Table of Contents
Why we need to investigation smart TV………………………… 3
Introduction:
Traditional TV devices’ main goal is to provide interactive services like broadcasting. Similarly, smart TVs that have adopted new technologies not only transmit audio and video but also allow for internet engagement. In comparison to typical televisions, it has a number of functions, including internet and Bluetooth access, web surfing, on-demand programming, and voice and video calls. We can conclude that it stores the user’s information because of these upgraded technological features. The problem arises, and the investigator’s first priority is to determine what data these gadgets maintain about the user and how they use that data. Smart TVs are offered by a variety of manufacturers, including Sony, LG, Toshiba, and Panasonic. Smart TVs come with a variety of features from various manufacturers (Sutherland et al., 2014). The LINUX operating system is used by the majority of Smart TVs. LG Smart TVs, for example, is based on LINUX and allow data to be transferred from LG phones to LG TVs (Open WebOS, 2014). Similarly, some TVs, such as Sony, Asus, and others, use the Google TV operating system and are supported by this platform (Pendlebury, 2013). The purpose of this research is to determine the need for further exploration into Smart TV forensics. Second, consider how smart TVs are used to commit crimes. Third, consider what the forensic material related to television is. We focused on the case study “Privacy Impacts of IoT Devices: A Smart TV Case Study” for this aim. Smart TVs collect information from viewers, but they are not secure since cybercriminals can access it and use it for illegal purposes. Smart TVs offer a wide range of entertainment options, but they also have a number of problems in terms of user privacy. As a result, investigators must look at the privacy concerns surrounding smart TV forensics.
Background:
Smart TV differs from standard television in that it combines basic television functions with computing capabilities (Irion & Helberger, 2017). Smart TV is becoming increasingly popular in both developing and established countries, as it serves as a central center of entertainment, allowing viewers to watch movies, dramas, shows, and online games on a single platform (Hahm et al., 2016). Smart TV is a complicated gadget that has become extremely difficult to master; it is not a personal device, but rather one for people of all ages (Jang et al., 2016). Operating software, middleware, and other media players are among the components. (Michéle, B., & Karpow, 2014). Its operating system controls the hardware, software, and all other tasks. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and Ethernet RJ45 connectors are all supported, as well as wireless communication (Apple, 2015). Smart TV, according to academics, has a slew of concerns that need to be examined. It has a complicated interface that necessitates more engagement, and its upkeep is complicated due to factors such as connectivity, quality, and web 2.0. (Jan and colleagues, 2016). A case study of a Samsung smart TV’s privacy policy was conducted to determine who collects data in the context of the Internet of Things. The goal of this case study was to look into privacy protection and accessibility. Privacy laws and regulations differ from country to country (Rutledge et al., 2016). Manufacturers must comply with all applicable privacy policies and legislation (Otto et al., 2007). Developers and manufacturers must prioritize data privacy and security as a key priority (Rutledge et al., 2016).
Why we need to investigate smart TV:
Cybercrime is a form of crime conducted by criminals using computer networks, internet or other technological tools and Smart TV is another target of such crimes. These are the vulnerable device as it provides many means of stealing personal information. It has ability to attain the user’s data or information like pictures, videos, personal information etc. So, criminals can access them by many ways and use for illegal activities. Hackers can steal information and can conduct a crime. As it is, consider it a security and privacy threat. It stores the user’s personal information and connects to the internet. As a result, it puts its consumers’ privacy and security at risk (Niemietz et al., 2015). Because of these reasons, there is need to investigate smart TV forensics.
How to investigate smart TV:
Theft of another’s intellectual property, personal information, or accessing their assets without their consent are examples of such crimes. Smart TVs are also a target of these types of crimes. Because it allows access to the user’s data or information, such as photos, videos, and personal information etc. As a result, criminals can gain access to them in a variety of ways and utilize them for unlawful actions in order to commit a crime (Taylor, 2012; IFA, 2012). Researchers claim that such attacks began with the advent of Smart TV. These are the most susceptible devices since they may be used to steal personal information in a variety of ways (IFA, 2012). For investigating cybercrimes through the smart TVs digital forensics used, which is the process of analyzing, preserving and extracting the electronic evidence
There are four stages of digital forensics such as collection, examination, analysis and reporting.
- Collection is related to acquiring the information form possible sources
- Examination adopt the automated or manual methods for extraction of information.
- Analysis associated with adoption of legal approaches for obtaining the useful data.
- Reporting related to defining the actions and tasks used during the investigation and what tools and approaches adopted to perform such forensic actions
A smart TV case study:
In order to investigate who collects the data in terms of Internet of things, a case study examined about the privacy policy based on a Samsung smart TV. Aim of this case study was to analyze the privacy protection and amenabilities. Conformity to privacy regulations and laws is very important for the manufacturers. We have used the four stages to investigate the case study such as, collection, examination, analysis and reporting (Al Falayleh, 2013).
Actual Work:
The purpose of the studied case study was to see if Samsung’s privacy policy provides greater protections to users, if it considers vulnerabilities, if data collecting is visible to the viewer, and if it exposes cloud computing’s privacy problems to its users. The Goal-based Requirements technique was used to examine the first two objectives, and it was also supported by the Privacy goal management. The monitoring and collecting of information by Smart TV was the third goal, while privacy vulnerabilities were the fourth (Rutledge, 2016).
According to digital forensics, collecting refers to obtaining information from many sources while keeping the information’s integrity. The second phase is the examination, which uses automated or manual methods to extract data. Third, analysis in conjunction with the deployment of legal methods for getting meaningful data. The final phase is reporting, which involves defining the actions and tasks carried out during the investigation, as well as the tools and methodologies employed to carry them out. Furthermore, it recommends that manufacturers enhance their privacy policies (Al Falayleh, 2013).
