Alternative title: People creeped out after woman discovers what tech literate people have been saying to do for a decade
Same can be said for any field, academic or not. For example, it won’t do any good to dismiss cancer awareness campaigns because doctors have been saying about it for decades. It’s for the public’s benefit, and everyone deserves privacy.
In my country, we had been saying that the government was doing business with Israel, even though they were condemning on every public forum. It took only 1 journalist until the whole public saw the hypocrisy. 1 journalist against all TV channels and internet trolls. (Here 95% of all TV channels are sponsored by government).
I remember telling this years ago, yet this man, who also had to leave the country for his other journalist work said it at the right time with the right tools.
So, what I get this is, don’t stop telling the truth. Even though nobody listens now, people will when the right time comes.
what’s wrong with doing business with Israel? I believe most countries do so… and they have some of the smartest engineers in the world.
In case you somehow missed the news: they’re currently killing lots of innocent people in Gaza. Not doing business w/ Israel puts pressure on the Israeli government to stop doing that.
does it? has that ever worked for any country?
Idk, but most of the time that happens with pariahs, like Russia or N. Korea. Israel is friendly with a lot of western nations and not friendly with pretty much everyone else, so sending a message could certainly work here.
I actually don’t think it works. It’s better if we retaliate in the same way Israel does.
What 7 October taught is the hypocrisy of our leaders. I am specifically talking about Muslim leaders and Erdogan, but in general I think this is also true.
Isn’t that after what, 40?
There isn’t a soul in your country that isnt aware cancer exists.
Cancer you say? Like the star sign?
But seriously the campaigns are about spotting signs and importance of early treatment
lol k
Why is the person’s gender relevant?
Because it’s in the title of the post
and why is it there? I still don’t get the relevance
Because the information is known, so it’s mentioned. It’s the same as if it was a man who did it.
In this case, it’s because it was from a specific TikTok creator.
It’s the same as if it was a man who did it.
then why is it being called out as if there was a difference? that’s what I don’t understand.
It’s not. The gender is known, so it’s mentioned.
Same reason headlines say “Florida Man” and not “Florida Human”
Hey, are you okay? Having a bad day?
I’m wonderful! Thanks for asking.
Why does it matter?
Are you illiterate?
I don’t think it is but the headline clearly mimics a standard newspaper headline. I don’t think it’s trying to say something about genders, just saying something about how media communicates.
Thanks past me!
I have all my histories turned off and once a year or so I go in and make sure they haven’t added anything new for me to turn off.
Now the question is, are they really not collecting my data or have I just made it so I can’t see what they have on me?
I would assume the latter until proven otherwise. No doubt they hide that.
That’s how I think about it too.
They collected incognito session info, whose entire existence was ‘not keeping a history’, so almost 100% the latter.
It just not stores the session >_> Nothing was ever fully incognito about it beyond the icon looking like a spy.
Also it’s made by Google. Not much of a surprise.Now for Firefoy I would be interested.
I never assumed that incognito mode did anything more than not save my history and searches in my browser. And maybe some other stuff like cache and cookies.
It took me a while to realize that less tech-savvy people wouldn’t know about that stuff and assume that it meant that Google isn’t watching you.
And unless you’re very privacy-conscious, even your ISP knows where you get your internet porn from
I do the same thing, and always wonder that too. These companies have been caught lying consistently and repeatedly about what they collect and how, so even with all the right settings I’m very skeptical that they actually respect my choices.
i have only YouTube enabled (personalization is good enough that i actually do care about it) and google search (since it also affects google maps) and both are set to the lowest auto delete option
My best guess is that they instead aggregate your data and serve ads based off of basic demographically information - instead of data they’ve harvested from your Google account. E.g. they’ll use your age range, gender, region, etc
How do you turn them off. I mean, do you go through every Google product and dig for the settings? Or do you just mean you revisit the ad settings?
In your google account settings there should be a page called “Data And Privacy” that has loads of things to turn off or at least limit the amount of time before they say they delete it.
They keep changing where it is and how the pages are laid out in order to keep us on our toes. I think there may be a privacy center somewhere too. There used to be.
There is a central page to manage history across most all of google services.
Same here. Disabled it a year back.
Yep, same here. I turned off all that tracking a long time ago.
Same here… disabled this AGES ago.
some people might like that it helps them get targeted ads - after all, the tech has crunched all the data, and can advertise things to you that you might actually want.
