They do provide some solid advice, like checking settings and making sure it gets updated. It's probably good that they send out warnings like these, most people probably don't get any thought to any IoT stuff at all. I don't know how big a target TVs are in reality, but it can't hurt to get people thinking about these things.
> The FBI advocates installing security updates and customising privacy options
That doesn't work when the manufacturer of the smart TV you got 3 years ago stopped providing updates 4 years ago. Then your nephew found a list of all the vulnerabilities it has.
As someone who works in software I have been advising all my friends and anyone who cares to listen NOT to buy a smart tv but rather buy a Fire TV Stick or any another Android TV box or stick. Apart from smart TVs being ridiculously overpriced, my reasoning has been you can always upgrade your TV box for less than you upgrade your Smart TV once software on smart TV no longer being updated.
Even without considering price, I am pretty sure smart features are standard in almost every TV now. I started looking for a new TV last week, and I can count the amount of non-smart TVs I saw on one hand.
Dumb TVs simply do not exist anymore for all practical purposes. The common advice is to get a commercial or hospitality panel but that advice is outdated, those all have smart features now, too.
At the same time, folks all over the internet like to mention finding dumb TVs but never provide links, model names, or even just brand names. Why? I've looked pretty hard and can't find any actual verified dumb TVs that are actually for sale anywhere. The top comment in this post at the time of this writing directly mentions finding a buying a smart TV, but provides no further details.
I've heard the "buy commercial dumb panels", but also have never seen links.
For the one smart tv I do have, I just don't have it connected to the internet. Even then, I have no way of knowing if it's connecting to any open wifi networks near me.
I am in South Africa. Smart TVs cost by my calculations at least 10 percent to as much as 30 percent more for same size screen and resolution. Perhaps it's the in thing right now to get a smart tv hence the difference in price.
I think you have it backwards--the 'dumb TVs' are the ones that are expensive now. Presumably smart TVs are subsidized by the manufacturer selling the data they collect on you.
For now, I've settled for buying a smart TV and not connecting it to the Internet. Until they come up with a way to phone home without my Wi-Fi, I think I should be safe from spying and vulnerabilities..
Perhaps pricing is location based. In South Africa only a small population have broadband to full utilize the "smart" features. IMHO for many it is more of a status symbol having a smart TV but that's just my opinion. Smart TVs definitely cost more.
Dumb TVs are only offered as budget models, so they're not really that expensive. I wish there were high end dumb TVs offered.
I'd also argue that the built-in apps on "smart" TVs increase the manufacturer's profit margins rather than reduce costs for consumers. Sure there are some brands/models that compete on affordability, but others don't need to. After all, did the price of the iPhone go down as Apple scaled up and reduced the cost of manufacturing? No. They just started making more money off of it.
This is the advantage of RokuTV. They don't treat their platform as abandonware to force you into buying a new TV. They can't afford to piss off their userbase who will just migrate to an alternative.
Not disagreeing with the FBI, but do _that_ many smart TVs actually have cameras in them? Most (if not all) of Samsung's current product lineup, for example. don't.
Tried to look for one recently without much luck. The crux of their death seems to be Skype ending support for their smart TV software. They definitely existed, though. And it was also possible to add a camera via USB in some cases.
Or... don't connect TV into any network. Have external devices as the only source of TV signal. Be it PC (like me), consoles, chromecast/fire/roku etc.
Was there actually ever a TV update that changed anything significant for the better in the mode I describe above? Its an honest question, since I never did it.
I prefer to put the smart TV in a dedicated VLAN. There could be useful "apps" (say, Netflix or other online channels) there might be worth having inside the smart TV itself.
Substantially more than the people I know over the age of 40. Of course that’s a relatively arbitrary number.
Many of the younger people I know may not fully understand the vector they create for network penetration, but they often joke about it always listening. For whatever reason, the older the person is (in my experience), they don’t have one inkling of internet security.
My point is that I’ve worked with too many people, roughly 40 and above, who have no regard for their internet security. I know for a fact someone with malicious intent could steal their identity and assets in a matter of hours.
From my casual observation I believe that young people outside tech have not even the slightest clue about how things work and also have no skepticism. I agree that old people are vulnerable but so are young people. Just in different ways.
Has nothing to do with age. Has only to do with how interested they are in how things work. And most people, no matter their age, don't care how things work.
In the Amanda Knox case they wrote two stories, one to run if she lost and one if she won. The in case she lost story included quotes in reaction to her losing and a description of her reaction to hearing the verdict. The story was written before the quotes it includes were (it claimed) said. They accidentally ran it when she won demonstrating that they completely invent quotes. This is not the only instance they've been caught completely manufacturing quotes.
Everyone knows that news articles can be selective in how they choose to report, and that therefore they should rely on multiple sources. This is bad but not a fatal error. If a news agency completely invents quotes that destroys the fundamental trust that makes it possible to build on flawed sourcing.
> The Press Complaints Commission has upheld a complaint against the Daily Mail
> The [incorrect] article ...was live for 90 seconds
> [The incorrect article] included quotes attributed to the prosecutors apparently reacting to the guilty verdict, and the description of the reaction in the courtroom to the news, stating that Knox "sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears"
> It further stated that the family of Meredith Kercher "remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family".
> The newspaper apologised for the mistake. It said that it was standard practice in such high-profile cases for two alternative stories (plus supporting quotes) to be prepared in advance
> It had published an online apology and explanation to readers; published the correct verdict in print the following day; launched an immediate internal inquiry (and subsequently changed its practices regarding such 'set and hold' stories); and also disciplined the person responsible for the error.
> Although the PCC recognised that the newspaper had acted swiftly and proportionately to correct the breach of the editors' code - and acknowledged that the story had only been live for a short period of time - it nonetheless remained "particularly concerned" about other aspects of the report, most particularly the fictitious account of what had happened in the courtroom.
> The attempt to present contemporaneous reporting of events in such a manner was "clearly not acceptable".
I'm no fan of the Daily Mail in particular or their political leanings in general, but I don't think you're being fair here. It was live for 90 whole seconds and you wrote almost 400 words about how it's the worst thing ever? I agree that they should use Lorem Ipsum style filler text until they have real quotes, but preparing two versions of stories is extremely common. Most news outlets have a stack of "in case of death" stories on file for every possible celebrity or public figure. They even wrote one in case the Apollo 1 astronauts died.
The issue isn't that they wrote two stories. The issue isn't that people may have been deceived by the wrong story being up for a few seconds.
The issue is that people have accused them of completely fabricating quotes for decades, and this was conclusive proof of the practice because the quotes in it could never have been said. This would be if the in case of moon disaster speech included a statement from the widow of one of the astronauts saying it was all worth it for science.
How is it not fair? This episode shows that any quotes in a Daily Mail story are probably completely fabricated, and that you can't trust anything in there to be the truth and not complete fiction.
I completely disagree: lots of other news outlets have not ruined their reputation by printing outright falsehoods intentionally. There's a huge difference between some bias (which is completely unavoidable, everything is "biased" because someone has to choose what to print and what not to), and fabricating total lies.
When i got a new TV last year, the kid at Best Buy thought it was funny i wanted a non smart TV. I managed to get a 55" with no networking or applications. I know i am the minority, but i just want the TV to turn on and display a picture. i have a blu-ray player that is like 8 years old. It has netflix and vudu and MLB and about 4 more apps. None can work anymore, they stop updating devices after a year or so. I would rather have a roku or something that gets updated.
Remember when Samsung warned about having conversations around TV sets...
I'm guessing it's just a small matter of time before they start adding cell connectivity.
I'd imagine Verizon or ATT wouldn't charge too much since they'd be sending logs, voice snippets, and maybe a few images. If the TV companies offered to share the data, they could probably get cell companies to do it for free.
I was quite pleased to find that my LG webOS TV doesn't even associate to the Wi-Fi unless it's switched on. Will be interesting to see how well it works in 5-10 years of course, but it does work as a non-smart TV even if I don't connect it to the Internet, so at least that functionality should last.
I had a similar experience. Hard if not impossible to find a non-smart tv. Like you said we are probably the minority but I think there is a market for dumb, large screens.
My 5 year old Roku TV has stopped updating, and the extremely buggy apps are slowing stopping working one by one. I may get a 2019 Roku stick and use it on my once smart, but now pretty dumb, TV.
The first Roku TV platform was launched in Fall 2014 with TVs by TCL and Hisense; those TVs are still getting software updates -- 9.1 was released earlier this year, and Roku OS 9.2 is in the process of being pushed to all models now. Releases often occur in stages, with Roku monitoring a release to see if there are blocking issues that need to be fixed before doing a wider push. Also, Roku OS releases do usually arrive for set-top boxes before they arrive on TVs due to the complexity of the TV feature sets and validation on all the models.
I managed to buy a dumb TV in 2018. The model itself was a 2017 model, and it was literally the only dumb TV I could find on Amazon. Now, my only hope is that it works long enough that the smart TV craze dies.
I don't understand why you were down-voted. I agree with you. That's what I did, I just don't allow my "Smart TV" to connect to the internet, and now it's "dumb". Am I missing something? Who cares if it's smart or not, if it has no connection to the internet, it's always "dumb."
There's another comment above that states that you have no idea if the TV isn't trying to connect to open WiFis, or even use acoustic channels to talk to an app on your phone or smart speaker.
Sounds paranoid, but so did everything else until now.
HDMI v1.4 includes Ethernet, so it is theoretically possible for a smart TV to connect to an internet-connected HDMI device and still get out to the internet, or vice versa. But nobody has ever implemented it commercially, so this will probably never be a real attack.
It's an "ok" TV. The picture is pretty decent, but not great. The sound is fine. The refresh rate is usually ok, but isn't suitable for fast paced games.
It won't. As a manufacturer, you can sell the same display cheaper as a Smart than a Dumb TV due to existing preinstallation and tracking agreements with third parties. Just don't connect it to the net — as long as that still works. Also considering the Fitbit disaster (I own a device), I think we'll eventually need new legislation on devices that get worthless without a connection.
I'm assuming the disaster is being bought by Google. What is needed is some sort of regulation that prevents the new owner to use the newly acquired data in a way that the user did not originally agree to. If the original agreement stated that the data would not be sold, then the new owner just can't go off and sell the data. This is what the regulation needs to protect, as well as the new company cannot retrospectively remove the option either.
I wonder if there's a market for some company to resell smart TVs that they've lobotomized.
I.e., they have a list of TV models that they know how to disable network connectivity without causing any other problems. You order from them, and for some reasonable fee they'll make the change, verify everything is okay, and ship you the unit.
Personally, I'd be willing to pay a $100-200 premium for that, especially for a TV that (pre-lobotomy) sells for over $600.
I'm fine with that. If its using 5G then it's not on my LAN and the concern in the featured article is no longer a problem.
Furthermore, if its using 5G then its not tied to the IP address that my other traffic comes from and so they can't use the TV to target me with ads online either. (Provided I don't use any of the same accounts on both the TV and my other devices.)
I think you are ignoring the use of location-based tracking and other correlation techniques. A bunch of different 5G appliances can all figure out their positions quite accurately from 5G signals and decide they belong to the same household.
And, that's before you consider that they can also scan local wifi and bluetooth spectra to glean even more information about their local environments. With participation of vendor applications on phones, they could also use ultrasonics or crazier things like modulated LED lighting.
Finally, if one of those devices is compromised, it can then be used to launch local attacks via wifi and bluetooth, or even potentially those other covert channels if they can exploit sloppy code in those other dark apps...
TVs can emit ultrasonic tracking tones which your phone can pick up and link your TV identity to your phone identity (facebook, google, whatever apps have microphone access to listen).
Also, virtually any device with cell connectivity includes a GPS on the same chipset so it's pretty trivial to connect that with google location data. So if it has 5G it has your location it has your identity.
It might not even be that hard. The TV could just broadcast a Bluetooth beacon and your phone will automatically send the details to Google/Apple where your locations can be tied.
That was because it was setup in connected mode and was trying to tell you of a connection loss. If you factory reset the TV and choose not to connect it, you won't have the blink.
I believe you. That's part of the value proposition: the company would know the impact of their changes to various TV models, and you could factor that into your buying decision.
In theory, that's not enough to keep them offline, if coded deviously enough.
If your neighbor, for example, has a syndicated WIFI like Fios or Xfinity, your TV can try those. Also, it has 24/7 free time to sit there and break passwords, if needed. Even a slow CPU would score some eventually. And finally, the room is probably full of other devices which themselves may have connections; a TV can communicate ultrasonically with those to exfiltrate your data.
I don’t see a TV doing 24/7 password cracking. Most WiFi passwords are now relatively complex out of the box and a TV would never have a realistic chance of cracking one. And while collecting data is maybe immoral, hacking passwords is as illegal as it gets.
It would be orders of magnitude cheaper and safer to build in 4G connectivity and use it to upload the relatively small payloads.
In the 5G era, probably. TVs will come with 5G connectivity built in and always on. At initial power-up, you'll have to log in with your "television provider". Like the way CBS online works now.
The TV wouldn't need to crack a password if it's an XFinity wifi router next door, for example. Those are typically open to all Comcast customers by default, if I remember correctly.
How is your TV going to get onto a wifi connection that needs an Xfinity customer login(yes there are open to all customers as in they can use the wifi connection but not without supplying a login)?
Wouldn't even really need 4G, 3G or even lower would work if you're just sending text analytics of shows watched. Even the more nefarious spying efforts could go out through text if they bundled a speech to text converter on board.
4G was more of a catch all for mobile connectivity. But actually some networks are turning off their 2G and 4G might have a better chance of working for years to come, since a TV is not really replaced that often.
We need laws to prevent this kind of shit. However, we have some laws already. If the TV is cracking passwords, who goes to jail? Oh, wait, I forgot laws like the CFAA and other shit like that are only enforced when regular people break them, not when companies break them to make money.
I'd imagine a big part of this is because people like watching Netflix or Prime Video via the nifty apps built right into their TVs. To many owners, disabling those would be like disabling the cellular and WiFi radios on a smartphone.
A big selling point (for better or worse) is not requiring you to buy more boxes or hook up wires. Just as you see with cheap IP cameras which neglect to steer users toward secure setup and only tout the "easy wireless setup! Just point to the picture on your iPhone screen!" It's the flip side of the ubiquitous marketing bullet points: Easy! No wires! Apps!
> people like watching Netflix or Prime Video via the nifty apps built right into their TVs
I fall into this camp - I really like using the physical remote w/physical buttons to play/pause/rewind, change volume, etc. I used to be a heavy chromecast user but switched for these reasons.
Why companies don't just continue to manufacture screen-only TV's baffles me. I'd love to see some existing privacy-oriented company that already has to deal with screen manufactures start selling "privacy-oriented TVs".
Bingo! Those Roku / FireTV / Netflix / Amazon/ Etc logos on the boxes don't pay for themselves.
Although what's insulting is when the super premium tvs that STILL include all the same tracking junk. A 3k dollar+ tv shouldn't need any subsidizing at all, yet here we are.
It goes into how running content recognizition software against whatever's on the TV display lets them collect and aggregate data to sell, which helps them sell the TV for very low prices without having to worry about being profitable on the initial sale thanks to data and other monetization streams. Sony, Samsung, and the other major TV players all run very similar Automatic Content Recognition systems.
Partly construction, partly that the target market simply is willing to pay more, and partly that the cost of consumer sets are subsidized by some of the third-part analytics software that comes preinstalled in order to collect and sell information on what people are watching.
Ultimately, few people understand that this is a problem or that they should want a dumb TV. The manufacturers make money from the smart features by selling the data and by getting a cut of subscription revenue, so smart TVs can be sold cheaper than dumb TVs.
The FBI issuing a warning about this is helpful. It may help create a market for dumb TVs that cost more than smart TVs.
>The manufacturers make money from the smart features by selling the data and by getting a cut of subscription revenue, so smart TVs can be sold cheaper than dumb TVs.
Yeah, this is like how a laptop can be sold cheaper with Windows OS than with Linux: the Windows version is preloaded with a ton of crapware that the mfgr gets paid to preload, so even with the enormous (as a fraction of BOM) price of the Windows license, the laptop comes out cheaper.
And that makes TVs cheaper a little bit than lobotomized not monetised alternatives. Users don't see the hidden cost when looking at two TVs with same specs but slightly different prices.
I bought a cheap 42" 4k dumb tv made by an off brand which is no longer available anywhere, one of the only ones that I could find without network connectivity, but it's by no means a great TV in other respects. I think if I used it heavily it'd have burnt out a capacitor by now or something. Reviews indicate they are not too reliable.
I suspect that the advertising industry is offering the TV manufacturers incentives to add tracking "smarts". The dream of tracking TV ad views and even personalized TV ads is worth billions.
Not a TV. And what makes Apple privacy oriented? Because their marketing department says they are? Unless a company's business model is actually privacy, I won't believe for a second they value privacy. Even then I would still be skeptical. Companies can always increase profit by secretly getting rid of privacy.
The fact that they're not an advertising company? That their business model doesn't depend on monetizing your personal data? That being privacy-oriented is a distinguishing factor compared with their competition?
If you're a manufacturer are you going to go after the 95-99% of the market that wants a set that's cheaper due to the bundled spyware or the 1-5% that are willing to pay a premium not to include it? Granted, I'm guessing as to the percentages... but I doubt I'm that far off.
Besides the nefarious reasons they might not want to make dumb TVs, there are some decent reasons.
Most TVs include speakers. Even the non-smart ones. By adding networking and apps, that TV can be used stand-alone.
For people starting out with their first home theater setup, they can get started with just the TV. With a dumb TV, they'd need the TV, and a receiver/speakers setup or a soundbar, and something to provide content like a Blu-ray player or cable box or Roku.
By making the TV smart, the TV maker has a better chance of having people start out with a higher end stand-alone TV and then adding other components later. I presume that the TV maker would rather have the consumer spend all of their initial budget on the TV, instead of splitting it between TV, receiver, and Blu-ray player.
For people with existing home theater setups, a similar thing goes on with upgrades. For example, I have a Denon AVR-1913 receiver, a Comcast X1 DVR, and a Sony Blu-ray player, and a Samsung TV.
It was a smart TV but I never used it as anything other than a dumb monitor. I used apps, not but on the TV. The Blu-ray player had a full set of streaming apps, and so does the X1. The Denon receiver has an internet radio app, and also supports Spotify Connect, and supports Airplay. So there was never any need to use an app on the TV. (Also, when I tried it once out of curiosity I could not get ARC to work to send sound back to the Denon receiver).
But then the TV died. I ended up getting another Samsung, but this new one is 4K UHD.
None of my other components are 4K. I didn't want to upgrade the rest to 4K at that time, so for things I wanted to watch in 4K I used apps on the TV [1].
