In Leak, Facebook Partner Brags About Listening to Your Phone’s Microphone to Serve Ads for Stuff You Mention
In Leak, Facebook Partner Brags About Listening to Your Phone’s Microphone to Serve Ads for Stuff You Mention
One of Facebook's alleged marketing partners explained how it listens to users' smartphone microphones and advertises to them accordingly.
Techbros really went full police state just to deliver ads I wouldn't click on straight into my adblocker
You'd be surprised how many people raw dog the internet.
It's terrifying
Even people you'd really expect to use adblockers. A good example is right here on Lemmy, people here are generally pretty tech-savvy yet you get threads with lots of people complaining about ads. This has been a weird lesson as I get older, seeing that most people somehow don't even think about lifting a finger to fix things they see as problems, they really just complain and then do absolutely nothing to help themselves. It's the same with if someone mentions something they don't know what it is, instead of taking 5 seconds to just look it up they comment to ask about it and then never reply to people answering their question. I'm certain that it's very common to have some weird need to make others do work for you, they don't actually care about finding out what something is or how to do something to fix a problem, they just care about making others spend any kind of effort for them.
I have a friend that pays Google a YouTube tax every month... He tells me he wants to support the creators.
I'm just kind of sad for him... I tried to explain direct donations were a million times more effective, but he clearly just doesn't want to learn how to use an adblocker.
This guy is like 30 years old.
I see people doing it and its terrifying.
It's about to be a lot more with the chrome manifest update. I got my dad into chrome some 15 years ago and explaining why he should switch to Firefox is completely confusing for him. He thinks his own business listing on Google won't work if he's not using Chrome.
I've had people that refuse to use an adblocker because "the creators deserve to get paid". Well, your funeral if you get malvertising...
Recent versions of Android make it much more difficult for a background app to access the microphone. There will be a notification if any background app is using the mic or camera.
Google's "Now playing" feature constantly listens to what's going on in the background to show you what songs are playing. They claim this is done with a local database of song "fingerprints". The feature does not show the microphone indicator because: "...Now Playing is protected by Android's Private Compute Core..."
I'm not saying that other, non-google, app do this to my knowledge; but the fact that this is a thing is honestly a bit scary.
Edit: screenshot of the "Now Playing" feature
The thing is I really can't see Google allowing anyone else access. They don't even allow Android OEMs to have access
if this is used, or there is some whitelist that gives permission for background microphone use in voice interaction services, apps with tracking capabilities probably use some set of predefined keywords (hardcoded inside the app itself) and those can be triggered while being on standby/in background, when there is a match some pinging goes to outside servers...
Yeah, this sounds like a shareholder soapy titwank speech to me.
They're bullshitting everyone including the people we hate.
Supposedly more difficult.
Android likes selling ads too, why would google want to stop ad blocking microphne access?
"Meta does not use your phone's microphone for ads and we've been public about this for years," the statement read.
Meanwhile:
Not defending Facebook, but if you record a video with sound, then the FB app has to have permission to record your audio.
That said, delete Facebook. Fuck Zuck.
if you record a video with sound, then the FB app has to have permission to record your audio.
I can't tell if you're trying to explain how it currently works (which I know very well, thanks) or asserting that the current behavior is necessary in order to record with sound.
It really doesn't have to be as it is. The OS can provide a record-video API, complete with a user-controlled kill switch and an activity indicator, and the app can call it. The app doesn't need direct access to the microphone to allow the user to create a file with sound.
Edit to clarify: I'm not saying that the "permission" doesn't work as advertised. I'm saying that recording an audio file doesn't have to require a permission system as coarse and disempowering to users as it is today. I guess the people clicking the downvote button misunderstood.
That is not the same thing as listening in the background.
Meta said it does not, but what about 3rd parties…
What a horrifying list of data collection. Fuck all that hahaha
Why wouldn’t you want to share your fitness data with the company that will sell it to the company setting your health “insurance” premiums? </s>
"Meta does not use your phone's microphone for ads and we've been public about this for years," the statement read. "We are reaching out to CMG to get them to clarify that their program is not based on Meta data."
Ah, yes. The tried and true defense of "we've denied it for years and continue to deny it" must be credible coming from a source as trustworthy as Facebook. I hear they're planning on holding a press conference to pinky swear they're not listening to the microphone they demand access to in order to show you ads that make them money.
FWIW, this was debunked when CMG originally made the claim. It was a marketing guy overselling their product and they had to correct their statement. They use the same info data brokers collect, and phones actively listening to you is not true.
Even what they said could be true without applying to phones. They said "smart devices" a lot. They never said "smart phone".
There are a lot of IoT devices, some of which have microphones, a lot less secure than either iPhone or Android.
The fundamental question is, “Do you trust Facebook?” They have the resources to manipulate the story and twist the truth. They have the capability to spy on you with mics, but they say they don’t do so. Do you trust them?
No it was quite a lot more than "a marketing guy" - there were pages and pages of details about their Active Listening program on their website, investor presentations etc. They went far into detail about how much they could listen to and what they could do with all that audio data.
Here's the Internet Archive link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231116115055/https://www.cmglocalsolutions.com/cmg-active-listening
They really need to name-and-shame beyond "Facebook Partner" considering we're talking about fucking Cox Media Group.
Fuckers got my entire complex's Internet shut down (I am a renter not the owner)
Dildos, lots of dildos! I'm just gonna repeat that while I'm driving to see if I start getting Google ads for dildos.
Keep us updated!
Hold on, I just tripped on another goddamn dildo, you don't wanna know where I fell.
If that works, you should try it with a product that you aren't interested in too and compare the results.
I've tried that, it didn't work....unfortunately.
I tried that. Didn’t work. There may be some filters so they don’t serve inappropriate ads to people with families or some such.
It remains funny to me that futurism.com became mostly about covering the dystopia we live in.
The future is going to be amazing! Well, it has the potential to be amazing if we use tech the right way. No I mean, like in an ethical way. Without exploiting people. No not like that, in a way that helps people. Well yes, billionaires are people, but I meant... at least it should be in legal ways. Or at least policed. Not hostile to average people. Not an openly criminal endeavour. Maybe just dont criminalise resistance to it? ... oh, actually the future is going to be a techno-monopolistic dark age, I see. We can pivot to covering that.
Yeah that's a shame, electronics seems to have reached a level where most people just don't need or dream of a better something (PC, phone, etc) and other tech is hard to grasp like biotech.
Not, like, "haha" funny...
I am so numb to outrage that this just seems... Meh. What happened to me.
It's the world we live in. It's very much intentionally designed to make you complacent.
yeah like tell me something I don't know.
"This just in: to the surprise of no one, your phone has, in fact, been spying on you from day 1. Now we go to Jim with sports. Jim?"
tell me something I don't know
My grandad said "It's really humid today isn't it?"
I said "Tell me something I don't know!"
He said "Err... Ok........ I can fit my whole fist up yer gran's arse"
They spent decades gaslighting you so you thought you were crazy for even imagining it.
Normative nihilism is going to get us all.
This is such a strange reality to live in. All of the futuristic, dystopian fiction I have consumed has the same premise that people living in the dystopia know it and know it's bad. Somehow reality is worse.
Most of the non tech people reaction
But before that, when it was not acknowledged by social media, it was more like ' you're paranoid. And you think you're that important that they listen to you? Common, get back to reality '
Yeah, being not paranoid is hard in XXI century.
TBH the same scenario has been mentioned in the "ex machina" movie from 2014 when colleb has been asking how the humanoid robots work. The deep blue was AI of search engine taking data from listening to the phone calls
I feel like we've been gaslighted so bad about this that we were even denying each other's reality.
I knew they had to be doing this so I turned off all mic permissions. One day it pissed me off so much I started keeping my phone off completely unless I needed to use it.
The only good thing that came out of it was I learned about ad blockers. Fine, listen to me since I can't fucking stop you(keeping phone off was inconvenient), but it's futile now and you wasted money since I won't see your stupid fucking ads anymore.
It's the reverse. Non tech people believe the snake oil, tech people know this is snake oil.
I remember reading some time ago that "the idea (of phones listening to everything you say to serve ads) makes no economic sense, because it'd be too expensive to run"
Looks like it actually isn't "too expensive" to run in the end.
Except Facebook never used it this was a 3rd party trying to hype up investors. Many audits have been run on these apps and there is no way they use your microphone. It's way cheaper to just look at your search history.
It's not when it's your device doing the computing. All electronic devices should have visible hardware indicators for when their camara or microphone is on, but that's a consumer rights issue most people are dismissive of, so it's not happening. Some people even always want it on for the assistant functionality.
Yep, and it's not just Facebook, not just microphone. My lappie recently started serving ads for something I searched on a device not linked to it. I'm guessing it's my ISP engaging in these sneak tactics.
