- This topic has 17 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I bought an FVP-4000T from Humax Direct in June last year and have been pretty pleased with its performance.
My family and I make particular use of the NetFlix, iPlayer and YouTube apps.
Recently, a message appeared requesting that I agree to the privacy policy. After reading it, I found that it involved agreeing to the delivery of usage information to Humax, in other words, information about what me and my family have been watching and when.
To my mind, Humax have no compelling need to know this so I declined to agree to the new policy.
Since then, the iPlayer, YouTube and several other apps have disappeared. I would have thought that declining the privacy policy would have simply prevented the device from sending usage information to Humax but it seems that in order to use the apps, the customer MUST agree to the privacy policy.
Is this the case or is there something I can do to get the apps back without agreeing to the privacy policy?
If the only way to get the apps back is to agree to the policy, then please could you let me know how to go about returning the device to Humax for a full refund.
Thank-you.
I’d have thought the data will be anonymised. Might be best to contact Humax Towers direct to see what is involved. R-
Given that it’s Humax it’s most likely a screw-up. Like similar displays on many sites it should have had a tick/untick box saying you agree to the privacy policy but don’t agree to providing information on usage. Ask them to state how they are protecting any such provided info under the GDPR checklist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
If they cannot or will not provide this info they are in breach of GDPR.
Two weeks have now passed and so far nobody from Humax has answered my questions.
Are there plans to reinstate the apps that have been removed as a result of my decision not to agree to the privacy policy?
If so, when will they become available?
Can Humax confirm that when reinstated, those apps will not collect the usage and personal information described in the privacy policy?
I don’t really understand why people get themselves so ‘exercised’ by these policies. Apple users often cite this as the reason they pay hundreds of pounds over the odds for their products i.e. ‘privacy’.
My own view is I’d rather pay hundreds of pounds ‘less’ and let Google et-al have my data. As another poster states, it is anonymised i.e. the information doesn’t contain any personal details about you.
We all know Google’s suite of apps are the best there is and we all know that in return for the ‘free lunch’ we become the product.
I can guarantee if anyone intercepted my data they would be bored into a stupor within minutes.
I say to Humax, knock yourself out. It’s by looking at the way users use their products which help them develop new ones for the future.
Faust – 1 day ago »
I don’t really understand why people get themselves so ‘exercised’ by these policies.
You are right … as long as you have benign governments and corporations in place. If you don’t you are in big trouble.
No such thing as a malign government? Trump demanded that he was given the names of all people who had visited – not signed up, just visited – a web site which was organising a peaceful protest march against him.
Imagine what would happen if a non-benign government or a malicious organisation got it. It would have access to all your data.
Anonymising does not protect you.
Gordan Welchman worked at Bletchley Park and came up with traffic analysis which is analysing signal data without knowing what it contains. It is such a powerful method of identifying things that it is still covered by the Official Secrets Act and when Welchman revealed it in his 1982 book, over 40 years after he came up with it, his security clearance was revoked.
I am quite certain that if you give GCHQ an anonymised list of all the web sites you visit during one week (one day is enough for most people) they will identify you, your address, your political view and your friends and family.
See Traffic analysis
See ECHELON for a military surveillance program which “evolved beyond its military and diplomatic origins, to also become “…a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications” (mass surveillance and industrial espionage)””.
The best protection is being an uninteresting person where the cost of collecting and aggregating such data is not worthwhile.
I am more concerned that the UK appointment of a food supplies minister amid fears of no-deal Brexit, will precede the creation of the ministry of plenty.
REPASSAC – 1 hour ago »
The best protection is being an uninteresting person where the cost of collecting and aggregating such data is not worthwhile…
I would tend to agree, anyone reading my “analysis” would probably nod off. Except of course there’s plenty of examples in history where not being a fully signed up supporter of the regime could get you in big trouble. Have you read “Alone in Berlin”, the bit about the building caretaker who “looked after things” and reported to the local Gaulieter anything that “needed looked after”.
JohnH77 – 3 hours ago »
Faust – 1 day ago »
I don’t really understand why people get themselves so ‘exercised’ by these policies.
You are right … as long as you have benign governments and corporations in place. If you don’t you are in big trouble.