With dumb TVs, I probably would not have bought a 4K TV. I would have waited until my other components were 4K, and that could have taken quite a while. I tend to keep receivers until they die.
In summary, with smart TVs, the TV can meet the needs of a wider class of consumer. As long as they don't make it so you have to give the TV network access or use its smart features, it can meet the needs of almost every class of consumer. That's attractive to the manufacturers.
[1] ...which meant that I did need to figure out ARC. As with the old Samsung, it just did not seem to want to work. Then I noticed something in the Denon manual:
> When the ARC function is used, connect a device with a "Standard HDMI cable with Ethernet" or "High Speed HDMI cable with Ethernet" for HDMI.
I made sure to use such a cable...and it worked, which makes no sense. It would make sense if we were talking eARC, but with plain ARC--which is all my 6 or 7 years old Denon supports--it should work with any regular old HDMI cable.
TVs are only as cheap as they are because the cost is subsidized by the data they collect. A dumb TV would be more expensive to buy, and most people would balk at that.
screen-only TVs are undesirable because content providers like Netflix gate their content to locked-down devices that present a lower risk of piracy.
Unless you run Netflix in MS Edge (or the netflix windows store app, which wraps MS Edge) and use a Skylake or newer CPU with a secure enclave / AMD PSP, Netflix won't stream you their highest-quality content.
Or they will happily deliver it to whatever Android device or smart TV that you like.
(also, PC support for HDR content is... "lacking", shall we say)
I opened a more modern cheap smart TV. Inside were three boards: Power supply & backlight inverter, LCD/LVDS(?) interface board, CPU & video IO board. I'm not sure if the screen interface was actual LVDS but it sure looked like it.
So a smart TV is nothing more than an LCD with Arm SoC. Of course that SoC it's completely locked down and there are no specs outside of NDA's.
It got me thinking, how hard would it be to go to a big manufacturer that makes these smart TV's for chains like best buy and contract them to make the same set without the proprietary garbage hardware board? Instead a board built around an open SoC and software ecosystem is installed so the ethernet and USB ports do what they're supposed to do. That or pick a very common TV model, figure out the LCD interface and build a retrofit board. All of this is easier said than done.
Then imagine how fun it would be to hack your TV to do whatever because it's a regular computer? Of course the big issue that stands in the way is the HDMI and DRM burdens.
(cue someone replying with: just don't connect the smart TV to the internet and hook up a raspberry pi.)
It was about 3 years old at the time. And I believe it was an LED backlight so I should have said regulator or perhaps driver instead of inverter but close enough.
Because TVs are commodity hardware that makes exactly $0 the second after it's sold. We now live in a business hellscape where "recurring revenue" is everything. Since TVs still last for 5 years or more, they might as well start selling off your viewing data to make the quarterly numbers look better.
Can you comment on the image quality of that vs. a modern LCD TV?
I'm looking to add a TV, large computer monitor, or similar to our living room for PC gaming, XBox gaming, and movies.
I assumed that a projector would be washed out whenever the room's lights were on. Which would be a hassle for people who wanted to be in the living room at the time but were doing other activities.
I’ve been using a projector as my only tv for years, and even during the daytime it’s still usable. It definitely is better in the dark, but usually I don’t even close my blinds during the day.
I’ve had to replace the bulb once in about 4 years. Or rather the timer went off to warn me and I replaced it — bulb was still working though. New lamp was fairly cheap too IIRC, $40, maybe less?
And I can take it with me, or outside in my backyard for a movie night. I probably won’t ever go back to smart or dumb tvs
It's apples to oranges in my opinion, since it's a comparison between 50" and 150" at the same resolution. What advantage the TV may have in pixel sharpness a good projector more than makes up for in size and field of view.
I went with an Epson 1060 (which is a fairly budget option) and it's freaking awesome. I was afraid it would be dim in full sunlight, but it's not a problem at all. My screen is next to two windows and even in full daylight with the lights on it is super bright and visible even while in eco mode (which is dimmer than regular mode). Fully replaced my TV and at a much much lower price point than the biggest possible LCD. Also, replacement bulbs are ~$60 bucks and I have yet to replace one after ~2 years.
Added bonus is the option to install a powered retractable screen, which make the TV all but disappear from the room when not in use.
Last year I picked up a projector to put in our bedroom for movie viewing and gaming. One thing you want to consider if gaming is important to you is the latency of the projector. I ended up going with an Optoma GT1080[0] because I wanted something that was short throw for my layout and the latency (16ms) is quite good. Modern TV's are typically around 10ms to put that in perspective.
When the room is dark it's absolutely amazing, like being at the movies. When lights are on it is quite washed out. Still usable but not as enjoyable. Since the projector sits in my bedroom it's not much of an issue to always have the lights off but in a living room I can see that being a hassle.
Once you get the projector and screen (they do make a difference) I could have gotten several (cheaper) modern TV's but the experience of the projector is what I love. One thing as a new buyer I wish I knew was how much heat projectors can generate. My bedroom is fairly small and this thing can really heat the room up to sometimes an uncomfortable level after long viewing sessions.
The heat emission of projectors makes using them as a TV replacement pretty much DOA for me.
I throw cult movie nights and recently ditched the projector for a 42” screen - by the time there were 15-20 people in my living room, the heat of the projector made us keep windows open in Canadian winter.
Not to mention the usability issues during daylight, which make a projector (there’s a lot of light in my living room) mostly useless 50% of the time.
The large black rectangle has its own use - it clearly defines where the screen is occupying space, something you’ve gotta configure for a projector.
Unless you are privileged af enough to have a room you can dedicate to a home theatre setup - (in which case, good for you, housing/rent prices here in Toronto make that out of reach for me even as a low triple digit salary individual, four times higher than most of my similarly aged friends) - a projector’s disadvantages far outweigh its benefits.
Even if visibility wasn’t a glaring issue, the heat is practically unbearable. Worst idea I’d had was to try it in my bedroom as a TV replacement. :P
I went through several models of projectors in an attempt to see if any of them would be tolerable, but no.
Large TV’s emit heat as it is; but it’s really like a small heater in a room on low, instead of an industrial scale heater.
This is fairly trivial for packet nerds using bro/zeek, pihole and iptables.
Zeek (or wireshark) can revel what domains and ip addresses are being accessed. Pihole and iptables can block those addresses. Pihole needs to be the only DNS allowed and iptables needs to be running in between the TV and its path to the internet.
