Comment on ‘Invasive, deceptive, and unlawful’: Texas says your TV is tracking you illegally, and is suing to stop the dreaded Automatic Content Recognition

iopq@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• x_pikl_x@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Because the likely outcome will be a shady backroom business deal where they take a cut or just a payoff and you’ll never hear about it again. It’s Texas.

  source

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    No. The likely outcome is this. I’m going to use fake numbers for the sake of demonstrating a concept.

    Samsung spies on you. From the data, they can harvest $500 million dollars throughout Texas tv watchers sending info back to South Korea.

    Texas says “Hey! Whoa! You can’t do that! You better stop or we’ll fine you $20,000 dollars!”

    Samsung says “Ok”, and keeps doing it. Pays the fine, and takes it to court. They lose the case, but cost Texas $15,000 of court costs just to win. Then they keep doing it.

    Now Texas thinks twice about charging the fee, because last time they only got $5,000 after defending themselves in court.

    Meanwhile Samsung just views it as the cost of doing business. And carries on.

    source

    • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Angry upvote. This is the case when they are serious about it. See my other comment for how I feel Texas approaches it.

      source
    • random_character_a@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      This is the way.

      … in almost everything.

      source
• MasterBlaster@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It is because of who is running Texas. We don’t believe them. It’s either kabuki, or a means to extract something from the corporations while blowing smoke up our asses.

  source
• ayyy@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Because the people making these claims have an extremely consistent record of siding with rich donors instead of their citizens. They lie have a consistent track record of being caught lying. Trust is earned, and Ken Paxton has consistently done the opposite of that.

  source
• devedeset@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Because at the same time they’re trying to implement age verification for app stores while also very vaguely defining what an app store is.

  The Act defines an “App Store” as “a publicly available Internet website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes software applications from the owner or developer of a software application to the user of a mobile device.”

  So… what constitutes a mobile device? Who is an owner/developer? Does github have to implement age verification for mobile devices?

  source