Slashdot Mirror


Samsung Smart TVs Injected Ads Into Streamed Video

mpicpp sends this news from CNET: Reports are emerging that Samsung smart TVs have begun inserting short advertisements directly into video streaming apps, with no influence from the third-party app providers. The news comes just days after Samsung made headlines for another incursion into users' lounge rooms, when it was revealed that its TV voice recognition software is capable of capturing personal information and transmitting it to third parties. ... The issue has been reported on the Plex streaming service — a brand of media player that allows users to stream their own video from a personal library or hard drive and push it to a smart TV. Samsung says this was not intentional, and that they've fixed it so the ads should no longer show up.

370 comments

  1. "Not intentional". Right. by BVis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What they mean by that is that they didn't intend for people to object to the ads or for their poor behavior to be called out.

    It's really too bad, I have an older Samsung HDTV and it's really great. I was considering buying another Samsung when the time came to replace it. Now what am I going to buy? Sony? Vizio?

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  2. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, don't buy LG -- they do the same thing as Samsung. In addition to forcibly displaying ads, they have other problems, too -- they invalidated my HDMI cables because they updated the protocol ports without asking leaving me to buy new equipment so they could 'enforce copyright laws'.

  3. Fixed it for you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This feature called "oops" has been rolled back for your enjoyment.

  4. Bullshit Samsung by bazmail · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was an accident? So all this ad injection tech was a typo by some developer? lol. Why is it that the more popular a tech company gets the more of a dick it becomes? Is that some sort of business law? Samsung's trustworthiness is zero as far as I'm concerned.

    1. Re:Bullshit Samsung by Scutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Show me a tech company with a non-zero "trustworthiness". Every one of them wants to "monetize" you in any way they can and will screw you over and sell you to the highest bidder in a heartbeat if it raises their quarterlies by a tenth of a percent.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Bullshit Samsung by conquistadorst · · Score: 2

      Yeah I lol'd too. "Oh look, we had a team of developers accidentally build out a fully functioning module into the TV's OS, tested it, worked out the bugs, published it, and it also just so happens to make our company more money. This is an outrage, how could this have possibly happened?".

      Watch out everyone, software is now evolving on its own! It's beginning, machines are rising! Where is Sarah Connor!?!?

    3. Re:Bullshit Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is all right. They are hiring Brian Williams as there spokesman.

    4. Re:Bullshit Samsung by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      I once accidentally used a "repeat x until y" loop instead of a "while y begin x end", and I got real-time facial recognition. This was in a checkbook app.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    5. Re:Bullshit Samsung by eth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it that the more popular a tech company gets the more of a dick it becomes? Is that some sort of business law?.

      Essentially, yes, at least for any publicly traded company that has to increase profits every quarter or be lynched by the shareholders.

    6. Re:Bullshit Samsung by pherthyl · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apple. They are very up front with how they get their money from you and that's in the hardware prices. They charge a lot for hardware but so far they don't try to screw you after purchase by advertising or selling your data.

    7. Re:Bullshit Samsung by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Show me any company with a non-zero "trustworthiness". Every one of them wants to "monetize" you in any way they can and will screw you over and sell you to the highest bidder in a heartbeat if it raises their quarterlies by a tenth of a percent.

      FTFY

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    8. Re:Bullshit Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it was like evolution, you either get something from nothing or you're trying to achieve X, but instead end up getting Y, by accident and random mutation.

    9. Re:Bullshit Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lynched by the shareholders.

      And how is this a bad thing?

    10. Re:Bullshit Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > [Apple] are very up front with how they get their money from you and > that's in the hardware prices. They charge a lot for hardware but so far > they don't try to screw you after purchase by advertising or selling
      > your data.

      When they sell your data, they're not getting money from you.

      I wonder if Bono paid them, or they paid Bono for the U2 fiasco.

    11. Re:Bullshit Samsung by paazin · · Score: 2

      I have a feeling Valve may be one of the rare few that fits this -- maybe because they're privately held but they don't do stupid moves just to squeeze a tiny bit more cash out of consumers.

    12. Re:Bullshit Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.hifibit.com

    13. Re:Bullshit Samsung by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      maybe because they're privately held but they don't do stupid moves just to squeeze a tiny bit more cash out of consumers.

      They don't make stupid moves that make $5 off of you today. Instead, they want to keep you a happy paying customer, and make $0.25 a month off of you in perpetuity.*

      *Actual timeframe and dollar amounts used are illustrative only, and likely have no relationship to the real numbers. Except the perpetuity one, actually.

      It's quarter-itis, where everything needs to happen now.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    14. Re:Bullshit Samsung by vettemph · · Score: 1

      >>>>more popular a tech company gets the more of a dick it becomes?
      Can't wait for this infographic. "as you can see here by the size of the right most penis...." 8==D

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    15. Re:Bullshit Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Samsung is private.

    16. Re:Bullshit Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain that to Amazon the profitless.

    17. Re:Bullshit Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd pay to see said lynchings... maybe that could be a new profit driver?

    18. Re:Bullshit Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all are publically traded.

    19. Re:Bullshit Samsung by praxis · · Score: 1

      Valve has changed their terms of service for Steam with the following question: do you accept these changes? If you answer yes, you have new rules governing the use of your games. If you answer no, you lose every purchase you have ever made with them. That's in the realm of zero trustworthiness in my book.

      The relevant part of the TOS, bolding mine:

      Valve may amend this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use) at any time in its sole discretion. If Valve amends the Agreement, such amendment shall be effective thirty (30) days after Valve provides you with notice of the amended Agreement, either via e-mail or as a notification within the Software. You can view the Agreement at any time at http://www.steampowered.com/. Your failure to cancel your Account, or cease use of the Subscription(s) affected by the amendment, within thirty (30) days after receiving notification of the amendment, will constitute your acceptance of the amended terms. If you don’t agree to the amendments or to any of the terms in this Agreement, your only remedy is to cancel your Account or to cease use of the affected Subscription(s). Valve shall not have any obligation to refund any fees that may have accrued to your Account before cancellation of your Account or cessation of use of any Subscription, nor shall Valve have any obligation to prorate any fees in such circumstances.

    20. Re:Bullshit Samsung by mjwx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apple. They are very up front with how they get their money from you and that's in the hardware prices. They charge a lot for hardware but so far they don't try to screw you after purchase by advertising or selling your data.

      Read your Itunes T&C.

      They can share your data with any "partner" they choose.

      They're worse than Google with selling your data, at least Google is upfront about it, rather than burying it in 100 pages of legalese.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  5. Fills me with confidence by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    Samsung says this was not intentional.

    If they can "accidentally" insert ads into video streams can we really be confident that the audio stream of conversations from the smart tv won't "accidentally" be passed to advertisers for targeting, listened to by employees, or even used to select victims of crime ("yes I'm going to be away next week but I'll hide the Rembrant under the bed")?

    1. Re:Fills me with confidence by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, you can sort of test this. Either start randomly saying strawberries and see if you get adds for them. Alternatively, you can mock a murder scene in your living room, have someone come in and shriek at the horrer and describe the carnage then mock kill them. Spend thr next 20 minute trying to get blood off the walls and carpets. See if the cops show up or if you get adds for cleaning services.

    2. Re:Fills me with confidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      $am$ung wouldn't show their hand for justice. You might be right about the cleaning products/services though.

    3. Re:Fills me with confidence by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Samsung's not going to care about any of that.
      You should finish with "Hey look at the cool television. I was planning to buy a new one anyway, so I'll just take this one instead". Cops will be at your door faster than you can say "There's a matching soundbar too".

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Fills me with confidence by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      Just another Wednesday at my house.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    5. Re:Fills me with confidence by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Maybe they accidentally built a complex server application to deliver ads into video streams, kind of like you might accidentally slip in the shower.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    6. Re:Fills me with confidence by tool462 · · Score: 1

      My TV just started playing Breaking Bad on Netflix...

    7. Re:Fills me with confidence by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      That's OK. Mine started playing "Beverly Hillbillies".

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Fills me with confidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am betting on cleaning service. Nobody wants to loose another potential customer.

    9. Re:Fills me with confidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got ads for Ginsu Knives and Chlorox...

    10. Re:Fills me with confidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they call the cops? If you steal the TV they are listening on, the original owner buys a new one. They will sell the same number of TVs either way.

      Captcha: shallow

  6. What anti consumer feature is next? Sterilization? by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    I am not sure that Samsung could have come up with features that would make me want to buy their TV less unless they simply went with slapstick comedy. Spontaneous combustion? Radiation hazard? Randomly calls in SWAT teams?

    Or maybe they have more subtle comedy offering coming where they partially morph your face onto all the fat and ugly people who appear on your screen. Or send subliminal messages suggesting that your spouse should have an affair.

    But for now they at least seem to be violating our privacy coming and going. I wonder what MBA thinking results in this crap. There are many reasons I would never buy a GM but onstar sits right at the top of the pile for similar reasons that I will not now buy a Samsung TV.

  7. Best alternative? by rthille · · Score: 1

    I have been in the market for an HDTV for a while now, but haven't been convinced that any aren't massive security holes. Yes, I could leave it unconnected from the network, but then I'm just pushing the problem to another device.

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    1. Re:Best alternative? by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      I'm confused,
      do you mean smart tv? because HDTV doesn't need network connections, or anything that makes them "questionable". You can easily go buy one, especially one that predates many of these intrusions.

    2. Re:Best alternative? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      It is perfectly safe if you don't plug it in your Wifi or your rj45 wire. That's how my HDTV is configured today. I envision my TV as a dumb screen, and it's been working so far.

    3. Re:Best alternative? by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      Just don't buy a smart tv. They cost a whole lot more than "dumb tvs" and you can by a roku box/amazon fire stick/ etc for a fraction of the price difference.

      Those are also cheaper to "upgrade" (replace) when you want something better and is more mobile than carrying your entire TV around.

    4. Re:Best alternative? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have been in the market for an HDTV for a while now, but haven't been convinced that any aren't massive security holes.

      You mean a smart TV. HDTVs don't necessarily have networking. Mine doesn't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Best alternative? by dugancent · · Score: 1

      Don't buy a smart tv. There are still plenty around.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    6. Re:Best alternative? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Yes, I could leave it unconnected from the network, but then I'm just pushing the problem to another device.

      But at that "another device" point, the problem is really easy. You can build (or even still buy) awesome Mini-ITX (or similar sized) systems to use a HTPC and can very likely mount it on the back of the monitor if you really don't have any place for it to sit.

      It's only the built-into-the-monitor form factor where there aren't really any good computers avai-- actually, you might look into running Linux on an iMac (though IMHO you'll get less computer for more money, that way) if you simply just must have it down to one single enclosure without any unsightly bumps on the back.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:Best alternative? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you can push the problem to things like an Intel NUC running XBMC/Kodi where you can control the software stack and what it does. You can blackhole anything you want right on the device.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:Best alternative? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      When we last bought a TV set, there were no dumb TVs of the size we wanted where we went. (We don't use the smart features, but they're there.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:Best alternative? by rthille · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I _really_ should have been more specific, but I was in a hurry...

      I've got a 4K Seiki 39" that I picked up when it touched $299 at Amazon for a day. It's doing temporary duty as our TV while we complete the remodel, then it'll become my 4K computer monitor and we'll be replacing it with a ~70" TV. It doesn't seem like there's a very large selection of 'dumb' TVs that come in that size.
      And rather than the general comments I got, I really was looking for recommendations on what device I should buy today/soon based on Slashdotter's personal experiences. I figure I could look at A/V sites for recommendations, but they would be very unlikely to take the privacy/network security angles seriously.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    10. Re:Best alternative? by rthille · · Score: 1

      It's not really. I run an open-wifi (outside the DMZ, filtered to prevent spammers) as a "public service" in case anyone nearby needs wifi. That means that there's nothing to stop nefarious code on the TV from using it... And even if I didn't, there may be easily hacked neighbor's wifi as well.
      A 'dumb' TV is really what I want, but I haven't seen much in the ~70" size we're looking for, and the Seiki 65" looks interesting, but the experience I've had with the 39" isn't great...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    11. Re:Best alternative? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      About the nefarious code, this can be said of any device in your home. What if your refrigerator has a WiFi chipset and silently tries to break in every reachable network ?

      But to prevent the TV from doing anything it is advertised to do, deactivating the network should be enough.

  8. This Tech is Dead on Arrival by thebryce · · Score: 2

    Between this and the privacy invasions I'd say there is no place for these TV's in my home. And I really wouldn't want to hang out in other people's homes if they had them, either. This application of technology needs to die in a fire.

    1. Re:This Tech is Dead on Arrival by Megane · · Score: 1

      Smart TV is the new DIVX. Back in the day I even got one person to return their player to Circuit Shitty for a refund.

      I refuse to hook up a TV set to the internet and allow it to run whatever the fuck mystery-ware it wants. I won't use them as anything other than a dumb TV hooked up to an antenna, or a display connected to a computer (which may even contain an ATSC receiver). But so far I haven't yet been in a situation where I've been forced to buy a "smart" TV.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  9. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative
    Samsung Australia's statement is telling:

    This was a result of an error that occurred as part of a recent software update that was not intended for the Australian market.

    We can confirm that the issue has now been rectified and that there are currently no plans to introduce this type of advertising in Australia in the near future.

    Check the qualifiers. That behavior was intended, but for other markets. Samsung does have plans to introduce it to the Australian market, but in the long term.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  10. Re:What anti consumer feature is next? Sterilizati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The particular thinking involved goes something like this:

    Jack nut 1: We don't have a recurring revenue model. People buy our TV and that is it. Can we get subscriptions or something for using it?
    Jack nut 2: Well, we are a pane of glass; people won't subscribe to that.
    Jack nut 1: What if we make it OUR pane of glass and show ads on it? Then we get revenue!
    Jack nut 2: Profit!

    So it goes like this:

    1) Show ads over people's locally stored media
    2) ???
    3) Lose profit!

  11. blame the devs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "not intentional"? it ought to be something like "false" instead of (bool) false!
    please samsung: your developers are way smarter than you are.

  12. Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by rsborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean, with the plethora of set-top boxes like AppleTV, Roku, FireTV, ChromeCast, why would anyone in their right mind buy an all-in-one, especially from a known UI offender like Samsung (TouchWiz?).

    Samsung should focus on making a TV with sound that doesn't suck (i.e., integrated wireless speakers that auto-calibrate) or maybe focus on style and setup for differentiation.

    Whatever... they are a low-price disruptor and they essentially kicked Panasonic and Pioneer out of the market so they could foist this "app crap" on us. Whoever buys a Samsung "smart" TV deserves one I guess.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      old people like my mom and in-laws. if all you want is netflix and vudu then it's pretty good because it saves you an HDMI port

    2. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by Shados · · Score: 1

      A lot of smart TVs are cheaper (by a lot) than the equivalent dumb TV of similar quality, because of the stupid ads and the "shop".

      I have a panasonic viera. Works fine, the big channels are updated pretty frequently, etc.

      I have a Roku, but often the image quality is better on the Viera apps, and it lets me have my 2 mostly used apps opened and just toggle between inputs, which is faster than switching app/channel on the roku or the viera themselves.

      If i had to choose just one, I'd pick the Roku for sure... but I'm already using all 4 HDMI inputs, and TVs with more than that are fairly expensive, and HDMI splitters are pricey in themselves, so its tempting to just disconnect it since the only channel/app the Roku supports that Viera doesn't is Funimation, and that's flaky in itself.

