Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your phone isn't secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing

newatlas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 336 posts

Re: Your phone isn't secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing

#281

Post by AStonesThrow »

A few years ago, I was fairly convinced that Google Voice was listening and punishing me for hitting "political third rail" keywords during phone calls.

On more than one occasion, I would be in a conversation with a friend of mine and things would turn political, and if I spouted just the right combination of anti-left rhetoric/keywords, our connection would drop right away -- boom.

Now why would Voice do this when other Google properties don't? I mean, they don't filter Gmail or Docs or Photos looking for subversive content and censoring it. YouTube comments, maybe.

But I figured that if they wanted, it was completely possible. Because they have proven and deployed live-transcription, and they're best at English. Not to mention, Voice is sort of a deprecated product that they don't really support. So why not throw a little havoc in there for miscreants?

The reason I was using Voice was to place phone calls from a SIM-less tablet. It seems that Voice insists on using my real phone now for routing any sort of call. So I haven't had opportunity to test the boundaries for years now. Nevertheless, I was not sorry about the possibility of censorship, I was duly chastened, and sorry I've been so brainwashed to lapse into mindless talking-point rhetoric.

Re: Your phone isn't secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing

#282

Post by sneak »

dangus wrote: post #223
teeray wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Image capture is optional, your other option is something possibly unpleasant and may make you miss your flight

That is not the other option at all. The other option is essentially just the traditional screening process. > Standard ID credential verification is in place – Travelers who decide not to participate in the use of facial recognition technology will receive an alternative ID credential check by the TSO at the podium. The traveler will not experience any negative consequences for choosing not to participate. There is…

No, the TSA actively threatens you with unspecified additional hassle/delay if you express a desire to opt out.

They are also running facial recognition on all of those round just-above-eye-level camera pods all up and down the concourse.

Re: Your phone isn't secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing

#283

Post by number6 »

anenefan wrote: post #276
number6 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this how proverbs come to life? "Bobs your uncle" - all these proverbs are made up...

Yes people are creative and time to time come up with phrases, comments or sayings that catch on. It's how popular jokes start out as well. I'm not sure if you first thought it up or just repeated the term - as I see simonw meaning-slop link was posted as a separate post at HN 2 days ago. However it's certainly bad when some piss poor LLM starts flogging some nonce as a meaning. For example when using less well docum…

I read it two days ago and found it fitting :)

I see your point - when LLMs just make stuff if to be helpful.

Re: Your phone isn't secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing

#284

Post by kurthr »

Aurornis wrote: post #277
kurthr wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can just say that I knew an entrepreneur in early post Y2K who developed apps to track music played in clubs in SF for folks like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. They gave out "free" phones (these were the small expensive candybars and nice flip/slideups) to the influencers of the day. They compressed the audio for orthogonality, and had a huge number of hashes to match. If they got more than a few consecutive matching hash…

> So the idea that it takes a huge amount of computing resources, battery life, permissions, or bandwidth to do matching of keywords is hilarious. I also knew an entrepreneur who tried this same thing, but with TV shows. Fingerprinting specific audio is a different algorithm problem entirely. You only need to sample a short section of audio every few minutes and then process the spectral peaks, which are fingerprinte…

I agree it's a different algorithm, but not a higher powered one. You don't need to know context to get HELOC, Bariatric, or DUI. You also don't need 95%+ accuracy for 95% of the population. You're just doing advertising.

Re: Your phone isn't secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing

#285

Post by hammock »

coldtea wrote: post #269
hammock wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TSA photos are worse. They use a stereoscopic camera to take a 3d image of your head, which makes facial recognition up to 10x more accurate. You can opt out, just say you do (and preferably cover the camera with your hat or bag)

> You can opt out, just say you do And then be flagged and 10x more targeted because of that

Not how it works

Re: Your phone isn't secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing

#286

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

If "the truth is more disturbing", then why do people seem to care about "secretly listening" but not about "the truth" (data collection). Perhaps because the US has state and federal laws against wiretapping. Perhaps the difference is consent. Arguably so-called "tech" companies have obtained consent to collect data ("the truth"). But have they obtained consent to "secretly listen" to private conversations.

Re: Your phone isn't secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing

#287

Post by HaZeust »

teeray wrote: post #218
dangus wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally not compelled in this case, the TSA signage says that the image capture is completely optional. More generally, having your stuff screened for security to get on a commercial plane isn't a 4th amendment violation, the word "unreasonable" is right there in the amendment for a reason. You're in public in an enclosed flying object bringing your goods onto someone else's plane with 100+ strangers aboard, it is…

Image capture is optional, your other option is something possibly unpleasant and may make you miss your flight

It's not; I flew every week for months, and across ALL airports, I got an indifferent "OK" from the TSA agent, and was waved along.

Re: Your phone isn't secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing

#288

Post by HaZeust »

Spooky23 wrote: post #227
DrillShopper wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amtrak and Greyhound do not require those biometrics, nor does renting a car and driving (or driving your own).

You can also walk. Lovers of freedom can walk from Manhattan to LA in 40-50 days. Of course if you look “wrong”, you’ll probably get rounded up in some flyover town.

I wonder what the chances of surviving that trip is, based on walking pedestrian fatalities on highways.

Re: Your phone isn't secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing

#289

Post by mixmastamyk »

mulderc wrote: post #209
bsimpson wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a crime that were compelled to concede our 4th Amendment rights in order to travel.

Depends on the type of travel right? I took Amtrak weekly for several years and never even had to show ID.

Did this change? Last time I tried to take them (ten+ years ago, because my license expired) they refused my ticket purchase because my id was expired.

Re: Your phone isn't secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing

#290

Post by BergAndCo »

danielrhodes wrote: post #93

People seem to ignore the cost and accuracy aspects of a phone listening to you 24/7. At least with today’s constraints, it is highly unlikely to be happening. First, the cost to transcribe audio is not free. It is computationally expensive. Any ad network or at scale service would not be able to afford it, especially in orgs where they are concerned about unit economics. Secondly, the accuracy would be horrible. Mos…

[dead]
Post reply on HN