Hahahahaha Next best thing to ad blocking, is generic ads that you don’t care about and can ignore more easily, and you know that the company is getting paid less for those ads showing.
I much prefer random ads anyways. Targeted ads are 90% something You’ve already recently bought.
With random ads sometimes you see something interesting that you didn’t even know you wanted because you didn’t know it even existed.
If I’m looking for a laptop I don’t care to see 1000 ads for laptops, I’m not going to just click an ad and buy one I need to research and deep dive into the kind I want.
Yeah, that’s the thing, the more I want something, the less interested I am in ads. Their whole point is to sell me their product or service, not inform me if it is worth buying.
And in the meantime, Amazon is trying to sell me a monthly subscription to once in a decade purchases.
I’ve had mine turned off for years, but it doesn’t really matter, Google and all these tech giants will still collect whatever info they want regardless.
Also one or a few people turning it off doesn’t matter much. The tech giants still get their demographic statistics from the ones who haven’t (which is the larger percentage of the population). You could be spending money on things based on targeted ads for your demographic.
In other words, you are creeped out about wondering what they could do with your personal data if you turn it on. But you should be even more creeped out about how your daily decisions are already influenced by them using others data
I mean, you need the fucking money to buy shit in the first place. Lol
That’s the funniest shit about this late stage capitalism. I just read somewhere that like a third of McDonald’s customer base have been historically low income, and they just figured out a almost half of them have been priced out of their menu…
Well yeah, there’s a reason it’s called late stage, not “yet another stage” or “completed”. The ouroboros is getting fat from it’s greedy feast.
At a certain point the options became to slowly self destruct or accept defeat
Same, but I just reviewed mine a week or two ago when I finally switched my email away from Gmail, and lo and behold, there were more trackers enabled (for new stuff they added and I don’t use, but still…).
Even the article about how Google’s tracking is bad is loaded with Google trackers.
LoL, I clicked the link above, and EFF’s Privacy Badger had replaced the TikTok widget. Thank you, EFF.org!!
lol it has almost nothing on me. Even has my relationship status wrong
ADHD - The ultimate Info Tracking killer
I supply mine with fake info with the google rewards app :p
I answered the question as if I was a mother (am not and male) of 4 children, which has higher education, is into tech and fashion, has 4 children and a house.
So far I made 29,30€ in total in Play Store cash. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sadly some of the funds lapse after some time but I have used it for smaller apps and such.I used to do surveys as a CEO of a megacorp making lots of money
Turns out they give more money to you if you’re already rich…(probably because rich people don’t really do that stuff so they want more of their data)
I used to do this, but I honestly don’t have much need for Play Store cash. I paid for a couple FOSS apps I wanted to support, and then stopped w/ the opinions thing because I don’t have a use for the rewards. I’m actively trying to avoid the Play store in general, so it’s a bit counter-productive.
Same lol
Between that and the random shit it has listed as what I get ads for…it isn’t a whole lot. I spend most of time looking up highly specific things on Wikipedia or out of immediate utility, so I suppose I’m just not that interesting…also ublock origin ftw
Those same people will be shocked when their smart assistant has saved all past recordings of their requests. Lmfao
Then again, This article is on one of the cancers of the internet “unilad”.
Literally the first time I’ve heard about this site
Well I had it disabled on my main account, but to be sure I checked my other accounts, which weren’t disabled. Turns out Google thinks I’m a high income female who works at a large real estate company. Kind of tempted to visit a bunch of weird sites to poison their data more
I checked my throwaway/spam account. Apparently, I’m a high-wage tech employee at a large company, and I’m also a homeowner.
Damn, they think too highly of me.
Show that to the large real estate company and get a high income job!
I tried to check mine and was extremely glad but underwhelmed that all my accounts have personalized ads turned off. I’m sure Google has tons of info on me anyway though lol 🙃
I turned off my Google account entirely by deleting it in January of 2022. And I use add and tracker blocking DNS functionality on all devices on my network and primarily use open source software. So good luck. They may very well still know stuff about me, but the stuff they are going to know is going to be limited and or very old.
Doesn’t tell me anything becasuee I would need to verify I’m over 18, but I’m sure it still collects all that information.
What I want to know is why when I’m talking to my wife in the car about buying new shoes do I get a YouTube ad that evening about new shoes, when I never got that kind of ad before.
