Your smart TV is watching you and nobody's stopping it At the end of last year, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued five of the largest TV companies, accusing them of excessive and deceptive surveillance of their customers. Paxton reserved special venom for the two China-based members of the quintet. His argument is that unlike Sony, Samsung, and LG, if Hisense and TCL have …
Yes, unfortunately.
Old enough for me to know that, when the time comes when I will have to buy a new TV (because that will happen), I will have one question : does it work without a connection to the Internet ?
If the answer is no, then that model does not interest me.
A TV screen is a viewer. It does not need to know what I'm viewing. It does not need to know where that media comes from, and it certainly does not need to report that to anyone.
Period.
Exactly the question I am asking at the moment.
A TV which requires you to accede to 'terms and conditions' before you use it is right out of the window. A TV which limits its basic fundamental operation without a network connection is right out of the window.
All I want to do is use the thing as a display device. I don't care for 'smart' TV stuff; I don't use the majority of the options offered (I'm old and prefer scheduled programming to binge-watching 'curated' programmes) and those I do use are infinitely better on a computer where I can e.g. kill the bloody adverts. I am definitely not at home to Mr We Know What You're Watching.
If the sales model for the TV makers (or indeed, any other product) requires them to sell data about their users, then they're in the wrong business.
(At the moment, still unconfirmed, it appears that LG and Panasonic offer suitable sets. I need to go and annoy some salespeople.)
We use a ten+ year old 37" Panasonic (does not have WIFI, only wired). It tried to call home once a day @ 3AM. It was cute, easily blocked, and knowing Panasonic back then,only checked for updates to apps and nothing nefarious. Regardless, I've always used it non-wired and connected to a blocked RPi with LibreElec which works perfect (no cable, no antenna reception, just a RPi). The biggest problem with Panasonic is they build quality devices that don't malfunction. So what you buy now, will likely last 30 years so be sure to buy the model you need for the future. For me, my prior 15+ year old 32" Panasonic flat screen had to be replaced because it had only had one HDMI port, the new one has four. Not sure about 2025 Panasonic, but if is like the old company, coupled with an offline RPi5 (with optional RTC battery), you should be set for a disconnected life of privacy with no future purchases required.
2008? Panasonic 42" ips screen. Dumb as dirt and still going strong. The thing has lasted longer than my refrigerator.
I've zero need for a smart TV, and while a resolution better than 1080 would be nice, it's not required, and ips still looks good enough for my eyesight so buying any new kit is not something I have on the budget.
Unless you're going to buy yourself a humongous screen, or absolutely require an internal tuner, why not simply buy a large monitor? You can get 32" 4K monitors with at least one (and generally 2) HDMI ports and at a reasonable price to boot. Plug in your source (a streaming box, for example) and Bob's your uncle!
Now there is the issue of the streaming box phoning home, but that is sort of expected, is it not? Certainly the server would know what it is streaming to you...and could build profiles, sell that data to data aggregators, and so on. But at least you would expect that...-ish
This one is also on my list of possibilities, though for some reason (<sarc>can't think why</sarc>) they do seem more expensive here than the mid range TVs.
Phoning home from the streaming box is kinda implicit, and as that's how we get our pictures, that's how it goes. But it doesn't e.g. throw adverts in at random on the 'broadcast' channels, and whatever it's doing to the internet half of the signal, my adblock kills.
(Though there's a rather irritating advert which has popped up unchanged - a bloke complaining about a cold, and his partner recommending some patent nostrum... and in four years, it still hasn't cured him. I'm not quite sure what they're selling there!)
"Unless you're going to buy yourself a humongous screen, or absolutely require an internal tuner, why not simply buy a large monitor?"
Many monitors can't do 50 Hz at all or if they can do it have motion judder as they convert it to 60 Hz, making them unsuitable for live TV sources.
I worked on developing one of the first (maybe THE first) Google TVs some years ago now.
One thing that I spotted straight away was the telemetry between the TV and Google when there was no legitimate reason for it.
I decided right there and then that I would never have one of these things
my TV is 13 years old now and I've wondered how I'll ever replace it.
There are sites I came across that gather together the current new dumb TVs and I can only imagine this news (And of course the likes of Samsung sending ads if you change the volume...) will only make that more of a popular thing people look for
And how much more did you pay for that vs a similar sized OLED TV? You could also buy a professional range TV monitor that has no smartness whatsoever built-in, but the problem is the same: cost.
My current solution is to have a dumbed-down smart TV that has never been allowed to connect to the internet. And whenever I buy the next one, not needing a connection to properly work will be on top of the requirement list.
A JVC Fire TV insists on an Amazon account, even if you only want to watch Netflix. It’s likely as lethal to your wallet as a Fire tablet which insists on you turning on one click purchases and that you hand over card details even if you only ever want to install free apps and content.
The same Amazon that offers you free slow delivery on the product page and then only paid for delivery on the checkout page.
As far as I can tell, anything with an HDMI port can be* blocked from the Internet. The reason for these ports is to feed a DVD/BluRay/OTA/Set Top Box signal to the display. So, it's the set top device that will be ratting you out to the Mother Ship. Not the TV. And so it's up to you to keep each of these devices isolated. Easy for an OTA receiver (rabbit eats don't transmit). More difficult for some of the others. Streaming boxes are connected. But some BluRay players need a connection to update current decryption key sets or newer disks may not play (I've seen this).
*Sneaky mode on: If you have an Internet connected STB, I'm not sure if today's or some future version of HDMI will allow data in the reverse direction. Effectively connecting the room camera in your TV set with the home office. BlueTooth may also be able to do something similar. Get a neato TV remote app for your phone and the feed goes backwards from the TV and out, via the 5G system.
Problem is, it can be blocked. By you.
But if it has a Wifi card, or even an esim, then you don't know what it's up to behind your back.
A Wifi card can sit there and patiently, slowly and low-power, brute force nearby networks. Live in an apartment building and there will be plenty. Or find one without a password - that's still a thing because some people can't do passwords. Then your TV can send telemetry and update itself all it wants.
Wouldn't trust any of them to not have a "split personality" and divide "consumer settings" and "corporate settings". "Corporate Settings" are those set for and behalf of the company, not you.
Of course, we're all in the habit of opening up our electronic devices and auditing all the chips.
New TVs can work without Internet ... settings in the TV.
TV prices have come down, replace the "Smart" spyware with a plugin media device.
Using a TV with HDMI to PC, I found that by setting the network in the TV caused disruptions. Factory reset the TV & no issues since.
My Stove, the "smart" bulbs, all sorts of things are making random call-backs over the internet and need firewalling. All "modern" electronics and appliances are acting like ET, Phone-Home.
My Stove, the "smart" bulbs, all sorts of things are making random call-backs over the internet and need firewalling. All "modern" electronics and appliances are acting like ET, Phone-Home.
The world's gone mad. Louis Rossman had a video playing with a 'smart' fridge. A tablet stuck on the door with Android on it, and a big price premium over a DIY solution. FUN! part of this is people ending up with a bunch of IoT gadgets that might become WifFi APs that are sitting behind your firewall. You get hacked via your 'smart' kettle. We might know that stuff like this should be slapped onto a 'dirty' FW segment, or even VLAN, but average user is just going to plug it in.. And a lot of this devices have already been compromised, and more will because they often use the same SoCs and OSs.
Hack one, hack'em all.. Which can get FUN! with any kind of device with a heating element, if they can be turned on remotely. War driving ads an arson option. Yey!
I bought a Sony Bravia TV over a decade ago. It got Android security updates for about 6 months, since then it has been offline. I certainly wouldn't buy another smart TV, at least I would never put it on the network. Since Sony stopped providing updates, it has been working fine and I have used 3 FireTVs and an Apple TV on it. The FireTVs probably aren't that much better and Apple won't be perfect either, but at least they will be (relatively) secure and up to date.
I really don't see the point in providing the "smarts" in the TV itself, you have a component that will probably get 18 months of updates, from launch, for a device that should last at least a decade.
I also used a PiHole, I recently switched to NextDNS so that I have DNS blocking on the move as well, blocking most tracking sites, but most people aren't in a position to be able to do that for themselves.
We need to stop this with regulation - which is why the appalling verdict in Italy just before Christmas was so bad (let third parties track iPhone users, because Apple has the ability to as well, instead of forcing Apple to let users restrict tracking on their own apps).
Democracy prevents misbehaviour by states! Bwa ha ha ha ha!
I used to believe that too. Until Brexit. Until Trump. Seriously - have you seen what’s happening in the US right now!?
But yes. If you’re buying a TV make sure that it can work without a network connection. And then don’t connect it to the network. Similarly, don’t buy a smart speaker, or anything else that listens in to your private conversations.
Or, sod it, do those things and accept the risk. Seriously - have you read 1984?
Oranges and lemons say the bells of st Clements…
have you seen what’s happening in the US right now!?
It is raising serious concerns as to who "the world's most powerful and least accountable authoritarian regime" actually is.
I am not cheering for it but I still believe, that whatever data China and other 'bad guys' can collect on me, it can be put to less adverse use than my own, and other so-called democratic governments, desire to collect.
