Posts: 4,723 +2,690
It's what the news station covering the chases LIVE say. No website needed.That's not what the OnStar's website says regarding the technology ( https://www.onstar.com/us/en/articles/tips/stolen-vehicle-assistance-helps-stop-thieves/ ) but okay, I've never had OnStar before so I can't say for certain from personal experience on how it works. The point I'm making about the Onstar example is that OnStar is a paid service that is provided to a client, vs a locking mechanism that, as far as I am aware of, has never been made public and has only been used to protect Samsung's interests as the displays had not been sold yet, and not for any consumer registered displays that had been unlawfully taken. It is a fantastic middle finger to those who had stolen the displays for their own use, but I feel kinda bad for those that get unknowingly swindled when the TV they just bought from someone gets bricked when they connect it to the internet for the first time.
I don't think what I've said really amounts to fearmongering, just a pessimistic view of what possibility could happen, however unlikely it may be. If dismissing it tailors to your common sense, then more power to you. If anything the news of this won't stop me from purchasing Samsung products/TVs. I kind of just assume anything that connects to the internet has a backdoor whether we know it or not, and it's just a matter of whether I care enough (usually not) to manage what they can and can't talk to, and whether that kind of access is a known commodity.
Very true. I just hope they take network security and access control much more seriously than the dozens of other examples over the last few years. We already know IoT are practically a ticking timebomb, despite all the cool things you can do with them. XD
Making a stolen product useless is still beyond some people. I can't fix that.