5 ms·

Very curious how zero investigative journalists have managed to go undercover and buy one of these ads, despite the fact that they are apparently so widely avai

Very curious how zero investigative journalists have managed to go undercover and buy one of these ads, despite the fact that they are apparently so widely available.

babypuncher 2y ago
Nobody's even been able to offer evidence that these apps are somehow bypassing iOS and Android permission systems to listen in on the microphone in the background without the OS itself knowing. It's all just really dumb fearmongering that ultimately hurts the credibility of privacy advocates as a whole. The sad thing is, these companies are collecting mass amounts of sensitive data and using it to drive ads, and we should be doing more about it. There's absolutely no reason to fabricate nonsense like this, the reality is already terrifying enough to creep people out.
- imglorp 2y ago
  Maybe not those devices in particular, but there are plenty of terms of service and spokespeople on the record saying utterances are captured and passed on to third parties. One TV company CEO famously said you should leave the room to have a private conversation.
- dataflow 2y ago
  > Nobody's even been able to offer evidence that these apps are somehow bypassing iOS and Android permission systems Maybe a lot of the folks this happens to haven't denied microphone permission? Or maybe someone around them hasn't? Facebook has a calling feature, chances are people (or others around them) have given it access without realizing it. I have certainly caught Facebook Messenger snooping on my location when it had no business to, merely because I had granted the permission days ago when sharing my location with my friend, and forgotten to deny it again. It spooked me out and made me realize how they trick you into sharing info you didn't intend. I don't see why they wouldn't opportunistically exploit mic permissions just the same. Hell, that might be why they created the calling feature in the first place!
  - olyjohn 2y ago
    Of course this is how they do it. They trick you into installing software for one purpose, and install other shit along with it. This is how spyware has worked for the last 30 years. Did anybody actually go out and install Bonzai Buddy or all those fucking toolbars in IE? Of course not!
    - echoangle 2y ago
      And how do they trick the OS into not displaying this to users? At least iOS has indicators for camera, microphone and location. How do they access these hardware features without making the indicators show up?
      - dataflow 2y ago
        > And how do they trick the OS into not displaying this to users What if they only do it while the display is off? Are users likely to notice it after turning the phone back on?
        echoangle 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure a normal iOS app can't start a recording while it is not open (which also applies when the phone is locked). And even if they could, at least some people would notice when there are billions of iOS devices around, that's a bit risky to just hope nobody sees the indicator.
        dataflow 2y ago
        I was thinking Android actually, not iOS, but good to know.
  - api 2y ago
    Is there any chance an accelerometer or other sensor could be used to pick up voice? It wouldn’t have to be great quality if you are searching for keywords. If you miss a few that’s fine since you are going for aggregates here. What about EM field detectors? Voice vibrates things which shows up indirectly. Modern phones have numerous sensors. Edit: one interesting paper found after some searching: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.12151 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.12151
genewitch 2y ago
I can't parse the meaning of this. Why would a journalist buy an ad?
- Thorondor 2y ago
  To prove that it's possible to buy ads targeted on microphone audio. If this kind of targeting was really as widely available as the article implies, a journalist would be able to do it fairly easily and write an article about it.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    But how would you know how the targeting was done? You place an ad and it gets a lot of clicks because it was targeted accurately (for example by using microphone recordings). You look into the dashboard and see a high click rate. What’s your story now?
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  The meaning of this is that the proposed technology doesn't exist and is bullshit. If "CMG Local Solutions" were actually able to listen in on your conversations, investigative journalists would be all over this trying to prove/disprove and understand the privacy implications. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.
  - olyjohn 2y ago
    Or maybe it's not a good enough story, and they know most people will not be shocked, and most people will not care, so it's a non story for most people.
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      Oy, come on. If your phones and other devices were secretly listening to and recording every word you said to market to you, despite Apple, Google, Amazon and others explicitly saying they don't do this, not only would this be a scandal of epic proportions, every lawyer who could fog a mirror would be salivating at the billions in class action payouts that they would win. That's why I hate this stupid conspiracy theory so much - it makes no sense in the real world even if you assume all the companies and people involved solely care about making more money.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
These kinds of topics come up frequently ("Your phone is secretly tracking you!!!") and this may sound a bit harsh but it always is interesting to me how people aren't able to use basic critical thinking skills to debunk them. It's like I sometimes say "The conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense even if you take everything it presupposes at face value": 1. As you point out, this isn't even some "super secret government" tracking you. They are basically advertising that anyone selling any random shit could take advantage of this feature. So obviously it would be trivially easy for anyone with the motivation to go and buy some of these ads to get clarity if some voices were actually being tracked. There is literally no way for this technology to be hidden given how it is described in TFA. 2. Companies don't need these secret tracking technologies, because the overt tracking ones already give them tons of information: your location, what you searched for, browsing history, your friends and family, etc. etc. 3. Given that ads are already super targeted, whenever this story comes up you always get these anecdotes of "I was talking about some totally random thing like pantyliners and then THE VERY NEXT AD I SAW WAS FOR pantyliners! Indisputable proof!" I've certainly had a similar experience. But it's certainly not that hard to see how these kinds of coincidences would be quite common given how good ad targeting already is. Like the saying goes, "Anyone who is a conspiracy theorist has never been a project manager..."
- api 2y ago
  These companies are themselves claiming they can do this. They could be lying, but it’s not at all unreasonable to take their word for it when so many people report dramatic specific hits on their speech. If the CIA put up a page on their web site saying that they really did sell crack in the 80s, would you still try to debunk that claim? (to pick a random example)
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    I would at least ask what the CIA has to gain from admitting this.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    > These companies are themselves claiming they can do this. "These companies" in this context are shitty 3rd rate ad companies that have provided no proof of their capabilities. The reason it's fine to dismiss their claims as BS is that the companies that actually make the devices have explicitly said it's not possible, and if these device-making companies were lying it would be a scandal of gargantuan proportions.
flerchin 2y ago
When an ad is purchased, the buyer doesn't know how it's targeted, they only know if it was effective. The ad seller would necessarily keep the "proprietary details" of how the ad was targeted from the buyer.

Very curious how zero investigative journalists have managed to go undercover and buy one of these ads, despite the fact that they are apparently so widely available.

babypuncher 2y ago

Nobody's even been able to offer evidence that these apps are somehow bypassing iOS and Android permission systems to listen in on the microphone in the background without the OS itself knowing. It's all just really dumb fearmongering that ultimately hurts the credibility of privacy advocates as a whole. The sad thing is, these companies are collecting mass amounts of sensitive data and using it to drive ads, and we should be doing more about it. There's absolutely no reason to fabricate nonsense like this, the reality is already terrifying enough to creep people out.

imglorp 2y ago
Maybe not those devices in particular, but there are plenty of terms of service and spokespeople on the record saying utterances are captured and passed on to third parties. One TV company CEO famously said you should leave the room to have a private conversation.
dataflow 2y ago
> Nobody's even been able to offer evidence that these apps are somehow bypassing iOS and Android permission systems Maybe a lot of the folks this happens to haven't denied microphone permission? Or maybe someone around them hasn't? Facebook has a calling feature, chances are people (or others around them) have given it access without realizing it. I have certainly caught Facebook Messenger snooping on my location when it had no business to, merely because I had granted the permission days ago when sharing my location with my friend, and forgotten to deny it again. It spooked me out and made me realize how they trick you into sharing info you didn't intend. I don't see why they wouldn't opportunistically exploit mic permissions just the same. Hell, that might be why they created the calling feature in the first place!
- olyjohn 2y ago
  Of course this is how they do it. They trick you into installing software for one purpose, and install other shit along with it. This is how spyware has worked for the last 30 years. Did anybody actually go out and install Bonzai Buddy or all those fucking toolbars in IE? Of course not!
  - echoangle 2y ago
    And how do they trick the OS into not displaying this to users? At least iOS has indicators for camera, microphone and location. How do they access these hardware features without making the indicators show up?
    - dataflow 2y ago
      > And how do they trick the OS into not displaying this to users What if they only do it while the display is off? Are users likely to notice it after turning the phone back on?
      - echoangle 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure a normal iOS app can't start a recording while it is not open (which also applies when the phone is locked). And even if they could, at least some people would notice when there are billions of iOS devices around, that's a bit risky to just hope nobody sees the indicator.
        dataflow 2y ago
        I was thinking Android actually, not iOS, but good to know.
- api 2y ago
  Is there any chance an accelerometer or other sensor could be used to pick up voice? It wouldn’t have to be great quality if you are searching for keywords. If you miss a few that’s fine since you are going for aggregates here. What about EM field detectors? Voice vibrates things which shows up indirectly. Modern phones have numerous sensors. Edit: one interesting paper found after some searching: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.12151 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.12151

genewitch 2y ago

I can't parse the meaning of this. Why would a journalist buy an ad?

Thorondor 2y ago
To prove that it's possible to buy ads targeted on microphone audio. If this kind of targeting was really as widely available as the article implies, a journalist would be able to do it fairly easily and write an article about it.
- echoangle 2y ago
  But how would you know how the targeting was done? You place an ad and it gets a lot of clicks because it was targeted accurately (for example by using microphone recordings). You look into the dashboard and see a high click rate. What’s your story now?
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
The meaning of this is that the proposed technology doesn't exist and is bullshit. If "CMG Local Solutions" were actually able to listen in on your conversations, investigative journalists would be all over this trying to prove/disprove and understand the privacy implications. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.
- olyjohn 2y ago
  Or maybe it's not a good enough story, and they know most people will not be shocked, and most people will not care, so it's a non story for most people.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Oy, come on. If your phones and other devices were secretly listening to and recording every word you said to market to you, despite Apple, Google, Amazon and others explicitly saying they don't do this, not only would this be a scandal of epic proportions, every lawyer who could fog a mirror would be salivating at the billions in class action payouts that they would win. That's why I hate this stupid conspiracy theory so much - it makes no sense in the real world even if you assume all the companies and people involved solely care about making more money.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

These kinds of topics come up frequently ("Your phone is secretly tracking you!!!") and this may sound a bit harsh but it always is interesting to me how people aren't able to use basic critical thinking skills to debunk them. It's like I sometimes say "The conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense even if you take everything it presupposes at face value": 1. As you point out, this isn't even some "super secret government" tracking you. They are basically advertising that anyone selling any random shit could take advantage of this feature. So obviously it would be trivially easy for anyone with the motivation to go and buy some of these ads to get clarity if some voices were actually being tracked. There is literally no way for this technology to be hidden given how it is described in TFA. 2. Companies don't need these secret tracking technologies, because the overt tracking ones already give them tons of information: your location, what you searched for, browsing history, your friends and family, etc. etc. 3. Given that ads are already super targeted, whenever this story comes up you always get these anecdotes of "I was talking about some totally random thing like pantyliners and then THE VERY NEXT AD I SAW WAS FOR pantyliners! Indisputable proof!" I've certainly had a similar experience. But it's certainly not that hard to see how these kinds of coincidences would be quite common given how good ad targeting already is. Like the saying goes, "Anyone who is a conspiracy theorist has never been a project manager..."

api 2y ago
These companies are themselves claiming they can do this. They could be lying, but it’s not at all unreasonable to take their word for it when so many people report dramatic specific hits on their speech. If the CIA put up a page on their web site saying that they really did sell crack in the 80s, would you still try to debunk that claim? (to pick a random example)
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  I would at least ask what the CIA has to gain from admitting this.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  > These companies are themselves claiming they can do this. "These companies" in this context are shitty 3rd rate ad companies that have provided no proof of their capabilities. The reason it's fine to dismiss their claims as BS is that the companies that actually make the devices have explicitly said it's not possible, and if these device-making companies were lying it would be a scandal of gargantuan proportions.

flerchin 2y ago

When an ad is purchased, the buyer doesn't know how it's targeted, they only know if it was effective. The ad seller would necessarily keep the "proprietary details" of how the ad was targeted from the buyer.