Technology

60102 readers

1795 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

500

Google & Facebook partner admits it can listen to device microphone to serve ads - Dexerto (www.dexerto.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A media firm that has worked with the likes of Google and Meta has admitted that it can target adverts based on what you said out loud near device microphones.

Media conglomerate Cox Media Group (CMG) has been pitching tech companies on a new targeted advertising tool that uses audio recordings collected from smart home devices, according to a 404 Media investigation. The company is partners with Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Bing.

In a pitch deck presented to Google, Facebook, and others in November 2023, CMG referred to the technology used for monitoring and active listening as “Voice Data.” The firm also mentioned using artificial intelligence to collect data about consumers’ online behavior.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

We know, you don't need to admit it 10 years after the fact.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yes they do. Not enough people know.

We need everyone to talk about this until it becomes general public knowledge, and then general public outrage.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Have you read the article? They're claiming (!) that they would use ads on websites to use mic data. If you know anything about Android or IOS, you'll know that you have to give mic permission to your browser for it to have access to anything. THEN the browser itself checks if a website needs access to your mic and you have to willingly give it. And lastly: Android indicates when your mic is hot with a green dot. So all of their claims are bs.

Come back if one of the OS developers admit to always listen on an OS level.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Well look, not to be dismissive of what you're saying, but the technical aspects of it really don't matter. There is not (yet) any law in the US that would protect people from such surveillance, regardless of its current technical infeasibility. The point of getting people at large worried or upset about this is to get law established before it becomes a widespread problem, not after some company publicly admits to doing something despicable.

The fact that companies are thinking about this, trying to accomplish it, trying to buy this functionality from other companies... that should be enough to scare people and get them angry. It's certainly enough that we should all be talking about it, and publicly shaming them for the voyeuristic creeps that they are.

There should be riots in the streets over stuff like this, because you can't build a surveillance state without surveillance technology.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You should probably remove the tinfoil hat. Seems to be cutting off the circulation to your 3 brain cells.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

If Cox is advertising this as a product, it's because they have a market that will buy it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is not (yet) any law in the US that would protect people from such surveillance, regardless of its current technical infeasibility.

Wiretapping laws exist. There is no state in the US that allows for wholesale recording someone without consent. Even one party consent states still require ONE party to consent. Recordings taking in a private place without consent would fail to meet even that limited scope.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The problem is that when you accept the terms of service for smart devices and applications with voice interfaces, you give consent to be recorded.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Others around you don't. That consent isn't transferable. Nor does it grant wholesale recording even if the owner isn't expecting it, eg if google present "we need to record in order to do voice to text operations", then other shit gets used, that's a problem. And lastly, it doesn't transfer to other applications. If I consent to be recorded by "Google" that doesn't grant other ad partners access without explicitly stating so. EULA/TOS isn't law. Terms and conditions get abused all the time. Law often strikes them down when those terms make it to court.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

I agree wholeheartedly :)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

I agree with the premise but I have zero confidence this would cause outrage. Most people are too stupid to understand the implications

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

./r/confidentlyincorrect 🤣

How do you fall for this shit hook line and sinker?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I'm only human, haha.

I'm glad to see the discussion going on.