4 ms·

I will pay $1,000 to anyone who is able to provide conclusive evidence of Facebook targeting advertising based on listening to all conversations. It's an easil

I will pay $1,000 to anyone who is able to provide conclusive evidence of Facebook targeting advertising based on listening to all conversations. It's an easily testable hypothesis which is blatantly false. If Facebook had an always-on phone recording, people's data limits would be swiftly used up. There are tons of alternative explanations.

Clubber 10y ago
>If Facebook had an always-on phone recording, people's data limits would be swiftly used up. Not if they were converted to text with the phone before they were sent.
- morgante 10y ago
  Even text would involve a vastly higher upload amount than Facebook actually uses at-rest.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    Text is pretty small. It's even a multitude smaller when compressed. It could easily be added to normal send packets without anyone noticing. Furthermore, when things are encrypted, it distorts the actual size of the message. I mean I came up with a way to do it unnoticed in a few minutes, imagine what a top team could come up with in a few months. I obviously don't know if it's happening or not (deleted my account years ago) but it isn't hard.
    - morgante 10y ago
      Perhaps, but I've monitored the volume of data uploads by the Facebook app and they're pretty minimal. There's also the fact that Facebook has gone on the record specifically disavowing this conspiracy. If it were true, they wouldn't so unequivocally deny it. [0] There's far more harm for them deceiving customers than there is in them admitting to a creepy feature. Additionally, everyone who has promulgated this conspiracy has been fairly suspect. None of them make any effort to analyze the alternative reasons. But, like I said, I have $1,000 for whoever can prove this is happening. It really shouldn't be hard. If this conspiracy works the way people claim it does, you should be able to mutter about any random product to your phone and have Facebook start showing you ads for it. [0] http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11854860/facebook-smartphone-listening-eavesdrop-microphone-denial http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11854860/facebook-smartphon...
      - Clubber 10y ago
        >If it were true, they wouldn't so unequivocally deny it. That's a strange conclusion to come to. I think it was Shakespeare addressed that very thing in Hamlet. >There's far more harm for them deceiving customers than there is in them admitting to a creepy feature. If they've already deceived, then they certainly wouldn't admit it. If they stopped doing it, they could deny it was currently happening and not be lying. >I have $1,000 for whoever can prove this is happening. That number pretty much ensures anyone who has the ability to find out wouldn't bother. Personally, I think they might have toyed with it but abandoned it. The trick isn't collecting the data without getting caught, that's simple (as earlier described). The trick is taking action on the data and not getting noticed. If you use the conversation data as a weight to only be added to non-conversation data, you could do it completely unnoticed. In other words, gather conversation data but only apply it to data collected in other, less controversial means. So +1 for posting about Colgate, +1 for talking about it only if there is already +1 from the posting.
        morgante 10y ago
