Slashdot Mirror
Ads May Soon Stalk You on TV Like They Do on Your Facebook Feed (bloomberg.com)
Targeted ads that seem to follow us everywhere online may soon be doing the same on our TV. From a report: The Federal Communications Commission is poised to approve a new broadcast standard that will let broadcasters do something cable TV companies already do: harvest data about what you watch so advertisers can customize pitches. The prospect alarms privacy advocates, who say there are no rules setting boundaries for how broadcasters handle personal information. The FCC doesn't mention privacy in the 109-page proposed rule that is scheduled for a vote by commissioners Thursday. "If the new standard allows broadcasters to collect data in a way they haven't before, I think consumers should know about that," Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, said in an interview. "What privacy protections will apply to that data, and what security protections?" For broadcasters, Next Gen TV represents an advance into the digital world that for decades has been siphoning viewers away to the likes of Facebook, Netflix, Google's YouTube and Amazon's Prime video service.
Can we please have Tom Wheeler back?
WTF is a "facebook feed"?
ATSC 1.0 works without an Internet connection for two-way communication. Sounds like its replacement will require each TV to be a connected device. This actually takes away a major advantage of over-the-air TV: that it's free and available without Internet.
If every TV will need Internet, then people might as well just watch Amazon or Netflix online -- over-the-air broadcasters are actually putting themselves out of business.
Me? I'll be at the Pirate Bay or enjoying theater and concerts in real life if this happens. No way that I'll ever allow a connected device with camera, screen, and mic into my home (aka a Telescreen from 1984).
I have a friend that works there that was all excited about being able to provide targeted TV ads, just like they do with internet advertising. I was like, dude, I'll cancel. Seriously.
Whenever there is nothing on TV (like, say, 99% of the time) my TV is basically a computer display for various things from entertainment to man pages, i.e. whatever the tuner is tuned to, I don't know.
To make matters worse, my remote is kinda wonky and sometimes changes channels by itself, which is why I keep it pointing to the wall whenever I watch TV (or rather, whenever it changes the channels because I forgot, change it back to what I wanted to see and THEN point it to the wall). So it's quite possible I "watch" Spongebob and Big Boobs Bazinga back to back.
Now profile THAT!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Something that "Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley" makes clear when Facebook set up their advertising system. They can track you whether you're logged in or not and associate what little they do know about you with third-party demographic data to create a comprehensive profile. TV advertisers want to do the same.
A large, slow monitor that comes with useless spare parts built inside.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And I'm at peace with that. I'll start learning how to play the guitar or something with my limited time on earth.
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...
Make sure they hear about it -- privacy is important, turning all TVs into IoT devices is stupid...
I'll just find something else to do.
We have a TV capable of being connected to the network/Internet. It's not connected and never will be. As far as I'm concerned the TV is a display device. It shouldn't be connected to anything, if I do connect anything it'll be some other device that I can disconnect and remove from the entertainment center if it proves to be a problem down the road.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I find these 'targeted ads' are either for something I've bought already, or for the exact same thing that I just looked at and didn't buy because I have already decided against it. In either case, I don't see how it is helping anyone.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Additionally, this would allow the broadcasters to charge fees directly to the viewers in order to watch OTA programs. So if you went OTA in order to avoid monthly cable subscription fees, kiss those days goodbye. You too will be charged the monthly $8 ESPN tax.
You mean, like use a versioning system that doesn't bother to respect major/minor/maintenance numbering?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Don't forget the wonderful security we've seen in internet-connected devices....
cable / satellite systems with DVR can add ad's locally and cable can also at them at the headend. SDV cable systems can maybe even have 2-3 copy's of the same channel with different ad's.
"If you're gonna kick me at least do it somewhere it doesn't hurt?"
Fuck that.
Who is going to buy this new hardware? Seems like people dragged their feet just to bother to get HD OTA, let alone something else.
If every TV will need Internet..
..then I won't be watching TV anymore, at all.
Kodi and other services will still exist -- just use the TV as an HDMI display and skip the ads :) Exactly what the broadcasters want, right -- more people being pushed towards "ad free" versions of their content.
It'll be great fun, watching football on Thanksgiving with a bunch of friends, when suddenly, my holiday shopping for my wife causes my personalized ads to show up at halftime. Good times, good times...
Check your premises.
...I cut the cord a long time ago.
If you watch Hulu, YouTube or even pay for CBS All Access - you're getting targetted ads in the shows (even if you pay extra with Hulu)
Netflix and Amazon PRIME don't do this so much (as such - you still get ads in the menus) but it's just a matter of time before they do.
That's "TV" today - Grandpa!
That's not what it is tho.
Additional features will be available to internet connected devices like smart tvs but internet is not going to be required for basic reception.
Otherwise it would defeat the purpose of us even having a broadcast television network.
What they want is accurate viewer numbers but what they are going to find is they are only going to be able to get reports from homes with both internet and a smart tv.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Honestly, if it gets so stupid that they actually force something like this on everyone, then I'm not going to be inclined to do a lot of extra work just to pirate every goddamned thing I might want to see, I'd just chuck the whole thing and read more books (paper books, mind you) or do something else. Or get more much-needed sleep, I guess, or maybe (shocking idea!) actually be more sociable with real, live people, in real, face-to-face settings. I dumped cable about 10 years ago and have used an antenna since then, if they're going to fuck everything up by forcing more ads on me then I'm DONE with it.
Exactly what data are they collecting that they already aren't, and how are they supposed to get it? I sit the couch and watch tv. As does my family. There is no way of knowing which of us is doing it, if we even really are in the room. We don't interact with it other than channel surfing. All stuff they can already gather.
I get it, the big picture is somehow they'll know your fridge is out of coke and they'll suddenly morph in sparkling cans of coke on every table in the restaurant that happens to be on tv. Fat chance. In the baby steps of even dreaming such a scenario I just don't get how they even get out of the starting gate in any meaningful way.
... will consist of two channels - one having re-runs of Jersey Shore, the other with the 11 o'clock news on an hour's repeating loop.
I will stop watching TV like I stopped using Facebook.
I live in an old apartment building -- thick masonry walls make for poor reception, so the phone is in airplane mode most of the time.
Otherwise, it eats battery trying to get a signal. Want to call me? Do so on my landline with "2500" phone!
Also, the mic in most phones is directional and awful for picking up sound from a distance. The cameras? They have a nice shot of the ceiling if the phone is laid flat to charge.
IoT junk with mics and cameras, on the other hand, is DESIGNED to listen.
My whole family stays connected on one platform - Apple iMessage.
We don't use Facebook, and most of us don't watch TV.
I really doubt we're alone. There's too much to do and TV is a waste of time.
Occasionally we'll fire up Netflix, but there's the iPads and PCs for that.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
There's always "that guy" in every thread about traditional TV, and I guess this time it'll be me. But seriously; how many folks still slave themselves to the device? There are so many better options of consuming even TV based content ( like waiting for it on streaming venues ).
Haven't had traditional cable in over a decade, and I certainly don't miss it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I'm anti-freedom. One of the proper functions of government is to keep corporations on a tight leash and restrict their ability to violate customers' privacy. Otherwise, all corporations will violate customers' privacy -- there simply isn't enough of a market for privacy unless it's created by force.
The issue isn't ads. The issue is customer data collection (aka privacy theft).
They need demographic data to target ads. They'll know what you're watching, WHEN you're watching. Possibly what is going on in your home via a smart TV's camera.
The media companies will be able to build a detailed profile of when you're home, how long, how much free time you have, etc. Depending on how this is set up, it might be anonymous, but it might also be tied to a name and address.
I'm anti-freedom. One of the proper functions of government is to keep corporations on a tight leash and restrict their ability to violate customers' privacy.
