back to article Watch it: It's watching you as you watch it (Your Samsung TV is)

Samsung's smart televisions don't just do what you tell them to – they also use their voice recognition capabilities to tell unspecified third parties what you're saying while you sit in front of them. If that's not a bit worrying, we don't know what is. Sharp-eyed folks have spotted Samsung's confession to that this effect in …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Meh. Siri.. Google Now... and Samsung TVs? So what. Why not sign the article "Chicken Little"

    1. Mpeler
      Big Brother

      Chicken Little's BIG BROTHER

      Winston, get back here right now. Winston... Winston???????

      Big Blother? Big Bother?

  2. Number6

    Smart TVs

    A timely article. I've already rejected LG based on their privacy policy for smart TVs, now I'm going to dump Samsung smart TVs too. I think I'll end up with a dumb one and add my own PC to do all the fancy tricks.

    1. P. Lee

      Re: Smart TVs

      > I think I'll end up with a dumb one and add my own PC to do all the fancy tricks.

      That is the best method anyway.

      Better not be W10 with Cortana though, or OSX with Siri. Linux it is.

      Am I the only one who thinks you don't need massive CPU for voice recognition? A couple of ARM chips might do it?

      1. Christian Berger

        Re: Smart TVs

        "Am I the only one who thinks you don't need massive CPU for voice recognition? A couple of ARM chips might do it?"

        That's actually isn't the reason why they do it. Speech recognition essentially works by having a huge database of voice samples and distilling models out of it. If you do that centrally you can not only collect that database for free, but can also provide new models on the fly.

        The centralized approach makes it easier to provide better quality recognition. What we would need is a free (as in speech) version of it

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Smart TVs

          Having worked for one of the biggest speech companies (the ones behind Siri & all), I can tell you that current mobile processors (ARM, 2GHz) are fine for recognition on a limited set, like TomTom does for navigation or your car for operation.

          So in theory it should be OK to process voice input on the TV locally for the sake of simple operation.

          But accuracy suffers and learning your voice is near impossible, which is why most offload it to a bunch of powerful servers.

          Anon for obvious reasons

          1. Nifty Silver badge

            Re: Smart TVs

            Anon for what obvious reason? A fairly innocuous comment I would have thought.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Smart TVs

              "Anon for what obvious reason? A fairly innocuous comment I would have thought"

              Don't be naive. You can be fired for ANY trivial shit these days.

          2. P. Lee

            Re: Smart TVs

            It just seems odd that its financially worthwhile to require big servers for the feature. More so, when bad PR like this comes out, not just in the tech press but via the BBC.

            Could it have all have been avoided? Have an agent available for a local PC which can do some of the work. The PC can upload the data back to the TV if required.

        2. JamesTQuirk

          Re: Smart TVs

          The First Voice Recognition systems I installed were "COVOX Voice Masters" on 512K/640K PC's & Commodore64's for Royal Blind Society North Rocks Sydney, a long time ago .....

          So a couple of Arm7 Chips would do it, I reckon, BUT if it only works with a internet connection, it can humm ...

        3. Stuart 22

          Re: Smart TVs

          You could use a pretty dumb chip. The only voice command that is really necessary is "Where is the <bleep> remote?"

          Sorted.

      2. Tom 35

        Re: Smart TVs

        The "smart" part will be obsolete, unsupported, and insecure in 2 or 3 years tops anyway (go buy a new TV, that ones old they will tell you) so you are better off sticking an external box on your TV that can be upgraded or replaced cheaply while you keep your tv for 10+ years.

        1. Eltonga

          Re: Smart TVs

          Well, the "smart" ones also offer the "dumb" function too. The only thing you need to do if you feel its eyes over your shoulder is to deny its access to your network and that's it. Sure, it will cost you several quids more than the out-of-the-box-dumb but you can make good use of its features with flash pendrives and the like.

