As long as the firmware is proprietary and cannot be inspected or modified, the only reliable way to avoid snooping by tech industry is not to connect any "smart" device to the Internet. Use the TV as a dumb monitor for a PC under your control (running Linux). If streaming service X will not run on Linux because DRM is not implemented or enforceable on a free device, do without it, or find alternative sources for the content (hint: Linux ISOs).

▲

irl_zebra 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've been using my pi-hole as my DNS and then also firewall blocking the TV from phoning out on port 53 in case the manufacturer has hardcoded DNS. Though I agree with the point and I shouldn't have to do this. This is just mitigation.

▲

gruez 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>and then also firewall blocking the TV from phoning out on port 53 in case the manufacturer has hardcoded DNS

I'm surprised they haven't switched to using DoH, which would prevent this from working.

	▲	hunter2_ 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It wouldn't even need to use any sort of standards-based DNS-like thing at all, if they control the server (on a stable IP address in the TV's firmware) and the client (the TV). It could be any data scheme (probably https for simplicity and blending in) along the lines of "give me all the other IP addresses I'll need, which aren't as stable as the one in my firmware." Regardless, what is the benefit of putting the TV on the network but preventing it from doing DNS lookups anyway, even if you could be sure you succeed?

▲

username135 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

At the very least, i would assume the majority of folks here were pi-holing devices on their network.

▲

jvanderbot 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You say "only", but if it is illegal, optional, and can be detected freely, it is very likely to not happen. For all the snark one can muster about DOJ, with those three things in place, it could get expensive very quickly to try to circumvent the law.

▲

peterhadlaw 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What about cheap cellular modems built in?

▲

drnick1 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is there any evidence those exist in TVs and other home appliances?

Modern cars have cellular modems, I unplugged mine, and would not hesitate to take apart a TV and physically rip off the modem.

▲

anon7000 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Absolutely yes. My prescribed CPAP came with 5G that uploads data for their app and for your physician to monitor your progress. You basically wouldn’t even know it had one, the plan must be managed by the company and automatically connects where ever you take it.

https://www.resmed.com/en-us/products/cpap/machines/airsense...

▲

bluGill 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe not yet - but 5g was built with the idea of making them cheap. It takes a couple years to design the cheap modems and then a few more years to get them in TVs, so they could well be coming in the near future yet - only time will tell. And the modem will also be your wifi so you can't really rip it off without losing other useful things.

▲

gruez 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>but 5g was built with the idea of making them cheap

For bandwidth, maybe. It's still going to add cost to the BOM. They'll have to recoup that somehow. Say a 5G modem costs $20 (random number). For it to actually make money, it'll need to be otherwise not connected to the internet, otherwise it can just use wifi instead. Out of 100 people, how many do you think won't connect it to the internet for privacy reasons? 1? 5? 10? Keep in mind, if they don't connect to the internet, they'll need to go out and get another device to watch netflix or whatever, so they're highly incentivized to. Say 10 out of 100 don't, and with this sneaky backdoor you now can sell ads to them. For that privilege, you paid $200 per disconnected TV, because for every disconnected TV with a 5G module, you need to have a 5G module in 9 other TVs that were already connected to the internet. How could you ever hope to recoup that expense?

▲

bluGill 15 hours ago | parent [-]

assume they are aiming for $1 in large quantites. I don't know thier number but that is closer. And the cost will be low because they are bulk buying excess data. They can send this at 3am when everyone is asleep so cell companies can give a deep discount.

again the above is the plan, reality often changes.

	▲	gruez 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The above pricing is just for the modem itself, not the data plan. There's no way you can get a cellular modem for $1.

▲

sfRattan 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you're planning on using the TV as a dumb display for another device, and are determined enough to physically remove a cellular modem, then the TV's own WiFi is not a useful thing either, even if integrated into the same chip.

	▲	bluGill 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The CPU, wifi, and modem are all in one in this future (think ESP32). That is the direction this is likely to move. You can't remove one without the rest. I suppose you could put your own CPU in and write software, but otherwise you are stuck.
	▲	hunter2_ 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If you want the TV to be on your network (for casting or streaming or whatever) and you also want to filter that traffic (allowing connections only to the services you want to use) then you need it to be on your own network (wifi, if there's no ethernet port) and not on someone else's network (cellular).

▲

tehlike 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Eventually these will use mesh networks to figure this out.