Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vizio Settles With FTC, Will Pay $2.2 Million and Delete User Data (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on from the paying-the-price dept.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today announced that smart TV maker Vizio has agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle a case involving the TVs' data collection techniques. From a report on VentureBeat: Vizio allegedly collected data on what people viewed on 11 million of its TVs and then shared the data with third parties, without informing people about the data collection or receiving consent. As part of the settlement with the FTC and the New Jersey Attorney General, Vizio must also delete data that it collected prior to March 1, 2016, and implement a data privacy program that is to be evaluated twice a year, according to a statement. The commission voted 3-0 in favor of the ruling, according to the statement.

44 comments

  1. profit by schneidafunk · · Score: 5, Informative

    And how much did they profit from selling that data?

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:profit by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      And how much did they profit from selling that data?

      Also, what about the person that ordered this to be done? What about the person that followed that order? "My boss told me to do it" is not a legitimate defense. What about the companies that bought the data? They should also suffer some consequences.

      Part of that $2.2 million should go to a whistleblower fund, to reward people that report this sort of behavior in other companies.

    2. Re:profit by spamking · · Score: 1

      And how much did they profit from selling that data?

      Also, what about the person that ordered this to be done? What about the person that followed that order? "My boss told me to do it" is not a legitimate defense. What about the companies that bought the data? They should also suffer some consequences.

      Part of that $2.2 million should go to a whistleblower fund, to reward people that report this sort of behavior in other companies.

      Exactly.

    3. Re:profit by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "My boss told me to do it" is not a legitimate defense.

      What? As a programmer, you expect *ME* to consult a lawyer for everything I'm told to do, and then follow up with the manufacturing to make sure they actually deliver whatever privacy notice may be required? Lol.

    4. Re:profit by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      What about the person that followed that order? "My boss told me to do it" is not a legitimate defense.

      Well, I think it depends on how it was done. It doesn't sound like the data collected was illegal per se, just the fact that it was done with no proper EULA notification/etc. The programmer shouldn't be responsible for implementing the necessary legal notifications for every new feature, at least in my opinion...for a company with two programmers, sure, they're at fault, but for one with many programmers and many departments, it's a different story.

    5. Re:profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a programmer, you program whatever.

      Someone deployed this.

      Collecting data may be ok, if people consent to it. so writing software for it is not bad by itself. Deploying a spy device without telling anyone - now that gets you the big lawsuits. Whoever did that, knowing there was no consent, is to blame. And to have his home and bank account and yacht confiscated - and so on.

    6. Re:profit by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      that's a mighty slippery slope you've got there...

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    7. Re:profit by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      What? As a programmer, you expect *ME* to consult a lawyer for everything I'm told to do

      1. If you are told to do something that you KNOW is illegal, or something that you SHOULD KNOW is illegal, then you should be liable for the consequences. "Following orders" is not a legitimate defense.
      2. You do not need to "consult a lawyer" to know what is legal and illegal. If you are told to do something shady, a Google search of a few relevant terms will bring up enough information for you to tell your boss, IN WRITING, that his request may be illegal.

    8. Re:profit by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      2. You do not need to "consult a lawyer" to know what is legal and illegal.

      Really? You have every law ever written memorized and every prescident ever ruled on? And you did this without 4 years in law school and 10 more years researching? That is impressive. More likely you are just extremely naive.

      How and what you do is more often than not legal or illegal depending on how it is applied and where. No way in hell could any programmer writing code ever do anything productive if we had to research the ramifications of every change we are told to make and try to apply it to every jurisdiction on the planet and then write a 100 page paper outlining all the ways in which such change could possibly be used for "evil".

      But since I have you here, and you are such a law expert, which LAW exactly is it that you believe that Vizio broke by sending back telemetry on it's application usage? Just to make it simple, I'll let you assume the jurisdiction is the United States.

    9. Re:profit by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Really? You have every law ever written memorized and every prescident ever ruled on?

      No. But I know what "Google" is, and I know how to type. I also have enough common sense to know the sort of things that may be illegal, and I should take 30 seconds or so to check. If you are a programmer, and you work with customer data, you should have a basic idea of what you cannot legally do with that data.

    10. Re:profit by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Good, then in 30 seconds please tell me which law was violated here.

  2. Define "delete" by thomn8r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you think they are really going to "delete" the data, I have a bridge to sell you... It's been sold/rented/spindled/mutilated several times by now...

    1. Re:Define "delete" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if we can do the very same regarding cell phones & PCs....

      It's *our* bandwidth, not yours!

    2. Re:Define "delete" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody prevents you from putting a firewall on your phone - at least not on android. Apps don't get to phone home, so they either believe the network is never up & live with it, or they fail and get uninstalled.

      For PCs this is trivial - just don't run any microsoft stuff. Which is easily avoided.

  3. Vizio by nwf · · Score: 1

    I was in the market for a TV last year and this sort of stuff is why I ruled out Vizio immediately. Everyone wants to compete on price so they have to make it up somewhere else. Pretty sure we'll soon be paying a subscription for the content AND the TV you watch it on. Well, some people will, not me. I'm watching less and less on TV each year.

    --
    I don't know, but it works for me.
    1. Re:Vizio by LasVeganLucy · · Score: 0

      Just don't connect it to your router. Problem solved.

    2. Re:Vizio by geek · · Score: 2

      I was in the market for a TV last year and this sort of stuff is why I ruled out Vizio immediately. Everyone wants to compete on price so they have to make it up somewhere else. Pretty sure we'll soon be paying a subscription for the content AND the TV you watch it on. Well, some people will, not me. I'm watching less and less on TV each year.