    3. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      If that is all you want, then you probably won't have any other use for that HDMI port.

    4. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Sadly, anymore,regarding "smart" vs regular, your choices get much narrower if you want a larger set, especially one that is 4K UltraHD. Everything is going "SmartTV". Eventually you'll have no choice. I just finally bought a new only TV 3 weeks ago, after using a CRT all these years (my wife is a freakin' luddite): a Samsung 50" UHD model. Just my luck.
      Believe me, I was not hyped on the "smart" aspect (my BluRay player can already do all that anyway), but I was set on getting a Samsung, as I'm not really happy with the pictures I've seen from Vizios, and Sony was more expensive. A friend told me his LG did not last long, and the Samsung was on sale for the Superbowl. Their picture quality is really good, so I nabbed it. It acts like a normal TV, and powers on instantly, at least.
      On the plus side, I don't use the voice control feature, in fact it can be shut it off in the system menu, which I had already done, but of course I don't know if that actually shuts the mic off entirely or just disables the commands feature.
      In any case, it's easy enough for me to simply disconnect the TV from the Internet (I use a MAC filter), and just use my BluRay player for streaming.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    5. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by Megane · · Score: 1

      Their picture quality is really good, so I nabbed it. It acts like a normal TV, and powers on instantly, at least.

      How instantly is instantly? My big TV set takes about 10 seconds to start up, half of that time with "Please wait" on the screen. (I think all big-screen TV sets these days run an embedded Linux, so it probably cold-boots when turned on.) I have a smaller set that takes like three seconds just to turn the power LED on.

      In any case, it's easy enough for me to simply disconnect the TV from the Internet (I use a MAC filter)

      I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a "pair of scissors filter". <img src="RonSwanson.jpg">

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    6. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      About .5 seconds or less. Seriously. I was pleasantly surprised. Instant On is an option in the settings that can be enabled/disabled, though I've not done any research into why anyone would want that disabled.

      :-) I'm not using a wired connection currently, just wireless.. so I use the router's MAC filter, I don't broadcast my SSID, and it's of course encrypted. It's just as effective. None of my neighbors are stupid enough to run open wireless APs, otherwise I'd be concerned it might just join their network. Hmm. Now I have to see if I can just shut the wireless off completely, just in case.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    7. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by suutar · · Score: 1

      sounds like a market may be developing for a kit to replace the smarts with something that just drives the display. (not, mind you, a _large_ market. Unfortunately.)

    8. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any case, it's easy enough for me to simply disconnect the TV from the Internet (I use a MAC filter), and just use my BluRay player for streaming.

      If only it were that easy for regular, non-technical folks.

    9. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      ..why would anyone in their right mind buy..

      Go look at how much it would cost you to a buy a single Raspberry Pi (its capabilities are just about right for this). Then imagine what something like that would cost a huge manufacturer like Samsung (I say this part, so that you'll have some sense of how low the margin will be). That is how much a smart TV costs to make, relative to a dumb TV. On something costing hundreds of dollars, it's nearly free.

      And what the game console makers, the smartphone makers, etc (and even pre-loaded OS desktop PC makers) have established over the last few decades is that "nearly free" can become "actually free" or even profitable if someone pays you to bundle malware with your product, or there's some kind of product-tying, or things like that. (So basically, damn near every expensive anything, ought to have a [potentially user-hostile] computer in it. Think of anything that costs $400 or more. That thing needs malware.) So just having a CPU can increase the revenue from the sale, so that from the manufacturer's point of view, it virtually costs less to make. So if you're in a highly competitive market, you can sell it for less.

      Thus, the reason people buy these things, is that they cost less (to buy; I mean the cost at the time of the sale, not the costs of using the product).

      We simply haven't yet gotten to the point where, when you first buy a TV (or a car) (or for some people, a phone) the first thing everyone knows they need to do with it, is overwrite the preloaded assumed-to-be-user-hostile software with a user-centric replacement. Fortunately, Samsung is joining Apple and Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft, and many others (this is an all-too-common thread to rehash; don't feel offended if I omitted your favorite Peoples' Enemy), in helping to teach us all this basic principle.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    10. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why anyone would want that disabled?

      probably because 'instant on' = 'never really off' = uses power continuously (and yes all those little bits of power going 24/7 add up)

    11. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Ah. Thanks. Well, considering we had a 32" CRT that my wife had on 16/7 before (goes on first thing in the morning, off last thing at night) this is probably still a power savings.
      I'll try disabling it, I'm curious now to see how long it takes.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    12. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by jeffy210 · · Score: 1

      I do for a couple reasons. Mainly I like that I have one less device to worry about. Additionally since the app is native to the TV the scaling and video quality are much better than coming through an input. (Case in point Netflix and Amazon locally vs a Roku over HDMI). Additionally Netflix and Amazon give you access to additional content that isn't available through an external device such as 4K and 3D titles.

      --
      ------
      "And may your days be long upon the earth."
    13. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I mean, with the plethora of set-top boxes like AppleTV, Roku, FireTV, ChromeCast, why would anyone in their right mind buy an all-in-one, especially from a known UI offender like Samsung (TouchWiz?).

      Because a lot of people have a fixation on not having a lot of devices.

      Strange, but the mundane people would happily sacrifice quality, privacy and their dog if it means they can have everything in one magic box.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Okay, tested it, it's only about 4 seconds to fire up. I can most definitely live with that.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    15. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Because not everyone wants to configure and add extras. If it is internal, then less space and not much to configure like for my non-techie parents. :/

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    16. Re:Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      why would anyone in their right mind buy an all-in-one

      Because there's no real alternatives available? Because people buy things based on specs, size and looks rather than EULA? I didn't buy a smart TV. I bought a TV. It just happens to be smart. Not sure what those smarts do, I've never pressed that button.

      Speaking of things that don't suck, if you have an idea of how to get decent sound from a speaker in an enclosure that is 3/4" thick then I'm sure Samsung is all ears. I buy a TVs for the image and have a sound system connected to it. With regards to image quality Samsung kicked the crap out of the competition when I was buying. Not just in specs, but in software too (LG for some reason refused to get a bit perfect representation on the screen, and the Sony which had a slightly better image quality was twice the price).

      I bought a "smart" TV.

  13. Just treat it like any other insecure device by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have been in the market for an HDTV for a while now, but haven't been convinced that any aren't massive security holes.

    So quarantine it on the network just like you would any other untrusted machine. Firewall, DMZ, etc. I think it is only sane to regard devices like this as insecure and to behave accordingly. I think the same could be said for lots of so-called smart home devices. Anything you don't have a reasonable approximation of full control over should be treated as insecure by default

    1. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? DMZ is the opposite of a secured network.

    2. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by hoggoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner.

      I have a "smart" LG TV. I didn't plug in the ethernet and I didn't configure my Wi-Fi password. All of my 'Smarts' come from the Chromecast plugin and the XBMC sitting under it. I'm not trusting the TV with a connection to the outside world.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    3. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That works as long as your neighbors wifi isn't locked down. These things fine a connection and use it whether you want it to or not for reasons.

    4. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I quarantine them. By not buying them.

      When every TV comes with a camera and microphone and requires always-on Internet, that will be a good time to stop buying TVs. I wouldn't watch it anyway, if my girlfriend wasn't addicted to CSI and Game Of Thrones.

    5. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn it. i only want google to spy on me and inject ads!

    6. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by Megane · · Score: 1

      1: find ancient Apple AirPort or LinkSys wireless router

      2: set it up with a bogus SSID like "Free no-Internet" and no password

      3: tell TV to use that wireless

      4: PROFIT!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    7. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by bughunter · · Score: 2

      Then don't forget that many HDMI cables now include Ethernet along with video and audio, so unless you also want to quarantine your video players, stay away from cables labeled HDMI 1.4 (or later).

      Personally, I'd rather avoid installing things needing quarantine.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    8. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      The devices under my control (Chromecast and XBMC) will not be routing TCP/IP over their HDMI cables. If they even had that capability (they don't) I would shut it off.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    9. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzzt.

      The correct behavior is to avoid the product. How do you know that they won't add a "must upgrade firmware every 6 months clause" (or perhaps you'll just experience odd problems until you choose to upgrade). A set of ads could be bundled in the upgraded firmware, which would remain static until you choose to re-enable internet or upgrade your firmware again. In fact, expect future TV's to be bundled with the first set of ads with the stock firmware...you know why? Because you bought the TV from the lousy company, rewarding them (even encouraging them) to expand their underhanded practices.

    10. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of my 'Smarts' come from the Chromecast plugin

      Yea and all your data goes to Goog. This article is about privecy and your giving yours away. Chromecast is no different than a smart tv all your data and usage belongs to the vendor.

      If you want to keep your life to yourself don't use Goog.

    11. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that video players are any more trustworthy?

    12. Re:Just treat it like any other insecure device by rthille · · Score: 1

      I run an unencrypted wifi for public use, and so I imagine the TV could just use that. I suppose I could do MAC blocking, but that would involve me swapping out the original Apple Airport I use for the open Wifi, as it only does MAC whitelisting.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  14. Did Samsung hire Jeb Bush's campaign IT guy? by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 1

    The one who leaked all those emails.

    1. Re:Did Samsung hire Jeb Bush's campaign IT guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering if anyone was ever able to comment on that story. seemed inaccessable on /.

  15. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Don't buy a tv, spend more time on tracker sites and slashdot instead.

  16. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Vizio is a pretty solid brand... at least for their larger TVs. Decent contrast, good response time, and if you choose carefully, no Smart TV nastiness. Of course, we bought the Smart TV at the time, but it doesn't get in the way. The only way you'll see it is if you press a certain button. And personally, they did Smart TV right. If you need it, it's there and easy to access. If you don't want it, don't worry about it - out of mind, out of sight.

  17. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I have a Sony and I was planning on buying a Samsung for my next one. Not now!

  18. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by BVis · · Score: 0

    IIRC Vizio is Best Buy's house brand. If I can't buy it from Crutchfield, I don't want it.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  19. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Check the qualifiers. That behavior was intended, but for other markets. Samsung does have plans to introduce it to the Australian market, but in the long term.

    That's exactly it. There's no way for them to claim it's unintentional, as it takes intentional code to create this behavior. I don't know what on earth these people are thinking, but I won't be buying any "smart" TV that decides to share my conversations and injects ads where they don't belong. Same thing goes for Keurig and their DRM'd coffe makers or any other "smart" applicances. It seems that every "smart" appliance has a lot of foolish thinking behind it.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  20. Only option for big tvs by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unfortunately above a certain screen size it's basically impossible to get a non-"smart" TV. Personally I can do without all the extra fluff and would prefer they just give me lots of input ports and great picture and drop the price a lot. If I want to stream something I'll get a separate device (Roku, Bluray etc) to do that. I already have a TiVo and it does pretty much 90%+ of what I want out of a TV.

    Personally all I want is a huge screen with excellent picture and sound features and lots of input ports. Basically just a big monitor. Good luck getting that in 60+ inch screen size though...

    1. Re:Only option for big tvs by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately above a certain screen size it's basically impossible to get a non-"smart" TV..... Personally all I want is a huge screen with excellent picture and sound features and lots of input ports. Basically just a big monitor. Good luck getting that in 60+ inch screen size though...

      Couldn't you just not connect to the Internet? Sure you wouldn't get the "smart" aspects of your smartTV, but you have indicated you are not interested in those features anyway.

      Or are these new TVs completely useless without an internet connection?

      Somewhat interested in the answer as I too am eventually considering a new, larger TV.

    2. Re:Only option for big tvs by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

      Get a projector. That's what I did. No tuner, no smart apps, not even speakers - just an HDMI input and a 1080p native output. Combine with a 5.1 system and you have an amazing system. At just $1000, this is perfect setup for watching reruns of Pokémon off of Netflix!

    3. Re:Only option for big tvs by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Get a projector.

      Not practical for my particular household. It's a fine solution in some cases (my sister has one) but I would have all sorts of construction costs to ceiling mount it (yes, necessary) and to get the picture to display nicely.

    4. Re:Only option for big tvs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience you can buy a smart tv and not connect it to the internet. Some TV's will ask for a network connection once to download firmware and the latest EULA before you get to use it, but afterwards it can run without network.

    5. Re:Only option for big tvs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but I would have all sorts of construction costs to ceiling mount it (yes, necessary) and to get the picture to display nicely.

      You can use drywall plugs. They weigh VERY little. I did this in an apartment. I added some jack chain and tie-wraps for a very cheap (but yes, ghetto) solution that lasted for years. The holes left in the ceiling are so miniscule that after patching them I could no longer figure out where they were. This cost me $5.

      If you get the right projector (I use a Benq W1080ST) you can project a 120" picture from 5 feet, and they work as close as 2 feet away. So long as you have a wall that's white or even apartment beige it will look decent (you can correct for the off-white colours if you take your time). That particular projector is cheaper than a large TV set.

      Personally, because I own the place I'm in now, I mounted it a little better this time and applied a large sheet of designer white laminate on the wall. 5 years later it's still working great. It's a perfect solution if you have children as it's easy to clean up. I admit that the better mount cost me $20 and the laminate was $200.

    6. Re:Only option for big tvs by sjbe · · Score: 1

      You can use drywall plugs. They weigh VERY little.

      Still have to power it. Still have to run cables to it. (no I don't like the wireless options) Fairly expensive to do this if you don't want it to look ghetto. In my place I'd have to punch good sized holes in the ceiling, run a lot of cabling in hard to access places and get an electrician to put appropriate AC wiring in place. I know how to do it, I just don't think it's a good solution for my particular home.

      Plus I've worked with a lot of projectors over the years. They tend to have more maintenance and calibration issues than I really want to deal with. The newer ones are better but not issue free.

    7. Re:Only option for big tvs by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      This is true if you only look at consumer TVs. There are plenty of large format monitors (legally not TVs) used in digital signage etc.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:Only option for big tvs by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I had a projector and screen around 2007. Tiny portable Dell DLP leftover from the death of some mortgage company. It was really cool, but gave it up as LCD screens starting approaching 50" and above. Given a choice between projection of any kind or direct view, ill take the direct view every time, even at reduced screen size. Projectors require a pretty contrived setup, its not for everyone.

      --
      Good-bye
    9. Re:Only option for big tvs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, if only the landlord allowed holes. Where I'm moving holes are explicitly forbidden by the lease. I asked for an exception, the answer was no.

    10. Re:Only option for big tvs by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How much would it drop the price? The components that would make it a smart TV are pretty inexpensive nowadays.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:Only option for big tvs by sjbe · · Score: 1

      How much would it drop the price? The components that would make it a smart TV are pretty inexpensive nowadays.

      Hard to say but the number is somewhere greater than $0.00. :-) I'd rather have the money in my pocket instead of theirs even if the amount is relatively small.

  21. A pity. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Surely we've reached the point where advertisers can be classified as a highly invasive species of mammalian pests and our attentions turned to exterminating them, no?

    1. Re:A pity. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we've done really well when it comes to exterminating invasive/pest species...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:A pity. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      With the larger mammals, we've actually done so well that they are either extinct, domesticated, or have to be legally protected as endangered species. It's the smaller ones that are pretty much unstoppable. Compare wolves to rats, say.

      In the case of advertisers, their metabolic and phenotypic similarity to humans would afford them a degree of concealment in settled areas and make mass poisoning impractical; but they don't reproduce particularly quickly or have large litter sizes and are large enough to hunt from aircraft, so I suspect control would be possible.