Analysis and Discussion:
The aims of Samsung’s privacy policy were examined using the goal-based requirement analysis method in this case study. Goals are a crucial tool for conducting IoT privacy analysis for devices since they are more trustworthy (Anton, 1997). Samsung’s 315 initial draft goals were included in the analysis. According to the findings of the investigation, Samsung provides greater privacy protection to its manufacturers than it does to its users, and it also considers data vulnerabilities. It also demonstrated that the majority of the data gathered is not visible to the users. The Samsung policy’s most ambitious objectives necessitate the use of the internet.
Many misconfigurations are related with a user’s privacy needs, according to the findings of the observed case study. Around two-thirds of Smart TVs require internet access, and internet users face a privacy risk. In a nutshell, the information of the user is not safeguarded within the smart TV.. It was also discovered that 90% of the data gathered was not visible. There are still numerous issues that smart TVs face, such as the fact that most of them are not supported by forensic solutions, that technological advancements have made them more complex, and that we cannot use a single approach to study smart TV forensics (Al Falayleh, 2013).
Conclusion:
From the detailed analysis, we find that Internet is at the core of most of modern technology, including Smart TV. Television is no longer used only for broadcasting content to viewers, but it can also be connected to the Internet and can be used to view videos and other contents from Internet. Since Smart TVs are connected to the Internet and since the same Smart TV set is often used by different people in a family, its cyber security becomes a matter of prime concern. Smart TV’s often collect the personal information of a user in order to provide content, and it is important to ensured that this information is not used or is accessible to unauthorized users. The research has revealed that cybercrimes increased after the emergence of smart TVs. This is because cyber criminals find it easy to hack a user’s personal information through Smart TV. Thus, Smart TVs provide a threat to privacy. Once an unauthorized information gains access to a user account through a Smart TV, they can view confidential content and delete or alter the content. This makes Smart TVs a threat to confidentiality, authentication, and data integrity. The digital forensics for investigating the use of a Smart TV work through four phases – collecting, examining, analyzing and reporting. A case study was conducted on Samsung’s Smart TV privacy policy. It was found that Samsung provides extended privacy to its users. It also has strong protection to users from their confidential data being stolen from cloud.
Reflection:
From the first time when our professor explained the topics of the project, we was attracted to the topic of Smart TV because we wanted to know how television is linked to digital forensic. At the same time, we did not understand how a TV would be used, and what is the benefit of using smart TV. So, these topics we searched for, and we initially felt that there were some challenges and it caused us some concern about whether we would find enough information about TV that is related to forensics. This encouraged us to search more and we were able to obtain much useful information
In addition, we learned what is the need for investigating smart TV forensics, as it can store the user’s personal information and is considered a security and privacy threat. We also learned how does a smart TV use for conducting a crime. We also discovered that some Smart TV companies use a high level of security and some use a low level which makes the Smart TV more vulnerable to crime and people can steal all the data related to the Smart TV.
We encountered some problems such as time constraints due to the short term. We also tried to meet as a group often in our spare time to finish work. In the end, we were able to complete the project on time.
References:
Al Falayleh, M. (2013). A review of Smart TV forensics: Present state & future challenges. In The International Conference on Digital Information Processing, E-Business and Cloud Computing (DIPECC), 50.
Antón, A., (1997). Goal Identification and Refinement in the Specification of Software-Based Information Systems. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Apple, T., (2015). Apple TV. System, 1, 2.
Hahm, C.H., Lee, S., Lee, T., & Yoo, S., (2016). Memory Access Scheduling for a Smart TV.
IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 26, 399-411.
IFA, (2012): Cyber Criminals Focusing on Smart TVs: G Data.
Irion, K., & Helberger, N., (2017). Smart TV and the online media sector: User privacy in view of changing market realities. Telecommunications Policy, 14, 170-184.
Jang, J., Zhao, D., Hong, W., Park, Y., & Yi, M.Y., (2016). Uncovering the Underlying
Factors of Smart TV UX over Time: A Multi-study, Mixedmethod Approach. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video, 3-12.
Kent, k., Chevalier, S., Grance, T., & Dang, H., (2006): Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Responses: NIST Special Publication, 800- 86.
Michéle, B., & Karpow, A., (2014) “Watch and be watched: Compromising all smart TV generations,” in Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC),IEEE, 351-356.
Niemietz, M., Somorovsky, J., Mainka, C., & Schwenk, J., (2015). Not so smart: On smart TV apps. In Secure Internet of Things (SIoT), 72-81.
Open WebOS. Available from: http:// www.openwebosproject.org.
Otto, P.N., Antón, A.I., & Baumer, D.L., (2007). The ChoicePoint Dilemma: How Data Brokers Should Handle the Privacy of Personal Information. IEEE Security and Privacy, 5(5), 15–23.
Pendlebury T., Asus to release Google TV device. Available from: http://ces.cnet.com/830134451_1- 57562090/asus-to-release-google-tv-device/.
Rutledge, R. L., Massey, A. K., & Antón, A. I. (2016). Privacy impacts of IoT devices: A SmartTV case study. In 2016 IEEE 24th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW). 261-270. IEEE.
Sutherland, I., Read, H., & Xynos, K. (2014). Forensic analysis of smart TV: A current issue and call to arms. Digital Investigation, 11(3), 175–178.
Swinburn, B., & Shelly, A., (2008). Effects of TV time and other sedentary pursuit.
International journal of obesity, 32, 132.
Taylor, A., (2012): Smart TV hack highlights risk of ‘The Internet of Everything’: TechHive.