      I recently bought a Samsung. I would have gone the cheaper Vizio route but this issue held me off. Samsung isn't necessarily better but at least they tell you ahead of time in the terms and you can simply not connect it to the internet if you so wish. Vizio was deceptive and unrepentant about it. That lost them a sale from me.

      That said, I do like the online features of my Samsung but I can see this getting very heavy handed in the future where it simply wont work without an internet connection.

    3. Re:Vizio by nwf · · Score: 1

      I recently bought a Samsung. I would have gone the cheaper Vizio route but this issue held me off. Samsung isn't necessarily better but at least they tell you ahead of time in the terms and you can simply not connect it to the internet if you so wish. Vizio was deceptive and unrepentant about it. That lost them a sale from me.

      And indeed, that's what I purchased. I didn't realize until later that viewing most Samsung's off-axis results in a terrible picture. I'm not happy about that, but it's too late now. And their upscaling of non-1080p content is significantly worse than my 10 year old Sony, which is frustrating. But it's not a Vizio, so that's a plus.

      I haven't set up any of their "smart" stuff since it's mostly useless as far as I can tell. I have enough devices that can play Netflix and Amazon video connected already, I really don't need one more. So far I have an old Bluray player, PS3, PS4, Tivo and AppleTV. All of which can play video from those sources and others.

      OLED screens are down a lot and I'd likely get one of those now if I were in the market.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    4. Re:Vizio by nwf · · Score: 1

      Just don't connect it to your router. Problem solved.

      That doesn't fix their ethics "problem", unfortunately. What other sketchy things have they done?

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    5. Re:Vizio by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That doesn't fix their ethics "problem", unfortunately. What other sketchy things have they done?

      All the same shit all the other vendors are doing. The difference is one of degree, and it is minor.

      Personally, I'll pay a premium to get a dumb TV. I bought right before LED backlights became ubiquitous, which coincidentally is also the time right before "smart" televisions did the same, so I didn't have to. Indeed, at the time "just a television" was still cheaper.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Vizio by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just don't connect it to your router. Problem solved.

      No. That does NOT solve the "problem". I don't particularly care if anyone sees my viewing habits, because the worst that could happen is that they die of boredom. What I care about is living in a pervasive surveillance state, where no one can be assured of privacy in any aspect of their lives. A solution that only works for the tiny minority that are diligent and informed does not solve that problem.

    7. Re:Vizio by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      From what im told, the newest Vizio TVs require you to use your mobile device to fully configure it.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:Vizio by ControlsGeek · · Score: 1

      Only because it lets them get your phone number, location, and contacts data.

    9. Re:Vizio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've been in the pervasive surveillance state for twenty years now. I try to tell friends and family what the internets are doing, along with their set top box, credit card company, and Safeway Rewards card membership.

      I tell the Big Data aggregates all that info and uses it against them, to set higher insurance rates, to sway their political opinions.

      I tell the the NSA knows who they call and why and when and what they chat about. That their cell phone company tracks their movement, that department stores track them while they wander through/

      I tell them that someday this information will be used against them by the government, and depending who's in office, a Dem or a Repub, they may not like it.

      But free stuff!

    10. Re:Vizio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a recent purchaser of a new Vizio this is not completely accurate. The new models rely on Chromecast from your mobile device to play any "smart" features.

      This is totally not required and is a benefit for some of us because it as close to a dumb TV as you can get.

    11. Re:Vizio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like law enforcement has used people's pacemaker data against them in arson cases?

    12. Re:Vizio by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the personal experience. I get how someone could infer you need a mobile to use it because of Chromecast being built-in and prominent.

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

      Unless you really want a literal dumb screen (even many who claim they do, really do not), it's pretty much required for setup.

      But after that, you can choose to never run the horrific Vizio configuration app ever again, and you certainly don't need it to cast with.

  4. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Doesn't every company do this?

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other people doing it too doesn't make it okay.

    2. Re:Huh? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Doesn't every company do this?

      No. I am sure some do, but that is illegal. Others give notice, or even ask for consent. Others sell anonymized data. Others, such as Google, do not sell personal data, but instead do the advertising directly on behalf of their clients. That is legal.

  5. Who is dumb enough not task permission? by hey! · · Score: 0

    The vast majority of people will sign away anything just to make a page of legalese disappear.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Who is dumb enough not task permission? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Which in a sane world would not constitute a meeting of the minds, and would be ruled an invalid contract.

      --
      Good-bye
  6. I wish I had been aware of this. by mmell · · Score: 1

    Now Vizio will be able to tell that I'm a rabid Star Trek fan. Also, Farscape, Firefly and Lexx.

    1. Re:I wish I had been aware of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A rabid Lexx fan ? There's a special government watch-list just for us.

      All 3 of us, actually.

    2. Re:I wish I had been aware of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make that 4. At least we are smart enough to post anon. Hmmm... after they pick up mmell, then we'll be back to 3.

  7. But if you ask... by wbr1 · · Score: 2

    But if you ask permission... buried in subparagraph 52a, section c page 382, of an on screen EULA with an easy accept (whether you read it or not) button, all is somehow okay.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  8. Re:Vizio is full of war criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this irc channel doesnt exist. on any of the real networks.

  9. Compensation for folks who purchased Vizio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the compensation to the users? Or folks who contacted Vizio and provided personal information?
    Simply and only paying the government is what is called a bribe to due business, but since the government has a lot of power it is really extortion

  10. Only $2.2 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Normally, fines in the US are ridiculously high. Why not in this case? They illegally gathered and sold 11 million people's data. The fine is not proportionate to the offence.

    Is Vizio an American company? I hadn't heard of them before.

  11. Vizio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this company nobody ever heard of supposedly sold (at least) 11 million televisions without anyone noticing? Sounds a bit fishy.