    3. Re:A pity. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Compare wolves to rats, say.

      It is only because dispatching rats by high power rifle isn't allowed in lots of jurisdictions.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:A pity. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      That, and rats are better at trench warfare than humans will ever be, or would ever want to be. Plus, they are alarmingly good(by mammalian standards, nobody has anything on the unicellular guys in this area) at resisting poisoning attempts. Wolves, by all accounts, are quite vulnerable to the M44 and conceptually similar chemical traps.

      Deer, on the other hand, are successful as a pest species almost entirely because of people getting jumpy about gunnmen running around the suburbs and shooting them.

    5. Re:A pity. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well deer are really just giant stilted rats with their only real predator being something that has 4 or more wheels. Also would say deer are a problem because too many people think they are wonderful majestic creatures and feed the dumb things. You know your state has a problem when phrases like "urban deer herd" are used and one goes running through the state capitol building.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  22. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    It could conceivably be that focus testing said that people hated it, but the programmer forget to set the switch that disabled it. Although it's loooking increasingly likely that Samsung just want to sabotage their TV sales.

  23. desperate measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you gotta be pretty desperate as a OEM to resort to advertising other peoples shitty businesses/products/scams for whatever pennies they will give you in the first place, speaks volumes for the company image, so hard up for revenue (nobody wants to buy their shit) they have to sell their customers data to sharks.

    genius PR

  24. are we just now getting outraged? by nimbius · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Television is not, nor was it ever arguably, designed with your education or entertainment in mind. Ever since Winston Cigarettes the primary objective of television has been to deliver flashing lights and colours in order to captivate viewers. These viewers would then be marketed a product, and as television advertising grew the methods and systems used to achieve this goal would change. most TV is drama, and peddles fear uncertainty and doubt as powerful emotions to ensure you'll consume related products and services to either fictitious (house, ER) plots, or "real" stories (Dr. Oz, or Gupta.)

    when people marvel, "gee, i cant believe how cheap a $n inch tv is these days" what they fail to realize is the only entity capitalizing value off the television is advertisers. That consumers are literally paying money to be offered goods and services which in turn consume more of their income is laughable. So when we come full-stop to samsungs offering of what basically amounts to a fist clenched cash grab from the viewer its almost offensive to think we've ever cared what the television did before, let alone now. This one listens to your conversations, where as the old "dumb" tv's would just use market research to determine what you could be forced into consuming. This one injects ads, whereas before tivo, the hopper, and every major DVR from a cable company did the exact same thing.

    on an unrelated note: siri, amazon, and google have all offered a product that listens to your conversations but doesnt provide the distraction of television. The problem isnt that a product we've always trusted is becoming unweildy, is that a product thats never served us is becoming an affront to privacy.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:are we just now getting outraged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when were dumb TVs ever subsidized by ads? The low cost of today's flat panel televisions is largely due to advances in electronics and mass manufacturing, not some hidden stealth subsidy. It's the programming that is subsidized by ads, not the device itself.

    2. Re:are we just now getting outraged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/Television/Internet/g

    3. Re:are we just now getting outraged? by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > Ever since Winston Cigarettes the primary objective of television has been to deliver flashing lights and colours in order to captivate viewers.

      There is some poetic symmetry that we've come full circle from Winston cigarettes to Winston Smith being watched by his TV.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    4. Re:are we just now getting outraged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, those high horse are pretty tall.

    5. Re:are we just now getting outraged? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Tell me, which adverts am I watching on my TV?

      Just that I don't seem to see any. Should I watch something other than full length feature films and BBC2?

  25. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yep! After a firmware update for my LG that basically told me "allright, now I'm going to report on what you watch to whomever I damn well please", I blocked its access to the internet on my firewall (I keep my Wifi on a separate subnet), so sorry LG TV, no more Internet access for you (but I obviously can still stream stuff from my own LAN)

  26. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by msauve · · Score: 1

    You're probably thinking of Insignia. Visio TVs are also sold by Walmart, Target, Costco, BJ's and others.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  27. Re:Seems Legit by gsslay · · Score: 2

    Why would Sony be getting paid for adverts on a Samsung TV?

  28. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sony or Sharp are pretty decent, I also would recommend Panasonic, but they shot themselves out of the water this year by using Firefox OS.

  29. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    It's clearly a bug. The idea is that developers of streaming video apps can use an API to add advertising to their videos. The flag to enable it was being set by default, incorrectly.

    Even Samsung isn't mad enough to piss people off by inserting adverts into random video streams. Their lawyers probably wouldn't let them anyway, as inserting ads into other programming is likely to be copyright infringement.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  30. It's pretty said by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    when something like a TV will require accepting an EULA in order to use it as intended. No doubt, buried in the EULA will be your agreeing to let them send ads whenever they want. What's next, a coffee machine that can insert other brands of coffee into the brew cycle?

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:It's pretty said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's already a coffee machine with DRM; Throws an error when you use compatible cartridges. Just like an inkjet.

  31. Samsung never again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have only bad experiences from Samsung produts and will never buy another one again.

    Basic 32" TV -> broke down during warranty. Got a new similar TV in it's replace as the fault couldn't be fixed (in budget).
    (new) Basic 32" TV -> has various software issues (EPG output is gibberish, changing channels might take up to 6 seconds)
    Galaxy S3 -> Display cracked 8 days after purchase during night (was fine on the evening, cracked in the morning). Cost ~100€ to fix! Goes into "safe mode" whenever shut down by battery running out...
    300 series laptop -> Faulty motherboard, replaced under warranty. Still doesn't work properly (runs overheated and crashes often).
    700 series laptop -> Broken ethernet port. Refused to fix under warranty (claimed I have been using faulty devices connected to it, when the only thing connected to it ever was a router (during config), which worked perfectly on another laptop)

    Utter complete shit.

  32. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    this really needs to be made illegal by some consumer protections group. displaying ads, breaking hdmi, recording your voice these are all huge points your product did not do when you purchased it.

    sadly, government will not likely do squat about that. oligarchies are like that. guess i'll be going back to the HTPC + dumb tv next purchase

  33. Samsung is a piece of crap company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My current TV was my first and last Samsung TV. Due to be replaced soon, fortunately, and I won't be buying a Samsung TV, or any other Samsung wares, any time soon. Samsung is a company that would deserve to be North Korean.

  34. Welcome by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Welcome the Internet Of Things!

    Wat they didn't tell us, things suck!

  35. What too son? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $ sed i 's/\(global_insert_mkrt_playbreaks=\)true/\1false/' sm-mkrt-subsys.conf
    $ git commit sm-mkrt-subsys.conf -m "my bad\!"
    $ git push

  36. Is anyone really surprised by this? by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    Seriously in this day and age of advertising dollars I cannot fathom anyone that is shocked by this....

  37. First Rule Of CE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't get between of the consumer and the content.

    At least it should be.

  38. DMZs by sjbe · · Score: 1

    DMZ is the opposite of a secured network.

    I think you don't understand the point then. You keep the outward facing stuff you don't trust away from your secured network. A DMZ is a tool (among many others) for doing that. A DMZ is where you place outward facing devices you don't entirely trust or which are likely to be attacked but still need to interact with. It helps you to limit the vectors of attack on your internal secured network.

    1. Re:DMZs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand the point. And again: What??? I would never put a device I DON'T trust on a DMZ!

    2. Re:DMZs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how you claim you understand the point, and then prove in the next sentence that you really, really don't. Very philosophical, duality of man and all that.

    3. Re:DMZs by rthille · · Score: 1

      I think he's thinking of DMZ like the checkbox on consumer routers that opens that whole machine up to the public net.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  39. Woohoo, this doesn't affect me! by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

    Nice! For once the bad news passes me by! I use my Panasonic plasma TV merely as a monitor for DVD, BluRay and mostly my own mediacenter pc.

    It's 42 inches and since I've never thought "gee, having a bigger TV would sure be nice), I'm guessing if I ever have to replace it it's going to be with a computer monitor, which get bigger by the year anyway.

    No SmartTV nonsense. All I need is a HDMI input of some kind.

  40. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    No no no, you got it all wrong! It was not intended that they get caught! The whole injecting their own ads into the stream, that's a feature!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  41. Re: by NetAlien · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems that every "smart" appliance has a lot of foolish thinking behind it.

    AKA greed. I'd be surprised if I'm the only person who avoids companies that keep finding ways to get around ad blockers.

    VENDORS: Wanna advertize to me? Do it DISCRETELY while I'm SEARCHING for YOUR product; and ONLY if you have a product I'm looking for; otherwise, you lose me as a customer/client. Want me to receive your ads? PAY *me*, not only the ad pushers!

    Gotta wonder... would Pepsi, Coke and other "name brands" really lose much business if they stopped advertising? Or would their net profit increase by not wasting $$ on ads?

  42. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    Uh, your mistake would not be smart TV's. Your mistake is buying a smart TV's that have some sort of voice/audio control. There's no reason to trust any mfr with audio information.

    Roku TV's for example, do not do this - they don't have or need a microphone, really.

  43. Tivo does this also... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    I was trying to watch a youtube video on my tivo. The tivo youtube app put a 5 minute advertisement at the beginning of the three minute youtube video, and to rub salt in the wound, the button designated to skip the ad after 30 seconds was disabled.

    .
    I punted the tivo and watched the video on my notebook, sans ads.

    1. Re:Tivo does this also... by Imazalil · · Score: 1

      That is how youtube works these days when you don't have an adblocker. Though the skip button is not disabled usually. Android youtube app does the exact same thing.

  44. Bullshit Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It woudl'nt surprise me, i've noticed on a few apps that if there's no audio (say when loading plex) for some reason the i start getting audio from one of the streaming radio app services. It's weird. I tried uninstalling all the radio apps, but some of the "recommended" ones can't be removed.

  45. This is why I block ads/trackers in the router... by asimons04 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I use AdBlock and Ghostery's lists to block ad networks and trackers at the router level. Any computer/phone/smart device that connects to my network automatically has ads and trackers blocked. So far, so good. Granted, it's not simple enough for the everyday person to implement. Also, I don't buy any smart TVs because their software is most often crap, you shouldn't have to accept an EULA to use a TV (or a coffee machine, toaster, etc), and they have the capacity to be bricked unlike a regular "dumb" TV. And then there's this eavesdropping and injecting additional ads BS.

  46. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Sony and Sharp are like day and night. Sony rules the video market for best picture quality, but I think Sharp is garbage, as is Hitachi (for video).

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  47. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by spuke4000 · · Score: 1

    I bought a Samsung smart tv last year. Generally I like the TV, but the smart TV features are not very good. I tried Chromecast and then settled on Roku (I prefer a physical remote). You could just buy the Samsung TV and then not use the smart features. Streaming devices like chromecast, roku, fire tv, apple tv aren't that expensive, and are much better.

    --
    This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
  48. Avoid SmartTVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy a large monitor and hook it up to a PC that fit your needs. The vendors of SmartTV don't give a damn about your privacy or longterm softwareupdates. And I don't hook up a computer to my network that can be used as proxy for backdoors or vriuses. You compromise your whole network if you run a machine that doesn't get patched after couple of years. And what is the lifetime of a TV? Arround 10 years?

  49. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by dHagger · · Score: 4, Informative

    My LG TV got a firmware update that - after the upgrade was installed - prompted me to accept a new agreement that would allow them to monitor everything I do and send it to a third party. I declined, and in return most of the SMART features were disabled. LG's support only refers me to an email address they claim should be displayed on the agreement page (which of course does not contain any contact information at all), and when pushing them they told me to email an address that is more or less a black hole (they never reply).

  50. Samnsung shooting itself to foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was not intentional? So why is ability to do so in there then?

    Starts to sound like Samnsung is good smart televioson to leave in shop shelfes... Sure dont want hardware i own to mess with my choised streams...

  51. Re:What anti consumer feature is next? Sterilizati by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    Sometimes I wonder if the board at Samsung aren't a bunch of senile old Koreans who've completely lost any connection to reality. Anyone remember that crazy musical press conference they held a couple of years ago? It looked like what I picture Johnny Depp would see whenever he closes his eyes.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  52. Easy solution ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    Don't buy a fucking 'Smart' TV.

    Instead of the app embedded in the TV, run the real version of the app on something else.

    Take Samsung out of the equation entirely.

    A 'Smart' TV is mostly a vehicle for companies to gather more data about you, and get in on the money action -- which means you should not be trusting it.

    Because you're stuck with whatever sleazy stuff they're doing in the background, and whatever changes they're making to the EULA and privacy policy without telling you.

    Samsung are increasingly sound like a company I'd not really be willing to buy products from. Because they seem to be suffering from a lot of "because we can, and because we gave ourselves permission" crap.

    Sorry, but no. Injecting ads into a stream you have nothing to do with? But that's just assholes in marketing who need to be shot.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Easy solution ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When all of the TVs do this, what will you do? Will you stop watching TV? Or will you join the multitudes, resigned to your fate.
       
      Be honest. Lying to yourself just isn't healthy. Then you have a measure of how much of your western lifestyle you're willing to give up for your principles.

    2. Re:Easy solution ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Don't buy a fucking 'Smart' TV.

      Ok from who?

      Take Samsung out of the equation entirely.

      But what if they have the best image quality for the price?

      "because we can, and because we gave ourselves permission"

      Did they? As far as I know LG do exactly the same thing except more of it, but only Samsung seems to get the hate. Also did they really give themselves permission? You wanted a dumb TV, maybe you gave them permission when you connected it to your network. My Samsung TV certainly doesn't have any permissions, or connectivity, or ads.

  53. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by fafaforza · · Score: 5, Informative

    But if all tv makers do the same thing, you'll vote with your wallet by not having a tv at all. Other people (like me) only found out about LG reporting back to their servers what you're watching only after buying the TV, and unplugging ethernet was easier than taking the TV back.

    It's an invasion of privacy, no different than medical information or what you talk about with your lawyer, yet there are privacy protections there. It should be the same here.

  54. Slashdot is no better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot insists upon putting an obnoxiously noisy ad on their article pages. It even slows down my browser, making it a PITA typing this. I'm sure they can't argue that behavior was unintentional.

  55. No more samsung to me. by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Does Samsung bullshittery ever end? I like me Samsung monitor, but no more of their products for me.

  56. Does Samsung pay the bandwidth they use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they want to inject adverts. Do they pay you for bandwidth they use? Fair market price of course defined by provider of said bandwidth...

  57. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by fafaforza · · Score: 2

    I'm not so sure. LG sends back info on what you're watching via USB, Amazon, Netflix. No voice control there. I think smart TVs will keep taking liberties,

  58. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by fafaforza · · Score: 1

    You know people use TVs to play stuff they download.

  59. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by arth1 · · Score: 1

    Don't buy a tv, spend more time on tracker sites and slashdot instead.

    That won't necessarily solve the problem. The only high speed internet provider where I live has rewritten HTML on the fly to serve their own content. I would not hold my breath that they won't do the same for video.

  60. Only option for big tvs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "basically impossible to get a non-"smart" TV"

    Can't you basically turn a "smart" TV into a dumb one by denying it an internet connection? Sure I suppose you are still having to pay for the extra hardware but so far you don't have to use the smart features if you don't want to.

  61. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by BVis · · Score: 1

    If that's the case (and keeping in mind that you shouldn't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence) then that's some pretty shitty QA that let that out the door. If it was just there for focus group testing, why the hell did that code make it into the release?

    I suppose it's possible that Samsung outsourced the programming on this and is now reaping the benefits (shit code, bad maintainability, broken functionality, poor communication) of doing so. Saved on the up-front costs, I'm sure, but this is going to hurt their revenues more than they saved. Typical short-sighted corporate bullshit.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  62. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Vizio is a pretty solid brand... at least for their larger TVs. Decent contrast, good response time, and if you choose carefully, no Smart TV nastiness. Of course, we bought the Smart TV at the time, but it doesn't get in the way. The only way you'll see it is if you press a certain button. And personally, they did Smart TV right. If you need it, it's there and easy to access. If you don't want it, don't worry about it - out of mind, out of sight.

    How terrible is it that I am now suspicious of every post saying something good about a company or product? This could be a legit post, written by someone who has a positive experience with their TV. But I read the content and see it's posted by an AC and immediately think "astroturf". There is a trust that has been broken in our society; a lot actually. Something has been lost and I'm not sure if/how we get it back.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  63. Smart TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explain to me: Why would I buy a "Smart TV" when I can just connect a cheap android box or a raspberry pi to my old fashioned TV and enjoy all the smartness I want?

  64. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by BVis · · Score: 1

    Samsung is a big enough company to be able to ignore annoying things like "the law". And there's a long and storied history of companies pissing their customers off in the name of profits.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  65. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  66. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by BVis · · Score: 1

    That also crossed my mind. However, everyone there would have to be massively, forget-to-breathe, pants-on-head stupid to think that nobody would notice this. There is a possibility that this is the case; to me, EVERYONE's that stupid until I know otherwise..

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  67. Suddenly 3DTV don't seem so bad by Dusthead+Jr. · · Score: 1

    I know that there two different things but between smartTV and 3DTV I'd rather be forced to buy a 3DTV. At least you could turn the 3D off, and know that it was off.

  68. don't plug the TV in by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I would never plug a TV into the internet. I don't even plug my Xbox in unless it insists on a firmware upgrade. I think I plugged my LG blu-ray player once. Systems that I build from reliable vendors get plugged into the internet. Problem solved.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  69. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by BVis · · Score: 1

    I don't use the smart features on the one I have, either. It's not just about being subjected to these ads myself, though. It's about using the only vote we really have: we can vote with our dollars. Samsung (and any other huge multinational) does not give a single fuck about pissing off its customers; they know that their customers will rarely be motivated enough to get off the couch and do anything about it. But, if their sales suffer as a result of this move, then they are more likely to not try to pull something like that again.

    All that means, though, is that they go back to the drawing board and try to find another way to make money that isn't obnoxious enough to hurt sales, but is obnoxious enough to make them money. Ain't capitalism great!

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  70. Smart TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just stream from your android to your smart tv.

  71. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

    Sony TVs are too dumb to do this. They have a great picture, though, and don't cost any more than comparable Samsung models. That may change next year, however, as they're going Android TV.

  72. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just bought a new Samsung Plasma TV. No "smart" features. It's a good TV. I use an external audio system, plex/roku/etc. Roku is annoying too because they force ads but there's ways to block those addresses at the router. I suppose if your TV needs access you should either log all of your internet traffic and start blacklisting those addresses that go to advertising or use a span port and wireshark/tcpdump and figure out what you need to block.

  73. Re:This is why I block ads/trackers in the router. by ndavis · · Score: 1

    I use AdBlock and Ghostery's lists to block ad networks and trackers at the router level. Any computer/phone/smart device that connects to my network automatically has ads and trackers blocked. So far, so good. Granted, it's not simple enough for the everyday person to implement. Also, I don't buy any smart TVs because their software is most often crap, you shouldn't have to accept an EULA to use a TV (or a coffee machine, toaster, etc), and they have the capacity to be bricked unlike a regular "dumb" TV. And then there's this eavesdropping and injecting additional ads BS.

    I agree but the real problem is that most of the TVs out today are Smart TVs. I just purchased one because I didn't have much of an option. I ended up with a Vizio E series but I really would just like a dumb terminal.

  74. Too smart for me, thanks by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    Personally, I just want my TV to be a monitor: display a video signal as clearly and cleanly as possible.(optimally: with the lowest possible power use too). Is that too much to ask?

    I don't need voice commands, hyperlinking to IMDB, or social media letting my friends know WTF kind of pr0n I watch.

    Just like their warning about "well the TV is listening for your commands, so private info you say may also be inadvertently recorded and passed to third parties" - the former is sort of logically true, with any speech-recognition thing, of course. It's the LATTER that's evil: you as a company wringing every fucking *penny* out of my user data ("Oh, I see styopa switched aware from channel 4 when this Pepsi commercial came on? Let's let Ch4 and Pepsi both know!") without a) letting me know, and b) sharing it with me, if I opt to let you do it.

    I'm sensing that there HAS to be a market out there for 'clean' tech products, no?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Too smart for me, thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Built in Netflix client, ability to use HBO Go, Hulu, BBC iplayer and channel catch-up and all that other stuff without the need of any other devices or DVRs. Smart TVs are only running Linux on SoCs that cost about $5. They have excellent codec support in hardware as they're the same ICs you'll find in blu-ray players; hence, why they'll play mkvs from USB and networked devices. It also means the TVs have a fully functional computer to handle future services.

      Whether you like it or not, anything costing more than $20 will soon have the potential of smart functionality as it's cheaper to knock up consumer electrical products based on SoCs made in the billions and the using a programmer that can add whatever is required, over customer systems of yesteryear.

      You may prefer the old way of hooking devices up, but the masses don't want that, they want a screen that does lots of things without the need to fuck about with cables and additional boxes.

      When you have a family, you'll understand the need for a simple NAS loaded with your media and simple to use screens for your family accessing it.

    2. Re:Too smart for me, thanks by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "When you have a family, you'll understand the need for a simple NAS loaded with your media and simple to use screens for your family accessing it."
      You mean, aside from my four kids in their late teens and twenties? :)

      The funny thing is, with my 'early adopter' media server setup, yes, it's a little kludgy sometimes, but - at the risk of inflaming /.'s "how dare you suggest girls are less techy than boys" crew - even my girls (who couldn't give a crap about computers) know somewhat how/why this stuff works, such that they help fix their friends' systems when they're at their homes.

      Then again, I'm the guy who bought them the components for a sweet desktop gaming rig specifically so we could build it together and they'd learn something about the process.

      --
      -Styopa
  75. I dont want a smart tv... by voss · · Score: 1

    I want a dumb 1080p or 4k tv with 10 year warranty

  76. It's only the beginning - expert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next up: broadcast content will be recognized and skipped. Look at this article for instance: basically you are watching a broadcast channel, suddenly a Coca Cola ad pops up. You might see a slight millisecond of the original ad, but before you know it the ad is offering you a free Coke if you go to the supermarket in *your street* and give the code "1H5D" to the clerk.

    Or, you might simply get that ad that offers you the mortgage on the new home you were looking at for the last ten days. You searched it online, 'it' knows, and the ad gets targeted to you.

    Many people here react like: I will disconnect my TV. But will you ? It may be broadcast or local streaming content now, but in 10 years time when broadcast and settopbox are dead, it will be internet TV all the way. Tailored to your choice, of course, but the ads will too. This is not future, it already happens. Don't think they make this technology only to sell boxes. They want you.

    The only way to change the way this works is to act now, and support lobby-campaigns against this behavior. You may want to act now.

  77. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There used to be a fiduciary responsibility to maintain the public trust. We didn't need laws to protect people, because there weren't unnamed unknown faceless corporations hiding nefarious activities.

    This is why, I suggest that we start using the Corporation Death Penalty for gross violations of public trust. And use it in cases like this, where public trust is abused behind corporate greed.

    THIS, backhanded, sleazy greed, this abuse of public trust, needs to be slapped down hard.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  78. Re:This is why I block ads/trackers in the router. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    I use AdBlock and Ghostery's lists to block ad networks and trackers at the router level.

    Sorry, how do you do this at the router level?

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  79. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    I don't see how this could be legal -- a video stream would be copyrighted, and inserting extra ads (to say nothing of overwriting some) could indeed be violating a copyright on the assembled data stream as a work.

    So, too, altering a web page to add ads not actually there. This is different from a browser with a reserved area outside the site frame, for ads, or a preview page serving an ad before showing you the site.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  80. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    . Something has been lost and I'm not sure if/how we get it back.

    WE get it back by stopping being a "global" community, and start becoming "local" again. Support Local, wherever possible. You know, getting off the couch and stop watching TV and meeting your neighbors as you go outside for a walk.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  81. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Sorry, PS3 already set the standard for removing features with no penalty. Remember "Other OS"?

  82. Dumb tv is good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just have to point to stories like these to help explain to people why I really like my very, very dumb tv that doesn't do anything other than just play video. It doesn't have an ethernet jack, it doesn't do Amazon/Netflix/Other, it just plays video.

    Can't report back to the mothership details on what I watch, as it only plays video.

    I really like my TV.

  83. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by omnichad · · Score: 1

    They've already bought it. You can't un-buy it once the maker reaches into your living room and changes your device. And no, you can't always know this in advance.

  84. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Sharp does have the Quattron panels with yellow subpixels. Can't say it makes a difference for all content, but I've definitely seen some impressive color in stores.

  85. This may be naive but why connect TV to internet? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I don't get it.. Why would anyone plug their TV into the internet anyway? I would no more plug my TV then I would plug my refrigerator. Appliances are appliances, and I build the systems that are connected to the internet myself.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  86. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by mlts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Looks like I just need a router with the same smarts as the TV, where the telly would be on its own network segment (so it can't change its IP and get around it.)

    Maybe this is a harbinger of things to come where IoT devices in general would need firewalled due to privacy and security concerns.

    Of course, the next counter from the TV makers, will be the TV either just not working at all with any inputs unless it has the ability to phone home (think games that require a constant network connection), or it gets a 3G antenna... so even without a direct Net connection, it still can phone home.

    Maybe the best of all worlds is as described above... a HTPC + a large monitor. Smart TVs seem dumb to me, as they don't add any useful features, but seem be another vector for ad-slinging and invading privacy.

  87. Re:This is why I block ads/trackers in the router. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Run DNS on the router and poison the DNS answers (to your benefit). Push the DNS IP out to your clients via DHCP (or configure it manually).

    Doesn't even have to be a router, really. Any machine that can run DNS works well.

    If you want to go further, you could have the router do DPI and poison DNS at that layer instead.

  88. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    Im not sure why I need a smart TV. Besides the "smart TV, dumb viewer" joke, Im really not into the "every thing needs a CPU" thing.

    Im a geek, not a Luddite (though Luddism wasn't about tech per se, but tech taking over jobs), and Ive been on the Internet since FTP space days (simtel anyone? sumex-aim?) But having every physical object having an infinite state machine programmed by someone thinking "security can come later" rushing half finished code to the market doesn't seem like nirvana to me.

  89. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by tepples · · Score: 1

    a video stream would be copyrighted, and inserting extra ads (to say nothing of overwriting some) could indeed be violating a copyright on the assembled data stream as a work.

    So, too, altering a web page to add ads not actually there

    Your proposal, if implemented consistently, would make Greasemonkey and Adblock illegal.

  90. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Maybe they've made some recent improvements, but I've never seen one I liked. Grainy or blocky picture. *shrug* What counts is if you're happy with it.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  91. HTTPS. Kills MITMs dead. by tepples · · Score: 1

    The only high speed internet provider where I live has rewritten HTML on the fly to serve their own content.

    Does this ISP require you to install its proxy's root certificate in order to access HTTPS sites? If not, then how does it insert HTML into HTTPS sites that you visit?

    1. Re: HTTPS. Kills MITMs dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Video is not typically served over https

    2. Re: HTTPS. Kills MITMs dead. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Define "typically". YouTube supports HTTPS now, and services hosting major studio video (such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon) encrypt the video to "keep pirates out".

  92. Re:This is why I block ads/trackers in the router. by asimons04 · · Score: 1

    Yup, exactly.

    I'm running an Ubuntu machine as my DNS server, but it also acts as my router (iptables/multi-NIC). I just use AdBlock and Ghostery's lists of advertising/tracking domains and set all the hostnames in them to resolve as 127.0.0.1. When any device on my network that uses my DNS tries to look up a domain for anything that is blocked, the request gets looped back. If a device on my network doesn't use my DNS, then nothing is blocked.

  93. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by njnnja · · Score: 2

    The fact is that in general, people want to own their stuff, not have their stuff own them. Apple taught manufacturers a very poor lesson; namely, the way to make huge profits is to create and cultivate a walled garden that the manufacturer controls and collects the tolls. But Apple wasn't successful because it has a walled garden, it is successful because plenty of people with lots of disposable income like the Apple user experience. You can argue that the walled garden is a necessary condition to the iPhone user experience, and at the very least it makes it easier to define the user experience when you control everything, however necessary != sufficient.

    Good UI takes lots of hard work from talented developers, designers, and artists. Apple may not always succeed at this (e.g. maps) but it seems that no other big manufacturer is willing to put in the hard work to make a product that people actually like. So instead of making money by "locking" people into a system that they choose of their own free will, they try to make money by 1) making crap software to save money on costs, and 2) monetizing everything the possibly can, from DRM on a coffee pod to putting commercials into locally stored video.

  94. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Grain or blocking would have everything to do with the source input. Digital panels have neither inherently.

  95. tv calls home to the mother ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My TV has no internet or cable/uverse connections. None. By My Choice.

    I have a collection of DVDs from the $5 bin at Wally World, and on sale at other places.
    12 horror movies for $5. "Backwoods Butchers", Zombie collections, Vampire collections, Aliens, Disasters, and others.
    So bad they qualify as comedy. Or - sometimes actually well-done.
    A selection of the more popular series: Harry Potter, LOTR, TGWTDT (!), 007 s, Dexter , Firefly, etc, for a reasonable price...

    Less than a subscription to Cable or Internet, per month...
    And the DVDs are mine. No outside connection.
    Of course, I am not addicted ( I watch maybe 2 movies per month), usually I play a movie so the models have something to watch
    while I body paint them.....

  96. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe this is a harbinger of things to come where IoT devices in general would need firewalled due to privacy and security concerns.

    Of course! That's why they're all designed to work with the "cloud." Making it easy for Joe Dumbass to use without having to teach him how to set up his own server is only the excuse they tell "consumers;" the real reason they do it is for that sweet, sweet Big Data.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  97. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't tell us, write to Samsung and tell them they've lost business. It's the only way corporations will takes notice.

  98. Big brother warning system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the future, all electronic devices should be conspicuously labeled with icons for each type of personal data they gather or exploit. Voice/audio, location, sender receiver metadata, time metadata, image/video content, email/text content etc... Do we need new language for 1st and 4th amendments? An electronic rights bill? Am I so incensed about all of this because I'm getting older? How do we get kids to understand how detrimental the erosion of our rights is? Ugh.

  99. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

    The only way to get LG to actually react would be for everyone affected to sue them individually in small-claims court (for the cost of the TV, plus court costs). Complaining anywhere other than a courtroom will get us nowhere, and going class-action just results in coupons for $10 off the next piece of privacy-destroying bullshit.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  100. What anti consumer feature is next? Sterilization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same MBA who came up with the ribbon interface for Microsoft Office.

