1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Vizio fined for smart TV spying programme

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 7 Feb 2017.

  1. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    11,966
    Likes Received:
    1,572
  2. greigaitken

    greigaitken Member

    Joined:
    26 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    392
    Likes Received:
    2
    Surely someone's 'stolen' data, just like property should be surrendered when found to be taken without consent. Just like if i buy a stolen car, i have zero rights to that car.
     
  3. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    11,966
    Likes Received:
    1,572
    Problem there lies in the duplicative nature of data. You steal a physical object, you're taking it with the intention to permanently deprive its rightful owner of its use - which is quite literally the definition of theft. You copy ephemeral data, though, and the rightful owner can carry on using it - meaning it is not, in the eyes of the law, theft.

    That's why we have separate laws for things like copyright infringement and also why joyriding is punished as "taking without the owner's consent" (TWOCing), and not theft - 'cos there's no way to prove that the joyrider wasn't going to bring the car back when they were done (which would mean they didn't intend to permanently deprive the rightful owner of the car's use, and the best you could do 'em for without the offence of TWOCing would be theft of petrol and a bit of tyre rubber.)

    Ooh, on an even further aside 'cos that last "theft of petrol" bit reminded me: that's actually how the first computer crimes were prosecuted. Before there was such a thing as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (USA) and Computer Misuse Act (UK), a couple of crackers got done for "theft of electricity" to the sum of a dollar or two.
     
  4. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    4,611
    Likes Received:
    311
    Now to fine the rest of the industry for doing the exact same thing...
     
  5. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,119
    Likes Received:
    299
    Not disagreeing with you but that's not what copyright protection organisations have been saying for years, they equate the copying of data as theft, although I'm probably taking that to literally as it's obvious they mean the copying of data means they've been deprived of a sale.

    It would be nice if our personal data had the same protections copyright laws afford.
     
  6. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    11,966
    Likes Received:
    1,572
    Doesn't matter what copyright protection organisations think: theft is very well defined by the Theft Act 1968 in the UK, and it requires that the thief 'dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it' (Section 1 (1)). If copyright infringement were theft, we would never have needed the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.
    It does, in the UK at least: the Data Protection Act 1998.
     
  7. edzieba

    edzieba Virtual Realist

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    3,007
    Likes Received:
    240
    Add another reason to the pile for ignoring any 'smart' features a TV has, and buying it as purely a 'dumb' display and adding any 'smart' features you want via an external device (Android Fire, Nvidia Shield, Chromecast, etc).
    Not only does it avoid crap like this and the Samsung TV privacy debacle, it means that in a year or so when inevitably services become defunct or software stops being updated, you can just swap out a box rather than needing a new TV.
     
  8. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,119
    Likes Received:
    299
    @Gareth, yes legally those laws exist but i think it's safe to say the entertainment industry and some politicians equate the copying of data as theft despite how it's defined in law, and IMO the DPA is sorely lacking when it comes to protections.

    I'm not disputing how the legal system defines these things BTW as for one i don't want to read though pages of legalese and also I'm not looking for an argument (apologies if that's how my post came across), i was simple trying to highlight how (IMO) the protections afforded to the public and the entertainment industry seem unequal.
     
  9. Locknload

    Locknload Jolly Good Egg

    Joined:
    28 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    220
    Likes Received:
    8
    Fact: The Federation Against Copyright Theft?

    A.) Is there's a mission that does not legally exist then?

    B.) Is it possible that i can claim copyright ownership of all my personal data, only to be used and viewed at my discretion as i own the personal rights to my image and written correspondence?

    C.) Why can people like Christiano Ronaldo protect their image rights on a monetary level, yet little old me cannot protect my own personal and private data?
     
    Last edited: 7 Feb 2017

Share This Page