I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by Breza » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 7:35 PM UTC

binary132 wrote: post #220

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…

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?

Companies really are using tons of highly sensitive data to target ads, even when we sleep. But they're not generally using microphones to record audio to do it. Both things can be accurate statements.

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

#232

Post by Breza » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 7:38 PM UTC

MrMcCall wrote: post #81

gruez wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confirmation bias makes it hard to extract much from these types of anecdotes. On a daily basis you might be talking about dozens of products. If your lookback period is a few days, that could 100s of products, and you'll get spooky coincidences pop up from time to time from pure chance alone.

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…

Why can't you both be right? If you talk about 100 products in a week, chances are you're conducting searches about some of them or your demographic data suggests that you might be in market for it.

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

#233

Post by monkeyfun » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 7:38 PM UTC

brookst wrote: post #202

Suppafly wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Good analogy. Just like anyone with a lick of sense can see the spherical Earth from an airplane, so can anyone see the absence of this network traffic from any network analyzer. It’s not there. It does not exist. And nevermind the conspiratorial thinking required to believe whole teams of engineers are developing and maintaining this capability across several giant companies, but nobody ever puts it on a resume. App…

I agree with most of this, but have to take note that

>thousands of people working on this all personally committed to complete secrecy

Basically describes a LOT of government spying programs or horrific abuses that have happened, for instance.

Secrets can absolutely be held, and I wouldn't be surprised by even thousands of NDA'd engineers (who already have been doing this sort of thing for a loooong time) opting not to leak anything in a way that would be credible.

I'll reiterate that I'm skeptical of the overall conspiracy claims even though I usually believe in mass spying claims or institutions/corps/etc. being awful. I just think your argument there is pretty flawed, at least that aspect of it.

In fact, on why I'm skeptical: I just can't shake this profound sense that it's like the "Frequency Illusion" phenomenon that I've demonstrated to people while driving or walking outside.

Or more likely a mix of it with people also getting prompted with what they "want" in the first place by all the advertising and targeted media and their various search history data.

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

#234

Post by Breza » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 7:41 PM UTC

derekp7 wrote: post #82

darknavi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Something similar -- while on a family visit at my parents' house, my brother was talking about his upcoming Hawaii trip, Specifically he was going over a snorkeling adventure he signed up for. For the next week or so, I got many ads on my phone about underwater packages for Hawaii, along with ads for various snorkeling and swimming gear. Now I had never researched any of that on my phone, however obviously my brothe…

Exactly. Years ago, I did due diligence on a company that targets ads using IP address. They buy IP address data from ISPs, target ads based on demographics, and then use cookies to retarget. Not that far off of what you're describing.

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

#235

Post by Breza » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 7:44 PM UTC

bbor wrote: post #19

jere wrote: post #10

My experience working at one of the companies that gets accused of this a lot is that many colleagues wish we were as evil as claimed because it would be so much easier do their jobs that way than struggling through the reality of it which is endless red tape over the tiniest issues that have even the slightest proximity to privacy. So I've been a bit skeptical too.

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…

Well said. I've worked in adtech and this aligns with my experience. Alphabet probably wouldn't even make that much more money compared to its current ad program. There's no shortage of supply in display advertising.

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

#236

Post by wakawaka28 » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 7:53 PM UTC

Breza wrote: post #230

wakawaka28 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And nevermind the conspiratorial thinking required to believe whole teams of engineers are developing and maintaining this capability across several giant companies, but nobody ever puts it on a resume. Apparently the thousands of people working on this are all personally committed to complete secrecy, forever. Uh-uh. Bro it doesn't matter how much evidence you provide people with that this IS happening. They usuall…

I spent a long time running an adtech program. The biggest secret is how basic most advertising systems really are.

Just because most adtech is the equivalent of Internet billboards on the side of the highway doesn't mean these systems aren't in place. You don't even need a very complex system when the entire device platform is designed to spy on you.

Take a look at this for example: https://www.theverge.com/23293687/amazon-irobot-acquisition-...

Even simple ad systems are a huge privacy threat. Add to that audio, location, and even AI screen reading surveillance, and you're screwed.

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

#237

Post by wakawaka28 » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 7:58 PM UTC

Breza wrote: post #229

wakawaka28 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That case dragged on for 5 years, and ended up with them paying $95 million anyway. I think if they could have proved that they weren't doing it, they would have. Maybe I didn't say that clearly but it makes a lot of sense.

Apple spends a lot of money to keep its secrets. Paying $95 million to avoid letting people snoop in exactly how Apple systems work is a bargain, and I don't even think they're using audio for ad targeting.

Eh I don't think that is what happened here. If other companies want to know how Apple did things 5 years ago, they can just hire some ex-Apple employees. I think someone could build a competitive system with current technology for something in the ballpark of $95 million lol.

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

#238

Post by on_the_train » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 8:26 PM UTC

simonw wrote: post #208

on_the_train wrote: post #189

They do. They absolutely do. Not a week goes by without a blatant case on my phone. I'd wager everything I own on this.

What evidence would you accept that they're not doing this in a way that would make this an actionable bet?

What evidence would anyone accept that 1+1 is 3? That's a genuine response. The cases are so clear cut (words picked up from conversations that would never fit on whatever profile they have on me; up to specific mentioned brands and things completely alien to be) and so numerous. I still can't believe that anyone even debates it. It's blatant as hell and all of my peers notice it, too

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

#239

Post by simonw » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 8:27 PM UTC

disambiguation wrote: post #219

simonw wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I haven't, and that's an interesting prompt for me to think about real privacy issues that I do think should involve legislation (while avoiding the risk of more cookie banners).

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

#240

Post by rgovostes » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 8:53 PM UTC

nivertech wrote: post #176

simonw wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sca…

You know users have to authorize apps to use the microphone right? That pretty much limits the theoretical exposure to VoIP, camera, and translation apps.

On iPhone, activating the microphone causes an icon to appear, which the app can’t hide. I think if the app is in the background, it turns the whole status bar bright red.

Secondly, there is power use attribution and it would be very obvious if an app were keeping the device awake and the microphone on based on battery drain and runtime accounting.

So you are asking us to accept on faith a shadowy ad SDK that is both widely used but also cannot be named, one that somehow subverts multiple layers of the system security architecture? Ok. We believe you.