[sib]

While Netflix does have a lot of data about what you watch on Netflix, I believe that the reason people react so strongly to things like this is that, as the platform provider, using automated content recognition and other techniques, Vizio (or Samsung, ...) can know everything that you watch across all sources flowing through the TV. Even including things such as YouTube, linear broadcast TV, etc. That's a lot broader surface area than Netflix has...

[samstave]

This is not feasibly accurate currently.

There are contractual stipulations, by companies such as netflix, for example, that preclude image sensing on screens. (Netflix doesnt want anyone else having their viewer data as one logical argument) -- that doesnt mean that Netflix doesnt share viewer data with other third parties... [I have no idea if they do, I havent read their policy]

but here is the issue that 99% of people fail to get: The TV can only ID what it is that you are watching if the system has also been watching the same video/seen the same video/is also watching the same in real-time as you watch it.

So, yeah, it is impossible to ID any and all.

Further, the agreements between companies like vizio and others are very specific as to what is legal and allowed.

Having been-there -- These guys are on the up-and-up and while we all want to have the right to do anything we want in secret, there is nothing to panic about. However, there is a larger question that is raised regarding privacy; We already have laws around PCI/PII/Med data -- media consumption data is an open issue; How much behavioral data do you think Facebook has? "Show me the total count of males in Brazil between the age of 18-24 that identifies as single and lives within 50 miles of Rio who liked [object] where name begins with the letter 'R'" -- Yeah, I wouldnt worry about what TV Show a Vizio TV reported as displaying.

The FB example shows that you were at your machine, and clicked on the [object] etc...

Vizio(and all other brands) TVs are running in kiosk/unattended mode all over the place. How many screens in every sports bar were on last night? Well, they can certainly ID the # of TVs that were watching the Superbowl, but there are likely >~1 person at each screen. So, the worry about your demographics is meaningless in this case. Same as an election/election-debate.

But, as an aggregate you can see where the attention of the millions of TVs are pointed.

Like I said - it is simply neilsen ratings, but much much more accurate.

[CamperBob2]

Like I said - it is simply neilsen ratings, but much much more accurate.

You keep saying that. But if I'm not mistaken, Nielsen families are paid for their participation. When can I expect a check from Vizio?

[samstave]

Thats why it is opt-in.... just like every other form of in-line marketing.

Are you expecting a check from google for your use of Gmail? Whats more invasive, Google reading your emails to mom about your colonoscopy, or the fact that Vizio knows that your TV watched the superbowl last night?

[CamperBob2]

Thats why it is opt-in.... just like every other form of in-line marketing. Are you expecting a check from google for your use of Gmail?

Hmm, I may not be entirely up to speed on what happened here. If so, I apologize. The lead paragraph of the story says (in part) that Vizio "installed software on its TVs to collect viewing data on 11 million consumer TVs without consumers’ knowledge or consent," and that's what my comment was based on.

So if the service was "opt-in," as with the Nielsen business model, then why are they being forced to pay a seven-figure fine?

[samstave]

"installed software" is a bit of a misnomer - its a feature baked into the firmware, when you first setup the TV it asks you for permission to do enhanced content recognition. If you say yes, it will enable the system - if you say no, the TV will never send data of fingerprints on the screen.

[CamperBob2]

when you first setup the TV it asks you for permission to do enhanced content recognition. If you say yes, it will enable the system - if you say no, the TV will never send data of fingerprints on the screen.

But how do I reconcile this with the article, which says it was done without consumers' knowledge or consent?

Someone's lying, which I'm sure you'll agree is always kind of annoying.

[TeMPOraL]

I can encrypt my e-mail. Can I encrypt my video signal so that the TV doesn't read it off?

Also, Gmail gives me a pretty damn good service in exchange for me allowing them to read my e-mail - I get free search, categorization and arguably the best spam filtering solution in the world. What do I get from Vizio in exchange for all its spying?

[throwaway160303]

A cheaper TV - or to go a level deeper, still having the manufacturer in question in the business of making TVs. TVs, and more generally high-unit-volume embedded hardware products, are incredibly competitive. This is particularly true at the price points where Vizio moves significant volume. Margins were squeezed to zero years ago.

[TeMPOraL]

> or to go a level deeper, still having the manufacturer in question in the business of making TVs.

As a consumer, that's not my problem. If a commodity company can't survive on their margins, then so be it.

The problem is that even if such "innovation" allows a company to increase its margins (and maybe decrease price), there's nothing stopping competitors from adopting it too, and soon margins are back to near-zero - but the user-hostile crap remains a permanent part of the new landscape. This process needs to be actively opposed, and individual consumers are unfortunately nowhere near powerful enough to do so.

[nitrogen]

The TV can only ID what it is that you are watching if the system has also been watching the same video/seen the same video/is also watching the same in real-time as you watch it.

Aren't there digital watermarks on all broadcast TV shows and advertisements? If not, if there's a fingerprinting algorithm that can run on a screen's hardware, or filename matching for USB, media could still be identified. No need for the rest of "the system" to have video files in advance, or at all.

[samstave]

Sort of - but not quite.

Think of it like this; people are concerned that the system can do Who, What, When, Where, Why, How, How-Much, Who-do-they-know,... etc,...

It cant. Surely things can be inferred... but nothing that should get you riled up any-more-so than any other online service you have ever used. Plus - the opt-out functions actually work.

[ysavir]

> Plus - the opt-out functions actually work

But are users (such as myself) made aware of this opt out?

> It cant.

It can't... Or it can't yet?

[hrehhf]

> There are contractual stipulations, by companies such as netflix, for example, that preclude image sensing on screens.

So you're saying Vizio and Netflix have a contract such that Vizio TVs will not report to Vizio about what is being displayed on the screen if its a Netflix stream? That sounds dubious. Maybe they could have a built-in Netflix app ignore such content, but what about Netflix streamed from a separate device via HDMI?

[samstave]

Yes.

but you have to think about the economics of the ingest side... how much does it cost to, as a client, ingest every single netflix show. Not going to happen. Plus it violates lots of various companies TOS.

This is a non-issue, IMO, and people shouldnt worry about it to the same extent that one should worry about FB and GOOG and AAPL's abilities...

This is a scape-goat.

[ysavir]

It's not at all a scape-goat. It might be a minor player, but not a scapegoat. And as a minor player, it's been coasting under the radar. At least we try to keep tabs on Facebook and Google, etc.

Your defensiveness of Vizio is offsetting, as if covering for something. Should I be worried, and swap out my Vizio for a different company's television?

[samstave]

If you just set your TVs country to Mexico it effectively disables ACR data collection....

[knappe]

That and they weren't exactly upfront about their collection.