Person in a privacy community using YouTube and multiple Google accounts thinks the only way they are being tracked is through phone microphones...you can't make this shit up.
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
10 points (54.9% liked)
Privacy
31749 readers
571 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: BS
Maybe I should have removed this post, because it is ridiculous.
Yet again, someone mistakes an anecdote for evidence. And evidence is also not the plural form of anecdote.
I'm sure we have people here who are tech-savvy enough to have actually examined the kinds of data that their phone is sharing.
If you have something like Google Home or Amazon Alexa, then yeah, those would be sending voice data back, and yeah, they could probably use it for advertising. But as far as I know, there is no evidence that phones are "always listening" and "always sending information back" when they're idle.
It's possible that it's inferred off the digital footprint of you pirating the content, also. People freak out a lot about being listened to, but I'd argue that's an inefficient spying mechanism they probably don't lean heavily on if they can avoid it. We're all living on platforms that are knowably spying on everything you click on or read or do online and feeding that into giant AI models with everything about you. Like just by watching a pirated video on a Google TV device, Google's hashing that and phoning that data home, possibly even matching that to the specific file, and adding that to an ad profile.
Listening to audio would be the least effective and most expensive method of data collection for advertisers. It's not happening. They already have literally over a million data points on you, there's nothing useful for them to glean from your audio that they don't already have ad nauseum.
You see thousands of ads and recommendations every day. You finally found one that was relevant to you. It's not that deep.
And how often. have you said stuff that you have not received advertising for? You will notice it when you get a positive match but not on a negative.
Data collecting companies can predict/rate your behavior for more then 20 years based. Since then. it has been perfected. They know that you are interested in those topics without having the need to waste resources on recording and analyzing every single audio stream.
No, your phone doesn't listen to you 24/7. With that out of the way, there are a number of places where youtube may have gotten that info. One possibility is that someone in your household looked up the movie and maybe checked if stuff ripped from netflix is indeed full HD. And since everyone in your family is using the same NAT IP, then it's easy for youtube to target recommendations at everyone in that household.
I don’t doubt you, but it’s worth asking if your reasons for stating that our phones don’t listen to us 24/7 haven’t changed since you first formed the opinion.
Lots of things are meso-facts (a true fact at rhetorical time we learn it, but no longer true later). Tech moves quickly. It’s worth not assuming anyone is right here, & asking: under what conditions could our phones be listening (enough to produce what OP experienced)?
The mere bandwidth cost to listen everyone's mics at all times when people voluntarily give up profiling data already would be dumb as fuck on Google's part.
But again, what I’m getting at here is, are we so sure it takes all that much anymore. Processing could take place in a shorter way now, more than it could when our current opinion was still true.
Watchdog groups have been monitoring these services for years now and have yet to find the "your phone is listening 24/7" smoking gun.
The conditions would be that all the controls that are in place to prevent it from happening are bypassed, which no one has proven yet. For example, Apple has developed their devices (assuming not jailbroken) in such a way where the camera and microphone usage indicators are hardwired and can't easily be bypassed by software hacks. So if your phone was listening to you all the time, then the microphone indicator light would always be on. Listening 24/7 would also drain the phone's battery and use up so much data it would be noticeable. Another example is Siri. It is actually designed in a way where there are 2 components. The first one is local on the phone and separate from the actual Siri component. It is what's actively listening for you to call it. Once you call it, it then activates the actual Siri that transmits your voice inputs online.
Thank you, this is the kind of detail I was hoping someone would describe, no sarcasm. To be specific, too, this is all probably easier on Androids / jailbroken iPhones
I’ve gotten ads for things I’ve just thought about. Never said anything out loud about or did any searches related to. It was something in a video I’ve watched dozens of videos about in the past. But on this occasion, I happened to think that I kind of want one for the first time. And I just so happened to start getting ads for them right after, also for the first time. They know way more about you than you think and don’t need to listen to you.
Most likely the website you pirated your movies from stored cookies in your browser which then were picked up by Google/YouTube.
That's not how that works. There were likely ads on the page which brings in Google cookies and shows the page the user is on.
OP make sure all third party cookies are blocked. They're not needed anymore.
load more comments
(8 replies)
No, they don't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtfU9AsUmc4
Again, no, they don't: https://gizmodo.com/these-academics-spent-the-last-year-testing-whether-you-1826961188
If you don't trust a 4 minute YouTube video or an independent (?) study, try a Reddit comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/q1u71q/comment/hfhynid/
no, they don’t
Please be careful with your claims.
In my experience, whenever investigating these claims and refutations we usually find when digging past the pop media headlines into the actual academic claims, that noone has proven it’s not happening. If you know of a conclusive study, please link.
Regarding the article you have linked we don’t even need to dig past the article to the actual academic claims.
The very article you linked states quite clearly:
The researchers weren’t comfortable saying for sure that your phone isn’t secretly listening to you in part because there are some scenarios not covered by their study.
(Genuine question, not trying to be snarky) Will you take a moment to reflect on which factors may have contributed to your eagerness to misrepresent the conclusions of the studies cited in your article?
Of course a researcher is never sure something is 100% ruled out. That's part of how academic research works.
My eagerness stems from being tired of anecdotes presented as evidence supporting a weird privacy conspiracy. This takes away from the actual issue at hand, which is your digital footprint and how your data is used.
Of course a researcher is never sure something is 100% ruled out. That’s part of how academic research works.
once again, that isn't what they were reported to have said. [and researchers don't need to repeat the basic precepts of the scientific method in every paper they write, so perhaps its worthwhile to note what they were reported to say about that, rather than write it off as a generic 'noone can be 100% certain of anything'] it's a bit rich to blame someone for lacking rigor while repeatedly misrepresenting what your own article even says.
what the article actually said is
because there are some scenarios not covered by their study
and even within the subset of scenarios they did study, the article notes various caveats of the study:
Their phones were being operated by an automated program, not by actual humans, so they might not have triggered apps the same way a flesh-and-blood user would. And the phones were in a controlled environment, not wandering the world in a way that might trigger them: For the first few months of the study the phones were near students in a lab at Northeastern University and thus surrounded by ambient conversation, but the phones made so much noise, as apps were constantly being played with on them, that they were eventually moved into a closet
there's so much more research to be done on this topic, we're FAR FAR from proving it conclusively (to the standards of modern science, not some mythical scientifically impossible certainty).
presenting to the public that is a proven science, when the state of research afaict has made no such claim is muddying the waters.
which comes to your main point, you may feel as i do that the responsible collection of even witness reports should include some acknowledgement or attempted elimination of the plethora of other channels for such correlations to be realised (not withstanding ofc there's also the possibility of sheer random chance). then that's fine, i agree.
pretending its solved when its not even close merely further detracts from worthwhile discussions about non-voice surveillance channels & inferences thereof
i don't really blame you personally, the news media repeatedly fails to present the current state of research accurately. from my observation many popular headlines state "its not happening" even when the very article itself doesn't say that. its frankly dishonest or extremely lazy "journalism". and i don't mean the typical failure of popsci reporting to fully capture the finer details of a study, i mean literally the popsci headline doesn't even match their own article body.
tl;dr: "Strike that, reverse it."
They can bid all they want to put ads in front of me, I ain't gonna see them. Of course, they probably know that, too.
I will watch these later. But recently one of the Facebook's employee's chat was leaked saying they listen to customer mics 24/7 via a third party. Google blocked the alleged third party and Facebook has ended ties with them too.
What about it?
It was an ad partner's pitch deck, not much to do with Facebook itself. And it didn't really explain how it would be listening anyway.
Besides, if they were recording, processing and / or transferring audio, that would mean there's data usage, battery usage, etc - stuff that's easy to prove.
The truth is a lot simpler (and scarier) and you will find that in the links I provided.
load more comments
(4 replies)
This may be a simple coincidence. Maybe you had similar YouTube suggestions in the past but you didn't pay attention because they come at random times. Like if you drive a Honda Civic, you tend to spot all the Honda Civic in the street.
There would be an interesting experiment to make though:
- Take a snapshot of your YouTube recommandations
- Choose a subject that has nothing to do with any of the recommandations, let's say "travel to the Bahamas"
- Hold a conversation with someone with both your phone's present, mention several time going to the Bahamas.
- Check YouTube again, si if the topic of Bahamas is appearing.
- Choose another topic not covered by your recommendations, let's say collecting stamps
- Put your phones away, have a conversation about collecting stamps
- Check YouTube recommandations
The problem comes is the suggestion of travelling to destination X (in your case, the Bahamas) doesn't just pop up out of thin air - friends may have travelled there recently, perhaps there has been a recent advertising push, etc.