In general, one of the functions of Government is to ensure that one can exercise their rights *and* not infringe on the rights of others. Both Conservatives and Liberals are guilty of forgetting and/or ignoring that.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Look, I am a huge privacy guy, but I am also a huge freedom guy. If you have a problem with your TV spying on you, use a different TV or provider. Or ditch the TV; who needs one in 2017 with the internet available? No one is forcing you to use these services.
That's fine as long as you have that option, but if spying TV's earn the maker more money, then the non-spying TV's will become harder and harder to find at any price.
I use my TV mainly to watch movies, it's hard to find an affordable 60" panel that's not also a "smart TV".
It does; minor version number is always zero.
"there simply isn't enough of a market for privacy" in other words, most people don't care as much as you do and you want to force them to care anyway
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Sounds like its replacement will require each TV to be a connected device.
Not necessarily for cable subscribers. They need to have decoders -- either from the cable company or a third-party, like TiVo -- which can be used to track what you're watching - or, at least, tuned to. In many cases customers also need a SDV controller, so even if you have a third-party device, the cable company can track your tuning habits.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The only thing I'm interested in when a commercial is displayed is pushing the MUTE button and doing something else for the duration. There are NO ads that are relevant to me.
I've never owned a new house, car, computer, I generally buy household goods based on the ingredient list and what's cheapest on sale.
... the money spent every month on cable subscriptions could buy a lot of DVD and Blu-ray discs.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Still a lot of parts of the US with spotty cell service, so the TV will have to work (to some extent) without it. Icepick through the antenna cable (or just disconnect it), and voila! disconnected TV!
I "cut the cord" 20 years ago, and this is exactly what I've been waiting for all this time to come back! I want ads that give me that same creepy feeling when my boyfriend somehow knows I've been talking to my brother's friends lately. Without that, what's the point of watching?
Sign me up! I can't wait to wait until a specified time that a show "airs" so I can enjoy that wonderful feeling again. Screw streaming, they never stalked me properly anyway.
"What privacy protections will apply to that data, and what security protections?"
None, and none.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Most people don't care about eating healthy food. Should we abandon all food safety standards?
Yep. It's not like this type of behavior would end up significantly increase cord cutting or anything.
My refrigerator already rats me out every time I get up for a drink
I don't have Facebook. This is why. It's also why I don't have television.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Well said, AC.
I want 0 advertisements in my life. Information? Sure. But nobody wants to provide that most of the time. Go figure Amazon is eating people's lunch in that regard.
Advertisers are an expert in what they need to sell to make a profit, but they are not an expert in what I need. But 95% of ads somehow think they know what I need. How does that work? Convince me that I'm broken, and sell me the cure. Too fat, to ugly, too unpopular, sad, and slow. Everything I have is old and out-of-date, I'm stuck in the stone age, getting left behind. And only you can save me, if I just give you a small amount of my hard earned money.
Fuck that con.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
The issue is customer data collection (aka privacy theft).
This. It's nobodys business what I'm watching, and I don't want anyone 'profiling' me for any reason. It's bad enough that I can't be walking around in public without leaving a trail of video surveillance, I'll be damned if I'm going to sit in my own home and be 'monitored' for any reason. It would make me feel like I'm some sort of criminal under house arrest. The only thing that would be worse is having to wear an ankle monitor (..and no, I don't have a smartphone or use social media either, for similar reasons).
Gee, I find your attitude totally disingenuous considering that you're posting as ANONYMOUS COWARD and not logged in using your REAL NAME. What's the matter AC, do you have something to hide from everyone, hmmm?
Taboola Ads Suck Adam Singolda.
I use my TV mainly to watch movies, it's hard to find an affordable 60" panel that's not also a "smart TV".
If you don't watch broadcast TV, they won't have any data to collect on you. If you use your TV to watch movies and want to keep that fact a secret, don't tell the world by posting to /.
ATSC 1.0 works without an Internet connection for two-way communication.
You have an interesting, and wrong, definition of "two".
I don't get paid enough for my share to contribute to this industry by having to watch those ads, so no TV.
Still working on popups and other nuisances on the web - HEY, where is my cut on this?
If you are willing to pay for your preference and forego content that doesn't give you that option, great!
I use my TV mainly to watch movies, it's hard to find an affordable 60" panel that's not also a "smart TV".
If you don't watch broadcast TV, they won't have any data to collect on you. If you use your TV to watch movies and want to keep that fact a secret, don't tell the world by posting to /.
We live in a world where our phones can identify music playing nearby, yet you think a smart TV is incapable of identifying a movie based on some audio/video signature?
Who cares if your affordable 60" panel is also a smart TV? You don't need to tell it your wifi password in order to watch movies.
How do I know Xfinity hasn't whitelisted it (for "convenience") on their network so it can automatically connect to any nearby Xfinity Wifi network, no password required?
yet you think a smart TV is incapable of identifying a movie based on some audio/video signature?
Non-sequitor. If you don't watch broadcast TV, then your "smart TV" isn't going to be hearing anything from broadcast TV and won't be able to collect data about what OTA TV you are watching. If you want the fact that you watch movies on your TV to be secret, don't tell us. We are notoriously bad at keeping your secrets.
yet you think a smart TV is incapable of identifying a movie based on some audio/video signature?
Non-sequitor. If you don't watch broadcast TV, then your "smart TV" isn't going to be hearing anything from broadcast TV and won't be able to collect data about what OTA TV you are watching. If you want the fact that you watch movies on your TV to be secret, don't tell us. We are notoriously bad at keeping your secrets.
You missed my point -- obviously the TV can't report broadcast shows that I've watched if I'm not watching them, but the TV can still report on movies... and it can further report on movies that were played without industry approved HDCP DRM on the HDMI input, which surely means that I must have pirated them.
False equivalence. Safety =/= healthy. All people want SAFE food. Which is why we have food safety requirement. Most people care less about healthy, which is why food health requirements do not exist.
I just love it when I pay $25 for a dvd to be treated to 10 minutes of why I wouldn't steal a car so I shouldn't buy dvds and then advertising for all the other crap movies the company made that I don't want to watch. /s
Why doesn't netflix treat me like a criminal when I watch a movie online? (ignoring vpn usage for the comments sake)
As for libraries thats a great tip although you will find most libraries have an online library offering ebooks with a much larger selection.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Sure am. I am baffled that people tolerate being abused by advertisers in exchange for free or cheaper entertainment.
Now, if you're fine being told you're a fatty with a limp dick who needs to pay someone to fix those issues, that's fine with me. I'll happily let you subsidize my entertainment. When I have to choose to either forego it or pay for it myself, I'll be forced to make one of those decisions.
What I've already decided is that I'm not ok with advertisers lying to me and abusing me. They're no longer allowed to scream at me based on their past behavior.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
ATSC 3.0 will be delivered over-the-air, just like 1.0. The difference is the signal is based on "internet protocol" for reasons that make it easy for any device (tablet, phone) to receive the signals. Also, ATSC 3.0 is designed for two-way communication. What is interesting is how they plan on doing this. Turns out there may be plans to have what is called a "Dedicated Return Channel" (DRC), which is a separate frequency that the TV uses to transmit data to the broadcast station. DRC can be read about here: https://www.atsc.org/candidate... If this turns out to be true, it's essentially a "free" over-the-air quasi internet connection controlled and limited by the broadcast station. This is a pretty significant detail.
But if the "smart tv" functionality isn't connected to the internet, how would it report back anything?
Just never connect the TV to the internet....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
How do I know Xfinity hasn't whitelisted it (for "convenience") on their network
How do you know that Comcast hasn't broken into your house and installed a camera in your bathroom? Have you checked recently?
so it can automatically connect to any nearby Xfinity Wifi network, no password required?
Because in about five minutes some wily hacker will have sniffed the WiFi traffic and posted full information about how to get free WiFi by pretending to be hawguy's TV.
They're hacking password-protected WiFi, so why would nobody be interested in hacking password-less WiFi that is available on a wide scale?
Banning trans fats doesn't make food healthy. It makes food safer. Your Cheetos are still junk food, whether they have trans fat or not.