Are our phones listening to us while we talk in the car, and then ads are generated from that?
I’d really like to know the answer to that question.
Edit: fixed typo, shoes, not shows.
What are the odds than anyone in the household searched for the shows? Targeting ads to all devices on the same IP or even devices that have previously been on the same network happens.
I was able to predict that my mom had been researching “bunion shoes” after I started seeing ads, seemingly randomly, for them not long after she came to my house to visit.
It’s not even just that, humans a incredibly predictable and that predictability is able to be microtargeted based on trends and past activity of an individual.
I agree in an abstract, but shoes do not wear at the same rate each year, especially when you buy different shoes each time. My shoe purchases, for instance, vary by a number of years.
It’s not even just that, humans a incredibly predictable and that predictability is able to be microtargeted based on trends and past activity of an individual.
I literally let years go by between buying shoes, no kidding. So I don’t think that what you described would cover my specific case.
Especially out of the blue, and not shown ads for that at all before, and exactly around the same time when that discussion comes up in a moving vehicle.
(As an aside, and in case you’re curious, when it comes time to buy new shoes, I usually buy two or three pairs of the same shoe, and then stick the other ones in the closet (usually buy at a really good sales price). Then when the first ones wear out I throw them away, and grab the next pair out of the closet.)
You just described a pattern, though.
You just described a pattern, though.
From where I see it, there is no pattern of purchasing shoes there, unless you truly expect Google AI/servers to track you multi-years long (with the required CPU and storage requirements needed to do so), to establish an unique shoe purchasing pattern, instead of what they more likely are doing, which is looking at recent online and microphone activity.
AKA, Occam’s Razor.
And also, how would Google know beforehand, that I will walk into a shoe store and buy shoes, if I didn’t do any search for them ahead of time online?
What are the odds than anyone in the household searched for the shows?
It’s just me and my wife, and we were both in the car together.
Also, I meant to say shoes, not shows. The voice-to-text doesn’t always get me perfectly, and sometimes I miss the typos it creates.
It’s usually not a case of the phone listening but, more creepily, that your behavior before and after talking to your wife about new shoes signaled that you want to buy new shoes.
Ad algorithms are surprisingly perceptive about signals that aren’t obvious.
that your behavior before and after talking to your wife about new shoes signaled that you want to buy new shoes.
There was no previous or after behavior.
We were in a car, long road trip, I mentioned needing to buy new shows during the trip, and when I got home late that evening YouTube was serving me up ads for shoes on my PC. No searches was done before or after the trip (as I mentioned elsewhere, I just go to a store and buy multiple boxes of the same kind of sneakers/shoes on sale).
It doesn’t have to be your searches, it could have just been the fact that your phone recognized you were on a road trip and that people in your ad cohort tend to want to buy shoes while on road trips.
I’ve worked in algorithmic ad space before and I can say that I’ve never seen evidence of phones listening on conversations but I have seen plenty of evidence from years ago where all your other data is used to form a terrifyingly accurate profile.
We used to do dead reckoning and gps speed gait profiling and we would only need about a weeks worth of GPS data to know height, weight, sex, where you live, where you work, where your kids go to school etc.
We would take that data and cross reference that with data broker info to form a profile, put you in an ad cohort bin, and serve you up as a platform for ad matching services to match to ad campaigns, which get even further targeted.
Millions of dollars spent hyper targeting you but 99 times out of 100 the inaccurate campaign is paying more so they get the adspace but the one time the actual low paying hyper focused campaign gets through it’s always scary how accurate it is.
tl;dr: Ad companies don’t need to listen to your conversation to know what you want to buy, ads are usually inaccurate because the inaccurate campaign paid more
It doesn’t have to be your searches, it could have just been the fact that your phone recognized you were on a road trip and that people in your ad cohort tend to want to buy shoes while on road trips.
Are you f’ing kiddig me? You really going to go with that excuse? Somehow by driving from one city to another city on the freeway that tells Google that I want to buy shoes? Come on, that stretches credulity.
Also, sure is weird that that has never happened to me on any of the other times I also drove the same route over the years.
deleted by creator
I highly doubt phones are always listening.
But, they already are.
Some people like the option where they just say “Hey Google” (or whatever) and then the phone talks back to them, so they’re always listening so they can hear that initiation sequence. This old article from Vice describes what I’m speaking of.
