I'm surprised this hasn't run afoul of all-party wiretap laws. Even if you could waive your own rights via ToS other people in the house may not have agreed.
Theoretically I could see LG or even the TV's owner being culpable.
I'd love to see that case hit the media. Average citizen jailed over wiretap violations because they let their TV record a guest.
On top of that, the first few minutes of the video suggests it captures your neighbors' device and IP information.
I'm sure the ToS has some BS about you being required to inform any guests, but what if your TV is just recording your neighbors because they are close enough?
Just wait, I'm sure the "solution" will be that TVs start displaying reminders that you're being recorded...
Is our inability to innovate in technology really so bad that we have to just chase more and more spying? Consumers don't want these things. Why can't we innovate on things that consumers actually want? Remember, there was a time where we could build good technology, tech that people wanted, and make buckets of money doing it. That should be our goal, not some cyberpunk dystopia. Honestly it feels like anytime we try to innovate now some manager says "don't make things complicated" or some other dumb excuse, but maybe worse is that peers (other engineers) say "but what's the value" (they always stress that they mean monetary, not utility)? Feels like monkeys attacking each other for trying to get the banana...
Re. The last paragraph, that's what confuses me the most about all of this. LG has virtually held a monopoly of the entire OLED TV market for the past ~15 years, selling (arguably) one of the TVs on the market and being the only thing I've recommended people buy in about as long. They could have done literally nothing but update the hardware every other year with a newer SoC, HDMI version, etc. and done just fine. Now, I don't think I could see myself buying or even recommending any LG products going forward.
There *has* to be some complex math involved. It's insane that there's more profit in duping your users to spy on them and sell their data/information, than there is just making and selling a great product.
Their explanations are typically around markets being myopic and that low competition fucks things up even more. But we do make small decisions and they add up. I think many of the problems in the world today come from the accumulation of many small decisions, which is why they're hard to address. Obviously some people have more power than others, and more frequently have high power, but we should still look for our opportunities and not abdicate when and where we do have power. It is important for us to push back when we can. The top always wants to convince us that we have no power and we try to convince ourselves that's true because we believe that if we have power that makes us culpable, but I don't think that's true.
[0] my goto example is AWS. It's easy to find articles about how Azure or GCloud are "doing better" but AWS still has more total customers. But AWS is being "punished" for being at the top because it is just harder to grow percentage wise when you have a larger base amount (note, it isn't a zero sum game)
> It's insane that there's more profit in duping your users to spy on them and sell their data/information, than there is just making and selling a great product.
Seems pretty logical, no?
How do we sell more TVs? Be a cheaper and or better choice. If we're already doing well technically, sell customer data to discount the TV and appear more attractive.
If this is ethical / how much disclosure you'd need to give to customers so they can make this informed choice is a whole other discussion...
> short term
Yeah, welcome to every executive suite since the 80s. How was it under that rock for the last 40 years?
[dead]
>It's insane that there's more profit in duping your users to spy on them and sell their data/information, than there is just making and selling a great product.
And it feels like an inflationary behavior: people need marketing because the product doesn't sell itself because it is neglected in favor of data collection and marketing that is needed because GOTO 1.
For a corporation there's always more money to be made, until it makes all the money in the world.
You seem to be making the assumption that this is all a zero sum game.
I have to point out the irony that this is a technology based site, focused on software. You know, a sector that isn't nearly as tied to physical resources as other sectors. It's the whole reason our industry exploded, because you can make software and ship it an infinite number of times, allowing you to scale like no other sector can.
But my point is that the economy is a positive sum game. There's always more money to be made through more innovation.
When you treat things as zero sum you make all these bad decisions and focus on the wrong type of growth. It makes you focus on capturing the existing market rather than push to create markets that previously never existed. (Of course there's a bad way to do the latter too. You can make markets against people's will, as we also see today...)
But once you've innovated that first bit, you're in a mature industry, do you do the hard thing and innovate again or do you just stay there slowly becoming irrelevant, or do you optimise what you have and figure out more income sources from the same innovation for even more money?
Take a look at any mature software product, do they try to innovate more, or do they figure out how to put more advertisements into it?
THe phrase is “leaving money on the table”
Pure naked greed, something to be celebrated in our Ferengi style capitalist system.
The TV's license agreement attempts to shift the burden onto the TV's owner. Taken at face value, it's the owner who is guilty of recording people without their consent.
How do guests/children/people in public spaces consent to it? It's a gross violation.
Of what? This can only be evaluated in the context of wherever you live. In most of America recording sounds "in public" is a broadly protected activity because that's what "in public" means. You can only get in trouble for this if you violate another person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Watching a TV that doesn’t watch you back is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and has been since 1984 was written.
Really good question. For instance, TX is a one-party consent state. If the TV is recording what's happening in the living room with nobody's knowledge, that seems like a very clear violation of "one party in the conversation needs to know it's being recorded." IANAL
I bet there are an army of lawyers in those states preparing class action lawsuits right now.
I'm pretty sure Attorney Generals will also join the fray in due time.
This crap needs to be shut down hard.
Listening https://m.xkcd.com/1807/