Samsung Warns Customers To Think Twice About What They Say Near Smart TVs (theantimedia.org)

In a troubling new development in the domestic consumer surveillance debate, an investigation into Samsung Smart TVs has revealed that user voice commands are recorded, stored, and transmitted to a third party. The company even warns customers not to discuss personal or sensitive information within earshot of the device.

The new Samsung controversy stems from the discovery of a single haunting statement in the company's "privacy policy," which states: "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party."

Comments

who'd have thunk?

[The Real Dr John]

If it is a recording device, that's what it is supposed to do.

Re:who'd have thunk?

[fustakrakich]

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? The TV is not supposed to be a recording device.

Re:who'd have thunk?

[SuricouRaven]

Once again, I note the biggest error of the book 1984: It failed to anticipate the role the private sector would come to play in loss of privacy.

Re:who'd have thunk?

[DarkOx]

Well yes, but in the past voice command processing has been implemented locally. When I used to say "Open Word" to my IPAQ back in 2003, nobody at Microsoft got sent an audio clip. I grant you voice commands were highly limited, and you had to know some syntax to get anything more advanced done than launching an application. OOTH you did not need to worry your device was spying on you.

I think this is kinda of an insane position for Samsung to take. They need to find away to address the privacy concerns or make it possible for people to 'securely' disable the feature, like maybe be able to unplug the pickup mike!

Consider TVs are things people put in their living rooms and in their bed rooms. These are our most private places. I want to be able to have a conversation in my own homes without outsiders listening or even potentially listening in, I bet if you ask most customers they'd say the same thing! I even suspect if you made it a conditional like, you can either have voice activation on your TV or know we are not listening to you, suddenly voice activation would not be considered a feature.

Re:who'd have thunk?

[The Real Dr John]

Yeah, and 1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale for the public, not an instruction manual for the psychopaths running things.

Re:who'd have thunk?

[JBMcB]

They won't ban private companies collecting your data to protect your privacy, they'll ban it 'cause they don't want the competition.

Re:who'd have thunk?

[catchblue22]

Once again, I note the biggest error of the book 1984: It failed to anticipate the role the private sector would come to play in loss of privacy.

Not really. What has actually happened is that the most powerful actors in the private sector have merged with and taken over the state.

Re:who'd have thunk?

[radiumsoup]

well, that's not at all the message of the book, though, is it?

It's not a book about loss of privacy, it's a book about the evils of State suppression of free will, and government intrusion into privacy is a component of that suppression.

It's very much like saying "the biggest error of the book 1984: it failed to anticipate the role that slang would come into play in the loss of colorful language". While it might be tangentially true, it's not important enough to the message of the book for the author to address, so calling it the "biggest error" is not in any short measure hyperbole.

Re:who'd have thunk?

[Lumpy]

He gazed up at the enormous Logo. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the large screen. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished.

  He had won the victory over himself. He loved Samsung.

Re:who'd have thunk?

[SNRatio]

Time to write to your local politician.

Almost ... Time to write to your local politician and explain this applies to both the TV in their office and the TV in the office of the lobbyist that they called.

Re:who'd have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everyone else is already doing it, so it's not (as) bad when I do"

Fuck off with your weak logical fallacies.

Re: who'd have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem about that isn't that young people don't care about privacy. Actually when issues are put to them properly they are surprisingly pro-privacy.

The problem is they are technologically ignorant and don't associate, say, Facebook with spying.

Those of us who know how stuff works are more suspicious but that's BECAUSE we know how stuff works.

When I was in middle school I was lucky enough to have a 'radical' teacher who taught all of us how to read advertising. Specifically, how to spot the lies, opinions masquerading as fact, and other techniques marketers use.

I'm sure that teacher would be fired today for being anti corporate, but this is exactly what we need. Young people need to be taught the implications of tech and what (and who) is/are behind the stuff they use. Given full information most people make surprisingly good decisions. The problem is the huge number of well funded parties interested in people not knowing these things.

Re: who'd have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Error 53.

Re:who'd have thunk?

[Fjandr]

No, they'll let private companies continue to do something they are not (publicly) allowed to do themselves. Then they'll simply buy the data using taxpayer money. This is something that's been ongoing for a long time, so it should only come as a surprise to those dipping their toe into the waters of "security" politics for the very first time.

Neat!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party."

Okie doke, I'll do something to ensure that this never happens... I'll never purchase a Samsung TV.

Re:Neat!

[dinfinity]

The whole concept of a 'TV' is antiquated anyway. At this point, I actually just want to buy a display.

Pretty much all the non-display related 'features' the TV manufacturers provide in their devices are painfully obsolete and dysfunctional compared to what (some) set-top boxes provide. Considering that most of the 'smart' features are going to be either ignored or hated (either from the start or within a year), the wise decision would be to focus on creating the best displays possible.

I think I've read about this one...

[theCzechGuy]

A big screen that tells me what I should think and listens to everything I say... I'm sure I've read about this somewhere....

Problem with ALL technology

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a problem with ALL technology nowadays.

Business is under the delusion that more information collected about their customers is better - regardless of their privacy.

Thanks Big Data!

I am becoming a Luddite. Consumer technology has jumped the shark.

It's no longer about making my life better but about collecting information for business to sell us more shit.

It's all about selling. It's not some conspiracy - it's just ape brains wanting to make more money. That is all.

Amazon, Netflix, Walmart, Google, Yahoo! Microsoft, Bank of America, Chase Morgan, etc .... just want more revenue and we're just a commodity to be exploited.

It's just numbers. We're just numbers. And when we buy Samsung's and anyone else's crap, we're feeding it.

Cut the cable as much as you can. Save money and stop buying their shit. Buy basic cars without the crap. Stop buying Android and Apple products. Stop buying.

Everyone who asks for your identity tell them that you don't give that out.

Freeze your credit. It stops identity thieves (it's telling that stealing credit info is stealing an identity.) and it slows down buying crap.

Our society want us in debt. Cars, housing, education medical ... one way or another, you'll be in debt sometime.

It is much worse than that

[ewibble]

Although this is bad I would be more concerned with that internet connected recording device your pocket, that you install random software on.

George... the optimist

[fyngyrz]

Two things:

First Orwell was an optimist

Secondly, the specific concern alluded to in TFS is why one of the most important things the tech community today could accomplish is to achieve a solid voice-input capability that runs entirely locally (and is not user specific or require particular training out of the box or out of the compiler.)

Alexa, Amazon's commercial voice savant, sends very word you speak "to the cloud" which is, of course a "third party" (and potentially, a 4th, 5th... Nth party.)

Mycroft, the "open" voice savant, holding so much promise because it doesn't use Amazon's excreble model of "you must provide anticipated result phrases for everything you want to do, and set up and maintain (and probably buy) a secure server", wraps that promise in... you guessed it. Sends everything you say to "the cloud."

Both suffer from "if the net is down, I become a deaf idiot" syndrome as a side effect of the cloudy thinking that went into their design.

The day I get a real "can listen and produce cleartext locally" application (or device) is the day my home (and car, and boat) gain significant automation.

I know this issue doesn't concern a lot of people, particularly young people. The net is "always there" and privacy "WTF is privacy?"... but I think that's a function of them being young and not really understanding either the depths that some people will sink to, or the relative fragility of the network. After they've been stepped on enough, and lost their connections enough, I suspect they'll modify their stances somewhat.

Re:George... the optimist

[Burz]

Orwell and his mentor, Huxley, were trying to describe very different or even opposite dystopias. What we're ending up with is "mostly all of the above".

Re:Stopping "smart devices"

[Lumpy]

It is if my firewall is set to never allow any traffic from the TV set's mac address to leave the LAN.

If you want privacy, you need to educate yourself in the use of technology that empowers you.

Anti stalker labeling

[WaffleMonster]

What is needed are mandatory privacy related (non)compliance labels or central clearinghouse where consumers can quickly check the creep factor of products they are about to purchase.

The problem is rarely people don't care about these issues. Nobody wants conversations conducted in their private homes uploaded to the Internet.

The problem is exclusively lack of visibility. Consumers simply have no idea or no options. If companies can no longer get away with hiding bullshit under the radar it shall either pressure them to change behavior or create a market for new entrants to fill demand.

This is really no different than energy efficiency labeling. Without it nobody knows and inefficient hardware costs the manufacturer nothing. With it and widespread consumer recognition efficiency becomes a selling point that costs the manufacturer market share.

Re:Dumb TV

[Master Moose]

The problem with this is the purchase.

Buying a "Smart TV" whether you plan to connect it or not provides sales data to the retailer and manufacturer that people indeed want T.Vs with these functions.

Its positive reinforcement by those protesting the cause - Like everyone that buys a Windows P.C. only to wipe windows and install an alternate OS. HP and Microsoft have just received your $$

Software nonfreedom says we don't know details.

[jbn-o]

You have no idea when it records; "it records only when recognising voice" is an assertion that goes beyond what you know. Anytime nonfree (user-subjugating, proprietary) software is in control of a computer, that computer is not really under the user's control and we can't tell what it will do or when. That's the power of the proprietor at work.

Trackers (aka cell phones or mobile phones), most people's laptop computers, and now some TVs, all have microphones in them under the control of proprietary software. There's simply no way to tell when the mic is active, where the data is going, or to get consent that the recording only goes where the user wants it to go. Privacy policies change, software updates happen (and sometimes without user control or vetting), and software behavior doesn't always conform to stated policies (not that the user would have any chance to know what proprietary software is doing anyhow). The same applies to cameras, GPS units, tracker/cell phone towers, and more.

Ultimately regardless of whether the policy matches how the software works, when the device is under the control of nonfree software that device is a threat to a user's privacy and users are not in control of the device.

Not 1984

[ArchieBunker]

The world is more like the movie Brazil. Trying to be like 1984 but failing due to incompetence.