Topic: Is Google/WhatsApp/Facebook listening to our conversations for targeted ads?

[Skidder.]

 [tin hat] Quite recently, I have noticed on three occasions how Google Chrome and Gmail seem to have targetted my computer with things that I have spoken about with friends or colleagues.

 The first time, I remember receiving an e-mail from an online retailer after saying to my friend in work that I was looking to buy a new jacket - low and behold, I started getting offers on jackets and coats.

 The second time, I was talking to my girlfriend on the phone about going to Wales camping... In my pop-ups, I received offers on tents.

 Thirdly, I was in my girlfriends an we were talking about going to Snowden in the summer to do some hiking... Low and behold, when looking at Putlocker for videos, we started to get pop-ups for hiking shoes.

 It is entirely possible and I really wouldn't put it past Google to do this - has anyone else noticed this?

[Alan_X]

No they aren't.

[Snail]

No they aren't.

[24/7]

New avatar for Kidder?

[Party Phil]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35639549

[Skidder.]

No they aren't.

Erm... Entirely possible. Even if you don't think so.

http://thehackernews.com/2015/06/google-chrome-spying.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35639549

[Alan_X]

Erm... Entirely possible. Even if you don't think so.

http://thehackernews.com/2015/06/google-chrome-spying.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35639549

You really, really think that Google have been listening in to your conversations to place ads for jackets and camping equipment? I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying it's fucking ridiculous.

Google do have algorithms that will pick up your searches and page views and place targeted ads. If you've been thinking about a camping holiday it's far more likely that you've searched something about it and that's what's led to those ads.

And if Google were placing ads based on my conversations, what I'd do is... not buy anything.

[Skidder.]

Yes I do otherwise I wouldn't have posted - but I find it ridiculous that anyone would offcast a multi-trillion dollar company - whose prime function is to target adverts based on our search and browsing habits - wouldn't attempt to evolve their business strategy using a very plausible, believable and atainable exploit... Just because people would find it hard to believe.

Go back fifteen years and tell people that three-quarters of the world's population would willingly submit the everyday facts of their lives (with photo evidence) onto an NGO for public (and private) consumption and I'm fairly certain that most would find that ridiculous too.

Fact remains: it is possible - I'm not alone in noticing strangely targeted adverts and stranger things have happened. Competition for consumer insight is as high as it has ever been; I guess time will tell, but why don't people give it a try? You could be surprised.
 

[Alan_X]

Yes I do otherwise I wouldn't have posted - but I find it ridiculous that anyone would offcast a multi-trillion dollar company - whose prime function is to target adverts based on our search and browsing habits - wouldn't attempt to evolve their business strategy using a very plausible, believable and atainable exploit... Just because people would find it hard to believe.

Go back fifteen years and tell people that three-quarters of the world's population would willingly submit the everyday facts of their lives (with photo evidence) onto an NGO for public (and private) consumption and I'm fairly certain that most would find that ridiculous too.

Fact remains: it is possible - I'm not alone in noticing strangely targeted adverts and stranger things have happened.
 

I get strangely targeted adverts all the time. If I went through your internet history I guarantee I'd find something that would have led to those targeted ads. Apart from anything else trying to garner results from listening in to a conversation is extremely inefficient.

[owens_2k]

First of all, how are they listening to your conversations? Secondly how would Google do this legally?

[Skidder.]

I don't think you've read my initial post - I wasn't even on my PC the last time it happened. I applaud anyone who would employ their common sense and logical thinking on this, but anyone who offcasts it just as 'nonsense' it being deliberately obtuse. I won't go through the finer details, but this has been the first time I've spoken about it to my other half. Even she finds it very peculiar, and she is a registered shrink.

There is a reputable source in the BBC, two technology gurus who know far more about it than I have means tested it and stated that they believe it is happening.

Anyone ever noticed over the past year how Facebook targets adverts depending on what you are posting? - Anyone ever get LFC-orientated adverts on Facebook?

But I know right - totally unbelievable.

[Skidder.]

First of all, how are they listening to your conversations? Secondly how would Google do this legally?

Firstly, I would suggest you read up on the links posted above. Or check this video out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRLniISYLZM.

Secondly, this is a company who continually make mincemeat of mutli-national tax laws... I'm sorry, but 'legality', really?

