Meh. Siri.. Google Now... and Samsung TVs? So what. Why not sign the article "Chicken Little"
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 …
COMMENTS
-
-
Monday 9th February 2015 06:43 GMT 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?
-
Monday 9th February 2015 07:23 GMT 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
-
Monday 9th February 2015 08:01 GMT 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
-
Tuesday 10th February 2015 00:56 GMT 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.
-
Monday 9th February 2015 13:34 GMT 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 ...
-
-
Monday 9th February 2015 17:32 GMT 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.
-
Wednesday 11th February 2015 03:21 GMT 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.
-
-
Tuesday 10th February 2015 02:23 GMT 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.
-
Tuesday 10th February 2015 04:29 GMT 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 !!!
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 10th February 2015 06:48 GMT 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)
-
-
-
Monday 9th February 2015 06:31 GMT 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?
-
Monday 9th February 2015 06:34 GMT Sir Runcible Spoon
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.
-
Monday 9th February 2015 06:49 GMT Robert Helpmann??
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.
-
Monday 9th February 2015 09:08 GMT 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.
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 9th February 2015 20:45 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
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"
-
-
-
Monday 9th February 2015 06:56 GMT 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.
-
Wednesday 11th February 2015 03:29 GMT Eltonga
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.
-
-
-
Monday 9th February 2015 08:55 GMT Evil Auditor
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.
-
Monday 9th February 2015 09:15 GMT 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.
-
Tuesday 10th February 2015 19:57 GMT 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."?
-
-
Monday 9th February 2015 13:37 GMT 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
-
-
-
Monday 9th February 2015 07:26 GMT 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.
-
Monday 9th February 2015 09:45 GMT 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 mindcloudy brain. -
-
Monday 9th February 2015 11:12 GMT 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.
-
Monday 9th February 2015 18:53 GMT channel extended
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.
-
-
Monday 9th February 2015 13:12 GMT 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.
-
-
Monday 9th February 2015 08:13 GMT 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!