3 ms·
but do you know what kind of evidence you would have to see to conclude that FB is listening? Any one of: * OS-level confirmation (permission entitlements, cp
by Karunamon 9y ago
but do you know what kind of evidence you would have to see to conclude that FB is listening?
Any one of:
* OS-level confirmation (permission entitlements, cpu usage, etc)
* Packets resembling sound data being caught in flight.
* An internal leak of the method they'd be using to do so from one of three of the largest tech employers. Not even Apple can keep their secrets secret, and they're probably the most paranoid tech company in existence.
You know, literally anything concrete, rather than evidence-free accusations based on fallible memory.
So far, not one bit of these instances can't be explained by a combination of Baader-Meinhof and confirmation bias, with a mix of plenty of non-audio data that Facebook no doubt has. People are so willing to paint FB as this boogeyman that they're disregarding basic logic.
- SilasX 9y agoSo do I understand you correctly that you’re categorically excluding any kind of experimental evidence, no matter how well controlled or rigorous? That, so long as there is no breach of the source of the technique, you can’t be convinced? I understand that any one person’s anecdotes are weak evidence, but your comments are going much further and claiming that such tests can never be evidence, even though much scientific knowledge is similarly obtained.
- Karunamon 9y agoExperimental evidence is fine, given an actual experimental protocol. So far, all we have are weak anecdotes that don't come close to proving the assertion.
- zzz157 9y ago>* Packets resembling sound data being caught in flight. Not even necessary. You could do keyword recognition on the device itself, pushing a list of keyword<->waveform maps, and sending an indicator when they're recognized.