7 ms·

There is so much time spent “debunking” audio recordings being shared with various entities it makes me more suspicious. Just like Facebook’s “we never sell yo

There is so much time spent “debunking” audio recordings being shared with various entities it makes me more suspicious. Just like Facebook’s “we never sell your data (we just stalk you and sell ads using your data)”. I’m sure there’s a similar weasel excuse… “we never listen to your audio (but we do analyze it to improve quality assurance)”

LgWoodenBadger 2y ago
It’s similar with the TSA facial recognition photos. “We delete your photo immediately” but what they don’t say is that they don’t delete the biometrics from that photo.
- bsimpson 2y ago
  It's a crime that were compelled to concede our 4th Amendment rights in order to travel.
  - spunker540 2y ago
    Same with drivers licenses and passports having a photo requirement too
    - gruez 2y ago
      >drivers licenses and passports having a photo requirement too You're free to take the bus, or hire a chauffeur. A private pilots license doesn't have any pictures either.
      - hammock 2y ago
        For better or worse, we didn’t have to make such hard choices for the first 80 years of aviation. And Greyhound etc require photo ID these days as well
      - asteroidburger 2y ago
        A US pilot certificate itself does not include a photo, but you must have a photo ID to use it. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-61/section-61.3#p-61.3(a)(2) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-61/section-61.3#p...
      - ornornor 2y ago
        That’s not a freedom. That’s a restriction that reduces the amount of choices you have for potentially worse ones.
    - hammock 2y ago
      The TSA photos are worse. They use a stereoscopic camera to take a 3d image of your head, which makes facial recognition up to 10x more accurate. You can opt out, just say you do (and preferably cover the camera with your hat or bag)
      - walterbell 2y ago
        WiFi 7 Sensing is bringing similar functionality to consumer routers and many laptops, with the bonus of passing through walls.
      - coldtea 2y ago
        >You can opt out, just say you do And then be flagged and 10x more targeted because of that
        hammock 2y ago
        Not how it works
        coldtea 2y ago
        Oh, sweet summer child
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    Amtrak and Greyhound do not require those biometrics, nor does renting a car and driving (or driving your own).
    - kelnos 2y ago
      Some of us want to be able to cross the country in an afternoon, and not have to spend days on a slow, uncomfortable train to make the same trip. I don't think that's unreasonable.
      - uoaei 2y ago
        Certainly not unreasonable. But it does require you to commission your own transport subject to the rules that that private entity seeks to impose. Public entities which indiscriminately service residents and visitors of a given territory would obviate this requirement. But if you're in the US, good luck convincing taxpayers to agree to pay for that.
        vel0city 2y ago
        > subject to the rules that that private entity seeks to impose. It's not the private entity taking a 3D face scan, nor are they necessarily wanting for that scan to be taken. It's federal laws and regulations being done by federal agents in spaces controlled by the federal government.
        uoaei 2y ago
        TSA is not a government organization. Neither is Boeing nor any of the airline carriers.
        vel0city 2y ago
        TSA is absolutely a government organization, it's a part of the Department of Homeland Security. It was created by an act of Congress, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. You might as well argue the IRS or FBI or the US Marshalls aren't a government organization. What about absolutely absurd thing to suggest. > The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that has authority over the security of transportation systems within and connecting to the United States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Admi...
  - mulderc 2y ago
    Depends on the type of travel right? I took Amtrak weekly for several years and never even had to show ID.
    - mixmastamyk 2y ago
      Did this change? Last time I tried to take them (ten+ years ago, because my license expired) they refused my ticket purchase because my id was expired.
      - gaadd33 2y ago
        Less than 6 months ago I was able to buy a ticket online and board without showing any ID and have done that for 10+ years with no problem.
      - mulderc 2y ago
        I don’t remember ever having to show ID with Amtrak.
  - dangus 2y ago
    Literally not compelled in this case, the TSA signage says that the image capture is completely optional. More generally, having your stuff screened for security to get on a commercial plane isn't a 4th amendment violation, the word "unreasonable" is right there in the amendment for a reason. You're in public in an enclosed flying object bringing your goods onto someone else's plane with 100+ strangers aboard, it is completely reasonable and necessary for the freedoms of everyone involved for the TSA to ensure that your stuff doesn't have dangerous objects aboard. Don't forget that freedom also involves the freedom of other people to not be negatively impacted by you exercising your "freedom."
    - teeray 2y ago
      Image capture is optional, your other option is something possibly unpleasant and may make you miss your flight
      - dangus 2y ago