I'd like to know how they plan to target ads at me when I don't watch.
And when I browse, both mobile and on my PC I use ad blockers. So there.
Corporatism != Free Market
Why are you using a wifi router provided by your ISP?
If that seems like a strange question, then maybe this'll help you figure it out: why does your ISP provide a wifi router?
Oh, right: they do it to fuck you. So why do you use it? Oh, right: you don't.
Think about what you just suggested. You think your wifi router may be a trojan horse, a deliberate attack by a hostile party whose job is to exfiltrate data from you. This is your opinion, not mine (though I think you might be right). WTF ARE YOU DOING, LETTING THAT THING ON YOUR NETWORK?/
If your TV and wifi router are conspiring against you, and if you also happen to know about this, then you're responsible. You're not getting spied on; you are knowingly leaking.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
This is the real headline, in my opinion.
I just love it when I pay $25 for a dvd to be treated to 10 minutes of why I wouldn't steal a car
Every time I hear this kind of thing it takes a few minutes before I remember that some folks don't use simple tools like mplayer to watch DVDs and subject themselves to the lock-in of a DVD player and mandatory menus and crap.
The only time I see such ads is when I'm trying to find the content tracks, and then only a second or two.
That's not true. Many people care about healthy food, but they may not be able to afford it, or they're not educated enough about what foods are healthy and which ones aren't.
And food safety standards aren't about healthy food, they're about safe food. Glazed donuts produced according to food safety standards are relatively safe to eat (they're not going to result in your death in a few minutes), but they're certainly not "healthy". Food safety standards are about making sure your food isn't contaminated with actual poisons, that it isn't spoiled, etc. They aren't about making sure you eat healthy foods.
Wrong. Trans fats aren't going to kill you, or make you horribly ill, the way e.coli poisoning for instance could. Long-term, they're bad for you, like any other unhealthy food.
Cheetos without trans fats are still not healthy, but they're healthier than Cheetos with trans fats. "Healthiness" in food isn't a binary condition. Some junk food isn't quite as bad as others.
The trans-fat ban is about making our unhealthy foods not-as-unhealthy. It's a good law. It's not as good as somehow getting everyone to eat lots of fresh vegetables and forgo sugary foods (good luck with that), but it will improve public health long-term, and importantly, it's something feasible. There's no reason trans fats need to be in anything; they're only there because some food makers were cutting costs.
yet you think a smart TV is incapable of identifying a movie based on some audio/video signature?
It's quite impossible for this to actually work if the TV isn't connected to the network. The solution therefore is simple: don't give the TV your Wifi password.
You don't need to tell it your wifi password in order to watch movies.
That may not be correct; I've read about some smart TVs that actually wouldn't work until they were connected to the internet.
"enjoying theater and concerts in real life if this happens"
So you're still supporting them.
You've gone full-baka.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
https://www.federalregister.go...
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tentatively determined that partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), which are the primary dietary source of industrially-produced trans fatty acids, or trans fat, are not generally recognized as safe
No, I mean concerts and live theater that are unlikely to be broadcast.
Just never connect the TV to the internet....
But then I'd have to use a Chromecast to watch Netflix! I'd have to switch inputs!
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
"Ads May Soon Stalk You on TV Like They Do on Your Facebook Feed"
Ad executives may find I'll be stalking them, just like in that movie "The Purge".
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
In the meantime, no one cares about Netflix, Youtube, and others knowing exactly what your are watching and when ...
Netflix, yes. Youtube doesn't require you to ID yourself -- run it in a private window, don't give Google your credit card info.
You think your wifi router may be a trojan horse, a deliberate attack by a hostile party whose job is to exfiltrate data from you. This is your opinion, not mine (though I think you might be right). WTF ARE YOU DOING, LETTING THAT THING ON YOUR NETWORK?/
I trust my ISP and my Wifi router+firewall. However, since my house is not a Faraday cage, there's nothing stopping my TV from seeing the half dozen XFinity nearby Wifi networks from my neighbors.