Another family member looking up some destinations to travel, then speaking with you later - same external IP of the home wifi being reported, bam you get advertised the destinations they looked at the most.
Choosing a "random" topic again also doesn't come out of thin air.
Okay, but I prefer to believe Google listens to mic 7/24 than to use reason, so..
First off, if you're concerned about phone privacy, consider a custom OS for your phone that respects privacy such as GrapheneOS.
It's easy to figure out that your device isn't listening to a constant audio stream 24/7, since that would drain battery and send a lot of noticeable data over the network. However, it is entirely possible to listen for certain keywords as you mentioned, and send them encrypted with another seemingly legitimate packet. There's no way to be 100% certain, but it is possible in theory without draining too much battery.
The steps you took are good, making sure that apps don't have any permissions they don't need. Privacy is a spectrum, so it's not "all or nothing". As I mentioned before, if you're seriously concerned about mobile privacy and want a solution, you can get a custom operating system that can remove any privacy invasive elements. GrapheneOS also allows you to disable the camera and microphone system-wide (although this functionality is present on some other Android builds).
If it eases you any, a lot of these advertisements happen to be coincidence and trigger confirmation bias. It could be that those ads happened to show up by coincidence, or that advertisers managed predicted your interests, or that you got tracked by some other means while downloading the movie. The possibilities are nearly endless.
You should install Rethink and see how much garbage your phone constantly transmits and receives. And this is not even a kernel-level firewall, so who knows how much data Google actually exfiltrates...
I don't know about a constant audio stream, nor about keywords, but I noticed that Google Keyboard sends out some data every time you type anything. It's not even that subtle.
If anything, I love GrapheneOS for its "Network" permission toggle. It's nice knowing that my keyboard (or any other unnecessary apps) can't phone home.
GrapheneOS is certainly on my wishlist too, but Pixels are quite pricey. I guess Rethink is the poor man's version. Just a per-app firewall.
Maybe Divest/Lineage could be an option instead. Although you have to choose a device wisely (and even among supported ones, some have trouble unlocking the bootloader), there is a chance you'd find a suitable cheaper one.
Personally no regrets spending $300 on a Pixel 7a but still painful to hand over this much.
The youtube algorithm determined the following: people who watch the kind of videos in your history, are also interested in recording netflix shows. And it was right, because you are in fact interested in that (general) topic. This is another possible explanation.
Same thing with microwaves
Food is ready and get a video for "why do microwaves hmm?"
Here’s a fun little experiment you can try. Make a list of random topics and have a discussion about each of them on separate days. Make sure each topic is something that could result in creepy suggestions or ads on YT. If even one of these topics produces the expected result, you could be on to something.
Fun, sure, but not an experiment that would actually be meaningful.
The data from your phone's microphone doesn't magically appear in Google's advertising servers. It would have to go through a lot of steps before it gets there, and one of the first steps is in your home (if you're on WiFi). One can analyze the traffic/data that leaves their phone.
It's good to be cautious, but worrying about your phone's microphone is potentially like worrying about your windows while leaving your front door open.
In addition to all the GrapheneOS recommendations, there are also faraday bags. Drop the phone in while at home or wherever.
That doesn't really help unless the bag is also soundproof; it could just as easily store what you say and send it off later.
Anyone saying they know for 100% certain it's not happening is probably speaking from their emotional desire for it not to be true - rather than actual fact.
Anyone who has looked into the actual technical aspects, rather than spouting the usual surface-level "tech facts" or parroting headlines (rather than the actual academic findings), cannot seriously claim to know for certain its 100% not happening.
@op i would advise caution on stating '24x7' until there is evidence of that specific claim. (unless you're referring to while voice assistants are enabled.)
I'll second the recommendation for GrapheneOS. One of the available options I use is to keep mic, camera, and location off at all times until I need them. That simple toggle ability changes your privacy stance greatly.
Yup. I was driving in the car with a few people for work. We were talking about a music video a couple of us had worked on, and we were explaining who daddy yankee/bad bunny was, and we mentioned daddy yankee did the song “gasolina.”
We live in the US, the conversation was in English, but fuck if “estacion de gasolina” didn’t show up on our route.
These kinds of things never happen to me, could it be because I have all the tracking stuff disabled?? /s
view more: next ›