• 4 Posts
  • 874 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 5th, 2023

help-circle

  • I’m not. It still takes screenshots regardless of whether it can access your Internet connection to receive data or send it.

    What I’m saying (though I failed at being clear) is that it will take screenshots of anything you put up on the screen (passwords, Internet connection data, Bluetooth device data etc). There was something in one of the videos I linked in another comment about it also collecting data via Bluetooth scanning.

    Plus, if the device has ever been connected to a Wi-Fi network and you don’t disable wifi (in settings or physically on the board) there’s a significant possibility it will try to access the open networks around you. If your neighbor has an open guest network? That’s all it needs to continue to upload that information to the cloud.

    I also seem to remember LG deliberately limiting 3rd party apps ability to use or create peer to peer networks but I haven’t seen anything about them limiting their own first party apps or OS. I wonder if that’s part of the alarming stuff Gamerz Nexus alluded to in the video when they talked about vulnerabilities that could compromise these TVs.

    It was something like 5 am when I wrote my initial comment and I wasn’t fully awake yet. I’m sorry if it came off wrong but I didn’t intend to say that LG TVs were using HDMI connected computer’s Internet connections. Just that they can see anything and everything you can see when you connect and set up that device.

    Nobody ever factory resets a TV before they get rid of it. If your trash guy decides to take home the TV you threw away and hook it up to the internet, or if you sell it, the next person might hook it up to the internet.






  • There’s a lot of misinformation in the comments here.

    1. LG have been caught using the Internet connection of connected devices (like windows computers) to snoop on your network.
    2. Because of that, it has access to your network even if you remove the wifi module or do not connect the TV directly to your network.
    3. Lobotomizing the TV will not necessarily fix this issue, but I still think it’s a good start. It may be beneficial to switch to a different operating system or just ban the TV from accessing certain parts of the Eco system on your computer.
    4. Removing Bluetooth, wifi, and microphone modules will be beneficial in the long run because this will not be the last time a company tries this and it’s not limited to LG. If you are technically inclined or can follow a YouTube video, go for it.




  • This ignores a lot about how automakers were skirting these restrictions in order to sell us larger vehicles and why there are so few sedans and compact cars being sold here these days.

    The rollback isn’t the answer because obviously we should be limiting the size of vehicles and closing the loopholes that allow skirting of the law/regulations, but fuel efficiency is forcing smaller cars out and people here are not buying smaller EV’s because of range anxiety.



  • Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

    A lawyer worth their salt should absolutely defend you against a vandalism charge if by the lawful definition no vandalism took place.

    Not only that, but a lawyer’s job is to make sure the law is followed during legal proceedings. Meaning they are supposed to defend your right to a lawfully handled trial which would include dismissing charges that didn’t fit the crime committed.

    This is criminal mischief. That’s a misdemeanor (just like vandalism).

    Theft involves legally speaking an “intent to deprive the owner of their property”.

    Flock owns the cameras. It’s a subscription model where the municipality actually leases the camera and “retains ownership” of the footage/data the collect.

    So by rights the CEO having them dropped off on his property could be considered the same as them being returned to the owner.

    You can take that however you want. But vandalism has a specific legal definition.


  • No. I did not. Relocation of the asset to the owners property means there’s no intent to deprive the owner of said property which means that it’s not theft.

    The property has not been defaced, damaged, or destroyed so that means there’s no intent of vandalism. Therefore vandalism did not take place.

    What you’re describing is criminal mischief, which I would agree this is.

    I made a singular allowance in the case that the pole was cut (which counts as damage), rather than being dug up (which wouldn’t), which you appear to have ignored.

    If you don’t like facts, that is a you problem.

    You are welcome to kagi or whatever this yourself to see what I’m talking about instead of doubling down.

    If you are incapable of that, don’t bother to respond to me.