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

I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 361 posts

Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone

#101

Post by gruez »

MrMcCall wrote: post #81
gruez wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confirmation bias makes it hard to extract much from these types of anecdotes. On a daily basis you might be talking about dozens of products. If your lookback period is a few days, that could 100s of products, and you'll get spooky coincidences pop up from time to time from pure chance alone.

Technilogical causes are much more likely than accidental causes for such effects to appear, in today's world. Occam's Razor and the answer to the question, "What kinds of companies are at work in the environment?" push that probability in a specific way, because the motives and means are definitely there. Do you think they are the kinds of companies that would waste such an opportunity? Their Chief Councel's recomme…

>Technilogical causes are much more likely than accidental causes for such effects to appear, in today's world.

This is absurd. The chances of rolling snake eyes twice in a row is 0.07%. However, that doesn't mean if I do get snake eyes back to back, I should think it's caused by "Technilogical causes" (aliens? CIA remotely controlling the dice?). At best, it's an incomplete argument. The power of the birthday paradox, along with the factors I explained in my previous comment means such occurrences are virtually guaranteed to occur if you're on the look out for them. This can't be dismissed with an off-hand with "Technilogical causes are much more likely than accidental causes for such effects to appear, in today's world".

>Occam's Razor and the answer to the question, "What kinds of companies are at work in the environment?" push that probability in a specific way, because the motives and means are definitely there. Do you think they are the kinds of companies that would waste such an opportunity?

Apple got sued for accidentally recording siri queries, and that cost them class action lawsuit, along with the requisite discovery. Some company intentionally doing this, all the while actively engaging in a conspiracy is far harder, and much easier to fall apart due.

Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone

#102

Post by fc417fc802 »

gruez wrote: post #92
porknubbins wrote: post #44

My wife and I, just being goofy, have an inside joke featuring a relatively uncommon name that we ocasionally yell out, like a few times a week. Two months ago we got junk mail addressed to UNCOMMON NAME + our last name. I don’t think its a coincidence. Something is listening. Its kind of messed up that I am a normally rational, skeptical minded person, fairly knowledgable about information security and in 2024 I can…

>My wife and I, just being goofy, have an inside joke featuring a relatively uncommon name that we ocasionally yell out, like a few times a week. Two months ago we got junk mail addressed to UNCOMMON NAME + our last name. Are you sure it's not because of an opsec fail? eg. you used your nickname when registering for some service, and that made it into some sort of mailing list? What you're seemingly implying (ie. tha…

[dead]

Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone

#103

Post by geoduck14 »

brookst wrote: post #66
jcrawfordor wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This story was widely reported, but it's a little questionable. The slides are genuine, but they seem more like a prospectus for something Cox wants to do than something that they're actually doing. The presentation also never claims the "always listening" that people are concerned about, and instead just refers to "a data trail based on their conversations and online behavior" from "smart devices." The idea that thi…

I mean if you’ve ever bought enterprise software, you know that much of the sales pitch is for aspirational features. Ugh.

>I mean if you’ve ever bought enterprise software, you know that much of the sales pitch is for aspirational features. Ugh

Yup. Or if you've ever built enterprise software - after a sales engineer sold a featuee that doesn't exist l. Ugh

Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone

#104

Post by protocolture »

I dunno, seems trivial to me.

Like if an arduino can reliably carry 1 wakeword, an iphone could carry what? 64 at minimum?

Instead of waking up recording the conversation and sending it to the stasi, it could just toggle a bool in your secret advertising profile, then sync that up at random intervals.

They dont need context, they just need "Biscuit" "Nappies" "Birthday".

Not to say it isn't all made up. It probably is. I just dont think its technically difficult to achieve. It is probably all psychology. But sitting there with a packet capture going as you talk about dogfood isnt necessarily a great test to confirm the negative.

Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone

#105

Post by sixothree »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #49

I had this happen to me recently. I was speaking to a friend about a subject that suddenly started to appear in ads after I hung up. It was spooky. But I think it has more to do with the activities related to the people we know. I'm sure because of Android, Gmail and search they have a good understanding of our general association group. I bet my friend did a search on what we were talking about and Google was able t…

I actually believe the alternative theories are scarier than the phone actually listening to you. The one thing I keep hearing over and over again from people is that “I talked to so-and-so about this“ and now I’m getting a bunch of ads about it. What’s scary is that it knew you two were in the same room that one of you had a recent interest and that there was a likelihood you discussed it. That seems worse to me than just listening the conversations.

Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone

#107

Post by StanislavPetrov »

I find it completely plausible that either Google, Facebook or some other installed app is listening to your conversations to develop marketing profiles.

What I find amazing is that people don't use ad blockers! I wouldn't be able to tell you if they are harvesting my voice data, because I haven't seen an ad in years! It is trivial to block ads, why do so many people choose to see them?

Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone

#108

Post by Ancalagon »

efitz wrote: post #73
jere wrote: post #10

My experience working at one of the companies that gets accused of this a lot is that many colleagues wish we were as evil as claimed because it would be so much easier do their jobs that way than struggling through the reality of it which is endless red tape over the tiniest issues that have even the slightest proximity to privacy. So I've been a bit skeptical too.

Exactly. The big companies are scared of lawsuits and trying to get approval for something like that would be a nonstarter. As a matter of fact the device folks at the same company would be working hard to kill such an idea in its infancy because it’s already an uphill battle to sell always-listening or always-watching devices to consumers because of the creepiness factor. And people also are terrible at math. Modern…

Aren’t TikTok and Huawei easy counterpoints to this?

Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone

#109

Post by zw123456 »

cschep wrote: post #89
zw123456 wrote: post #87

OK, but query me this batman. Lately, I have been inundated by ads for anything to do with Kayaks. I do not own a Kayak. I do not want to own a Kayak and have never even spoken the word as far as I can remember. But for some reason, I am seeing ads for a Kayak carrier, a Kayak launcher, roof rack, you name it. It is so weird. I cannot figure out why suddenly these idiots think I am remotely interested in Kayaking. Ka…

someone probably googled “kayak” from your wifi?

Hmmm, I live alone and in a pretty remote area (on an island). I keep my wifi pretty secure, so, that seems pretty unlikely. But who knows, anything is possible I suppose. Maybe because I live on an island.

Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone

#110

Post by fc417fc802 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #99
alvah wrote: post #29

Every time I read some technical description about why this isn't happening, the technical description seems convincing. However... A friend tested the theory a few years ago. He doesn't own a swimming pool, doesn't want to, and has never expressed any desire to. He put his and his wife's phone on the table and said to the wife (loudly), "Why don't we look into pool fencing?". She agreed with him. Shortly after, on b…

Think about what this implies. If your phone is listening, it’s listening all the time, right? So like 12-18 hours of continuous audio every day. That’s a lot of ad triggers. Way too many to actually be served with ads during your browsing time, which is a strict subset of your total audible proximity to your phone (plus ad inventory is a strict subset of what you view on your phone). So how does the phone + ad netwo…

[dead]
Post reply on HN