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

211–220 of 361 posts

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

#211

Post by a0123 »

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…

> 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.

What companies claim they can do when they try to sell their shit product at a ridiculous price is a very different thing from what they can do.

Amazon Shopping was also supposedly a leap forward for shopping. Turns out it was just a guy watching a camera (we were told it was all automatic with state of the art object recognition tech).

Cellerite is another incredible example of this that places like reddit and HN love to suck off. They are the be all and end all until you read their actual technical papers (which companies and police forces that purchase from them do NOT do) and their very strict limitations (which they don't hide in their manuals, they just don't include any of that in their lovely powerpoints).

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

#212

Post by simonw »

fhueller wrote: post #203
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…

> Every time I read some technical description about why this isn't happening, the technical description seems convincing. Having knowledge of the technical limitations and challenges myself, I used to be on board for this argument, but now less so. All of the technical arguments against the listening seem to ignore the "Ok, " or "Hello, " initiating phrases for the voluntary surveillance devices people put in their…

> Why is it such a stretch to imagine these devices grab Direct Objects and Subjects and store those singular items for ad keywording?

How about because Apple say they don't do that, and can and do get sued if they say things like that which are not true?

(Sadly I make basically no money at all from my "breathless proselytizing" of LLMs. I hope to fix that this year, someone should pay me for this stuff!

You know I've written more negative things about LLMs than almost anyone else, right? 121 posts tagged AI ethics right here: https://simonwillison.net/tags/ai+ethics/ )

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

#213

Post by a0123 »

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.

You live on an island, see ads for kayaks and the first thing you went with was: "somebody is listening to all my conversations even though my phone battery wouldn't be able to handle a slightly long phone call"?

That's what people mean when they say there is a lot of data points that can explain things very easily without having to resort to a convoluted explanation.

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

#214

Post by ants_everywhere »

astrange wrote: post #97
ants_everywhere wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the technical description seems convincing. Isn't the technical hurdle just changing the "Alexa" or "Siri" wake word into a keyword for an ad campaign?

Siri doesn't let you do that, it doesn't give you audio it does pick up, and it doesn't even listen for the wake word with the main CPU.

I assume here you're referring to the user?

It seems like users can have iphone listen to audio keywords, but I don't use Apple so I don't know the details. https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/use-vocal-shortcuts-i...

Obviously an experimental advertising system would require a special deal with the phone manufacturer and would be covered by Apple's very broad license to advertise based on your data.

That doesn't mean they're doing it, of course. I'm just not aware of technical or legal barriers.

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

#215

Post by ryandvm »

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…

But why did he pick pools? What if he lives in an upper middle class suburban neighborhood where everybody has pools? And what if he slowed his scrolling just a little too much on a pool ad on Instagram? What if he actually, kinda does think about getting a pool?

Who knows.

I'm just saying, the technical, ethical, and legal implications of creating an ad network that surreptitiously slurps up audio 24 hours a day in violation of the claimed terms of service without anybody leaking anything about it is a conspiracy that seems less likely than people just being more predictable than they would like to believe.

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

#216

Post by MrMcCall »

simonw wrote: post #209
MrMcCall wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you read my article I quote that exact paragraph, and then call out the Ars Technica reporter for the way they misleadingly rephrased this similar paragraph from the Reuters report that Ars Technica cite as their source: > One Siri user said his private discussions with his doctor about a “brand name surgical treatment” caused him to receive targeted ads for that treatment, while two others said their discussions…

[flagged]

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

#217

Post by Ajedi32 »

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…

In my experience the people who believe conspiracy theories like this tend to have a fatalistic attitude towards them. They're not making any specific claims about specific apps listening in on their conversations. Rather it's more a vague sense that "they" (whoever "they" are) are always listening and that there's nothing that can be done about it without giving up on modern technology entirely.

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

#218

Post by alvah »

a0123 wrote: post #197
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…

So...... the listening isn't very good? Because recommending a swimming pool simply based on the single word pool is just terrible. 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.

I’m not sure what point you’re attempting to make here, but they chose the phrase “pool fencing” and were rapidly inundated with ads for pool fencing, which, in isolation, would suggest the listening is extremely accurate.

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

#219

Post by disambiguation »

simonw wrote: post #172
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.

Have you? I can't be bothered to cite but all of the above can and does happen in certain contexts - the covert face camera is admittedly a stretch, but all your personal photos are usually whisked away to the cloud without warning, which is just as bad (see the recent apple photos news)

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

#220

Post by binary132 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #99
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…

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…

You’re so right. We should just trust the computers in our pockets, hands, and nightstands 24/7/365 running proprietary operating systems, firmware, and sensor suites phoning home as much targeting data as they can possibly collect — but not that! What could they possibly gain from harvesting that?
Post reply on HN