This Sunday's New York Times had an article about some of the pending patents for "features" for "digital assistants." Here's an excerpt:

The manufacturers of these gadgets claim that they currently speak only when spoken to. Given the track record of integrity compiled by big data, I'm sure we can believ--oh, never mind.

We really need to be careful about who and what we invite into our private spaces.

You can read the article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/31/b...ssistants.html

After news years ago that smart (??) TVs were "accidentally" sending everything back to headquarters.
Not in this house they don't ...

Oh, my. I hope never to be reduced to buying a "smart" TV. Anyway, judging by my channel listings, "smart TV" is an oxymoron.

"Say what you want about the chair but at least it never asked me to build a f*cking box." - Silicon Valley S03 E05

That's a fact, and has been for 30 some years now.

It's the only industry that you can name, where their customers tell them that they don't like what they are producing, only to have them respond by saying, "If you don't like what we are producing, it's because you are just too stupid to not like it, and we are going to keep on doing the same thing." That's proven by their ratings.

They now have a generation that is conditioned to have everything about themselves online, public. I would imagine that the average 20 something of today wouldn't care if alexa was sending every word said in the home to a database. The camera's on some smart TV's can be accessed online, with default password not changed.
https://www.shodan.io

There have already been instances of people doing the naughty on a couch in their home, with hackers watching/recording, then sending them a demand for money not to release the video.

I think "non-smart" tv's will always be around similar to flip phones and other non-smart phones...


PS: an article from 3 years ago regarding Samsung, but applies to all smart tv's...
https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2476476,00.asp

It's a mystery to me and goes against everything I've considered good policy when it comes to internet security.

Speaking with someone in that group about it recently, their response was "Why would anyone want to harm me?" I felt it necessary to let him know not everyone needs a reason. I didn't elaborate on the possibilities as it was public, but none are good.

A friend of mine my age never logs out of her Facebook account and every photo she takes is automatically uploaded. And couldn't understand why I didn't want mine taken. She's just not tech savvy enough to know better, or listen to advise.

I don't want anything listening or able to watch me. I tape my webcams, don't use a mic or have a smart TV.

When the telephone was invented, the concept of "wiretapping" was also invented. But today tech companies are shamelessly skating around that law, insisting that it is wiretapping or eavesdropping only when a person is doing it. What if your telephone switch is analyzing the voice that is passing through it? What if your phone does it?

Eventually, some "well-known terrorist cell" will set up shop in a "power is cheap and labor is cheaper" data center, somewhere far offshore, and carefully engineer the perfect crime. They'll know where in the house your daughter's bedroom is. They'll know when she is home alone and the neighbors aren't nearby. They'll know this from 10,000 miles away – because you told them everything, and because in the "happy little cloud" no one paid attention to who was minding the store. Perhaps they will launch simultaneous attacks that, when plotted on a geo-map, will form an unmistakable outline. And the terror will be total, because people suddenly realize that they aren't safe in their own homes. Or in their networked, wire-controlled cars. They'll realize that their faces are recognizable, and tracked. That there is, literally, "no place to hide."

The US Congress will meet in emergency session and pass laws which prohibit any sort of legal action against Facebook, Apple, Google, or any of their "comfortable contributors." Various corrective and punitive actions will be discussed, unleashing unfathomable amounts of money "corporate free speech" and confirming that the personal safety of people is much less important than graft. (And in any case, "it happened in a country far, far away, you see.")

While this may sound like a dystopian view, it's really quite plausible. We have rushed to do everything that George Orwell predicted, and infinitely more. History will conclude that he missed his date by only 20 years, and that mankind learned nothing from it.