Yes, being a simple being, the CPC is going to have less interest me in the half dozen US based software firms who want to farm and sell my data to advertisers.
It's not "if you have nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" but more what I have to fear isn't on the other side of the globe. I'm just a waste of CPU cycles if they are surveilling me.
We were taught that it was a one-off situation which we could prevent by fore-knowledge and vigilance. The League of Nations was ineffective.
Nowadays, we have clearly demonstrated a complete LACK of "vigilance", and the UN is as ineffective (just window-dressing) as the League was.
I am coming to the conclusion that democracy itself is at best an unstable equilibrium, and it takes a lot more than mere "vigilance" to preserve it!
Not that we are going to sort things out here (oh right, we were talking about TVs) ;)
>"Seriously - have you read 1984?"
Way back when I first read it (much, much closer to the actual year 1984 than today) I remember thinking how ludicrous the concept was that someone would willingly accept something so intrusive. The very idea took me right out of the immersion of the story. My predictive powers and/or my ability to assess my fellow humans is clearly not up to par.
Exactly this. Although I read it a little before the eponymous year. I remember thinking at the time that it would be impossible because there just wasn’t enough bandwidth to support such surveillance. But I have a famously stinky track record for predicting which technologies will succeed and which will fail. Other ‘hits’ include…
* what’s the point of the Mac - why would anyone buy a computer that isn’t IBM compatible (since then (in 1992), I stopped using a PC compatible as my main computer)
* why would anyone buy an iPod - it’s not as good as MiniDisc
* USB isn’t as useful as… you get the idea.
I do stand behind my argument that social media is a total waste of anyone’s time though.
My current Samsung TV is a "proto smart TV". When I noticed the device powering itself up at 03:00 every day it was fairly obvious that it wanted to talk to the mothership.
So it got unplugged from my network. All video I watch on the thing comes from my own library and is delivered to my surround receiver and finally to the TV via a Raspberry Pi running LibreElec and Kodi.
When the Samsung eventually dies, it will only be replaced by something which works without a connection to my network and the Internet. If there are no dumb TVs available to buy, then my next TV will be the largest computer monitor I can find.
My current Samsung TV is a "proto smart TV". When I noticed the device powering itself up at 03:00 every day it was fairly obvious that it wanted to talk to the mothership.
Maybe not. Early digital tellies relied on over-the-air firmware updates. Those TVs woke themselves up in the early hours to check and install new firmware. I don't know if that's still a thing or not. FWIW this was back in the days before domestic appliances had ethernet or wifi.
It was specifically the firmware for the DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting) component in the TV. DVB STBs used to do it as well, and there were broadcast slots that the manufacturer could book to do this.
I still have a circa. 2005 Vestel manufacturered TV, and it is extremely modular inside, as were most TVs of the time. The DVB was done on a separate board in the TV which talked to the main board via a couple of ribbon cables. Ditto the sound and LCD panel driver. It's one reason why I managed to keep that TV running for so long, bits could be replaced piecemeal (and being a Vestel, parts were common between many 'brands' made by Vestel).
If you look at a modern 'smart' TV, there will be just two boards for the electronics. One for the power supply, and one for everything else. The LCD panel driver will probably be on the panel itself, and there are probably no physical controls other than some multi-function joystick like thingy on the back. And I think that the DVB function will be a software-defined one, running in one core of the SoC. These TVs tend to get their firmware over the network.
This is the reason TV's have gotten so cheap (even the expensive ones are cheap to make!) There's pretty much nothing inside of them. Just a large panel, and the equivalent of a basic tablet with some input hardware. Even the backlights have been made so simple that they're basically strings of LED's driven directly from the half-wave rectified and smoothed switched mains, without either inverters or step-down power supplies.
This is the reason TV's have gotten so cheap (even the expensive ones are cheap to make!) There's pretty much nothing inside of them.
Ah, on that point.. The Bbc used to argue they couldn't go subscription because encryption. But there was an EU directive that all TVs sold in the EU had to have a CAM slot. Any idea if that's still the case? I haven't really kept up, but suspect CAM & cards have probably been mostly obsoleted by other methods of encryption and subscriber management.
The last TV I bought about 4 years back (branded Sharp but made by a Chinese company - TCL?) had a CAM slot, but neither of the 2 HDTV STBs I bought in the last few years do. Don't know about other TVs, but as they are so generic, even TVs for the UK market will peobably have them, as TVs are now made for a whole-world market.
But the BBC's point was that even with a CAM device, maintaining subscription services was expensive and difficult, and could be broken (remember when ITV tried to introduce pay TV delivered over the air back in the early days of DVB - it was broken in months).
The only way Sky managed to do it is that they re-issue encryption cards periodically, and end up replacing the whole receiver every 6 years or so, so can regularly update the technology. This is not possible for a so-called public broadcaster like the BBC, where you don't want to force people to replace all their TV equipment at least once a decade.
I agree there's huge amounts wrong with the current TV license, and especially how it is enforced, but I'm really not sure how you can fund what is supposed to be a public broadcaster like the BBC without it being seen as being under government control. (I'm not going to get into a debate about whether the BBC is actually controlled by the UK Government, that's another argument entirely!)
..but neither of the 2 HDTV STBs I bought in the last few years do. Don't know about other TVs, but as they are so generic, even TVs for the UK market will peobably have them, as TVs are now made for a whole-world market.
Yep. From memory (and I can't find the EU Directive easily) STBs were exempt, TVs were/are mandatory. But it was also part of the shenanigans around Freeview & nobbling competitors. So Freeview boxes weren't supposed to have CAM slots because Free. Or if they did, then moving the Bbc to a subscription model would have been too easy. But when I untethered myself from the warm, fuzzy embrace of Aunty, I took apart the Freeview STB I had and lo and behold, there was a CAM slot that was just blanked off in the case. Like you say, kit's made for Europe/RoW so a case mod is a small cost to localise it for the Bbc's market.
This is not possible for a so-called public broadcaster like the BBC, where you don't want to force people to replace all their TV equipment at least once a decade.
Sure it is. The Bbc already does pay-TV or encrypts outside of the UK. And see also-
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmpubacc/1230/report.html#heading-2
11. In 2024–25, the BBC spent £166 million on collection of the licence fee, (equivalent to 4.3% of licence fee income), up from £143 million (4.0%) in 2023–24. It issued 60.2% of licences electronically, and around 40% paper licences.19 The BBC told us that postal costs were a significant component of collection expense and that minimising reliance on mail and moving more contact online was a key part of reducing the cost of collection.
Which probably explains the constant nagging from Bbc 'news' website to register and handover an email address. But 'evasion' has been has been increasing, thus so has the money wasted on collections. So then it's a cost-benefit question of carrying on with the legacy model, or making a bold leap into the 21st Century and getting the Bbc to do this stuff electronically. If a 'digital licence' costs <£166m to enfarce, no need for the Bbc to buy adverts or post their monthly investigation letters. No digital licence, no Bbc.
But that's partly what the Commons Select Committee and report is about. Technically, there are fewer obstacles to going digital, especially given the Bbc's already been doing this. It has ads on the news site telling me I could watch movies on iPlayer. I remember when those used to be on TV, and losing those is one of the reasons I quit the Bbc habit. Then it's a matter of government deciding what content should remain FTA, and what should be subscription/encrypted. There's a certain inevitability to this with both the move to IPTV and streaming in general. The Bbc obviously hates the idea, because it would tie the cost of the licence fee to the Bbc, and make it far more obvious when/if the Bbc isn't delivering the content 'customers' want.
With 'smart' TVs or just network-enabled STBs, cost or hardware replacement is much less of an issue. IPTV companies like Netflix, Amazon etc manage their subscribers, so there's no reason why the Bbc couldn't.. Plus they presumably already pay to have iPlayer installed and placed prominently on most TVs, consoles, phones etc. Government just needs to grow some balls and make it happen.
Outside of the UK, the BBC is just another broadcaster. They don't have to abide by the BBC Charter for outside markets. BBC Worldwide is the company designed to allow BBC content to be marketed to non-UK markets. It's a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC, not representative of the whole BBC, designed to supplement the income from the license fee to fund new programs. BBC content is very saleable to markets outside of the UK.
Other branches of the BBC include BBC Studios, which is a production company run pretty much like any other production company, making programs under contract for the UK broadcast arm of the BBC, as well as other broadcasters, both inside and outside of the BBC. There are also separate divisions for news, sport, radio, music, regions and several more.
One thing that separates the BBC from other broadcasters is the fact that it is effectively a not-for-profit organisation. They do not have shareholders, and do not return any dividends to anyone, not even the government. This means that income from outside of the UK can all be invested in the production of content.
They currently have a public broadcasting obligation, although this would not prevent them going to an advertising funded model (Channel 4 follows this model), but is problematic for a subscription model.
The original structure of the license fee was for operating television receiving equipment (and there was a similar but much cheaper license for radio, but this got dropped decades ago), and at the time of introduction, the only regular users of the airways were the BBC and the GPO (and maybe the military and ham radio operators). This license was a bit arbitrary even when first set up, but when RF broadcast receiving TVs would also generate RF interference, you could probably justify the license on technical grounds, It's current application is, perhaps, a nonsense, as the definition of receiving equipment now pretty much includes any network attached computing device as well as radio frequency devices.
I'm not arguing about the futility and unnecessarily aggressive enforcement tactics of the current license, but I do value the BBC in it's current form (especially the non-interrupted nature of most programmes), however it is paid. I do acknowledge the fact that the BBC does advertise, if only it's own services. But making it an ad. funded service will put additional pressures on them to go the popular route, to keep eyes on screens to maximise the value of the advertising slots. This will change the nature of the programming that the BBC provides.
I would like the BBC be able to continue in it's current form, although I can't see how to fund it. I really don't think we need yet more ad. funded channels, we have enough crap examples of that already. But I don't really want to see direct funding from taxation, without having some construct to dissociate it from government control! And a subscription model could not satisfy the public broadcasting obligation that the BBC currently has, and without that, they become just another broadcaster.
But this is all moot. When terrestrial broadcasting ceases, new structures will be required anyway.
Just a reminder that for some of us (think rural area, low population density, with internet connectivity often like a piece of wet string) then streaming is not always viable.
We make use of FTA TV and FreeSat, iPlayer far less so (as often affected by bandwidth / connectivity issues).
So, until the UK government (of whatever degree of right wing ness it happens to be) properly mandates decent internet connectivity for rural areas (instead of just the current scenario of cherry picking the more profitable areas with far higher population density than our area).
.. Plus people like my mother in law in her 80's, she has no interest in being online (no PC, tablet, smart phone - reads lots of books though!) but does watch some TV & without FTA TV offering she would either have no TV to watch or would have to subscribe with an ISP purely to watch TV.
So the all streaming route is not going to be viable for a while yet.
Been a sky customer for 20 years, I can’t remember ever changing a viewing card.
I’ve had sky q for ~9 years and never changed the viewing card.
Not sure where the 6 year replace thing comes from. I’m amazed it’s been so reliable (probably break now) no I’m not interested in glass or stream.
Sky Q uses an electronic key that is delivered either over the satellite signal, or over the Internet, and it's locked to a certificate stored on the box. There is no viewing card. If you read the small print, you're also renting the Sky Q box, whereas the older Sky boxes became yours at the conclusion of the initial contract it was supplied under (this is important about Sky Q boxes, as if yours breaks down, Sky have an obligation to fix it, whereas the older systems might have needed you to fork out money to replace a failed box outside of warranty).
I have also been a Sky customer for 20+ years starting with just an ordinary Sky SD box, then migrating through 2 generations of SkyHD+ systems. I have had four Sky viewing cards over this time. When I switched to HD, they issued a new card, and when they retired the 1st generation HD+ box and gave me a later one, they also switched the card out for a new one shortly afterwards. Each time I opted for a self-install, so it is possible that if you had systems switched out by a Sky technician, they did the card swap and pairing for you. I think it was possible that the third swap was also because Channel 5 (strictly not a Sky channel) and a couple of other channels changed their encryption method, and that required a new card to do the required key management and decryption, so the box swap may have been a red herring. I had to do a firmware upgrade on the Humax FreesatHD system that I also have at around the same time to keep Channel 5 working.
I requested a fourth card when the third one was showing signs of being burnt around the chip, as although it was still working, strange things like the box crashing happened on a semi regular basis, and replacing the card was one attempted fix that they tried.
The cards just arrived in the post with instructions to turn the box off, swap the cards over, and turn it back on. I may have had to call Sky customer services to pair the new card, I can't remember.
On another note. Within 5 years, Sky will probably be turning off their satellite broadcasting operation, as the Astra satelites they use are all reaching end-of-life (if you wonder, they run out of fuel for the manovering thrusters that keep them in the correct geosynchronous orbit, plus the electronics gradually fail). Some services may transition to Astra 1Q apparently, but that is an European footprint satellite which will give marginal reception for the northern and western extremities of the UK.
Freesat will probably also disappear in that time frame.
Well this is where it also gets interesting. The TV in question uses an open source firmware stack. This allowed some elegant hacking in the beginning where it was was possible to mount a share from my NAS as if it was a local USB drive and play video from my library that way.
Samsung didn't like that people could do that so they released a firmware update which encrypted everything and took away my rights to do what I want with hardware that I paid for.
The network cable got pulled before they could do that and I discovered Kodi as a much better way to connect my library to my TV.
I don't watch broadcast news or other live TV at all, so I only use it as a large monitor anyway.
When the Samsung eventually dies, it will only be replaced by something which works without a connection to my network and the Internet. If there are no dumb TVs available to buy, then my next TV will be the largest computer monitor I can find.
Yep, or look for 'digital signage' displays, like this 100"-
https://www.hisense-b2b.com/en/100-4k-uhd-digital-signage-display-247-operation
But even those aren't immune from spyware, ie this 'feature'-
Content Management System
CVisionInfo is a cloud-based digital signage software solution which is flexible, cost-effective, and scalable in its nature. This will give you the freedom to add content as often as you’d like and make sure it looks great across all devices.
On the plus side, digital signage displays (at least decent ones) tend to be bright and designed to be run continuously. Downside is a lot only offer Ethernet or WiFi connectivity, so might not play nicely with whatever you might be wanting to stream. A lot are Android based, so that can make it easier to load your own display apps to them. But from the article-
If you're reading this, you'll know about finding which IP addresses are involved and blocking them. Everyone else needs a zero-knowledge, vanishingly cheap, plug-and-play smart thing. One that's completely trustworthy. You can sketch a block diagram for that and the services that make it work in five minutes.
Better still would be legislators & regulators get off their asses and just make spyware and data harvesting/brokering illegal. Consumers install their new 'smart' TV, get confronted with an Unacceptable Use policy where the only choice is to accept. Plus dealing with spyware & data rapists is a never ending battle, especially when 'big tech' is determined to push ads over everything.. Even Kindles. Pay extra to get an ad-free book reader. Bargain of the Faustian variety.
I have contemplated making a Pi-hole in a box as a plug & play, consumer friendly product. Is possible, just downside is maintaining filter lists and dealing with support issues when data rapists try to work around ad & spyware blocking. Often it seems as though legislators are more determined to protect the data rapists than consumers, but then they have the money to lobby politicians and regulators.
Consumers install their new 'smart' TV, get confronted with an Unacceptable Use policy where the only choice is to accept.
That's like the GPS in my car where the brochure stated functionality is only available if I accept to be data milked by Google. And if you give that a fake name it'll eventually tell you that you're not old enough (to operate a car GPS ???) so it wants ID, irrespective that blackmailing people for personal details is flat out illegal under GDPR..
I guess if they're fined they'll immediately go whining to Trump that these evil Europeans dare interfere with their profitable theft of PII..
MY LG can listen all it wants,but it's MAC blocked from access to the Internet, so it can't tell anyone what it sees. Nor can it update its firmware. It keeps whining at me that I need to agree to its terms and conditions, and go online to do so, but it plays files from my media server and the FireStick and AppleTV attached to it just fine.
Has anyone else noticed that the WebOS is ridiculously slow to do almost anything? I can easily get ahead of it clicking buttons on the remote. And this has been the case on every WebOS TV I've encountered.
(there seems to be no "middle finger" icon, so this is the best I can do...)
For at least a decade I've assumed that every digital device is sending information about me elsewhere. I've long since given up trying to contain them.
But honestly, I am far, far less worried about China than I am about Google, Amazon, and the rapidly expanding Trump empire.
Those are the people that frighten me.
You should be EQUALLY worried about China and Russia.
Look at how foreign powers seek to interfere in democracies - there's always good old fashioned spying and bribery, but for decades now it has been to malignly influence the democratic process. Social media is infested with both bots and paid stooges trying to scare the masses into beliefs that (say) Russia things are useful - sometimes it's simply sowing the seeds of division and polarisation, sometimes it's to scare a credulous electorate that a volatile low-brow orange felon is a preferable president to a near-comatose geriatric or a woman of (natural) colour.
We've even got some regulars in these forums who spout pro-Russian veiwpoints, or seek to create division wherever the opportunity exists.
Look at how foreign powers seek to interfere in democracies - there's always good old fashioned spying and bribery, but for decades now it has been to malignly influence the democratic process.
Hmm? By doing things like blocking access to foreign media, or legislation like DSA, or the impending 'Chat Control' and mandating online digital identties? Or do you mean 'influencing democracy' by invading oil-rich countries and kidnapping their heads of state? Possession of automatic weapons and destructive devices. That could be troubling for Starmer, or Macron who've got nukes.
We've even got some regulars in these forums who spout pro-Russian veiwpoints, or seek to create division wherever the opportunity exists.
Some regulars simply point out that perhaps Russia isn't the problem, and when it comes to spyware, data harvesting and brokering.. The problems are much closer to home. Which will be an impending challenge in dear'ol EUroland, and by proximity, the UK. If consumers use their 'smart' TVs to do online stuff, how will that fit in with digital identity management, chat control, age verification etc etc? Will the EU mandate that all new EU 'Smart' TVs boot up with a display of your Social Credit score, after you've unlocked it and proved your age/identity by smiling for the camera, of course.