I'm guessing lawyers would get involved to shut that type of service down. Right to repair laws might help, but this sounds like the model for people selling modified PlayStations. There are companies that will re-house a photography lens to be cinema friendly. The lens manufactures don't stop this, because it doesn't really affect their bottom line. TV manufactures would lose the money they made agreements with 3rd party people, so you know they would be more litigious to protect that income.
Yes, this! I asked in another thread if there was a faraday cage we could use for the tv or at least tamper with the wifi antenna. I know CRTs have dangerous levels of voltage, so I hope it's not the case for lcd/led TVs
>Perhaps the best April Fools’ joke of the (Youth) Journal [a Dutch news program] came in 1969. Special cars would drive around with scanners to track down television owners who hadn’t paid the license fee [it’s like in the UK, where you have to pay a fee to the BBC]. But if you wrapped the TV in aluminum foil, you could fool the scanners. Before long there was no foil to be found in stores. http://business.time.com/2007/08/21/why_dutch_people_wrapped...
How about you don’t connect your TV to the internet? Here’s a consumer reports article that tells you how to turn off most tracking if you must connect it to the internet.[1]
Get a decent set of network hardware so you can monitor everything that’s going on. I can recommended UniFi by Ubiquiti, despite the recent blow back about crash reports being sent to them.
Twilio is making this pretty easy. I just ordered three SIM cards from them that I can provision, to see how it works. Their aim is for these SIMs to be utilized in IoT devices.
That's the future of all internet connected appliances. We're already seeing it with cars, at some point it will be affordable enough to include in TVs, fridges, ovens, anything that might want to phone home.
Hope you're not connecting it to any internet-connected device (PC, console, etc) either because most HDMI cables nowadays have pins to carry an ethernet signal as well.
My Sony TV and Apple TV do not support it. According to stack exchange nobody really supports it, although I can’t attest to the commenters credibility.[1]
A quick google search doesn’t show any Sony TV with this capability.
Can you give me an example of any consumer TV that supports Ethernet over HDMI?
You're not suggesting some grand conspiracy of smart TV and computer/console manufacturers, I hope? As far as I know, PC GPUs don't support this anyway.
That means the PC, console, etc would have to voluntarily act as a network gateway for the TV. I've never heard of a device configured that way by default. Even if I wanted to do that, I don't know how I'd begin to enable it on anything other than a Linux box.
I had been wondering if the comcast boxes would be providing this as a side door. (hdmi from tv going to cable box, cable box has net access )
When I asked about data sharing with these dvr boxes and the new streaming stick option, only thing they could tell me is that 'virtually all video decoding and streaming devices are sharing data with multiple third parties'
I returned the dvr box, and have not chosen to use their new streaming stick.
You could also sabotage the wifi chip or antenna if you wanted to make 100% sure the tv doesn't connect. Good luck trying to connect to wifi without an antenna connected.
I often put tape over my laptop cameras for on location business meetings etc but you can't do this with my HCL smart TV at home as it is hidden behind the screen, hard to know where the microphone is located too.
I'd like to know and think this sort of information should be legally enforced in personal digital rights legislation and the right to disable all outbound connectivity
I have a Samsung and didn't normally have it connected to the network. One day I got curious to see what apps it had and set it up on my wireless network thinking I can just restore the tv to it's factory settings. Nope. A factory restore keeps your network info stored. It doesn't connect, mind you, but it doesn't wipe it.
it isn’t just connected TVs. it’s those with a camera as well. not all smart TVs have a camera. i have a relatively high-end smart TV that doesn’t have a camera.
I just find the idea that people would pay money to have an insecure network-attached camera pointed at them at home, because picking up a remote control was just too much like hard work, utterly horrifying. This is not how I envisaged the future panning out.
Well the video chat thing actually makes a lot of sense, and was definitely predicted by a lot of sci-fi many decades ago, even in "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1967. I'm actually surprised that of all the things sci-fi predicted, that that one didn't pan out much. It turns out that, in the future, people prefer exchanging extremely short text messages with each other than seeing each others' faces, or even spending time in each others' presence. Futurists from a half-century ago would be shocked and disappointed.
mostly for video chatting. it felt like a fad a few years ago. with the ubiquity or phones, tablets, and laptops, it seems like a pointless feature anyway.
In my hosehold TVs are only used as large monitors connected to computers by HDMI/DisplayPort . Any other connectivity is disabled. We've stopped using the actual television whether over the air or IP based years ago.
Of course computers can be broken into as well but at least those are the beasts I know how to maintain.
Same set up here. You turn on the TV and are greeted by the Ubuntu desktop. From there you can launch Firefox and sign into Jellyfin or whatever streaming service you prefer.
I setup a Pi Hole this weekend in preparation for a black friday deal on a Roku and because I heard my smart TV was chatty. This wont protect you from a TV that will connect to open wifi around you (or one that uses a hardcoded DNS), but it was an easy project (20mins) that is already providing me with a wealth of data points about my home network.
I don't have the technical capability to do it, but it would be great to know how to cover the wifi transmitter on the TV (like we do cameras on our laptops), but with an electrical barrier tape (Yes, i'm trying to avoid saying "tinfoil.")
Maybe someone could even put together a repository of diagrams to show which areas need to be covered.
I don't think that would be likely to work very well - besides being somewhat impractical, most RF electronics are already covered by metal 'cans' to prevent excessive EMI from escaping. You might be able to find the antenna and wrap foil around it, but that just sounds like a recipe for shorting something out once the foil gets unwedged/unstuck.
Plus, tin foil hats can actually improve signal reception around the 2.5GHz range used by WiFi :P
I understand the terrible breach in privacy that comes with smart appliances (Looking at you Alexa), it could be argued that through a standard we could make this appliances "safer" or more secure to breaches.
The reality is that as long as there is any profit to be made from selling them, corners will be cut and people by trying to save will end up with smart appliances that end up being windows to unknown actors.
In this scenario I find it way more comforting for big corporations and governments to have access over individuals who could target specific people. Abstinence seems like the only solution from an individuals POV.
I've always wondered why more people don't go for projectors. It's not (or less) prone to bloatware, tracking scripts, and unsavory things of the sort.
Plus, you can get bigger screensizes. Is there something I'm missing apart from the bulb hours?
All this talk of TVs using your neighbor’s unencrypted wifi, am open hotspot, default ISP network credentials, or onboard 2G transmitters is making me seriously start to think it’s not a bad idea to build a huge faraday cage into the insulation/structure of a home with access-controlled, hardwired points of ingress/egress for your own traffic.
Yep, I am leaning towards this as well. I talked about this sort of thing so much my non tech mom build a faraday cage electronics box. In the future these are going to be much more common topics.
Hypothetically, this could also serve to vastly improve the WiFi performance within your home as well. All of your neighbors' 2.4/5 GHz noise would be substantially attenuated at your walls.
The only real annoyance (aside from installing a huge faraday cage throughout your home) would be the need for a way to relay cell communications via your hardwired ingress/egress paths. Or, you simply designate your home a cell-free zone and walk outside when you wish to receive your SMS payloads or make a phone call. WiFi calling is probably a good solution for a lot of people too.
277 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 358 ms ] threadsorry, whataboutism is not helpful or does not add any extra info into the current discussion. It actually tries to devalue the current discussion.
Smart TVs is a very established and popular device, so a study showing how it is a security concern is definitely helpful
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/portland/news/p...
They do provide some solid advice, like checking settings and making sure it gets updated. It's probably good that they send out warnings like these, most people probably don't get any thought to any IoT stuff at all. I don't know how big a target TVs are in reality, but it can't hurt to get people thinking about these things.
That doesn't work when the manufacturer of the smart TV you got 3 years ago stopped providing updates 4 years ago. Then your nephew found a list of all the vulnerabilities it has.
At the same time, folks all over the internet like to mention finding dumb TVs but never provide links, model names, or even just brand names. Why? I've looked pretty hard and can't find any actual verified dumb TVs that are actually for sale anywhere. The top comment in this post at the time of this writing directly mentions finding a buying a smart TV, but provides no further details.
For the one smart tv I do have, I just don't have it connected to the internet. Even then, I have no way of knowing if it's connecting to any open wifi networks near me.
https://www.samsung.com/us/business/products/displays/ under "4K UHD Displays"
https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/professional-displays
[0]https://www.takealot.com/tv-audio-video/tv_
For now, I've settled for buying a smart TV and not connecting it to the Internet. Until they come up with a way to phone home without my Wi-Fi, I think I should be safe from spying and vulnerabilities..
There's no presumption, this is known.
https://www.businessinsider.com/smart-tv-data-collection-adv...
I've seen several reports that some TVs will find and connect to an open Wi-Fi if you don't set them up, and then phone home that way.
Probably better to connect it to your Wi-Fi, but block its access to WAN. Or open the TV and remove the module entirely.
I'd also argue that the built-in apps on "smart" TVs increase the manufacturer's profit margins rather than reduce costs for consumers. Sure there are some brands/models that compete on affordability, but others don't need to. After all, did the price of the iPhone go down as Apple scaled up and reduced the cost of manufacturing? No. They just started making more money off of it.
While not literally taking video and recordings of you, it's still problematic.
Was there actually ever a TV update that changed anything significant for the better in the mode I describe above? Its an honest question, since I never did it.
Never mind that all backdoors work more or less the same.
I know far too many people over the age of 40 that really should know this.
Many of the younger people I know may not fully understand the vector they create for network penetration, but they often joke about it always listening. For whatever reason, the older the person is (in my experience), they don’t have one inkling of internet security.
My point is that I’ve worked with too many people, roughly 40 and above, who have no regard for their internet security. I know for a fact someone with malicious intent could steal their identity and assets in a matter of hours.
If it's an interesting topic find a trustworthy source to post.
Everyone knows that news articles can be selective in how they choose to report, and that therefore they should rely on multiple sources. This is bad but not a fatal error. If a news agency completely invents quotes that destroys the fundamental trust that makes it possible to build on flawed sourcing.
> The Press Complaints Commission has upheld a complaint against the Daily Mail
> The [incorrect] article ...was live for 90 seconds
> [The incorrect article] included quotes attributed to the prosecutors apparently reacting to the guilty verdict, and the description of the reaction in the courtroom to the news, stating that Knox "sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears"
> It further stated that the family of Meredith Kercher "remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family".
> The newspaper apologised for the mistake. It said that it was standard practice in such high-profile cases for two alternative stories (plus supporting quotes) to be prepared in advance
> It had published an online apology and explanation to readers; published the correct verdict in print the following day; launched an immediate internal inquiry (and subsequently changed its practices regarding such 'set and hold' stories); and also disciplined the person responsible for the error.
> Although the PCC recognised that the newspaper had acted swiftly and proportionately to correct the breach of the editors' code - and acknowledged that the story had only been live for a short period of time - it nonetheless remained "particularly concerned" about other aspects of the report, most particularly the fictitious account of what had happened in the courtroom.
> The attempt to present contemporaneous reporting of events in such a manner was "clearly not acceptable".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/09/pcc...
"IN EVENT OF MOON DISASTER": https://www.archives.gov/files/presidential-libraries/events...
The issue is that people have accused them of completely fabricating quotes for decades, and this was conclusive proof of the practice because the quotes in it could never have been said. This would be if the in case of moon disaster speech included a statement from the widow of one of the astronauts saying it was all worth it for science.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. I'd say the same about literally any news outlet on the planet, though.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Remember when Samsung warned about having conversations around TV sets...
https://theweek.com/speedreads/538379/samsung-warns-customer...
I'd imagine Verizon or ATT wouldn't charge too much since they'd be sending logs, voice snippets, and maybe a few images. If the TV companies offered to share the data, they could probably get cell companies to do it for free.
I'm surprised you managed to find one. They seem quite rare these days outside of some budget brands that don't bother due to cost.
You can see a hardware comparison chart at https://developer.roku.com/docs/specs/hardware.md -- Liberty was the platform name of that first generation of Roku TVs.
Sounds paranoid, but so did everything else until now.
It's an "ok" TV. The picture is pretty decent, but not great. The sound is fine. The refresh rate is usually ok, but isn't suitable for fast paced games.
I'm assuming the disaster is being bought by Google. What is needed is some sort of regulation that prevents the new owner to use the newly acquired data in a way that the user did not originally agree to. If the original agreement stated that the data would not be sold, then the new owner just can't go off and sell the data. This is what the regulation needs to protect, as well as the new company cannot retrospectively remove the option either.
I.e., they have a list of TV models that they know how to disable network connectivity without causing any other problems. You order from them, and for some reasonable fee they'll make the change, verify everything is okay, and ship you the unit.
Personally, I'd be willing to pay a $100-200 premium for that, especially for a TV that (pre-lobotomy) sells for over $600.
Furthermore, if its using 5G then its not tied to the IP address that my other traffic comes from and so they can't use the TV to target me with ads online either. (Provided I don't use any of the same accounts on both the TV and my other devices.)
And, that's before you consider that they can also scan local wifi and bluetooth spectra to glean even more information about their local environments. With participation of vendor applications on phones, they could also use ultrasonics or crazier things like modulated LED lighting.
Finally, if one of those devices is compromised, it can then be used to launch local attacks via wifi and bluetooth, or even potentially those other covert channels if they can exploit sloppy code in those other dark apps...
Taking those things into account as well as the things paulmd pointed out in a sibling comment, I am no longer fine with the idea of 5G in my TV.
Not on your LAN but still harvesting your usage data (a feature!), and still hackable (smile for the camera!).
I don't know of any TVs that come with a camera built into them, and if there are any I certainly wouldn't buy one of those.
https://www.pindrop.com/blog/silently-tracking-users-with-ul...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/your-...
https://thehackernews.com/2017/05/ultrasonic-tracking-signal...
Also, virtually any device with cell connectivity includes a GPS on the same chipset so it's pretty trivial to connect that with google location data. So if it has 5G it has your location it has your identity.
Edit: I guess I was mistaken. They were not caught doing that yet.
If your neighbor, for example, has a syndicated WIFI like Fios or Xfinity, your TV can try those. Also, it has 24/7 free time to sit there and break passwords, if needed. Even a slow CPU would score some eventually. And finally, the room is probably full of other devices which themselves may have connections; a TV can communicate ultrasonically with those to exfiltrate your data.
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/113502/how-to-p...
https://www.aircrack-ng.org
https://www.securityweek.com/stealthy-data-exfiltration-poss...
It would be orders of magnitude cheaper and safer to build in 4G connectivity and use it to upload the relatively small payloads.
I wonder how many already have.
Are we going to need a spectrum analyzer to watch this junk?
A big selling point (for better or worse) is not requiring you to buy more boxes or hook up wires. Just as you see with cheap IP cameras which neglect to steer users toward secure setup and only tout the "easy wireless setup! Just point to the picture on your iPhone screen!" It's the flip side of the ubiquitous marketing bullet points: Easy! No wires! Apps!
I fall into this camp - I really like using the physical remote w/physical buttons to play/pause/rewind, change volume, etc. I used to be a heavy chromecast user but switched for these reasons.
Is it just that they're low-volume SKUs? Or are the somewhat more ruggedized than consumer models?
(I have no evidence for this but I've seen this comment posted many times before)
Although what's insulting is when the super premium tvs that STILL include all the same tracking junk. A 3k dollar+ tv shouldn't need any subsidizing at all, yet here we are.
It goes into how running content recognizition software against whatever's on the TV display lets them collect and aggregate data to sell, which helps them sell the TV for very low prices without having to worry about being profitable on the initial sale thanks to data and other monetization streams. Sony, Samsung, and the other major TV players all run very similar Automatic Content Recognition systems.
When I looked a larger high end 4K consumer TV was cheaper than a smaller 1080P commercial display.
Many of them have integrated signage software too like MagicInfo and have video wall capabilities etc.
The FBI issuing a warning about this is helpful. It may help create a market for dumb TVs that cost more than smart TVs.
ref: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_12353643.html
Yeah, this is like how a laptop can be sold cheaper with Windows OS than with Linux: the Windows version is preloaded with a ton of crapware that the mfgr gets paid to preload, so even with the enormous (as a fraction of BOM) price of the Windows license, the laptop comes out cheaper.
Apple TV?
The fact that they're not an advertising company? That their business model doesn't depend on monetizing your personal data? That being privacy-oriented is a distinguishing factor compared with their competition?
Most TVs include speakers. Even the non-smart ones. By adding networking and apps, that TV can be used stand-alone.
For people starting out with their first home theater setup, they can get started with just the TV. With a dumb TV, they'd need the TV, and a receiver/speakers setup or a soundbar, and something to provide content like a Blu-ray player or cable box or Roku.
By making the TV smart, the TV maker has a better chance of having people start out with a higher end stand-alone TV and then adding other components later. I presume that the TV maker would rather have the consumer spend all of their initial budget on the TV, instead of splitting it between TV, receiver, and Blu-ray player.
For people with existing home theater setups, a similar thing goes on with upgrades. For example, I have a Denon AVR-1913 receiver, a Comcast X1 DVR, and a Sony Blu-ray player, and a Samsung TV.
It was a smart TV but I never used it as anything other than a dumb monitor. I used apps, not but on the TV. The Blu-ray player had a full set of streaming apps, and so does the X1. The Denon receiver has an internet radio app, and also supports Spotify Connect, and supports Airplay. So there was never any need to use an app on the TV. (Also, when I tried it once out of curiosity I could not get ARC to work to send sound back to the Denon receiver).
But then the TV died. I ended up getting another Samsung, but this new one is 4K UHD.
None of my other components are 4K. I didn't want to upgrade the rest to 4K at that time, so for things I wanted to watch in 4K I used apps on the TV [1].
With dumb TVs, I probably would not have bought a 4K TV. I would have waited until my other components were 4K, and that could have taken quite a while. I tend to keep receivers until they die.
In summary, with smart TVs, the TV can meet the needs of a wider class of consumer. As long as they don't make it so you have to give the TV network access or use its smart features, it can meet the needs of almost every class of consumer. That's attractive to the manufacturers.
[1] ...which meant that I did need to figure out ARC. As with the old Samsung, it just did not seem to want to work. Then I noticed something in the Denon manual:
> When the ARC function is used, connect a device with a "Standard HDMI cable with Ethernet" or "High Speed HDMI cable with Ethernet" for HDMI.
I made sure to use such a cable...and it worked, which makes no sense. It would make sense if we were talking eARC, but with plain ARC--which is all my 6 or 7 years old Denon supports--it should work with any regular old HDMI cable.
Unless you run Netflix in MS Edge (or the netflix windows store app, which wraps MS Edge) and use a Skylake or newer CPU with a secure enclave / AMD PSP, Netflix won't stream you their highest-quality content.
