672
LG smart TVs caught logging audio with screen off and snooping on local devices
(www.notebookcheck.net)
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
672 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
87878 readers
3661 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Secretly recording conversations in peoples homes sounds like it should be against the law in a number of countries.
Imagine someone working for the government, security services, or a defence contractor. I suspect LG may be in trouble with a number of National Security agencies.
It is illegal. Unfortunately crime is legal for corporations. They just pay the crime fee and can continue undisturbed. Shareholders must be held responsible individually, otherwise it will only get worse.
Not shareholders. Decision makers. Upper msnagement. Shareholders shpuld pay in share value (the finantial penalty to the corporations should be high enough to affect that), bu the personal an criminal responsibility belongs to managers, CEO in particular.
There should at least be something resembling an attempt of investigating, who, where, and when signed an order to implement this shit into their products. That way they will at least think twice if they want to risk the chance of being held personally responsible.
So, are you personally on the hook here because the company managing your pension fund is holding stocks in LG? Because that technically makes you a shareholder as it was bought with your money, right?
Edit: not sure why I get downvoted, this is a legitimate concern/nuance to the debate. The managing company doesn't own these stocks so they're not the shareholders, that's the people whose money they are managing, but these people are not directly in control of the funds. Who is the liable party in this?
90 percent of stocks are owned by ten percent of Americans. Just throwing this fact out here
The highest level employee/officer who had knowledge of it should be held responsible
You mean the CBO[^1]? Because the higher level officers didn't know anything about it and you can't prove they did.
[^1]: Chief Blame Officer
It doesn't matter how many layers of evasion there are. Responsibility has to be with individuals in order for there to be change.
That might stop this madness.
See the thing is if your pension also funds a murder company does outsourcing who manages it not make you at least a little culpable? I think it does and i think the only way to stop this madness is for a little justice to come your way.
That just sounds like a good way to destroy index funds.
What if i have no control over who manages it? I have two, one is government managed and mandatory, the other is part of my salary (and mandatory) and who manages my company paid pension is decided by my employer. I have no control of either aside from general risk profile and high level market groups on my company paid pension (e.g. "tech" or "renewable energy", but no ).
The fact that a pension fund can hold shareholds is crazy by itself, also, is the pension found a company or managed by your state? It shouldn't really be a thing in first place
Both in my case, as there are both the government pension fund that is mandatory and the one used by my employer which uses one of the large primary pension institutions in my country.
Is it a bit weird that I don't just manage all my pensions myself? Yes, a bit. But it's how its done in my country and it has some tax benefits compared to getting the money in hand and investing myself.
Naah, at least, i don't know anyone that does it in my country
Me either. My union pension is controlled by the union and managed by a bank as far as I can tell.
Or hired by those same agents of authority.
Recording without consent is very much a crime in any single-party state, but my guess is that the TOS that people click past to use the TV gives them permission to record you. If it didn't, they would be in big legal hot water.
Clicking through ToS does not magically make illegal things legal.
Consenting to recording makes recording legal.
Making that consent required to use the TV or its features and it being buried within lengthy, opaque terms of service in a country with a low level of literacy should be illegal, but it stands in the US because it's a consumer hostile country.
A TOS presented after an electronic device has been sold is not valid in most of the World since it's considered an attempt to, after the sale, force a change of the terms of the implicit contract which is the sale.
A company can shove whatever they want in front of the customer as contract conditions they have to accept for a sale before the sale - by which point the potential customer can refuse and not buy or accept and buy - not after.
Of course, they don't do that because they would lose most sales, so instead there's a TOS or EULA which the owners of the devices are forced to agree to after the sale to fully enjoy that which they bought, but these are really just legal fictions in most countries.
Mind you, this does not apply to a subscription to an ongoing service, though even then at least in Europe, there are conditions they much obbey to have the customer accept a TOS or a TOS change after subscribing, such as it being possible for the customer to cancel the service at no cost rather than accept the new TOS.
Unconscionable bunk. It's illegal anyway, just like how you can't sign a contract to sell yourself into slavery.
If the courts won't enforce it, vigilantes should.
Should be. Hope it happens and quickly
Only in trouble if they didn't loop them in on the audio feeds.