That's true, but the vast majority here aren't that one-dimensionally partisan or blinkered in the first place.
Maybe I'm being unduly suspicious, but as you're an AC (*) agreeing with Jellied Eel (who paints himself as balanced but has *never* been critical of Russia), you'll forgive me...
Your focus on "anti-Chinese/Russian zealots, propagandists and sheeple" does, ironically smack itself of an agenda to paint anyone critical of them as one of those strawman zealots.
(*) And so am I, obvioisly
Maybe I'm being unduly suspicious, but as you're an AC (*) agreeing with Jellied Eel (who paints himself as balanced but has *never* been critical of Russia), you'll forgive me...
You probably are, along with being a bit paranoid. But such is the power of the media, propaganda and often the windows into your soul are what you see on TV. Which is why there's so much pressure to restrict what we can see under a pretext of preventing 'misinformation', 'protecting democracy' or just creeping opression under the guise of 'proecting the children'.. Because it's long been known that propaganda works. That's pretty clearly demonstrated here. Because I'm not with you, I must be with them.. Which is just juvenile thinking and debate, but all too common. Because I don't always criticise Russia, then I must be a Putin stooge, paid by the Kremlin etc.
But then this is also a very old tactic and part of propaganda and psyops. Look over there! There's your enemy! It's not us, we're the defenders of freedom, democracy and 'international rules based order'.. even while our 'leaders' are busily removing freedoms, trampling all over democracy and just breaking the law. It's long been a trick to distract from problems at home by starting a war somewhere else, be that against heathens (no money? Crusade), Oceana, Russia, Iran, China.. or now Venezuala. Sold as 'restoring democracy' by invading, kidnapping and stating that the US will now be in charge in a rather hostile takeover. How very democratic. Plus some other FUN! statements, like the 'western hemisphere' is now the exclusive domain of the US, which might be bad news for say, Canada, Mexico.. or even Greenland.
> "Because I'm not with you, I must be with them.. Which is just juvenile thinking and debate, but all too common. Because I don't always criticise Russia, then I must be a Putin stooge, paid by the Kremlin etc.'
Usual strawman misrepresentation of what you've been called out on. You weren't accused of "not always criticising Russia". You were accused of *never* meaningfully criticising Russia.
If you disagree, you're welcome to provide counter-evidence showing you doing so from your voluminous posting history.
For some reason, you never took up this very reasonable suggestion the last time I made it.
As for the rest of your typically verbose, self-righteous, condescending and generally disingenuous lecture, how do you tally that attempt to paint those like myself as a strawman stooge who only sees you as biased because you don't parrot the US line with the following...
I entirely agree that the US invasion of Venezuela is quite blatantly motivated by US self-interest in its oil (and possibly an attempt by their pedo president to distract from the Epstein files) and their concern with its democracy transparently hollow.
Doesn't fit with your strawman version, but then, *that* only existed to paint anyone who criticises Russia as a partisan, gullible, pro-US stooge. Or maybe *you're* the one who genuinely sees those who disagree in those "them and us" stereotype terms.
The irony.
For some reason, you never took up this very reasonable suggestion the last time I made it
Who is 'I'? You're just one of many anonymous trolls..
how do you tally that attempt to paint those like myself as a strawman stooge
Let James 2:18 show you the way. But it's easy. If you're not a strawman, why post anonymously? Are you that embarrassed to be known by your works, or words? Or are you afraid to be sued (or shot?) by Trump for calling him a pedo? You have any evidence for that? No? Didn't think so, but then it's all too common for posters to rely on crude insults instead of anything that passes for rational debate.. Especially the 'anonymous' ones.
That's a brave attempt at distracting from the fact that you've avoided giving even a single, simple, easily-provided counter-example to the accusation that- for all your disingenuous bleating to the contrary- you're an entirely uncritical apologist for the Russian government.
(Spoiler; you haven't done so because you are and you can't).
"If you're not a strawman, why post anonymously?"
If you want to make a big fuss about that, please provide your full, verifiable real-life name and details so we can be sure *exactly* who the person hiding behind the pseudonym "Jellied Eel" is. Otherwise a lot of people might think you're a hypocrite.
"crude insults"
Sure, Jan. Which parts of my post upset your feelings with their alleged "crudity"? Feel free to be specific.
"Or are you afraid to be sued (or shot?) by Trump for calling him a pedo?"
Funny how the Trump regime, which built support on demands to release the Epstein Files when it suited them politically, is suddenly reluctant and dragging its heels when it comes to actually doing so.
Has the man who said he'd sleep with his own daughter got something to hide?
And do we think that Trump launched that attack on Venezuela as a blatant- and open- grab on their oil interests or to distract from the fact he still hasn't released the Epstein files? Hmm.... ¿por qué no los dos?
Funny how you tried to paint me as a gullible pro-US, anti-Russian stooge *then* failed to acknowledge when I was equally critical of the US.
So, to be clear, are you critical of the Trump regime as you implied when you said the US invasion was "sold as 'restoring democracy' by invading, kidnapping and stating that the US will now be in charge in a rather hostile takeover". Or are you the apologist who was attack-is-the-best-form-of-defending him when he got called a "pedo"?
Have the contradictions in your dual pro-Trump, pro-Russian loyalty started to cause problems? Or are you just a disingenuous weasel who doesn't care which line he's spinning?
Still waiting on that single, non-existent scrap of evidence that you're not a Russian stooge, by the way.
(Spoiler; you haven't done so because you are and you can't).
Logic really isn't your strong point, is it?
If you want to make a big fuss about that, please provide your full, verifiable real-life name and details so we can be sure *exactly* who the person hiding behind the pseudonym "Jellied Eel" is.
It's me, or close enough to me to allow my comments to be easily identified. Kinda the point of not being a cowardly little troll that hides behind a mask of pseudo-anonymity, and makes it more difficult for others to try and follow along with conversations. So instead I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts, like which sections of this-
https://www.theregister.com/2012/02/01/register_comments_guidelines/
You might be violating. Or just other laws. Or trying to drag this back to the topic at hand, why governments are hell bent on approved online identities and removing anonymity.. Not that this ever really existed online anyway, because if TPTB want to pierce your 'anonymous' veil, they can and will.
Logic really isn't your strong point, is it?
Ironically, throwing out condescending insults in lieu of being able to argue against anything specific I said has nothing to do with "logic", but you do you!
It's me, or close enough to me to allow my comments to be easily identified [..] not being a cowardly little troll that hides behind a mask of pseudo-anonymity
That's the point. It's *not* you, it's a convenience and not much more. You're not committing your real world identity to your comments any more than I am, despite your attempt to pull rank on that basis.
So instead I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts, like which sections of this [..] you might be violating.
Huh. You know, if I was the suspicious type, I *might* have thought that was a clunkily transparent attempt to threaten or intimidate via vague, unspecified allusions to the guidelines when you didn't have anything specfic you could point to.
Or just other laws.
Crikey! *Other* laws?? This is getting really scary now, the *vague* but *ominous* suggestion that I might be breaking... "other laws".
I can't think, maybe you should be more specific. Did I forget to practise my archery last Sunday or something? Is that still on a statute book somewhere? :-)
Well said.
Perhaps Western kakistocrats cannot be beaten in the sense of being obliged to curtail intrusive activities, but with assistance from some expertise represented by commentators on The Register the tables can be turned in a conceptually simple way. Somehow, commercial and government entities must be overwhelmed with garbage information: masses of irrelevant and contradictory data.
Perhaps, GCHQ, the NSA, and Mossad, along with commercial giants like Google, deploy huge LLM AIs to sift their data. That could contribute to their much to be desired downfall. Even when the AI state of the art nears its pinnacle, it would have no greater guiding insights than a human operator sifting through thick paper files of haphazardly obtained 'intelligence'. At some point, the cost of electricity and the diminishing feasibility of channelling it to AI clusters might end the game.
Furthermore, it is apparent that AI, like its human counterparts, can deliberately be confused by suitably crafted input. Envisage piles of generated slop added to pre-existing low usefulness input, plus a magic ingredient of concocted AI-subverting content. Perhaps these considerations supply grist for a novel about how AI supervised societies grind to a halt following the actions of small numbers of people dedicated to humanities release from thrall by the wealthy 0.001%?
As soon as OP mentioned the pro-Russian regulars, you were the first I thought of. Lo and behold, you pop up unbidden as the first reply...!
As I've said before, it's just coincidental that you're consistently pro-Russian, that you repeat their talking points and that I don't think I've *ever* seen you say anything meaningfully critical of or at odds with the Putin regime?
Never give up.
There is a price for liberty and freedom. If you're not willing to pay in blood (I have some ideas on that, but they cannot be expressed on any public forum), you can at least keep looking for any and every possible way to make the data hoovers' lives as difficult as possible.
I don't know the details, but there is at least one datapath from TV via HDMI to an HDMI source; it's used for sending remote control signals back (or possibly the other way).
It doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that it could be used as a backchannel to phone home...
That's not a high-bandwidth system, but in theory you could implement a communication path that way. But to manage it, you need the device sending video content to do most of the work, implement a system to tell the difference between hidden data channels and what the codes are supposed to be, accept data sent over that connection, send it to the destination chosen by the screen, and not tell people that's happening. Since each manufacturer is doing this on its own and something like that might be the most convincing ways to get regulators to act, the manufacturers can't just implement a standard back channel and all use it. So I think you can be relatively confident that that is not happening. Whether your HDMI source is trustworthy depends on what it does itself, not what the TV sends to it.
"Everyone else needs a zero-knowledge, vanishingly cheap, plug-and-play smart thing.
Not another "smart" thing. No. Just... no.
Please, seriously, this is what brought the mess upon us.
Next "TV" will just be a monitor. No idea if there are still separate dumb tuners out there. Meh, it's not like I watch TV at all, cable is still rolled up in the basement. Not even sure if I did connect the cable to the outlets...
Many decades ago when I was young and single, I rarely turned the TV on. However, if you get married and have children I think you'll find that no TV is no longer a realistic option. (However, if you limit the TV to content suitable for children, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that the watchers have an entirely false vision of who you are).
Back in the day, even the people on TV themselves were telling you to turn it off and go and do something less boring instead!
(Warning: Contains flashing images etc).
With DVB, there's nothing that looks like a 'dumb tuner'. If you look at the latest DVB2.something standard, they all include quite a lot of processing to provide EPG and in most cases links to online catchup services.
You can find things that will do standard and high definition TV over HDMI, and under brand names such as Manhatten, Labgear etc., and most of these things can be isolated from a network, but many, many TV channels are becoming hybrid, with some info being transmitted over-the-air, and then linking to services delivered over the Internet. So you can find an STB that will provide terrestrial Digital TV, but these will become less and less useful as time goes by.
In the UK, there is some debate whether there will even be TV delivered over the airwaves beyond 2035, or even sooner. That is why you're seeing info about services like Freely being pushed in advertising slots, which is a network delivered linear and streaming service the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are lining up to replace terrestrial broadcasting so they don't have to purchase long term broadcast licenses.
Similarly, Sky is looking at whether they are going to extend their contract with the satellite operators beyond the end-of-life of the current cluster of Astra satellites in the late 2020s or early 2030s. That's why they are pushing Sky Stream. TV is changing to online only, and there's nothing we can do about it.
I have a number of older TV's which either do not understand the hybrid TV channels, or aren't connected to the Internet. There are more and more slots in the EPG which exist, but cannot be used, just reporting a data-only of scrambled service. Look at the kids channels like the kids PopTV or some of the Great! TV channels to see this in operation.
I totally endorse the general sentiments so far, however, whilst I am only an enthusiastic amateur (unlike most on here, whom I take to be hardbitten pro’s) surely the most important step to take (even for a non commercial environment) is to secure your local network. By this I mean having a robust firewall, that by default, blocks all outbound connections as well as the more normal inbound.
Whilst painful to setup and high maintenance (nothing in life is free) it’s amazing how many devices (e.g. some network switches) connect to random external IP addresses.
Obviously this approach can break a lot of things, but at least it is now your choice as to what is allowed out.
We aim to lose by the smallest possible margin.
Actually this is very much NOT complicated to setup and just needs you to be logical. You should know which devices you want connecting to the Internet so just block anything which is not them, this is the simplest level of security and only takes a few minutes to setup.
Anything that starts complaining after you do this can be checked for what it is trying to do and then dealt with appropriately.
While we have a 'smart' TV, it has no direct network connection and receives it's video signal from a Roku stick via HDMI so regardless of the data it collects, nothing is getting back home.
Most times, unless you have the DHCP system running on your firewall, and integrated with DNS (and also mDNS for many modern devices), keeping tabs on what IP address your home devices are using can be a bit of a headache, and way beyond most people are prepared to learn about. And without knowing which IP addresses are in use, firewall rules can be difficult to administer.
I take the extreme option of tyring to lock down with permanent allocations of IP address for most devices in the network, maintained by the DHCP server, and this really is a pain in the neck when new devices are brought into the house. But at least then I can know what devices is what when looking at the traffic.
> you have the DHCP system running on your firewall, and integrated with DNS
Isn't that the most usual case for J. Random User who just has one box plugged into the wall?
> I take the extreme option of tyring to lock down with permanent allocations of IP address for most devices in the network, maintained by the DHCP server...
Ha! You call that extreme! Some of us still add entries into the hosts file and set static addresses in the OS (so that when I inevitably break the R'Pi running DHCP & DNS I can still access the notes that tell me how to fix it again!).
> this really is a pain in the neck when new devices are brought into the house
If you bring a new device into our household, don't bother switching off your mobile data!
Ok, if you are more of a party person than me (which is a really low bar!) you may want to be more generous to your guests, but isn't that what you use a guest WiFi for? You then have the choice of balancing your own security against the effort you want to put in when your best buddy turns up with his overly snoopy gadget.
Last time I counted, I have permanently in my house in excess of 60 devices which regularly connect to the house network(s) one way or another. Every now and then, I buy a new computer, printer or IoT device (although these are limited to a different VLAN to minimise interference). I was not talking about letting guests connect to the house WiFi.
I too edit host files, but I generally also back this up with an entry for the MAC and IP pair for that device in the DHCP configuration. But have you tried to edit the hosts file on a Sky box, or a printer, or a STB? Most connected devices not now look like computers.
My experience actually is that most routers that do DHCP do not do much in the way of DHCP to DNS coordination. Point the resolver of a computer at the address of your consumer grade router (if it is running as a DNS proxy) and try to reverse resolve one of the IP addresses of one of the devices given a lease. In my experience, you will get no information back. Some may, but most don't. It is for this reason that mDNS was invented, so that a network attached device can inform another device on the same network of it's name without involving a traditional DNS server. Not all DNS clients have mDNS integration to allow this broadcast query to work. It may come, but in a network like mine, it is extremely unlikely that it will be available for the older devices I operate.
> I have permanently in my house in excess of 60 devices which regularly connect to the house network(s) one way or another
Doesn't that simple fact put you way, way at the end of the bell curve for domestic users?
Previously, you'd said
>> keeping tabs on what IP address your home devices are using can be a bit of a headache, and way beyond most people are prepared to learn about
but now the setup you are describing as "a bit of a headache" is itself way beyond what most people are even attempting to do, so it is irrelevant whether or not they'd be prepared to learn about it! It sounds like you are having fun, but not in a way that is particularly relevant to anyone else.
> But have you tried to edit the hosts file on a Sky box, or a printer, or a STB? Most connected devices not now look like computers.
No. Why on earth would I? Or anyone else. I described to you exactly when & why I use hosts files, as a defence against absolutely everything getting screwed when DHCP and DNS fail. End of. However, FWIW, every printer and STB I've had, to date, has been quite happy to accept a static address and name, as any server should, which is sufficient: those devices have absolutely no need to know the name/IP of any other device than themselves so their hosts files would only ever contain themselves and loopback anyway, rendering your question moot.
I recently set up a Pantum laser printer (pretty good hardware, much cheaper than the HP or other mainstream maker's devices, although it is from a Chinese manufacturer), and it actually took me a while and some hair pulling to work out how to navigate the tortuous menus to set a static address. If you followed the supplied instructions, you would have to install an app on your phone in order to discover and talk to a private WiFi network running from the printer, to connect to the device, and use the app's functionality to set the WiFi key and IP address (Yes, I know, I could probably have plugged a cable into it and dug out the default IP address, configured a device to that subnet and connect that way, but it's not actually close to a wired port).
Call me synical, but I am a little unhappy about just installing any app on my phone just to set up the IP address of a printer. I could have used a burner phone to do it, but I actually persisted, and worked it out eventually. But as soon as I had done that, I grabbed the MAC address and stuffed it into the DHCP config for a permanent assignment (the MAC address is, bizarrely, not obvious on the printers labels), just in case I ever needed to do a factory reset on the printer. I do not believe that many ordinary people would have persisted, and would have just followed the instructions, to the detriment of their overall security.
I also have a TV that seems to have no option to set the IP address manually, and setting a static IP address on my Sky HD+ Wifi connector is very involved, and rather hit and miss.
On the subject of 60 devices, I have multiple PCs, most running Linux (1 Slackware, 1 Devuan, 4 Ubuntu), an iBook Pro and three Raspberry Pis. I also have an IBM Power 6 system on the network. I have 2 active mobile phones, two Android tablets. I use 2 work supplied laptops, and beyond that, have a NAS box, 4 Roku devices, a Sky HD+ TV box, a Humax Satellite TV box, a couple of HDTV STBs for TVs without a DVB2 tuner (I have been investigating how I can ditch Sky TV, which is why there are so many TV devices). There are 2 'smart' TVs and one Internet streaming audio device on the network as well. There are also three network attached printers.
My three boys, even though they do not all live with us permanently, have their own PCs in the house, and they each have registered laptops and phones, and several consoles between them as well, all registered with IP addresses.
