4 ms·

Good. > She said the adverts she got "suddenly started changing within weeks to lots of baby photos and other things - ads about babies and pregnancy and mothe

Good. > She said the adverts she got "suddenly started changing within weeks to lots of baby photos and other things - ads about babies and pregnancy and motherhood". > "I just found it unnerving - this was before I'd even told people in my private life, and yet Facebook had already determined that I was pregnant," she continued. Facebook likely knew she was pregnant by covertly eavesdropping on her life via her phones microphone. When these companies started using their apps to eavesdrop on your entire life via your phone, I immediately deleted them. No way is that creeptastic shit allowed in my life. I mean, imagine talking about doritos in a nostalgic context only to have amazon suggest you buy them when you open the app. Deleted. The only apps on my phone are banking and utility. Bye Felicia.

abound 2y ago
For what it's worth, I don't think there's any hard evidence that big companies are doing this. Aside from the technical difficulties of constantly listening to 1+ B mobile devices and running speech-to-text, it'd also be a legal quagmire. What's more likely happening is far more boring: humans as a whole are very predictable, and the metadata that Facebook et al have access to is more than enough to identify these patterns. To _really_ try and test this, you could download the Facebook (or Amazon or whatever) app, and (within earshot of your phone) consistently talk about some completely random purchaseable item that you have no intent to purchase and have never otherwise indicated you have an interest in. Chances are you will not get ads for it. To make it less likely you pick something that is subconsciously on your mind (and thus able to be picked up via your metadata), try playing word association games to pick the product in question. E.g. banana > yellow > raincoat > weather > digital thermometer
- toast0 2y ago
  > To _really_ try and test this, you could download the Facebook (or Amazon or whatever) app, and (within earshot of your phone) consistently talk about some completely random purchaseable item that you have no intent to purchase and have never otherwise indicated you have an interest in. Chances are you will not get ads for it. That's the trick isn't it. How do you choose a random purchasable item without indicating interest in. Is it because it was something you saw recently, but don't want to buy? How many (targetting) similar people near you also saw that and may want to buy? How much is that ad being shown to you now, but you hadn't noticed because you weren't interested in the product? It's certainly possible to carefully craft an experiment, but it's not easy. And a poorly crafted expirement won't show much.
jeroenhd 2y ago
> Facebook likely knew she was pregnant by covertly eavesdropping on her life via her phones microphone That's quite an assumption to make. The very famous example of data tracking and creepy correlations is the story about the supermarket sending baby ads to a household based on nothing more than their purchasing habits. People change the way they act in measurable ways for much less intense psychological events than pregnancy. Just the grocery prices you look up (and that doesn't include things like pregnancy tests) is enough to determine likelihood of pregnancy, let alone an app you take with you all day and possibly spend hours scrolling through. The amount of data you're passively giving off to these apps is enormous. I have yet to see any evidence of spying through microphones by large companies. I know some small ad network got caught doing so, but not the big suspects everyone is (rightfully) afraid of. The Google phone I'm carrying would've spawned much more relevant ads than "buy a new €200k electric car" and "where to apply for welfare" right after each other if it actually listened in.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 2y ago
  >That's quite an assumption to make. The very famous example of data tracking and creepy correlations is the story about the supermarket sending baby ads to a household based on nothing more than their purchasing habits. While a fun anecdote, it really shouldn't be taken seriously as something that actually happened. https://medium.com/@colin.fraser/target-didnt-figure-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did-a6be13b973a5 https://medium.com/@colin.fraser/target-didnt-figure-out-a-t...
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Did you actually read that Medium post? It's idle FUD and speculation that the author of the original 2012 Forbes article lied about the Target incident, without anything to substantiate that claim. It's also evidently written by someone working in data science at Meta, who would naturally have incentive to deny the reality of their industry. Most of the Medium comments are calling them out on this: >Title: "Target didn’t figure out a teenager was pregnant before her father did, and that one article that said they did was silly and bad." A clear assertion. A solid claim. One of the first paragraphs: "I won’t belabor this since we can’t actually know, but the anecdote about the father calling the store and talking to the manager is probably just not true. " So, a person who contradicts himself right in the beginning uses articles that are being hyperbolic as proof that the articles got it all wrong. Smells a bit like double standards, no? And the point of the conversation is less about accuracy of the findings and more about such models being in place. I mean, Facebook did this, right? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-categorize-users-political-preferences/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-categorize-users-... And I'm not sure but there was this little company, very obscure, not sure anyone heard of it. Cambridge Analytica? Again, very obscure.
jillyboel 2y ago
> via her phones microphone Source? Because so far this claim has been debunked every time. I assume you are aware how Android and iOS have a visual indicator to show that the microphone is active? Have you analyzed any network traffic that included unexpected voice samples? Please, explain yourself.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  Those indicators aren't trustworthy. If your phone is configured to respond to "Hey Google", it will do so even when you say it while that indicator isn't lit up.
  - gruez 2y ago
    That doesn't explain how facebook (google's competitor) got ahold of that info, or how people with iPhones are being eavesdropped on.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > That doesn't explain how facebook (google's competitor) got ahold of that info, or how people with iPhones are being eavesdropped on. It can easily explain how people with iPhones are being eavesdropped on: "those indicators aren't trustworthy". According to this theory, the microphone in an iPhone is active despite the indicator not being displayed. That's identical to the Android theory. To extend the theory to Facebook, you'd need to assume one of these: (1) The unreliability of the indicator on Android is a matter of incompetence on the part of Google, and Facebook is exploiting it. (2) Google has a privileged stealth-microphone-access permission, and Facebook has negotiated for access to it.
      - jillyboel 2y ago
        Go reverse the operating system and you'll find this is just a paranoid fantasy. Many others have done so already, so you can also just hit up google and find their analyses.
acheron 2y ago
Watch out, they can also listen to you via the radio waves coming from your dental fillings.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

abound 2y ago

For what it's worth, I don't think there's any hard evidence that big companies are doing this. Aside from the technical difficulties of constantly listening to 1+ B mobile devices and running speech-to-text, it'd also be a legal quagmire. What's more likely happening is far more boring: humans as a whole are very predictable, and the metadata that Facebook et al have access to is more than enough to identify these patterns. To _really_ try and test this, you could download the Facebook (or Amazon or whatever) app, and (within earshot of your phone) consistently talk about some completely random purchaseable item that you have no intent to purchase and have never otherwise indicated you have an interest in. Chances are you will not get ads for it. To make it less likely you pick something that is subconsciously on your mind (and thus able to be picked up via your metadata), try playing word association games to pick the product in question. E.g. banana > yellow > raincoat > weather > digital thermometer

toast0 2y ago
> To _really_ try and test this, you could download the Facebook (or Amazon or whatever) app, and (within earshot of your phone) consistently talk about some completely random purchaseable item that you have no intent to purchase and have never otherwise indicated you have an interest in. Chances are you will not get ads for it. That's the trick isn't it. How do you choose a random purchasable item without indicating interest in. Is it because it was something you saw recently, but don't want to buy? How many (targetting) similar people near you also saw that and may want to buy? How much is that ad being shown to you now, but you hadn't noticed because you weren't interested in the product? It's certainly possible to carefully craft an experiment, but it's not easy. And a poorly crafted expirement won't show much.

jeroenhd 2y ago

> Facebook likely knew she was pregnant by covertly eavesdropping on her life via her phones microphone That's quite an assumption to make. The very famous example of data tracking and creepy correlations is the story about the supermarket sending baby ads to a household based on nothing more than their purchasing habits. People change the way they act in measurable ways for much less intense psychological events than pregnancy. Just the grocery prices you look up (and that doesn't include things like pregnancy tests) is enough to determine likelihood of pregnancy, let alone an app you take with you all day and possibly spend hours scrolling through. The amount of data you're passively giving off to these apps is enormous. I have yet to see any evidence of spying through microphones by large companies. I know some small ad network got caught doing so, but not the big suspects everyone is (rightfully) afraid of. The Google phone I'm carrying would've spawned much more relevant ads than "buy a new €200k electric car" and "where to apply for welfare" right after each other if it actually listened in.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gruez 2y ago
>That's quite an assumption to make. The very famous example of data tracking and creepy correlations is the story about the supermarket sending baby ads to a household based on nothing more than their purchasing habits. While a fun anecdote, it really shouldn't be taken seriously as something that actually happened. https://medium.com/@colin.fraser/target-didnt-figure-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did-a6be13b973a5 https://medium.com/@colin.fraser/target-didnt-figure-out-a-t...
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Did you actually read that Medium post? It's idle FUD and speculation that the author of the original 2012 Forbes article lied about the Target incident, without anything to substantiate that claim. It's also evidently written by someone working in data science at Meta, who would naturally have incentive to deny the reality of their industry. Most of the Medium comments are calling them out on this: >Title: "Target didn’t figure out a teenager was pregnant before her father did, and that one article that said they did was silly and bad." A clear assertion. A solid claim. One of the first paragraphs: "I won’t belabor this since we can’t actually know, but the anecdote about the father calling the store and talking to the manager is probably just not true. " So, a person who contradicts himself right in the beginning uses articles that are being hyperbolic as proof that the articles got it all wrong. Smells a bit like double standards, no? And the point of the conversation is less about accuracy of the findings and more about such models being in place. I mean, Facebook did this, right? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-categorize-users-political-preferences/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-categorize-users-... And I'm not sure but there was this little company, very obscure, not sure anyone heard of it. Cambridge Analytica? Again, very obscure.

jillyboel 2y ago

> via her phones microphone Source? Because so far this claim has been debunked every time. I assume you are aware how Android and iOS have a visual indicator to show that the microphone is active? Have you analyzed any network traffic that included unexpected voice samples? Please, explain yourself.

josephcsible 2y ago
Those indicators aren't trustworthy. If your phone is configured to respond to "Hey Google", it will do so even when you say it while that indicator isn't lit up.
- gruez 2y ago
  That doesn't explain how facebook (google's competitor) got ahold of that info, or how people with iPhones are being eavesdropped on.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > That doesn't explain how facebook (google's competitor) got ahold of that info, or how people with iPhones are being eavesdropped on. It can easily explain how people with iPhones are being eavesdropped on: "those indicators aren't trustworthy". According to this theory, the microphone in an iPhone is active despite the indicator not being displayed. That's identical to the Android theory. To extend the theory to Facebook, you'd need to assume one of these: (1) The unreliability of the indicator on Android is a matter of incompetence on the part of Google, and Facebook is exploiting it. (2) Google has a privileged stealth-microphone-access permission, and Facebook has negotiated for access to it.
    - jillyboel 2y ago
      Go reverse the operating system and you'll find this is just a paranoid fantasy. Many others have done so already, so you can also just hit up google and find their analyses.

acheron 2y ago

Watch out, they can also listen to you via the radio waves coming from your dental fillings.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]