Techbros really went full police state just to deliver ads I wouldn't click on straight into my adblocker
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59566 readers
4890 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You'd be surprised how many people raw dog the internet.
It's terrifying
load more comments
(13 replies)
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.
Yup, the green dot top right
Now if there was only an easy way to get to the offending app to identify it
Supposedly more difficult.
Android likes selling ads too, why would google want to stop ad blocking microphne access?
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.
I have seen said feature being mentioned or brought to other android versions whether with apps or modules, do they work the same way?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why is that scary to you?
What other apps use Google's "Android Private Compute Core" and therefore don't show mic or camera usage notifications? Not trying to sound all tinfoil hat here, but seriously: can apps other than those from Google use the "Android Private Compute Core"? Even if only Google's own apps can use the "Android Private Compute Core", we can't see the source code for Google's apps as (far as I know, anyway) they are not open source. If an app is not open source, we do not really know what the app is doing in the background; we'll just have to take them at their word.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Thought this was common knowledge by now
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
"Meta does not use your phone's microphone for ads and we've been public about this for years," the statement read.
Meanwhile:
That is not the same thing as listening in the background.
Nobody said it was the same thing. It's still relevant and important.
I trust that most adults understand the implications of an exploitable permission and a strong incentive to abuse it, as well as the track record of corporate denials.
Using the permission to record audio triggers an on-screen indicator that the mic is recording. Someone would probably notice it on 24/7 recording. Someone would have also by now found the constant stream of network traffic to send the audio to be analyzed, because they also aren't doing that on-device.
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.
It really doesn't. 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.
Pretty sure that qualifies for that permission.
But the whole point of doing so is to use it in the app, and you for sure can't do that without the permission.
Pretty sure that qualifies for that permission.
I don't know what you mean. Existing behavior does not provide the control or visibility that I described.
One important difference is that the "permissions" in the screen shot are effectively all-or-nothing: if you don't agree to all of them, then you don't get to install the app. They're not permissions so much as demands.
(Some OS do have settings that will let you turn them off individually after installation, but this is not universally available, is often buried in an advanced configuration panel, leaves a window of time where they are still allowed, and in some cases have been known to cause apps to crash. Things are improving on this front with new OS versions, but doing so in microscopic steps that move at a glacial pace.)
If your app touches the camera and mic, it will show up on that screen that it does so. "Using the API" (which is just how the OS works) doesn't prevent it from appearing on that screen, especially when you're doing so for the purpose of putting video and audio in posts.
If your app touches the camera and mic, it will show up on that screen that it does so.
Showing up on that screen is no substitute for what is actually needed:
- Individual control (an easy and obvious way to allow or deny each thing separately)
- Minimal access (a way to create a sound file without giving Facebook access to an open mic)
- Visibility (a clear indication by the OS when Facebook is capturing or has captured data)
load more comments
(5 replies)
I think this is more a teological argument he is making and I agree. We've become numb to these permission warnings. Oh this app needs access to my camera because I need to take a photo of something once at registration. Why can't it link to my default trusted photo app and that app can send a one time transfer to it? I hardly question these permissions anymore since many apps need permissions for rare one off functions. The only thing I deny every single time is my contact list.
I don't give anything mic or camera access on iOS. It's really not an inconvenience, and anything that demands it is something I don't want on my phone anyways.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is why I don't have the Facebook app installed. However, what about messenger? Did the collect the data from messenger?
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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.
It would take a lot of data. On device voice processing is not very advanced. That's why most voice stuff doesn't work without a signal.
That makes sense, but isn't it assuming they're processing data on the device? I would expect them to send raw audio back to be processed by Google ad services. Obviously it wouldn't work without signal either, but that's hardly a limitation.
As someone else pointed out, how does the google song recognition work? That's active without triggering the light indicating audio recording, and is at least processing enough audio data to identify songs.
If they were sending that much audio back, people would see the traffic. You could record it and send it at a different time, but the traffic would exist somewhere. People have looked and failed to find any evidence of such traffic.
It's something that could happen on device in the nearish future if there's not anything now, but it would probably still be hard to hide.
People have looked and failed to find any evidence of such traffic
Source? I would like to read about that
Sorry, it's been long enough and I haven't saved any of the links, and the keywords are polluted as hell with garbage results. I can't find anything specific.
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.
It's a reasonable explanation, and what I typically assume to be true. Still, I'm curious about the actual mechanics, and if it potentially could be being done by Google without the larger tech industry being aware of it.
I believe technically-inclined people could monitor the traffic that exits the phone, or at least passes through the router.
Audio recordings would be larger than the kinds of stuff that's just sent passively.
They can and do. Nobody has shown evidence of this happening.
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.
"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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›