Slashdot Mirror


Smart Meters and New IoT Devices Cause Serious Concern

dkatana writes: The ongoing deployment of internet-of-things devices is already creating serious issues and discussions about the privacy of users, IoT security, and the potential threat of cyber criminals taking control of sensors and smart devices connected to the Internet.

Security and privacy concerns associated with smart meters are why they are currently "optional" in several countries. That's the case in the Netherlands after consumer organizations and privacy watchdog groups campaigned vigorously to stop the mandatory smart meter deployment. A report from researchers at Tilburg University claimed that "smart meters have the capacity to reveal quite privacy-sensitive information, thus affecting not only informational privacy but also privacy of the home and of family life."
This now applies to televisions as well — an article in Salon discusses the author's new "smart" TV, which came with a 46-page privacy policy. Quoting: "It logs where, when, how and for how long you use the TV. It sets tracking cookies and beacons designed to detect 'when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message.' It records 'the apps you use, the websites you visit, and how you interact with content.' It ignores 'do-not-track' requests as a considered matter of policy. It also has a built-in camera — with facial recognition."

120 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. I would send that TV back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would send that TV back if I had made the mistake of buying it in the first place. Stores hate returns. It wastes their time, which is the same as wasting money. They have to re-stock the item and it sells less easily with the box taped up. We should do this on purpose to all devices with "features" like that. Make it cost them. It'll send a message.

    1. Re: I would send that TV back by mimeflu · · Score: 1

      I'd keep it. Imagine the ads you would get after browsing black twisted dildos on Amazon.

    2. Re:I would send that TV back by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and pay a restocking fee

      --
      XDInd
    3. Re:I would send that TV back by turp182 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is this TV even legal in all states? It sends the audio it hears to a third party (per the Salon article). Seems that may run afoul of audio recording laws in all-consent states (maybe even single-party consent states). Can providing the TV with power be considered "consent" to have everything you say in your living room sent to a 3rd party?

      From the Salon article:
      “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.”

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    4. Re:I would send that TV back by BradMajors · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which TV?

      Article is useless in that no one is able to independently verify that what the writer says is true.

    5. Re: I would send that TV back by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I wish he'd stated what the fuck TV this was?!?!

      I want to avoid this brand/model like the plague!!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:I would send that TV back by lgw · · Score: 1

      I would send that TV back if I had made the mistake of buying it in the first place.

      Well, I have a TV that I'm sure does all that shit, but it doesn't bother me because I never use the "Smart" features, I just wanted the best display panel. It can track "HDMI Port 1" to its heart's content, for all I care. The UIs for these "Smart" devices all suck IMO. A laptop with a wireless mouse (and wireless keyboard that I almost never need, except when Netflix decides to log me out) beats every interface I've seen so far.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:I would send that TV back by m2shariy · · Score: 1

      Well, did you think about the children who are starving because you selfishly hide all that valuable personal info?

    8. Re:I would send that TV back by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These are all things that many of us have been warning about, for many years.

      The "privacy policy" and consumer warnings should be required to be on the OUTSIDE of the box. If it won't fit... don't do it.

      And anything that may be privacy-intrusive should be opt-in ONLY.

    9. Re:I would send that TV back by Sun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming the click-wrap isn't binding, then I don't see how this can be legal even in one party consent jurisdictions.

      Even if the click-wrap is binding, it is only binding to the person who "Agreed" to it. If I'm not allowed to implant a recording device in the room that will listen to your conversations with someone else when I'm not there, I don't see how I have the authority to let someone else do the same.

      Of course, IANAL.

      Shachar

    10. Re:I would send that TV back by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It sends the audio it hears to a third party

      Does it have voice control similar to Google Now or Siri? Maybe it's being sent off merely for heavy duty transcription.

    11. Re:I would send that TV back by omnichad · · Score: 1

      A laptop with a wireless mouse (and wireless keyboard that I almost never need, except when Netflix decides to log me out) beats every interface I've seen so far.

      Roku's Netflix interface is nice - and there's a smartphone app to search/select content not already on your list.

    12. Re:I would send that TV back by turp182 · · Score: 1

      You have to activate those services ("OK Google"). I'm assuming this always listens, even when off (so it can be powered on via voice command).

      And it is a reasonable assumption these services send the data to the company (Google or Apple), not some unnamed "third party". The third party part is pretty scary in my opinion, they make it clear that they aren't the ones listening.

      Maybe the NSA is servicing my TV commands...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    13. Re:I would send that TV back by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the comment, I hadn't considered the recording and transmission of a visitor's speech. That clarifies things, but along with you, I am not a lawyer...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    14. Re:I would send that TV back by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That really just sounds like they are outsourcing the audio processing to a company that actually sells those services. They don't have their own speech recognition engine, presumably, and don't self-host the software.

    15. Re:I would send that TV back by turp182 · · Score: 1

      But, given the context of the actual privacy policy, it means they can listen (and given such freedom, why would they not?). I quoted the Salon article, which was a direct quote from the privacy policy of the TV.

      I don't consider this product a TV. It's a privacy invasion device with a screen (that's how to get around a restocking fee when returning...).

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    16. Re:I would send that TV back by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      US consumer laws must really suck. In the UK if you don't agree to the EULA you can return the hardware for a full refund at no cost to yourself. In fact, thanks to EU rules, if you bought the item over the internet then the vendor has to pay the return postage too.

      The simple rule is that if some aspect of the product that was not made known to you when you bought it turns out to make it unusable, you can return it for a full refund. No restocking fees, the principal is that the customer should not be out of pocket, including postage costs if applicable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re: I would send that TV back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If a TV has an internet connection via ethernet or wifi, it probably fits the description. Your data is worth money. Only if the manufacturer thinks the risk of losing sales outweighs the potential income from selling your data will the TV be free of invasive tracking software.

    18. Re:I would send that TV back by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I can't remember the last retailer I've encountered in the US that charges restocking fees...

    19. Re: I would send that TV back by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      Verizon charges one for cell phones.

      --
      XDInd
    20. Re:I would send that TV back by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Every auto parts/tools outfit has restocking fees for at least some stuff. Sometimes this reflects their typical usage pattern (like auto code scanners) and other times just the cost of dealing with fraud and the actual cost of dealing with restocking, as in electrical components. A percentage of what you get back will be the pulled parts, cleaned up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:I would send that TV back by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Not to mention 1984. In that book TV's were the primary tools of surveillance.
      They were also one of the primary sources of fear.

  2. Manufacturer and Model? by BBadhedgehog · · Score: 2

    See the subject. Those are the most useful pieces of information that could have been put in the article but they were omitted for some reason. Does anyone know?

    Rosie

    --
    Will you PLEASE F off with the Fing beta now?
    1. Re:Manufacturer and Model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter? Or do you think that other smart tvs somehow are not nearly as scary?

      I have never wanted a smart tv, for exactly the kind of reasons the author outlines. Although I have never gone into actual detail. But the idea of having my television connected to the internet and do all kinds of 'extras' apart from just displaying images, always seemed like a terrible idea.

    2. Re:Manufacturer and Model? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      But the idea of having my television connected to the internet and do all kinds of 'extras' apart from just displaying images, always seemed like a terrible idea.

      Yes, but your'e not a TV manufacturer.

    3. Re:Manufacturer and Model? by BBadhedgehog · · Score: 1

      Or do you think that other smart tvs somehow are not nearly as scary?

      I haven't the faintest idea one way or the other - which is why I would like to have that information. When the information is available if it turns out that all the other smart TVs do exactly the same thing then I know not to buy a smart TV. If it turns out that most do and a few don't then that acts as the first filter to my buying decision. Not having that information available makes it impossible to make that decision.

      Rosie

      --
      Will you PLEASE F off with the Fing beta now?
    4. Re:Manufacturer and Model? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      There is only *one*. The only difference is the name stenciled on the front.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Manufacturer and Model? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I use my smart tv for YouTube and Netflix. It is nice being able to watch live from x country shows that wouldn't be able to make it on cable because of screwy time zones and zero commercial breaks.

      I was watching a race last month that was in nice France at 9am my time 2pm local in France. The next series is in dec in Auckland new Zealand. Which makes it 10pm my time even though it will start 2pm local time again.

      What annoys me is Google which blocks smart tv from receiving YouTube unless their account is paid correctly. But still allows all the other forms.

      That race won't ever show up on cable.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:Manufacturer and Model? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I plugged a laptop into a dumb TV and I get all of that and no Big Brother.

  3. Consumer education by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consumers need to be educated on dangers of buying into 'Internet of Things' and 'Smart' appliances. I think the only way is to release and publish exploits, so consumers realize that these "features" are not under their control.

    1. Re:Consumer education by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Consumers have no way to educate themselves, because the companies are not compelled to reveal what they are collecting or what they are doing with the information with any specificity.

    2. Re:Consumer education by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That and the general public is dumb as a box of rocks in regards to technology.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Consumer education by LVSlushdat · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder just how long it will be before 1) there is a law *requiring* you to own/use a television-like device, 2) the only units that are sold have these "features", and 3) once installed you are unable to turn them off or if you do manage to do so, you get a visit by the "tv police"... Of course, the reason for such a "law" making this requirement would be couched in terms like "for the children... terrorists... " ... you get the drill... I feel sorry for the kids of today who will have to live with such shit..
      George Orwell had it right, just a few years too early... Glad I'm over the hill, probably won't last more than 10 more years.. (64 now).. Hopefully, this shit happens after I'm gone....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    4. Re:Consumer education by timeOday · · Score: 2
      Personally I think the picture is becoming increasingly simple: if data is collected, there is a good chance it will be disseminated and cross-referenced with whatever else is known about you, or that can be statistically inferred from what is known.

