So will they sue in court to prove this? Of course not.
If it weren’t true, they wouldn’t bother denying it without an army of lawyers backing their legal department up to sue the shit out of anyone and everyone for libel. (remember kids, libel is literary, slander is spoken)
If it were not true, they wouldn’t hesitate to sue because these claims are damaging whatever reputation they had.
If they don’t come out with lawsuits blazing, they at least think they won’t win a court case easily.
lawsuit = discovery. No way will they do this.
GN’s vid it was excellent, but it could be a little difficult for some laypeople to follow. Also, it’s quite long if you haven’t seen it.
The accusations of spying aren’t solely against LG. They also make a very important point that smart devices are often compromised. LG just has the capability to spy on you whenever they want; that doesn’t mean that they’re the only ones who do it. So even if their policies have safeguards, and even if they try to argue for limited and constrained use; the other important problem is that they aren’t the only ones who can use it. So can bat man.
This is why this feels a bit disingenuous to me, because while it’s certainly implied that what they’re doing is super creepy —and I think the vast majority of normal people would agree— I think that they’re trying to mislead people into thinking that some of the demonstrations, which were what you could do with access to it, were intended to show what LG was doing opposed to what an adversary could do.
even if they try to argue for limited and constrained use
sure, because the guy behind the LG ad business is barred from running a public company because of fraud…
Hey, I didn’t say it would be a good argument…
If it’s not true why is it in the terms of service
(If the wake word is not recognized, no voice data is transmitted to the server; the audio processing for wake word detection is performed locally on the device and is immediately deleted.)
sure i am just going to take your word for it! /s
GN has shown they do a “full take” when you use the opt-out on your TV…Coming to a car near you.
Sure
Steve is LARPing investigative journalism* and jumped on fairly benign stuff without understanding what half of it does and claimed it was spying. His main problem is that without knowing what’s normal you can’t tell what is suspicious. Hope he’s got enough money for lawyers since LG has a solid defamation case on hands.
* I dare anyone to say going to front desk at random Nvidia branch / office and asking for someone to provide a comment is normal behaviour of someone who knows how things work.
Oh wise one, please do provide at least one specific example of something they misrepresented/misunderstood.
See, this is like when there is a war and people start reporting things they see on Flight Radar. There’s nothing to put your finger and say - this is untrue. It’s just that a lot of normal stuff is being presented as suspicious. I linked a blog post going through GN claims few days ago that goes into detail but was dogpiled by people who needed their existing beliefs reconfirmed by a random internet video. I don’t need to make up things to hate on big tech and corpos, they give me enough reasons already.
Except that there are quite a few claims that you can point out and disprove. The rant you posted (and I read) seems to not have paid that much attention during the video and fails to mention several points, while misunderstanding others. Lastly, if you think this is so exaggerated, why did you personally disable bluetooth on your LG tv and supposedly blocked LG domains on your router? It seems that you’re more interested in being contrarian than actually having a formed opinion.
There you go: https://leaflet.pub/p/did:plc:yhgc5rlqhoezrx6fbawajxlh/3muwrqenzfk2n
I’m not really interested in discussing this particular video because at some point we’d be arguing about what words mean. I’m ranting about what GN became because this is not the first time they rely on sensationalism too much in their work.
Maybe read before you reply next time? I very clearly said that I already read that. I also said that there are several things you can point out and “disprove”, yet neither you (nor the article) did that. You also ignore the fact that you claim to not believe what they say but you still disabled bluetooth on your LG tv and blocked LG domains in you router.
It’s pretty obvious that you’re not interested in actually discussing or thinking about this matter. Which leads me to wonder, why even post anything at all?