  101. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, it would not. Modifications of websites using Greasemonkey and Adblock are done by the end user, which means no distribution of the modified work has occurred and therefore copyright law does not apply. Using Greasemonkey or Adblock is conceptually no different than taking a black marker to (your own copy of) a magazine and scribbling out the stuff you don't want to see.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  102. Seiki 4K TV by captjc · · Score: 1

    I like my 55" Seiki 4K Set. It is dirt cheap (~$800), looks great, and Sounds OK. But the best feature is that it is just a TV. None of that smart crap. No Internet, no Apps, no camera and microphone, just a mid-end 4K TV.

    Besides, everything has "Smart-TV" features these days. I can play Youtube, Netflix, and Amazon (if not browse the web outright) on my Wii, Wii U, PS3, 360, and my Media Center PC. Hell, even the cable box can connect to the internet. Why must my TV?

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    1. Re:Seiki 4K TV by BVis · · Score: 1

      Who sells that? What kind of warranty?

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    2. Re:Seiki 4K TV by captjc · · Score: 1

      I bought mine from Amazon last summer with an extended 3 year warranty. But Sears was selling them in store as well. Walmart also had them Online only, I believe.

      I actually learned about it on here as the Seiki 4K TVs have been coming up at every single monitor thread

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    3. Re:Seiki 4K TV by BVis · · Score: 1

      You got the warranty separate from what the manufacturer offers? Who did you get it through? I've also done that (5 years) but I hear that Squaretrade is pretty squirrely when you actually want them to pay a claim. What I've seen is that rather than fix your TV, they'd rather give you your money back for the warranty itself. Which makes sense from a business point of view; if your TV craps out in a way that is covered, they are on the hook to repair or replace it, which is far more expensive than just giving you your money back for the warranty.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  103. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by thaylin · · Score: 1

    Unless you make it depend on the users approval.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  104. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by jythie · · Score: 1

    This only really works if lots of consumers do this, at which point you are just talking about a crowd implemented regulation. The point of regulation is to protect people who do not have the political power as individuals to be a blip on company's radar.

  105. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by jythie · · Score: 1

    Generally in small claims court you can not sue for court costs.

    This is why we have the whole class action system, for cases where individual lawsuits are cost prohibitive in relation to the potential individual damages, but the aggregate effect might get the company's attention. Granted companies have worked really hard to paint class action lawsuits as bad things done by slimy people, but what do you expect to happen to one of the few tools average people might actually be able to leverage against them?

  106. Re:This may be naive but why connect TV to interne by SkankinMonkey · · Score: 1

    Many people plug in their tv because it has apps (netflix, amazon, youtube, weather, etc). Pretty simple really.

  107. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Whatever the cause, this is monumental incompetence. Even if they were malicious, they were incompetently malicious. Hoping people won't notice is not a way to get away with something so blatant.

    I think you're right about outsourcing. Inadequate safeguards for the outsourcing, combined with particularly lazy contractor could explain it, and it is at least more plausible than any other scenario I can think of.

  108. Re:This may be naive but why connect TV to interne by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

    Ever hear of Netflix or Youtube?

  109. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by stjobe · · Score: 1

    Corporation Death Penalty

    This is one death penalty I can get behind.

    --
    "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  110. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Samsung is my favourite TV brand but that could change if they continue on this trajectory.

  111. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Now what am I going to buy? Sony? Vizio?

    Yes, get a Vizio. I have a couple here and they're the best option under $5K. They do minimal processing out of the box and they can be adjusted to do even less, and give you a good picture - if you look at the wall-o-screen at the store, the Vizios will probably look best because they're not usually set to amp up the constrast and saturation to blow people's eyes out (apparently that sells TV's to muggles). More topically, they are available without any 'smart' crap, so you can hook up your preferred 'smart' head that has to compete in a market (e.g. Roku, Chromecast) just fine, and when those are obsolete in three years, toss 'em in the bin and plug in the replacement without having to trip over built-in nonsense. They're also cheap enough that you can afford to tack on a 3-year no-questions replacement warranty because you don't want to be paying for parts on any of these things.

    If you have >$5K to spend, some of the brands that you grew up with in the 70's have models for professionals in that range that have better pictures. Whoever gets the first 50" 8K for under $2K with minimal processing gets my money, but that's for my monitor, so slightly different criteria.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  112. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    Just don't connect it to the internet. You don't have to use the smart features. Research will be needed to make sure the TV doesn't nag you to death about a missing IP connection but it is doable.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  113. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by dunkindave · · Score: 1

    Generally in small claims court you can not sue for court costs.

    Where I live, in small claims court the filing fees are automatically added onto the judgement amount if the plaintiff wins. The fees run $35 to $80 per case depending on amount being sued for. Other costs, like time for the plaintiff to go to court, travel, making copies of documents, etc., however are not claimable. Not sure about fees to have the defendant served.

  114. Re:What anti consumer feature is next? Sterilizati by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine wants a button on his desk that causes certain MS employees to suffer instant and explosive diarrhea whenever he pushes the large and easy to access button. The ribbon toolbar guy is high on his list.

  115. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Cederic · · Score: 1

    In the UK you can - although costs are only £100 or so, as the whole thing is set up to be quick, easy and low cost.

  116. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    Trust was not broken if it never existed. Companies have always tries to con-vince people to accept their double speak through advertising, PR, mailings, store placements and end caps, etc. Astroturfing is just a newer way to plant ideas to manipulate the public.

  117. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    Sadly, I believe you and I will wind up living in our home-built worlds without televisions, running the Internet on hacked together Raspberry Pis, at the 1 megabit throttle level imposed on all unlicensed encrypted connections, as 90% of the world suckles at the teat of the beast.

  118. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not so sure. LG sends back info on what you're watching via USB, Amazon, Netflix. No voice control there. I think smart TVs will keep taking liberties,

    You know that anything you watch via Roku will also go back to Roku...

  119. LG Spys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Forget about pushing ads. LG Smart TV's scan your media both attached to the tv and on visible network shares and sent the file names and metadata information back to LG. Selecting 'opt out' in the menu does nothing. Once they got caught of this, their solution was to push a new eula that forces people to accept this or none of the smart apps will work.

  120. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by hey! · · Score: 1

    Dreadful build quality. I had the logic board on mine replaced twice under warranty, only to have it fail again just after the warranty was up.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  121. That smart TV by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't seem too smart of a purchase to me. Not only can it spy on me (for marketers or government, both intrinsically evil entities) but it's going to pop up ADS at me?

    Fuck that. Sticking to "dumb" TV's is the smart move.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  122. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 0

    And when companies do this they lose future customers. Consumers are not as powerless as the government wants them to believe.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  123. Not so simple by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Couldn't you just not connect to the Internet?

    Sure but I still have to pay for that extra electronics whether I use it or not. None of those extra features are free and all of them create opportunities for bugs and security issues.

    Or are these new TVs completely useless without an internet connection?

    A lot of them require an internet connection to apply patches. Some supposedly can upgrade HDMI versions from 1.4 to 2.0 once the spec gets settled. Stuff like that.

  124. Re: by Kargan · · Score: 1

    //Gotta wonder... would Pepsi, Coke and other "name brands" really lose much business if they stopped advertising? Or would their net profit increase by not wasting $$ on ads?//

    There's an album about this, from the group Negativland, called Dispepsi: http://www.discogs.com/Negativ...

    The liner notes make mention of their premise that everyone on the planet already knows everything that they will ever need to know about Coke or Pepsi, yet their advertising has utterly permeated our culture.

    Spotify link: https://play.spotify.com/album...

    --
    Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
  125. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You havent met my neighbors... long-term welfare recipients, bums, and parolees. Local around here is not worth the effort.

  126. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Let me make this real clear.

    It is not the responsibility of the government to protect people from their choices.

    If only a few people care then those few will not buy from the manufacturer again. (Problem solved) If a bunch do it then companies lose business and change or exit the market. (Problem Solved) If they tell you in the TOS "You are shit and we will change your shit anytime we want." and you buy the device anyway "hoping" to not get screwed, ... I really don't care if later on you are not happy with your choice.

    The need for the population to do everything possible to convince me that they are powerless, stupid and irresponsible amazes me. So many people are so lazy that they spend enormous amounts of energy to become as powerless over their lives as possible.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  127. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    No no no, you got it all wrong! It was not intended that they get caught! The whole injecting their own ads into the stream, that's a feature!

    And they think no one will notice this? Do they think we're stupid? Oh, wait, they do. And they'd be right most of the time. Look at the criminals and traitors we elect. Look at the popular talentless Disney AutoTune Pop Princesses that couldn't write their own name in a pile of cocaine, much less a song, that even if they could, couldn't SING it anyway without AutoTune?

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  128. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not a bug, it is a bug only in the sense that they got caught using it outside of the areas where they have explicitly enabled it intentionally.

    There is no developer API to enable inserting samsung adverts that are for the benefit ONLY of Samsung and not the developers/owners of the content that is being streamed.

    The only reason they where "caught" was that they injected them into streaming local content.. IE there is no way that an ad can be inserted into plex server content when said plex server cannot access the internet and is only used within the local lan. had this happened on just about any other service (other than possibly Netflix) it would never have been caught

  129. Re:Seems Legit by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Why would Sony be getting paid for adverts on a Samsung TV?

    They licensed the ad insertion tech to Samsung?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  130. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    The only high speed internet provider where I live has rewritten HTML on the fly to serve their own content.

    The Cox "Browser Alerts" seem to only come from three IPs. I blocked them at my router and haven't experienced any problems. I don't have those IPs handy, but found them when NoScript listed them as choices to Allow/Forbid. (In my case, they were "letting me know" that I should upgrade from a 2.x to 3.x DOCSIS modem.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  131. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by gson516 · · Score: 1

    This was certainly intentional as Samsung has a site dedicated to their Samsung AdHub that includes ads on Smart TVs: http://www.samsungadhub.com/pr... Here is the type of advertising they sell to Smart TV users (lifted directly from the page above): PIA - Premium Interactive Advertising PIA is an advertising area located in the Smart Hub, Samsung SmartTV’s home screen that all users have to visit in order to access SmartTV contents. Ads displayed in PIA will be shown to all Samsung SmartTV users, every time they access Smart Hub. If the users clicks on the PIA ad, a full screen landing page expands, delivering more information with greater interactivity! 3D - World's First 3d advertising The first 3D advertising on connected television. A truly differentiated TV advertising experience through 3D advertising is a new and unique way to reach viewers. In-app - available on thousands of TV applications With more than 3,500 applications, Samsung’s content ecosystem is robust and attractive. In-app advertising provides developers with a new method to monetize on their content and marketers with a new way to reach consumers. Together with standard static banners, we are offering Pre-roll Video Ads and App Launch Roll Ads.

  132. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by jythie · · Score: 1

    Hate to break it to you, but you are pretty powerless. Sure there are things within the range of the average person, we have a great deal of say over our own lives, but compared to the concentrated power of wealthy individuals or corporations, our options are very limited since we have pretty close to zero leverage.

    Government is a major way for average people to have power and influence, it is our tool for dealing with other states and other powerful entities. You are protected each and every day, but so much of it has become invisible that you just take it for granted that you as an individual have caused the outcome.

    As for the whole idea of 'if enough people', well, part of the reason for having regulation and protection is so that small groups within the population have similar protections as the masses, to give some balance beyond 'if enough people agree with me'.

  133. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by tepples · · Score: 1

    The user would end up implicitly granting such approval by accepting the End User License Agreement of a device's firmware or the Terms of Service of a home high-speed Internet connection.

  134. On behalf of the end user by tepples · · Score: 1

    Modifications of websites using Greasemonkey and Adblock are done by the end user

    And modifications performed by a service provider are done on behalf of the end user, if the service provider's fine print is to be believed. For example, the Opera Mini web browser relies on a proxy that modifies the HTML before sending it to the user.

    Using Greasemonkey or Adblock is conceptually no different than taking a black marker to (your own copy of) a magazine and scribbling out the stuff you don't want to see.

    By that measure, what Cox is doing is like paying someone $50 per month to scribble out stuff you don't want to see, unless I'm missing something fundamental.

    1. Re:On behalf of the end user by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      And modifications performed by a service provider are done on behalf of the end user, if the service provider's fine print is to be believed. For example, the Opera Mini web browser relies on a proxy that modifies the HTML before sending it to the user.

      That sounds like it's getting into a gray area to me, and that it's only been allowed to fly because (a) the "modification" was only for the purpose of data compression and was thus mechanical rather than creative (i.e., it did not change the nature of the work) so it could be considered Fair Use, and (b) copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime, so it requires the victim to sue and nobody's upset enough to do so.

      By that measure, what Cox is doing is like paying someone $50 per month to scribble out stuff you don't want to see, unless I'm missing something fundamental.

      No, inserting extra ads is modifying the content on behalf of someone other than the end user and doing so in a way that's arguably "creative," which makes all the difference.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:On behalf of the end user by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      "on behalf of the end user" is different from "by the end user"

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  135. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by pooh666 · · Score: 2

    Yeah, truely awesome concept! The only way we can be sure.

  136. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by omnichad · · Score: 2

    And if you can't afford to buy a new TV every time something like this happens, you as a consumer really are powerless.

  137. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    Just don't use the built in TV stuff. Its universally crap. Add your own cheap devices that can be tossed if they displease you. Easier than replacing a screen. I removed the wifi module from my TV and just use an Intel NUC with XBMC.

    --
    Good-bye
  138. We need Big Dumb Co by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We all need to get together and form some Big Dumb Companies:

    * Big Dumb Pipe: High-Speed Symmetrical Broadband with no other restrictions, bells, whistles, nor even the ability to log your activities, given that it is only a Big. Dumb. Pipe.

    * Big Dumb Appliances: No, they will not be running apps nor making predictive adjustments based on your FitBit. But they will have ALL user-replaceable parts and be so durable, most if not all will be handed down at least two generations.

    * Big Dumb Panels: no built-in anything, such as DRM, locked-down SOCs, near-useless speakers, nor web cams, nor mics: just a big, beautiful screen, tiny bezels, a plethora of mounting holes, and damn near every type of video connection, period.

    The ad campaign writes itself: "Big. Dumb. Ideas who's time have come."

    1. Re:We need Big Dumb Co by BVis · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you'd have to charge more for your product than the competition to make up for the lost revenue from advertising and strategic alliances. I'd pay it, but the great unwashed want cheap, not good.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    2. Re:We need Big Dumb Co by adolf · · Score: 1

      I'm in.

      But big, dumb appliances are going to be hard: I've been through Whirlpool's washing machine and dishwasher plants in Ohio, and they are vast things indeed.

      Big dumb pipe: Google is trying this, AFAICT.

      Big dumb panel: Element is already doing this, assembling foreign subassemblies into flat-panel televisions in the US. They don't, however, have a high-end line with excellent panels every video connector imaginable. (Also, I want it to be 600Hz, so that it can do 24fps, 25fps, 30fps, 50fps and 60fps without aberration.)

    3. Re:We need Big Dumb Co by wannabgeek · · Score: 1

      That is only if you want to get on the treadmill of Wall Street. One can conceivably run a small company without trying to squeeze every last dollar possible, and earning customer good will.

      --
      I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
    4. Re:We need Big Dumb Co by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "Big Dumb Pipe"

      This exists. You can get a "High-Speed Symmetrical Broadband with no other restrictions, bells, whistles, nor even the ability to log your activities" as long as you pay for it. Just go to your Telco and say you want it and are willing to pay for it. They will gladly provide what you require. Oh wait, you wanted it for $30 a month? I'd like a new Porsche for $100 also.

  139. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    Android TV is boxed up pretty tight so far, nothing shady on it yet. I have the Nexus Player and its nice, but limited, considering its running a quad core Bay Trail. I was thinking about a Sony TV for PS now and Android TV.

    --
    Good-bye
  140. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    The TV will nag you if you don't connect it to the internet? What TVs do this? I want names!

    --
    Good-bye
  141. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    Its god-damn Idiocracy happening right now. Ads all the way down......

    --
    Good-bye
  142. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really sure why this was modded down. Its a pretty succinct and factual comment.

  143. Test run by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    They'll enable them next year.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  144. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    Mmmm, I could entirely see them doing this as a new ad-supported T.V. that costs 2/3 of what the TV without this 'functionality' would. I wonder how hard it would be to spoof. It's just that they don't have that sales program in place yet.

  145. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by arth1 · · Score: 1

    The Cox "Browser Alerts" seem to only come from three IPs. I blocked them at my router and haven't experienced any problems. I don't have those IPs handy, but found them when NoScript listed them as choices to Allow/Forbid. (In my case, they were "letting me know" that I should upgrade from a 2.x to 3.x DOCSIS modem.)

    They still modify the content. Say I use wget to recursively fetch a web site I run on the outside somewhere, and burn it to a CD for someone to look at. Then they will see the content that Cox inserted. That's not cool at all.

    Something is wrong if you have to rely on SSL to protect you from your own internet provider!

  146. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    You can be as powerless and useless as you choose.

    Just do not pin that weak ass shit on me.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  147. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    What most consumers can not be bothered to do is to read and understand what they are agreeing to in a purchase.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  148. Re: by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    Modded down due to the discomfort some people feel when faced with the possibility that their lives can not be blamed on things they have no control over.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  149. single use devices sold at premium in future? by MarkH · · Score: 1

    Wonder how long it will be before tv's amp's speakers etc will be sold at premium because they have no 'smart features'?

  150. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    Remember, these are the people who shipped a version of Android with a custom kernel extension that created a second, world-accessible instance of /dev/mem because they couldn't get the camera driver to work without it.

    As has been pointed out, they've misdeployed this to the wrong market but still - it's Samsung. Their hardware is nice but they're not terribly strong on the software side.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  151. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by omnichad · · Score: 2

    This happened post-purchase - including changes in the Terms & Conditions. You show me how you can read the future.

  152. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malfeasance.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  153. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by bughunter · · Score: 1

    What part of bait and switch don't you understand?

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  154. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by bughunter · · Score: 1

    you as a consumer really are powerless.

    I have deleted the superfluous parts of your post.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  155. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by BVis · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the info. Looks like I have some research to do.

    I agree about the extended warranty. I buy 5 year plans on my TVs, and let me tell you, it bailed me the fuck out on my Sony when the picture engine went bad in my front projection TV. They finally just gave me a new TV because the old one would be more expensive to fix.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  156. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by BVis · · Score: 1

    No kidding. Ever seen Minority Report? The stuff that assaulted the characters from all sides when walking through a public space? That's what I remember from that movie, not the interface or the story.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  157. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >What they mean by that is that they didn't intend for people to object to the ads or for their poor behavior to be called out.

    They should run ads explaining all that. Maybe they can hire Brian Williams as a spokesperson?

  158. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

    Maybe the best of all worlds is as described above... a HTPC + a large monitor. Smart TVs seem dumb to me, as they don't add any useful features, but seem be another vector for ad-slinging and invading privacy.

    From a manufacturing standpoint, Smart TVs aren't dumb. If you've ever taken apart a modern HDTV, it's basically a monitor plus a small computer which does the image decoding and processing. On some HDTVs the computer half even plugs into the monitor half with a DVI cable.

    For the manufacturer, it's trivial to beef up the computer with $10-$20 of extra hardware (faster CPU and more RAM), add some software, and charge an extra $200 for it being a Smart TV. As you surmise, the buyer is much better off buying a "dumb" TV and adding a HTPC (I recommend an old laptop so you don't kill your dollar savings with extra electricity burned by a 100 Watt old desktop).

  159. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by SkimTony · · Score: 1

    There was a penalty when Sony pulled OtherOS: their DRM was cracked in less than two days, and the PlayStation is just as susceptible to bots and hacks as every other game system (as it should be).

  160. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this really needs to be made illegal by some consumer protections group. displaying ads, breaking hdmi, recording your voice these are all huge points your product did not do when you purchased it.

    sadly, government will not likely do squat about that. oligarchies are like that. guess i'll be going back to the HTPC + dumb tv next purchase

    This is why I block my old android phone from updating the Google services framework. It's a blackbox, and it keeps growing and bloating my phone. I don't think they test on my model, which is ONLY 4 years old. Alright, that's ancient in terms of smart devices, but when you think about your 800 dollar TV getting nerfed, are you really going to just get up and buy another one? Will unplugging it after the fact really prevent the firmware from doing things like overlaying ads it already has, or will it fix their HDMI 'fix'

    When a company really wants to help, you see a dialog box giving you an option. Better yet, they make the new BIOS or firmware available with release notes on their website. I know that keeps ancient machines ancient for 99% of users, but that's the price to pay for choice. After all, your 10+ year old TV is still running. Old automobiles are still allowed on the road. No government compliance firmware is necessary. If they want to take it off the road, they're welcome to put a letter in the mail giving me an informed choice

  161. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by adolf · · Score: 1

    The easy answer: Don't buy a smart TV. There are other, often much cheaper, options to network-enable a dumb TV.

    Buy a TV because it has the glorious pictures that you find preferable at a price that you can justify, not because it's "smart." Buy a networked HDMI dongle/STB because you like its features and interface.

    Keep the functions independent, and you'll be in far better shape -- both financially, and functionally.

    And you'll never have to ask this question again.

  162. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by bughunter · · Score: 2

    You've been pretty busy here defending the "rights" of corporations to be deceitful and unethical.

    Are you being paid to shill for deceptive practices, or have corporate "libertarians" done a good job brainwashing you into believing that a corporation has no obligation to protect the public interest in exchange for the liability protection and corporate "personhood?"

    Or maybe you've bought into the promise that, yes, you'll grow up and be a rich corporation one day too and so therefore you should defend the corporations.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  163. Re:This is why I block ads/trackers in the router. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you run a transparent proxy for all inbound traffic on the router. Like Dansguardian. A first step is acquire a router that is popular in the OSS router firmware community....like DD-WRT or Tomato. ASUS and Buffalo are good place to start.

  164. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by BVis · · Score: 1

    I agree in principle, but find me a 40-50 inch 4k TV that ISN'T a smart TV. Not much of a choice.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  165. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    Reply if the original TOS says they can change it then you agreed. If not then breach of contract suit.

    No action by lawmakers is required.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  166. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The present looks pretty bleak and the future is worse as old reliable, products in the US get unshelved on a yearly basis in the US.
    You're right about 3G antennae. Nothing but a bit of an investment is stopping the private industry from silently making some 3G CDN standard to help them thwart our "airgapping is perfect!" delusions.

    I can't find confirmation on wikipedia, but several years before Snowden's revelations I saw a comment here that the original Amazon Kindle (2007!) gave slow complimentary access to wikipedia (or something) without relying on your Wifi. It is terrifying that we have no way to know how widespread this is, whether the NSA already does it on every Intel chip, and nothing stopping private entities from putting the user even more out of the device ownership and control loop.

  167. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    Doing something that is already illegal does not require new laws to be passed.

    Are you saying that what Samsung did is already illegal and we should pass new laws to ... ?

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  168. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    Corporations have no obligation to be nice. They have no obligation to protect you. I have no obligation to be a good person. I am not obligated to protect you.

    Corporations have an obligation to follow the laws and make a profit.

    Expecting differently is a good way to be stupid. I am nice and protective of people in my life because I choose it. I am ok with people helping me out and protecting me, but I do not think others have an obligation to do it.

    I am obligated to to protect me from my bad decisions.

    Why are you so invested in a reality in which you have no control over the direction of your life? Have you make really bad decisions and want to blame something other than yourself for it?

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  169. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by omnichad · · Score: 2

    All TOS say that. You would be effectively banned from buying anything because ALL manufacturers do this. And since the "free market" is dumber than you are, they will sit idly by and allow it.

    You are not a big enough customer base to ever effect change. Businesses do not do "the right thing" and there is no financial incentive to do so.

    You can go ahead and keep trolling, but you're very clearly too idealistic to see the real world for what it is.

  170. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a cynic, I can see a 3G antenna (which has to be a certain size or else it can't send/receive) become a standard feature for appliances because it would be touted as a secure channel for devices to get their OTA updates.

    Of course, Internet access is Internet access, and a device would get compromised as easily over a 3G connection as it would sitting on someone's Wi-Fi segment.

    3G boards are pretty inexpensive. I wouldn't be surprised to see devices start sporting this so they can phone home with their "anonymized usage statistical reports" (i.e. MP3 files.)

    Makes me glad my TV is an older CRT model that plays DVD and VHS tapes. Dumb as a post, and it can stay that way. When that breaks, I will go with a dedicated PC and a large monitor.

  171. Place The Blame Where It Lies by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I warned about this when HDMI was still just a plan in the works. People should never have accepted it as a standard. That's like inviting the foreign troops to live in your homes, then only complaining about it later when it becomes unbearable.

    Of course, DVI supports HDCP too, which is what I'm really talking about here. Allowing others to control the content you watch was always a bad idea, and you only had to look at who were pushing the standard (the copyright trolls), to know what would come of it. People should have balked at buying THEN.

    But people bought into it anyway. Now if you want to get control of your hardware back, you have to modify it, which not only voids the warranty, but is now illegal in the U.S. I hate to say "I told you so", but I told you so.

    Consumers should demand full control of the hardware they own. Nothing else is acceptable. We have been seeing the abuses that are possible over the last 10 years, regardless of whether some of them were mistakes.

    Do you really want to continue down that same road?

    1. Re:Place The Blame Where It Lies by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      I warned about this when HDMI was still just a plan in the works. ........snip.......
      Allowing others to control the content you watch was always a bad idea, ........

      Of interest in a freedom of speech context there is a talker and
      a listener. If it is impossible to listen (or read) then the freedom of
      speech has been infringed.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  172. Jesus Christ, what an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a world we live in when we need a HOSTS file to properly exorcise overbearing advertising from our televisions.
    We're truly living in Teh FUTAR!

  173. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want me to receive your ads? PAY *me*, not only the ad pushers!

    This is one of those ideas where I ask myself "Why didn't I think of that?".

    Maybe a chrome plugin that will inject my own html into everything, something that includes my own PayPal Donate! button that advertisers are free to abuse.

  174. Block using DNS at your router; no custom firmware by psyclone · · Score: 1

    Try FoolDNS or others on this page:

    http://alternativeto.net/softw...

    If only APK would spend his time developing a DNS service we could all use for free instead of client software. (Push the hosts file to the DNS resolver that ALL devices use.)

    If the "smart TV" uses it's own DNS, simply block all outbound port 53 traffic other than your router itself.

  175. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    So. You are saying the people get what they deserve?

    I am cool with that.

    By the way. You do not have a "right" to a TV. If no one makes one you like then do not buy one.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  176. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by adolf · · Score: 1

    Indeed, that does seem to be a problem. (I'm currently happy with my old and dumb 52" Samsung LCD, and will not be replacing it until 4k content becomes a non-streaming thing, so I didn't realize that "good" new TVs are all smart.)

    So buy a smart TV, and then never, ever connect it to a network. Just add a Chromecast or a Pi 2 with XBMC or a FireTV stick or a Roku or an HTPC with Plex or XBMC, for family-friendly options.

    They're all less than $100 (aside from a proper HTPC). Using multiples of the same device for different sets around the house, is also a usability boon: Everything works the same, no matter what room of the house you're in.

  177. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Your ultimate conclusion is that it's better for nobody to get what they want than to have the government step in. It's just not practical or realistic.

    What is the government but the collective will of the people?

  178. Grooming at the behest of the NSA and GCHQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    South Korea is a tame 'slave' state of the USA. It does exactly as it is told, and nothing else. With the FAILURE of Bill 'Eugenics' Gates' Xbox One home spying project, the NSA is looking for other major consumer electronics companies to groom the sheeple to accept Orwellian technology as commonplace in the future.

    Look at all the BETA CRETINS in this thread argue the toss as to whether Samsung did this 'intentionally' or not. God, when you are that naive, even in the light of Snowden's unending revelations about the extent of TOTAL SURVEILLANCE projects in the West, you deserve nothing less than spending your life being treated as the dog you are.

    Grooming sheeple to allow the next wave of 'social reforms' is what the real masters of any nation focus their attention on. "NO PLACE TO HIDE" was a common meme from the 1950s in the USA as a consequence of the 'rise of the mega-corporation', and their clear power-base in civilian society. But fears of every person becoming but a cog in their employers machine never panned out, and US sheeple went BACK TO SLEEP.

    Today, the NSA is determined to know, in real-time, everything about everyone. And there are THREE main goals from this TOTAL SURVEILLANCE.

    1) to read the 'mind' of the masses in real-time, so propaganda campaigns can be perfected using knowledge gained from the feedback.

    2) to gather potential BLACKMAIL material on every living Human, so those that reach positions of power and/or influence can be coerced to 'support' the 'right' agendas.

    3) to identify emerging grass-roots leaders and organisations, before they reach levels of greater awareness- so the government can co-opt or crush them as they wish.

    All attempts at TOTAL SURVEILLANCE across the thousands of years of Human History had these three goals. Only in our Computer Age has such a filthy, evil plan for Humanity become possible. The grooming by Samsung on behalf of the NSA is a tiny part of the foul whole, and even Snowden only has the tiniest part of the picture.

  179. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really. If I modify something for my viewing only, its (hopefully) considered fair use. When my Internet conpany modifies something enroute there are 2 problems

    1. They are engaging in commercial distribution of the copyrighted content (they must have unlawfully accessed the content first so they can modify and redistribute it)

    2. They are no longer a common carrier and are interfering with data in transit. That is a crime.

  180. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    My ultimate conclusion is that passing a law saying they can not do it is wrongheaded. It is solving a symptom, not a problem and hinders innovation.

    Maybe some people will benefit from this. Possibly injected, targeted ads by the TV will lower the cost. Some people may want to trade for this. Who the fuck are you to tell them no? What makes you the person who knows what is right and what is not? Have you not learned from almost every fucking law passed in the last 20 years that it does not work?

    Things do not get better this way. This is the real world. Where central planing and massive bureaucracies are worse than nothing at all. Learn from the past.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  181. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That will never work if all that dies is the corporation. They "refresh" themselves quite regularly.
    The entire C-Level as well as anyone directly involved in the violations who did not blow the whistle on the violations must suffer their corporation's fate, lest BP simply continue onwards as CP and then DP.

  182. Monitor with speakers by msobkow · · Score: 1

    I bought a monitor with speakers that happens to have a digital tuner (which is useless to me, seeing as there are no digital broadcasts anywhere except the two biggest cities in Saskatchewan.)

    Why would I want to futz around with email and such on a monitor when I have a perfectly good pair of computers with keyboards and mice for doing so?

    I've been nothing but baffled by the whole "Smart TV" craze. Paying extra hundreds of dollars for functionality you already have. Are you so wired to your email and texts that you have to be able to deal with them without getting off the couch? Is your "smart phone" on the table beside you not convenient enough for doing so?