      3. Phil Endecott

        Re: Smart TVs

        > Am I the only one who thinks you don't need massive CPU for voice

        > recognition? A couple of ARM chips might do it?

        Yes. I've actually built this, using Pocket Sphinx for voice recognition on an i.MX53 CPU. It does an excellent job for speaker-independent limitted-vocabulary recognition, e.g. "Record bbc2 at 10 pm for 2 hours". It's much less good at unlimitted-vocab, e.g. "Record university challenge".

        I've also chosen to use a microphone with a big red button on it. You press the button and talk into the mic, and it does what you ask. When the button isn't depressed, the mic element is disconnected. This avoids the privacy issue entirely.

        1. JamesTQuirk

          Re: Smart TVs @ Phil Endecott

          I was looking @ these 80 Core Units 16B/L CPU+64 GPU, for a project in recognition, but Visual Recognition, but they may handle Speech ....

          http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/Mass-Manufactured-OctaCore-ARM-Cortex-A15-A7-Allwinner-A80-Android-4-4-Board/1021496_2015735541.html

          Memory: 2GB RAM, 8GB ROM

          OS: Android 4.4.2 or linux3.4.39

          WiFi: Support

          BT 4.0: Support

          1000M Ethernet: Support

          But the OLD button on the mic works a treat !!!

    2. paulf
      Linux

      Re: Smart TVs

      Myth-buntu (Myth TV and Ubuntu) and a dumb Iiyama monitor here, with Amp+Speakers for sound.

      It's been our PVR since 2007 - it needs TLC a bit too often when upgrades inevitably go wrong, but much prefer it to one of these sneaky slurping "smart" TVs.

      1. Kye Macdonald

        Re: Smart TVs

        I used to use the mythtv system but moved across to XBMC (now KODI) and never looked back. Interface is much easier and overall significantly less finicky.

        It now supports tuners so my only reason for keeping a myth install is now gone (not that I ever record anything anyway)

    3. JamesTQuirk

      Re: Smart TVs

      Best Way, I have Dumb (32") & Dumber (42"), as monitors, let the PC do tricks & run ANTI VIRUS if needed, I think I may cry (or giggle, if yours), if a hacker gained control of my TV and was charging for Pay4View Gilligan episodes ...

  3. Mark 85

    Waiting for the 1984 reference..

    It recognizes your voice, has a camera, and captures text.... but it's secure... uh-huh... yep.

    And turning it off really doesn't? They say they don't collect it but nothing about not transmitting it if you do turn it off. Definitely not a TV for the bedroom then.

    What's wrong with just a TV and a remote control? Oh.. no data, information, etc. for them to sell to advertisers?

  4. Sir Runcible Spoon
    Black Helicopters

    Sir

    I have an older d8000 that doesn't have this 'feature', but last March I stayed somewhere that had a Samsung TV with voice commands enabled and it creeped me out so much I just unplugged the thing.

    Now I know why.

    I'm not paranoid, I'm just sufficiently experienced to expect the worst I can imagine.

    1. Robert Helpmann??
      Childcatcher

      Re: Sir

      I set up my media center (attached to a "dumb" TV) with voice control based on an Android app. It responded to too many people in the room. I imagine it would probably respond to shows that came on, too, given the opportunity. I can't imagine what an argument over which show to watch would result in other than an epilepsy-inducing display of flashing lights.

      I disabled this feature. Roddenberry got it wrong.

      I have debated whether I should set up an older phone as the dedicated remote for some of the same privacy concerns, but I like being able to call my "remote" and have it beacon if I lose it. I know, I am sacrificing security for convenience, but the cell phone will most likely be with me anyway.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon

        Re: Sir

        "I know, I am sacrificing security for convenience"

        Everyone is entitled to judge for themselves what level of security/convenience they are happy with, as long as it is informed and not something slipped under the mat!

