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

151–160 of 361 posts

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

#151

Post by Suppafly »

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.

The company I work for has had to cancel contracts and claw back money a few different times from vendors that have promised features that were mandatory in our industry that weren't actually available in the software. One I recall was a pricey leave of absence tracking platform that didn't actually consider hipaa compliance to be important.

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

#152

Post by simonw »

more_corn wrote: post #122

You can think whatever you want. When ad companies claim they have that capability and when I see evidence with my own eyes that’s enough for me.

That is EXACTLY what I said in my article: "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

#153

Post by Suppafly »

sixothree wrote: post #105
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 tha…

>That seems worse to me than just listening the conversations.

And that's the one that's actually happening. Listening to your conversations isn't technically possible and is easy to disprove.

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

#154

Post by acchow »

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…

Partially mind reading, but mostly mind control. You didn't think of the Previa out of nowhere. They led you to that thought.

For more consumption.

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

#155

Post by wakawaka28 »

simonw wrote: post #143
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" 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…

I truly wish I had a bibliography to give you but it has been so obviously true to me that I hadn't bothered to catalogue all of this information. I'll try to get you started though. Start by familiarizing yourself with the Snowden leaks and how the government buys data from private companies to violate the constitution. Second, look for articles like this one: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2450052/do-smartphones-liste... This kind of thing is published periodically. Apple lost a lawsuit over Siri spying "inadvertently" very recently: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/apple-agrees-to-... There is no reason to believe that your phone is ever not listening. The audio can at least be transcribed and catalogued.

If companies are willing to track your every click and mouse movement, every footstep and slight movement you make with your phone even while you are asleep, build and bundle keyboard apps to capture what you type, monitor you with AI, etc., are you seriously surprised that they would not also listen to you? None of that stuff I just described is fiction. It's established tech that has been documented over time. The only reason it's not 100% illegal is because the EULA probably covers it.

I swear people who think they aren't listening when they can seem like people who would be shocked to learn that an armed carjacker might demand your wallet in addition to your car. Unreal...

Oh yeah one more tip. Try to use the data export feature from Google or Facebook. You might just be surprised what you find. I've heard of people finding recordings of private conversations picked up by Google devices. I personally found hundreds of Facebook messages and posts that I deleted with a tool, and aren't visible to anyone (OK maybe the messages make sense but not the posts).

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

#156

Post by simonw »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #155
simonw wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I truly wish I had a bibliography to give you but it has been so obviously true to me that I hadn't bothered to catalogue all of this information. I'll try to get you started though. Start by familiarizing yourself with the Snowden leaks and how the government buys data from private companies to violate the constitution. Second, look for articles like this one: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2450052/do-smartphones-l…

> Apple lost a lawsuit over Siri spying "inadvertently" very recently

That's what my article is about: it's about how I'm certain people will use this settled-out-of-court lawsuit as "evidence" that Apple are spying and targeting ads, but it's very clear that's not what was happening here.

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

#157

Post by BergAndCo »

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.

Except they've been literally boasting they can do it?

https://www.404media.co/heres-the-pitch-deck-for-active-list...

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

#158

Post by wakawaka28 »

simonw wrote: post #156
wakawaka28 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I truly wish I had a bibliography to give you but it has been so obviously true to me that I hadn't bothered to catalogue all of this information. I'll try to get you started though. Start by familiarizing yourself with the Snowden leaks and how the government buys data from private companies to violate the constitution. Second, look for articles like this one: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2450052/do-smartphones-l…

> Apple lost a lawsuit over Siri spying "inadvertently" very recently That's what my article is about: it's about how I'm certain people will use this settled-out-of-court lawsuit as "evidence" that Apple are spying and targeting ads, but it's very clear that's not what was happening here.

Apple settled because they knew they would lose. Winning is good PR since they (falsely) claim to be favorable for privacy. They are only superficially better than Google in that regard. I did skim your article and it's not as bad as I thought. I think you really mean it when you say these are just coincidences. But they're not.

Another one I forgot to mention: Google explicitly tracks your location history unless you turn it off, and you'd be foolish to think that they won't (or couldn't) save the data anyway. People have done experiments showing dramatic improvements in battery life using AOSP without Google telemetry and spyware.

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

#160

Post by Suppafly »

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…

Depending on your age and if you have any vaguely outdoorsy interests, you probably are due for a kayak interest. A bunch of guys I know in the late 30s early 40s are into kayaks right now. Kayaks and smoking meat.
Post reply on HN