They're not talking about putting the TV online. The TV is completely offline.
They're talking about plugging the TV into a PC or laptop via HDMI or Displayport (like if you're running an HTPC), which then triggers a companion app update on the PC via Windows Update. This was a news item a few weeks ago with their monitors. They then also discuss a hardware blocker for HDMI or DP to prevent this.
Again, this has nothing to do about the TV's smart apps.
It's very reminiscent of Sony putting rootkits on CD's. Unwanted, dangerous software is being loaded onto your computer by people you paid money to. The companies involved, including MS, should face serious blowback over this, as Sony did.
More of a Windows Update + MS partner issue than EDID.
It's Windows that decides that it should download a driver from Windows Update because it recognises it hasn't got a driver from that hardware, and it's Microsoft that let the vendor submit drivers that are bundled with near malwareto Windows Update.
Then the OS vendor will start limiting which devices they support and with very strict review processes.
It can swing the other way, my options are limited to company’s that pay my OS provider for access.
There's nothing nefarious about EDIDs. EDIDs are just a way of the monitor to announce its capabilities to the device so that the device and the display can agree on things like resolution, refresh rate, etc. EDIDs are just blobs of data without capability to execute logic, as far as I'm aware.
It sounds like the author is claiming that Windows does some sort of driver update in response to EDID announcements, but OP doesn't explain it at all. If that's true, that would entirely be on the Windows end not on the EDID's end. It sounds like Windows is recognizing LG as the manufacturer declared in the EDID and then downloading a driver for LG. I don't think there's any way for the EDID to declare to the OS that it wants to perform a driver update.
Around a month ago LG took advantage of this feature by publishing a Windows "driver" for all their TVs and monitors that consisted entirely of payola bloatware, resulting in predictable backlash [1] and the obligatory subsequent HN discussion [2]. None of this has anything to do with the TVs themselves being connected to the internet or not.
The exact same logic applies to devices you buy. These companies have shown they do not have any integrity. So why would you want buy something from them that is "smart" and never sleeps?
That is just stupid to give internet access to a "smart" tv or a "smart" phone. You have zero control over it.
On a related note, you should absolutely remove the cellular modem from your car as well.
The geniuses at hyundai refuse to let you operate the heating in some of their electric cars without an internet connection. Yes, you read that right - the only way to operate the HVAC compressor in several hyundai EVs is via their stupid app and the internet. I found out the hard way when i kept noticing that my hyundai EV was not heating the cabin in winter even though i turned the HAVC on. Turns out, as soon as you plug into the wall outlet, the compressor stops.
There is no technical reason for this, other than enshittification.
Noted. Thank you for reminding us not to buy a Hyundai EV.
Maybe the engineers wanted to ensure your cabin wouldn’t induce health risks.
We collected such minimal information. Basically only enough to allow for OTAs, functionality, and debugging. Thinking back, we could've collected so much more.
I remember when Alexa hit the market and we (as a company) thought there's NO WAY amazon was making any money on them.
Today... NO WAY. Along the way the value stopped being "This product is priced so we can make a profit" and became "The data we collect is more valuable than the sale".
You can do things like physically modifying your TV, or seeing if there are undocumented settings to disable things.
The traffic was separated so that anything on the public hotspot was not attributed to the private subscriber network.
Secondly for years I lived somewhere very remote so that meant that hardly anyone ever got to use my broadband connection via such a hotspot, but I got to use hundreds of other peoples hotspots when I was somewhere less isolated.
I was quite happy to opt in to this system as I benefitted hugely from it.
Is this for real? This does not affect me as I use my own equipment, but I still find it hard to believe.
Instructions for disabling it: https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/disable-xfinity-wif...
Every Cox customer has a Panoramic WiFi router that advertises as a member of the “CoxWiFi” SSID, and other customers can authenticate there and access the Internet through your connection. This is on a strictly opt-out basis.
