5 ms·

> 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 p

> 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?
- morgante 10y ago
  > The quote is "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I'm quite familiar with the quote. Except that in practice, covering up a negative action is often exactly what lands people into hot water (see Watergate, Clinton, etc.). Facebook strenuously denies this conspiracy. [0] There are in fact laws governing consent for recording. Of course, it's impossible to prove that Facebook has never listened in on people's conversations, but it's a very suspect claim to say they are today. > I mean they denied they gave NSA direct access to their servers, but NSA had direct access to their servers. They were legally obligated to deny that, so the exact opposite of the situation today (you're legally obligated to disclose if you're recording someone). > 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. Perhaps, but that's an entirely different claim than what the conspiracy theorists are claiming. [0] http://newsroom.fb.com/news/h/facebook-does-not-use-your-phones-microphone-for-ads-or-news-feed-stories/ http://newsroom.fb.com/news/h/facebook-does-not-use-your-pho...
  - Clubber 10y ago
    >covering up a negative action is often exactly what lands people into hot water (see Watergate, Clinton, etc.). You are mixing up testifying under oath versus a PR release. Companies lie to you all day long in PR releases. If FB were to go under oath and state that, it would be more believable, but not completely, see James Clapper. I'm just pointing out how it's technically and orginizationally feasible to do this undetected. The only thing stopping FB from doing this is ethics and possibly backlash.

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?

morgante 10y ago
> The quote is "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I'm quite familiar with the quote. Except that in practice, covering up a negative action is often exactly what lands people into hot water (see Watergate, Clinton, etc.). Facebook strenuously denies this conspiracy. [0] There are in fact laws governing consent for recording. Of course, it's impossible to prove that Facebook has never listened in on people's conversations, but it's a very suspect claim to say they are today. > I mean they denied they gave NSA direct access to their servers, but NSA had direct access to their servers. They were legally obligated to deny that, so the exact opposite of the situation today (you're legally obligated to disclose if you're recording someone). > 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. Perhaps, but that's an entirely different claim than what the conspiracy theorists are claiming. [0] http://newsroom.fb.com/news/h/facebook-does-not-use-your-phones-microphone-for-ads-or-news-feed-stories/ http://newsroom.fb.com/news/h/facebook-does-not-use-your-pho...
- Clubber 10y ago
  >covering up a negative action is often exactly what lands people into hot water (see Watergate, Clinton, etc.). You are mixing up testifying under oath versus a PR release. Companies lie to you all day long in PR releases. If FB were to go under oath and state that, it would be more believable, but not completely, see James Clapper. I'm just pointing out how it's technically and orginizationally feasible to do this undetected. The only thing stopping FB from doing this is ethics and possibly backlash.