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

171–180 of 361 posts

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

#171

Post by RGamma »

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…

If this parasitic nonsense technology ever turns against us Stasi-style we're gonna wish the ads back.

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

#172

Post by simonw »

disambiguation wrote: post #170

Ask HN - let's say hypothetically, our phones are as bad as some think. Face camera taking covert pics, regular screenshots sent back home, microphone recording every conversation, every message, email, and bit of internet traffic scraped and harvested for ads and anything else - how would you change your habits if you knew this was happening? Answer - you wouldn't.

I'd write to my representatives about it.

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

#173

Post by sixhobbits »

7e wrote: post #132
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pixel phones run song identification constantly now. They have a local database of the top 1000 (?) most popular songs. It has negligible impact on battery life.

Not saying I agree that 'phones are listening to show us ads', but technically we have the capability for that to happen (sampling audio every X intervals and matching against a local database of keywords)

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

#174

Post by randycupertino »

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…

Something similar happened to me with backpack zippers. It convinced me the phone is listening and serving me ads despite the technical explanations that it isn't.

I was walking to work and my backpack zipper broke getting off the elevator. When I got to my cube I set my phone on the desk and said to my coworker, "damn, my backpack zipper just broke!" 45 minutes later I was in a meeting and checked my phone and backpack zipper ads appear. I had never googled backpack zippers before, never seen backpack zipper ads. Literally the only proceeding thing before getting these was was telling my coworker that mine had just broken.

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

#175

Post by Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe »

There is something I've always been wondering about companies' privacy policy. When Google says that it does not send user audio data to their server, does that prevent them from sending say whisper embedding of the audio itself? Because technically it would not be audio. It would still include a very rich representation of what the user said. Rich enough to be used to sell things.

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

#176

Post by nivertech »

simonw wrote: post #167
nivertech wrote: post #165

Many mobile apps use an adtech SDK which does on-device audio keyword spotting. The company making this SDK is super secretive, so not much information about it.

If "many mobile apps" use it surely some docs or other details have leaked out somewhere? Or at least a name?

I won't disclose names.

But thinking from the first principles, do you really think that all this phonetic keyword spotting[1] IP developed for defense tech in the late 90s and early 2000s was abandoned once recording entire phone conversations and doing full speech to text on them became technologically possible?

I still remember lots of startups who did this stuff openly a decade ago, before Cambridge Analytica scandal[2]. After that it became impossible to get funding or get acquired, so the few that stayed in this field became very secretive.

—-

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyword_spotting

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_A...

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

#177

Post by tommiegannert »

The danger with this kind of opinion is that you start out doing some healthy critical thinking, and research. You form an opinion, based on good intentions. Then you spend all your time on explaining your conclusion to others. At that time, people who have the same opinion flock to you, and you don't have time to do more research.

This is the problem with experts and politicians. You can make money on either position, but once you have started stating your opinion, it's unlikely you'll do active research to disprove your opinion, as many have already concluded [1].

I'm happy that Simon only sees this as a hobby.

[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/

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

#178

Post by aoanevdus »

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…

A family member who seems intelligent and sane occasionally tells me stories of her experiences with ghosts.

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

#179

Post by MrMcCall »

gruez wrote: post #101
MrMcCall wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 parado…

> (aliens? CIA remotely controlling the dice?)

No, more like Siri, bruh. To sell some too-expensive slippers. You used the word "absurd", didn't ya?

> accidentally recording siri queries

Sure. Apple does things by accident. Gotcha.

Motive, means, opportunity. Which is missing?

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

#180

Post by MrMcCall »

gruez wrote: post #94
MrMcCall wrote: post #63

My wife has a very new ( I sh_t you not. She was a bit gobsmacked. I was neither surprised nor disturbed. That's real anecdata, my friends. It could have been coincidence, and while we have nothing to hide, it's not an optimal situation, whatever the cause. Besides, we ain't buying no Gucci slippers, no way, no how.

>We live in public housing, no luxuries. >Gucci Gucci is classified as an "aspirational luxury" brand. In other words, luxury for poor people. It makes total sense that it would be pushed to people in public housing. If you get recommendations for European brands you've never heard of selling $5000 t-shirts, then I'd be worried.

I'm not worried, and thanks for suggesting that advertising would be a viable motive given our geolocation. Good thing Apple doesn't also have means and opportunity, too. Silly me!

I guess we should all just blindly trust Apple. Thanks, friend.

Post reply on HN