        That is not the other option at all. The other option is essentially just the traditional screening process. > Standard ID credential verification is in place – Travelers who decide not to participate in the use of facial recognition technology will receive an alternative ID credential check by the TSO at the podium. The traveler will not experience any negative consequences for choosing not to participate. There is no issue and no delay with a traveler exercising their rights to not participate in the automated biometrics matching technology. My goodness this thread is just the most annoying tinfoil hat thread I've seen all day. Y'all are spending too much time online.
        teeray 2y ago
        > The other option is essentially just the traditional screening process. I know that, and you know that, but you have to convince the average traveler that nothing bad will happen if they say no. In the mind of the average traveler, it’s safer to just say “okay” to whatever the TSA wants. There needs to be some kind of neutral ombudsman to placate travelers’ fears of reprisal for opting to preserve their rights.
  - caminanteblanco 2y ago
    It literally says right on the facial recognition sign that you're free to opt out, just let the TSA employee know
    - arcfour 2y ago
      The TSA is - objectively, by their own audits - complete security theater. Why bother to defend them, exactly? Also, the spirit of the 4th Amendment is most certainly not "here, this is the easy way!" (yes, we are conducting mass surveillance but you can sort of opt out of one piece of it by going through a manual process over here that we will make you feel like you are burdening us by requesting)
      - 93po 2y ago
        correcting disinformation isn't defending something. do you want to live in a world where we dislike someone and so we just make up random terrible things about them that aren't true, and it's fine and encouraged because they're someone we dislike, and people aren't allowed to say "hey that's not actually true, at all"
        syeare 2y ago
        but we do live in such a world tho?
    - dmwilcox 2y ago
      Yup,people are really good about it in my experience too. I just stand off to the side of the camera, and say "no biometrics please". They take a minute to check my documents and it's done. Try it. I trust the TSA agents brain to not get hacked in the next 24 hours, a database run by them, not so much.
    - michaelmrose 2y ago
      The purpose is to gather biometric data on people that will be used for future surveillance in our incipient fascist state with the implicit statement that opting out is suspicious and will lead to greater scrutiny.
kurthr 2y ago
I can just say that I knew an entrepreneur in early post Y2K who developed apps to track music played in clubs in SF for folks like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. They gave out "free" phones (these were the small expensive candybars and nice flip/slideups) to the influencers of the day. They compressed the audio for orthogonality, and had a huge number of hashes to match. If they got more than a few consecutive matching hashes at a location that wasn't paying royalties, they got an enforcement call. So the idea that it takes a huge amount of computing resources, battery life, permissions, or bandwidth to do matching of keywords is hilarious. That's what "siri", "hey google", "alexa" etc are all doing 24 hours a day. Just add another hundred and report them once an hour. You don't need low latency. It's just another tool in the bag! Of course the cat food example is bad, because if they weren't looking for that you wouldn't get a response. Who would be willing to pay big for clicks on cat food. Now bariatric surgery? DUI? HELOC? Those pay.
- LeafItAlone 2y ago
  >That's what "siri", "hey google", "alexa" etc are all doing 24 hours a day. You might have just convinced me that the “phone is listening” is total bunk, because these dedicated devices are just so bad at recognizing the very specific, short, phrases when explicitly directed at them that I can’t imagine they are listening for much more. Listening to my in-laws try to activate their Alexa and Google Homes is something the CIA might consider for their next torture method.
  - kurthr 2y ago
    You expect 95% accuracy matching activation phrases. You don't need that for ads. It only needs to work some of the time for some of the people, especially if it makes $/click.
    - LeafItAlone 2y ago
      >You expect 95% accuracy matching activation phrases. At this point I don’t even expect 50% (trying twice), and I’m still disappointed. >It only needs to work some of the time for some of the people, especially if it makes $/click. So where can one find this market? We know the price of traditional ad clicks. Surely we’d see a market for “voice-driven” ads with higher rates?
gosub100 2y ago
We don't "listen" to your audio, the microphone does, and your phone transcribes it to text on your device. You cannot listen to text. Therefore we don't listen to your phone audio.
alpaca128 2y ago
> There is so much time spent “debunking” audio recordings being shared Not really. 99% of the time it's someone claiming that it happens. And it's always an anecdote, never clear proof that it happened. Let alone that it happened because of the audio and not web activity. And that the conversation was actually the cause for the ad and not the other way around. Is it technically possible? Sure. But if so many people are so certain that it definitely happens, why didn't dozens of people already prove it with a fresh Google/Apple account and phone?
