6 ms·

How is it that no such scandal has been uncovered? Surely by now some hacker would have been able to prove that a phone is recording, sending to server, process

How is it that no such scandal has been uncovered? Surely by now some hacker would have been able to prove that a phone is recording, sending to server, processing, and returning relevant ad. Or surely someone would have come forward or whistle blown by now. So I'll quote Hitchen's razor for you: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

newswasboring 5y ago
I have acknowledged that my reasoning is less sound than the occam's razor, and I didn't really assert data impropriety. So calm down. But about your first point. I don't think even the designers and maintainers of this blackbox understand the system. Looking at it from that point of view, the chances of a hacker finding proof for this is pretty low.
- IX-103 5y ago
  The thing is you can disapprove one piece without understanding the whole system. It would be pretty easy to show that a) sound is not being continually recorded and streamed over the internet and b) the device is not using enough processing power to decode speech. Both have been done, so this is veering into conspiracy theory territory.
  - newswasboring 5y ago
    My dude! we are talking past each other. I am not asserting data handling impropriety. That is not what concerns me. What concerns me is they are letting these black box systems emotionally manipulate me.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    FWIW, streaming voice over the Internet isn't required for this attack - all the software needs is to send a few bytes long tag indicating the topic of an overheard conversation. The processing power required for this isn't big either - remember that 12+ years ago Microsoft Windows shipped with a speech recognition system that was in many ways better than what the phones currently offer, and worked off-line and with almost unnoticeable performance penalty. And if you're interested in probabilistic reporting ("there's 86% I've heard a word matching this tag in the last hour..."), you can relax performance requirements even further. So, out of the things you mention, the only somewhat convincing piece of evidence would be that the apps in question are not accessing microphone in the background.
michaelcampbell 5y ago
Many have tried. Steve Gibson (of GRC fame) did some wiresharking around one of his Amazon devices and found no abnormal networking traffic when he was talking to it, vs not.
- scubbo 5y ago
  Alexa devices have been extensively and repeatedly shown to not be "passively listening". The same cannot be said for phone apps.
  - worik 5y ago
    Untrue. I am pushing the boat out because I rely on my memory. But there were reports from Apple contractors about what they heard on Sirri. It is always on, always listening.
    - michaelcampbell 5y ago
      > But there were reports from Apple contractors about what they heard on Sirri. It is always on, always listening. These 2 sentences may not necessarily need to both be true. As I recall, one could opt in (or was it opt-out?) to an Apple program to upload bits and pieces of spoken word for its people to parse "humanly" for it to improve its speech to text. I'm no Apple fan, but I'm not sure one implies the other, here.

newswasboring 5y ago

I have acknowledged that my reasoning is less sound than the occam's razor, and I didn't really assert data impropriety. So calm down. But about your first point. I don't think even the designers and maintainers of this blackbox understand the system. Looking at it from that point of view, the chances of a hacker finding proof for this is pretty low.

IX-103 5y ago
The thing is you can disapprove one piece without understanding the whole system. It would be pretty easy to show that a) sound is not being continually recorded and streamed over the internet and b) the device is not using enough processing power to decode speech. Both have been done, so this is veering into conspiracy theory territory.
- newswasboring 5y ago
  My dude! we are talking past each other. I am not asserting data handling impropriety. That is not what concerns me. What concerns me is they are letting these black box systems emotionally manipulate me.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  FWIW, streaming voice over the Internet isn't required for this attack - all the software needs is to send a few bytes long tag indicating the topic of an overheard conversation. The processing power required for this isn't big either - remember that 12+ years ago Microsoft Windows shipped with a speech recognition system that was in many ways better than what the phones currently offer, and worked off-line and with almost unnoticeable performance penalty. And if you're interested in probabilistic reporting ("there's 86% I've heard a word matching this tag in the last hour..."), you can relax performance requirements even further. So, out of the things you mention, the only somewhat convincing piece of evidence would be that the apps in question are not accessing microphone in the background.

michaelcampbell 5y ago

Many have tried. Steve Gibson (of GRC fame) did some wiresharking around one of his Amazon devices and found no abnormal networking traffic when he was talking to it, vs not.

scubbo 5y ago
Alexa devices have been extensively and repeatedly shown to not be "passively listening". The same cannot be said for phone apps.
- worik 5y ago
  Untrue. I am pushing the boat out because I rely on my memory. But there were reports from Apple contractors about what they heard on Sirri. It is always on, always listening.
  - michaelcampbell 5y ago
    > But there were reports from Apple contractors about what they heard on Sirri. It is always on, always listening. These 2 sentences may not necessarily need to both be true. As I recall, one could opt in (or was it opt-out?) to an Apple program to upload bits and pieces of spoken word for its people to parse "humanly" for it to improve its speech to text. I'm no Apple fan, but I'm not sure one implies the other, here.