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

Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 415 posts

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#221

Post by madeofpalk »

user982 wrote: post #217
madeofpalk wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no, Apple (in an unprecedented move), granted the Uber app the com.apple.private.allow-explicit-graphics-priority entitlement. "Apple gave us this permission because early versions of Apple Watch were unable to adequately handle the level of map rendering in the Uber app," an Uber representative, Melanie Ensign, told Business Insider. "Subsequent updates to Apple Watch and our app removed this dependency, and we…

What is the meaningful difference, in the context of tedunangst's post, between an entitlement that allows surreptitious recording of video and a backdoor that allows surreptitious recording of audio?

Uber's entitlement was always 'public'. Facebook doesn't hold any private entitlements that would allow it to record audio in the background without notifying the user.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#222

Post by tedunangst »

mikeash wrote: post #189
tedunangst wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, only one of those things happened, the one in the middle. I'll let you dig into Forbes's "sources" to figure out how they managed to twist a hypothetical into something that already happened.

I did a quick search and found a Forbes article based on a New York Times article which claims it really happened: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habi... It is possible that their source was lying or mistaken, of course.

I think degrees of hearsay is getting up there, but that's for everyone to decide.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#223

Post by user982 »

madeofpalk wrote: post #221
user982 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the meaningful difference, in the context of tedunangst's post, between an entitlement that allows surreptitious recording of video and a backdoor that allows surreptitious recording of audio?

Uber's entitlement was always 'public'. Facebook doesn't hold any private entitlements that would allow it to record audio in the background without notifying the user.

You have a pattern in this thread of answering questions other than the ones asked.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#224

Post by Draco_Au »

rickhanlonii wrote: post #103

They're listening, but not to your voice or with a microphone. Facebook is listening to your data--to all of our data, all at once. They have locations, searches, clicks, messaging, photos, hashtags, and any other form of browsing patterns for everyone in your country, everyone in your neighboorhood, everyone in the same room as you. They have enough data with such advanced analysis that on occasion they can get real…

You cannot predict human behavior, but on a long enough time frame...You could get global results.

Everything is local at the moment. You would need Quantum computers to foretell ‘favorite selection’ at that scale - A parallel MapReduce - or other atomically non-blocking aspect of Fuzzy Stream Processing.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#225

Post by Cacti »

rickhanlonii wrote: post #103

They're listening, but not to your voice or with a microphone. Facebook is listening to your data--to all of our data, all at once. They have locations, searches, clicks, messaging, photos, hashtags, and any other form of browsing patterns for everyone in your country, everyone in your neighboorhood, everyone in the same room as you. They have enough data with such advanced analysis that on occasion they can get real…

Yes, I think people really underestimate how much data they leak all day long, and how strong the pattern is. Simply emitting bluetooth and wifi, nevermind cellular, all day long can expose an incredible amount of stuff, provided someone can piece it all together (which is exactly what Facebook and other ad companies do).

We like to pretend we're unique and powered by free-will but the reality is most things you do are fairly easy to track and predict.

We're not in 1984, but certainly the capability is _already_ there. The difference between us and 1984 is only really one of intent, and you can guess how long that'll last.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#226

Post by hackinthebochs »

olewhalehunter wrote: post #152
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... Why should we care? If I had to give my father some reasons why this should concern him, I'd come up blank. Maybe you can fill in a few.

They're collecting data on children without their informed consent, babies today have their information capital compromised from the moment they are born, via their parents shares, purchases, and activity, without their say.

But then why should anyone care about "informed consent" of their "information capital"?

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#227

Post by null0pointer »

brad0 wrote: post #97

> "At work, happened to me though earlier this year. Working as a barista, got a burn, talked to my partner in person about it, went to Target, bought the burn cream, and saw an ad on FB for the exact product I purchased. Never searched for product either," wrote Brigitte Bonasoro. Facebook has data sharing agreements with many, many companies. It's most likely that the cream was bought with a card then linked togeth…

I have a similar anecdote. Girlfriend was having some symptoms, we briefly talked about it then walked to the pharmacy and bought a pregnancy test. Maybe 30 minutes after purchasing the test we watched a youtube video on her phone. The ad on the video was for the exact test we bought.

I figured that youtube got the credit card info from the purchase but I was shocked at how quickly that translated into something showing on the screen. I've always thought about these things in the back of my mind but this was still eye opening for me.

I'd never had it happen to me personally since I aggressively block all ads :)

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#228

Post by cyberferret »

callumlocke wrote: post #215
cyberferret wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree with that phenomenon. In direct contrast, my awareness of these ads kicked into overdrive after seeing them for the first time, so I was hyper aware and looking out for them afterwards, which is why I noticed they disappeared a day or two after popping up. Since then, my feed has been a bland sea of adverts for mattresses, knives etc. that almost all of my friends complain about seeing. I don't use a…

It would be weird if that sort of coincidence never happened. Two incidents of this happening to you ever doesn’t sound like much. Maybe even a bit low. If they really are using audio for ad targeting like they do with search history, then it should be easy enough to prove it by experiment.

Sure. I am used to, nay, I _expect_ ads for software tools and music gear given my work and hobbies in my life, as I frequently talk about those things to my friend on FB and IRL all the time.

But wiper blades is so off the charts for me, that I was totally surprised to see about 3 ads for them the day after I had a discussion in the car. I don't even go to sites remotely associated with the automotive industry. Not even locality based, as it was a full 4 months out of the real 'wet season' we have later in the year. (NOTE: Not even in our wet season did I see random ads for wiper blades).

Having said that, I won't be surprised to see more wiper blade ads now that I have been talking about it on HN - who knows if they have linked up the data from online forums back to FB etc.? The handle I use here I tend to use on nearly all online forums I belong to.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#229

Post by Cacti »

photonios wrote: post #138
rickhanlonii wrote: post #103

They're listening, but not to your voice or with a microphone. Facebook is listening to your data--to all of our data, all at once. They have locations, searches, clicks, messaging, photos, hashtags, and any other form of browsing patterns for everyone in your country, everyone in your neighboorhood, everyone in the same room as you. They have enough data with such advanced analysis that on occasion they can get real…

Exactly. People underestimate the amount of data Facebook (and companies alike) can and do scoop up. I’ve seen countless stories supposedly proofing that they’re listening through the microphone. However, most of them can easily be explained away if you consider the vasts amount of data they collect.

The idea that they're listening to your mic is rather ridiculous. I mean, we'd find out eventually, and the consequences of widespread illegal wiretapping would be severe for Facebook, they would really cease to exist.

However, as you said, they don't need to. Localization and usage metrics alone can tell you an incredible amount of extremely detailed information.

Post reply on HN