[Alan_X]

Erm... Entirely possible. Even if you don't think so.

http://thehackernews.com/2015/06/google-chrome-spying.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35639549

From the BBC article:

Coincidence

There is of course also a more mathematical explanation - the possibility that there is really no connection at all between what we say and what we see.

Mathematics professor David Hand from Imperial College London wrote a book called The Improbability Principle, in which he argued that apparently extraordinary events happen all the time.

"We are evolutionarily trained to seek explanations," he told the BBC.

"If you see a sign you know is associated with a predator you run away and you survive.

"It's the same sort of thing here. This apparent coincidence occurs and we think there must be explanation, it can't be chance. But there are so many opportunities for that coincidence to occur.

"If you take something that has a tiny chance of occurring and give it enough opportunities to occur, it inevitably will happen."

People are generally more alert to things that are currently occupying them, such as recent conversations or big decisions like buying a car or choosing a holiday, he added.

So suddenly those sorts of messages stand out more when they may have been in the background all the time.

Prof Hand is not immune to the lure of coincidence himself.

When his book was published another author published a very similar title at the same time. The author of The Coincidence Authority, John Ironmonger, shared the same birthday as Prof Hand and was based at the same university as his wife.

"These sorts of things happen," he said.

"Just because I understand why it happened doesn't make it any less beautiful."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35639549

It's like buying a red car and suddenly noticing how many red cars there are on the roads.

[Skidder.]

From the BBC article:

Coincidence

There is of course also a more mathematical explanation - the possibility that there is really no connection at all between what we say and what we see.

Mathematics professor David Hand from Imperial College London wrote a book called The Improbability Principle, in which he argued that apparently extraordinary events happen all the time.

"We are evolutionarily trained to seek explanations," he told the BBC.

"If you see a sign you know is associated with a predator you run away and you survive.

"It's the same sort of thing here. This apparent coincidence occurs and we think there must be explanation, it can't be chance. But there are so many opportunities for that coincidence to occur.

"If you take something that has a tiny chance of occurring and give it enough opportunities to occur, it inevitably will happen."

People are generally more alert to things that are currently occupying them, such as recent conversations or big decisions like buying a car or choosing a holiday, he added.

So suddenly those sorts of messages stand out more when they may have been in the background all the time.

Prof Hand is not immune to the lure of coincidence himself.

When his book was published another author published a very similar title at the same time. The author of The Coincidence Authority, John Ironmonger, shared the same birthday as Prof Hand and was based at the same university as his wife.

"These sorts of things happen," he said.

"Just because I understand why it happened doesn't make it any less beautiful."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35639549

It's like buying a red car and suddenly noticing how many red cars there are on the roads.

You coincidentally missed a bit from that same article:

