4 ms·

@simonw ... your 2 Jan 2025 article says Siri story will make people think their devices are listening to them for ads, but expresses skepticism: "I still don’

• edmundsauto 2y ago
  > Might be time for a new hobby! I disagree, this deserves continued conversation and your comment is inappropriately dismissive. The evidence that companies are secretly using mics from connected devices from major manufacturers is scant; on the other hand, the technical evidence and forensic analysis is massive this doesn't occur. My take, this looks concerning due to their intent but I don't feel it's technically possible given the other analyses that have been done. MindSift states their goal, but it's not worded like this is in prod or how it would work. (Perhaps they intend to use UI tricks to enable the mic; very different than doing it covertly.) As for CMG, they point to their partners but do not say those partners have any hand in this work - they could be using a "mic on" trick to programmatically change ad targeting in those networks, which would be less concerning than if those giants were doing this. TBH, if any of the tech giants are doing this, it'd be a pretty major violation of various laws/FTC agreements, etc. If it were happening, someone should whistleblow pretty soon and be in line for a major payday - this violation would make the $5B from Cambridge Analytics look small.
  • Terretta 2y ago
    I agree the "evidence is scant" as can be the case when NDAs are strong, which prevents people with categoric knowledge from commenting in depth. I agree continued conversation is warranted, which is why a hobby of convincing people they're wrong about this could be past its shelf life. There is more than one source available, including certain TV set makers with specific language permitting this (and I don't mean the language that just permits voice recognition that gets people excited, much like language that lets a web site publish your comments gets people excited). Various denials are very carefully parsed for good reason. Thanks to incentives, I would encourage people to avoid being inappropriately dismissive of watchfulness, or evangelistically sure things are not happening, when it comes to advertising shenanigans. > if any of the tech giants are doing this, it'd be a pretty major violation of various laws/FTC agreements, etc This is not the interpretation of adtech. Without something stronger than GDPR or CDPR, very little data gathering and brokering, particularly when "anonymized" or blended into cohorts (especially if mapped "on device"), is actually a legal problem. Whatever anyone is selling, there is more than one buyer for, so generally all ads, even retargeted ads, are ostensibly to cohorts instead of individuals, which allows this. Of course, it is likely to be court tested eventually. // Finally, "might be time for a new hobby" is (a) not definitive, and (b) clearly humor referencing the hobby line in the post.
• simonw 2y ago
  I wrote about that Cox Media Group thing a few months ago on Lobste.rs: https://lobste.rs/s/mf7guc/leak_facebook_partner_brags_about https://lobste.rs/s/mf7guc/leak_facebook_partner_brags_about If you search that thread for my name you'll find dozens of passionate comments about it! Short version: I'm confident some ad sales people decided to lie in a pitch deck to take advantage of a common conspiracy theory. I don't think they accidentally blew the lid off the actual conspiracy in a PDF they put on their website.
  • Terretta 2y ago
    There's no conspiracy. The 1 v. 2 proposition on lobsters is missing a third take: that adtech doesn't think this is a problem, firms toying with this are confident their approach is perfectly legal and a competitive advantage worth protecting, and people applying to reviled industries self-select into getting paid for things they're fine with. Many people work in unpopular industries (tobacco, gambling, etc.), and don't spend their time talking to the press about it. Doesn't make it a conspiracy.