On an IoT network, I have three smart plugs, and a couple of IP cameras, although these last two are mostly turned off.
Interestingly, the three node Mesh network I have also uses 3 IP addresses on the network, and the firewall itself uses two (one on the IoT network and one on the main network).
I am not very good are removing devices from DHCP when they are retired. If I were to go through all of these, I would probably easily add another dozen devices
But just counting through all of these, I easily have 40 devices that I use regularly, plus another dozen or so for the kids devices, which is where I got 60 from.
I am a bit extreme, I know. It comes from being an early adopter of many technologies, but I bet that most households with tablets, IPTVs, multiple mobile phones and laptops will have over 10 without trying hard. And many will be pushing 20 or more if they bothered to count them up, especially if they have adopted network attached household appliances.
It would take me “a few minutes” to _begin_ looking up how to configure my router to block certain addresses.
Another few minutes to dig out the router admin password.
Figuring out the IP addresses of all my network devices will cost me a multiple of “a few minutes”. Or am I blocking/permitting wrt MAC addresses? More multiples.
Do I white list or black list?. Which is better? How much am I willing to make life awkward for ourselves and future visitors who want our WiFi? More multiples.
And that’s just the beginning. Now I need to troubleshoot everything that doesn’t work. And you can be goddam sure that some problems will crop up that are entirely unrelated to messing around with the router, because that is inevitable in my house.
So no, “a few minutes” is merely long enough to trash a functioning home network, nothing more.
TBH, I have found what ASUS has put inside their Zenwifi routers more than sufficient for the task, and it's very easy to set up (albeit easier from a browser than from their app, it works but is fiddly).
Heck, it even helps you with setting up a VPN for your devices and they run a DynDNS equivalent so that runs off a stable FQDN so if your ISP allocates you a new IP address it'll just adapt.
What you suggested is not too hard and is not really worth doing. What Recluse suggested is much harder but theoretically can help. Your approach works on the device level, blocking entire devices from network access. There's a way that's much more user-friendly to do this: don't give it connection credentials or cables. That accomplishes almost the same goals and doesn't require users to do anything with their firewall configuration. Unless you have something that can usefully do something on the internal network, the results are identical.
Recluse's suggestion involved allowing devices to access the internet but only allowing certain addresses as destinations. That lets you use a device where you do want to connect it to something without allowing it to do more. It also means a frequent need to allowlist another address, especially for systems that handle video which usually have a lot of CDN nodes with different addresses. That isn't easy for the untrained user, but it's also not easy for the trained one when you don't have documentation on what each address is and why the device wants to talk to it. The difference, knowing how to manage firewalls and what networking jargon means, turns out to be a relatively small part of the problem.
The difference, knowing how to manage firewalls and what networking jargon means, turns out to be a relatively small part of the problem.
Yep. If we struggle to do this, and maintain it.. what chance Joe/Jane Public? Especially when vendors actively try to get around blocking, sometimes to the point of rendering the device or service pretty much unusable, or unwatchable. Like YT and their continued attempts to prevent ad blocking & flog subscriptions.. And despite the brains at AlphaGoo, they don't seem to have twigged that ads are the problem, either due to frequency or irrelevance.. Especially when ad slingers also make the ads unskippable.
But also why making and supporting a consumer friendly 'black box' would be difficult. I did look at getting some prototypes made, but problem wasn't the cost of the boards, but support and maintenance. Which I why I think the solution requires government intervention and making a lot of the abusive spyware and harvesting illegal. Sure, allow OTA updates, but 'Smart' TV businesses have no business conducting illegal surveillance by tracking viewing habits, or worse, using mics or cameras to monitor, track and sell 'engagement' data. If LEAs installed bugs in people's homes without authority, they'd be in a lot of trouble. If IoT vendors install bugs, it's somehow OK because the user clicked through an AUP without reading or understanding it.
Just make it illegal, and jail a few CEOs who think spying on users is acceptable.
> There's a way that's much more user-friendly to do this: don't give it connection credentials or cables.
I dread the day dominant ISPs will sell access to their ubiquitous CPE WLANs. At my home I can see more than three SSIDs which are obviously that. Once TvMakerCo can pay TelekomCorp some kilobucks to get Internet access via all TelekomCorp boxes sprinkled across a country they are no longer dependent on you connecting anything. Their TVs may actually prefer using this as a backchannel, even if you provide Internet yourself.
> … especially for systems that handle video which usually have a lot of CDN nodes with different addresses.
FQDN-based blocking is a bit more viable, but not much. A crowdsourced solution like PiHole or uBlock, but for the whitelist would probably be the only solution with mass-market appeal. But of course, surveilance capitalism will fight back.
I dread the day dominant ISPs will sell access to their ubiquitous CPE WLANs. At my home I can see more than three SSIDs which are obviously that.
That can already be extremely dangerous. So probably a decade ago, I was helping police with their enquiries* and heard about a nasty case. Someone detected downloading CP, so address was raided, and occupants given a bit of a grilling. But turned out to have been a neighbor who'd been using an insecure WiFi.. Which wasn't immediately obvious, and due to delays in getting forensics back, rather unpleasent for the innocent homeowner who'd been raided and had all their devices seized.
*Ok, drinking with them. Also why I much prefer wired over wireless.
Their fear is that some ISP, not necessarily yours, will share access to your (if you've got their equipment) or your neighbors' connections. Not your internal networks, but the ability to send traffic anyway. Basically, Amazon Sidewalk for anyone with ISP equipment, not just those with Amazon IoT products. Short of living on enough land that you can't see your neighbors' WiFi, there's not a lot that could be done against such a thing.
This is a somewhat lengthy ramble, forgive me if it’s not your cup of tea - please ignore me, rather than downvote me! :-)
In my preceding post (see above) I commented “we aim to lose by the smallest possible margin” which recognised that total privacy is unrealistic, short of unplugging from the internet (and throwing your mobile away)
Additionally everyone has their own level of paranoia (as you might have gathered mine is high - must keep on taking them pills) however I recognise that people are different and may decide the perceived risks do not justify the expense/effort. People lead busy lives and teenagers can be very demanding - why is tiktok not working!
My (somewhat) amateur setup comprises a Pfsense CE firewall (yes, I know, I don’t like the direction that Netgate are going with it) but crucially it incorporates the pfblockerNG third party package. It's this package that keeps me on Pfsense rather than exploring alternatives like OPNsense.
With pfblockerNG it’s possible to automatically create firewall rules to not only block sites based upon DNS lookup (I describe it as a PiHole on steroids) e.g. so adding via online blocklists and bespoke entries, but also block whole IP subnets et al based on ASN (i.e. IP ranges)
This is a very powerful feature as it (normally) defeats hard coded IP addresses in applications that attempt to bypass DNS blocking (both inbound and outbound)
However this approach does (unsurprisingly) break things - for example you find that portions of iCloud are hosted not on Apple infrastructure but sometimes with competitors! CDN’s are widely used with big players e.g. AWS so this can cause “issues”
So for instance, by default I block all ASN’s associated with
Microsoft
Adobe
and many others
and then create firewall aliases to allow access for certain network devices to access certain ASN’s. The control can be quite granular. As an example I run my own private (cough, cough) Invidious instance, but this is hosted on its own raspberry Pi that is allowed access to Google ASN’s but then proxies the service to devices on my local network, so this means by default Google is not enabled network wide.
Routing my personal devices back through my home network via VPN allows me to maintain the benefit of this infrastructure even when out and about on 4/5G (yes I know Apple and iOS seems a bit flaky as regards killing the connection when/if unexpectedly the VPN drops)
I should add that I also run a separate DMZ network for untrusted devices that need internet access to work - e.g. Tesla Powerwall gateway but these are fire-walled off from my trusted network. This approach allows me to use Hikvision cameras (which seem very good) but they are not allowed external access to the internet, so that stops any potential for phoning home.
The cat is truly out of the bag as regards privacy, there is no ultimate solution, only damage limitation. Mitigating steps to consider (forgive me if I am preaching to the converted)
If you don’t provide the information in the first place to a third party it’s difficult for you to be exposed to hacking et al.
Email aliases are your friend (so when the spam arrives, you know who sold out or has been hacked) It also allows one to delete the alias and the spam problem goes away.
Password managers - use one, but self host your data (not “in the cloud”)
Encrypt all data not stored on your directly controlled devices (and also key data “in house”) and ensure you control the access keys (i.e. not managed by the third party provider)
Give the barest information necessary - online shopping, don't tell them your forename, initial only. Don't specify your sex (another contentious subject these cays!) Why do they want a phone number - they got your email (so if mandatory field use 01234567890)
Of course this approach does not work for those bodies that require your detailed data - be it for credit checking (damn there goes my date of birth) or official purposes (I seem to recall the voters roll data at a national level was hacked some years ago) DVLA, NHS and the like are impossible to protect yourself from. BTW did your (dentist/health provider et al) ever ask you if it was okay to store your data “in the cloud” or did it just sort of just happen?