Even then, you have local voice recognition. You don't need to stream all microphone recordings to some central server for processing, you just do voice recognition and keep a log of say the last 100 nouns and a high priority log for the last twenty nouns used near verbs like purchase, buy or get. Then send those lists to the ad provider as context. All the hard work is done on the client device and the same backend used for ad context on web pages can be used for this as well.
Then hide it encrypted in an image upload or some other packet. Listen for 'buy a <something>' encrypt its text version, wait for something to cargo it with in a data transmission so people looking at data transmissions aren't any the wiser, hide it in some obscure way that would look normal otherwise, it's intercepted, sends off to advertisers. Adtech is cyber terrorism.
Yeah, a marketing agency selling snake oil to people that actually think they can do it is not expensive. Of course they never actually built the tech.
What's the last "bombshell scandal that would ruin a company" that actually ruined a company?
Enron? Maybe the SBF thing? Seems like financial scandals are the only thing that matters.
Cambridge Analytica, but only because what they were doing was so monumentally illegal. I'm sure the government would have let them get away with it if they could have thought of a way out for them. A lot of them mates were involved in that scandal.
As a business you can be a maverick against many laws, just not the laws regarding finance.
Unroll.me was a service that would scan your email and clean up your inbox. The New York Times reported that the company was gathering sales receipts emails, anonymizing them, and selling them to rival companies; for example Uber paid them to hand over all the sales receipts they could on Lyft rides in people’s mailboxes. The bad press made them eventually sell the company to Slice, mainly for the email archives they amassed.
This is why I don't like the push of everything needing an app. I sure do wish people in congress cared about this type of privacy issues the way they did Tiktok.
I highly doubt that they actually managed to do this, at least any time recently.
As another commenter noted, Android alerts you when an app is accessing the microphone in the background, and it would also absolutely destroy the phones battery life more than the FB app currently does. The only way that we have the "Hey Google/Siri" command prompts active all the time is with custom hardware not available to the apps, and certainly not without Android knowing about it.
Maybe they actively listen while the app is open, but even then I think recent Android/iOS would let you know about that.
Google's "Now playing" feature constantly listens to what's going on in the background to show you what songs are playing. They claim this is done with a local database of song "fingerprints". The feature does not show the microphone indicator because: "...Now Playing is protected by Android's Private Compute Core..."
I'm not saying that other, non-google, app do this to my knowledge; but the fact that this is a thing is honestly a bit scary.
As someone relatively ignorant about the mechanics of something like this, would it not make more sense that the app would be getting this data from the Android OS, with Google's knowledge and cooperation?
The place I see the most unsettling ads (that seem to be driven by overheard conversation) tends to be the google feed itself, so it seems reasonable to me that they could be using and selling that information to others as well, and merely disguising how the data were acquired.
The place I see the most unsettling ads (that seem to be driven by overheard conversation)
There's a simpler explanation -- you're in the same geospatial region or you're connected to the same networks as the people you're having conversations with, and those people also looked up the things they have conversations about.
If you have GPS, Wi-Fi, or (possibly) Bluetooth, then that's how they can pretty easily associate you to those people.
These companies absolutely do use your microphone to listen.
My wife and I have tested this and you can too.
Have a conversation near your phones about purchasing something offbeat. We used a kitchen garbage disposal in our test. Talk about them for a few minutes, about needing to buy one, different brands, etc.
Almost immediately you'll be served garbage disposal adds.
This has been common knowledge for several years now.
And there have been push back against the idea by naive, trusting people who think the toggles for that do anything. The fact that there's leak conversations now of advertisers admitting they do it will sink any counter argument against it.
Also, if advertisers are doing it, you can bet that the government can too.
There are deniers. They're wrong.
I've tested this many times and never saw it happen.
I even got an email out of nowhere right in my inbox from Dell the same day I was talking about Dell laptops with my book club. I would be so shocked if these examples are mere coincidence
Having worked on the tech side of email marketing campaigns I would actually be impressed
Setting aside confirmation bias (idk, because it's boring?): So people you're in a book club with, an established group which it is very easy to associate you with, were discussing Dell laptops... and you think it's strange you got looped in? If three people from your book club all looked up dells later, or earlier, or etc. etc., why wouldn't they figure you might also be interested in dell laptops? An approach that doesn't require NLP of god only knows how much hypothetical audio taken from pockets, and works much better?
A market agency claiming they do something of the sort isn’t proof that conversations are being monitored en masse. Security researchers can and probably have tested for this and found no clear, verifiable evidence, otherwise we would have known. Also, this stuff can be blocked at the OS level and I find it hard to imagine (esp. without solid proof) that Google or Apple would jeopardize their reputations to this extent by enabling such unauthorized listening in on users’ conversations.
Of course it’s good to keep watching this space but we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.
They have it's very easy there are free programs that monitor all data traffic.
This claim that Facebook listens to you on your phone has been around for years. It has been investigated numerous times and has never turned out to be true. Until recently the processing capacity required would have been insane and you would have an incredibly high noise to signal ratio. It's just not an economical way of gathering data for advertising.
Why bother anyway when people put their entire lives on Facebook, for free, in easily processable text?
Your phone/plan carrier using voice data to make a marketing profile is well documented actually. This data is purchased and verified and resold by meta, or in some cases bought and used by alphabet for GAS. Cacti can show you outgoing data for every device on a network, and you can see data being sent from a phone in signed packets going to your carrier when you're not "actively using" it. It seems like you know about network monitoring tools but you haven't actually used them, just talked about them in reference to data collection.
"Why buy the cow" here is also easily answered: not everyone uses Facebook, a fair number of users will deactivate their facebook page but continue to use messenger.
Because people's (presumed private) conversations on Messenger are not the same thing as things people post publicly.
Personally, I would never install that malware on my phone. But if you even have FB Messenger installed on your device, chances are that it's constantly sending your data to Facebook. Go take a look at what permissions it "needs."
Security researchers can and probably have tested for this and found no clear, verifiable evidence, otherwise we would have known.
Facebook snooped on users’ Snapchat traffic in secret project, documents reveal
By paying people $20 / month in exchange for installing a VPN that will snoop on your data so they can market research their competitors.
It is unacceptable, but it wasn't in secret from the users. They agreed to get paid in exchange for the usage data of competitor apps.
So it's a completely different situation to any "secretly spying" claim. The users had to go out of their way to get it setup.
Anybody that's ever spoken to a salesperson knows that they're talking out of their arse most of the time, and I doubt this is an exception.
He's said this because he thinks that the people he's talking to will give him more money if he does.
If it was happening at all you'd have seen proof by now. Like people pulling apps apart and finding proof, not just "I spoke to Bob last week about cameras and now I'm seeing ads for cameras".
The truly terrifying part is they don't need to listen to your conversations to know what you want.
There were whole threads of people saying this stuff doesn't happen. They would say it just didn't make sense that companies would do this, it's not worth it to them. That all the ads I was seeing at convenient times were just a coincidence.
Right and your evidence is "I think it happens".
Show me the stack trace.
And they are right. This company is full of shit. Show me any proof the tech from the deleted advert actually existed.
I have my camera and microphone deactivated on the OS level because Youtube and Spotify would show me things workmates mentioned way too often.
I didn't notice it since.
Could still be a major coincidence though, the biggest of them.
Same exact thing for me, and same exact results. Also too major of a coincidence in my mind.
The next iteration of gaslighting is already here: That it's no big deal anyway since you can just use an ad blocker. Riiight, let's all just turn our eyes away to make the monster go away. Surely, it'll get bored and stop listening and recording, and surely, it will not sell its collected data off to banks, insurance providers, the government, law enforcement... right?
Seriously... If ad-blockers worked at a high enough level to actually impact this shit, then they wouldn't be doing it. They know most people don't bother with ad blockers, and because of that, they're low-hanging fruit.
There are simps in this thread trying to say "uuuuhmmmm AKSHUALLY it's not Facebook directly" like that's fucking relevant to the problem.
They're here in this thread lol. No matter what, these people will deny its happening. I don't understand it.
Except it's not Facebook doing this, it's Cox Media Group.
If you look at the slideshow, cox media group doesn't claim to be the ones harvesting the data, only to be processing it using AI to then provide that aggregate information to advertisers. Which makes sense, they literally have no means to directly collect voice data from you
Also no offense but, I thought lemmy users were a little bit better than this whole "read headline, make assumptions, storm to comments" thing that Reddit loves to do
At this point it doesn't even matter if it's real or not, after Snowden no sane person believes big tech since they were all in on PRISM.
I KNEW IT!!!
unless this is provably and demonstrably true, this is definitely not true, because up until now, this has been entirely speculation.
It is pretty easy to verify whether you've granted Microphone access to Facebook. If you have, revoke it.
The problem with closed source apps is you don't know what else is going on in the background and what else it might have installed or connected to, unless you have debug logs for everything it did and know how to interpret all of that. I wouldn't install any app from the facebook company on any device I use
I'm pretty sure that iPhone have the same security but on Android, apps cannot install other apps. When you think about it that would be a pretty basic security vulnerability so it's not that surprising that it's blocked.