      There was a time when I thought that encryption, and layers of computer security features, had given individuals measures to strongly protect information, so long as they didn't do something dumb. Now I don't think so. It is simply not possible to implement and use a system of any scale without making mistakes. You might as well pin your hopes on making ten free-throws in a row. Therefore, once you share information beyond yourself, there is a good chance it will go further than you wanted. Your privacy lies solely in being one of many, and not being individually targeted with greater resources than you have to defend yourself.

      There are no perfect crimes. Information wants to be free. Etc.

    5. Re:Consumer education by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      The same sort of consumers who think Obama is responsible for the poor response to Katrina? Keep dreaming.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    6. Re:Consumer education by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Mostly useless. Consumers have been warned before. Most have ignored this advice because they have not yet experienced a case where they believe they have been personally harmed.

    7. Re:Consumer education by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That and the general public is dumb as a box of rocks. *snip*

      There...Fixed that for you.

      :)

      Seriously, if you've everworked a job dealing with the general public, you leave with this concept permanently burned into your brain. It sounds elitist to those that have never had to deal with the general public in a meaningful way (retail, support of any kind, food service, etc), but once you do, you just realize most people out there are 100% fucked in the head.

      It amazes me so many of them can even process oxygen correctly.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Consumer education by Sun · · Score: 1

      Please do read George Orwell's 1984. You just described its main features.

      Shachar

    9. Re:Consumer education by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Oxygen processing is a purely physical and automatic process.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    10. Re:Consumer education by turp182 · · Score: 1

      And now people are using free will to buy it, big brother doesn't even have to force it upon us. And given the inane nature of most content provided, it is the perfect tool for pacification.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    11. Re:Consumer education by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      if data is collected, there is a good chance it will be disseminated and cross-referenced with whatever else is known about you, or that can be statistically inferred from what is known.

      Yes, and that's why I find it strange that so many people who are against being monitored and tracked all the time object to European style privacy rules. In Europe individuals have some control over how companies use information about then, and critically can ask for it to be corrected or deleted: the right to be forgotten. Yet somehow this is a bad thing in some people's minds.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Consumer education by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      Wanna bet? In the good old U S of A you're already REQUIRED to buy health insurance. That was just the camel's nose under the tent. Give 'em time and they will require you to buy whatever they damned well want you to buy.

      Don't say nobody warned you people about this stuff years ago.

    13. Re:Consumer education by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Encryption and layers of security have given individuals the ability to strongly protect their information. The error is in thinking that they will do so. The unpleasant truth is that most people don't actually care that much about their privacy, aside from what will become known to their circle of contacts. They would be horrified at the idea of their parents knowing about their habbit of reading erotic fiction involving gryphons in bondage and [CENSORED] being '[CENSORED],' but the idea of some technicians or data-analysts at Google or a bored contractor at the NSA finding out doesn't bother them - and they are happy enough to post slightly less damaging information like their schedule to social media every five minutes.

      The only way this could change would be through some high-profile abuses of this information - eg, by seeing more people being fired because the boss was offended by something from their facebook page, or turned down for insurance because the provider paid for access to their online gaming records and classified them as reckless and lacking spartial intelligence. That isn't likely to happen though, because any company with a half-decent legal advisor will know the importance of deniability and the value of a vague 'your application was not successful' letter.

    14. Re:Consumer education by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      or a bored contractor at the NSA finding out doesn't bother them

      So much for the US constitution, huh? 'Land of the free and the home of the brave' my ass.

    15. Re: Consumer education by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      You would think that exploiting the security of smart appliances would convince consumers that always connected appliances are bad. Well I think it will only make things worse after a few rounds of TV's hacked to display goatse and possible loss of property or life from hacked gadgets. The consumers will be up in arms and the government will step in and make more draconian laws to stop the hacking. The manufactures will throw around money to railroad those laws so they can keep profiting from private data. And the consumers can rest easy now that their convenience has been restored. Everyone wins!

    16. Re:Consumer education by jtgd · · Score: 1

      Just as the NSA complains about Apple and Google using effective encryption and how it stops them from fighting "terrorism", in the near future they will whine that can't fight terrorism if the TV manufacturers don't put this monitoring technology in their TV's.

      --
      J
  4. Is it just me or- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    is anyone else here already tired of the phrase 'Internet of Things'. Oh yeah, and get off my lawn!

    1. Re:Is it just me or- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      get out of the dark ages...

      "Get off my wlan!"

    2. Re:Is it just me or- by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Wait until you get a new sprinkler controller for your lawn that will let you change the settings via a smart phone app. You're gonna love "Internet of Things" while turning the water on/off from your rocking chair.

    3. Re:Is it just me or- by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Get out of my dark age!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. 1984 by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
    I am pretty sure that the single worst and neccessary government over-reach in Orwell's 1984 was the mandatory placement of cameras that you could not turn off.

    Government rules that require cameras be placed in your house is pretty much my definition of a tyrannical dictatorship.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, where's the government forcing us to have cameras in our house?

      This is a television set, sold to you by a business, manufactured by another business, and purchase of your own free will.

      Don't like the "smart tv" features? Don't fucking buy one. Nobody's proposing that you'll be forced to buy it, by the government or anybody else.

    2. Re:1984 by doconnor · · Score: 1

      I had the impression when I read 1984 that the cameras where a relatively minor annoyance compared to other things, like manipulating language, undermining all interpersonal relationships and the rats eating your face.

    3. Re:1984 by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Manipulating language is called being "politically correct". Human nature undermines interpersonal relationships.

      And now the TV has cameras and microphones.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    4. Re:1984 by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Sorry, where's the government forcing us to have cameras in our house?

      Nowhere yet, but they'll surely ignore the constitution and ask the companies to hand over all their data. You know this will happen.

  6. You say you care.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You say you care about the privacy implications of this device, but yet you still purchased it?

    1. Re:You say you care.... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, and they constantly complain about the politicians they reelect also, buy something, bitch about it, buy another one... Oy ve! *facepalm*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:You say you care.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, most of us constantly complain about the politicians other people elect, though a few of us certainly do so hypocritically. I had every right to complain about the good, yet terribly misguided, citizens of Pennsylvania inflicting Senator Santorum on the rest of the country. Twice. I might have been able to eventually forgive them for electing him once, but not twice. And I could do little more about it than bitch impotently, as I didn't live there.

        - T

  7. This is why I like Apple vs. others. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not the product, and they treat me that way.

    1. Re:This is why I like Apple vs. others. by bobbied · · Score: 1, Funny

      Apple? You like Apple and how they protect your privacy? Seriously?

      Take this pointy hat over there put it on and sit in the corner..... No, talking, just go.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:This is why I like Apple vs. others. by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      As opposed to who? Google? MSFT? Some other magical company?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:This is why I like Apple vs. others. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

      [citation needed]

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    4. Re:This is why I like Apple vs. others. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Some suck more, some suck less, but they all suck, including Apple. Business is business and all...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  8. simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't buy those devices. It'll take about two months of zero sales before they sing a different tune.

    What's that? You NEED a TV right now, because DTWS is on? Then STFU and stop bitching, because YOU enabling this very kind of mass data collection. You are the reason it succeeds.

    These companies will do this if you let them. The only answer is not to buy that shit.

  9. This is like transmission on web sites by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Informative

    "'when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message"

    Sounds horrible and ominous. Unless, of course, you realize that the TV would otherwise have no way of indicating your next unread message / new messages, sorting your watched shows from your unwatched ones, and allowing you to browse your history. Do not track (I'm guessing) is ignored so that it doesn't break functionality on content sites which need it to, again, show you your history, make viewing suggestions, and keep track of which episodes you've watched. Facial recognition sounds super 1984, but would be exceptionally convenient so that the TV brings up Dr. Who and The Simpsons when you sit down rather than Twilight and Wizards of Waverly Place (though its easy to see how a mis-match - or correct match - could be a bit embarassing).

    Maybe our TVs just need an "incognito mode" on the remote?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:This is like transmission on web sites by bobbied · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe our TVs just need an "incognito mode" on the remote?

      A button on the remote isn't necessary, a paper bag with eye holes will do the trick... If you don't have a black mustache and wear glasses, a set of Grouch-o Mark's glasses might work too.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:This is like transmission on web sites by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I can see the TV company that includes the Groucho glasses with a tag that says, "We protect your privacy!"

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:This is like transmission on web sites by CCarrot · · Score: 2

      Maybe our TVs just need an "incognito mode" on the remote?

      A button on the remote isn't necessary, a paper bag with eye holes will do the trick... If you don't have a black mustache and wear glasses, a set of Grouch-o Mark's glasses might work too.

      ...or a strip of electrical tape...

      (^^^^^ that's for the camera, so don't get too creative...:)

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    4. Re:This is like transmission on web sites by omnichad · · Score: 1

      How can it even ignore "Do Not Track"? That's a client setting, not a server setting. If the client doesn't give an option to set "Do Not Track" then how is the client "ignoring" it?

  10. Justification for privacy invading technologies by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems like if you pick a random Joe who does not like these technologies, then put that person into the company that manufactures the product, he will completely change positions. There will be no end of excuses as to why it is okay and the public is paranoid. I've even see people slowly go from one viewpoint to the other as a result of project assignments.

    There must be a name for this phenomenon.

    1. Re:Justification for privacy invading technologies by NG+Resonance · · Score: 1

      Indoctrination sounds about right.

    2. Re:Justification for privacy invading technologies by istartedi · · Score: 1

      There must be a name for this phenomenon.

      Corruption.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:Justification for privacy invading technologies by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      There must be a name for this phenomenon.

      It's a natural result of group dynamics and peer pressure.
      It doesn't even have to be overt peer pressure, as we are social animals and we pick up on social cues.

      Ash was a psychologist who pioneered research into conformity:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

      Bonus Fact: One of Ash's students was Milgram, later known for his electroshock obedience experiments.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Justification for privacy invading technologies by ortholattice · · Score: 1

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

    5. Re:Justification for privacy invading technologies by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, the odds that the information will be used in your favor are quite high, while the odds that they will be used against you (used to spy on you) are quite low, which is why the features get implemented.

      In the wake of the Snowden leaks, this sounds even more ridiculous. Even just general knowledge of history makes it seem completely absurd.

      If it can be used against you, and you piss someone powerful off, it will be. Maybe you only care about yourself, though, and think that it doesn't matter if someone else is abused.

    6. Re:Justification for privacy invading technologies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's a natural result of group dynamics and peer pressure.

      This isn't about conformity, this is about self-justification. It can't possibly be bad, because I'm doing it, and I am a good person!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Not a technical problem, probably no solution by BaronM · · Score: 2

    My first thoughts, probably like many, were along the lines of "don't connect the TV to the Internet", but that is increasingly impractical as the article points out. Even more so, I can see why I might WANT my next smoke/CO detector, for example, to be connected and able to call the fire department if necessary. It might even be good if it had a mic/camera to allow the firemen to see/hear what is going on -- after all, if they take a look and see me standing there with a pole trying to jab the 'quiet' button and yelling 'false alarm!', they can avoid an expensive and time-wasting truck roll. Or, if they see smoke and people passed out on the floor, they can get it in gear KNOWING that there are lives on the line.

    Basically, in short order we will (almost) all have bugged our own homes/cars/offices for perfectly good reasons. Or, if not for good reasons, than as a condition of our fire/casualty insurance policies.

    Which means, unfortunately, that any technical fixes are attacking the wrong problem. What we need are behavioral/legislative fixes to make inappropriate access to these surveillance systems prohibited and punishable with real teeth. Punishments that breach the corporate veil, and are stricter in cases of official abuse than for 'ordinary hackers'. I wouldn't commence holding my breath for those laws, if I were you.

    At any rate, go vote next week, and vote for 'less bad'. It's the best we can do.

    1. Re:Not a technical problem, probably no solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're trying to push the stop button and it's not working, you'll have to disconnect the device. It's plainly malfunctioning in that case. If it alarms because you burnt toast, and you push the stop button it can just send a "USER CANCEL" message. There's no need for a camera.

      Fire trucks always roll as if there were lives on the line. First, it's good practice. Second, you don't know if people or devices are sending the "no big deal" communications when it is in fact a very big deal. Joe Blow might say, "nah, dont' bother, it's out" at 10 PM when the fire is actually in his wall, smouldeing and ready to flare up hard in a house full of carbon monoxide at 3 AM. I've actually seen firefighters chop through walls for this very reason. We thought it might have been overkill; but it's not our job. Anyway, I digress. There's no need for a camera in such devices.

    2. Re:Not a technical problem, probably no solution by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, do not vote for the "less bad". It is completed owned by the "more bad", a subsidiary that keeps "more bad" in power. First, to have any meaning, the incumbency must be voted out entirely (25% would be an impressive baby step though). If that does not happen, then I will insist that the voter is asking to maintain business as usual, for whatever reason, it doesn't matter. But this whole "lesser evil" bullshit is what put and keeps us where we are today. The entire House of Representatives can be swept clean overnight, with simple push of a button, or touch of the screen. You won't regret it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Not a technical problem, probably no solution by Threni · · Score: 1

      > don't connect the TV to the Internet

      It's a smart tv. You wouldn't have one if you weren't going to connect it to the internet.

      "It also has a built-in camera â" with facial recognition."

      More importantly, it's recording your voice all the time, for processing elsewhere. Nice.

    4. Re:Not a technical problem, probably no solution by mlts · · Score: 1

      Connecting emergency devices that notify the proper authorities is a solved problem. Even before the Internet was mainstream, fire and burglar alarms used POTS lines, and even cellular connections to dial out.

      What needs to be done is to have emergency devices that dial out be connected to 1 (or may more for redundancy) hardened monitoring servers. These machines are behind a firewall, and don't accept incoming connections.

      For items that accept incoming input via the Internet, the devices themselves shouldn't be connecting. Instead, they should connect to a central server that is also very hardened, which either uses a third party for connections (a la gotomypc.com or teamviewer), SSL client certificates so an unauthorized user or device doesn't make it past the SSL handshake. Application level VPNs are also a tool for this. Trying to make every single device hardened is an exercise in futility. Instead, they need to get their interface from a central machine, so there is only one device to properly secure, not hundreds.