Run your own fully resolving DNS server so you are going to authoritative source (and whilst at it) route outbound traffic via a trusted VPN provider (yes I know another can of worms requiring careful investigation)
I could go on, but you get my drift … and well done on making it this far.
Ps my most hated expression
“Your security of your data is of the utmost importance to us” <add relevant hacked company name here>
> By this I mean having a robust firewall, that by default, blocks all outbound connections as well as the more normal inbound. Whilst painful to setup and high maintenance
Even a fairly standard home router from some like Fritz!Box* can be easily set to block outbound connections. Any pain in the setup is then down to identifying your own PCs and phones on the list of hosts and letting them through - the WebUI is ok for this.
There are more robust firewalls available, but encouraging people you know to investigate what their existing kit can do is a good start.
* yes, Fritz have problems themselves - I'll rely on others here to suggest more manufacturers for those who aren't insane enough to enjoy setting up Opnsense as well as the ISP's router
I applaud the comments suggesting individual actions. However, I suspect that the privacy problem is a lot like the climate change problem: individual action is of very limited impact on the overall issue, and all good solutions are political. You can bet the bad guys are not acting as individuals; they are lobbying and funding parties and bribing. By all means set up a firewall, I'm certainly doing it, but publicly supporting strong privacy regulation is what might actually save us. Remember, the idea of the personal carbon footprint was invented by an oil company.
Much as it pains me to say it, here’s my top tip. Pay a little extra for a TV with the Google OS.
You can switch it into “dumb screen” mode which turns all of the smart features off, including ads, and it doesn’t bleat about not being connected to your WiFi.
Of course you’ll then need to buy a smart box of some kind, but as with hifi, separating the two gives you much more control.
(Also keep your old TV as long as possible. I only upgraded mine last year because the smoke escaped from my 12 year old Panasonic.)
Large-format displays that do not have the un"smart" crapware cost - when you can even find them at retail - anywhere from double to 5x or more, alongside their own unique bag of headaches (which from some of the other comments so far may include little issues like "no HDMI ports at all").
Projectors are more widely available, but weeding out the ones that claim "1080p" with "...accepted as input, actual display resolution 640x480" in microfine print (do not even ask about 4K) is more than a bit of a slog. And then you have to find a place to put it where it won't knock people on the head, won't suffer from unfortunate shadow play, won't collect image-mangling dust, doesn't need a jet turbine of a fan to keep the light source and actual display gubbins from melting....
I don't have a smart TV at the moment, im lucky that my 42" Toshiba from back in 2011 is still working fine and doesn't have any built in smart features. I use an Amazon Fire TV stick to access to streaming services and with Adguard home to restrict what domains and IPs that can connect to. Amazon makes that difficult since they have hard baked google DNS servers in Fire OS which you have to use a third party app to override and use your own DNS.
I had a go at building my own streaming PC using Linux and Kodi, but since most of the major streaming services don't offer any official support for Kodi only using the web version which is clunky to navigate when not using a mouse and keyboard, I went back to using Fire TV stick and their proprietary apps for now.
When my Toshiba eventually dies the next TV i get will not be connected to the Internet and ill continue using the Fire TV stick for streaming services.
I am surprised no opportunity was concocted to bring (currently) arch-demonic-power Russia into the fray. Perhaps, Iran too.
Meanwhile, agencies - commercial and government - potentially far more interested in the daily lives of European plebeian folk avoid deep scrutiny because they are endowed by a magical attribute called democracy.
Consider recent and current titular 'leaders' in Europe. In the UK, how much trust would a rational being place in such as Mr Blair, Johnson, Mr Starmer, and whoever is awaiting in the wings (e.g. Bad Enoch, Farage, Yaxley-Lennon, etc.)? As for mainland Europe, a mere glance at Macron, Metz, von der Leyen, and some others, should cause one to wince.
In China, the Party has had undeniable success in dragging a once great nation (i.e. its people) out of centuries long slumber and, in the course of a mere 3/4 century establishing, China as the new powerhouse for the global economy. Most importantly, China, unencumbered by ridiculous pseudo-electoral cycles during which heads are counted regardless of whether they house content, has enacted procedures for visionary long-term planning.
The West and its also-rans are mired in seedy neoliberal economic and social policies benefiting few, and centred upon control by usurious compound interest. 'Gift of the gab' elected politicians are mere (well-rewarded) frontmen for partially occulted interests.
So, ignore distant 'enemies' who have their hands full of their own parochial concerns, and direct attention to polities in the West acting in concert to assert global control.
>> Paxton reserved special venom for the two China-based members of the quintet.
Ken Paxton's record includes: Redistricting maps that has been termed 'demonstrably racist' by judges; law suits against school districts teaching the 'wrong' sort of history; deliberate and overt legal attacks on Black people and Latinos.
The man is a racist. It's not OK to be sort of racist.
Ken Paxton isn't sort of racist. He's over the top utter piece of shit racist.
But he's also not wrong that the Chinese government doesn't have a lot in the way of checks and balances on surveillance. That's not racist, that's a criticism of an authoritarian government.
Unfortunately, it looks like most countries are moving that way, it's gotten particularly bad in the US and UK. And our corporations slurping data are as damaging to us as our governments. And Paxton is part of the problem.
But he's also not wrong that the Chinese government doesn't have a lot in the way of checks and balances on surveillance.
Actually.. It can do. So if you're running surveillance and aren't the Chinese government, then the CEO might find themselves an involuntary organ donor, paying back to society one kidney at a time. Which is also part of the US v China techbro wars, so China has/wants data sovereignty, the techbros want the PII from 1.5bn Chinese to try and do some reverse tat-slinging. It's a funny old world when there are more personal privacy protections in China than there are here. Sure, goverments spy on people, but they're the only people that really should be allowed to do this, and with some safeguards.
This is a failing of a lot of people today, they throw the baby out with the bath water. If a person has one failing, he is painted as all bad. Nobody is perfect. Whether he is racist or not, it doesn't mean he's wrong about other stuff.
And do you know why people are like this? They want other people to do their thinking for them, rather than think and evaluate everything themselves. Knowing a person is wrong about one thing means you have to think for yourself and decide whether or not other things he says are wrong or right. People don't want to think, so they will just assume that being wrong on one thing means being wrong on everything. That's easier. What is hard (and for some, downright impossible) is giving credit where credit is due to someone you don't like.
if Hisense and TCL have conducted surveillance in the way the lawsuits accuse them of, they'd potentially be required to share all data with the Chinese Communist Party.
And if they were US companies, they would potentially be required to share all data with the US Government.
Which could be useful next time you want to mount an illegal military assault and kidnapping in another sovereign country. Even if Maduro is a nasty piece of work.
My 8 year old Panasonic keeps trying to connect to netflix even when in standby mode and even though I don't use netflix. The app can't even be stopped or removed unlike other "apps" on the tv.
I assume Panasonic (and I'm sure its the same for others) get some kickback from netflix.
Fortunately pihole comes to the rescue!
That's probably better, since the streaming platforms have a strong disincentive to allowing others to track users. It just lowers the value Netflix etc al can derive from their customers
Actually, could this be a good group to get on-side? Google, Netflix, Amazon, etc. The fewer companies selling personal data the more valuable their sources are.
"Buy the new GoogleTV, our spying is already covered by your existing agreements" would almost be tempting these days. I use GDocs, Chrome, and Android. There's little about me they don't already know, so a TV isn't opening any additional information leaks.
A few years ago I bought a SiliconDust HDHomeRun TV tuner head. It is connected to a headless Raspberry Pi with an HDD. You can watch live TV directly for free, or pay an annual subscription to set it up as a recorder. I have found it worthwhile to pay for a "Channels" DVR subscription which gives me up to 4 channels to be recorded. The software runs comskip to flag and hide commercials (Channels no longer recommends the Pi, but it works well for me). The recorder can play to a Windows, Apple, or Linux PC, an iPad, Apple TV etc. It is possible, but tedious and fiddly, to create a similar open source/FOSS setup. I can’t recall the last time I watched ’live’ TV.
"I decided that I couldn't be bothered using a infrared remote control so I bought one of these new TVs with a camera and microphone, now it knows if there is a human in the room and you can tell it to turn on, change the channel and all sorts, it's brilliant. It even shows me useful adverts based on what my family has been talking about and who is in the room. It's like when we got Alexa and used it at our summer BBQ, everyone could shout 'aaaaalllleeeexxxxaaarrr play crazy frog' well that was the kids but it was so useful." This is basically what we are up against. Even if you made a small device for £25 that acted as an authenticating proxy to get outbound traffic, people would never use one. It's like when a shop's POS is down and everyone is stood around looking sullen and bored. "Do you have a chunk-chunk machine? It might be buried at the bottom of the draw with the till roles", "What's that?", "and imprint machine, you put the my card in and it takes a imprint copy of it then you take that to the bank and they accept the payment", starting at my like I'm a total weirdo "Why?", "Well, so that I can pay your company even when your credit card reader isn't working they didn't always work back in the day", "Oh, no never heard of one of those was that like last century?". Baseband processors in mobile phones have had zero days with RCE's like nearly everything. I wonder if anyone has installed some stingrays that target those and, I don't know, deployed them in bin's around a city centre? Oh dear compromised many many phones. Obviously, and because of the times we live in I am NOT advocating someone do that, but just like the TVs spying on us, and the critical weaknesses in everyday tech, it seems that the majority don't care.
