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

121–130 of 361 posts

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

#121

Post by porknubbins »

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…

I am open to other explanations. I did not use the name as an online pseudonym, thats why I found it so odd.

I am not sure about there being no benefit either. We moved here very recently and scraping local property records would take time and not be easily automated. So what if some data aggregator still had a blank under the name field for our address and needed to fill it in so they could address letters since we more or less automatically throw away “current resident” letters. I just don’t know, yes its far fetched but I don’t see any other explanations as much more parsimonious.

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

#123

Post by solarkraft »

protocolture wrote: post #104

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 i…

There are certainly ways to make it more viable, but I hope that the systems up to billions of people use are sufficiently independently audited so that such features would quickly be found.

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

#124

Post by antiraza »

bluedevilzn wrote: post #47
linsomniac wrote: post #27

They don't need to: they can read your mind. My proof? Yesterday I was driving home and I saw an old Toyota Previa minivan and thought to myself "Oh, a Previa, you don't see those very often these days." When I got home, I started scrolling through my Google News and it showed me an advert for the new Previa. I agree with Simon: you basically aren't going to convince someone that their phone doesn't listen to you and…

This is due to ad blindness. The Previa ads were always there but that was the first time you noticed it because it was on your mind.

Alternatively, the Previas were always there, and they developed the memory of seeing it after having been exposed to the ad.

(To be clear, I'm not being facetious -- this is a viable possibility)

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

#125

Post by protocolture »

lantry wrote: post #114
protocolture wrote: post #104

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 i…

But if you're listening for 64, or even 1024 wake words, you won't get to the level of granularity people are claiming to observe, like in the other comment here where they tested "pool fencing". If you were putting together a list of 64 words, would you really include "pool fencing"?

Its an extreme low side estimate.

And the chance that Pool OR Fencing is one is pretty high.

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

#126

Post by zw123456 »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #113
cschep wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

someone probably googled “kayak” from your wifi?

Or they googled fitness or outdoors and live near water Edit: yep

Weird it just popped up. Probably they cranked up a new algo that said, if they live near water, hit 'em with kayak ads. Why not paddle boards or boats too? Whatever.

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

#127

Post by solarkraft »

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…

> So, I am guessing, some marketing weirdo thinks there is some weird connection between something else in my life an Kayaks.

That would explain the intensity, but I’d still be surprised to see any patterns not found by ML/statistics.

It seems to me that somebody in your life has gotten into Kayaks. Take it as a challenge to find out who it is.

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

#128

Post by wakawaka28 »

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…

>So how does the phone + ad networks decide which words to prioritize to trigger which ads when?

The same way they analyze your email and web searches. Basically, statistics.

>To me this is the problem with these anecdotal tests. You understood that that was an important phrase in the context of ad targeting. But how did the automated ad system know it should serve you ads on that topic, and not one of the many other advertisable topics you talk about over the course of several days? Or that your phone hears over several days?

Buddy, so many people have witnessed this happening for at least 10 years and even done experiments at this point that it's common knowledge. I know for a fact that one of my friends now has a phone that is especially receptive to hearing me say things around it, because our conversation topics ALWAYS come up in my searches, ads, and feeds shortly after. Think about that. Someone else's phone sends data to a cloud that I never gave permission to. It then puts that together with data from MY phone about where I was (perhaps even the devices chirping at each other!). The aggregation happens within a week then I see relevant ads. I've seen this happen dozens of times. It's no coincidence.

As far as the article, I'm not even going to read it. It's got to be stupid. We know from leaks, reverse-engineering, and personal experience that this spying is going on. I question the source of this article, but I suppose we should never underestimate the lengths someone will go to in order to feel that they are smarter than the rest of us with our eyes open.

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

#129

Post by whamlastxmas »

zw123456 wrote: post #126
whamlastxmas wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they googled fitness or outdoors and live near water Edit: yep

Weird it just popped up. Probably they cranked up a new algo that said, if they live near water, hit 'em with kayak ads. Why not paddle boards or boats too? Whatever.

What has the highest margin and therefore the most ad spend? Probably fancy folding kayaks. Kayaks are also popular with fishing in a way paddle boards aren’t. And either that person or his neighbors or friends are into fishing and Google knows this

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

#130

Post by jimmydddd »

whycombagator wrote: post #116
derekp7 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something similar -- while on a family visit at my parents' house, my brother was talking about his upcoming Hawaii trip, Specifically he was going over a snorkeling adventure he signed up for. For the next week or so, I got many ads on my phone about underwater packages for Hawaii, along with ads for various snorkeling and swimming gear. Now I had never researched any of that on my phone, however obviously my brothe…

[flagged]

I think he makes this exact point in the 5th and 6th lines of his comment?
Post reply on HN