Nah, you're not crazy. I'm also someone who actually reads terms documents, because I find that they're often the only thing that will be truthful about a company's intentions.

And keeping it completely disconnected from the internet should be the default, in my opinion.

▲

imglorp 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is absolutely no reason to read those contracts any more. As Louis Rossman keeps pointing out, most of them now include the ability for them to change terms at any time. That's basically the null contract.

Since the legal system has once again failed to protect users from corporations, it's up to users to use technical means for self defense.

▲

kolinko 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Depends on jurisdiction, just because someone wrote something in a contract doesn’t mean it’s binding.

In Poland/EU we have an (ever growing) list of forbidden clauses that even when written and signed by consumer are null and void. And I think these can be enacted retroactively - when corporations invent new shady clauses, government steps in and tells them these are invalid.

This helps to even out the consumer-corporation field.

▲

hvb2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> we have an (ever growing) list of forbidden clauses that even when written and signed by consumer are null and void

I'm pretty sure that's true almost everywhere. Law beats contract. The real question is how strong the laws are. In the US not so much because of small government and stuff, especially in red states.

▲

washelterskelte 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The law matters very little when enforcing it in court often means a multiyear lawsuit against an opponent which employs an army of attorneys, has effectively unlimited amounts of money, will likely cost you ruinious sums of money, and for an outcome that's far from guaranteed.

	▲	nobody9999 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>The law matters very little when enforcing it in court often means a multiyear lawsuit against an opponent which employs an army of attorneys, has effectively unlimited amounts of money, will likely cost you ruinious sums of money, and for an outcome that's far from guaranteed. Or when you can't even enforce anything in court as you've already given up your right to spend all your money suing, as binding arbitration is the required and only mechanism to "resolve disputes." To make it extra fair, the corporation pays the arbitration firm for their "objective" decisions and not you. What could go wrong?

▲

hatefulheart 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s great! Because then you’re left with the simple task of raising it up with the government.

▲

layer8 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s actually the judiciary you’d bring it up with, I believe.

	▲	soraminazuki 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The judiciary is a branch of government. But more crucially, some countries have better consumer protection agencies, eliminating the need for people to go through costly court battles for common sense stuff.

▲

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

Interestingly, in Brazil and I'm sure in some other legislations, those contracts are essentially void because there's a presumption the average person does not have the time, patience, or ability to understand every clause—so they are by definition unable to agree to their terms.

I'd love to have a similar standard applied in the US but I'm not holding my breath.

▲

oh_my_goodness 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>There is absolutely no reason to read those contracts any more

For another perspective, check out the comment you're replying to.

▲

DaSHacka 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At the very least, you can be sure they'll never change the terms of the agreement to be more beneficial for you, though.

So just treat it as a best case scenario, knowing that it can get even worse.

▲

pnt12 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just assume the worse then, save yourself some time.

	▲	DaSHacka 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well yeah, that's kinda the idea, but sometimes it's nice to know what 'the worst' will entail

▲

georgemcbay 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

At this point every EULA or TOS change should begin with the heading:

We Are Altering The Deal. Pray We Don't Alter It Any Further

▲

imglorp 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

PS, my technical means are keeping my TV off the internet.

▲

sandworm101 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Which doesnt work. LG tvs will scan for availible networks. Someone setting up a new router within range briefly disables encryption and "your" tv will jump on that network and transmit all the stored data.

It is tinfoil hats time, at least for LG tvs.

▲

switchbak 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I guess you could remove the wifi antenna, or otherwise brick the wifi reception ability (faraday cage, lead block, etc). Or - just boycott LG. I'll never buy any of that corporate espionage nonsense, ever.

Also: the US intelligence agencies used Echelon ages ago to monitor what vast swaths of innocent people were up to. I think it's sensible to presume they've got their hooks into these devices too.

▲

c22 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Give it a network, but don't allow that network to access the internet.

	▲	kwarcode 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If it can't phone home, it's not connected. A technical solution would presumably spoof the spaff but with E2EE and DoH is it possible? So then what, hacking firmware? I guess then TVs get a hard lifespan limit.

▲

skerit 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I never understood why any of the smartness had to be built into the TV in the first place. Sure, it's useful for the first year, and then the seriously underpowered hardware they installed into it will have trouble with just about anything.

