Fair point on the screenshot. Yea I dont think any TV is phoning home with screenshots. Rather it's phoning home with a processed signal of the A/V in order to ID that A/V. If there is A/V that cannot be recognized, it may phone home a screenshot of that.
And I also don't think it's easy to escape the scope of GDPR. I'm just saying companies come up with ways of being "GDPR compliant" and they've done so.
If you consider tracking an anonymous identifier for the purposes of better marketing "spying" then I think that's a stretch. Calling out TV in particular for it is a bit silly - it's simply everywhere.
"...without their consent and without telling them about it."
Yes they are. You opt in or out when you buy the TV. They tell you about it then. You can be like most people and not read the fine print, but then don't be all surprised when someone's pulling the wool over your eyes.
Not for attribution. It’s for exposure. If Pepsi buys $1M in ads on NBC, it only knows the DMA and time slot/programs it bought the ads on. It doesn’t know the households it bought the ads on. With ACR data, it will know that you were exposed. From there, they can do a few different things. Audience studies (like they reached 2000 households with a certain income etc). Or they can run attribution studies. A company called Data+Math looks at exposure of these kinds of ads, understands which households weren’t exposed (as a control) and gives statistically significance calculations on linear TV ads to understand lift of sales (one example).
It’s called ACR data and it’s very common. And yes, TVs are phoning home with it.
And GDPR only requires that you opt in. So when you sign into the TV for the first time, it gives you an opt in choice and many do it. The States is less regulated but will be soon.
It tickles me that photography is noted as a worthwhile skill. I don’t disagree. Photography to me is meditation. I get to wander around and find things pleasing to the eye. Nothing could be better.
I find it funnier the outrage of those who can’t bear to think of their dog’s love as contingent upon food. “But I need unconditional love from my pet!”
You've got to be more specific. I've lived in NYC for almost a decade and I think the power went out 3 times and that's always been due to a hurricane. Power cuts are not something I've had to deal with in any significant manner in anyplace I've lived in the USA (and I've lived all over).
The more interesting fact is that if Tim Cook were to pay more taxes, he'd be fired by his shareholders. CEO's of public companies are supposed to increase profitability, not decrease it.
What I find most fascinating is that we look to others to change principally before ourselves. Invariably when there is terrible news such as this, people will discuss the 'deniers' etc.
But the deniers aren't the most pernicious. Those who know perfectly well what they are doing is hurting the planet but do nothing about it are the most pernicious (aka - me). I know what I do is bad, but how do I not do it?
I live in New York City. Take public transportation everyday and probably consume less plastic goods than the average (my household is about 1000 sq. ft and therefore requires less chemicals to clean, less furniture to fill with etc).
A friend from San Francisco said to me "I view NYC as a giant pile of trash." And I can see her point, it's out on the street and in clear daylight. She's right. But just because San Francisco hides its trash better doesn't mean it doesn't make any.
So though I can argue that I pollute less on a per capita basis, I still do. What should I do?
Please explain how it is irrelevant. If you cease paying attention to FB, then your deceased loved ones no longer continue this "digital life" as the article puts it.
And I also don't think it's easy to escape the scope of GDPR. I'm just saying companies come up with ways of being "GDPR compliant" and they've done so.