776
Roku TV bricked until agreeing to new terms of service
(programming.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
776 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
59197 readers
738 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Report Roku to the FBI for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by hacking into and sabotaging your property.
That's a sincere suggestion, by the way. This shit should literally be a crime.
Yeah, that would definitely not go anywhere. Roku isn't hacking into their device. OP probably bought a Roku Smart TV for like $75 (the cost is subsidized by Roku, hence why it's so cheap) and is now complaining about it. It's like buying an Amazon FireTV and then complaining about Amazon having control over the TV.
Edit: am I saying it's right? No, but sometimes it pays to read the EULA. If you're getting something for cheap, there's probably a reason for it.
Non American here, and also not a lawyer, but I’m curious what the correlation is between consumer rights (or lack of) and the relative cost of the product. This is somewhat different to buying a cheaply manufactured product and it unsurprisingly falling to bits - though in many jurisdictions there are even basic rights for that situation, the price is irrelevent. Someone elsewhere in chat has suggested suing in small claims for the cost of the product, due to Roku intentionally bricking their own product unless the rightful owner (is the purchaser even the owner?) agrees to certain terms, even though OP purchased it in good faith. If a straight up refund is not available during a straight forward opt OUT option, we have a very unfair situation for the rightful owner of this product. Needless to say opting out should be as straight forward as opting in. Your suggestions is that if a product is of or below a certain price you must bend over and gratefully accept the corporation you paid money to, then inserting anything they like up your rear end. In my opinion your thesis is not price based as this is a common practice unfortunately in the consumer (and enterprise for that matter) tech industry where we have had shiny brand even expensive products initially sensitively torpedoed up our various orifices, only for brand HQ weeks later to press a button which flicks open hidden blades in the torpedo. No one wants or deserves this. The question is what recourse is there in OP’s jurisdiction.
I may be misunderstanding you if actually you mean that any tech corp can do such a thing at any time that you have paid for. In which case we agree. But it’s far from ideal and shouldn't be accepted.
I'm not saying it's right for them to do this, it's a shitty practice and I'd definitely be pissed off. What I'm saying is there's probably a clause in the EULA/TOS that pretty much says Roku has control over the function of the TV and either you accept those terms or you don't use the TV. The price comparison was just pointing out the difference in experience between getting a $50-75 Amazon Fire tablet vs a $700 Samsung Galaxy tablet. The former is going to have ads all over it and Amazon controls it essentially, they tell you this, meanwhile the Galaxy tablet most likely has no advertising or additional strong-arming since you're paying a lot more for it. The company is always out to get their income one way or another is simply the point I was making.
There is practically zero consumer protection in the US (assuming OP is from the US).
Thanks for clarifying. Yeah none of this is ideal for consumers.
No problem, this is essentially the Human Cent-iPad South Park episode playing out in real life... Obviously without the shit eating and mouth to ass sewing 😂
Don't do this. This just creates more work for the FBI and you know that report is going straight into the rubbish bin. That is just wasting public resources.
In that case, you should additionally complain to your Congressperson that the FBI isn't doing their goddamn job.
No, what's more productive is writing that this should be a crime. It's currently not.
If you think otherwise, let's pretend you're a prosecutor. Which offence do you accuse them of committing (use a legal citation to refer to a specific section), list out each of the elements of that offence and explain why you believe each of them is satisfied.
It's at the very least coercion by ways of property damage, at least in sane legal systems.
Also it's generally not the job of citizens to figure out which paragraph exactly to throw at an accused, that's what police and prosecutors are for.
The parent commenter asserts that it is a crime. What I essentially said is "prove it". I assert there is no law that makes this behaviour a criminal offence. Prove me wrong. Don't say "Well, this is what the law should be", tell me what the law is.
If you want to talk about what the law ought to be, write to your legislators. It's not the FBI's job to write the rules. They only enforce what's already there.
I don't think the behaviour is right, and it may be illegal in other ways, but it isn't a crime, and if it isn't a crime, reporting it to a law enforcement agency is just wasting your time.
And it is the responsibility of law enforcement to figure that out. If I go to the police and say "that guy stole from me" and the actual criminal case ends up not being for theft but embezzlement, did I waste the agency's time?
You don't need to have a law degree to be entitled to file a complaint with the system.
By "illegal in other ways" I mean "creates a civil cause of action". This is not something the police can help with. You don't need a law degree to complain but I think you're just being purposefully obtuse.
Last I checked coercion is a crime over here. Property damage is, too.
You're one of those people who hear a smoke alarm, want to call the fire brigade, but first wonder whether it's actually opportune, whether you shouldn't deal with it yourself, whether the situation is bad enough, aren't you. The answer is yes it is the department rather moves out too often than not often enough and chalks up burnt potatoes at the bottom of a now dry pot under exercise.
You have a reason to believe that a crime could have occurred because your innate sense of justice got offended. You can articulate which action of a particular entity offended it. That's enough, they'll take it from there. Might it go into the bin and you be told "sorry that's a civil matter"? Yes. But that's their job. Just as it's the job of the fire department to deal with you not being able to cook potatoes.
My God. You just used words that you think are criminal offences, and then proclaimed that you think they applied. "Last I checked" my arse, you did not check at all.
And when I tell you to read the statutes and show why you think they apply, you go and say "No, that's not my job" because you're either too lazy to Google search the text of the law or you're afraid of seeing that you wouldn't be able to justify your point.