I bought a Philips Ambilight OLED TV probably over 8 years now. Brilliant tv, great quality, I still see no reason to replace it at all. But its built in AndroidTV is garbage.

▲

WD-42 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because it’s extremely profitable for them to serve ads and sell PI. Kind of like how the airline industry makes more money off credit card shenanigans than actual plane tickets.

▲

asnelt 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I hear you. This is exactly the reason why I have a digital signage display rather than a Smart TV.

▲

_puk 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Similar boat - Panasonic glass fronted TV. Circa 2013. None of the smart works anymore.

1080p, but the picture far outstrips most other TVs I've owned to this day.

I have zero plans to change it, and it's usefulness has outlasted the Chromecast that's connected to it.

Yes, I put the first ads on Smart TVs. Apologies.

▲

XorNot an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because having the TV play from streaming apps out of the box is pretty useful.

The problem is we've not enforced any strong regulation against ads, downgrade rights or hack ability.

I don't need "better performance" from the system built into my TV I just need it to run Kodi.

▲

unrented7977 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's so you buy a new one every few years instead of keeping the same TV for a decade or two. Capitalism cannot survive when products last a lifetime.

▲

drdeca 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If that’s true, then why is capitalism still around? Should it have died out in a previous generation in which many products did last a lifetime?

	▲	mitxela 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It did. We are currently on the fourth or more reinvention of capitalism. It's like ethernet - every time networking technology changes, the new one is called the same thing as the old one. Same for capitalism.

▲

MarkusQ 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Capitalism cannot survive when products last a lifetime.

This is totally backwards; capitalism would do fine in such an environment (in the same way that evolution does fine in an environment where organisms live more than just a few seconds; the whole reason we have the notion of a "lifetime" is that our germ line comes from a long line of ancestral DNA that made organisms that outlasted their competition.)

Individual companies might have to hustle to innovate or die, but that too is good for capitalism.

	▲	MarkusQ 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Whoa! I think maybe I stepped on somebody's agenda? Both capitalism and evolution depend on the fact that over time, on average, less fit organisms/organizations are displaced by better alternatives. You may not like that, but down-voting anyone who points it out doesn't make it any less true.

▲

II2II 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I find that they're often the only thing that will be truthful about a company's intentions.

Really? Many years ago, I had to physically sign a license with Microsoft to obtain some software. The license was not consistent with the license included with the software. Both licenses effectively said they were the real license and that any other agreement you made with Microsoft was not valid.

I don't think there was any nefarious intent. It was likely to avoid a situation where Microsoft employees offered terms that were not approved of by the company. Still, it goes to show that it can be awfully difficult to judge the intent of a company.

▲

snvzz 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Only good until the device starts using a neighbor's LG TV as access point, without telling you, for the sole purpose of upgrading itself and sending this "telemetry".

▲

ButlerianJihad 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Zealous Autoconfig https://m.xkcd.com/416/

	▲	LoganDark 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Non-mobile link: https://xkcd.com/416

▲

recurseP 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Really?

▲

otikik 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Well that is how Airtags work.

Any iphone/ipad/mac nearby will act as a router for them[1]

Given that we have already established that LG is a shady company, I wouldn't put it beyond them to try to use the same trick.

[1]https://lifehacker.com/tech/how-apple-airtags-actually-work

▲

brookst 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That is not how AirTags work. They do not reach out to Apple servers at all.

AirTags broadcast an encrypted ID. Phones build lists of ID’s they’ve seen and send the list to Apple.

There is no routing, no ability to send arbitrary data, no active communication of any sort. It’s not a mesh network.

The link you posted makes that pretty clear.

	▲	lazide an hour ago \| parent [-]
		uh, that is just all the iphones acting as a mesh network for airtag ID’s? it means you can’t block the tracking by doing anything yourself - you’d also need to block everyone else’s devices too.

▲

antonkochubey 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's also how Amazon Sidewalk works for many Alexa-enabled devices

	▲	wolvoleo 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah and my worry is, TVs like this can use sidewalk to connect to when they are not provided with internet access by the user (either but plugging into ethernet or connecting WiFi). Leaving the TV with an always-available exfiltration channel for it's espionage of the user's viewing habits. This is a really bad thing for those of us who until now have just not connected our 'smart' shit to the internet. Where I live in the EU they don't do sidewalk otherwise I'd have to look at ways to fight it (disassociate connections or DDoS the devices providing sidewalk routing)