6 ms·

I disagree on your last point. Whether it's Google, Microsoft, your ISP, a databroker, a webscraper, an unscrupulous app developer, or even your TV, I think it

I disagree on your last point. Whether it's Google, Microsoft, your ISP, a databroker, a webscraper, an unscrupulous app developer, or even your TV, I think it's safe to assume that one day or the next, every piece of content you produce, or topic you discuss will leak its way onto a major adcorp's servers. I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequitur, only to receive ads about it shortly thereafter. Even visiting an old friend with vastly different interests, never enabling location services, or connecting to their WiFi, I've noticed vast changes in my ad regime. Decentralising your web activity can only make you less easily monetizable, but you'll never escape the panopticon, and Google can release data it got from third-parties just as easily as the data it collected itself. If you want to say something you don't want Facebook, Amazon, MS, Google, or the state to hear about, do it in the woods or a private room away from anything digital.

cronix 7y ago
The other week I was out in a National Forest hiking. I was about 6 miles from the nearest Forest Service road. I took a break and sat there eating a sandwich and looked up to see a camera mounted on a tree about 4 feet from me. I imagine some hunter put it there. I'm just saying that even out in the middle of nowhere, not near any paved roads, there are still cameras watching and recording.
- crocodiletears 7y ago
  Dishearteningly true.
- protomyth 7y ago
  If it's for the purpose our wildlife people are going to try to do, it is for animal count and trail tracking.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Satellite surveillance, or spy-planes/drones also might record you in the wilderness.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Mauricio_ 7y ago
>I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequitur, only to receive ads about it shortly thereafter. No way in hell that's true. Things are bad enough, you don't need to make stuff up.
- crocodiletears 7y ago
  I'm working from my personal experience. If you've never had something similar happen, then good for you. I'll admit that it's quite likely that advertising algorithms are sophisticated enough to anticipate our needs based on previous behaviours with uncanny precision and timing. But I don't trust to that, given the proliferation of cheaply made gimmick apps which contain embedded third party ad libraries. Since I have no way to verify either way, and my experiences are echoed by my social circle, I personally think it best to assume the worst of my device. I will mention that a recent study* concluded that most apps with microphone permissions will not unduly access do so. This has been taken by articles I've read to dispel the urban legend of the listening phone. But, given that the tests lasted 5000 random user events (at ~16mins), on a more or less clean device, and as the study says "…we did not use pre-configured text inputs, which vary across apps and require substantial manual effort; instead, we relied on random interactions. Accordingly, we miss some events that only human in teractions trigger, e.g., in apps that require login." I don't think it can be taken as an authoritative final answer. Especially given that the devices had no pre-existing identities apps to latch onto and inform about. The study also looked principally at network traffic, with a focus on detecting conventional media formats. This is fine for detecting the transfer of visual content, and audio. But it doesn't account for the device itself listening for keywords, and reporting them, or partially resident models, which would perform their first few operations on-device, before transfering their outputs for final processing server-side (mentioned in their study's limitations section). *https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/07/06/is-your-smartphone-spying-on-you/ https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/07/06/is-your-smartphone-... EDITED for formatting, flow, to acknowledge parent's experience, and to remove a few points made redundant later in the post.
  - Mauricio_ 7y ago

cronix 7y ago

The other week I was out in a National Forest hiking. I was about 6 miles from the nearest Forest Service road. I took a break and sat there eating a sandwich and looked up to see a camera mounted on a tree about 4 feet from me. I imagine some hunter put it there. I'm just saying that even out in the middle of nowhere, not near any paved roads, there are still cameras watching and recording.

crocodiletears 7y ago
Dishearteningly true.
protomyth 7y ago
If it's for the purpose our wildlife people are going to try to do, it is for animal count and trail tracking.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Satellite surveillance, or spy-planes/drones also might record you in the wilderness.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Mauricio_ 7y ago

>I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequitur, only to receive ads about it shortly thereafter. No way in hell that's true. Things are bad enough, you don't need to make stuff up.

crocodiletears 7y ago
I'm working from my personal experience. If you've never had something similar happen, then good for you. I'll admit that it's quite likely that advertising algorithms are sophisticated enough to anticipate our needs based on previous behaviours with uncanny precision and timing. But I don't trust to that, given the proliferation of cheaply made gimmick apps which contain embedded third party ad libraries. Since I have no way to verify either way, and my experiences are echoed by my social circle, I personally think it best to assume the worst of my device. I will mention that a recent study* concluded that most apps with microphone permissions will not unduly access do so. This has been taken by articles I've read to dispel the urban legend of the listening phone. But, given that the tests lasted 5000 random user events (at ~16mins), on a more or less clean device, and as the study says "…we did not use pre-configured text inputs, which vary across apps and require substantial manual effort; instead, we relied on random interactions. Accordingly, we miss some events that only human in teractions trigger, e.g., in apps that require login." I don't think it can be taken as an authoritative final answer. Especially given that the devices had no pre-existing identities apps to latch onto and inform about. The study also looked principally at network traffic, with a focus on detecting conventional media formats. This is fine for detecting the transfer of visual content, and audio. But it doesn't account for the device itself listening for keywords, and reporting them, or partially resident models, which would perform their first few operations on-device, before transfering their outputs for final processing server-side (mentioned in their study's limitations section). *https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/07/06/is-your-smartphone-spying-on-you/ https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/07/06/is-your-smartphone-... EDITED for formatting, flow, to acknowledge parent's experience, and to remove a few points made redundant later in the post.
- Mauricio_ 7y ago