    In all seriousness: why would anyone want a so-called "smart" TV? They all seem to be a collection of very dumb features to me.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Monitor with speakers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What the smart TV does (and I really doubt it costs hundreds of dollars extra) is make it possible to do various things without having a computer handy. For the average person, this is very useful. For you and me, not so much.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  183. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude you are crazy. You are acting as if we have a choice. They have enabled these features on older TVs too with firmware updates, TVs that never said they had those features now do. How are we supposed to unbuy something?

  184. Re: by ribbitman · · Score: 1

    Maybe not Coke and Pepsi, but just about every other already-advertising retailer stands to lose if the culture of advertising bombardment dries up. The likes of us that even use ad blockers are the fringe, to say nothing of the infinitesimally small number who refuse to buy from companies that thwart ad blockers. Many people ask me how I know what new or improved products are available since I dvr, stream, or download 100% of TV and movie content. The vast majority of consumers are absolutely swayed by a picture of a juicy burger, flashes of merch at INSANE prices, HEY KIDS ads, and entire "news" narratives telling you to go to the mall or the terr'ists win.

  185. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    One of two things is true in this situation. Either your agreement allows them to make whatever changes they want or it does not.

    If it allows this then the problem is you entered into a shitty contract upon purchase. Current law allows you to return a thing if the only way to see the agreement is after buying and you do not agree.

    If the agreement you entered into does not allow this then they are already in violation of this agreement. Not only can you sue them for breech, but ... There are already laws that cover this type of behavior.

    So. Either the customer made a bad agreement or the company is in breech of contract and perhaps already in violation of law. Where do we need a new law passed? Should we make illegal behavior illegal or should we make it against the law to put a thing in a contract that at a later date the customer no longer wants in place?

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  186. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure. LG sends back info on what you're watching via USB, Amazon, Netflix. No voice control there. I think smart TVs will keep taking liberties,

    access-list outbound deny ip any any

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  187. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by ewhenn · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is a harbinger of things to come where IoT devices in general would need firewalled due to privacy and security concerns.

    I've been doing this for years. I run my own camera system as a VM using zone minder. My firewall rules are set to drop all packets originating from any of the cameras or the zoneminder server. My "Smart TV" only has selected hosts permitted outbound through the firewall, everything else is dropped. For remote access I VPN into my network and have access to resources once I'm in, everything else is dropped. Whitelisting is far superior to blacklisting.

  188. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by RandomAdam · · Score: 2

    I have a smart TV + HTPC.....the TV has never had a net connection and it never will......out of the box it displayed things on the screen; what else does it need to do?

    --
    @Random_Adam

    Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
  189. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    Except that a government gains more power, the less it has to listen to individuals. It gets to the point where the individual basically has no voice. He's surrounded by groupthink and kneejerk propaganda designed to polarize that groupthink into alignment with whatever the officials want. The government becomes the enforcer for the 1%. I'd rather the 1% use their own money to try to enslave us rather than our own.

  190. loved my Big Dumb Screen by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    I had a Westinghouse LVM-37w1. No tuner, no "smarts", basically a display with multiple inputs: 2 DVI, 2 Component, Composite AND S-Video, plus separate audio inputs that could be paired to the video. Nicely, the speaker cabling was external, so I could use it as "center" from my A/V amp.

    The backlights eventually failed, but I looked hard for a simple replacement. Only thing I could find were commercial (ruggedized) displays at an order of magnitude more cost than the "TV"s of the same size/resolution. Can't use the TV tuner on cable (EVERYTHING is encoded), and the HDMI input doesn't let me assign which channel feeds the builtin speakers, so I had to add a center speaker.

  191. Re:This may be naive but why connect TV to interne by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    big-screen Skype (until I told my sister-in-law about the always on spy camera "feature").

  192. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I don't know about illegal, but certainly it should be easy to find out which TVs do what.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  193. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations have an obligation to follow the laws and make a profit.

    Ha! Corporations are obligated to their shareholders. If the shareholders what to corporation to be nice and not make a profit so be it. You've probably heard of charities? Those are corporations. It's clear you've drank some libertarian koolaid and it's killed an important part of your ability to think.

  194. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by breeze95 · · Score: 1

    Vizio is a pretty solid brand... at least for their larger TVs. Decent contrast, good response time, and if you choose carefully, no Smart TV nastiness. Of course, we bought the Smart TV at the time, but it doesn't get in the way. The only way you'll see it is if you press a certain button. And personally, they did Smart TV right. If you need it, it's there and easy to access. If you don't want it, don't worry about it - out of mind, out of sight.

    I wouldn't say Vizio doesn't engage in Smart TV nastiness. They are not as bad as LG and Samsung. I have an older Vizio E55 series smart TV, and one of features is that the TV can report to Vizio what TV channels you look at unless you disable the feature in settings.

  195. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    As far as corporations go, it frequently doesn't matter what's legal, but rather what they can get away with. A video stream or web page is copyrighted, yes, but (assuming it's yours) what are you going to do about it? Unless you can show sizable damages to yourself, it's not worth suing. If you register your video streams or web pages, you might sue for statutory damages, but I haven't heard of anybody doing that.

    If we actually had competition (treat last mile as a utility and allow access to whoever wants to be an ISP), this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem. Unfortunately, this is the US.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  196. APK's happy as is, w/ this... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If only APK would spend his time developing a DNS service we could all use for free instead of client software. (Push the hosts file to the DNS resolver that ALL devices use.)" - by psyclone (187154) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @03:50PM (#49032753)

    See subject, & this: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-Bit: http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    * :)

    (It's NOT really a "big stretch" for me to adapt this to write-out rules lists for DNS (on save to export them) OR really, into a full-blown DNS system...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Anyhow, there ya go... apk

    1. Re:APK's happy as is, w/ this... apk by psyclone · · Score: 1

      Do you have an API to fetch the hosts file directly without using the windows software? I don't run any windows...

      I'm thinking about taking your hosts file and running it through a script to create a dnsmasq or bind config so then I can run it as a local resolver for my home network (consisting of non-changeable devices like a Wii).

  197. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    Have fun spending the rest of your life finding someone to blame for your unhappiness. Hope it works out well for you.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  198. Re:Sterilization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come to think of it, passing things down to your children is pretty much just robbing the makers of a sale. And parents do this *constantly*. The amount of money being stolen must be staggering for all involved.

    You wouldn't copy a floppy, so why is it legal to just give your son a car?

  199. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    No, you are completely powerless. In fact you're more powerless than the GGP because you refuse to realise just how powerless you are.

    And wrong.

    It is the governments responsibility to enforce the law and prevent crime. That is basically what it happening, large corporations are getting away with near murder because people like you think that you can simply vote with your wallet completely unaware that most of the brands you're switching between are the same company.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  200. Re: by mjwx · · Score: 2

    Gotta wonder... would Pepsi, Coke and other "name brands" really lose much business if they stopped advertising? Or would their net profit increase by not wasting $$ on ads?

    Yep,

    For brands like, Coke, McDonalds, et al. They would lose a lot of sales if they didn't constantly expose people to their advertising. You'd be surprised at the number of people who only drink Coke because they were exposed to a coke advert a few moments ago. For these companies they need to stay at the front of people's consciousness as they cant rely on people getting hungry or thirsty and defaulting to Micky D's or Coke because people would rarely do this of their own accord.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  201. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    The fact is that in general, people want to own their stuff, not have their stuff own them. Apple taught manufacturers a very poor lesson; namely, the way to make huge profits is to create and cultivate a walled garden that the manufacturer controls and collects the tolls. But Apple wasn't successful because it has a walled garden, it is successful because plenty of people with lots of disposable income like the Apple advertising and marketing

    Fixed that for you.

    The pink elephant in the room is that Apples HCI is terrible, so terrible they needed to invent a bollocks field called "User Experience" to explain why their HCI was so bad. Apple are insanely good at marketing, look at how fanboys will argue over whether Apple is a software or hardware company, in reality their software is mostly derived from open source and their hardware is built by other people, so they're a marketing company.

    The bad lesson Apple has taught to the corporate world is that you can abuse your customers like a drunken redneck husband beats his wife and they'll love you for it as long as you can spin it. Hell, they'll even blame themselves for anything Apple does wrong because "Apple loves them".

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  202. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    Go right ahead and continue being as powerless as makes you happy. Good luck.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  203. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by breeze95 · · Score: 1

    What most consumers can not be bothered to do is to read and understand what they are agreeing to in a purchase.

    Rarely do customers get an opportunity to see much less read a product's Terms and Conditions before they buy the item. I can't think of any product that has their Terms & Conditions displayed or readily available to customers before purchase.

  204. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by breeze95 · · Score: 1

    Let me make this real clear.

    It is not the responsibility of the government to protect people from their choices.

    I must inform you that government(s) do that all the time. Why should this be any different?

  205. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by NoMaster · · Score: 1

    Given that Free TV Australia's 'standard'* for HbbTV here** specifically allows HbbTV apps to insert their own ads when 3rd-party content is being viewed, I suspect either:
    (a) Samsung trod on the network's toes by rolling out firmware which conflicted with 9Jumpin / Plus7 / TENplay / SBS On Demand's own plans for ad-insertion, or
    (b) It's all part of the network's plans - but Samsung jumped the gun.

    * quotes because it's a self-policed industry / lobby group agreement, not a standard standard...
    ** a.k.a. "FreeviewPlus"

    --
    What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  206. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Gotta wonder... would Pepsi, Coke and other "name brands" really lose much business if they stopped advertising? Or would their net profit increase by not wasting $$ on ads?

    Say you're at the store buying laundry detergent. There's several brands, like "Tide," "Gain," "All," and "Purex." How do you know which brands are the "name brand" detergents that are better and worth more, and which are the "generic brand" detergents that are not as good and worth less? It's simple. You're familiar with some brands more than others because you keep seeing them on television. Other factors are at play, like packaging designs, shelf placement, etc., but whether you've seen commercials for it on television definitely factors in in a huge way.

    So what would happen if Pepsi stopped advertising? It wouldn't happen right away, but eventually they'd become yet another RC cola, as today's kids grow up familiar with Coke and perhaps some other brand that might pop up to replace Pepsi, but having never seen a Pepsi ad in their entire life, the Pepsi name would be as unfamiliar as the RC Cola name. They might try Pepsi once or twice, but find it's taste unfamiliar and regard it as just another knock-off of Coca-Cola, and never drink it again unless they're forced to.

  207. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Demena · · Score: 1

    Dunno about greasemonkey but Adblock only deletes from the stream. It does not add to it, so it should be ok. That might depend on precedents if different jurist fictions though.

  208. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Demena · · Score: 1

    Oh child, are you not aware that there have been eavesdropping laws for centuries? Wiretapping laws (Samsung is not the NSA) across the world. So, YES, BLOODY YES, this would be illegal in many of the world's juristrictions. "But you signed....." Explicitly does not work as in many places signing away a right is legally invalid.

  209. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Demena · · Score: 1

    Rubbish. Utter rubbish. It is the governments job to govern - not rule - the country or relevant state. That is by very definition. It is a GOVERMENT. Do you notice the similarities in spelling? While yes, I have time to look at this spy tv stuff but I do not have time for everything or even most things. Nor do you. So if you want the government to have no part in protecting you then say what you really want. I.e. no government, anarchy. Luckily for you there are older and wiser persons who have seen the miseries war and anarchy create so you are protected and shielded by them as much as possible.

  210. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Demena · · Score: 1

    Eavesding? Wiretapping? Not a government? Do not pass Go......

  211. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

    All good info, but the problem is that the manufacturers deliberately downspec their dumb TVs so that if you want a good screen, you have to pay for the smarts, the 3D and all the other shit you don't care about.

  212. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

    I'm in. When do you run for office?

  213. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

    I don't know why more people don't do this. I had some grief with my Samsung phone, and both Samsung and the retailer fed me the corporate line, " nothing we can do", so I lodged a claim with small claims. Cost me $40, but once they received the notice I was contacted and offered a brand new phone as a replacement.
    This is exactly what Small claims court is for. It's a lawyer free zone, and big companies can't be bothered sending an exec in for the day to argue their case, so generally pay to make you go away.

  214. Re: by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

    Gotta wonder... would Pepsi, Coke and other "name brands" really lose much business if they stopped advertising? Or would their net profit increase by not wasting $$ on ads?

    The science of Marketing is well understood. The more your hear a name, the more familiar you are with it, the more likely when making a decision you will favour something you know. If coke stopped advertising and Pepsi didn't (or vice versa) then market share would immediately shift to the most advertised product). Once you accept that you have no free will, and that the brain is a machine that marketing people have learnt how to manipulate, it all makes a lot more sense.

  215. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

    Something has been lost and I'm not sure if/how we get it back.

    The horse has bolted, and if history is any guide the only answer is mass death, ie in the tens or hundreds of millions. It's naturally for life to get greedy, then some external threat occurs which forces everyone to work together and play nice, then as this threat is overcome, everyone gets greedy again. All the major leaps in human development were immediately after massive catastrophes (war, famine, disease etc). Our selfishness is a sign that we as a race have never had it so good.

  216. Peace Makes Plenty... &c by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    Poetry from the 15th century: https://books.google.com/books...

    "Peace makes plenty.
    Plenty makes pride.
    Pride breeds dispute.
    Poverty's the fruit.
    Poverty makes peace."

    Other variations on the poem: https://books.google.com/books...

    I got curious about that first phrase as it is the name of a Culture ship in Iain Bank's novel "Excession". :-)

    And see also a funny sci-fi story about an alien invasion getting all the nations of the Earth to come together, like: "The Gentle Earth" by Christopher Anvil. :-) Or also "The Lathe of Heaven" by Ursula K. Le Guin.

    So yes, there may well be various social cycles in mood and expectations... Daniel Quinn explores those in his non-fiction book "Beyond Civilization". But I can hope it doesn't need to get that bad, and that we can relearn old truths from old stories less painfully than re-experiencing them first hand...

    Anyway, glad we got a VIZIO a year or two ago. :-) Concerns about some smart features in other TVs (as previously discussed on Slashdot) did affect that choice. We barely use it though. It was mostly for use with a Wii and PlayStation, which have faded into the background compared to PC games like Space Engineers, Minecraft, and World of Tanks. Laptops (even a 14" Chromebook) are also much more convenient in our particular home for watching video together given where the VIZIO is. Still, the big VIZIO makes a great display for a tiny Raspberry Pi! :-)

    But to think what my feelings were reading 1984 decades ago, and how impossible and fantastical it seemed to have spy cameras and spy recordings going on in every US home (along with Dick Tracy's impossible-seeming two-way wrist TV). And now we are pretty much there in terms of technology (even just laptops, let alone TVs). I hope we find better ways to use all that to build a happy healthy world that works for pretty much everyone.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  217. And so the cycle continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apologies for the AC post.

    There is a market for clean tech products. The problem is the people looking for clean tech is both a niche market and one that gets little attention from marketing or mainstream media. People who look for clean tech are, at present, a minority.

    We're hard to market to, we do research on the products we are interested in, tend to have an interest in the product doing something very specific, and tend to like it to not have a bunch of bloatware heavy features. Bluntly speaking, it's damn hard to get us to buy anything unless there is a direct need. ....

    As for the gross violation of personal privacy and being force-fed advertisements, could take a look at the rapid rise of cord cutting in first world countries. Instead of attempting to make products appealing they producers of these products are desperately trying to flog a failed marketing system at the expense of everyone else. It is rather annoying but it is very hard to wean any corporation off of inordinate amount of advertising revenue.

  218. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    Actually, the Smart TV is abetter investment. Built in DLNA, and Netflix and Amazon apps built directly into the TV are far more convenient, not to mention the convenience of not having to have a HTPC and a lesser electricity bill as a result.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  219. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    Those devices are slower and don't support DLNA. I have a Samsung smart TV and love the smart features...what ones do you dislike, and why?

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  220. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by BVis · · Score: 1

    Makes sense. But instead of a dongle gadget, I'm more likely to use the apps on my Xbox for streaming. That also has the advantage that I already own the 360 :)

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  221. Yours is a single point of failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If only APK would spend his time developing a DNS service we could all use for free instead of client software. (Push the hosts file to the DNS resolver that ALL devices use.)" - by psyclone (187154) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @03:50PM (#49032753)

    You can push hosts to every pc or server endpoint node easily using logon scripts or a scheduled task even!

    So - what's your point?

    * By the way - Your 'point' creates a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE since routers DO get hijacked!

    APK

    P.S.=> Mine doesn't - it gets easily individually distributed to what actually USES it, NOT A single point of fail... apk

  222. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about not realistic. The government has not been the "collective will of the people" in a long time.

  223. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    Corporations have an obligation to follow the laws and make a profit.

    And if we notice any behaviors harming our overall social environment while simultaneously enriching businesses, we can pass laws to prohibit those behaviors.

    It's certainly feasible to prohibit known-bad behaviors preemptively rather than waiting for the market to discover and react to individual acts of malfeasance or breaches of trust.

    In addition, a violation of established regulations or commerce law generally provides firm legal footing for a civil suit against the violators. These cases tend to be litigated much more quickly and successfully. Or settled without taking the matter to court at all, which is really ideal.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  224. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Problem is, I'm never likely to be elected to any office, including dog catcher.

    I don't have the "pleasant" personality of a typical baby kisser. That, and I am a "radical" libertarian, which most people are afraid of.

    I've come to the conclusion that most people like being sheep, as it is security for them. The problem as I see it, the sheepdog is actually a wolf.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  225. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    That does not work since he is accessing Amazon, Netflix, and whatever CDNs are caching his shows.

    With the growth of online video and IoT devices---and their resulting need for CDNs, redundancy, and resilience vs load/DDoS---simple IP filtering is becoming increasingly difficult for even a modestly connected household. And the difficulty is only going to increase over time.

    I'm at the point where I'm about to give up on manual filtering entirely, and I don't have a lot of the shiny new networked devices. In the past, "dumber" devices have ended up being relegated to the cheapest bargain-basement hardware on the market. There are very few premium "dumb" devices anywhere.

    I want privacy and security, and I want those things without being forced to buy the bottom-of-the-line crap. If they don't stop making invasive, insecure "smart" devices, I see bigger problems looming.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  226. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Considering the government doesn't represent "the people", only the rich who buy the politicians, don't hold your breath waiting for this...

  227. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    It is already a set precedent that in cases where this is true you can return a product if you do not agree with the TOS.

    But that is not good enough I am sure. What needs to happen of course is that laws need to be passed to force companies to make the products you think they should make with a TOS you think they should have at a price you set.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  228. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    I must inform you. Just because some guy goes out and murders people all the time does not make it a good thing to do.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  229. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    Oh child, are you not aware that making a thing illegal that some might find useful because you do not like it hinders innovation and restricts the freedom of the customers themselves.

    Also. Just wondering if the "Oh Child" comment when coming from me sounded sad and desperate? Or did the fact that it was not followed by a bunch of bullshit make it not quite as bad?

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  230. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me make this real clear.

    At the very least you should be able to acknowledge that there is some debate as to what the role of government is. Some would argue that setting a minimum level of consumer protection, is the responsibility of government. Others would argue your point. Don't be so smug as to assume you get to make the decision on what the role of government happens to be.

  231. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    I am sure that the way your were brought up there is only "all or nothing".

    Some of us though are under the impression that many things are not like that. For example, Government. It is not restricted toward anarchy or nanny state, "Pick One".

    The government needs to make no new law stating either that any contract you agree to you can later sue for because you no longer like it or a new law making something that is illegal, ... illegal.

    I really do have the right to decide what contract I want to enter into. I do not need the government telling me that my TV has to listen to me or is prohibited to listening to me.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  232. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    Your proposed regulation would be what?

    That you must agree to having your conversations analyzed for key words so your TV can work?

    (This is already the law) That they can not do it even if you (The Customer) agrees and wants it? (This should really spur innovation)

    That there has to be a separate TOS for recording that the people who do not want to read the first one will also not read?

    (This is where I think they will go) What exactly do you think the government can step in and fix here? (Government rarely does a thing well.)

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  233. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
    I get to be smug.

    Show me regulations passed in the US in the last 15 years that worked well without massive downsides.

    I do not think that the government has zero role in the running of the country. I believe that they, long ago, passed the line into over regulation. I think that continuing even further down this pass is almost always going to be a really bad idea.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  234. Unintentional? Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can injecting ads into lan-based video steaming from a PC to a TV not be intentional? So someone at Samsung "accidentally" flipped the switch? You can't blame everything on "unintentional mistakes" when too much effort into the evil direction would be needed in order to implement such a "mistake"

  235. They need to be... by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    Samstung needs to be slapped with a DCMA or some such tampering
    statute. A content stream is Copyright. They are modifying it for
    the purpose of generating $$ and that can be illegal all across the
    globe. The fact that the author and owner of the stream cannot easily
    see this tomfoolery is perhaps the only thing keeping an attorney
    from turning the company upside down and shaking money out.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  236. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by macpacheco · · Score: 1

    Dont buy a smart TV. Buy a normal one, and use an external video streaming gadget. If anything on your TV breaks you might have to buy a brand new one, or pay for ultra expensive repairs.
    I'm using a 40" Samsung LED TV right now. It has no ethernet or wifi. Was extremely cheap. If I want to watch videos, I plug my blu ray player, my laptop, my Linux gadget (banana Pi), or my satellite dish receiver. Oh and you can also download videos into a USB flash drive and plug them in.
    Even without the ads, a smart TV with Internet conectivity could be uploading all the names of files you played to their vendors. Who knows one day you'll get sued for playing downloaded videos because Samsung or LG sold the list of customers to DCMA sharks ?

  237. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    Actually, the Smart TV is abetter investment. Built in DLNA, and Netflix and Amazon apps built directly into the TV are far more convenient, not to mention the convenience of not having to have a HTPC and a lesser electricity bill as a result.

    Not in the Samsung case. A wonderful Samsung screen with "smart" features and
    Samstung is unable or unwilling to update the Netflix software. No Amazon app...
    on my perfectly good TV AND Smart Blu Ray player. Android tablets and phones
    are now seeing incompatible application update notifications as Android moves and
    cell service and phone makers conspire to constipate and control the update and
    bug fix process.

    The life of a $1000 TV is not one or two years... If you purchase one of these about
    the time the new model is out you will see a corresponding shortening of the update
    stream. If you purchases it early you will see some bug fixes and feel good but
    all new computer hardware will need an update just because software takes time
    and testing on a simulator is so much slower than real hardware.

    Sorry you have had your two updates... you are SOL.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  238. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    Only if this death penalty includes all persons with enough/the right shares to be able to vote on company policy.

  239. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd be surprised at the number of people who only drink Coke because they were exposed to a coke advert a few moments ago.

    Considering that I measure "moments" in minutes, yes, it would be very surprising to learn that there are people who, having seen a Coke commercial mere moments ago, have decided that from that day forward, they will only drink Coke. I figured that kind of brand loyalty took years to grow.

  240. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by JimFive · · Score: 1

    My understanding of small claims court (I have no direct experience), is that even if you got a judgement, LG wouldn't pay it and you would have no way to collect.
    --
    JimFive

    --
    Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
  241. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by toddestan · · Score: 1

    I don't know if I would consider it an investment. That kind of implies you're in it for the long term, and my guess is any smart TV will stop getting updates within a year or two, and in about five years all the "Smart" features will be unsupported, broken, and damn near useless. I would invest in a good screen that I would hope to keep a while, and then keep the "smarts" separate so they can be updated as needed.

  242. Re: "Not intentional". Right. by Demena · · Score: 1

    Why are you sure that I was brought up "all or nothing"? I wasn't at all. I fact I am the result of a cross "all or nothing".

    But twisting my words will not help you. A law is all or nothing. You obey it or you don't.

    You seem to think that if a government passes a law that you disagree with then you are not required or obliged to obey it and that it has no right to make those laws And that appears to me to be exceptionalism. You are not a special little snowflake - no one is.

    Your second paragraph is not just poor grammar, it is so badly written that it is ambiguous and incomprehensible. I would not mind the former but the latter makes it impossible to address. Please use either american, australian or english, I can handle those. If you meant what I think you meant then a contract may be legally binding but it is not a law.

    I am an Australian and there are many "socialist" laws here. Thank FSM. There are consumer protection organisations that work - they actually have power. And more importantly there are laws and protections that you cannot sign away regardless of what any contract might say. For example, Apple computers offer a one year guarantee. But, so far, the consumer protection have decided that it is not long enough. So, if an Apple fails within three or so years then Apple will repair or replace if they cannot prove you damaged it. Another example, if a change in licence (or fees) makes a change that means you can no longer use a device or software in the way you intended and had been doing, it is simply invalid and unenforcable. Another, long and frequent changes to click-throughs are considered unfair and pernicious. Another, Any sold or rented item must be suitable for the purposes for which it was sold.

    Your third paragraph I agree with you mostly but there is a nominal social contract that varies location to location that you really cannot avoid. In many cases it would be better to conform or move. e.g. A lot of people moved to Canada when conscripted in the 70's.

    Interesting thing, while I was answering you I got a text from my phone company telling me they intend to turn on roaming for me and giving me a web address to change that. I have responded to the text that I do not want it and making me responsible for seeing it remains off wastes my time. Since I have told them (even if it is not by their method of choice) I do not want it, if they ever bill me for it their bill will be wastepaper.

    Now you might call it a nanny state but I call it one where citizens have inviolable rights.

  243. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> On some HDTVs the computer half even plugs into the monitor half with a DVI cable.

    Please list any such models, as I would like to buy one if they are high-quality, large, and discontinued.

  244. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    Where are you getting that from? I have a Samsung F6300, and they have fixed the apps via updates whenever there is an issue.

    Samsung use the same smart tv software for all their models with minor tweaks, so no reason you shouldn't have updates.

    Check avs forums for the owners thread, and more than likely there is a fix for whatever issue you are having.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  245. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    I don't care if I ever get an update on my TV. It allows me to access my NAS via DLNA, so that I can download a torrent from my phone and then quickly pull it up via a menu on my TV. Like Plex, except I don't have to pay because it's a standard, coincidentally which none of the stick devices like Chromecast support.

    The only other two apps I use are Netflix and Amazon, and I don't see either of those companies abandoning their apps anytime soon.

    It's a PC. A PC doesn't becomes useless just because it can't run the latest software.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  246. App's extremely portable... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wrote it using Borland Delphi Object Pascal http://www.embarcadero.com/pro... & thus, it can be ported to MacOS X or ANDROID *very* easily (or to Linux easily enough using FreePascal & the Lazarus IDE for it also really) - only thing's I'd have to alter would be drive letter vs. mounted devices.

    Any streaming socket code can import remote data from websites. That's *not* something "unique" to Windows alone.

    Hosts are multiplatform. Basically, this app can also EASILY be so, per the above.

    (Additionally - It wouldn't hurt to filter DNS-side, taking its data & writing it to a DENY/ALLOW dns rules table as you're thinking of doing though...)

    APK

    P.S.=> The host file you'd import & create wouldn't be mine (that's 3,465,210++ entries long, mostly blocking vs. adbanners &/or known bad domains/subdomains & took me 18++ yrs. to build it to that size - you'd end up with one that's more current data only, & around 250k worth of entries for blocking)... apk

    1. Re:App's extremely portable... apk by psyclone · · Score: 1

      What I mean is, can I just download your plain hosts file over the web? Instead of downloading your software and extracting it. Whether it's a giant 3M line file or 250k lines or smaller doesn't matter as long as it's decent. It seems like maintaining the hosts entries is the hard part!

  247. Cablevision or Aereo by tepples · · Score: 1

    "on behalf of the end user" is different from "by the end user"

    I don't see to what extent this difference matters. It's especially unclear because U.S. courts reached opposite conclusions in Cartoon Network v. Cablevision and ABC v. Aereo .

    1. Re:Cablevision or Aereo by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The problem there might be that I don't always agree with the US courts.
      There is a major difference, although it may not matter in US courts.

      I am not in the US by the way.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  248. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Gotta wonder... would Pepsi, Coke and other "name brands" really lose much business if they stopped advertising? Or would their net profit increase by not wasting $$ on ads?

    Ever heard of Moxie?

  249. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    Where are you getting that from? I have a Samsung F6300, and they have fixed the apps via updates whenever there is an issue.

    Samsung use the same smart tv software for all their models with minor tweaks, so no reason you shouldn't have updates.

    Check avs forums for the owners thread, and more than likely there is a fix for whatever issue you are having.

    OK model UN46D6050 From todays online chat...

    Xyzzzz:: The particular TV come with 2011 smart hub interface. Thus, this particular TV does not support multiple profiles in netflix app.
    Visitor: Sigh... I am disappointed. Such a fine TV matched with little or no software support. Makes me sad...
    Xyzzzz: Multiple profile option for netflix is only available in F and H series models.
    Xyzzzz: I can understand how important this is to you.
    Xyzzzz: Netflix 3.1 app is available on your TV. This updated Netflix app will allow you to use:
    Xyzzzz: Subtitles on supported movies.
    Xyzzzz: Multi-Audio Tracks on supported movies.
    Xyzzzz: 5.1 audio tracks on supported movies.
    Xyzzzz: Full HD (1080p) on supported movies
    Visitor: But not profiles?
    Xyzzzz: Yes, only for the F and H series model TV's you can see that feature.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  250. My personal hosts file isn't available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: What I DO provide is means to gather custom hosts file CURRENT data from 12 reputable & reliable sources for it in the security community... They'll give you something to build on (around 250k records of known bad sites, ads, warez, phish/spam, trackers, botnets, etc. - et al).

    * It took me since 1996 to get up to 3,465,875++ blocked entries of the types above - you'd take as long to do that (nearly 2 decades)...

    HOWEVER - you *ARE* getting good protection, since their data is ABSOLUTELY current (I work with their update files is why, smaller/faster downloads - IF you want THEIR entire hosts files? You can download them & "merge them" into what my program gathers...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Using current data is a LOT like how antivirus programs work in 'default' mode - they look for current threats mostly (not ages old stuff, & ONLY real reason my hosts file's so BIG is that I am aware of fastflux recycling/reuse of malicious sitenames hosted by new hosting providers in FASTFLUX botnets, AND, I wanted to see how FAR I could push in hosts file size before performance became adversely affected... hasn't yet, once, same speed (faster actually by not seeing ads + hardcoding my FAV sites @ the top of hosts, loaded/cached into RAM by the local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem)... apk

  251. Re:"Not intentional". Right. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    OK, yeah, that's fair. My first smart TV was a 6350 model, and it's bloody amazing.

    I bought a cheap 40 6050 and the smart tv interface was absolutely awful, I returned it because it was so slow and cumbersome.

    The 6300 series and higher though, it's fast and intuitive, and I can't imagine not having it.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.