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  Here is an example that just happened today. I talked to my partner about me going to a city directly (via one state) or indirectly (via another state). All I said was "so you want me to go directly to X". Boom, Illinois tourism ad shows up the next time I hit the internet. Scary thing is I didn't even say the state name, just the destination, and SOMETHING calculated that Illinois is in the middle. This stuff has now happened far too many times in the last 10 years of my life, it is simply implausible to call it coincidence at this point. You are being listened to by your phone. Ad firms have no ethical boundaries, and have lied about their data collection over and over. What is really frightening is that if the ad companies know everything about you, then multiple state actors also know everything about you.
  - rubatuga 2y ago
    Confirmation bias at its finest
  - Rastonbury 2y ago
    Why would that be even be a good targeted ad? Its simpler and more profitable to show you ads about a place you actually plan to go to..
  - gf000 2y ago
    > You are being listened to by your phone. This would simply eat the battery immediately, it's simply not feasible and given all the other, cheap tracking it wouldn't even be beneficial.
dangus 2y ago
There is a small list of reasons why it needs to be "debunked:" 1. Your phone is gathering data that you don't realize that it gathers. One of the biggest examples of this is real-time location data that is brokered by cellular carriers and sold as aggregated marketing data. You don't have to give your apps permission to do anything like that because your cellular carrier can get that data regardless of your phone's OS. 2. Your phone is gathering data that you gave it permission to gather, perhaps gathering it in a way you didn't think it would do. For example, let's say you give an app permission to read your entire photo library so that you can upload a photo. But since you gave it that permission on the OS level, it might be uploading more images than you explicitly select. Another example used to be clipboard data before the OSes asked permission for use of the clipboard. One last example is text that you enter but do not submit. Another big aspect of this is that people don't realize how these ad networks work in real time. It's not a slow thing for an advertising company to learn something about you and react accordingly, it can happen in a few short seconds. 2. The average person doesn't have any comprehension of how easy it is for data science practices to uncover information about you based on metadata that seems benign or that you don't know exists. Most people don't understand how your behavior in an app can be used to tell the company things you like and dislike. The TikTok algorithm is a great example, it can tell what you like just by extremely subtle inputs, how you swipe, how long you watch the video. A lot of people don't realize how many things about them aren't particularly unique and how many preferences can be tied to a really specific persona that you fall into. A real world example of all of this put together is that I was spending a lot of time browsing appliances because I just bought one, and I went to physically visit a friend. We were talking about my new appliance, and later they got ads for that specific appliance. So, the person's reaction would naturally be "it was listening to us!!" but in reality, it is more likely that our cellular carrier or carriers knew we were physically in the same place and reported that piece of information to some kind of data broker. Consider how there are a limited amount of cellular carriers, that location data may not have needed to even exit the cellular carrier to sell this data to someone. I.e., if we both have the same cellular carrier , our company already has that information and it isn't selling it to another company, it's perhaps just telling a data broker that Person A and Person B interact with each other. Just note that I'm not claiming this is exactly how it all works as I'm not in that industry, but the general ideas here apply. The general takeaway is that literally recording audio with a microphone just isn't necessary to derive hyper-specific things about people.
caminanteblanco 2y ago
Except for the fact that if you read the debunkings, they go into great detail as to why that is empirically not the case.
jsbisviewtiful 2y ago
Not saying this is true, but the amount of time and effort put into saying "no one is listening to you" could be attributed to the novel 1984, where the government is actively listening to its citizens. Enough people could associate the novel with government surveillance that it's what people interpret as the most likely surveillance happening - and enough people don't understand tech that it's lost on them that a) the tech to actively listen to millions of people constantly doesn't exist at the appropriate level to be effective b) there are significantly more and far more effective ways to monitor people with current tech than via microphone. It's truly unfortunate people don't understand tech to realize what's actually possible and what is actively happening vs what they imagine could be happening
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Sure it does. You just haven’t seen it. Download OtterAI. Or run voice memos all day, load it into NotebookLM and it about your day. Hell, setup whisper on your MacBook and you can chug away at pretty significant quantities of audio. I’ve seen solutions that process audio from hundreds of multi-party meetings and can do all sorts of analysis. In one case, it can do realtime sentiment analysis and alert security when an encounter is getting tense.

LgWoodenBadger 2y ago

It’s similar with the TSA facial recognition photos. “We delete your photo immediately” but what they don’t say is that they don’t delete the biometrics from that photo.

bsimpson 2y ago
It's a crime that were compelled to concede our 4th Amendment rights in order to travel.
- spunker540 2y ago
  Same with drivers licenses and passports having a photo requirement too
  - gruez 2y ago
    >drivers licenses and passports having a photo requirement too You're free to take the bus, or hire a chauffeur. A private pilots license doesn't have any pictures either.
    - hammock 2y ago
      For better or worse, we didn’t have to make such hard choices for the first 80 years of aviation. And Greyhound etc require photo ID these days as well
    - asteroidburger 2y ago
      A US pilot certificate itself does not include a photo, but you must have a photo ID to use it. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-61/section-61.3#p-61.3(a)(2) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-61/section-61.3#p...
    - ornornor 2y ago
      That’s not a freedom. That’s a restriction that reduces the amount of choices you have for potentially worse ones.
  - hammock 2y ago
    The TSA photos are worse. They use a stereoscopic camera to take a 3d image of your head, which makes facial recognition up to 10x more accurate. You can opt out, just say you do (and preferably cover the camera with your hat or bag)
    - walterbell 2y ago
      WiFi 7 Sensing is bringing similar functionality to consumer routers and many laptops, with the bonus of passing through walls.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      >You can opt out, just say you do And then be flagged and 10x more targeted because of that
      - hammock 2y ago
        Not how it works
        coldtea 2y ago
        Oh, sweet summer child
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  Amtrak and Greyhound do not require those biometrics, nor does renting a car and driving (or driving your own).
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Some of us want to be able to cross the country in an afternoon, and not have to spend days on a slow, uncomfortable train to make the same trip. I don't think that's unreasonable.
    - uoaei 2y ago
      Certainly not unreasonable. But it does require you to commission your own transport subject to the rules that that private entity seeks to impose. Public entities which indiscriminately service residents and visitors of a given territory would obviate this requirement. But if you're in the US, good luck convincing taxpayers to agree to pay for that.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        > subject to the rules that that private entity seeks to impose. It's not the private entity taking a 3D face scan, nor are they necessarily wanting for that scan to be taken. It's federal laws and regulations being done by federal agents in spaces controlled by the federal government.
        uoaei 2y ago
        TSA is not a government organization. Neither is Boeing nor any of the airline carriers.
        vel0city 2y ago
        TSA is absolutely a government organization, it's a part of the Department of Homeland Security. It was created by an act of Congress, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. You might as well argue the IRS or FBI or the US Marshalls aren't a government organization. What about absolutely absurd thing to suggest. > The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that has authority over the security of transportation systems within and connecting to the United States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Admi...
- mulderc 2y ago
  Depends on the type of travel right? I took Amtrak weekly for several years and never even had to show ID.
  - mixmastamyk 2y ago
    Did this change? Last time I tried to take them (ten+ years ago, because my license expired) they refused my ticket purchase because my id was expired.
    - gaadd33 2y ago
      Less than 6 months ago I was able to buy a ticket online and board without showing any ID and have done that for 10+ years with no problem.
    - mulderc 2y ago
      I don’t remember ever having to show ID with Amtrak.
- dangus 2y ago
  Literally not compelled in this case, the TSA signage says that the image capture is completely optional. More generally, having your stuff screened for security to get on a commercial plane isn't a 4th amendment violation, the word "unreasonable" is right there in the amendment for a reason. You're in public in an enclosed flying object bringing your goods onto someone else's plane with 100+ strangers aboard, it is completely reasonable and necessary for the freedoms of everyone involved for the TSA to ensure that your stuff doesn't have dangerous objects aboard. Don't forget that freedom also involves the freedom of other people to not be negatively impacted by you exercising your "freedom."
  - teeray 2y ago
    Image capture is optional, your other option is something possibly unpleasant and may make you miss your flight
    - dangus 2y ago
      That is not the other option at all. The other option is essentially just the traditional screening process. > Standard ID credential verification is in place – Travelers who decide not to participate in the use of facial recognition technology will receive an alternative ID credential check by the TSO at the podium. The traveler will not experience any negative consequences for choosing not to participate. There is no issue and no delay with a traveler exercising their rights to not participate in the automated biometrics matching technology. My goodness this thread is just the most annoying tinfoil hat thread I've seen all day. Y'all are spending too much time online.
      - teeray 2y ago
        > The other option is essentially just the traditional screening process. I know that, and you know that, but you have to convince the average traveler that nothing bad will happen if they say no. In the mind of the average traveler, it’s safer to just say “okay” to whatever the TSA wants. There needs to be some kind of neutral ombudsman to placate travelers’ fears of reprisal for opting to preserve their rights.
- caminanteblanco 2y ago
  It literally says right on the facial recognition sign that you're free to opt out, just let the TSA employee know
  - arcfour 2y ago
    The TSA is - objectively, by their own audits - complete security theater. Why bother to defend them, exactly? Also, the spirit of the 4th Amendment is most certainly not "here, this is the easy way!" (yes, we are conducting mass surveillance but you can sort of opt out of one piece of it by going through a manual process over here that we will make you feel like you are burdening us by requesting)
    - 93po 2y ago
      correcting disinformation isn't defending something. do you want to live in a world where we dislike someone and so we just make up random terrible things about them that aren't true, and it's fine and encouraged because they're someone we dislike, and people aren't allowed to say "hey that's not actually true, at all"
      - syeare 2y ago
        but we do live in such a world tho?
  - dmwilcox 2y ago
    Yup,people are really good about it in my experience too. I just stand off to the side of the camera, and say "no biometrics please". They take a minute to check my documents and it's done. Try it. I trust the TSA agents brain to not get hacked in the next 24 hours, a database run by them, not so much.
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    The purpose is to gather biometric data on people that will be used for future surveillance in our incipient fascist state with the implicit statement that opting out is suspicious and will lead to greater scrutiny.