I’ve opted-out, and also my router is permanently in Bridge Mode, so there is no technical way for me to provide anyone a WiFi connection. But all my neighbors do, even if they are blissfully unaware.
How does this work legally when you get in trouble for someone else's activity?
You might say it's naive, but is it really naive to buy a TV and expect it to be a device to display audiovisual content and not a spyware/adware machine?
I feel like it's not the user's behavior that should be put into question here, but the borderline criminal behavior of the manufacturer.
And so your TV does need Internet access.
The same holds for many other devices, in different shapes. Sure, you can opt out of civilization completely to avoid all the side effects of late stage capitalism, but maybe it's worth applying a bit more nuanced thinking to find a balance that doesn't throw you back to the 1800s. (Unless you like the 1800s, in which case, enjoy)
Linux mini-PC running Bigscreen Plasma. No, it can't be used to stream Netflix at native resolution because of DRM. But if you can't live without Netflix content, you can use alternative sources and save money in the process. VacuumTube for YT instead of the official app.
Yes, this is an additional device, but it is not unlike a streaming stick or Android shitbox.
disclaimer: i run a whole variety of home media stuff, so i am one of you - but it's just a funny example of exactly the kind of thing that makes people not do this stuff
Once awareness of this side-loaded crapware gets out, I'd expect the community to come up with fixes to ensure it doesn't get loaded. In the meantime, this should blow up in the faces of MS, LG, etc. just like things blew up for Sony when they put root-kits on CD's.
Unless you are trying to pass through lossless audio the AppleTV 4k is one of the best streamers you can buy right now
Chromecasts seem to at least have reduced ads, but I'd do almost anything to be able to stream youtube (or ideally any webpage) to an arbitrary screen with functional adblocking.
Doesn't solve the malware on Windows PCs installed by LG monitors problem. My only solution to that remains to not buy Lucky Goldstar ever since their 14" 640x480 VGA monitor died inside of warranty but they refused to fix it.
But I have a thousand times more confidence that MS will keep the signed, auto-distributed periodic xbox series x operating system updates 'secure' than I do that some random smart tv manufacturer will implement a proper operating system.
[Sceptre](https://www.sceptre.com/TV/4K-UHD-TV-category1category73.htm...)'s 4K series is sold at Wal-Mart, often for under half the web-listed prices. I’ve bought a few at the 42” scale for like $180 shipped. They’re fine and they’re incapable of all the spyware bullshit.
If the user data is worth that much then I wouldn't be surprised if some manufacturers put such radios in their non-smart TVs in order to try and gather such data.
I live in a densely populated part of a large UK city and (checks `nmcli dev wifi list`) there are 14 distinct wireless networks near me that aren't mine. There's a good chance that any IOT device could find something nearby, and there's even a whole load of LoRa nodes that it could use for a very slow uplink.
[edit: or whatever UK FCC would be]
I don't know where you are, so I can't say what availability is like there. But it's worth doing a basic search.
What is it talking about? What boom?
If anything it's the opposite, as memory components become obscenely expensive.
…is the full quote. Come on, guys.
Definitely have to agree with the author on that. Only use for a TV for me is for playing on the Steam Machine.
At this point I assume the author was making intentionally bad choices out of morbid curiosity. I can't imagine anyone technical thinking drivers should be required to connect to a TV via HDMI. (or maybe I'm not technical enough)
There's no reason to expect a normal user to think "Yes, this port is the USB port and thus commonly needs driver updates, but that HDMI port does not ever need driver updates." Most people don't even know it's called a USB port, let alone whether it should host driver updates. Besides, I could imagine a scenario where there's some outdated HDMI decoding thing on it. Or maybe just some tech for home theater stuff I'm not aware of.
Just disconnecting from Wifi often doesn't work because the TV will connect to insecure wifi to upload data and fingerprint what you're watching and who you are.