        > That's a strange conclusion to come to. Why? I posit that a good portion of the customer fallout from this functionality has already happened since so many people believe the conspiracy. By lying about it, they add a whole layer of difficulty. They'd also open themselves up to lawsuits: companies can't just record your audio and then lie about recording it. > That number pretty much ensures anyone who has the ability to find out wouldn't bother. Why? It shouldn't take any sophisticated technical analysis at all. Ideally we'd have actual network activity proving it, but I'd settle for someone talking to their phone about a product which I choose for them (ie. not something they'd already have on their consciousness) and having ads show up for it. If this feature works how people claim it does, you should be able to get ads on demand for anything you talk about.
        Clubber 10y ago
        >Why? I posit that a good portion of the customer fallout from this functionality has already happened since so many people believe the conspiracy. The quote is "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I'm not sure if you are familiar with it but it means that when people vehemently protest something it usually means they did it. I actually read the link you supplied and I don't think they are currently doing it based on what they said, but they might have done it in the past and stopped once people started noticing. They could be sending it to a third party, which would make their denial true. They might not be doing it at all. Who knows? >companies can't just record your audio and then lie about recording it. Depends on what people agreed to in the terms and also what wording they used to deny it. I mean they denied they gave NSA direct access to their servers, but NSA had direct access to their servers. >Why? It shouldn't take any sophisticated technical analysis at all. It can be easily obfuscated using compression, encryption and when they sent the data. I touched on this in another post on this thread. They could gather the data and only apply it as a weight to an already collected data point that isn't related to the microphone. I posted this elsewhere also. Aren't conspiracy theories fun?
    - SallySwanSmith 10y ago
      > Furthermore, when things are encrypted, it distorts the actual size of the message. That said, it'll never make the messages smaller
      - Clubber 10y ago
        No, but small messages would be bigger. I just did an example, I encrypted "This is Fran. How are you doing?" (My name isn't Fran.) It was 368 bytes, far larger than the original text of 34 bytes. I then encrypted the entire message you replied to and it was only 623 bytes. The original was 449 bytes. Also, you can further obfuscate it by playing with the compression levels and algorithms. The point being, the difference of 255 bytes is hardly enough to draw attention and hardly enough to hit data caps or affect battery life.
- SallySwanSmith 10y ago
  This would surly eat up battery life at a very noticeable rate to process out words while a phone is in your pocket.
foxfired 10y ago
See my earlier comment above with the provided link. They do record audio when a certain feature is on, and they say that they send it back to their server. They say that it is never saved anywhere. I don't claim that they are using it in their advertising but I like to take it with a grain of salt when a company says it does not save my data.
- morgante 10y ago
  I'm familiar with that feature, but it is: [0] (a) opt-in (b) only active when you're posting a status, not in the background Whether they save the data or not is immaterial (I also assume they probably do). This feature has nothing to do with sending random background audio to Facebook in the first place. [0] http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/05/a-new-optional-way-to-share-and-discover-music-tv-and-movies/ http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/05/a-new-optional-way-to-sh...
edblarney 10y ago
" If Facebook had an always-on phone recording, people's data limits would be swiftly used up. " Not at all. They could be smart about it. If the user agreement does not allow them to be listening, they they probably are not. If it does ... well ... they possibly are. But there's too much bad PR risk if they are so it's unlikely.