        My wife and I have heated discussions around politics and religion (don't worry, we won't be appearing on Gogglebox anytime soon) - the potential ramifications of a stealth monitoring system in the guise of a TV is just a tad too far imho, ymmv of course.

  5. Flocke Kroes Silver badge
    Joke

    It's for the DRM...

    Speech recognition is for working out which words were spoken, but this article is about voice recognition: identifying the speaker. Make sure to create a recording of your voice so you can watch films you purchased even if you catch a cold.

    1. Spasticus Autisticus
      Mushroom

      Re: It's for the DRM...

      Flocke used the joke icon, the downvote bots can't tell a joke from a comment. Send the vulture in to the user database and exorcise these idiot accounts.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: It's for the DRM...

        Why the joke icon?

        I'm sure this will end up as being prior art in some future patent case - unless the patent has already been filed.

        "Watch 2001"

        "I'm sorry Dave I can't do that - you bought it in region 2 and you are trying to watch it on a region 1 TV in a month with an R in it"

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    coming soon?

    I'm sure that it won't be long (if not already there) that a website is created purely to list ALL the Phone home URL's and IP addresses that this sort of crap uses.

    You know like those who supplied codes to make your DVD Player Multi-regional

    Then the more savvy of us could just stop the passage of this data back to their respective motheships.

    Perhaps there will even be sites where we can learn how to hack into our TV's to cut this crap off at source but I'm pretty certain that at least in the US lawyers would start flinging DMCA lawsuits around pronto.

    Personally, these slimy data collection practices can go to hell. I got a decent price on an LG 4K [1] TV but there is no way that Voice Recognition is going to be enabled nor is it ever going to be permantly connected to my home network.

    [1] My 8yr old LCD had a massive PSU failure that fried a lot of the internals. No repair shop could fix it for anything less than almost the cost of a new one.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: coming soon?

      Wireshark? Assuming it's not encrypted. Get it in real time then block it on the firewall. You could have some fun with it though - invent a language and really wind them up! Or speak Klingon. Google does.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: coming soon?

      Would't publishing such a list be a DMCA violation?

      1. Number6

        Re: coming soon?

        Only in the US. Host it on a non-US server with mirrors around the world. A good game of whack-a-mole could then take place.

    3. Eltonga
      Meh

      Re: coming soon?

      Awww c'mon... you can always block outgoing traffic from your TV, or as other poster said, sniff the traffic and block the offending packages... or just block anything going to sites associated with LG...

      There are always good alternatives to be reasonably safe from this kind of eavesdropping...

      Anyway, IMO voice recognition is not something that would tip the scale towards a smart TV, while other functionalities would appeal the family.

  7. Evil Auditor Silver badge
    Alert

    So far, so unsettling

    But the real worry is, most people, even if they bothered to read such a privacy policy, wouldn't be concerned at all.

    1. Christian Berger

      Re: So far, so unsettling

      Actually from my observation more and more people are bothered by such things. I've even seen Mac and iPhone users worry about such things.

      1. Evil Auditor Silver badge

        Re: So far, so unsettling

        @Christian Berger, I'm glad to hear that. Unfortunately, around here mostly it's "oh, I have nothing to hide..." Alternatively it can also be "I prefer to receive personalised ads" or "if it's for better security..." and also the resigned "they collect these data anyway".

        With only a few exceptions.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Re: So far, so unsettling

          Seriously, we need to get people to understand the 'nothing to hide' shite is just that...shite.

          Next time someone says that to you ask them to let you look through their phone for photo's, texts and contacts etc. If they're happy with that then ask them if they would wear transparent clothing.

          *Everybody* has something to hide, it doesn't have to be for nefarious purposes. It would also be a breach of my human rights for someone to remove that choice from me (i.e. to hide personal things).

          In my experience, most people spouting that nonsense don't understand what they are saying and soon change their tune once they do.

          1. Robert Baker
            Joke

            Re: So far, so unsettling

            ' *Everybody* has something to hide '

            ...except John Lennon and his monkey.

