It's hard to tell I can imagine some motivated individuals could utilize all sorts of packaging systems and embed them in third-party applications and so on, and extract pertinent information using this type of surveillance, and then sell this data to data brokers which would sell it to the large ad networks. I mean there's lots of ways to transcribe even most of the whisper models can run all the way down to 150 megabyte file not to mention the quantization versions of these models. I have something that I run on my computer for my server not throughout my house that does real Time transcription and whatnot but I use it for my own purposes, so you know someone who makes money off advertising or even selling insights about people, would certainly find ways to do this. I mean it's simply not regulated is it?
I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone
321–330 of 361 posts
Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android shows when an app is using the microphone with a green indicator in the upper right corner -- I'm assuming iOS has something similar. How would apps get around this?
Easy: That indicator is not always on when the mic is. Unless we're talking about an electret capsule with a physical LED wired into the supplying power rail that is switched off when the mic is not in use, you have to trust software. And good luck with that after the patriot act. I am not implying the NSA has a microphone backdoor, but if they had and someone abused it, how would you know about it? Listening in for…
But would you use it to show ads if you have access to such a backdoor?
That's an easy way for your backdoor to be found out. Something like this, if it exists, would be too valuable to be used en masse.
Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you're listening for 64, or even 1024 wake words, you won't get to the level of granularity people are claiming to observe, like in the other comment here where they tested "pool fencing". If you were putting together a list of 64 words, would you really include "pool fencing"?
The wakewords could be simply "buy", "cheap", "sale", "price" etc - and then collect the exact words around it. I bet the pool fencing conversation followed with the exchange of ideas where to get equipment.
10 thousand-ish words make sense when one considers multiple languages.
Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone
#324> As one report put it, “Amazon can acquire more comprehensive data on people’s living habits....” The company wants to sell real-world services such as house cleaning, plumbing, and restaurant delivery, but according to some insiders, the vision is more far-reaching: an omniscient voice that knows all experience and anticipates all action! Already, forward-looking Amazon patents include the development of a “voice-sniffer algorithm” integrated into any device and able to respond to hot words such as “bought,” “dislike,” or “love” with product and service offers.
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2018) - Zuboff, Shoshana
Given that this is form 2018, the rise of voice assistants since then, all the market forces at play and the reward highly outweighing regulatory penalty payments there is little that's supporting that users are not being recorded. The TOS phrasses like 'service improvement', 'may share with third parties', and 'user experience' are common place and are not particularly concise. Simply dismissing anekdotes and honing in on Apple Inc., the only company which does not want/need to sell data, is not convincing.
I think people tend to shoot the messenger, when it comes to privacy discussions. Getting told one is being spyed on by a divice, which is so intimt and close to one slef is embarassing. Of course things are more like a spectrum and differ from case to case.
Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone
#325Every 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…
Something similar happened to me with backpack zippers. It convinced me the phone is listening and serving me ads despite the technical explanations that it isn't. I was walking to work and my backpack zipper broke getting off the elevator. When I got to my cube I set my phone on the desk and said to my coworker, "damn, my backpack zipper just broke!" 45 minutes later I was in a meeting and checked my phone and backp…
Maybe your coworker searched for backpack zipper?
Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone
#326The alternative is worse: more passive forms of targeting are so good that advertisers don't need to record your every moment in order to make a large number of people genuinely believe that they are.
It's relatively comforting to think they'd be so brazen as to care about your every word, as opposed to the fact that they own so much information about you that they can predict your actions and thoughts better than you can.
Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone
#327What if the activation of the microphone for marketing purposes occurred not systematically but randomly, making it harder to detect such functionality? And what if this functionality were activated with code loaded remotely at the moment it needs to be used?
Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone
#328[dead]
Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy: That indicator is not always on when the mic is. Unless we're talking about an electret capsule with a physical LED wired into the supplying power rail that is switched off when the mic is not in use, you have to trust software. And good luck with that after the patriot act. I am not implying the NSA has a microphone backdoor, but if they had and someone abused it, how would you know about it? Listening in for…
But would you use it to show ads if you have access to such a backdoor? That's an easy way for your backdoor to be found out. Something like this, if it exists, would be too valuable to be used en masse.
Well if I am a secret service I could either try to force google to do it and risk a leak or I could find a way that there is something in it for them that has the benefit of providing plausible deniability?
Re: I still don't think companies serve you ads based on your microphone
#330oddly enough, I compare this conspiracy theory with clout-chasing word-of-god christians on social media: there's an element of "i don't understand how it works, therefore the simplest answer must be correct"
if everyday people knew just how much data companies have on them and their habits, they'd be absolutely horrified. There's so much personal attribution data that most companies that know how to market properly are going to get you at some point. You may think you're careful with what you share and what is being recorded, but if you are friends or relatives of someone who does, or if you live in the same street as someone who does, they data on you.
I used to work for these kind of companies, and have a lot of friends and family who currently do, and the stuff they track and the patterns they have never fail to surprise me and make me laugh.
Sure, if they could, they would absolutely listen in to you, that would make their jobs a hell of a lot easier, but they don't. But the data they have on you so goddamn accurate, it's easy to assume they must be.