Man who owns a smart TV says he's 'afraid' of using it after reading its privacy policy

[bananas]

http://news.yahoo.com/man-owns-smart-tv-says-afraid-using-reading-014529097.html

Man who owns a smart TV says he’s ‘afraid’ of using it after reading its privacy policy
By Chris Smith October 31, 2014 9:45 PM

Just like with other electronic devices that used to be “dumb,” TVs have become increasingly smart lately, but that doesn’t mean that’s necessarily a good thing, especially when it comes to user privacy. At least that’s what Brennan Center’s Michael Price seems to think after he replaced his older TV that could offer access just to TV programs with a smart TV model that also delivers “streaming multimedia content, games, apps, social media and Internet browsing.”

“The only problem is that I’m now afraid to use it. You would be too — if you read through the 46-page privacy policy,” Price wrote. “The amount of data this thing collects is staggering. It logs where, when, how, and for how long you use the TV. It sets tracking cookies and beacons designed to detect ‘when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message.’ It records ‘the apps you use, the websites you visit, and how you interact with content.’ It ignores ‘do-not-track’ requests as a considered matter of policy.”

<snip>

Furthermore, the device has a built-in camera with facial recognition and a microphone with voice recognition features, both tools that hackers or spy agencies could use to spy on unsuspecting buyers, Price says.

<snip>

“I do not doubt that this data is important to providing customized content and convenience, but it is also incredibly personal, constitutionally protected information that should not be for sale to advertisers and should require a warrant for law enforcement to access,” Price said, further quoting former CIA chief General David Petraeus who once said the agency will be able to “spy on you through your dishwasher.”

<snip>

Via http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r29642579-Smart-TV-owner-qafraidq-of-using-it-after-reading-its-privacy-policy

[djean111]

1. Oh, hey, did he expect privacy in his own home? Silly man.

No privacy outside, privacy inside disappearing fast.
If you don't want anyone to know what you are doing - don't do anything. Simple as that!
Maybe buy books and DVDs and CDs for cash at garage sales.

[TexasProgresive]

3. I don't know if it passed but Louisiana

tried to get a law that made cash private sales illegal.

Just checked and the law passed in 2011:

Cold hard cash. It's good everywhere you go, right? You can use it to pay for anything.

But that's not the case here in Louisiana now. It's a law that was passed during this year's busy legislative session.

House bill 195 basically says those who buy and sell second hand goods cannot use cash to make those transactions, and it flew so far under the radar most businesses don't even know about it.
http://www.klfy.com/story/15717759/second-hand-dealer-law

[bananas]

10. Wait, what???

Cash bills say "legal tender for all debts, public and private"
Is that Louisiana law valid?

[unrepentant progress]

13. Sadly, yes it is valid

The Fed's position is that the law says that cash is legal tender, but there's nothing in the law that says anyone has to accept cash as payment.

Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

[Fred Sanders]

15. Sadly, you are wrong....another States nullification attempt without any validity. Deflect much?

[unrepentant progress]

18. What the hell?

Are you an idiot? I quoted and linked to the Federal Reserve. Would the Treasury suit you instead?

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/currency/pages/legal-tender.aspx

[Fred Sanders]

19. I can read is what the hell. It does not mean what you think it means, legal stuff is complex.

[unrepentant progress]

22. Ah, OK, Mr. Freeman

I'll defer to your expert crank legal opinion. Obviously the Fed and the Treasury don't know what the hell they're talking about.

[Fred Sanders]

23. Obviously, very obviously, yes.

[Jerry442]

17. Suppose the used-goods buyers and sellers could just use Mexican pesos instead?

Since pesos are not legal tender in the U.S., it would basically just be barter, which is (I'm guessing) not prohibited by the law.

[unrepentant progress]

21. If local laws allowed it, yes, pesos would be legal

And it's not because it's considered barter. It's because there's no law saying that the U.S. dollar is the only currency businesses and individuals must accept. There are restrictions on the states issuing currency, and of course you can't make your currency look like U.S. currency, nor will you be able to pay your taxes with anything but U.S. dollars. But nobody's going to stop you from issuing Jerrybills. In fact, the U.S. has a history of community, or local, currencies and there are a few that exist even today such as Buffalo Bucks and BerkShares.

Wiki has a pretty good article on community currencies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency
Here's a 2013 Forbes article about community currencies in use today: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/07/23/funny-money-or-new-economy-alternative-currency-raises-tax-other-challenges/

[Jerry442]

26. Interesting stuff. TY.

On the JerryBuck will be printed the motto, "Spend this, like, really fast, dude."

[unrepentant progress]

28. Hah!

"Good today, gone yesterday," would be the inscription on my currency.

[Jerry442]

14. Holy crap. "A Handmaid's Tale" moment.

Stuff that you'd think could never possibly happen -- and then it does.

[rurallib]

30. bring back the barter system just like Sharon Angle said we should!

You remember - 2 chickens for a doctor's visit.

[RoverSuswade]

32. Sharon's idea would sure screw up garage sales.

Imagine chickens running all around the garage as payment for sets of dishes or Christmas decorations.

[TexasProgresive]

36. You're forgetting Health Care inflation

That doctor visit will cost you on prime beef hindquarter, cut and wrapped.

[George II]

37. There have been limits on many cash transactions for decades...

...in order to prevent laundering of drug money.

[rhett o rick]

41. Which is kinda silly because we all know the big banks launder drug money. nm

[George II]

42. We all know that? Sorry, "WE" don't "ALL" know that!!

[George II]

44. Pssst....that bank in which you have your checking and savings accounts has your SS number!

[TexasProgresive]

2. K&R and to think we worry about the NSA

[djean111]

5. I am positive the NSA has access to ALL of this information. n/t

[TexasProgresive]

6. No doubt the NSA does but so do all these commercial interests.

People need to get at least as outraged at non-government spying on us as governmental spying.