Personally I’d like the ability to turn that feature off, so I have to explicitly enable the microphone to have Google listen to what I’m saying.
Isn’t the activation phrase on a separate piece of hardware that’s not networked?
NGL I don’t the the guy with the anti ai blurb in all his comments is very knowledgeable about tech lol
Isn’t the activation phrase on a separate piece of hardware that’s not networked?
[Citation required.]
NGL I don’t the the guy with the anti ai blurb in all his comments is very knowledgeable about tech lol
You know, if you have to try to “Kill the Messenger” to win a point, then you’re not really winning anything, and you’re just disrespecting another human being.
deleted by creator
I’ll refer you to the Vice article that has been linked in this conversation above.
The mic is always hot, and neither you or I know what exactly is being stored locally and then sent in batch later on, or sent in real time. Only Google does.
deleted by creator
You don’t know the difference between someone saying a microphone is always on (hot) for processing a wake word vs saying the microphone is always on (hot) for data collection.
No, I’m very aware of the distinction, my career was as a computer programmer, and have worked with hardware as well, and I’m very aware of technology, and have an Android certification.
You were just assuming one thing that I was saying, when I was actually saying a general thing.
The mic is hot by default. It has to listen for the activation sequence.
What I’m suggesting is that while that mic is hot it’s also gathering other data and storing it locally, and then it sends it off in a batch with other traffic later on, so it’s not detectable from someone who’s monitoring network traffic from the device.
Temporally, you’re assuming that all eavesdropping is transmitted in real time, where I am not.
I am skeptical about listening not only because it was not proven, but also because almost the exact same result is achievable via much, much simpler and omnipresent means.
I am skeptical about listening not only because it was not proven,
This old article from Vice seems to have proven it, back in 2018.
And their conclusion was completely wrong.
Because unless you’re a journalist, a lawyer, or have some kind of role with sensitive information, the access of your data is only really going to advertisers. If you’re like everyone else, living a really normal life, and talking to your friends about flying to Japan, then it’s really not that different to advertisers looking at your browsing history.
These days, a private conversation about pregnancy, abortion, voting, or your feelings about geopolitical stuff like Gaza or Ukraine could absolutely be used against you, depending on where you live.
Yeah, I didn’t like that part of the article either, but then again that was back in 2017/18 before the today’s political environment.
You’re definitely right.
I’m not aware of any research that’s proven that phone are listening on conversations and serve ads based on that, just a bunch of anecdotal evidence. there has been some research a few years ago that proved the opposite, though.
there has been some research a few years ago that proved the opposite, though.
Could you supply a link for that article? I would very much like to read it. Also, I would want it to be a recent article, to be believable for the current conversation we’re having.
just a bunch of anecdotal evidence
Well, we all are just black boxing this, as we do not have access to these corporation’s servers and what data they collect.
But you have to admit, that in my case at least, Occam’s Razor would definitely point you in a certain direction.
Edit: You should also take a look at this old article from Vice.
https://gizmodo.com/these-academics-spent-the-last-year-testing-whether-you-1826961188
this is the most recent one I know of.
you have to admit, that in my case at least, Occam’s Razor would definitely point you in a certain direction.
it points me in the direction of you either being in the demographic currently targeted by the ad provider, or you having been shown the ad before without noticing it, and only paying attention after talking about the topic, and experiencing frequency illusion afterwards.
https://gizmodo.com/these-academics-spent-the-last-year-testing-whether-you-1826961188
this is the most recent one I know of.
Gizmodo? 2018? Yikes.
Interesting enough, in that same article is one from Vice, which backs up what I’ve been stating and assuming.
Gizmodo? 2018? Yikes.
it’s a summary of a paper posted here: https://recon.meddle.mobi/panoptispy/
in that same article is one from Vice, which backs up what I’ve been stating and assuming
do I get to say “Vice? 2018? Yikes.” now?
feel free to link more up-to-date research results.
Gizmodo? 2018? Yikes.
it’s a summary of a paper posted here: https://recon.meddle.mobi/panoptispy/
Thanks for the link. Checking the bottom of it …
© Copyright 2012-2024 by David Choffnes, Northeastern University. This work is generously supported in part by a DHS S&T contract (#FA8750-17-2-0145), a Comcast Innovation Fund grant and the Data Transparency Lab.