Either way, the content of the commercials is irrelevant.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
WRONG: The problem that currently we have defined corporations as people and thus worthy of similar protections as 'other' citizens. However, corporations are by law required to be bound by the sole motivation of profits over anything, and consume far more resources than real people. Further, real people have other needs beyond profit that provides a social check and balance.
Cut the WiFi antenna cable in the TV. If it uses the antenna input for WiFi, stick a filter on it that excludes 2.4/5GHz signals.
I trust my ISP and my Wifi router+firewall.
Why? Your ISP is a company that actually has access to your data. And if you trust your WiFi, then why are you worried about WiFi systems that your TV won't connect to? Do you really believe that Comcast has hacked into your TV to program it to always seek a Comcast WiFi router in preference to the best signal -- from your own, trusted router?
there's nothing stopping my TV from seeing the half dozen XFinity nearby Wifi networks from my neighbors.
Other than the fact that it would connect to yours first (strongest signal), distance, and your failure to wrap it in tinfoil. If you are so scared that Comcast is spying on what movies you watch, why haven't you put a Faraday cage around your TV?
I don't disagree with you, but your comment has nothing to do with mine and I don't really see where our comments are in conflict, so settle down.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I've read about some smart TVs that actually wouldn't work until they were connected to the internet.
Return it, it is clearly broken. Or, let it connect until it is happy and then cut the cable.
Well sure if your using a computer but if you are using any commercially available DVD/bluray player as the person I replied to suggested it sucks.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
I don't see any ads on TV at all. I record OTA programming with ads stripped out via script, rip my media and strip ads, and do same with content I borrow to watch.
Twinstiq, game news
TV?
Oh, you mean that big monitor in my living room for my game consoles and netflix. That does other stuff too?
I trust my ISP and my Wifi router+firewall.
Why? Your ISP is a company that actually has access to your data. And if you trust your WiFi, then why are you worried about WiFi systems that your TV won't connect to? Do you really believe that Comcast has hacked into your TV to program it to always seek a Comcast WiFi router in preference to the best signal -- from your own, trusted router?
No, as I said before -- why would they need to hack into the TV when they can just pay Samsung to offer it as a "feature" -- "We'll pay you $xx for every TV to install our content monitoring software, as an added bonus, your customers that already have XFinity wifi won't even need to manually connect it to our network, it will happen automatically! And we'll share the data we collect with you!"
It's a win-win for Samsung & Xfinity, they get valuable data about their customers, and customers get easy access to online features in the TV.
there's nothing stopping my TV from seeing the half dozen XFinity nearby Wifi networks from my neighbors.
Other than the fact that it would connect to yours first (strongest signal), distance, and your failure to wrap it in tinfoil. If you are so scared that Comcast is spying on what movies you watch, why haven't you put a Faraday cage around your TV?
Why would a TV that's programmed to connect to an Xfinity wifi network try to connect to my network, which has a completely separate name?
Cable and satellite companies know what the fuck you're doing with your connection.
Notice that all the boxes say, "Digital."
What the hell did you think that meant?
And, when you use cable and satellite, the Internet is just a thin film away.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
ATSC 3.0 offers better reception and uses modern codecs.
Broadcasters can easily double number of channels and do so with much higher quality with less user effort (installing and positioning antennas) needed for reliable reception.
ATSC 3.0 does not require Internet connectivity to work. At least it is not required by the specification.
There is all kinds of crap ATSC 3.0 is capable of doing that would in my view be really bad:
Worst possible and perhaps most likely scenario is inclusion of "return channel" (DRC) transmitters into television sets turning them into two way bugs.
Followed by encrypted content and related plays at turning OTA into a subscription service or somehow forcing Internet access to get encryption key for data collection/stalking purposes. I personally think the likelihood of this occurring is slim.
Suspect features to push ads over a logically separate channel from the mpeg stream won't ever be used for the simple fact it will be too easy to configure receivers to ignore.
