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

301–310 of 415 posts

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#301

Post by unicornporn »

Cacti wrote: post #225
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 a…

> We're not in 1984

https://m.imgur.com/vRBtL

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#302

Post by mistercow »

One thing the internet does which is super incompatible with how people deal with information is that it amplifies anecdotes and selection bias.

If you were just talking to a sample including a small fraction of your friends and acquaintances, and you found that like 10 of them had noticed that Facebook seemed to be showing ads based on their conversations, that would be compelling evidence that something was up. And since for the vast majority of human history, that was the kind of information you had access to, that's the way we tend to process things.

But now you can go online and mention this weird thing that happened to you, and a thousand other people will all see it. Suddenly you have super high odds of a "cold hit", even though the phenomenon was purely random.

And to make matters worse, it's not purely random. Facebook has algorithms that are trying, often successfully, to model your life based on the information you give it. So the chances of "eery" ad targeting are significantly higher than if it were just random.

I think we're going to see this kind of conspiracy theory more and more as time goes on, and we need to figure out cultural tools to counteract this problem.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#303

Post by dx034 »

branchless wrote: post #196
tfinniga wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, like the example from Target. It is possible that facebook has access to a stream of Target purchases or credit card purchase information. I'd be 0% surprised if there was a data sharing agreement with credit rating companies. Even if they just knew the price of the purchase, combined with the job (burn risk) and location data (traveled from work to nearest store with pharmacy during the day), it's possible th…

My suspicion on this is that stores offer "reward cards" so they can get you to sign something that allows them to gather and sell your data.

That's true and credit card companies are very open about it (at least if you read their reports for investors). The advantage of store cards is that the store knows exactly which products you bought, whereas they only know the total if you used a Mastercard/Visa.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#304

Post by eclipxe »

sp527 wrote: post #23
oceanstone wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, why did you remark on the Fruit Loops shake? Could it be due to an ad campaign that started prior to your remark, and continues after it?

We were going through the drive-thru and saw a sign. It seemed so magnificently revolting, I wondered at the time if it was a red herring to drive word of mouth.

It’s a great shake btw. Tastes amazing. Seriously.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#305

Post by mirimir »

jhasse wrote: post #299
mirimir wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, she wasn't under oath, so there is no firm legal requirement for her to be truthful. Or maybe, being a public representative, she's not been briefed about this. Legal security through compartmentalization is pretty common in the corporate world.

> Well, she wasn't under oath, so there is no firm legal requirement for her to be truthful. The same is true for the random YouTuber ;)

For sure :)

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#306

Post by photonios »

imron wrote: post #262
Cacti wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the consequences of widespread illegal wiretapping would be severe for Facebook, they would really cease to exist. Unfortunately, I don't think they would. They'd get a slap on the wrist fine, maybe have one or two senior executives resign, they'd post a mea culpa, saying how they now it was wrong and promise to do better, and then everyone would forget about it a few weeks later when some new thing started to domi…

Indeed. I doubt they would go down due to this. They'd receive some negative attention. They'll make some sweet PR statements and hop, they're back in business.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#307

Post by photonios »

Cacti wrote: post #229
photonios wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wish someone would actually write about how ridiculous these clames are in a way that non-technical people would be able to understand. There's so much bias, conjecture and downright false proof.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#308

Post by Buge »

patientplatypus wrote: post #265
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…

Ummm.... https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/79i4cj/youtube_user... It's a pretty easy test - they just said "cat food" a bunch of times and ads for cat food came up in their feed the next day. I'm sure if you were interested you could probably do the same experiment with some other product you've never posted about or talked about online and come up with similar results. It seems strange that you would just ass…

That could easily have been a random ad, combined with something like the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.

To be a scientific test it needs a list of products, and then randomly assign half into a study group and half in to a control group. Then talk all the time about stuff in the study group but not the control group. And see if there is a statistically significant difference between the ads shown for products in the study group vs the control group.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#309

Post by thinkingemote »

Many people here may have missed something. From the link in the article, Facebook does listen using your microphone. They say so themselves, they say that you have to give the app permission, and that it's used to listen to say a background music or TV show. they also deny using it to target ads, but they say they do use it for other things.

now, I also remember them writing that they only listen when the app is open and a status is being written, but I'm not sure about that statement. Anyhow, the key thing is that Facebook does overtly and publicly use your microphone with its app.

Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations

#310

Post by Buge »

jlgaddis wrote: post #33
sp527 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After Obama’s comments on the NSA surveillance program back when sh*t was hitting the fan, I’m always keenly parsing these kinds of statements for word play. There’s usually a way out of accountability and liability through evasive rhetoric.

I agree. Really, I don't see why Facebook wouldn't monitor audio like this for targeting ads. If you make money from serving ads, that seems like exactly the kind of thing you would want to do. Like you, I have gotten pretty good at noticing "weasel words" and such in the government's statements (denials). It is clear that they take their time to make sure they word their statements ever so carefully.

>Really, I don't see why Facebook wouldn't monitor audio like this for targeting ads.

Because they'd get hit by huge lawsuits and fines from governments all over the world. Europe is especially hungry to fine US companies for privacy issues.

Also it would be terrible for their reputation. Hordes of people would uninstall the app, and even delete their accounts. I would for sure.

Post reply on HN