It all began with a car crash.
I was doing some ironing when my mum came in to tell me that a family friend had been killed in a road accident in Thailand.
My phone was on the worktop behind me.
But the next time I used the search engine on it, up popped the name of our friend, and the words, "Motorbike accident, Thailand" and the year in the suggested text below the search box.
people in cafe, laptops and phones on tablesImage copyrightThinkstock
I was startled, certain that I had not used my phone at the time I had had the conversation - my hands had been full.
Had I started to look the details up later on and forgotten? Or was my phone listening in?
Almost every time I mentioned it to people they had a similar story, mainly based around advertising.
Cybersecurity Alert special index
How to hack the average home
Hanging out with the script kiddies
Ukraine blackout hacks 'could happen elsewhere'
One friend complained to her boyfriend about a migraine, her first ever, only to find the next day she was being followed on Twitter by a migraine support group.
Another had an in-depth chat with her sister about a tax issue, and the next day was served up a Facebook advert from tax experts offering advice on that exact issue.
Rolling Stones logo on blimpImage copyrightGetty Images
Image caption
But how did you know I was just listening to the Rolling Stones?
Many said they were discussing particular products or holiday destinations and shortly afterwards noticed advertising on the same theme.
Community website Reddit is full of similar stories.
One reporter mentioned his male colleague seeing online adverts for sanitary pads after discussing periods with his wife in the car.
But surely if the microphone was activated and the handset was sending data, battery life would be even worse than it is now and individual data usage would be through the roof?
Tech challenge
I challenged cybersecurity expert Ken Munro and his colleague David Lodge from Pen Test Partners to see whether it was physically possible for an app to snoop in this way.
Could something "listen in" at will without it being obvious?
"I wasn't convinced at first, it all seemed a bit anecdotal," admitted Mr Munro.
However, to our collective surprise, the answer was a resounding yes.
They created a prototype app, we started chatting in the vicinity of the phone it was on and watched our words appear on a laptop screen nearby.
'listening' app concept
"All we did was use the existing functionality of Google Android - we chose it because it was a little easier for us to develop in," said Mr Munro.
"We gave ourselves permission to use the microphone on the phone, set up a listening server on the internet, and everything that microphone heard on that phone, wherever it was in the world, came to us and we could then have sent back customised ads."
The whole thing took a couple of days to build.
It wasn't perfect but it was practically in real time and certainly able to identify most keywords.
The battery drain during our experiments was minimal and, using wi-fi, there was no data plan spike.
"We re-used a lot of code that's already out there," said David Lodge.
"Certainly the user wouldn't realise what was happening. As for Apple and Google - they could see it, they could find it and they could stop it. But it is pretty easy to create."
"I'm not so cynical now," said Ken Munro.
"We have proved it can be done, it works, we've done it. Does it happen? Probably."
Google responds
The major tech firms absolutely reject such an idea.
Google said it "categorically" does not use what it calls "utterances" - the background sounds before a person says, "OK Google" to activate the voice recognition - for advertising or any other purpose. It also said it does not share audio acquired in that way with third parties.
Its listening abilities only extend to activating its voice services, a spokesperson said.
It also states in its content policy for app developers that apps must not collect information without the user's knowledge. Apps found to be breaking this are removed from the Google Play store.
Facebook also told the BBC it does not allow brands to target advertising based around microphone data and it never shares data with third parties without consent.
It said Facebook ads are based only around information shared by members on the social network and their net surfing habits elsewhere.
Other big tech companies have also denied using the technique.

It's like buying a red car and suddenly noticing how many red cars there are on the roads.

Wait, so... I'm confused - now you think it isn't ridiculous?

[CraigDS]

If this is true then why only these 3 things?

I mean Google pretty much has advertisers for near enough every market, and I'm sure your discussions haven't only revolved around these 3 topics, so presumably you'd also see adverts for the rest of the stuff you chat about if they're actually listening in?

It's more likely they've got the info through one of the many other means they have, which even without listening in on phone calls (which as Alan says is actually a really inefficient way for them to collect info given the other means they have) is fairly wide reaching.

[Skidder.]

These are the only three things that I have noticed, but to honestly answer your question - I really don't know, I am just one other person who has noticed this.

Maybe there has been more than three occasions and I haven't noticed... Who knows?

But like I've said, it wasn't my PC the last time and as far as I'm aware, my girlfriend hasn't considered hiking, and she doesn't go fishing. But this wouldn't be the first time this has happened - I remember the hoo-ha over the theory that Google was targeting ads based on your e-mails when Google Mail first opened its doors. I really didn't believe that at first, but as I've said, I wouldn't have thought Facebook would be used in the way that it now is to target ads for you.

It could be a coincidence as much as it could not - the vast majority of evidence is hearsay - when it first happened I thought it was just my imagination, but the following couple of times made me question it further. I do think however that this kind of marketing would be a logical next step - the act of going on the internet and searching for equipment based on an activity is an active process - back in the mid 90s the thought of search engines using this information to target you with advertising would have been fairly unbelivable to the common user.

Fast forward a few years and the idea of targeted ads based on your personal details (ala Facebook) would also have probably been unbelievable. But having a passive feature to target you, about what you 'plan on doing' must be the holy grail of marketing.

With the advent of vocal commands (such as 'Google Now') and the Facebook chat concerns in 2014 - it really isn't a stretch of the imagination to see how this could be a very useful tool for analytics and consumer insight.

Whilst this article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/05/22/facebook-wants-to-listen-in-on-what-youre-doing/#518ca956336b) goes aside of the topic as it stands, it does offer an insight into how it could be used for nefarious purposes.

This article (whilst providing no physical evidence) is also food for thought - http://www.iflscience.com/technology/it-s-not-just-your-tv-listening-your-conversation

Again, this article begs similar questions - http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/your-phone-is-literally-listening-to-your-tv/416712/

One of the more interesting paragraphs in the above article is how the Facebook feature in fact converts to data, as oppose to storing conversations. Additionally however, the article does point out that users have to 'opt-in' to the Facebook 'feature'.

[SP]

It is possible that anonymous hackers are bugging you. Technically it is trivial to do. Google is not going to expose themselves to multi billion dollar law suits just to marginally improve search results.

Hackers reverse engineer every piece of network traffic that Google software on you device generates. Google know this too. They know that if they tried this they would be caught.

There are many online threats to your privacy. Audio snooping just for targeting ads is not one of them.

[SP]

The way the human brain works is to give far greater emphasis to coincidence. Coincidences happen all the time. You don't remember the thousands of times a day that coincidences don't happen. The kind of hacking described would leaves traces. People are actively looking for those traces. It would be found.

[Skidder.]

It is possible that anonymous hackers are bugging you. Technically it is trivial to do. Google is not going to expose themselves to multi billion dollar law suits just to marginally improve search results.

Hackers reverse engineer every piece of network traffic that Google software on you device generates. Google know this too. They know that if they tried this they would be caught.

There are many online threats to your privacy. Audio snooping just for targeting ads is not one of them.

I would point you to this page SP - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_litigation

Google/Facebook and likes really don't have a good history of holding our privacy to a high regard and these are only a few of which that we hear about (or settled in court).

And as for coincidence - with all due respect, I know coincidences happen - but all platitudes aside it isn't coincidental that all these reports (however circumstancial they may be), coincidentally surface with the advent of vocal command apps and the like.

[BER]

I'm afraid to turn off my adblocker now.

[TheoRacle]

Perfectly feasible tactic IMHO. What's the difference between logging what you type in the search box on Google and tying it to targeted advertising and logging what you say in to OK Google or Siri and linking it to targeting advertising?

Only a very, very small step to having OK Google or Siri constantly running in the background (oh wait... it already does...) capturing keywords linked to 'featured advertisers'.

Notice I say 'feasible' and not 'ethical'....

[Skidder.]

I think feasible is the perfect adjective to use.

It is entirely plausible and as an article has stated - a program can encrypt your voice without actually recording and storing it - the idea/notion of Telephone companies able to pick out buzzwords for terrorist purposes, mobile phone companies able to find your position were all 'conspiracy theories' at one point; now it is common practice.

Of course, a QUANGO using mobile telephony to effectively map the activities of potential terrorists is one thing - but a company with an operating budget the size of a small African country using it to better their consumer analytics/insight is another.

[Titi Camara]

[tin hat]

[Skidder.]

Thing is, Doctor Booboo was right in the end...

[stoa]

Perfectly feasible tactic IMHO. What's the difference between logging what you type in the search box on Google and tying it to targeted advertising and logging what you say in to OK Google or Siri and linking it to targeting advertising?

Only a very, very small step to having OK Google or Siri constantly running in the background (oh wait... it already does...) capturing keywords linked to 'featured advertisers'.

Notice I say 'feasible' and not 'ethical'....

But wouldn't that also create a rather watered-down profile? I mean, I'm talking about a lot of stuff every day and there'd be 100s of key-words I might use that are of no interest to me. So, I wouldn't give a fuck about any advert or google-suggestion popping up. The difference between logging what I put into the google search box and between what I'm saying all day long, is that I actually want to know more about what I type into google, whereas quite a lot of the stuff I'm talking about might not be of any interest to me other than in that moment...

[TheoRacle]

But wouldn't that also create a rather watered-down profile? I mean, I'm talking about a lot of stuff every day and there'd be 100s of key-words I might use that are of no interest to me. So, I wouldn't give a fuck about any advert or google-suggestion popping up. The difference between logging what I put into the google search box and between what I'm saying all day long, is that I actually want to know more about what I type into google, whereas quite a lot of the stuff I'm talking about might not be of any interest to me other than in that moment...

If you take individual words yes, however taken as part of a sentence or used with context I would imagine an algorithm to identify key phrases rather than key words and match with sponsored phrases and their variations is easily technically possible. You have to remember too that it (voice recognition) wouldn't be used in isolation. Any 'hits' would be augmented by existing browser search history and web/shopping habits and credit card purchase records.  When everything is all put together it's scary how complete the picture can be of what we are likely to respond to when given subtle prompts in the right direction.

[Trada]

I think the same about Yahoo mail.

Just after Trace passed away I was talking to a couple of her mates using Yahoo mail about the funeral arrangements etc.