… and from the paper …
This material is based upon work supported by the DHS S&T contract FA8750-17-2-0145; the NSF under Award No. CNS-1408632, IIS-1408345, and IIS-1553088; a Security, Privacy and Anti-Abuse award from Google; a Comcast Innovation Fund grant; and a Data Trans- parency Lab grant. Any opinions, findings, and conclu- sions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our sponsors.
Ignoring ‘Gizmodo’ for a moment, not sure if its an unbiased paper or not (its a bit ‘sus’), and the date is from research done in 2017 and published in 2018. Today’s corporations most likely do not follow the same practices they did in 2017.
in that same article is one from Vice, which backs up what I’ve been stating and assuming
do I get to say “Vice? 2018? Yikes.” now?
Yep, you sure do, especially since it comes from the article you supplied. The point being that showing proof from 2017 does not necessarily cover today’s situation.
But it definatley defines that listening in on your phone used to happen back in 2018 at least. Wish we had today’s “word” on the subject.
feel free to link more up-to-date research results.
Considering I was asking you originally, you shouldn’t expect one from me. I was asking you about your initial point, since you were replying to mine, and would not have if I already the information that backs up what you stated.
Hi.
I work with and for most of the major tech companies worldwide and yes, we are listening to your cell phone even when you turn off the settings.
I’m not going to provide any proof or further context. Just trust me bro.
Do a little research on Sony and “the garden”.
No. How about you summarize it for us.
I did, above.
There are several large companies that actively listen though your phone and IoT and use the collected audio to advertise to you.
Thank you for the summary.
It most likely is. And if it’s not your phone, then it’s your car (assuming it has been built in the last few years)
It most likely is. And if it’s not your phone, then it’s your car (assuming it has been built in the last few years)
Yeah, that’s really creepy. I would only want the phone to listen when I actually ask it a question, not 24/7.
I would only want the phone to listen when I actually ask it a question, not 24/7.
If the phone does not listen 24/7, then how does it know when you are asking a question? It should discard all information until the wake up word is called in theory. Only way it could work if you have to press a button to start listening to your question. This was the case in the past, however people wanted to ask questions while showering or something since they introduced this “improvement”.
If the phone does not listen 24/7, then how does it know when you are asking a question?
I pushed the microphone button on the keyboard editor when I want the microphone to listen to me.
For example, when I comment here on Lemmy, I use the voice-to-text option to type out my comments, via the microphone.
It should discard all information until the wake up word is called in theory.
But even with always-on listening mode, it shouldn’t actually be taking any of your data for advertising (or legal issues for that matter) and using it, unless you explicitly authorize it to do so.
And it has to be very explicit, not buried down in some long multi-page license somewhere that only a knowledgeable lawyer would be able to know and find.
Oh, and you should be able to opt-out of that mode as well.
Answer is no. Google Ads doesn’t work that way. If you perceive such a coincidence, it just happened by chance or you or your wife sent out other signals that buying new shoes is a topic for you.
If you perceive such a coincidence, it just happened by chance or you or your wife sent out other signals that buying new shoes is a topic for you.
None of that happened though. It was on a long car trip, no Internet web browsing done, and no previous searches done from home.
The only time shoes were relevant was a verbal discussion in the vehicle.
Still a high chance for a coincidence. And the human mind tends to see patterns to structure the world. Shoe advertisement is not particularly rare in the web.
Still a high chance for a coincidence.
How? Its an isolated environment where the conversation is being had.
And the human mind tends to see patterns to structure the world.
Its an explicit viewing of a commercial of a type that is not normally seen. Not exactly a pattern.
Shoe advertisement is not particularly rare in the web.
I never saw any on YouTube until the evening of that conversation. /shrug
Coincidence in the sense that the ad that you saw had absolutely no connection to your talk. It was just a random ad. No all advertisements are targeted precisely. I work in the field and a lot of campaigns on YouTube are just targeted to a selected YT-channel, or a topic like sport videos, or maybe an age group. That’s all. You see an ad because you watched a channel. Like on TV.
Coincidence in the sense that the ad that you saw had absolutely no connection to your talk. It was just a random ad.
I’m willing to admit that’s possible, but when I haven’t seen any for a couple of years (truly), and then see one the same evening, that seems like more than just a coincidence to me. /shrug
