"Did they cut ties the same way they cut ties with "Cambridge Analytica" ?" This is completely nonsensical.
Cambridge Analytica was a company that used personality quizzes on Facebook and took advantage of the open-to-everyone social graph API when it existed. They then claimed that people answering shitty personality quizzes somehow unlocked secret advertising magic to elect Trump.
So no, they did not "partner" with Facebook. And their data was all bunk, too, as a professional digital advertiser I can promise you they didn't move the election one way or the other.
They're probably not doing it through smartphones, since the leaked slide deck never actually directly mentions the devices they're using to listen in on people only stating they're "smart devices": https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25051283-cmg-pitch-d...
It is much more likely they're listening in using the microphones in smart TVs, which have much weaker privacy protections. This would also make sense since Cox Media Group is a broadcaster, thus they're much more likely to have broad access to data from smart TVs than from smartphones.
I have been using NoRoot Firewall since my day1 with Android. It takes some times but I allow the least amount of rules per app, then block . per app, and block globally the ones I identify (trackers etc.)
I also block 31... range globally and the FB and FBCDN addresses (namely)(but I don't use FB/IG/WA anyway)
None of those articles provide evidence and the last article mentions how difficult it would be to hide such activity on a smartphone due to power and data constraints. A smart TV has none of those issues.
I was under the impression that was still infeasible on mobile devices (battery, processor, etc). Happy to be corrected, because I have to admit it's only a matter of time.
"Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition," Samsung posted in its SmartTV privacy policy.
Sure there is. I would expect a feature called "Voice Recognition" would only be active when I was using voice commands (and perhaps the occasional accidental activation), but not at other times.
I think amazon solved this partly with hardcoding "alexa" as the wake up word. Meaning a specialized program monitors for "alexa" and ignores everything else and does not record.
Smart TVs might work similar, but I surely won't have anything like it in my home anyway.
> How would you activate certain voice commands if it wasn't listening to all?
One common implementation is to use a locally detected wake word (described in another post), but I've also seen many which require you to hold down a button to speak voice commands. Both solutions answer your technical question satisfactorily.
However, this is how I (and most people) expect voice commands will work based on plain reading of the fine print: the voice commands will be transmitted, but it won't establish 24/7 audio surveillance of your house.
The fine print (and therefore the "explicit" "consent" so obtained) is deceptive and fraudulent.
---
However your real concern is apparently a trust question, not a technical question. The technical question was apparently just a distraction.
Obviously if you don't trust the implementer not to lie about their implementation (ie you assume fraud at the outset), then any microphone (or speaker for that matter!) could be a 24/7 listening bug regardless of trigger implementation or EULA fine print. I see that in another reply you already moved the goalposts thusly.[1] ;)
So the "Hey siri"/"alexa"/"Ok Google", those features don't show your mic is recording, i dont think. Whether it's TVs or phones. all of the speech recognition and hands free control features are probably enough. there are masses of consumers that opt-in to these companies collecting data "to improve services" and other sketchy stuff. Honestly, I would think if you wanted to build a business around this it would be much better to go after the data collected behind EULAs that never got read than try to collect data from people who have all that shit turned off..
Since the scandal with the certificate many years ago I promised myself to never install anything from FB ever again. They are simply not trustworthy. They consistently make a "mistake" either "in implementario" or "in judgment".
We are always talking about the people that don't let their kids use their apps, while they want us/ours to. If that isn't the biggest red flag...
I don't understand how they are actually doing this. Unless facebook/google/amazon are actively sharing microphone data with them, how are get they getting the data?
Amazon are especially zealous of making sure no-one else can steal data from them. Not because of privacy concerns, but because they want to use that data first.
These are deals done straight with the phone makers. Full audio is never shared with advertised, just the filtered data, in text, ex: "I'm moving to Canada next week" or "My girlfriend just got pregnant"
Full transcription is really difficult to do at the edge on battery power. It's either bandwith heavy or CPU heavy. Both of which nail the battery. The only really practical way I can see it being done is with keyword tracking, and then recording snippets either side.
But that still takes a reasonable amount of power to do.
Well I would guess its an app. Spend some money and make a pretty, shiny or even actually useful app. Market it. Get people to download and install it (possibly for free), and ask for permission to access the microphone.
If this is the case I'm not sure what the fb/google/az connection would be. Perhaps, they could be buying the resulting data.
It would sort of makes sense if you installed a voice-note taking app and it asked for access to the microphone. However, when you are not using that app - is it still using the microphone? Who knows? I do get somewhat irritated with Android's inability to report which apps are doing what at any particular moment.
Title is bit click baity, but faceboak is paing contractor to do it.
Imagine ”facebook kills children” title, where article clarifies that it’s actually contractor that is doing the killing and also at other company request.
Good thing (glass half full) about clicky-baity version, it forces facebook to take action, because it directly associates their brand with the problem.
> Smart devices capture real-time intent data by listening to our conversations
I think they would like their customers to believe this is active listening between two humans having a conversation but I doubt this is the case.
I suspect it's actually a conversation with a smart device they're listening too.
Such as, if I ask my smart TV to show me a YouTube video on how to bake a cake, or if I ask an Amazon Echo what time a local computer hardware store closes, then I expect this is fed to advertisers.
I’ve always wondered why companies like these don’t have hedge funds which trade based on this info. You’d think Alphabet and Meta could make a fortune essentially front-running trades with this info. Patents too.
Big tech immediately cut ties with the company.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Media_Group
Apparently they have access to Smart devices, but through apps.
The whole thing is not a big scandal for big tech.
It is a shady company doing shady stuff.
It just reminds you should not install untrustworthy apps, or limit the amount of apps, etc.
Did they cut ties the same way they cut ties with "Cambridge Analytica" ?
It's not big tech fault but it's such a "surprise" that there is some compagny doing shady stuff.
Maybe in a year Microsoft will cut ties with xandr (https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/08/microsoft-owned-adtech-xan...). Oups might be harder to do since they own it ...
"Did they cut ties the same way they cut ties with "Cambridge Analytica" ?" This is completely nonsensical.
Cambridge Analytica was a company that used personality quizzes on Facebook and took advantage of the open-to-everyone social graph API when it existed. They then claimed that people answering shitty personality quizzes somehow unlocked secret advertising magic to elect Trump.
So no, they did not "partner" with Facebook. And their data was all bunk, too, as a professional digital advertiser I can promise you they didn't move the election one way or the other.
Doesn't Android show an indicator when the microphone is being used? Are they bypassing this?
They're probably not doing it through smartphones, since the leaked slide deck never actually directly mentions the devices they're using to listen in on people only stating they're "smart devices": https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25051283-cmg-pitch-d...
It is much more likely they're listening in using the microphones in smart TVs, which have much weaker privacy protections. This would also make sense since Cox Media Group is a broadcaster, thus they're much more likely to have broad access to data from smart TVs than from smartphones.
This makes way more sense.
So AdGuard DNS to the rescue?
Firewalled LAN segments with no internet access, rather.
I have been using NoRoot Firewall since my day1 with Android. It takes some times but I allow the least amount of rules per app, then block . per app, and block globally the ones I identify (trackers etc.)
I also block 31... range globally and the FB and FBCDN addresses (namely)(but I don't use FB/IG/WA anyway)
Which one? Do you have a link, I'd like to try setting it up for myself
google search that badboy, my man
or just don't connect devices with lax security or privacy to the internet.
Just so we're all clear, the question about facebook and phones specifically is not new..
2016: https://qz.com/697923/heres-how-to-stop-facebook-from-listen... https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/facebook-using-people-s-p...
2018: https://money.com/how-to-turn-off-phone-microphone-facebook-...
2019: https://newatlas.com/computers/facebook-not-secretly-listeni...
None of those articles provide evidence and the last article mentions how difficult it would be to hide such activity on a smartphone due to power and data constraints. A smart TV has none of those issues.
It does, but I doubt most people care about the unnoticeable tiny little green icon in the corner.
Frankly, I don't believe it. You can't hide the fact that packets are being shoved over the WAN. Somebody would have picked up on it.
If you have speech synthesis running locally and send some keywords you can hide the data in the normal packets.
I was under the impression that was still infeasible on mobile devices (battery, processor, etc). Happy to be corrected, because I have to admit it's only a matter of time.
It’s not about mobile devices, but smart tvs and cable boxes.
From a quick search:
"Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition," Samsung posted in its SmartTV privacy policy.
https://money.cnn.com/2015/02/09/technology/security/samsung...
There's nothing to hide, it's part of the way the TVs work and explicitly stated by the manufacturers.
>There's nothing to hide
Sure there is. I would expect a feature called "Voice Recognition" would only be active when I was using voice commands (and perhaps the occasional accidental activation), but not at other times.
> would only be active when I was using voice commands
How would you activate certain voice commands if it wasn't listening to all?
If the microphone was off than it has no way of hearing and activating the commands. So by design it's microphone needs to be on 24/7.
You could have a push-to-talk button on a remote control to enable the mic but than you just might as well use the remote control.
All these talk to activate features are designed only for the sake of being gimmicky and unethical surveillance.
I think amazon solved this partly with hardcoding "alexa" as the wake up word. Meaning a specialized program monitors for "alexa" and ignores everything else and does not record.
Smart TVs might work similar, but I surely won't have anything like it in my home anyway.
Partly yes, but the microphone is still on, you have no access to the code so how can you determine that a malicious actor isn't listening in?
You won't know that with any other microphone either. Also any loud speaker to be precise (they can be used as microphones).
But like I said, I don't want to have those devices either and my smartphone has a removable battery ..
That would be reassuring if there was literally any way to verify this.
> How would you activate certain voice commands if it wasn't listening to all?
One common implementation is to use a locally detected wake word (described in another post), but I've also seen many which require you to hold down a button to speak voice commands. Both solutions answer your technical question satisfactorily.
However, this is how I (and most people) expect voice commands will work based on plain reading of the fine print: the voice commands will be transmitted, but it won't establish 24/7 audio surveillance of your house.
The fine print (and therefore the "explicit" "consent" so obtained) is deceptive and fraudulent.
---
However your real concern is apparently a trust question, not a technical question. The technical question was apparently just a distraction.
Obviously if you don't trust the implementer not to lie about their implementation (ie you assume fraud at the outset), then any microphone (or speaker for that matter!) could be a 24/7 listening bug regardless of trigger implementation or EULA fine print. I see that in another reply you already moved the goalposts thusly.[1] ;)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41424684
Whew. And I thought the mobile phone industry was a cesspit...
But usually you would have a wakeword that is recognized locally or a button that has to be pressed before online speech recognition would start.
If traffic is encrypted, and there is constant other traffic to same server, then it might be hard to identify.
So the "Hey siri"/"alexa"/"Ok Google", those features don't show your mic is recording, i dont think. Whether it's TVs or phones. all of the speech recognition and hands free control features are probably enough. there are masses of consumers that opt-in to these companies collecting data "to improve services" and other sketchy stuff. Honestly, I would think if you wanted to build a business around this it would be much better to go after the data collected behind EULAs that never got read than try to collect data from people who have all that shit turned off..
Since the scandal with the certificate many years ago I promised myself to never install anything from FB ever again. They are simply not trustworthy. They consistently make a "mistake" either "in implementario" or "in judgment".
We are always talking about the people that don't let their kids use their apps, while they want us/ours to. If that isn't the biggest red flag...
I don't understand how they are actually doing this. Unless facebook/google/amazon are actively sharing microphone data with them, how are get they getting the data?
Amazon are especially zealous of making sure no-one else can steal data from them. Not because of privacy concerns, but because they want to use that data first.
These are deals done straight with the phone makers. Full audio is never shared with advertised, just the filtered data, in text, ex: "I'm moving to Canada next week" or "My girlfriend just got pregnant"
How are they doing it though?
Full transcription is really difficult to do at the edge on battery power. It's either bandwith heavy or CPU heavy. Both of which nail the battery. The only really practical way I can see it being done is with keyword tracking, and then recording snippets either side.
But that still takes a reasonable amount of power to do.
Write audio to disk. Upload when on external power and wifi (i.e., when charging).
Well I would guess its an app. Spend some money and make a pretty, shiny or even actually useful app. Market it. Get people to download and install it (possibly for free), and ask for permission to access the microphone.
If this is the case I'm not sure what the fb/google/az connection would be. Perhaps, they could be buying the resulting data.
It would sort of makes sense if you installed a voice-note taking app and it asked for access to the microphone. However, when you are not using that app - is it still using the microphone? Who knows? I do get somewhat irritated with Android's inability to report which apps are doing what at any particular moment.
Terrible click bait title. This company is just as much a "partner" of Google and others. Facebook has basically nothing to do with this.
Title is bit click baity, but faceboak is paing contractor to do it.
Imagine ”facebook kills children” title, where article clarifies that it’s actually contractor that is doing the killing and also at other company request.
Having an ad partner that is doing bad things on its own direction is different from explicitly paying a company to do a specific bad thing.
Far be it from me to defend Meta on privacy —- I won’t —- but we should at least characterize their numerous evils honestly.
> is different
True.
Good thing (glass half full) about clicky-baity version, it forces facebook to take action, because it directly associates their brand with the problem.
> Smart devices capture real-time intent data by listening to our conversations
I think they would like their customers to believe this is active listening between two humans having a conversation but I doubt this is the case.
I suspect it's actually a conversation with a smart device they're listening too.
Such as, if I ask my smart TV to show me a YouTube video on how to bake a cake, or if I ask an Amazon Echo what time a local computer hardware store closes, then I expect this is fed to advertisers.
I’ve always wondered why companies like these don’t have hedge funds which trade based on this info. You’d think Alphabet and Meta could make a fortune essentially front-running trades with this info. Patents too.
This is very light on details and the only reason it's upvoted so much is because people want to believe it.
But this is "old" news. CMG's active listening has been reported for at least a year.