this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
86 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

32096 readers
632 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
k_o_t@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
Yayannick@lemmy.ml
ranok@sopuli.xyz
86
What vendors make good dumb TVs or big monitors? (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 15 hours ago* (last edited 50 minutes ago) by Nicro@discuss.tchncs.de to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The EMMC on my PC-TV finally broke down and I'd like to replace it with something that doesn't run an OS or will predictably fail with a countdown. But dumb TVs are hard to come by and monitors come at a premium at that size. I want to run a PC (DP/HDMI) and an SBC (HDMI) with it. I also have an S2 satellite cable, but that's secondary. I'd like to have ~43", 16:9, 4K but without an embedded smart-hub, ideally running of eeprom-firmware, or just anything independent of write-cycles. But I can't find any good options online. Are there companies for this. Comments and recommendations welcome.

Edit: I'm EU, hence the DVB-S2 cable. Scepter would be great, but doesn't run on EU power.

top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 33 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t know, but if good smart TVs are cheaper than good dumb ones, you might consider ignoring/disabling the smart bits. I might go so far as to sever the Wi-Fi/Bluetooth antennas.

Tom’s Guide: Dumb TVs — here’s why you can’t find them anymore

That’s because, for a number of reasons, it’s cheaper and more profitable for TV makers to simply include a smart platform with every TV they ship out. It’s actually a major reason why TVs have become so much cheaper in the last decade — with a smart platform, TV makers can sell the hardware at cost or even take a small loss, but in the end make money through the advertising that shows up on the homescreen.

[–] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 27 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

This is the advice I usually give. I hate the concept of smart TVs, but I’m not willing to spend more when I can just ensure my Hisense U8K never connects to the internet. It’s a gorgeous and completely affordable display for the quality it provides, and there are no relevant features that are unavailable because it’s offline.

[–] arthur@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 minute ago

Don't tell that out loud, they may decide to block features of we don't connect it.

[–] Fusty@lemmy.ml 16 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Are people aware that they can buy a smart TV and never conntect it to wi-fi and never plug in the ethernet? There is no risk if TV never gets an IP.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 18 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

It's possible a smart TV will use its wifi to connect to another device of the same brand on its own. I'd read an article about it a couple years ago.

If I'm reading about it, that means a company has been working on it, and frankly it makes sense. If I were in their shoes I'd look into making it happen. It's pretty trivial to do when you think about it.

Not that I think it's happening in the wild, just an idea to keep in mind.

Also, those devices are always capturing data. So if/when they ever connect, that data will get uploaded.

[–] randombullet@programming.dev 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I'll just connect it to my LAN only wifi network. No way in no way out.

[–] undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I think what they were talking about is the TV actively scanning for similar models and connecting to those to reach the internet. I’ve read similar articles showing how smart TVs will even connect to an open WiFi network to try to get online.

All this would bypass your LAN restrictions of course.

[–] Fusty@lemmy.ml 1 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

There is no meaningful data for the OS to capture if it used as a display for externally connected devices.

The only way to have 100% privacy on all devices is not have internet service.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 2 points 50 minutes ago

Some actively listen with a microphone though.

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 17 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Many tvs have microphones built into them or their remotes.

Some are even sending screenshots of what they are displaying to their backend servers.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2449198-smart-tvs-take-snapshots-of-what-you-watch-multiple-times-per-second/

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

There is no meaningful data for the OS to capture if it used as a display for externally connected devices.

Except that some of these devices are periodically "screenshotting" the screen and harvesting data from that.

Pair that with automatically connecting to open wifi networks and nothing is truly safe.

[–] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 4 hours ago

Username checks out. Your own article you linked dispels this.

the opt-out mechanisms implemented on LG and Samsung smart TVs are working

A better solution is to disconnect your Smart TV from the internet entirely... Smart TVs cannot utilize ACR when they are offline.

[–] Steve@communick.news 12 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

They're called Signage Displays.
Most major names you know make them.
They do cost more, but not prohibitively so.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 54 minutes ago (1 children)

Seriously. Leaves the $200 computer away – costs more. Market is weird.

[–] Nicro@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 41 minutes ago

When scaled to mass production, the SBCs become dirt cheap. Then they can subsidise with sponsored/preloaded content, ads and usage data.

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

https://www.sceptre.com/TV/4K-UHD-TV/U435CV-UMRD-43-4K-UHD-TV-product1159category1category73.html

[–] Nicro@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 53 minutes ago

I was eyeing Scepter, but I just saw that their stuff is made with exclusively US standards and EU power and broadcasting is different. Didn't notice that would matter.

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Big compromises. Only 90% sRGB? Last decade has been making shifts towards DCI-P3 & they can’t even cover sRGB?

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 1 points 45 minutes ago

I've never paid attention to that, and at those prices, while keeping more stuff from mining data, it's a steal.

[–] bert@lemmy.monster 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I have seen Scepter mentioned a few times lately.

https://www.sceptre.com/TV/4K-UHD-TV-category1category73.html

[–] Nicro@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 14 hours ago

Seen them recommended in dumb-tv articles. Will check them out.

[–] LazerDickMcCheese@sh.itjust.works 8 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I'd like to know too. I've never used my TV as a traditional TV, and I hate the "smart" features. Ideally, I'd like a modern 16:9 CRT under 80lbs, but they don't exist

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

What would be the benefit of a CRT? I'm sure they last plenty, but they draw a lot of power.

[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 10 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Some people prefer CRTs for gaming, there's much less input lag, and differences in the way images are displayed means that you can often run games at lower resolutions than pixel based displays without as much of a decrease in image quality. Here's a DF video talking about some of the advantages.

Also CRTs can be pushed to insanely high frame rates, although this can be limited by how much you reduce the resolution. For example, one guy got his to run at 700hz refresh rate (by dropping resolution to 120p).

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 13 hours ago

As soon as you use a digital input you lose any real latency advantages. Plus modern digital displays have such low latency the difference really doesn't matter.

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 14 hours ago

I see, I know the arguments from gamers (and have seen that video before). The discussion was on TVs and I didn't think of the gaming angle.

I'm also not convinced about that stuff, to me it's like talking to audiophiles that swear they can totally hear the difference between made by an expensive ethernet cable in the final audio, or that they can tell 16bit 48kHz from 24bit 96kHz, while basic physics and double blind tests say they can't.

[–] LazerDickMcCheese@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Modern displays make my eyes hurt

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

And CRTs dont????

[–] LazerDickMcCheese@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

Nope! I could watch one all day, no clue why

[–] mlfh@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 15 hours ago

I have a 43-inch Insignia N10 that works great in exactly that role. Dumb TV with HDMI inputs, audio outputs, and that's about it. Best Buy's in-house brand, it was like 120 bucks about a year ago, when my Vizio TV from 2003 finally died in a way I couldn't fix :(

The built-in speakers aren't great, definitely recommend hooking it up to something else.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 5 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

At 43" you're in luck, and not needing a tuner, there are still some options

https://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/BDM4350UC_27/brilliance-4k-ultra-hd-lcd-display

Also: Samsung - Odyssey Neo G7 43"

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 13 hours ago

Sharp NEC