      In fact, for non-emergencies, devices shouldn't be connected to the Internet at all. This is just ripe for abuse. A good example of this are apps on app stores/repos. Why does a basic fleshlight app require every single permission under the sun including fine GPS, contacts, and access to E-mail? I'm sure that IoT devices will be exploited just as hard where there is a constant stream of data being sent up to some clearinghouse, and if the clearinghouse doesn't do bad stuff with that data, the people who hack said clearinghouse will.

    5. Re:Not a technical problem, probably no solution by BaronM · · Score: 1

      I was with you up to here:

      ... a basic fleshlight app...

      Now, I'm just want to remember to NEVER borrow your phone :)

      OTOH, what you've described is basically what corporate IT security has been about for years. It can be effective, but it's a bitch to maintain is will generally be discarded or circumvented in the name of 'convenience' the first time there is a trade-off between security and a shiny new feature.

    6. Re:Not a technical problem, probably no solution by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You get much more control.

      Except for maybe remote control...which is a simple but major reason why people buy a TV.

    7. Re:Not a technical problem, probably no solution by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's a smart tv. You wouldn't have one if you weren't going to connect it to the internet.

      Until you can't buy any form of TV that isn't a so-called smart TV and/or broadcast TV completely gives way to on-demand real-time downloads.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  12. It's going to end in a trade off... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    You're not going to have the convenience of the modern world without almost ubiquitous interconnected computerized systems. You're not going to have the reliability you need for these systems to operate properly if you don't have more secure operating systems and identification mechanisms. The decision of what the deal will be when one is traded for the other will not be in your control.

    --
    That is all.
  13. 6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! by Bodhammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "‘Smith!’ screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. ‘6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You’re not trying. Lower, please! THAT’S better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me. A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston’s body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and — one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency — bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes. ‘THERE, comrades! THAT’S how I want to see you doing it. Watch me again. I’m thirty-nine and I’ve had four children. Now look.’ She bent over again. ‘You see MY knees aren’t bent. You can all do it if you want to,’ she added as she straightened herself up. ‘Anyone under forty-five is perfectly capable of touching his toes. We don’t all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Malabar front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what THEY have to put up with. Now try again. That’s better, comrade, that’s MUCH better,’ she added encouragingly as Winston, with a violent lunge, succeeded in touching his toes with knees unbent, for the first time in several years.’" "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." 1984 - George Orwell

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    1. Re:6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! by dixonpete · · Score: 1

      Where are mod up points when you desperately need them?

    2. Re:6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      The really interesting thing is that human behavior in the US is being coerced and modified, and will continue to be, via social networks. We are self censoring ourselves via what we see others do and say on social networks.

      The "Zuckerberg Effect" is in full effect as people increasingly are of a like hive-mind regarding how they speak, phrases, language, opinions on hot-button issues, music, etc; I have noticed this just in the last five years or so as FB has become sort of the "party"(and I ain't talkin birthday...) that everyone must join.

      Mix in the IoT devices with social media, video and audio technology, etc and you have a police state unlike anything imaginable. All spoon fed to the consumers of the world by sleek keynote events and the never ending claims of advertising and social groupthink without even a sniff of disagreement or dissent, which is quickly and easily dismissed with the usual "tinfoil hat" labeling.

      You wanted privacy?!? Whats wrong with you?!?

      That is what is so fascinating, that the IT world has effectively and with little dissension, enabled the powerful to have increasing control and knowledge of everything we do, say, read, watch, and ultimately think.

      By the middle of this century, people living in the connected world will have no idea or concept of privacy, that there was a time when you could be alone, when there was a time when you could do, say, read, watch, and ultimately think for yourself.

      We are living in the sunset on individuality.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  14. Cue the first pot grower nabbed by this by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Smart Thermostat takes a picture, calls the cops, etc etc etc. Then of course stoners will be shocked. Shocked I tell you.

    1. Re:Cue the first pot grower nabbed by this by green1 · · Score: 1

      That's a very long way away. These systems aren't being put in place by the government, they're being put in place by the corporations. Corporations have it in their best interest to avoid doing things like that because it would draw attention to their surveillance, without any financial benefit to themselves.
      What you suggest may happen, but it won't be until the world is wired and the general public is already well aware of it.

    2. Re:Cue the first pot grower nabbed by this by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      These systems aren't being put in place by the government, they're being put in place by the corporations.

      The difference between the two is becoming increasingly fuzzy and unimportant.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  15. Of course you're just clogging the machine by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Eventually everyone will have limitless useless information on everything and it will represent nothing, add nothing and be used for nothing.

  16. Orwell's vision come true by Pollux · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone's finally made the telescreen happen. I for one welcome our new big brother overlords.

