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

131–140 of 361 posts

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

#131

Post by philsquared_ »

derekp7 wrote: post #82
darknavi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did they pick a swimming pool? Did they see people in their area installing pools? I think that's often people's best guess, is that the "random" thing people use to test this actually isn't random and subconsciously they already had this topic seeded to them.

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…

You have hit the nail on the head but it doesn't even need to be wifi and it also doesn't have to be that complicated. They see that two devices are in the same area for a long period of time so they serve ads for other peoples web history. Jarringly enough ever since I had this realization I sometimes see ads for things that reveal something meant to be private of those I had just spent time with. Also, seeing peoples ads when they make desktop recordings of their screen can be extremely telling..

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

#132

Post by 7e »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #119
snowwrestler wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My phone can listen all day every day. It listens for "hey google" and it can listen and passively tell you songs that are playing. It's not outside the realm of possibility to do their audio fingerprinting on keywords and what not. The advertising potential makes it extremely juicy

Your phone can listen for “hey Google” because it’s only one phrase and the model can run at very low power on specialized hardware. If you want to add 1000 keywords the battery drain would be intense.

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

#133

Post by 7e »

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…

You see thousands of ads of every type every day and ignore them. Now you’re doing a test and consciously looking for ads related to pools. Of course you’re going to find something.

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

#134

Post by se4u »

jopsen wrote: post #70
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…

Or maybe there is a hidden variable that: (A) Explains why you noticed the Privia. (B) Explains why you searched for something that might have triggered a Privia ad. To a layman this might be indistinguishable from magic. So in some way maybe the phone really can read your mind :)

The hidden variable is the previa marketing budget. They have budget right now for a billboard and for online ads at the same time and they are focusing on your geography

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

#135

Post by pdpi »

gruez wrote: post #60
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…

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.

And, if not you, your friends and family. “I know a guy who had it happen to him” is almost as bad for confirmation bias as “it happened to me”.

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

#136

Post by opan »

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…

Whatever made him use pool fencing as his random example is probably also why the ad showed up. Maybe it's the season for that stuff, he saw other ads earlier, or other friends talked about it. He may not consciously remember that, but it could make him more likely to think of it again later. In other words he talked about it because of the ads, not the other way around.

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

#137

Post by Suppafly »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #128
snowwrestler wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>We know from leaks, reverse-engineering, and personal experience that this spying is going on.

No we don't. There isn't any of that. This is flat earthing for technophiles.

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

#138

Post by gnator »

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…

They don't need to read your mind. The systems that push ads to you are also owned by the companies that are pushing contents and shaping how you see the internet. It's like how magicians incept ideas into your head then use it like they can read your mind.

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

#139

Post by aarmot »

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"?

The wakewords could be simply "buy", "cheap", "sale", "price" etc - and then collect the exact words around it. I bet the pool fencing conversation followed with the exchange of ideas where to get equipment.

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

#140

Post by wakawaka28 »

Suppafly wrote: post #137
wakawaka28 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>We know from leaks, reverse-engineering, and personal experience that this spying is going on. No we don't. There isn't any of that. This is flat earthing for technophiles.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN