I'm practically certain that there was no ill-intent by LG when conceiving this feature. It was most likely just a convenience thing.

But I am also practically certain, that, eventually, any pile of data will attract ideas you do not want attracted.

▲

upboundspiral 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are multiple recordings of LG executives saying "we own the glass (the TV)", referring to the "LG household", and how they can serve targeted ads by recognizing every device on the network. Just watch the video...

The head of LG ads was banned from serving in a public company for 10 years by the SEC for fraud...

▲

tremon 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't share your definition of ill intent. The decision to put a (hidden) recording device in people's homes with the express purpose of exfiltrating data is already ill-intentioned of itself, regardless of whatever they planned to do with the collected data.

▲

hypfer 10 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

tremon 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Pray tell, what goals do "we" want to achieve? Your position of no ill-intent does not sound like you're on the same side as I am, much less more so than myself.

▲

hypfer 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> Because your position of no ill-intent does not sound like you're on the same side as I am.

If your position is "We do not want these kinds of stuff to exist/happen", then we are.

If your position however is "Witchhunts are fun, and decisions and dialogue should be driven by emotions", then indeed we are misaligned by a few centuries.

▲

tremon 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Do not put words in my mouth. Where in my post did I advocate for any form of action?

▲

hypfer 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> Where in my post did I advocate for any form of action?

Wait what?

You don't? What?!

I want action. I do not want there to be a microphone array in my TV that may or may not sample at random times and forwards that data god knows where.

And to achieve that, I believe that we need to look at the systems that brought us to this outcome.

▲

pessimizer 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You change the conversation about televisions to be about judging the person you're having the conversation with for what they think is "ill-intent" and for one-upsmanship, you put words into their mouth, and when they point it out, you ignore them and return to the conversation. You aggressively silence them, then start babbling about yourself.

Are you a bot designed to disrupt conversations or just doing a good imitation of one?

	▲	hypfer 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I am indeed trying to disrupt the classic outrage scripts, as I believe that they are harmful to our goals. There are many, many places on the web where performative outrage as in-group signalling is cheered, but, ideally, we also have some spaces where we can think and derive solutions. By splitting the spaces, people can get the emotional validation they crave, while we can also have a workspace to make things better and reduce the need for that validation in the first place.

▲

dwedge 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree with your sentiment but unless the person you replied to edited their comment it seems misguided. They mostly just said they didn't agree with you, there was no outrage or one upping, and genuine discussions should be encouraged

▲

hypfer 10 hours ago | parent [-]

If you look at it, it's just "it's ill-intent based on what it is, regardless of intent".

Which is.. a dumb statement, but also just the usual social media outrage one-upping in lingo that passes the letter of the law of HN.

Effectively, the user just said that things are bad in response to an implicit "let us examine why, how, and what to do about it". Which is known, but unhelpful and derailing.

And.. somehow also hinted at that I'd not be aligned enough, because my definition of ill-intent being based on intent is not shared.

Anyway.

	▲	dwedge 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I read it more as them disagreeing with at what point it's "intent" - is it bad to give yourself the option to record all customers without consent or does it only become bad once they actually turn it on (remotely) and start shipping it. Having said that, you might be right given the follow up to you

▲

rickdeckard 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, unfortunately the investigative video is implying (or explicitly stating) malice on every detail they discovered, which is harming the overall message IMO.

They hacked the TV OS, then used the TV UI to do a web search with voice-input and observed (still on the UI!) that the voice input didn't stop immediately on silence but kept extending the search prompt with everything said [0].

The OS-hack was irrelevant for this, the whole sensationalism that a listening process is running (and therefore the device is listening to everything) is just drama added to the sober fact that someone started voice-input, the input field is still displayed on the bottom of the UI and keeps getting populated with new input.

There is an important message in this about security hardening, privacy, data protection, but this conspiracy theory that everything is made to spy on you is not helping...

[0] https://youtu.be/6IFVTcM28KA?si=OCmfai2KXSaQt1Bk&t=2958

▲

hypfer 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I really wish Steve would not have befriended Louis to the degree he has, but.. well.

Or rather I wish Louis would limit the "bulldozing" persona to the context in which it is necessary instead of all contexts ever at any time.

No issue with people being friends. Just issue in standards deteriorating.

___

Is this how Twitter felt like for journalists back in the day? You see a story, and you think "ah yes, that guy's signature"?

End me.

▲

givinguflac 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

| but this conspiracy theory that everything is made to spy on you is not helping...

Have you actually looked at what is being discussed? There is no conspiracy theory, these are simple facts. Just about every electronic device is made to spy on you in 2026. Thinking otherwise is naive, at best.

▲

rickdeckard 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

| but this conspiracy theory that everything is made to spy on you is not helping... Have you actually looked at what is being discussed? There is no conspiracy theory, these are simple facts. Just about every electronic device is made to spy on you in 2026. Thinking otherwise is naive, at best.

You've accidentally proven my statement: If you're not specific, you're not helping.

▲

givinguflac 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Nothing about my previous statement was accidental, and it’s proven nothing to your point as far as I can tell. What exactly are you being specific about here? You started with a baseless claim that anyone who believes we live in a surveillance state is misguided, while I stated that the discussion was surrounding facts. Meanwhile, there are numerous citations throughout the thread, go read them; I’m not going to reproduce them here.

	▲	rickdeckard 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You started with a baseless claim that anyone who believes we live in a surveillance state is misguided Oh I made no such claim whatsoever. My complete statement was this, in context of the original research the article is based on: "There is an important message in this about security hardening, privacy, data protection, but this conspiracy theory that everything is made to spy on you is not helping..." To translate: It's important to raise and emphasize matters of security hardening, privacy, data protection, and there's alot to raise here. But doing so by implying broad malicious intent on even the most trivial use-case observed on the device (like user-initiated voice-transcription, as I also elaborated as an example) is not helping to emphasize the actually important findings of that research. Meanwhile, you started a broad strawman-argument "that anyone who believes we live in a surveillance state is misguided". You need to find a opposing position to argue that, you won't find that with me...

▲

pessimizer 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You don't understand - it's not meant to spy on you, it's only meant to spy on you.

It's only meant to spy on you in the way that won't get really bad viral press right now. If it spies on you in the way that people notice and object, it was clearly a honest mistake.