  17. The tyranny of things by Wansu · · Score: 1

    Why does anyone other than nosy companies think this is a good idea?

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  18. Luckily... by Nexzus · · Score: 1

    ...it's still my network. I can control what devices can connect, and to who and how they can talk to the outside.

    Admittedly though, 99.9% of consumers can't do this, and it may be hard to separate the wanted and unwanted traffic.

    --
    Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
  19. Timing? by carrier+lost · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it might be a good time to buy a high-end TV

    Just get the model below the one with all the "smart features" and hook it up to your Mythbox

    Seems like you could get a really decent "dumb" TV for a reduced price to use as a monitor.

  20. built-in camera — with facial recognition by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    That is so cool!

    "Good morning, Dave, would you like some coffee?"
    "Yeah, and some toast and bacon"
    "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave. Your latest cholesterol report indicates dietary restrictions are necessary to complete the mission."
    "Uhhhh, what mission?"
    "You are to bring a copy of the Department of Agriculture's crop report to the office before it is publicly released, so we may adjust our portfolio."
    "Hey! What year is this?!"
    "This is the Beek's residence...?"
    "NO! My name is "Buttle"!"
    "Op, so sorry, we're off *click*... In other news, pentagon sources say the mysterious object being sighted is just a weather balloon... That's right, Al, and after the commercial break, Michelle's shoes! Ugh! Who does her shopping?"

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  21. Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    This now applies to televisions as well -- an article in Salon discusses the author's new "smart" TV, which came with a 46-page privacy policy. Quoting: "It logs where, when, how and for how long you use the TV. It sets tracking cookies and beacons designed to detect 'when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message.' It records 'the apps you use, the websites you visit, and how you interact with content.' It ignores 'do-not-track' requests as a considered matter of policy. It also has a built-in camera -- with facial recognition."

    Thereby affirming my belief that "Smart TVs" are a dumb idea which mostly is there to give advertising revenue and other information.

    No, not interested, thanks anyway. It's a TV, and I will mostly use it as a dumb monitor ... I'm not interested in the other crap you're putting in it.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  22. Get a monitor by itzly · · Score: 1

    Just get a big monitor and hook it up to your own computer.

  23. Fahrenheit 451 anyone? by Meridock · · Score: 1

    What is next? Remote prosecution of thoughts?

  24. Nobody has pointed out ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
    Fifty one comments so far and nobody has yet pointed out ...

    In communist Russia, television watches YOU.

  25. in Soviet Russia, TV watches you! by swschrad · · Score: 1

    disable wi-fi in the menus, if so equipped, and do NOT plug in an Ethernet cable. if the POS still shows up on the wifi connections list, take it back for a refund.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:in Soviet Russia, TV watches you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Increasingly now the TV won't work unless given connectivity.

      And no, people are not going to be returning them for that reason. A few will sure but the vast majority no because they don't understand or care about that.

    2. Re:in Soviet Russia, TV watches you! by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't help that the coax you use to watch tv can also be used for data. Ethernet isn't necessary for these things to work. Think about it.

      --
      Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    3. Re:in Soviet Russia, TV watches you! by rthille · · Score: 1

      It couldn't get on my network without my hard-to-crack wifi password.
      But it could secretly join some neighbors' open wifi, or an xfinity wifi, or...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    4. Re:in Soviet Russia, TV watches you! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Take it back anyway because it must be defective. The voice commands don't work, you see...

  26. Why limit ourselves? by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Which means, unfortunately, that any technical fixes are attacking the wrong problem. What we need are behavioral/legislative fixes to make inappropriate access to these surveillance systems prohibited and punishable with real teeth. Punishments that breach the corporate veil, and are stricter in cases of official abuse than for 'ordinary hackers'. I wouldn't commence holding my breath for those laws, if I were you.

    At any rate, go vote next week, and vote for 'less bad'. It's the best we can do.

    We need to do more things at once. Vote against those who would aide and abet the personal info merchants. Have a router that's paranoid and only interacts with specific sites. Hardware with uncomfortable "features" disabled - even if it's a physical hard-hack (i.e., screwdriver to lens).

    Furthermore there needs to be a marketing effort or social movement against privacy invaders. Unfortunately, government psyops will do everything they can to demonize and prevent any such movement from taking hold.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  27. I always wanted a Twonky by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Just have to be careful not to be a turncoat.

  28. Smart meters are great by langelgjm · · Score: 2

    Probably contravenes typical /. viewpoint, but smart meters are great. I have one and love it. I get a feed of its data and create a daily plot based on that information (see here).

    Smart meters allow accurate time of day pricing, which can help reduce overall consumption and reduce costs for everyone, customers included. It allows the utility company to know more about where demand is and how it varies, and have a better sense of the condition of the grid (especially useful in outages).

    In theory I could deduce all sorts of things about you based on your energy usage given enough resolution. Yes, maybe the police will order the utility company to produce records for a person they suspect is running a grow operation in their basement (though probably just the total usage would be enough to deduce that).

    I don't care for a TV that will record audio all the time, so I won't buy one. Funny that the device I don't have choice over (the meter) actually provides me with real benefits, while other companies are trying to sell me devices that don't offer nearly as much benefit.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re:Smart meters are great by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Probably contravenes typical /. viewpoint, but smart meters are great. I have one and love it. I get a feed of its data and create a daily plot based on that information (see here).

      they had meters that could handle time-of-use metering before they had meters that could handle realtime reporting. they had to come to your house with a fancy PDA once a month and get a dump from the meter.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Smart meters are great by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      In a sense, we've always had real-time reporting, since you've always been free to go outside and look at your meter whenever you want.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    3. Re:Smart meters are great by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In a sense, we've always had real-time reporting, since you've always been free to go outside and look at your meter whenever you want.

      Sure, and it's simple enough to read the disc in the meter optically, so logging is not that difficult, either. The power factor is shown right on the meter's face...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. When is forcing not forcing? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't like the "smart tv" features? Don't fucking buy one.

    That argument is worth about as much as "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" once you reach the point where some undesirable item or behaviour is theoretically not compulsory but is necessary to live a normal life as part of society.

    Don't like abusive airport security? Don't ever go on holiday to intersting faraway places or fly across a large country to see your family.

    Don't like Facebook data mining your life? Don't participate in what is currently the main mode of group organisation for a lot of social groups.

    Don't like unknown parties tracking your movements via your cell phone? Don't use the most common form of direct communication in today's society.

    Don't like unknown parties tracking what you access and search for on-line? Don't use the greatest information and education resource created in the history of humanity.

    At some point, something is de facto required to live a normal life, even if there is some weasel-worded get-out clause where it isn't strictly necessary so, y'know, no need for pesky things like basic human rights and common decency in how we treat each other.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:When is forcing not forcing? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 2

      Don't like Facebook data mining your life? Don't participate in what is currently the main mode of group organisation for a lot of social groups.

      If you use Facebook, you're an incurable moron.

    2. Re:When is forcing not forcing? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The airport security is government-mandated (and in my opinion should be ruled unconstitutional). Cell phone tracking is an essential part of the service, since the system really does need to keep track of where your phone is, if only to route incoming calls.

      Facebook and Google are private entities, not government. If you want restrictions on what they can do, you need more government control, not less. If you want to buy a TV that doesn't spy on you, look around. It may cost a bit more, but if there's a market somebody will provide it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  30. Re:Way overblown IMO by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Call me back when Smart TV's are pre-configured to connect automatically to cell networks. Then we can talk.

    I called that one as the big risk a long time ago. As long as you can just not connect a potentially intrusive device to your Internet connection, you always have a certain degree of protection if you want it. As soon as devices can make their own connections, either you live in a Faraday cage or you're permanently at risk if you have any untrusted device nearby.

    The disturbing thing is that it won't even need relative expensive access to a cell network before long, because everything from shared WiFi networks (think BT Openzone, for those in the UK) to mesh networks (a distributed, peer-to-peer wireless communications system) via drones is potentially a threat in this context.

    The only way to stop this is going to be legislation requiring sufficient disclosure and/or outright prohibiting certain behaviours that are too widely abused, with meaningful penalties for infringement (i.e., criminal sanctions that will pierce corporate veils and throw executives in jail).

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  31. Got one of those myself. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    I have a Samsung 32" LCD (120Hz?)TV, which I only use as a computer monitor.
    I read each TOS that came along, it was the third one that you needed to accept to use it as a
    very nice TV; It mentioned monitoring and storing everything you do (sites visited, vids viewed, each key stroke, and well everything). Adding a camera to it (gestures) makes it what the XBOX started out as (watching everything) but was shouted down. Not a word about has
    really been mentioned about the smart TVs.

    I quit there, I have no account (required to open it up fully), monitor only.

    Everything is collected to alert you to something coming on your history collected indicates
    you might like - price was too high.

  32. And the solution is .. by lippydude · · Score: 1

    "The ongoing deployment of internet-of-things devices is already creating serious issues and discussions about the privacy of users, IoT security, and the potential threat of cyber criminals taking control of sensors and smart devices connected to the Internet."

    And the solution is not to connect your smart devices directly to the Internet.

  33. No net connection, no problem by medoc · · Score: 1

    Don't plug the ethernet, disable WIFI, use a small computer to drive the display (XBMC on rpi does this well). Problem solved.

  34. Even dumb meters are a privacy concern by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Energy providers install the meters outside of buildings allowing anyone to walk up to them and record energy consumption. It does not take smart meters to generate a privacy issue. Meters should go inside the house...and yes, even then they can still drive by in their van and read it out.