Slashdot Mirror


Samsung SmartTV Customers Warned Personal Conversations May Be Recorded

An anonymous reader writes Samsung's privacy policy includes details that its Smart TV voice recognition feature may pick up on personal conversations and transmit private communications to third parties. Buried in the privacy policy related to the smart television, Samsung advises users to be aware that any snippets of conversation might be captured by the software which allows them to control their television sets with a series of commands. Questions have been raised about who these third parties could be, what the information is used for, and how the data is being transmitted – with potentially unencrypted voice clips left exposed to hackers.

17 of 309 comments (clear)

  1. But surely... by fruviad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...we can trust them not to abuse this. Right?

    1. Re:But surely... by thieh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would like them to explain why a recording function is needed in the first place. If it is about determining what the best content for you might be, wouldn't you be the best person to choose what you want to watch? Why then take your choices away from you? Or are we evolved to the point that choices have become obnoxious?

    2. Re:But surely... by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      not sure. that's why if i had a smartTV i'd dangle my man-bits and hairy behind in front its camera every time i walked past it. "you wanna watch? here you go, mr nsa. claw your eyes out."

      seriously, i want my TV to be as dumb as possible and fed content by an easily upgradeable computer.

    3. Re:But surely... by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It probably works like Siri or Cortana or any of a number of voice-process things, where they send the voice command data back to a more powerful computer to process what it actually meant.

      And if that's how it works as I expect, that's why I don't use it for anything that I'm not already sending over the Internet. As in, I'll use it for entering addresses in Google Maps because I'm already sending the address to Google anyway, but I'm not inclined to dictate text messages because the voice processor people have no business with that information.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:But surely... by dpidcoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would like them to explain why a recording function is needed in the first place.

      Probably for the voice recognition. The way smartphones have been doing it (and the way I'd suspect this TV works as well) is that they record your spoken commands, then send them out over the internet for a more powerful machine to crunch. After a few milliseconds of processing time, the interpretation is sent back to the phone and it performs the commands.

      The reality is that this is probably a tempest in a teapot and samsung isn't doing anything more nefarious than apple does with siri or google does with the "ok google" feature on android phones. That said, samsung deserves all the flak they get over this. They should have known better than to leave that kind of blanket statement in their license agreement as it clearly allows for abuse on the part of samsung or their 3rd parties.

    5. Re:But surely... by turp182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe it's considerably different from Siri or OK Google in that the TV is probably always listening (I'm assuming even when turned "off" so it can listen for the command to power up).

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    6. Re:But surely... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When I got my newest phone, I tried out the voice recognition feature. I set it up and gave it a custom activation phrase that I figured wouldn't come up in normal conversation. What I didn't count on, though, was my phone apparently mishearing half of what I said. Several times a day, I'd hear the beeping noise it made when it recognized me ordering it to do something - but I hadn't said my activation phrase at all. My kids had a good laugh at the weird things that it mistook for an activation phrase. They'll still shout "she has a record" at my phone even though I've long turned off the voice recognition.

      Even if you don't get into the "recording everything around you and sending it to the parent company" issues, why not just use a button to begin voice commands? I can voice-search Google by pressing a microphone icon, I don't need my phone listening to me all the time just in case I utter something at the phone. Have smartphones made data-access so easy and have we gotten so lazy that "click this icon and get the weather" is too hard and we need to say "Phone, give me the weather"?!!!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:But surely... by CaptainLard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know right?? Star Trek proves that even after 400 (?) years of voice command optimization, the best activation method is still to physically press the communicator emblem thingy. If Picard isn't too busy for a quick gesture to get beamed out of a warp core explosion, you can push a button when you want to know where the closest chicken nuggets are.

    8. Re:But surely... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The other day I discovered a new iOS feature I had no idea existed. While sending a text to a customer, I hit the microphone icon by mistake. Another person in the (parked, idling) car was muttering about how the customer was a moron, which, although true enough, wasn't something I intended to include as part of the text. Not hard to see where this story is going, right? Well, it's even dumber than you're thinking.

      I hit the 'Done' button to make the voice input UI go away, finished the text message, and hit 'Send.' As far as I knew, there was no danger that my friend's comment would be added to the text message. The car was too noisy and her voice was too low.for the speech recognition engine to understand, and in any event, the "moron" comment didn't appear in the outgoing text message. No problem.

      Except what did appear in the text message, visible only after I sent it, was a small attachment balloon with a waveform. Apparently, iOS now sends the captured audio file as a binary attachment if it can't extract any recognizable speech.

      So the obvious question is, what kind of drugs are these people taking? Is no one at a Fortune 500 company capable of thinking anything through these days? Do the programmers who think these features are "cool": and "awesome" not have managers with a three-digit IQ?

      Fortunately for me, my phone lost its signal right about then, and I was able to kill the text app while it was still displaying "Sending." I knew from experience that iOS's text app didn't attempt to provide guaranteed delivery, and sure enough, when I restarted it, it had forgotten all about the message it was trying to send. So in a sense, I was saved by the same dumbshit programmers at Apple who tried to ruin my day.

      It seems we have to adopt the same attitude around microphones that we normally apply to firearms. The gun is always loaded, and the mike is always live.

    9. Re:But surely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You didn't press the voice-to-text microphone icon. You hit the "Capture a sound" microphone icon, which is a new feature in the iOS 8 Message apps (https://www.apple.com/ios/whats-new/messages/ scroll to "Add your voice to the conversation").

      Now whether having two microphone icons with two different behaviors on a single screen is good UI design is whole other matter...

  2. In Soviet Russia TV watches you. Oh, wait... by Still+beliving+I+am+ · · Score: 5, Funny

    My phone is spying on me too, just like in Soviet Russia

  3. That's how today's voice recognition WORKS. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Competent natural-language voice recognition is still too hard for a handheld or embedded device. So, these devices digitize your voice (OMG recording!), ship it off to a server farm for interpretation, and receive the results. Because voice recognition is still a challenge, it's usually farmed out to one of a few firms (Nuance comes to mind) that do this as a third-party service. These firms can "retain" that information in the sense that it trains their voice-recognition algorithms, but they probably aren't building a huge dossier of your private conversations.

    I'd certainly like to know if Samsung retains the voice information it collects. I'd even more urgently like to know if they sell it to other "third parties" besides whoever's doing the voice recognition. The initial panic I'm seeing around this looks ill-informed, but Samsung definitely has to get out in front of it. If they can't -- if they can't provide a simple, clear explanation of what they are and aren't doing -- it's going to cost them.

    1. Re:That's how today's voice recognition WORKS. by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Competent natural-language voice recognition is still too hard for a handheld or embedded device.

      I disagree.

      First, doesn't the XBox One do it without internet access?

      But in general, we had competent natural-language voice recognition in 2002 on single-core x86 CPUs. Today's embedded ARMs are just as capable as those. I personally worked on a project where the software could recognize phrases such as "Patient presents with acute myocardial infarction caused by necrosis of myocardial tissue..." with very good accuracy. I know this is harder to do without context, so that same program might not get "Okay Google, show me pictures of Tom Cruise in his new car." But it sure as heck should be able to get "Samsung Play movie" and "Samsung volume up" every time.

      We even had "dumb" phones in the 1990s that could recognize "Call Kathy Smith" where it could recognize a name from your contact list. That's not so different from "Play Game of Thrones."

  4. Re:So... by jordanjay29 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Generally, voice commands on phones require an activator. Such as "Siri," or "Okay, Google," or "Hey, Cortana." These are phrases that probably don't seep into the average person's life too often, so they're fairly safe to use as activators. I don't have experience with iOS or WP's apps, but Google Now requires you to "train" it to the sound and cadence of your spoken phrase, "Okay, Google." This allows the phone to detect the activator phone-side, without sending information to the mothership. It's also easy to test this, simply turn off network data (perhaps by putting the phone on Airplane Mode) and activate Google Now by saying, "Okay, Google." The screen will pop up, allow you to speak, but it won't be able to contact Google to parse your question. So it's clear that Google Now handles its activation phrase offline, and although I'm not certain, I can guess that other phones do similarly.

  5. Re:What's wrong with this? by war4peace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, I'm not worried about the government finding something out. I'm worried about a criminal organization finding ways to hurt me and/or my family, be it directly or indirectly.
    Sure, one might argue the line between criminal organizations and governments has become very blurry nowadays and to that I say... I say... damn, I got nothin'.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  6. Re:Bye Bye Samsung Smart TVs by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not to mention that Smart TVs have a bad record of having their interfaces/applications updated. If your Smart TV's interface is aging, you need to buy a new SmartTV. If the interface on your Roku (connected to your "dumb TV") is aging, you can buy a new Roku for much less. If another company overtakes Roku and makes something much superior, you can ditch your Roku and buy one of those. Smart TVs are today's equivalent of those TVs that had VCRs and/or DVD players built in instead of hooking up a separate VCR and/or DVD player.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  7. What about the second party? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The particular beef in this instance seems to be the "third party" bit, since while Apple and Google do exactly the same thing they process the audio themselves, instead of farming it out to a third party.

    You're assuming that most people realise the data is transmitted to any external party at all.

    I suspect if you did a random survey of people who had bought Smart TVs, knowing that they had voice and/or image recognition included, you would find a significant fraction of those people assumed it was done by the TV itself and had no idea that anyone else was going to see or hear anything.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.