No such thing as a malign government? Trump demanded that he was given the names of all people who had visited – not signed up, just visited – a web site which was organising a peaceful protest march against him.
Imagine what would happen if a non-benign government or a malicious organisation got it. It would have access to all your data.
Anonymising does not protect you.
Gordan Welchman worked at Bletchley Park and came up with traffic analysis which is analysing signal data without knowing what it contains. It is such a powerful method of identifying things that it is still covered by the Official Secrets Act and when Welchman revealed it in his 1982 book, over 40 years after he came up with it, his security clearance was revoked.
I am quite certain that if you give GCHQ an anonymised list of all the web sites you visit during one week (one day is enough for most people) they will identify you, your address, your political view and your friends and family.
See Traffic analysis
See ECHELON for a military surveillance program which “evolved beyond its military and diplomatic origins, to also become “…a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications” (mass surveillance and industrial espionage)””.
This is all getting a bit deep. What next build an underground lead lined bunker on the moors and live like ‘swampy’?
This is a PVR we are discussing. I can see GCHQ now – subject was watching Eastenders every night – keep subject on a ‘watch list’. 😯
This is a very interesting discussion, and there are quite a number of different points of view, but it’s moved away from the original question quite a bit.
Since my decision not to agree to the privacy policy, the device no longer works in the way it did when I purchased it. In effect it has been damaged by a software update from Humax and I’d like to know if the company intends to put it right. By that I mean to update the missing apps with versions that do not feed back the information described in the privacy policy so that customers who have paid for their use can continue to use them.
The current “agree to the policy or we’ll remove them” approach seems pretty unreasonable to me.
If Humax do not intend to put it right, will it buy the device back from me for the original purchase price?
For anyone who’s interested, the full text of the privacy policy is attached. The last part of it, under the heading “**Please note that**” is a bit unusual and I’m not completely sure what it’s about. It seems to be saying that Humax are unable to publish the text of the privacy policy “for some reason” but it gives no information about what that reason might be. I doubt it’s technical as it would be very easy to post a link to the document on the Humax web site.
Over to you Humax.
Great, the upload feature of this forum doesn’t work. Here’s a link instead:
lancasm – 1 day ago »
This is a very interesting discussion, and there are quite a number of different points of view, but it’s moved away from the original question quite a bit.
Since my decision not to agree to the privacy policy, the device no longer works in the way it did when I purchased it. In effect it has been damaged by a software update from Humax and I’d like to know if the company intends to put it right. By that I mean to update the missing apps with versions that do not feed back the information described in the privacy policy so that customers who have paid for their use can continue to use them.
The current “agree to the policy or we’ll remove them” approach seems pretty unreasonable to me.
If Humax do not intend to put it right, will it buy the device back from me for the original purchase price?
For anyone who’s interested, the full text of the privacy policy is attached. The last part of it, under the heading “**Please note that**” is a bit unusual and I’m not completely sure what it’s about. It seems to be saying that Humax are unable to publish the text of the privacy policy “for some reason” but it gives no information about what that reason might be. I doubt it’s technical as it would be very easy to post a link to the document on the Humax web site.
Over to you Humax.
You are asking questions on this forum that should be addressed directly to Humax as only they can answer them.
Members on here will, of course answer questions where this is possible, but no-one on other than Humax could possibly answer something like “In effect it has been damaged by a software update from Humax and I’d like to know if the company intends to put it right”
I’d assumed that Humax would take a keen interest in what is being said about its products in a forum called “MyHumax” and be willing to respond to questions raised by its customers.
I’m afraid not, this is a completely independent community forum and has no official connection to Humax.
In the years that I have been a member I have never been aware of anyone from Humax being a member or ever contributing to the forum.
Barry, the founder of this forum, did have contacts within Humax and he often reported bugs to them if they appeared to be a widespread problem affecting a number of people. Sadly even that connection has been lost as Barry has recently retired from the forum.
The advice given to those who have a problem which can’t be answered by another member or doesn’t appear to be affecting anyone else has always been to contact Humax directly.
I have noticed that there is another Humax based forum, at https://hummy.tv/forum. I have not looked at it much, but I wonder if it has any greater company interest than this one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.