1039
Cybersecurity bounty hunter says Samsung TVs use AI to record audio and screenshots for ads — 'Finally found a company that truly listens to its customers,' says hacker (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
152 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 56 points 1 week ago (9 children)

EULA has T&C that the first users agree to when they fast forward with the accept accept accept accept screens

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 45 points 6 days ago (4 children)

    Doesn't matter if you technically consent, that shit is still illegal (at least in the EU)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 6 days ago

    Illegal only applies when the law is an enforced deterrence. If the fine is low enough, it's the price of doing business. If it's hard to sue or there's no enforcement, the law may as well not exist. Unfortunately, with these large companies it's been both: low fines and long lawsuits, so by the time they pay a fine, they have earned 100x the fine in a month or so

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago*

    yes and I believe national courts in the EU are actually obligated by the EU unfair terms directive to look for any provision in these terms that are harmful to the consumers (I think it's called ex officio review) when any of these terms are challenged in court. I am not sure how much protection this actually gets the consumer in practice though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 6 days ago* (3 children)

    Those things aren't legally valid for consumer electronics or software in many countries (possibly most of the World) because they're considered an attempt at forcing a change in the terms of the sale after the sale.

    They would be totally valid if they're presented to the buyer for confirming acceptance during the purchase BEFORE they pay which, "curiously", they never are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago* (1 child)

    IANAL, but EULAs are mostly enforceable in the US as they're contracts. BUT, not every provision is a slam dunk win for the company. As I understand it, much law is decided on what a "reasonable person" would act, think or find fair at the moment action was taken, such as clicking "I Agree". Would such a person expect the EULA to provide for spying on their voice and snapshotting their private viewing? Dunno, but I'd love to see a test case move forward.

    Someone should sue on behalf of a minor, who cannot agree to a contract, or another third-party in the home who did not agree. Bet there's case law on this sort of thing in other contexts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago*

    From what I read, the point of Law in the countries were EULAs have already been deemed not enforceable by courts (such as Germany) is that one can't hold something one has sold to a customer hostage to the customer accepting a NEW contract after the sale (the sale itself is considered an implicit contract with certain rights, such as the right to freely use what was sold) before they can use it, so even if people click "I Accept" on such a thing it's does not form a legally binding contract.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent