-
it doesn’t necessarily take full resolution images
-
just because it can capture images a few hundred milliseconds apart doesn’t mean it’s continuously capturing images. It could be several in short bursts with a delay between groups of images.
Comment on Smart TVs take snapshots of what you watch multiple times per second
Tja@programming.dev 1 day ago
Something doesn’t add up. How can a TV take 100 Screenshots of 4k content per second? No wifi has that bandwidth. No embedded processor has that capacity.
Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
flappy@lemm.ee 1 day ago
You know when people say “I’ve only talked about this once, never searched for it, and then I got ads a few days later”?
What if it hasn’t been phones that were listening (despite Siri/Google Assistant/Alexa mis-identifying something as a wake-word being the most sensible explanation), but TVs?
red@sopuli.xyz 1 hour ago
Being around someone who did search for something is enough (location, same wifi).
RedBauble@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
Why not both
travysh@lemm.ee 1 day ago
I’m pretty familiar with how one particular brand of TV works, and you’re right, it’s absolutely not screenshots. It’s a handful of single pixels across the content. By matching these pixels against known content it’s possible to identify what was being watched. Not too different than how Shazam can identify a song.
That’s not to say all TV manufacturers work that way.
Boozilla@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m with you, I think it’s probably BS. But I suppose it could be taking highly compressed low resolution snapshots.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Plenty of embedded processors have that capacity, but I generally agree about the bandwidth.
someguy3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
360p is probably enough.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
It may be snapping multiple in a small period of time. Compressing them in the background then trickling them back out.
TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Probably a data snapshot, not an actual screen snapshot.
ThePantser@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yea I don’t believe it, that’s some processor intensive streaming. My security camera feeds can’t even do that. 100fps is crazy for streaming. Are we sure these “screenshots” aren’t just anonymous metric gatherings like video codecs and resolution?
XeroxCool@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It doesn’t say the screenshot must be full resolution and it doesn’t say the screenshot is immediately uploaded. A couple seconds to downscale and compress would work the same as far as content identification is concerned
kurcatovium@lemm.ee 23 hours ago
Not mentioning taking 100 screenshots each second with what - 25 frames per second? - is kinda overkill…
WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It doesn’t need a 4K screenshot. It needs enough data from any given single frame to run it through analytics and an algorithm to tailor ads. Backend surveillance like this isn’t interested in fidelity to the human viewing experience. It needs identifying data. That can be had through a combination of low quality data scrapes done numerous times.
“Screenshot” is more like a metaphor here. Sort of like how your Apple or Google photos are “private,” but the data and analytics taken from them you’ve given away. It’s like if you told me I could look at all the photos on your phone and take as many notes and subject them to as much analysis as I wanted, but I promised not to actually physically keep your phone/photos. Probably makes you feel like your photos are securely still in your possession, but I got what I wanted.
Fuzzypyro@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Totally agree. It sounds like something was lost in translation here by the final edit of potentially some run though a llm for proof reading to dumb it down enough to either just make it more consumable, more clickbait or realistic both.
My guess is the actual research reported that it was 100s of packets per second (not screenshots) which is still a lot more than you would expect even for spyware. Either way it’s been well known that smart tvs are spyware ridden, I don’t need a paywalled service to tell me that.