1007
Cybersecurity bounty hunter says Samsung TVs use AI to record audio and screenshots for ads — 'Finally found a company that truly listens to its customers,' says hacker (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
140 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 61 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

If these tvs are capturing private conversations for advertising, where’s the consent for that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 57 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    EULA has T&C that the first users agree to when they fast forward with the accept accept accept accept screens

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

    Those things aren't legally valid for consumer electronics or software in many countries (possibly most of the World) because they're considered an attempt at forcing a change in the terms of the sale after the sale.

    They would be totally valid if they're presented to the buyer for confirming acceptance during the purchase BEFORE they pay which, "curiously", they never are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    IANAL, but EULAs are mostly enforceable in the US as they're contracts. BUT, not every provision is a slam dunk win for the company. As I understand it, much law is decided on what a "reasonable person" would act, think or find fair at the moment action was taken, such as clicking "I Agree". Would such a person expect the EULA to provide for spying on their voice and snapshotting their private viewing? Dunno, but I'd love to see a test case move forward.

    Someone should sue on behalf of a minor, who cannot agree to a contract, or another third-party in the home who did not agree. Bet there's case law on this sort of thing in other contexts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago*

    From what I read, the point of Law in the countries were EULAs have already been deemed not enforceable by courts (such as Germany) is that one can't hold something one has sold to a customer hostage to the customer accepting a NEW contract after the sale (the sale itself is considered an implicit contract with certain rights, such as the right to freely use what was sold) before they can use it, so even if people click "I Accept" on such a thing it's does not form a legally binding contract.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    They don't need consent, none do us can afford to sue them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

    Isn't that what class action law suits are for?

    Or better yet, consumer protection laws?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    Yep! If this would be a meritorious case, I'd bet lawyers would be salivating over it. There are also plenty of firms working for our collective good, pro bono. Witness Elias Law who is slam dunking voter rights cases, wins in state after state, not sure they've lost one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent