4 ms·

> ...they would need to be feeding those snippets in almost real time into a system which forwards them onto advertising partners who then feed that information

by jprete 2y ago

> ...they would need to be feeding those snippets in almost real time into a system which forwards them onto advertising partners who then feed that information into targeting networks... I think this is totally mistaken. An ad seller which also wants to respect privacy keeps this data in-house and does the ad targeting themselves. The advertiser never needs to see personal information for this kind of market to give people ads related to overheard conversations.

bbor 2y ago
I mean, many advertisers go through the Google display network without having Google target their ads (AKA run their bidding algorithms). Typically they go through other middlemen agencies, who indeed would need at least some of this data to make use of it, tho perhaps in some derivative form. Still, you’re right that Google could be keeping it all for themselves and feeding it to their black box targeting services. I really strongly doubt that’s happening with incidental assistant snippets much less intentionally-eavesdropped recordings, but it is more plausible than this makes it seem.
thayne 2y ago
Also, couldn't a lot of it be done on device? Say, have a set of key phrases to listen for, and if the device hears them, then mark that the user should be targeted by certain kinds of ads. I don't have any evidence either way that that happens, but it seems like a more practical way to accomplish it.
simonw 2y ago
We're specifically talking about Apple here, based on Siri wake words. Do you think Apple are running this kind ad of targeting?
- siliconpotato 2y ago
  why are you limiting your argument to wake words? It's comparatively trivial to serve ads based upon what's spoken after the wake word. And as we know from the lawsuit, it seems that there's been a lot of data gathered accidentally too.
  - simonw 2y ago
    The story here is about Apple paying a settlement because Siri was sending audio snippets surrounding invalid wake word activations back to their servers without users realizing it. In the story, there was an implication that these audio snippets had been used for targeted ads. This is very clearly not true. A separate issue is whether Apple take audio from opt-in full hey Siri sessions and sell that advertisers for targeting. I very much doubt they do that, but even if they did that shouldn't be part of the "your phone is secretly spying on you through your microphone" conspiracy theory because of course your phone is listening to you if you just said "hey Siri" and started talking to it.
    - ComplexSystems 2y ago
      None of this is in the realm of "conspiracy theory." We aren't talking about the Earth being flat. Your phone is very clearly listening at all times, and sometimes activates and sends that data to servers. Given that, we can debate all day about what happens with that data - hopefully it's being treated properly - but the point is that it isn't clear, there isn't enough transparency, and there are occasionally scandals. The problem is that the infrastructure to harvest all of this data clearly exists, and the only reason we shouldn't believe that it's being mishandled is whatever degree of faith we have in these companies to behave ethically, comply with legal requirements (or face a slap on the wrist), and most importantly, have developers that don't inadvertently make any mistakes. I really don't have faith in the latter point in particular. The point is that maybe this data improperly ends up being used to serve ads, or maybe it doesn't, but in light of all the above, entertaining the idea is in no way akin to thinking that the moon is made of cheese. EDIT: clarified "recording" to "listening".
      - simonw 2y ago
        The reason the "phones are listening to you and targeting ads based on what you say" thing is a classic conspiracy theory is that it would take a genuine secret conspiracy to pull it off. Think about how many people would need to be in in the secret and actively lying about it: employees of phone hardware companies, and ad tech engineers, and execs at these companies, and their legal teams, and every contractor they used to help build this secret system. All of whom passionately deny that this is happening. If that's not a conspiracy I don't know what is. Just because something is labeled a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's not true (this one isn't true though). You're welcome to continue believing in it, but saying "it's not a conspiracy theory" doesn't work for me.
- jprete 2y ago
  My post is limited to pointing out what I think is a flaw in the reasoning. I am not taking a stance on the larger question.

by jprete 2y ago

bbor 2y ago

I mean, many advertisers go through the Google display network without having Google target their ads (AKA run their bidding algorithms). Typically they go through other middlemen agencies, who indeed would need at least some of this data to make use of it, tho perhaps in some derivative form. Still, you’re right that Google could be keeping it all for themselves and feeding it to their black box targeting services. I really strongly doubt that’s happening with incidental assistant snippets much less intentionally-eavesdropped recordings, but it is more plausible than this makes it seem.

thayne 2y ago

Also, couldn't a lot of it be done on device? Say, have a set of key phrases to listen for, and if the device hears them, then mark that the user should be targeted by certain kinds of ads. I don't have any evidence either way that that happens, but it seems like a more practical way to accomplish it.

simonw 2y ago

We're specifically talking about Apple here, based on Siri wake words. Do you think Apple are running this kind ad of targeting?

siliconpotato 2y ago
why are you limiting your argument to wake words? It's comparatively trivial to serve ads based upon what's spoken after the wake word. And as we know from the lawsuit, it seems that there's been a lot of data gathered accidentally too.
- simonw 2y ago
  The story here is about Apple paying a settlement because Siri was sending audio snippets surrounding invalid wake word activations back to their servers without users realizing it. In the story, there was an implication that these audio snippets had been used for targeted ads. This is very clearly not true. A separate issue is whether Apple take audio from opt-in full hey Siri sessions and sell that advertisers for targeting. I very much doubt they do that, but even if they did that shouldn't be part of the "your phone is secretly spying on you through your microphone" conspiracy theory because of course your phone is listening to you if you just said "hey Siri" and started talking to it.
  - ComplexSystems 2y ago
    None of this is in the realm of "conspiracy theory." We aren't talking about the Earth being flat. Your phone is very clearly listening at all times, and sometimes activates and sends that data to servers. Given that, we can debate all day about what happens with that data - hopefully it's being treated properly - but the point is that it isn't clear, there isn't enough transparency, and there are occasionally scandals. The problem is that the infrastructure to harvest all of this data clearly exists, and the only reason we shouldn't believe that it's being mishandled is whatever degree of faith we have in these companies to behave ethically, comply with legal requirements (or face a slap on the wrist), and most importantly, have developers that don't inadvertently make any mistakes. I really don't have faith in the latter point in particular. The point is that maybe this data improperly ends up being used to serve ads, or maybe it doesn't, but in light of all the above, entertaining the idea is in no way akin to thinking that the moon is made of cheese. EDIT: clarified "recording" to "listening".
    - simonw 2y ago
      The reason the "phones are listening to you and targeting ads based on what you say" thing is a classic conspiracy theory is that it would take a genuine secret conspiracy to pull it off. Think about how many people would need to be in in the secret and actively lying about it: employees of phone hardware companies, and ad tech engineers, and execs at these companies, and their legal teams, and every contractor they used to help build this secret system. All of whom passionately deny that this is happening. If that's not a conspiracy I don't know what is. Just because something is labeled a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's not true (this one isn't true though). You're welcome to continue believing in it, but saying "it's not a conspiracy theory" doesn't work for me.
jprete 2y ago
My post is limited to pointing out what I think is a flaw in the reasoning. I am not taking a stance on the larger question.