Resisting data snooping by smart devices is a lost cause for individuals (maybe .0001% have the competence to create a fortress at home, but even this won't solve all the issues and it comes at the cost of huge inconvenience). And if you want politicians to regulate to control snooping, you have to trust your government doesn't want to do exactly the same thing for their own purposes (which is clearly foolish in the US or the UK... I don't know about the rest of the world). I personally do resist, but understand that it is utterly futile.
The only thing I will take some care to do is to isolate all smart devices on a guest network because I expect them to be a vector for infection.
That's quite a lot of bandwidth, and they'd run afoul of copyright law since if e.g. you're watching a home movie on your TV that's not something they're allowed to copy (Hollywood probably isn't too keen on them grabbing frames out of the latest blockbusters you're streaming either) If your "home movie" is X rated then it would be a massive privacy violation, and there's no way their employees wouldn't dip into that trove and the TV OEMs don't want the potential liability from that.
AFAIK all the content recognition does is look for stuff that's encoded in most Hollywood content so they can know if you're watching Avengers or whatever, and that's something they can do on the local device.
Regardless the fix is to not connect the TV to the internet. If you do because you're using the built in apps then the content recognition is pointless - they likely have a deal with Netflix et al that in exchange for putting the app on the TV Netflix gives them some info about that's customer's habits to help with targeted ads on the TV.
AFAIK all the content recognition does is look for stuff that's encoded in most Hollywood content so they can know if you're watching Avengers or whatever, and that's something they can do on the local device.
I'm kinda suprised (but also glad) that Amazon hasn't taken this and run with it. We already get product placement in videos trying to get us to buy stuff. So why not extend that so if you pause the video, you can click on stuff, get taken to the tat bazaar and 1-click purchase it. Then behind the scenes, Amazon can auction off which seller gets promoted for that product. Then for nightmare fuel, video pauses, actor turns to camera and says 'You look like you could use an ice cold beer/coke right now, why not buy some now!'.
Yes,... funny. Here you all are moaning about your TVs watching you when you have been walking around with the perfect surveillance device in your pocket/handbag/hand for years. It has microphones to listen to you, several cameras to watch you, and is almost always connected to the internet. I know that they are being monitored for nefarious use but that has never stopped anyone as they find ways that do not get detected, or else it is your government who is doing the watching.
russians, chinese, indians, and "the bro scene", that operates out of california and new york. Anyone that hears a buzzword and thinks it's "the best new shiny", and used to living under constant surveillance and manipulation, or is insistent that EVERYONE should live under constant and unrelenting danger and fear of technology.
I have been doing some investigation into "dumb tvs", as my 20 year old one is about there. What I'm seeing makes no sense, and is impossible to navigate. Just the way they want it. It really brings home the fact that amazon is eating itself alive, and is more of a service provider than a reliable store front. They are already hitting ebay levels of lies, fraud, and unreliability.
You need to realize that there are multiple ways that Amazon operate.
Firstly, they are a primary retailer, directly buying, selling, shipping in and out and in-country warehousing. Secondly, they are a facilitator for other sellers who use them as delivery networks and advertise through the Amazon store front. Thirdly, they are a marketplace, very much like ebay, for sellers to do their own delivery (including delivery direct from China, operating like AliExpress, Temu and Shien).
About the only constant on all of these is that Amazon act as the payment processor, ensuring that you pay through Amazon even if you are buying from a third partty just using the Amazon storefront.
When you buy from Amazon, it should usually be possible to spot which of these is supplying a product. If it says "Seller Amazon", then it is the first type. If it says Seller: someone else" and something like "Dispatched by Amazon" or is included in Prime, then it is the second type. If the seller is a nonsense jumble of letters, and delivery will take many days by a method that is not Amazon, then chances are it's the third type. I mostly trust stuff sold directly by Amazon. I will buy stuff from other sellers that is shipped by Amazon, because there's a good chance it is in country and available for immediate shipping. The third category, I treat much like I do ebay and other online markets, I will buy from them if there is a compelling reason, but I try to avoind them if I can.
There are some other types of operation they do, like Amazon Haul, which is operated slightly differently, but I've never used that so far.
I do have some trust in both Amazon and Paypal as payment processors, though, as it limits the number of organisations that get any financial information about me. Paypal in particular is not perfect, but I think they deserve more trust that just some random payment processor attached to a web site.
I'm fed up with cable (over $150/mo for crap selection) and looking at IPTVGREAT because of the hype around 140K channels + 100K VOD.
Anyone here subbed? Does the PPV/sports (UFC, boxing, etc.) actually stream without buffering during big nights? How's the movie/series library—up to date or lagging?
Using it on Smart TV/Firestick mostly. Free trial tempted me, but wanna hear from people who've used it a bit. Pros/cons? Better alternatives right now?
Thanks in advance—sick of wasting money on dead services.
These feel natural and conversational—like a real person sharing without pushing too hard. They encourage replies (questions about uptime, devices, comparisons) which helps visibility. Always check forum rules (some ban links or promo; use DMs if needed). Add a VPN disclaimer if it fits.
I'm fed up with cable (over $150/mo for crap selection) and looking at IPTVGREAT because of the hype around 140K channels + 100K VOD.
Cable is a bit weird, especially now it's generally a walled off IP network anyway. Main difference is cablecos usually have the rights to content which can cost big $$$. No idea if IPTVG does, but if they don't, they usually get shut down or blocked pretty fast.
Anyone here subbed? Does the PPV/sports (UFC, boxing, etc.) actually stream without buffering during big nights? How's the movie/series library—up to date or lagging?
Nope, but I suspect they don't have the rights to a lot of their content, mainly because things like big sporting events cost a LOT of money for the rights. So as an example, Netflix buyin the rights to stream live WWF, some football games or the Anthony Joshua v some influencer bout. With a purse reported to have been $200m, Netflix must have paid a large chunk of that. But performance was apparently good. I don't have a TV Licence in the UK, so would have been illegal to watch live. I did watch something else though, just to see if the fight had any impact on the rest of the service..
Which is the network issue. Netflix has spent a lot of money on infrastructure so can support this stuff, although apparently there were some issues when the second chunk of IT.. I mean Stranger Things was released. The more.. dubious services generally don't have much capacity, so the quality might suffer. Especially as decent ISPs wouldn't touch these services with a very long stick as they're often illegal. I've seen and no-bid requests from companies like this and what they typically do is just get a satellite dish or cable box, rip 'live' streams from those & rebroadcast it. The big event rights holders also often send legal notices to ISPs warning that unless it's company X who owns the rights, rebroadcasting would get the ISP sued.
(HR wouldn't let me staple a copy of one of those letters to the salesperson that wanted to install a satellite dish on the roof of one of our buildings to play this game. They were a bit put out after explaining the facts of life. Like it might be a 3-yr deal worth $X a month, but it's illegal, we won't get paid and your commission will be clawed back.)
Having said that, some sports have been broadcasting directly via YT. Which means we get to watch some stuff like Goodwood's events, or even NASCAR, which typically haven't been available in the UK, which is interesting because they're cutting out the legacy broadcasters. Plus things like Robot Wars should be starting soon. Discovery used to have the rights to show that, but wouldn't for UK viewers. Now it looks like they're going direct via YT.
It is good to see this article. I have an eight year old Samsung Q series TV - one that is also connected to my main PC. On the T&Cs 'OMG' day (happened two years in), all net connections to the TV got minced there and then! ACR screenshots are akin to Microsoft Recall and we all know what we think of that privacy atrocity! The TV has always worked fine without a network and the rest of the 'smart' entertainment comes only from the (hopefully) well-firewalled PC.
Extrapolating thoughts on data security, I wonder if smart TVs also store all their ACR samples in an internal NVM - i.e. to send en masse when next on line? Just think, when you eventually sell it on, and Joe/Jane Bloggs connects it to their internet, you could potentially have all those screen samples of *your* passwords, emails, net use etc suddenly get sent out! Seller beware muhahaha! :D :D
I'm UK based.
Last replacement TV I purchased was a "dumb" TV from Cello.
I'm not a huge TV watcher so it was not a massive telly (I don't think they do huge ones) but that model had Freeview & freesat support so had all I needed (& other input options like HDMI, USB etc if needed - used HDMI to link up the Humax* box to give recording functionality)
* the Humax does not need internet as can do software updates via USB (a bit of a pain as need to download update on PC then throw on a stick, but means the setup works in a room that has no wired or wireless** internet)
** House has quite a few "not spots" (quite an odd shape / design with quite a few substantial internal walls) & have no desire / need for WiFi in every room*** so no mesh / repeater setup.
*** Did have to upgrade to a router with a stronger signal as, "spare" room used by friends when they stay only had wired connection (my home office room) & so many of them "needed" a WiFi signal for their devices that router upgrade done so there was a WiFi signal hitting that room (previous router was a bit too weak for viable signal there)
,
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
