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

241–250 of 361 posts

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

#241

Post by ahofmann »

snowwrestler wrote: post #200
ahofmann wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For argument’s sake, let’s be generous and stipulate your phone is listening for 11k keywords to serve you ads. 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, l…

Your argument plays with the idea that the phone listening stuff is the only source of information for the ad networks. But it would be much more complex. It would be only one of many signals, that are used to serve the consumer the right advertisement in the right moment. So it doesn't need to have the exact phrase "pool fencing" in the database. It just need to detect that something about pools, or swimming, etc. was talked about. Since Google has thousands of signals and statistics (like browsing history, current location, the other smartphones that are near, and those histories etc.) about this person, it can sell the ad space to "pool fencing" and expect a high click through rate. Selling ads is a bit like the current LLMs. It's just a stochastic parrot, that hallucinates stuff. But the stuff is often that advertisement that brings in the most money.

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

#243

Post by MrMcCall »

gruez wrote: post #227
MrMcCall wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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?

>No, more like Siri, bruh. To sell some too-expensive slippers. You used the word "absurd", didn't ya? The dice analogy is clearly a separate scenario than your guci slippers story, I'm not sure why you're trying to bring siri into that analogy. The point is that you can't just invoke "Technilogical causes are much more likely than accidental causes for such effects to appear, in today's world" without justification.…

Who said anything about crime? Not me.

Bye.

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

#244

Post by MrMcCall »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #225
MrMcCall wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Im not the guy, but you never bother trying to prove anything; you just ramble about vibes most people will implicitly agree with. “Oh boy rich people sure do suck and companies sure do suck.” “Aww geez my wife got a targeted ad.” I loosely figure that they spy too, but I expected a better showing from HN in rebuttal to the article. If it’s so damn obvious then show some actual proof.

I'll get right on that. Wait right here.

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

#245

Post by raydev »

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…

If true then it's easy enough to produce video evidence of this.

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

#246

Post by snowwrestler »

ahofmann wrote: post #241
snowwrestler wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For argument’s sake, let’s be generous and stipulate your phone is listening for 11k keywords to serve you ads. 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, l…

Your argument plays with the idea that the phone listening stuff is the only source of information for the ad networks. But it would be much more complex. It would be only one of many signals, that are used to serve the consumer the right advertisement in the right moment. So it doesn't need to have the exact phrase "pool fencing" in the database. It just need to detect that something about pools, or swimming, etc. w…

The self-expressed goal of this kind of test is to pick a phrase or topic that is so random that it escapes that person's existing ad data profile. As the comment above said, "He doesn't own a swimming pool, doesn't want to, and has never expressed any desire to."

So showing that person an ad for pool fencing is a complete waste; they're never going to click it. If that's what an alleged audio targeting system does, it would make the ad network less profitable than just using the data they already have. So why would anyone build it that way?

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

#247

Post by MrMcCall »

Breza wrote: post #232
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…

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.

We don't talk about products. We live very, very simply. We watch very little fiction. We mostly listen to music and watch a handful of soccer highlights. No Microsoft, no ads on the `puters, no kids on phones or the net except for chess.

We did watch three Tom Papa stand-up shows on NYE, though. They were glorious; we were crying laughing. "Outrageous!" I love that guy, so brilliant, silly, and hilarious!

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

#248

Post by sizzle »

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…

Your voice is unique and can be fingerprinted to ID you (see Alexa devices). Add in things like positive sentiment analysis, changes in vocal inflection/intonation and context surrounding spoken products like purchase inference/intent and you can probably triangulate a threshold for showing products with high likelihood of purchasing intent.

Really smart people have been working on these things at Google for decades and that’s barely scratching the surface of this nuanced discussion. CPU/GPU has only gotten faster and smaller with more RAM available and better power management across the board for mobile devices.

Anything is possible if there is money to be made and it’s not explicitly illegal or better they can pay the fines after making their 100x ROI.

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

#249

Post by [deleted] »

monkpit wrote: post #71
kylecazar wrote: post #14

people surf the net so automatically that they forget they are doing it and blame Alexa for snooping.

I think it’s wild that your counter argument is basically just gaslighting everyone. There are tons of (possibly coincidental) examples of this type of thing happening. Even if it’s a coincidence, it’s not explained away by “maybe everyone just forgot or is not paying attention”.

[deleted]

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

#250

Post by kylecazar »

monkpit wrote: post #71
kylecazar wrote: post #14

people surf the net so automatically that they forget they are doing it and blame Alexa for snooping.

I think it’s wild that your counter argument is basically just gaslighting everyone. There are tons of (possibly coincidental) examples of this type of thing happening. Even if it’s a coincidence, it’s not explained away by “maybe everyone just forgot or is not paying attention”.

It's not gaslighting. I believe people see the ads for things they talk about in the same room as a smart speaker.

I also believe people very rarely only speak about a thing -- without there being any digital footprint at all of them engaging with it.

I have literally seen this play out with family and traced it back to make a point.

Post reply on HN