Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 127 posts

Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

#111

Post by moreati »

TD-Linux wrote: post #97
Cyph0n wrote: post #49

I'm working on an app that passively picks up ultrasonic tones generated by SilverPush and sends out garbled data. The biggest issue with blanket interference across the entire ultrasonic band is that there are some legitimate uses that don't involve cross-device tracking. That's why we need to address this issue by selectively interfering with only known tracking schemes.

Do you have details on the encoding? I'm a bit suspicious of it being actually ultrasonic (device microphones often filter at 20khz or below) - seems more likely it would be audible spectrum noise with a ton of FEC.

I can't speak for SilverPush, but Google Tone definitely has an Ultrasonic component [1] as does a version of Chirp [2]. Both work through consumer grade speakers/DACs/devices.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/374876/lets_t... [2] https://vimeo.com/177586203

Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

#112

Post by tetrep »

sandworm101 wrote: post #98
pklausler wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No kidney for you, little girl. It might have gone to an old person."

Yes. No kidney for her, but flu shots for 10,000 ... saving many hundreds. The reality is that saving lives is now a matter of resource allocation. Procedures such as organ transplantation take resources from far more efficient treatments that can save many more lives. I wish I had recorded something I saw at the gym years ago. An old and obviously ill man was bragging about how his firm could hire young interns, pay…

> The reality is that saving lives is now a matter of resource allocation. Procedures such as organ transplantation take resources from far more efficient treatments that can save many more lives.

Do you have a source for this? To me, it seems extraordinary that we're capped out of medical resources in such a way that, were someone to not have donated their organs, ~10k flu shots would be provided instead of the various potential transplants. (I tried some internet searching but everything talking about resource constraints was talking about the organs themselves, not the general medical resources).

Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

#113

Post by ksenzee »

ogig wrote: post #69
danbruc wrote: post #46

This is reaching the point where the only sensible policy is to flat-out prohibit all forms of adverting on any medium. Paying a company to lie to you is already a pretty bizarre idea but the invasion of privacy - online or offline - makes advertising increasingly intolerable.

Child oriented ads are especially awful. We let some greedy people massively influence our kids just so they profit. I would ban every kind of marketing oriented to kids and youngs. If you have something really useful and good for the kids, sell it to their fathers. If you want to scam their money then get out.

Yes. Although I think the plural you want is "parents."

Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

#114

Post by ksenzee »

kapnobatairza wrote: post #82

This article is complete hogwash. "Ultrasonic" beacons are like any other beacon technology, whether audible, inaudible, bluetooth based or otherwise. All a beacon does is transmit an identifier or URL. It isn't and CAN'T track you. It is just a simple one-way broadcast that is saying "X is here". You need an application that knows to listen for beacons an knows how to translate the identifier of the beacon. For exam…

The article isn't about stores transmitting beacons that our devices pick up. It's about our devices transmitting beacons that are then picked up by anyone who cares to listen.

Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

#115

Post by ogig »

ksenzee wrote: post #113
ogig wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Child oriented ads are especially awful. We let some greedy people massively influence our kids just so they profit. I would ban every kind of marketing oriented to kids and youngs. If you have something really useful and good for the kids, sell it to their fathers. If you want to scam their money then get out.

Yes. Although I think the plural you want is "parents."

You are right, thanks.

Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

#116

Post by Cyph0n »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #92
Cyph0n wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware of the Nyquist rate. You're talking about very rare edge cases though. I believe the cut-off for an average young human is 20 kHz.

Yeah, I get that, just saying, if we are going to worry about people with disabilities, I believe that we should care about the psychoacoustic wellbeing of "edge case" humans who can hear ultrasonic tones.

So you're comparing disabilities, like not being able to walk or see, to a slightly annoying tone? Of course, it also depends on the estimated number of "edge cases" out there.

Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

#117

Post by mzw_mzw »

danbruc wrote: post #46

This is reaching the point where the only sensible policy is to flat-out prohibit all forms of adverting on any medium. Paying a company to lie to you is already a pretty bizarre idea but the invasion of privacy - online or offline - makes advertising increasingly intolerable.

How do you define an "advertisement" and how do you keep the Advertising Definition Agency from getting stacked with people who define opinions they disagree with as advertisements?

Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

#118

Post by kapnobatairza »

ksenzee wrote: post #114
kapnobatairza wrote: post #82

This article is complete hogwash. "Ultrasonic" beacons are like any other beacon technology, whether audible, inaudible, bluetooth based or otherwise. All a beacon does is transmit an identifier or URL. It isn't and CAN'T track you. It is just a simple one-way broadcast that is saying "X is here". You need an application that knows to listen for beacons an knows how to translate the identifier of the beacon. For exam…

The article isn't about stores transmitting beacons that our devices pick up. It's about our devices transmitting beacons that are then picked up by anyone who cares to listen.

It isn't?

"The technology, called ultrasonic cross-device tracking, embeds high-frequency tones that are inaudible to humans in advertisements, web pages, and even physical locations like retail stores."

"any device microphone—like those accessed by an app on a smartphone or tablet—can detect the signal"

How is this any different from a bluetooth beacon being detected by a mobile app? You are just broadcasting the identifier in a different manner.

Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

#119

Post by stcredzero »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #93
stcredzero wrote: post #83

Just because ultrasonics are inaudible doesn't necessarily mean they're harmless. Energy deposited into those little hairs in your cochlea is still energy. What does the research say about the impact of ultrasonics on hearing? I wouldn't be surprised if they're the same as any kind of sound, decibel per decibel. (They're easier to block out, being at a higher frequency.)

Well, if ultrasound was able to produce significant energy input to the cochlear hairs (stereocilia), it would invoke motion in these hairs and thus the perception of sound. So if that was the case, one would be able to hear ultrasound (which one cannot). Actually, the inability of the human ear to hear ultrasound is because the impedance matching function (mechanical gain) of the bones in the middle ear rolls off at…

Well, if ultrasound was able to produce significant energy input to the cochlear hairs...one would be able to hear ultrasound (which one cannot).

That being said, exposure to >120 dB ultrasound can damage your hearing (I believe this is because response functions of the ear start becoming nonlinear).

Seems self contradictory on your part, unless you're saying people who otherwise can't, can still hear ultrasound, so long as it's over 120db. So, my top frequency for hearing is down to 14.5k from before, last time I tested it. Are you saying that 15.5k sounds now won't damage my stereocilia? That doesn't make sense, unless those things actually get stronger with age. Usually, things in the body get weaker with age.

Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements

#120

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

sandworm101 wrote: post #73
pklausler wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa, wait a sec there with your example. How would a reasonable person not want to be an organ donor??

>> How would a reasonable person not want to be an organ donor?? Because I have fundamental issues with the economics of organ donation. I do not want my organs used in million-dollar surgeries to save elderly rich people. I would much rather that money be spent more efficiently on younger/poorer people where it can save more lives. How many flu shots could be purchased for the cost of one heart transplant? I cannot…

Fifty years ago, Larry Niven had some "moral tale" SF stories where the demand for transplant organs led to capital punishment for traffic violations.

Also, technically there is no difference between cannibalism and organ transplants - ingesting the flesh of others of your species to save your life.

Post reply on HN