I think the author took the wrong message from the video.

His arguments are all

- yes everyone does this not just lg; :)

- yes it can be used to track the user; but unless you literally go into lg ads hq, you can’t say they don’t

- they rooted to trigger this; well the os and system apps don’t need root, we need it to observe.

If the author is here please consider these as the reasons to why an LG customer would be mad.

- They did not knew LG has an ads subsidiary, whose CEOs and executives constantly go on investor meetings claiming “they own the glass”, “they own the living room”, “they own the network and devices” in the “lg household”

- if the above was said by lg tv division it would have still stung less. This was said by an ad company they didn’t knew existed nor did they agree to be associated with when they bought a home appliance.

Stop focusing on the technical details, look at the larger picture.

▲

drbscl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, as the owner of an LG OLED, I paid a premium for a good quality panel, and expect it to be mine.

Also, I anticipated ads on a smart TV (unfortunately it's inevitable), but (wrongly) assumed that such invasive tracking and "we own the glass" would be a bar too low even for the budget manufacturers.

I'm never buying any LG product ever again.

▲

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

I agree with the author, the point is that the way the video and the overall research was done, the entire message was diluted too much.

There is substance in what they did. But they should have worked with an actual journalist to frame this properly and create pressure on the overarching topics.

If a TV company (LG or ANY of the others who have Ad-subsidiaries) needs to respond to this video, they can easily reframe the whole topic.

The most blatant example is that they demonstrate in the video that this TV, which has a built-in microphone for voice-control, that can be switched off with a mechanical switch:

1. Will record your voice when you ask it to transcribe your input to a textbox

2. Will process your voice to create this text it shows, as visible on the logs of the rooted OS

3. Will SHOW you that it's transcribing your input on the screen.

This is weakening the whole story.

In HN-terms: It's a constant-power, constantly-connected IoT-device with lots of sensors and huge compute-power, located in the center of your home.

There are big topics around this that deserve a huge spotlight, which apply to ALL TV manufacturers:

a. What data is actually being collected about the user, and what is done with this data?

b. How well is security handled on the TV to ensure no malicious usage?

Repeatedly jumping to the conclusion during the video that LG specifically is collecting ALL this local data to spy on you, without clear evidence, this just gives LG an easy way to respond and every other vendor enough room to distance themselves from the whole story.

▲

taurath 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> What data is actually being collected about the user, and what is done with this data?

This question implies that the answer could be something other than the maximum amount of data collection and monetization of that data they can get away with.

If that statement gives you pause please spend even a short amount of time reading about ad networks, data brokers, and corporate surveillance.

	▲	rickdeckard an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I wouldn't vouch for a US court, but lucky me I'm in the EU, where the answer "the maximum amount of data collection and monetization of that data they can get away with" is not compliant to the requirements of GDPR. So even IF that would be a sufficient answer in a court of US, it would not be sufficient in a court of an EU country. --> Hence my point on how the overall message was diluted too much. See, you may look at all this as "nothing can be done anyway, so let's bunch it all together and rant about it as emotionally as possible". But I look at it as "this is all potential evidence that a law was either already broken or needs to have a loophole closed" But you won't get any of this done by spraying all over how normal this is and how everyone does it anyway. You get this done with a precise shot at ONE of them, concise enough to pin them down while aiming at the next one.

▲

lukeschlather 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

LG's terms of service essentially state that they will record any voice commands and store them for 6 months. They explicitly say they may store them in Korea. https://us.lgappstv.com/main/terms

Actually I think everything you're suggesting is unclear, LG explicitly say they do these things in their ToS. I skimmed their privacy policy, and I'm pretty sure it essentially says they collect all this information and use it for targeted advertising.

	▲	rickdeckard an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, and here's the part that's interesting to me as a EU-consumer: This wording doesn't exist in the European ToS: https://gb.lgappstv.com/main/terms#tabContentTerms6 So there's the angle that US is lacking the proper regulation, and the angle that LG may have violated its ToS in the EU. But neither of this is going to get pinned down if everything is bunched together without focus and clear evidence...

▲

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

It's such a bad take.

It's either a deliberately contrary or the author has other motives (which may sound ridiculous, but we know that bad actors have been paying people for bad takes for years - Malcolm Gladwell for instance being paid by oil and gas).

▲

shellfishgene 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I was also a bit disappointed with the video. I don't usually watch the channel, but the previous video on LG with the McAfee thing was good. This one, well it has important points and exposes some very valid concerns. However I mostly agree with the linked article, it does not properly spell out what they actually can prove, and what's just conjecture. The video gets lauded as investigative journalism, I think the technical details are important to get right and make clear to non-tech people. A normal consumer would have no idea how to really judge the danger to their privacy after watching this, they'd come away thinking that for sure someone can listen in on their living room.