            (They say the old ones are the best...)

          2. Charles 9

            Re: So far, so unsettling

            "Next time someone says that to you ask them to let you look through their phone for photo's, texts and contacts etc. If they're happy with that then ask them if they would wear transparent clothing."

            And if they respond with, "I'll go you one better. I used to be a nudist."?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So far, so unsettling

          ... and also the resigned "they collect these data anyway".

          That's the reaction I'm getting for any of the (meta-)data critiques I give out distressingly too often. That and "you mean they haven't been doing this before?."

      2. pdogguk

        Re: So far, so unsettling

        "Re: So far, so unsettling

        Actually from my observation more and more people are bothered by such things. I've even seen Mac and iPhone users worry about such things."

        -Please tell me you don't use Android making comment like that. Google are the undisputed kings of data collection and targeted advertising

    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: So far, so unsettling

      "[...] most people [...] wouldn't be concerned at all."

      It's currently the most read story on the BBC site. If you'd asked me this morning, I might have said much the same as you, but I wonder if this might be the start of a shift in opinion.

  8. John Tserkezis

    "You may disable Voice Recognition data collection at any time by visiting the 'settings' menu. However, this may prevent you from using all of the Voice Recognition features."

    I may also disable voice recognition by unplugging the ethernet connection, so I can do away with my so-called smart TV and make do with a regular PC that's entirely under my control.

    And if Samsung doesn't like that, they can bite me.

    1. VinceH

      "I may also disable voice recognition by unplugging the ethernet connection, so I can do away with my so-called smart TV"

      Agreed; I'd rather not have a TV connected to the internet in any way shape or form. Even if my TV isn't a dumb one (which the current one is) it will be dumb by not being given access to the hive mind cloudy brain.

    2. DropBear
      Trollface

      Cue in WiFi capable TVs equipped with the latest exploits for the few most popular router models (including trying to log in with the default password) in 3....2....1....

      1. VinceH

        And the really sad thing is that it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if TVs (and other iOUT1 devices) did start appearing like that - so even if your own WiFi is nice and secure, it can latch on to somoene else's insecure network if it can get a signal.

        1. "Internet of Unwanted Things" - capitalisation deliberately chosen to emphasise the word 'OUT' in the acronym.

        1. John H Woods Silver badge

          It'll get even worse than that ...

          ... these things will be shipped with data SIMs eventually, so even if you forbid WiFi they'll be looking for a way to get onto the network.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Unhappy

          Well let's see. Comcast has provided a hotspot that anyone with a Comcast account can log on and use and that's the default setting here for any of their routers.

          1. Eltonga
            Mushroom

            Yes, but you get that one tied to a discount in your rates. If you pay the full fare you get the plain vanilla only-for-your-eyes one.

        3. channel extended
          Black Helicopters

          Extra help.

          Comcast is working on that for you. As soon as their network get large enough I can see them selling the service to advertisers. A Concast account number for the gov't to listen to all iOUT data. After all free wi-fi is a good thing isn't it? A Samsung TV could then connect and send data home with no need for user input.Also DRM could be enabled whether you like it or not.

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
        Trollface

        http://www.xckd.com/416/

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "I may also disable voice recognition by unplugging the ethernet connection"

      I'm afraid, rather sooner or later, unplugging won't work, as they will make the basic operation dependent on the connection. Not possible? Well, Think photoshop, think Windows 10, think some newspapers, which you can ONLY read online.

  9. elaar

    After LG were caught with their pants down siphoning user data from their TVs, I decided to block the TVs access to the Internet on the router.

    You can still stream your own media, watch iPlayer, Netflix etc.. through Plex. Who really wants/needs to watch YouTube, Facebook etc through a TV app? People seem to be way too willing to give up personal information in order to use stupid gimmicks like voice recognition.

    I'll probably find out at some point that Plex harvests all of your viewing data as well, you just can't win!

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like