It's not Facebook though, it's just used in the clickbait headline as an advertising partner of the actual company the story is about.
But if you need to revoke the microphone permission from the Facebook app then something is wrong anyway, because it means you have the Facebook app installed for some reason.
goes close to a smartphone "BLOODY MARY! BLOODY MARY! BLOODY MARY!" gets advertisements from local pubs and restaurants serving Bloody Mary at a discount
I had a bloody mary last weekend, you're clearly listening in on my conversations.
I am not against this.
Isn’t this an old article?
Thank god those moral people would never sell stuff to law enforcement nor sell it to companies that would then sell it to law enforcement.
Nope. Those people are all moral, good, and rich thus we are safe.
Turn off microphone access to all social media and tell your friends the same. I’ve disabled mine for years and all ads are generic or from prior sites visited.
Do you one better - My mini-desktop is plugged into a monitor with no microphone or camera.
easy to test. men can say "tampons glitter lotion" several times a day. women say "garage exhaust cable".
For everyone saying apps need permission to use your mic I want to point you to "play services". The permissions protections only apply to user space apps not system apps. Thats how u can say "OK google" and get the chat ai to pop up even tho its "not listening" according to the OS.
Also if you read the website they are not piping audio to their servers. They push triggers (keywords, etc) to the local ai on your phone that listens for things like "OK google" and then sends those reports back.
Meta apps would need permission to to mic but I think if y'all check your big tech apps u will be surprised how many have that permission.
I can't speak to iOS because its closed source but it probably has similar backdoors for apple.
What ? A corporation that earn money in selling personal data, that don't want to share its code that run on a device with a microphone, actually use it ? I'm shocked
Title is basically clickbait given it's Cox Media Group doing this, not Facebook. They're partnered with a bunch of companies.
We know? It's not a coincidence that when you mention something like Cheap Flights to Dublin, it soon ends up on your ad rotation.
Honestly I'd rather that than ads for the things I already bought.
uOrigin user : you have ads?
uBlock and advert blocking DNS user: you have ads?
Just using uBlock is great if you only use a web browser that supports it.
This is why I don't have the Facebook app installed. However, what about messenger? Did the collect the data from messenger?
Any closed-source software is a potential privacy threat. You are always at the mercy of big tech in that case. If the product is free, you are the product
Think about it.
Shocked, I tell you!
Ngl man I'm not buying it. With all the protections in mobile OSes against this exact kind of thing it straight up doesn't seem possible
Until now it was really annoying to collect audio and then use it. The app needs to constantly record, send out the datas and then lastly process it to be useful. Today the cost versus benefits are really not to their advantage.
But tomorrow this might change, if they find a way of using the mic to serve ads be sure that they will. The only question today is how? The only option at this time is for me to process the stuff offline. As they do today with "ok google". Within the next months-years we are going to see more and more phones and it stuff using dedicated or specialized AI chip, they will be great with really low consumption to run 24/24. They could analyse offline the speech, make a resume and lastly when the connectivity is sufficient and enough datas are collwcted, the phone sends out all the infos to the companies servers.
I've seen some comments about the fact that others companies that Google cannot really use the mic in this way, this is right...today. But in the future make sure that when they will have developed correctly this concept, Google (and Apple) would surely be okay with this approach (maybe in exchange with some bucks).
Today phones are surely not listening to us, but they know so much things that we are actually thinking that they are. But this way is maybe not enough profitable for them, so they want to invade even more our privacy to gain more of this fucking thing called "money".
Thought this was common knowledge by now
Can something that’s not true be common knowledge?
god?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsolete_medical_theories
And that's just in medicine.
Yeah, there was a viral video years back about a couple that thought this was happening to them, so they started talking about cat litter for 1 day, only inside their house, and then within 2 days they were being served cat litter ads for the first time in their lives.
They didnt own a cat.
Did they mention cat litter in any messaging app? Upload a video announcing their plan?
I'm skeptical, lol
Yea they can deny it all they want, but I’ve had similar happen to me countless times.
Even better, last time I tried to buy something from one of their adds it turned out to be a scam. I reported the post (add) and they said they wouldn’t remove it because it didn’t break any policies. lol.
I used to pick up things for a friend at the supermarket and they moved over five years ago. To this day, I still use the savings card, and still get coupons for baby formula and diapers. Even if I had an infant at the time, does the supermarket think my now six year old would still be using formula and diapers?