Or they will happily deliver it to whatever Android device or smart TV that you like.
(also, PC support for HDR content is... "lacking", shall we say)
So a smart TV is nothing more than an LCD with Arm SoC. Of course that SoC it's completely locked down and there are no specs outside of NDA's.
It got me thinking, how hard would it be to go to a big manufacturer that makes these smart TV's for chains like best buy and contract them to make the same set without the proprietary garbage hardware board? Instead a board built around an open SoC and software ecosystem is installed so the ethernet and USB ports do what they're supposed to do. That or pick a very common TV model, figure out the LCD interface and build a retrofit board. All of this is easier said than done.
Then imagine how fun it would be to hack your TV to do whatever because it's a regular computer? Of course the big issue that stands in the way is the HDMI and DRM burdens.
(cue someone replying with: just don't connect the smart TV to the internet and hook up a raspberry pi.)
How "modern" was this TV? Don't they all use LED backlights now? Backlight inverters should be obsolete now.
Also, side benefit of no large black rectangle :)
I'm looking to add a TV, large computer monitor, or similar to our living room for PC gaming, XBox gaming, and movies.
I assumed that a projector would be washed out whenever the room's lights were on. Which would be a hassle for people who wanted to be in the living room at the time but were doing other activities.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Pioneer-Elite-Kuro-PRO-150FD-60-108...
That thing used to be 7000+ CAD. Even more when they first came out. In between legs at school I sold them in Calgary.
I’ve had to replace the bulb once in about 4 years. Or rather the timer went off to warn me and I replaced it — bulb was still working though. New lamp was fairly cheap too IIRC, $40, maybe less?
And I can take it with me, or outside in my backyard for a movie night. I probably won’t ever go back to smart or dumb tvs
I went with an Epson 1060 (which is a fairly budget option) and it's freaking awesome. I was afraid it would be dim in full sunlight, but it's not a problem at all. My screen is next to two windows and even in full daylight with the lights on it is super bright and visible even while in eco mode (which is dimmer than regular mode). Fully replaced my TV and at a much much lower price point than the biggest possible LCD. Also, replacement bulbs are ~$60 bucks and I have yet to replace one after ~2 years.
Added bonus is the option to install a powered retractable screen, which make the TV all but disappear from the room when not in use.
When the room is dark it's absolutely amazing, like being at the movies. When lights are on it is quite washed out. Still usable but not as enjoyable. Since the projector sits in my bedroom it's not much of an issue to always have the lights off but in a living room I can see that being a hassle.
Once you get the projector and screen (they do make a difference) I could have gotten several (cheaper) modern TV's but the experience of the projector is what I love. One thing as a new buyer I wish I knew was how much heat projectors can generate. My bedroom is fairly small and this thing can really heat the room up to sometimes an uncomfortable level after long viewing sessions.
[0] https://www.optoma.com/us/product/gt1080darbee/#
It is fun having a >100” screen with a laser projector. I haven’t seen any of the new ones in person, but plan to get one some day.
I throw cult movie nights and recently ditched the projector for a 42” screen - by the time there were 15-20 people in my living room, the heat of the projector made us keep windows open in Canadian winter.
Not to mention the usability issues during daylight, which make a projector (there’s a lot of light in my living room) mostly useless 50% of the time.
The large black rectangle has its own use - it clearly defines where the screen is occupying space, something you’ve gotta configure for a projector.
Unless you are privileged af enough to have a room you can dedicate to a home theatre setup - (in which case, good for you, housing/rent prices here in Toronto make that out of reach for me even as a low triple digit salary individual, four times higher than most of my similarly aged friends) - a projector’s disadvantages far outweigh its benefits.
Even if visibility wasn’t a glaring issue, the heat is practically unbearable. Worst idea I’d had was to try it in my bedroom as a TV replacement. :P
I went through several models of projectors in an attempt to see if any of them would be tolerable, but no.
Large TV’s emit heat as it is; but it’s really like a small heater in a room on low, instead of an industrial scale heater.
Zeek (or wireshark) can revel what domains and ip addresses are being accessed. Pihole and iptables can block those addresses. Pihole needs to be the only DNS allowed and iptables needs to be running in between the TV and its path to the internet.
>Perhaps the best April Fools’ joke of the (Youth) Journal [a Dutch news program] came in 1969. Special cars would drive around with scanners to track down television owners who hadn’t paid the license fee [it’s like in the UK, where you have to pay a fee to the BBC]. But if you wrapped the TV in aluminum foil, you could fool the scanners. Before long there was no foil to be found in stores. http://business.time.com/2007/08/21/why_dutch_people_wrapped...
Get a decent set of network hardware so you can monitor everything that’s going on. I can recommended UniFi by Ubiquiti, despite the recent blow back about crash reports being sent to them.
[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smar...
Then we'll see the manufacturers include SIM cards, at least in countries where it's affordable.
https://www.twilio.com/wireless
A quick google search doesn’t show any Sony TV with this capability.
Can you give me an example of any consumer TV that supports Ethernet over HDMI?
[1] https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/325215/appletv-eth...
When I asked about data sharing with these dvr boxes and the new streaming stick option, only thing they could tell me is that 'virtually all video decoding and streaming devices are sharing data with multiple third parties'
I returned the dvr box, and have not chosen to use their new streaming stick.
video chat (many models had Skype a while back, as far as I remember that was shut down though)
Of course computers can be broken into as well but at least those are the beasts I know how to maintain.
Maybe someone could even put together a repository of diagrams to show which areas need to be covered.
Would be a fun to see for us paranoid people.
Plus, tin foil hats can actually improve signal reception around the 2.5GHz range used by WiFi :P
https://web.archive.org/web/20130126025620/http://berkeley.i...
The reality is that as long as there is any profit to be made from selling them, corners will be cut and people by trying to save will end up with smart appliances that end up being windows to unknown actors.
In this scenario I find it way more comforting for big corporations and governments to have access over individuals who could target specific people. Abstinence seems like the only solution from an individuals POV.
Plus, you can get bigger screensizes. Is there something I'm missing apart from the bulb hours?
The only real annoyance (aside from installing a huge faraday cage throughout your home) would be the need for a way to relay cell communications via your hardwired ingress/egress paths. Or, you simply designate your home a cell-free zone and walk outside when you wish to receive your SMS payloads or make a phone call. WiFi calling is probably a good solution for a lot of people too.