It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gizmodo banned for remotely shutting down LCDs at CES

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
bwwaaahahahaha

www.rlslog.net...



The editor of popular gadget website Gizmodo was banned from CES and Gawker Media, company behind that site, is most likely getting sued by CES organizers pretty soon. Reason? Gizmodo’s prank: shutting down tens and hundreds of TV, LCDs and plasma screens by a remote controller known as TV-B-Gone.




ah man, so awesome.

I'll add some more comments here..

I think that suing is an overreaction. In fact, they just showed them a flaw in setting up conventions. Maybe from now on they will cover up the IR, and in the future these tech companies can implement a "remote off" feature, or at least start looking towards that direction to compensate.

Another case of "hey, you pointed out my weakness.. I'm suing you!"

[edit on 12-1-2008 by scientist]




posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
This is awesome?

This is a trade show that is closed to the general public, why should they have to go the extra mile and put black tape on all their IR sensors or encode encryption for their remote devices into their televisions? This is the reason why the general public is not invited. Gizmodo was given a full press pass, an upgrade from their normal blogger pass status, only for their editor to show they are not worthy for any invite to CES. This is not the first time Gizmodo has pulled an inappropriate prank.

Again, this is a trade show that is not open the general public. They were filming it for the sole purpose to get some laughs on their blog; it was far from the intentions of pointing out any type of flaw. I don't agree that they should be sued if CEA or any of the companies which purchased floor space pursue such action. But, is this really how a member of the press (or even a blogger) should conduct themselves at a trade show they were invited to report on? Brian Lam has responded to other bloggers reporting on this only to say this is how Gizmodo does things. I won't be surprised if such comments make other trade show organizers reluctant to invite Gizmodo to their shows.


apc

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I have never paid much attention to gizmodo. They are now bookmarked.
I had a presence at CES but fortunately nothing requiring a TV display.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluesquareapple
This is awesome?


yes, i thought I made that abundantly clear.



why should they have to go the extra mile and put black tape on all their IR sensors or encode encryption for their remote devices into their televisions?


I think that is abundantly clear now too. They were exploiting a weakness in the technology. Blame the weakness, not the people pointing it out. This is the type of place it needs to happen for anyone to pay attention. I wonder if anyone in the military thought to themselves, "Hey, that could be a security risk?" If so, then gizmodo just helped us out a little in setting the bar higher.



This is the reason why the general public is not invited.


No, the general public is not invited, because it would turn into a zoo, instead of a convention. If you are even remotely linked to an industry that involves technology, it's not hard to get an invite to CES.



They were filming it for the sole purpose to get some laughs on their blog; it was far from the intentions of pointing out any type of flaw.


I beg to differ. Of course they were going for laughs, but also for publicity. It was a great plan, and I bet they are already seeing a traffic increase. In addition to that, it was most certainly pointing out a flaw. They even said on their blog, that they should have put tape over the IR sensors, since this technology is like, 20 years old.

Why the opposition? If you remove all emotion and humor from technology, you just turn into the same robot you are using. Lighten up a little!



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
update:

www.news.com...



We have been informed of inappropriate behavior on the show floor by a credentialed media attendee from the Web site Gizmodo, owned by Gawker Media. Specifically, the Gizmodo staffer interfered with the exhibitor booth operations of numerous companies, including disrupting at least one press event. The Gizmodo staffer violated the terms of CES media credentials and caused harm to CES exhibitors. This Gizmodo staffer has been identified and will be barred from attending any future CES events. Additional sanctions against Gizmodo and Gawker Media are under discussion.


apc

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I don't know about military applications. I don't see an explanation of the technology on the TV-B-Gone website, but I'd imagine it's just programmed with a ton of on/off IR codes. It would just scroll through flashing one by one. They say you have to point it at the TV for up to 69 (!) seconds, so it makes sense.

>

www.wired.com...

Altman's key-chain fob was a TV-B-Gone, a new universal remote that turns off almost any television. The device, which looks like an automobile remote, has just one button. When activated, it spends over a minute flashing out 209 different codes to turn off televisions, the most popular brands first.



[edit on 12-1-2008 by apc]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I don't see for the life of mine how one can think that "it's cool". People have business to do, and some idiot screws it up for them? I'll see what you'll have to say if somebody pours some sugar in the fuel tank of your car. Or, a better example -- injects laxative, with syringe, into the toothpaste at Walmart, then blames Walmart for not making toothpaste containers out of stainless steel, with digital lock. Sheesh.

I hope they sue daylights out of these morons.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I believe this was warranted, if only to stop the sales until this is discussed.

All too often we find our rights are being violated by just skirting law and not following the spirit of the law or common decency.

When a device is marketed to infringe on another's rights, irregardless of any situational specifics, it should be scrutinized carefully. A suit is the most immediate and civil mechanism in place for this. Smaller such mechanisms don't really exist in the legal system, save for court orders which are similar in their follow through.

When I first saw this device I knew it would just be a matter of time before someone either misused it and drew attention to all the problems, or found it violated simple common law. Only suprized it took this long.

ZG



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
They were exploiting a weakness in the technology. Blame the weakness, not the people pointing it out. This is the type of place it needs to happen for anyone to pay attention.


Nah. It was just some moron being a jerk. I wonder how much the TV-B-Gone guys paid Gizmodo to perform this little stunt.

If the morons at Gizmodo are sooooooo concerned about monitors being turned-off bye some stupid remote control that takes a minute to cycle through all of the various on/off codes then they and their TV-B-Gone buddies should have bought space at CES instead of being childish asses and disrupting events.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Because of the all the media surrounding the event, caused by Gizmodo, they are probably seeing an increase in sales of their TV-B-Gone.
I personally have a mini Universal Remote called the ninja Remote on my key chain, it not only turns on/off TVs by changes the channels, the volume and can even mute. Only cost me $7. I mainly use it at Bars, or at my friends house to change the channel on their TV.

But yeah its was a prank that got out of hand. But to sue these people, come on.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
All I know is I am going to order a TV-B gone, i mean 20 bucks? AESOME! No more having to sit through the mexican channel when I am at public places bwahahaha

MUAHAHAHAHHA!



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


No permanent damage done. Things are fine.

This is what new technology has always been about isn't it? What better way to display new tech than to put it right in people's faces and force them to acknowledge its supremacy. Maybe if Betamax could have pulled off a stunt like this it wouldn't have failed.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
see what you'll have to say if somebody pours some sugar in the fuel tank of your car. Or, a better example -- injects laxative, with syringe, into the toothpaste at Walmart, then blames Walmart for not making toothpaste containers out of stainless steel, with digital lock. Sheesh.

I hope they sue daylights out of these morons.



i hope you can see the difference between turning off a tv, and permanently damaging a car, or giving someone drugs without their knowledge. your hyperboles are irrational, and unreasonable comparisons.

the reason I say that, is because this is a technology expo. THE technology expo to be exact. It's just to ironic, it's perfect. How much do these IR controllers cost? $20? lol. I've seen them for as cheap as $5. Imagine a five dollar keychain toy ruining a multi-million dollar convention.

And you can't see how I find that funny? sheesh


[edit on 12-1-2008 by scientist]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
The really funny thing one should consider about this story is that alot of our voting machines have an inexplicable IR receiver for remote access, it's buried somewhere in the stack on this thread.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
i hope you can see the difference between turning off a tv, and permanently damaging a car, or giving someone drugs without their knowledge. your hyperboles are irrational, and unreasonable comparisons.


Laxative in the toothpaste will give you the runs but it's not irreversible. It'll stop, but ruin your day. So I don't think my comparison is unreasonable at all.


the reason I say that, is because this is a technology expo. THE technology expo to be exact. It's just to ironic, it's perfect. How much do these IR controllers cost? $20? lol. I've seen them for as cheap as $5. Imagine a five dollar keychain toy ruining a multi-million dollar convention.


Yes, $5 worth of laxative put in the cafeteria milk can make a lot of people unhappy as well. I really don't see any irony in this. It costs fraction of a penny to send around a computer virus via e-mail, and it can bring my $3,000 system to a halt. Sure as hell I don't think that's funny at all.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I can understand how a prank like this could get someone in deep trouble if not fired. But if it only takes turning the sets back on, than it really isn't THAT bad. I seriously doubt he made any friends doing it though. Only another hacker would appreciate this unless it was done to them during a presentation. Otherwise I would have to conclude that this guy has major CONTROL issues.


[edit on 12-1-2008 by aleon1018]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


dude, it doesn't ruin a $3000 system, it turns off a tv

You do the same thing by hitting the power button on a monitor or remote.

The only thing I can see in terms of long term damage (meaning 30-45 seconds) are projector systems because they take some time to warm back up once turned off.

You do more damage to a monitor by leaving it on than by turning it off.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


dude, it doesn't ruin a $3000 system, it turns off a tv


I didn't say my system was fried, I eventually re-installed the OS and all the drivers and stuff. Same with the expo -- if it caused disruption and embarrassment, that's already bad enough. Look, if somebody decides to splash me with tomato juice at a party, it's no big deal as I can wash up and get a new shirt maybe, but it doesn't mean that whoever did was cool or anything.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


you do see how this is different from a virus right? Or tomato juice on a shirt?

Maybe if someone developed a system that squirted someone with water using motion sensors or something would be a more accurate analogy. No damage done and a display of interesting technology.

And public embarrassment, If it happened to everyone it can't be an embarrassment to an individual. Suspension from the expo may be a reasonable punishment, but I doubt it caused enough damage to warrant a lawsuit.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


abandon all logic, ye who enter.


the truth is, there are people who see humor in this, and people who don't. The good thing is, I'm of the latter, so even the debate makes me laugh. What a great event to take place.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join