Clubber 10y ago

>If Facebook had an always-on phone recording, people's data limits would be swiftly used up. Not if they were converted to text with the phone before they were sent.

morgante 10y ago
Even text would involve a vastly higher upload amount than Facebook actually uses at-rest.
- Clubber 10y ago
  Text is pretty small. It's even a multitude smaller when compressed. It could easily be added to normal send packets without anyone noticing. Furthermore, when things are encrypted, it distorts the actual size of the message. I mean I came up with a way to do it unnoticed in a few minutes, imagine what a top team could come up with in a few months. I obviously don't know if it's happening or not (deleted my account years ago) but it isn't hard.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Perhaps, but I've monitored the volume of data uploads by the Facebook app and they're pretty minimal. There's also the fact that Facebook has gone on the record specifically disavowing this conspiracy. If it were true, they wouldn't so unequivocally deny it. [0] There's far more harm for them deceiving customers than there is in them admitting to a creepy feature. Additionally, everyone who has promulgated this conspiracy has been fairly suspect. None of them make any effort to analyze the alternative reasons. But, like I said, I have $1,000 for whoever can prove this is happening. It really shouldn't be hard. If this conspiracy works the way people claim it does, you should be able to mutter about any random product to your phone and have Facebook start showing you ads for it. [0] http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11854860/facebook-smartphone-listening-eavesdrop-microphone-denial http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11854860/facebook-smartphon...
    - Clubber 10y ago
      >If it were true, they wouldn't so unequivocally deny it. That's a strange conclusion to come to. I think it was Shakespeare addressed that very thing in Hamlet. >There's far more harm for them deceiving customers than there is in them admitting to a creepy feature. If they've already deceived, then they certainly wouldn't admit it. If they stopped doing it, they could deny it was currently happening and not be lying. >I have $1,000 for whoever can prove this is happening. That number pretty much ensures anyone who has the ability to find out wouldn't bother. Personally, I think they might have toyed with it but abandoned it. The trick isn't collecting the data without getting caught, that's simple (as earlier described). The trick is taking action on the data and not getting noticed. If you use the conversation data as a weight to only be added to non-conversation data, you could do it completely unnoticed. In other words, gather conversation data but only apply it to data collected in other, less controversial means. So +1 for posting about Colgate, +1 for talking about it only if there is already +1 from the posting.
      - morgante 10y ago
        > That's a strange conclusion to come to. Why? I posit that a good portion of the customer fallout from this functionality has already happened since so many people believe the conspiracy. By lying about it, they add a whole layer of difficulty. They'd also open themselves up to lawsuits: companies can't just record your audio and then lie about recording it. > That number pretty much ensures anyone who has the ability to find out wouldn't bother. Why? It shouldn't take any sophisticated technical analysis at all. Ideally we'd have actual network activity proving it, but I'd settle for someone talking to their phone about a product which I choose for them (ie. not something they'd already have on their consciousness) and having ads show up for it. If this feature works how people claim it does, you should be able to get ads on demand for anything you talk about.
        Clubber 10y ago
        >Why? I posit that a good portion of the customer fallout from this functionality has already happened since so many people believe the conspiracy. The quote is "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I'm not sure if you are familiar with it but it means that when people vehemently protest something it usually means they did it. I actually read the link you supplied and I don't think they are currently doing it based on what they said, but they might have done it in the past and stopped once people started noticing. They could be sending it to a third party, which would make their denial true. They might not be doing it at all. Who knows? >companies can't just record your audio and then lie about recording it. Depends on what people agreed to in the terms and also what wording they used to deny it. I mean they denied they gave NSA direct access to their servers, but NSA had direct access to their servers. >Why? It shouldn't take any sophisticated technical analysis at all. It can be easily obfuscated using compression, encryption and when they sent the data. I touched on this in another post on this thread. They could gather the data and only apply it as a weight to an already collected data point that isn't related to the microphone. I posted this elsewhere also. Aren't conspiracy theories fun?
  - SallySwanSmith 10y ago
    > Furthermore, when things are encrypted, it distorts the actual size of the message. That said, it'll never make the messages smaller
    - Clubber 10y ago
      No, but small messages would be bigger. I just did an example, I encrypted "This is Fran. How are you doing?" (My name isn't Fran.) It was 368 bytes, far larger than the original text of 34 bytes. I then encrypted the entire message you replied to and it was only 623 bytes. The original was 449 bytes. Also, you can further obfuscate it by playing with the compression levels and algorithms. The point being, the difference of 255 bytes is hardly enough to draw attention and hardly enough to hit data caps or affect battery life.
SallySwanSmith 10y ago
This would surly eat up battery life at a very noticeable rate to process out words while a phone is in your pocket.

foxfired 10y ago

See my earlier comment above with the provided link. They do record audio when a certain feature is on, and they say that they send it back to their server. They say that it is never saved anywhere. I don't claim that they are using it in their advertising but I like to take it with a grain of salt when a company says it does not save my data.

morgante 10y ago
I'm familiar with that feature, but it is: [0] (a) opt-in (b) only active when you're posting a status, not in the background Whether they save the data or not is immaterial (I also assume they probably do). This feature has nothing to do with sending random background audio to Facebook in the first place. [0] http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/05/a-new-optional-way-to-share-and-discover-music-tv-and-movies/ http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/05/a-new-optional-way-to-sh...

edblarney 10y ago

" If Facebook had an always-on phone recording, people's data limits would be swiftly used up. " Not at all. They could be smart about it. If the user agreement does not allow them to be listening, they they probably are not. If it does ... well ... they possibly are. But there's too much bad PR risk if they are so it's unlikely.