> Just disconnecting from Wifi often doesn't work because the TV will connect to insecure wifi to upload data
It made more sense when I first heard this theorized back in the early 2010s when smart TVs were becoming more common and unsecured WiFi hadn't vanished completely yet. Now it would be way more logical to include a cheap 5g radio, which has also been alleged but I haven't seen any model shown to include one.
You can argue if it actually installs the software or just nags the user to install it, but neither are things microsoft would allow a monitor "driver" to do if they had any integrity.
There is a Group Policy setting under Computer Configuration / Administrative Templates / System / Device Installation / "Prevent automatic download of applications associated with device metadata" that seems to curb most of it, thought I still ended up with a user mode app related to the audio driver.
Checks out, and I mean that in the kindest way possible
Smart TVs are to be plugged in to be updated, and that's it.
Their default state is to be permanently offline.
Hook up an Apple TV if you want apps.
Your statement is false. There are reasons to update.
In Australia TV is colloquially called “the idiot box”
A foreign friend asked, “is that because there are only idiots on there, or because you turn into one if you watch too much?”
Yes.
The malware installed by LG on Microsoft PCs and the spying by smart TVs are both despicable. But I couldn’t get through this article.
Even if they were convenient shenanigans, in the longer term:
Political action > Purchasing Choices > Individual modifications
Instead we should embrace hacker culture and take by force that which won’t be given to us. By force I mean the gentle kind of force of forcibly owning the stuff you already legally own.
There’s never been a better time, we’re in this sweet spot where we have LLM agents that can help normal people do this stuff, but not yet at the point where a significant amount of the consumer technology we use has been hardened.
> Hah! I don't have to worry about this! I got Linux! For now.. That's true. But EDID transmission still happens
EDID transmission is how monitors communicate their specs to the computer, how is that an issue?
In fact, EDID transmission is one of the reasons you can plug a monitor into your computer and have it "just work", without needing to install additional proprietary drivers (why do this?)
> But what stops LG from convincing the Ubuntu maintainers to make an LG variant of their supposed driver to magically appear in your snap or apt package repository? You hope to God they don't, but the danger is always there.
So the whole argument there is that yes, it is safe, but there exists a nonzero possibility that it won't be in the future? Couldn't the author have just written "this is not an issue on linux" and saved paragraphs of breathless purple prose?
The 2nd story is crazy - I wonder if I hack LG and start downloading all their trade secrets, when caught, the government would just let me stop the download and face no punishment, if I say I just forgot to ask them for consent. Or maybe it's different if I do the hacking through a backdoored cable I sell them, like they hack us through backdoored TVs.
[1] https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/how-to-stop-google-from-...
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/smart-tvs-that-send-data-wit...
Who the fuck invited them into the living room? They say it's optional and opt in but I really don't believe that.
Edit: it's called ACR and a much bigger problem then I originally thought. Wow.
Them: "But then how will I get Netflix?"
Me: "Get an Apple TV and connect it to the internet. Then connect that to your TV with an HDMI cable."
Them: "I don't need an Apple TV. I just bought a TV!"
Me: "Apple TV is not a TV. It's a little box."
Them: "Then why does Apple call it a TV?"
Me (snarky): "I told Steve Jobs not to call it a TV but he did it anyway."
Them: "This is all too confusing. Just buy the things and hook it up. Here's my credit card."
Me: "OK"
Them (one month later): "Hey our new TV is working great!"
Me: "Good!"
Them: "Except it shows us an unskippable ad whenever we turn it on, and the ad seems to know a lot about us."
Me: "Um...that shouldn't be happening."
<investigation begins>
Me: "This TV knows your wifi password!"
Them: "Oh yeah! After you left last month the TV asked us if we wanted to 'finish the setup process'. So we did what it told us and now it's happy. Aren't you proud of us for figuring that out all on our own?"
Me (to myself): choose words carefully before speaking, self
'Your TV is evil and has tricked you. I'm sorry I was unable to protect you.'
Connect a mini-PC to provide any "smarts" required.