I'm surprised this hasn't run afoul of all-party wiretap laws. Even if you could waive your own rights via ToS other people in the house may not have agreed.

Theoretically I could see LG or even the TV's owner being culpable.

I'd love to see that case hit the media. Average citizen jailed over wiretap violations because they let their TV record a guest.

▲

godelski 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

On top of that, the first few minutes of the video suggests it captures your neighbors' device and IP information.

I'm sure the ToS has some BS about you being required to inform any guests, but what if your TV is just recording your neighbors because they are close enough?

Just wait, I'm sure the "solution" will be that TVs start displaying reminders that you're being recorded...

Is our inability to innovate in technology really so bad that we have to just chase more and more spying? Consumers don't want these things. Why can't we innovate on things that consumers actually want? Remember, there was a time where we could build good technology, tech that people wanted, and make buckets of money doing it. That should be our goal, not some cyberpunk dystopia. Honestly it feels like anytime we try to innovate now some manager says "don't make things complicated" or some other dumb excuse, but maybe worse is that peers (other engineers) say "but what's the value" (they always stress that they mean monetary, not utility)? Feels like monkeys attacking each other for trying to get the banana...

▲

FractalParadigm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Re. The last paragraph, that's what confuses me the most about all of this. LG has virtually held a monopoly of the entire OLED TV market for the past ~15 years, selling (arguably) one of the TVs on the market and being the only thing I've recommended people buy in about as long. They could have done literally nothing but update the hardware every other year with a newer SoC, HDMI version, etc. and done just fine. Now, I don't think I could see myself buying or even recommending any LG products going forward.

There *has* to be some complex math involved. It's insane that there's more profit in duping your users to spy on them and sell their data/information, than there is just making and selling a great product.

	▲	baby_souffle 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> It's insane that there's more profit in duping your users to spy on them and sell their data/information, than there is just making and selling a great product. Seems pretty logical, no? How do we sell more TVs? Be a cheaper and or better choice. If we're already doing well technically, sell customer data to discount the TV and appear more attractive. If this is ethical / how much disclosure you'd need to give to customers so they can make this informed choice is a whole other discussion...
	▲	daemin an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		For a corporation there's always more money to be made, until it makes all the money in the world.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	hdgvhicv an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		THe phrase is “leaving money on the table” Pure naked greed, something to be celebrated in our Ferengi style capitalist system.

▲

wiml 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The TV's license agreement attempts to shift the burden onto the TV's owner. Taken at face value, it's the owner who is guilty of recording people without their consent.

▲

AgentOrange1234 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Really good question. For instance, TX is a one-party consent state. If the TV is recording what's happening in the living room with nobody's knowledge, that seems like a very clear violation of "one party in the conversation needs to know it's being recorded." IANAL

▲

mey 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How do guests/children/people in public spaces consent to it? It's a gross violation.

▲

jeffbee 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Of what? This can only be evaluated in the context of wherever you live. In most of America recording sounds "in public" is a broadly protected activity because that's what "in public" means. You can only get in trouble for this if you violate another person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

	▲	hdgvhicv an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Watching a TV that doesn’t watch you back is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and has been since 1984 was written.

▲

gorbachev 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I bet there are an army of lawyers in those states preparing class action lawsuits right now.

I'm pretty sure Attorney Generals will also join the fray in due time.

This crap needs to be shut down hard.