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

61–70 of 361 posts

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

#61

Post by xethos »

bbor wrote: post #40
jgalt212 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to change your mind, but this response (from another user) was flagged, so I'm providing a pull quote. > A marketing firm called Cox Media Group has recently revealed that it is listening to user conversations via their smartphones through its so-called "Active Listening" Software. With this, the company will push advertisements that users will see on certain platforms based on the heard conversations…

Ahh this one. Thanks for sharing, important point! Basically this is just a random small-ish company trying to get new clients with a flashy feature. Ultimately they have to use the same data as everyone else, which I’m 99.99% sure doesn’t involve any intentional (much less “active”) recording by Google, Apple, or Meta. Maybe they have their own hardware partners that have networked microphones, maybe they’re really…

I think it's weird how, on a site filled to the brim with engineers and comp-sci people that laugh at (or drink to) management believing the sales team, we all take the pitch deck from a sales team at face value.

If marketing or sales can twist a feature such that it's not presented perfectly honestly, but makes them look incredible and all but guarantees a sale? I think they'll twist meanings for that bonus. Certainly not every member of sales and marketing, but often enough that the pitch deck of a sales team shouldn't have nearly this much sway, IMO.

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

#62

Post by lelandfe »

in-pursuit wrote: post #37

I know someone who worked on smart TV software. They explicitly added audio fingerprinting via integrated microphone so they could determine which programs you were watching for ad profiling. When in the history of online ads have advertisers not used available data?

Automatic content recognition is one of the freakiest kinds of tracking I've heard of. Smart TVs become data collection hubs for the home if they get connected to the internet. Some have microphones for voice recognition. If you go into the privacy policies for them, you'll find that your audio gets sent off to third parties (albeit only when in use).

I completely disconnected my TV from the internet, but it still prompts me to connect it to Wi-Fi, to agree to policies, etc. This page is full of horribles: https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics/privacy/how-to-t...

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

#63

Post by MrMcCall »

My wife has a very new (I sh_t you not. She was a bit gobsmacked. I was neither surprised nor disturbed.

That's real anecdata, my friends. It could have been coincidence, and while we have nothing to hide, it's not an optimal situation, whatever the cause.

Besides, we ain't buying no Gucci slippers, no way, no how.

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

#64

Post by clovoak »

lbotos wrote: post #34
ch_ase wrote: post #16

We search for everything we talk about these days…our location services are always on. The times I’ve noticed this I can usually trace it back to a friend had been searching for something and then we (our phones) were in the same place. Even the guy from the lawsuit with the doctor… his phone knows he was at that doctor and that doctor offers that procedure. Seems possible without listening.

Yes, but I think that's the part that feels... unsettling. I watched a Nigerian film on the seat back display on the plane the other day. I looked it up on my laptop when I got home because I didn't finish it. The next day in my Instagram explore page I had a Nigerian meme... Yes, I get it -- could be frequency illusion or some IP address/cookie shenanigans. Still feels weird.

Or more likely: Confirmation bias. I also occasionally get Nigerian memes on IG despite never having searched it. But unlike you I don't have the Nigerian film google search history that would lead me to conclude it was targeted.

Put another way, if you googled a Swedish film then saw Swedish memes you would think that was targeted. Then upon viewing the Nigerian memes you would have attributed it to a random video rather than anything targeted.

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

#65

Post by kimbernator »

porknubbins wrote: post #44

My wife and I, just being goofy, have an inside joke featuring a relatively uncommon name that we ocasionally yell out, like a few times a week. Two months ago we got junk mail addressed to UNCOMMON NAME + our last name. I don’t think its a coincidence. Something is listening. Its kind of messed up that I am a normally rational, skeptical minded person, fairly knowledgable about information security and in 2024 I can…

I think it's normal to have a hard time delineating between conspiracy and genuine concern when it comes to this. We're literally carrying around powerful computers with exceptionally reliable connectivity combined with high-resolution cameras and high-fidelity microphones that are frequently used for voice recognition. Not to mention that for 50% of US smartphones, the software is designed by the most prolific advertiser in the world.

I had an experience a few years ago where I had talked about a fairly niche product (I can't recall exactly what it was) and the next day I started seeing ads for that product all over the place. I commented about it to two of my coworkers that day, how I had been skeptical about the conspiracy that our phones were listening to us for marketing purposes but that this felt eerie. What shocked me was their response: They had seen the same ad all over the place. Since then I've had a hard time deciding what to be more concerned about: That my phone might be listening, or that I might have been subtly influenced into thinking about this thing; that my whole experience was actually a result of being susceptible to marketing directed at my demographic

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

#66

Post by brookst »

jcrawfordor wrote: post #43
jgalt212 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to change your mind, but this response (from another user) was flagged, so I'm providing a pull quote. > A marketing firm called Cox Media Group has recently revealed that it is listening to user conversations via their smartphones through its so-called "Active Listening" Software. With this, the company will push advertisements that users will see on certain platforms based on the heard conversations…

This story was widely reported, but it's a little questionable. The slides are genuine, but they seem more like a prospectus for something Cox wants to do than something that they're actually doing. The presentation also never claims the "always listening" that people are concerned about, and instead just refers to "a data trail based on their conversations and online behavior" from "smart devices." The idea that thi…

I mean if you’ve ever bought enterprise software, you know that much of the sales pitch is for aspirational features. Ugh.

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

#67

Post by slg »

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 sacrificed when push comes to shove. If the average person is given the choice of having everything said within earshot of their phone being recorded and sent to Facebook or giving up Instagram, they'll happily choose Instagram and forsake their privacy.

If privacy advocates want to start turning the tide in this battle, the first step needs to be convincing the average person why privacy is important on a personal and tangible level. No arguments about future totalitarian regimes or hypothetical ideals. Abstract concepts like that rarely motivate people who have so many more practical political concerns. It needs to be something that is more important to people than having access to Instagram. And I have absolutely no idea how that could be accomplished which makes me concerned that we're already too late.

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

#68

Post by Tagbert »

jgalt212 wrote: post #26
bbor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not trying to change your mind, but this response (from another user) was flagged, so I'm providing a pull quote. > A marketing firm called Cox Media Group has recently revealed that it is listening to user conversations via their smartphones through its so-called "Active Listening" Software. With this, the company will push advertisements that users will see on certain platforms based on the heard conversations…

Discussed last year when they made their announcement. No one gave a believable mechanism for them being able to do this. The consensus was that they were blowing smoke.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/12/no-a-marketing-firm-...

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

#69

Post by ants_everywhere »

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…

> the technical description seems convincing.

Isn't the technical hurdle just changing the "Alexa" or "Siri" wake word into a keyword for an ad campaign?

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

#70

Post by jopsen »

linsomniac wrote: post #27

They don't need to: they can read your mind. My proof? Yesterday I was driving home and I saw an old Toyota Previa minivan and thought to myself "Oh, a Previa, you don't see those very often these days." When I got home, I started scrolling through my Google News and it showed me an advert for the new Previa. I agree with Simon: you basically aren't going to convince someone that their phone doesn't listen to you and…

Or maybe there is a hidden variable that:

(A) Explains why you noticed the Privia. (B) Explains why you searched for something that might have triggered a Privia ad.

To a layman this might be indistinguishable from magic. So in some way maybe the phone really can read your mind :)

Post reply on HN