191–200 of 361 posts
The author admits the fine for breaking this rule is basically a non-issue compared to the potential earnings. Why wouldn’t the most valuable company on earth see this as a huge, easy win to record and advertise based on those recordings?
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…
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.
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…
The only way to test this would be to have your anecdote together with the complete marketing profiles of your friend and his wife. If such a profile could even be compiled in principle, from it we would be able to tell whether your friend or his wife had generated any non-audio pool-related signals, or whether they had seen other pool-related ads recently. Also, it'd be nice to know how often people in their marketi…
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 know someone who worked on smart TV software. They explicitly added audio fingerprinting via integrated microphone so they could determine which programs you were watching for ad profiling. When in the history of online ads have advertisers not used available data?
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…
Either they have the most technically impressive spying system that can't do anything right or it's just not happening and people are making connections where there isn't really any.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Add at least two zeros to your number. Pixel phones can detect the top 11k songs while being offline (it used to be more). The fingerprint database for this is around 500 MB in size. I think it is very easy to sneak a few (thousand) extra fingerprints in this database and do all kinds of tracking with it. All while the green microphone icon is disabled.
Why would “pool fencing” take up one of those valuable keyword slots on everyone’s phone?
And you’re going to see way less than 11k ads per day. Why would the ad server prioritize serving an ad for pool fencing (a phrase said once) over all the far more common topics a person talks about in a typical day, like movies, TV shows, food and drink, clothes, cars, consumer electronics, music, etc?