You claim this is a criminal offence. You can't cite or don't want to cite any criminal statutes substantiating your claim. Instead you just speak out of your ass instead of checking to make sure. The information's there. You just don't want to read it.
You're wrong. Just quit the conversation already. You're not winning this one.
§§ 240, 303 StGB.
Yes I know that's German law. I don't know US law. But I bet if I sold you a fridge and three days later came into your house and said "sign this or I'll destroy the fridge" that's a crime in the US. "Computer sabotage" is the rough equivalent of "trespass" in this example, you still have property damage and coercion even if computer sabotage doesn't apply for some reason.
I ran Google Translate on these:
Firstly, the terms and conditions screen is not "force". Secondly, the television is not damaged by making you accept such conditions. The software doesn't work but you don't own the software, you own the hardware. Even if there is no way to install other software on the system. Thirdly, the terms and conditions originally agreed to allow this (changes to the terms and conditions) to happen. It is not unauthorised. Fourthly, and most importantly, you can just physically click the "agree" button to the terms and conditions to get back the functionality. The remedy is for a court to consider that agreement unenforceable.
Threat of harm. Though "harm" is a bad translation think of it as evil as used in "the lesser evil". "Do this or I'll do the nasty" is considered coercion. Wilfully causing a traffic jam can be coercion -- ask the climate protestors, they had to argue before court how their use of coercion wasn't reprehensible (sentence 2). The reason that works is because they can quote a selfless motive, I very much doubt Roku manages to do that.
Also btw there's an official translation, not that it's any better at translating "Übel", though.
If a TV doesn't TV then it's damaged. It cannot fulfil its purpose of being a TV, any more. If it requires me to acquiesce to a nasty before it works, it's functionally not a TV either because I have all right in the world to not tolerate nasty in any way whatsoever.
Copyright, as in the right to sell the software, is a different thing than the use-rights in the software. By selling a TV that contains firmware, requires firmware to fulfil its purpose as a TV, you automatically license the shipped software to be used by the owner/operator of that device. Just as you're required to deliver functioning hardware if you promise the consumer a TV, so are you required to deliver functioning software, if it should be necessary for the operation of the TV. If the license agreement says otherwise it's void.
It's important to distinguish this from computers, which are meant to run user-provided software. But especially as Rokus are (AFAIK) completely locked down and can't run user-supplied software arguing that it's a computer is bound to fail.
If the terms and conditions allow me to break into your house and coerce you then those terms are void, and it's still coercion.
Warranty would be another remedy (at least over here, we have mandatory warranty). Remedy being available doesn't make something not coercion though, it just means that the attempt failed. But the attempt itself is punishable (sentence 3).
Now, granted, all that may not apply in the US. It really might be legal in the US. But it's still not the duty of a citizen to know. If the FBI is tired of having to throw those cases into the bin then they're free to ask the white house to try and get a law passed to make it illegal. Tons of laws are passed like that: It stands to reason that the executive, having to implement law, has some insight and inspiration to give to the legislature when it comes to which laws might be sensible.
Again, this does not seem to be getting through to you.
You can click the "agree" button to get back full functionality.
A court would just rule that your clicking of that button does not bind you into a contract.
Not without acquiescing to a thing I do not want. Not without the fear and uncertainty of whether a civil court would actually agree with that. Whether I can afford to go up against company lawyers in court. Not without being a legal expert.
As said: Remedy being available doesn't mean that an attempt to coerce was not made, and the attempt itself is punishable. What about "the attempt is punishable" do you not understand?
It's not coercive at all under that definition. It's not an attempt to be coercive. Think about it more before replying.
First off: What definition are you referring to because I don't see any mentioned that would imply what you said.
Not coercive would be giving the user the option to not agree to the new terms, not coercive would be not taking the telly hostage when the user wants to use it.
If Roku did not want to coerce its users to acquiesce, why did they choose such a drastic act? Is there any reasonable other motive? In defence you might argue technical necessity or such, very likely a losing battle but you might drag out the proceedings. but even then there's still enough initial suspicion to start the case.
And, as said: It's certainly not the job of an ordinary citizen to figure all that out. That's the job of police and prosecutors.
It’s not a crime per se, but it does open them up to civil litigation. Because it’s a contract of adhesion, where the consumer gains nothing from the additional terms, cannot negotiate the terms prior to acceptance, and is forced into accepting the terms on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
In order for a contract to be enforceable, both sides need to be able to negotiate the terms, and both sides need to receive something meaningful from said contract.
I think you're likely right, but I think this is also why reporting it to the FBI is a waste of time. The FBI only deals with criminal matters.
If I am a shop owner and sell you a washing machine, and then three days later come into your house with a baseball bat saying "sign this or I'll destroy the machine", did I commit a crime?
The thing they want you to coerce you into is civil, yes, but that doesn't make coercion a civil matter.
Piss off. You're not even an American. Don't tell us what to do with our FBI.
I am American.
Imposter! No Murcan would use "rubbish bin".
"Offence" as opposed to offense, and "behaviour" instead of behavior are also non-standard for American English.
So I looked at his post history, and sure enough, there are multiple instances of "cheque" instead of check, "centralised" instead of centralized, and other obvious uses of British or Asian English.
Maybe NateNate60 is American by citizenship, but doesn't appear to be a native American English speaker.
It's almost as if being American and speaking languages are separate things!
deleted by creator
Way to sleuth!
"We can't solve your case until we solve all the murders first. All of them."
Crime is crime dude.