kurthr 2y ago

I can just say that I knew an entrepreneur in early post Y2K who developed apps to track music played in clubs in SF for folks like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. They gave out "free" phones (these were the small expensive candybars and nice flip/slideups) to the influencers of the day. They compressed the audio for orthogonality, and had a huge number of hashes to match. If they got more than a few consecutive matching hashes at a location that wasn't paying royalties, they got an enforcement call. So the idea that it takes a huge amount of computing resources, battery life, permissions, or bandwidth to do matching of keywords is hilarious. That's what "siri", "hey google", "alexa" etc are all doing 24 hours a day. Just add another hundred and report them once an hour. You don't need low latency. It's just another tool in the bag! Of course the cat food example is bad, because if they weren't looking for that you wouldn't get a response. Who would be willing to pay big for clicks on cat food. Now bariatric surgery? DUI? HELOC? Those pay.

LeafItAlone 2y ago
>That's what "siri", "hey google", "alexa" etc are all doing 24 hours a day. You might have just convinced me that the “phone is listening” is total bunk, because these dedicated devices are just so bad at recognizing the very specific, short, phrases when explicitly directed at them that I can’t imagine they are listening for much more. Listening to my in-laws try to activate their Alexa and Google Homes is something the CIA might consider for their next torture method.
- kurthr 2y ago
  You expect 95% accuracy matching activation phrases. You don't need that for ads. It only needs to work some of the time for some of the people, especially if it makes $/click.
  - LeafItAlone 2y ago
    >You expect 95% accuracy matching activation phrases. At this point I don’t even expect 50% (trying twice), and I’m still disappointed. >It only needs to work some of the time for some of the people, especially if it makes $/click. So where can one find this market? We know the price of traditional ad clicks. Surely we’d see a market for “voice-driven” ads with higher rates?

gosub100 2y ago

We don't "listen" to your audio, the microphone does, and your phone transcribes it to text on your device. You cannot listen to text. Therefore we don't listen to your phone audio.

alpaca128 2y ago

> There is so much time spent “debunking” audio recordings being shared Not really. 99% of the time it's someone claiming that it happens. And it's always an anecdote, never clear proof that it happened. Let alone that it happened because of the audio and not web activity. And that the conversation was actually the cause for the ad and not the other way around. Is it technically possible? Sure. But if so many people are so certain that it definitely happens, why didn't dozens of people already prove it with a fresh Google/Apple account and phone?

AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Here is an example that just happened today. I talked to my partner about me going to a city directly (via one state) or indirectly (via another state). All I said was "so you want me to go directly to X". Boom, Illinois tourism ad shows up the next time I hit the internet. Scary thing is I didn't even say the state name, just the destination, and SOMETHING calculated that Illinois is in the middle. This stuff has now happened far too many times in the last 10 years of my life, it is simply implausible to call it coincidence at this point. You are being listened to by your phone. Ad firms have no ethical boundaries, and have lied about their data collection over and over. What is really frightening is that if the ad companies know everything about you, then multiple state actors also know everything about you.
- rubatuga 2y ago
  Confirmation bias at its finest
- Rastonbury 2y ago
  Why would that be even be a good targeted ad? Its simpler and more profitable to show you ads about a place you actually plan to go to..
- gf000 2y ago
  > You are being listened to by your phone. This would simply eat the battery immediately, it's simply not feasible and given all the other, cheap tracking it wouldn't even be beneficial.

dangus 2y ago

There is a small list of reasons why it needs to be "debunked:" 1. Your phone is gathering data that you don't realize that it gathers. One of the biggest examples of this is real-time location data that is brokered by cellular carriers and sold as aggregated marketing data. You don't have to give your apps permission to do anything like that because your cellular carrier can get that data regardless of your phone's OS. 2. Your phone is gathering data that you gave it permission to gather, perhaps gathering it in a way you didn't think it would do. For example, let's say you give an app permission to read your entire photo library so that you can upload a photo. But since you gave it that permission on the OS level, it might be uploading more images than you explicitly select. Another example used to be clipboard data before the OSes asked permission for use of the clipboard. One last example is text that you enter but do not submit. Another big aspect of this is that people don't realize how these ad networks work in real time. It's not a slow thing for an advertising company to learn something about you and react accordingly, it can happen in a few short seconds. 2. The average person doesn't have any comprehension of how easy it is for data science practices to uncover information about you based on metadata that seems benign or that you don't know exists. Most people don't understand how your behavior in an app can be used to tell the company things you like and dislike. The TikTok algorithm is a great example, it can tell what you like just by extremely subtle inputs, how you swipe, how long you watch the video. A lot of people don't realize how many things about them aren't particularly unique and how many preferences can be tied to a really specific persona that you fall into. A real world example of all of this put together is that I was spending a lot of time browsing appliances because I just bought one, and I went to physically visit a friend. We were talking about my new appliance, and later they got ads for that specific appliance. So, the person's reaction would naturally be "it was listening to us!!" but in reality, it is more likely that our cellular carrier or carriers knew we were physically in the same place and reported that piece of information to some kind of data broker. Consider how there are a limited amount of cellular carriers, that location data may not have needed to even exit the cellular carrier to sell this data to someone. I.e., if we both have the same cellular carrier , our company already has that information and it isn't selling it to another company, it's perhaps just telling a data broker that Person A and Person B interact with each other. Just note that I'm not claiming this is exactly how it all works as I'm not in that industry, but the general ideas here apply. The general takeaway is that literally recording audio with a microphone just isn't necessary to derive hyper-specific things about people.

caminanteblanco 2y ago

Except for the fact that if you read the debunkings, they go into great detail as to why that is empirically not the case.

jsbisviewtiful 2y ago

Not saying this is true, but the amount of time and effort put into saying "no one is listening to you" could be attributed to the novel 1984, where the government is actively listening to its citizens. Enough people could associate the novel with government surveillance that it's what people interpret as the most likely surveillance happening - and enough people don't understand tech that it's lost on them that a) the tech to actively listen to millions of people constantly doesn't exist at the appropriate level to be effective b) there are significantly more and far more effective ways to monitor people with current tech than via microphone. It's truly unfortunate people don't understand tech to realize what's actually possible and what is actively happening vs what they imagine could be happening

Spooky23 2y ago
Sure it does. You just haven’t seen it. Download OtterAI. Or run voice memos all day, load it into NotebookLM and it about your day. Hell, setup whisper on your MacBook and you can chug away at pretty significant quantities of audio. I’ve seen solutions that process audio from hundreds of multi-party meetings and can do all sorts of analysis. In one case, it can do realtime sentiment analysis and alert security when an encounter is getting tense.