)
Once I buy the TV, they should transfer the disable key to me and delete it from their database. Even if I trusted Samsung, I don't trust their security against guys who hacked a frigging oil pipeline.
Not much of a concern... (Score:2)
$amlock (Score:2)
Another locke-lockie story regarding Samsung in a less than 24 hour period.
I'm avoiding S&Msung products for now on.
on one hand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Not
Samsung's
Fault.
If you're buying off the back of a truck, from the HOMEBOYEEZ SHOPPING NETWORK,?
You know damn well what you're buying isn't legit.
Fuck looters. Fuck thieves. Fuck morons who buy from them.
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backwards. At least in the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. You don't have to prove the tv isn't stolen, they have to prove it is stolen.
I understand the logic behind a remote kill switch. I just don't trust large corporations with that kind of power over MY property.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a loaf of bread.
And they bought them KNOWING they were stolen. I say knowing because the price would be too good to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Possession of stolen property is a crime. If you see a too-good-to-be-true deal and don't demand proof-of-purchase you take the risk....
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't think they might need an inexpensive way to get news and notifications, things like evacuation orders and such?
People used to use the radio for that, but at least in the U.S. you don't get much useful anything from the radio anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
For that info, I think you are more likely to get better information from the radio than broadcast tv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you listened to the radio recently? Good luck getting the blowhards to shut up long enough to broadcast an emergency alert!
It works better on TV because they can put the emergency alert in a crawler without interrupting the "reality" TV.
Re: (Score:2)
The inexpensive way is a smartphone. It's nearly a global necessity the way you're describing. And if you already have/need one, you don't additionally need a TV.
Re: (Score:2)
I have more frequently been warned of extreme weather by the TV than by my smart phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you watch way too much live TV. The last live TV broadcast I saw was multiple years ago. I'm not going to live my life under the control of a media company's schedule - I'll record and watch when I want. Meanwhile, I get EAS alerts only if I'm in a geofenced area where it applies (based on cell tower I'm connected to). TV interruptions are across a giant geographic area with a much lower signal/noise ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
Never minding my viewing habits, If I see the potential for bad weather, putting the tv ON but muted is an option.
I have only once actually gotten an EAS broadcast to my phone (and it was irrelevant) in spite of a fair number of severe weather events. It's nowhere close to reliable. I do, however, get amber alerts for places over a hundred miles away in the middle of the night when I'm in bed.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know the US military can't brick their own devices?
Re: (Score:2)
LMAO I forgot about you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)