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

141–150 of 361 posts

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

#141

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

From a potential culpability or liability perspective, the question of targeted advertising is irrelevant. Intercepting private communications without consent, absent an applicable exception, is still against the law, e.g., the Wiretap Act and/or the California Invasion of Proivacy Act, ads or no ads. Targeted ads would not be used as evidence that private communications have been intercepted.

Many years ago, Google was sued for wiretapping and lost. See Joffe v Google

More recently Apple was sued for eavesdropping without consent. They just settled for $95 million. See Lopez v Apple

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

#142

Post by ajma »

The argument I use to convince people is to ask them how long your battery lasts when you’re running any apps, I’ll then ask how long do you think your battery would last if the apps were listening all day long.

I can’t tell if my friends are convinced or if they’re too polite (or disinterested) to argue.

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

#143

Post by simonw »

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"

I would be VERY interested to hear details of those leaks and that reverse-engineering. I've only ever heard the personal anecdotes.

(If you'd read my article you would have seen this bit at the top: "Convincing people of this is basically impossible. It doesn’t matter how good your argument is, if someone has ever seen an ad that relates to their previous voice conversation they are likely convinced and there’s nothing you can do to talk them out of it.")

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

#144

Post by simonw »

jgalt212 wrote: post #26
bbor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup - having worked at Google Display Ads (arguably the epicenter of such talk), I personally only ever witnessed people walking the walk, privacy-wise. The threats to our privacy are quite public and not at all illegal; IMO data brokers and 3P browser trackers are at the top of the list, but all of Google’s known ills are there too (location tracking, exchange monopolization, allowing predatory advertisers, gestures…

I'm not trying to change your mind, but this response (from another user) was flagged, so I'm providing a pull quote. > A marketing firm called Cox Media Group has recently revealed that it is listening to user conversations via their smartphones through its so-called "Active Listening" Software. With this, the company will push advertisements that users will see on certain platforms based on the heard conversations…

I had an argument about that exact story on lobste.rs a few months ago: https://lobste.rs/s/mf7guc/leak_facebook_partner_brags_about...

(I wouldn't exactly rate techtimes.com up there with NYT/Washington Post/etc.)

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

#145

Post by simonw »

jprete wrote: post #2

> ...they would need to be feeding those snippets in almost real time into a system which forwards them onto advertising partners who then feed that information into targeting networks... I think this is totally mistaken. An ad seller which also wants to respect privacy keeps this data in-house and does the ad targeting themselves. The advertiser never needs to see personal information for this kind of market to give…

We're specifically talking about Apple here, based on Siri wake words. Do you think Apple are running this kind ad of targeting?

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

#146

Post by Suppafly »

Aurornis wrote: post #112
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…

I’m fascinated that this urban legend persists among tech people because it’s so easy to disprove. Did you know that you can set up a proxy from your phone and capture all traffic from it? It would be so trivial to find the traffic from your phone. There are ways to MITM and inspect the traffic, too. There are also many people doing static reverse engineering of phone apps looking for security vulnerabilities. To bel…

This is just flat earth for technophiles. They don't really want to know the truth, they just want to enjoy their fantasy of living a conspiracy theory.

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

#147

Post by simonw »

slg wrote: post #67

One thing that is rarely discussed in relation to this urban myth is that it is widely believe and yet it doesn't actually effect the behavior of most believers. That is one of the major reasons why most companies and many governments don't care about privacy, the public doesn't really care about it either. People will of course choose privacy over no privacy with all else being equal, but privacy is the first thing…

That's the main reason I care about this so much.

If people really do believe that their phones are spying on them all the time to show them ads that means that people are basically surrendering to an imagined surveillance state. They shut up and accept it, because they'd rather keep Facebook/Instagram installed than fight back.

I find that really depressing. I want people to have more agency than that.

We need people to understand the imagined v.s. the actual privacy threats, so they can push for better standards. If they believe in and submit to the conspiracy theories good luck getting anyone to campaign for actual meaningful improvements to the problems that are real.

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

#148

Post by simonw »

zw123456 wrote: post #109
cschep wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, if ad targeting networks know you live on an island (easily done, location data is the most common type they get their hands on) it's pretty sensible for them to try and sell you a kayak.

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

#149

Post by mu53 »

kimbernator wrote: post #46
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…

I think people are prone to believing that their phone is listening to them out of an instinct to believe they are a lot more unique than they actually are. A clash between western individualism and hyper-efficient consumerism. That's not me taking a stance on whether it's true, though. There would be a lot of fame in it for a whistleblower, but on the other hand if Google or Meta figured out a way to do it with a lo…

Seriously, a whistleblower in tech? In 2025?

“Be part of the richest portion of the middle class and never have to worry about money again orrrrr mysteriously die 6 months from now leaving no identifiable impact”

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

#150

Post by simonw »

janice1999 wrote: post #11
simonw wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me some sniffed network traffic demonstrating an app sending that data back to a server. Discovery in a lawsuit. Credible insider leaks confirming this happens and how.

How about a pitch deck for a company [1] claiming it can offer microphone eavesdropping based ad targeting [2]? Maybe that was still aspirational though. TVs and cars have microphones now and are privacy nightmares. Car companies have patents [3] for in-car keyword based ad targeting. Without legalisation, it's really only a matter of time. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90999277/cox-cmg-active-listenin... https://w…

I posted about that one on lobste.rs a while ago: https://lobste.rs/s/mf7guc/leak_facebook_partner_brags_about...

I'm confident it was a sales team putting together a dishonest pitch deck that deliberately took advantage of this widespread conspiracy theory.

Post reply on HN