Abstract:Smart TVs implement a unique tracking approach called Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) to profile viewing activity of their users. ACR is a Shazam-like technology that works by periodically capturing the content displayed on a TV's screen and matching it against a content library to detect what content is being displayed at any given point in time. While prior research has investigated third-party tracking in the smart TV ecosystem, it has not looked into second-party ACR tracking that is directly conducted by the smart TV platform. In this work, we conduct a black-box audit of ACR network traffic between ACR clients on the smart TV and ACR servers. We use our auditing approach to systematically investigate whether (1) ACR tracking is agnostic to how a user watches TV (e.g., linear vs. streaming vs. HDMI), (2) privacy controls offered by smart TVs have an impact on ACR tracking, and (3) there are any differences in ACR tracking between the UK and the US. We perform a series of experiments on two major smart TV platforms: Samsung and LG. Our results show that ACR works even when the smart TV is used as a "dumb" external display, opting-out stops network traffic to ACR servers, and there are differences in how ACR works across the UK and the US.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the privacy and tracking issues brought about by Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) technology in Smart TVs. Specifically, the author focuses on second - party ACR tracking directly carried out by smart TV platforms, rather than the third - party tracking that has been more studied previously. ### Main Problems 1. **Is ACR Tracking Independent of the Way Users Watch TV?** - The author hopes to understand whether ACR tracking behaves consistently in different viewing scenarios (such as linear TV, streaming media applications, HDMI input, etc.). 2. **Do Privacy Control Options Effectively Influence ACR Tracking?** - Researchers tested whether the privacy control options provided by smart TVs (such as opting out of ad tracking) can actually prevent the transmission of ACR data. 3. **Are There Differences in ACR Tracking in Different Countries/Regions?** - The author compared the ACR tracking behaviors between smart TVs purchased and used in the United States and the United Kingdom to explore the impact of data protection regulations in different jurisdictions on ACR. ### Research Methods To answer these questions, the author adopted a black - box auditing method and systematically studied the working mechanism of ACR by analyzing the network traffic between smart TVs and ACR servers. The experiments covered two major smart TV brands: Samsung and LG, and multiple experiments were carried out in different scenarios. ### Main Findings 1. **The Relationship between ACR Tracking and Viewing Methods** - ACR is still active in some cases, even when the smart TV is used as an external display (such as via HDMI connection). However, when using third - party applications (such as Netflix), ACR traffic is significantly reduced or non - existent. 2. **The Effectiveness of Privacy Controls** - Opting out of ad tracking can indeed stop ACR network traffic. In addition, the user's login status has no significant impact on ACR traffic. 3. **Cross - Country/Region Differences** - There are some differences between the United States and the United Kingdom, especially on FAST channels. In the United States, the activity level of ACR on FAST channels is similar to that on linear TV channels, while in the United Kingdom it is different. This may be due to different content provider agreements in different regions. ### Conclusions This study is the first to deeply measure and analyze the behavior of second - party ACR tracking in smart TVs, revealing its performance in different viewing scenarios and the effectiveness of privacy controls. At the same time, the study also found differences between different countries/regions, emphasizing the impact of data protection regulations on ACR tracking. These findings provide an important basis for understanding the privacy risks of smart TVs and provide references for future research and policy - making. --- If you have more questions or need further information, please feel free to let me know!

Watching TV with the Second-Party: A First Look at Automatic Content Recognition Tracking in Smart TVs

The TV is Smart and Full of Trackers: Towards Understanding the Smart TV Advertising and Tracking Ecosystem

Controlling Smart TVs Using Touch Gestures on Mobile Devices.

TagScreen: Synchronizing Social Televisions Through Hidden Sound Markers

A Practical Approach to Television-Assisted Control Utilizing Eye-Tracking Technology

Third Party Tracking in the Mobile Ecosystem

A Context-Aware Smart TV System with Body-Gesture Control and Personalized Recommendation

Tracking the Trackers: Towards Understanding the Mobile Advertising and Tracking Ecosystem

Validation studies of the FLASH-TV system to passively measure children's TV viewing

A Fait Accompli? An Empirical Study into the Absence of Consent to Third-Party Tracking in Android Apps

EvilScreen Attack: Smart TV Hijacking via Multi-channel Remote Control Mimicry

PLayerTV: Advanced Player Tracking and Identification for Automatic Soccer Highlight Clips

Going Beyond Second Screens: Applications for the Multi-display Intelligent Living Room

Development of family level assessment of screen use in the home for television (FLASH-TV)

Unconventional TV Detection using Mobile Devices

Testing of Smart TV Applications: Key Ingredients, Challenges and Proposed Solutions

Towards automatic placement of media objects in a personalised TV experience

Digital Footprints of Streaming Devices

A Smart Ad Display System

Improving the quality of individual-level online information tracking: challenges of existing approaches and introduction of a new content- and long-tail sensitive academic solution

[Therapy of the malabsorption syndrome following small intestine resection].