[djean111]

8. Some people do. Some people shrug and say what are ya gonna do?

I am afraid that it may be past the time when outrage means anything, money talks louder than words.
Can't even demonstrate against anything now, without getting gassed and arrested and hit with whatever the MIC has given to law enforcement.
The smart TV sounds ridiculously invasive.

[merrily]

27. Commercial interests are not subject to the 4th Amendment. Government is.

[Blue_Tires]

45. +1000

Been making that point for months now...

[irisblue]

4. well I won't be getting a smart TV anytime soon

[LiberalArkie]

11. It is simple, don't plug in an ethernet cable or enable the wifi on the tv.

I turn on the wifi on the tv about once a month to get a possible firmware update. The software they change usually makes the tv prefer a lot better.

[Fred Sanders]

20. And so they can only spy on you and upload stored data on you when you upgrade your software?

And you can link it to your fridge and home security cameras so The Man can keep an eye on you 24/7...and do not forget to link to you car and cell phone, good Consumer Citizen.

Yet folks complain about the NSA, what about the INC?

[ReRe]

7. In my dishwasher?

[adirondacker]

38. I was just hoping it didn't come to this...

"We, as a people, are always connected. Either, we inhabit our numerous social networks or our lips are constantly buzzing, and most of us need gadgets to get through our daily lives. Now, it seems that going to the bathroom will become a connected activity, thanks to the smart toilets coming out of Japan.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Yoshiaki Fujimori wants to become the “Steve Jobs” of toilets. These smart toilets are packed with electronics and apps that make using the restroom the next technological craze. The smart toilet features include lids that automatically lift up, seats that heat up, built-in bidets making cleanup quick and easy, and a syncing feature that allows people to connect with their smartphones via Bluetooth so they can play music through the smart toilets’ speakers. That’s right! The smart toilet has music speakers!"

[ReRe]

39. I've seen it all now...

... thanks to you. That is unbelievable. It will sell. I will pass on the eye in the toilet!

[jtuck004]

9. Now I see why they call it a smart tv. He'd be smarter to leave it off.

Not because of the spying, but due to the lack of content.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. I wonder if Price wrote that piece from his smartphone?

[mwooldri]

16. No problem here... keep the "smart" part separate.

We have a Roku box, and it does nearly everything the smart TVs do (and possibly more). It can't tell what I watch on the TV. It probably can't tell someone outside what local media I watch. Of course streaming video providers can tell what I watch... except some grey-market private apps that provide live video streams that they don't control. If I was really concerned, I'd unplug the box.

Even if I had a dumb TV and watched normal over-the-air TV and someone wanted to spy on me, technology has existed for quite some time to tell if I have a TV on and what TV channel (though with ATSC it wouldn't know the .1, .2 etc channel) I was watching. They exist in the UK and are used to catch TV licence fee evaders.

[heaven05]

24. big brother, anyone?

[nil desperandum]

25. Your internet provider

already had all this information. Anytime any device on your network accesses the outside world it's logged somewhere in their system.


The smart TV is no more, and no less, intrusive than your IP at collecting data. Your phone carrier gets the same information as well.

Data is collected every second of every day almost anytime you do anything that involves electronics.

You can lock down your network which pretty much disables a lot of the features Mr. Price is concerned about with his device. It doesn't require tremendous proficiency to lock down most ports and to determine which sites each device likes to visit when it boots up and searches for firmware or other information and lock those sites out of your network. What can't be disabled at the device level can almost always be disabled through security policies and fixed internal IP addressing. The TV most likely can be set to a manual IP and that IP can be isolated in a security policy that allows extremely limited access or even no access except at specific times.

[George II]

35. Very true...and if that guy leaves the house for the afternoon he'd better smile.....

....he'll get his picture taken a few hundred times.

[merrily]

29. You watch your TV. Now, your TV watches you, too. Progress.

Besides sitting in a corner sucking our thumbs and hoping our thumbs are not ratting us out, what can we do about this?

Or, do we really care enough to do anything at all about it?

As long as we just "accept" these terms, it will probably just get even worse.

[greymattermom]

31. it's the ads, I think

They probably want to send you commercials that fit your shopping interests, like I used to see online before I started using ad block. So the question is, will there be adblock for smart tvs?

[George II]

34. As an aside, what software do you use to block ads? I tried one myself that didn't work well

[George II]

33. The man is intelligent enough to earn the money to buy that expensive television but....

.....not intelligent to know that either nothing will happen or he can turn off the features he's "worried about"?

Maybe he should go back to a tube-television with rabbit ears. But then he'd have to use some of the tinfoil from his hat to hand on the antenna for good reception!

[bemildred]

40. I don't like "smart" devices, I like devices that do as they are told. nt

[Blue_Tires]

46. The author could have at least mentioned the brand and model

for those who may wish to avoid it...

[grahamhgreen]

47. Another good reason to kill your TV.

[Ampersand Unicode]

48. Anyone ever read this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Arguments_for_the_Elimination_of_Television

...or see this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live

[grahamhgreen]

49. Have not read it, but

it looks like I agree.

As for they live, I think we been out of gum for quite some time

[arcane1]

52. I have read it, and recommend it.

Some of it is technologically outdated and even a little kooky, but his arguments regarding the content of television hold up today!

[Old Nick]

50. Can you blame him?

[arcane1]

51. Seriously, how fucking "customized" is the content, really? How different is each user's experience?

It seems like a lot of info to collect just to deliver an ad here and there.

[peacebird]

53. They gather every possible thing so they can sell the info.....