Non-sequitor. If you don't watch broadcast TV, then your "smart TV" isn't going to be hearing anything from broadcast TV and won't be able to collect data about what OTA TV you are watching. If you want the fact that you watch movies on your TV to be secret, don't tell us
Has already been demonstrated source of content is irrelevant.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-event...
The only point of relevance is whether TV can find a communication channel such as open WiFi, ISP hotspots, Bluetooth, Ethernet over HDMI or directly integrated LTE / DRC.
We have already seen television vendors behave unethically and unlawfully going through extraordinary technical lengths to spy on their customers. It is approaching impossible to purchase a TV without a WiFi transceiver built in.
I recommend returning it. If everyone did that, it would cost the TV maker a fortune and they'd stop doing it.
We're talking about over-the-air TV, not paid cable and satellite TV (aka, big waste of $).
You spend a couple of minutes wandering through the menus to find the Wifi diagnostics page and see if it got an IP address. Unless you think that there are two wifi cards in the TV with one connecting completely hidden from you.
If you really want to prevent it ever getting an address by accident if an open AP wanders into range, set the mode to static, set the address to 127.1.2.3/31 and watch it trying to arp a non-existent gateway.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
So this does not affect the rest of the world ... welcome to a word where once again we have better TV standards than the USA
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Then they'd better pay for my internet, we're not going to be setting up WiFi hotspots and switching the TV to the phone of whoever's home at any given time
This also cements internet as a utility
Twinstiq, game news
Why not an Amazon FireTV or Roku?
The speed and responsiveness of smart tv's for apps (streaming and otherwise) are pretty abysmal....best to use an external media box that the "smart apps" anyway.
But for OTA television reception...you don't need any internet connectivity at all.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Why not an Amazon FireTV or Roku?
Sure, why not? Do those offer me advantages over my Chromecast? I can cast Plex, Netflix, Pandora, and YouTube all from my phone. Or mirror my phone's display. I don't know what else I'd want.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
You spend a couple of minutes wandering through the menus to find the Wifi diagnostics page and see if it got an IP address. Unless you think that there are two wifi cards in the TV with one connecting completely hidden from you.
If you really want to prevent it ever getting an address by accident if an open AP wanders into range, set the mode to static, set the address to 127.1.2.3/31 and watch it trying to arp a non-existent gateway.
And then you come to a screen that says:
"Unable to reach the internet using your network settings, we have defaulted to our XfinityFree connection to give you an enhanced viewing experience. This service is completely free to you and cannot be disabled"
I don't think you're following the money very well.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
No, as I said before -- why would they need to hack into the TV when they can just pay Samsung to offer it as a "feature" -- "We'll pay you $xx for every TV to install our content monitoring software,
Yeah, Samsung, the only manufacturer of TVs in the world, would degrade the performance of their smart TVs by programming them to preferentially select low-signal Xfinity WiFi access points over full-strength, high-bandwidth access points right next to the TV. All so that some broadcasters can listen to the movies you are watching. Yes, that seems like a reasonable thing to be paranoid about.
It's a win-win for Samsung & Xfinity, they get valuable data about their customers,
It's not a win for Samsung. They already have a direct pipe to their customers because they are already snooping on everything you do, aren't they? It costs Samsung money to maintain code that won't work for most of the planet, including a huge chunk of the US market.
It's also not a win for Xfinity, because you are claiming that YOUR TV will connect to SOMEONE ELSES Xfinity WiFi. You aren't their customer, so they aren't gathering any information about their customer by snooping on you. Do you think it is valuable information for Xfinity to know that "someone nearby to one of our customers has a Samsung TV and is watching a pirated copy of "Debbie Does The Baltimore Colts" but we don't know who it is or where they live"? That's a "win" for Xfinity? Can we get access to the huge data store they have of "people somewhere who are watching something"?
Why would a TV that's programmed to connect to an Xfinity wifi network try to connect to my network, which has a completely separate name?
Because it has a better signal.
Why haven't you put your TV in a Faraday cage and solved the problem, instead of spending hours trying to dream up improbable scenarios?