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

351–360 of 361 posts

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

#351

Post by hulitu »

atoav wrote: post #307
dnissley wrote: post #283

Earlier 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…

> I am not implying the NSA has a microphone backdoor, but if they had and someone abused it, how would you know about it?

"Citizen four" by Edward Snowden.

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

#352

Post by recursivecaveat »

simonw wrote: post #147
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…

That's the main reason I care about this so much. If people really do believe that their phones are spying on them all the time to show them ads that means that people are basically surrendering to an imagined surveillance state. They shut up and accept it, because they'd rather keep Facebook/Instagram installed than fight back. I find that really depressing. I want people to have more agency than that. We need peopl…

If you believe that google is recording all your audio, uninstalling instagram is not going to cut it. I think such a person would have to go back down to a really dumb phone to have any confidence at that point.

People have only vibes, they think that if they paid with cash it would proobably be more private than a credit card, but what data is being sold and to whom for what uses? Is that even the case or are there regulations? If I constantly make cash withdrawals at the bank am I actually inviting extra scrutiny by looking like a money launderer? If I install this browser add-on maybe it sells all my data. But I'm also using chrome literally made by the ad company, and that youtuber told me if I don't use a VPN I'm constantly being tracked anyways...

If you just have a giant morass of confusing information about every digital decision, and a lot of annoying first steps you would take are likely to be no-ops, you just don't engage. People are defeated by ambiguity and lack of attention span, same reason lobbying works and people were constantly being poisoned by food & drug additives before the modern era.

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

#354

Post by danillonunes »

efitz wrote: post #73
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.

Exactly. The big companies are scared of lawsuits and trying to get approval for something like that would be a nonstarter. As a matter of fact the device folks at the same company would be working hard to kill such an idea in its infancy because it’s already an uphill battle to sell always-listening or always-watching devices to consumers because of the creepiness factor. And people also are terrible at math. Modern…

After shadow profiles, cambridge analytica, prism, etc, I don't think those companies are all that scared of privacy violation lawsuits.

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

#355

Post by nickburns »

simonw wrote: post #290
nickburns wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The traffic would obviously be encrypted. Obviously.

So modify the application binary to swap out the certificate in order to spy on the traffic. Difficult, but not impossible.

You're just saying words.

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

#356

Post by Zanfa »

DrillShopper wrote: post #347
simonw wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not be able to disassemble binaries or intercept network traffic but there are plenty of privacy researchers who can, and none of them have found anything.

They haven't found anything yet . That said, there's a much easier way to test this. Take two identical voice recognition smart devices (think Amazon Echos), register them each with a new never used Amazon account. Modify one of the devices to have a switch on its mic input which you leave off, and one which you leave on. See if the one with the mic on starts showing ads for things you've never searched for on that A…

Given the wide spread of this phenomenon and it’s been a decade, it’s either the most technically complex undetected global conspiracy or it’s not actually real[1].

[1] https://www.historylink.org/File/5136

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

#357

Post by lofaszvanitt »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #339
lofaszvanitt wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it obvious? When someone talks a lot and most of those talks have zero relevant meaning or substance, then it's someone who is a shill.

He talks a lot when on a book tour, you know, promoting a book. There is a couple months where he is on every podcast. Then he is gone again. You know who else does this, every other author on the planet. When a book is coming out, then suddenly the authors are on every podcast or show, talk, debate, anything they can manage to get on. Its a blitz. You know what else happens on a book tour, they tend to give a highli…

Then there is nothing to talk about if you think he is aok. Move on.

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

#358

Post by 7e »

sixhobbits wrote: post #173
7e wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your phone can listen for “hey Google” because it’s only one phrase and the model can run at very low power on specialized hardware. If you want to add 1000 keywords the battery drain would be intense.

Pixel phones run song identification constantly now. They have a local database of the top 1000 (?) most popular songs. It has negligible impact on battery life. Not saying I agree that 'phones are listening to show us ads', but technically we have the capability for that to happen (sampling audio every X intervals and matching against a local database of keywords)

Now Playing only has to sample for a few seconds every few minutes when the phone is powered on for other reasons (like to participate in cellular check-ins). This is because a song is typically several minutes long and you only have to fingerprint for a few seconds. It doesn't matter which few seconds. It's not continuously listening, so it's not the same thing at all.

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

#360

Post by getwiththeprog »

wobfan wrote: post #169
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…

I went back to my family for this christmas, and argued about privacy, I think it was about free email services again, and stuff likes this. And again - I just cannot understand it - the response was: Yeah but I don't care, I have nothing to hide, let them have my data. It's a slap in the face of me, trying to meticulously remove all internet access of programs and devices that don't need it, and moving from all free…

You are not losing your lifetime, you are building the future. If other people do not want to be on board it is a loss. I have spent years trying to teach people how to build their own websites and get away from the large walled gardens. Many will not come on board, but the community that does do it have built truly wonderful things. I think of the Neal Stepehson article "In the Beginning was the Command Line" where he compares Microsloths Family Sedan to the Free Tanks of Linux; there are all these Linux geeks yelling "come over here, we have free tanks" yet most people pay for the Family Sedan.

It sucks, yet I drive a Free Tank, and now help people online take care of theirs. The other day I was talking with one from the future generation about what type of computer they would want and they said "A Fedora gaming desktop". And that made it all alright :)

Post reply on HN