And within a couple of hours I got loads of spam mail about life insurance, Funeral services, loans to help pay for a funeral etc.

Something I had never received until I talked about them via email.

something odd was going on.

[Elmo!]

I think the same about Yahoo mail.

Just after Trace passed away I was talking to a couple of her mates using Yahoo mail about the funeral arrangements etc.

And within a couple of hours I got loads of spam mail about life insurance, Funeral services, loans to help pay for a funeral etc.

Something I had never received until I talked about them via email.

something odd was going on.

Well we know this does happen, that's not in doubt at all.

[Skidder.]

I think the same about Yahoo mail.

Just after Trace passed away I was talking to a couple of her mates using Yahoo mail about the funeral arrangements etc.

And within a couple of hours I got loads of spam mail about life insurance, Funeral services, loans to help pay for a funeral etc.

Something I had never received until I talked about them via email.

something odd was going on.

That is utterly disgusting.

[SP]

I would point you to this page SP - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_litigation

And none of those are on the same company wrecking scale as what you are suggesting. Google target ads just fine with the tools that they have. The extra cash that they could make by listening is miniscule, and the downside would be ruination.

To take that kind of risk would need a huge pay off to be worthwhile. There is not enough money in it for them to even consider it.

[Tomo!]

It'd be more effective than driving cars around street's and harvesting data from unsecured WiFi networks

[johnsmithlfc]

Possibly but I doubt it.
Maybe if you were chatting on Skype or emailing about it or using OK google or Siri, but not just chatting in a room.
It's possible your mic is recording everything you say and it's being stored on a database and checked for keywords and terror related stuff but I'm fairly sure google isn't literally recording every single mobile phone user and then targeting specific ads at them but then who knows?

The whole spying, data leak, Edward Snowden, NSA, GCHQ thing was an eye opener and I wouldn't dismiss this theory as utter nonsense - but it does seem a little risky (to say the least) for Google to do this.

[Trada]

That is utterly disgusting.

I guess it looks for certain words not what you are saying.

It didn't bother me in the slightest I just added them to the spam filter.

[Skidder.]

I guess it looks for certain words not what you are saying.

It didn't bother me in the slightest I just added them to the spam filter.

Still though mate - that is just shocking.

Unrelated however.

On another anecdotal note - was speaking to the girl on Skype today and we got talking about Ireland near my birthday; I have friends in Dublin.

Later on this evening, she said she was talking to her Mum on Skype and when she opened up Skype to call her, the first advert she saw was for Aerlingus.

She joked how we had been talking about cunnilingus the previous night, quite funny really, but not...

[CraigDS]

Have you discussed this with anyone over the phone? Have you had any adverts for Bacofoil pop up since? 


One thing you haven't considered is how exactly are they selling these adverts?

I work (both for my own sites and managing client sites) a lot with paid Google marketing, and you can be extremely specific with where things are displayed and why they are displayed there. Not only that, but the vast majority of advertisers, especially those spending any sort of decent money, will be tracking not only where their clicks are coming from, but the keywords or reason behind this.

So is Google also faking the stats it shows to its advertisers? Is it telling them they are clicking for X keyword phrase searched on Google but is actually X keyword said on the phone to their Missus last Friday?


It's also worth remembering Google builds up a massive amount of info about you to correctly display their adverts, not just from their search data. If a website is part of their display network it'll inform Google if you visit their site, and this will then trigger other adverts. It can/will know family or living connections and can use their data to display to you.

[conman]

You really, really think that Google have been listening in to your conversations to place ads for jackets and camping equipment? I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying it's fucking ridiculous.

It's actually not Alan.

I don't believe that Google are currently listening, but they have the means to do so & have showed intent to do so to a greater extent, as have Facebook. Consider "google now", if you say "ok google", it triggers Google Now to pop up and listen to your question. The fact that it hears you say "Google Now", means they are "actively listening". Whether they transmit the data & apply it to their ads is another question entirely and you can be sure they want to. 

Google: http://androidcommunity.com/google-granted-creepy-eavesdropping-patent-for-keyword-based-ads-20120323/

Facebook: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/05/22/facebook-wants-to-listen-in-on-what-youre-doing/

Snooping: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2507554/data-privacy/snooping--it-s-not-a-crime--it-s-a-feature.html

[CraigDS]

It's actually not Alan.

I don't believe that Google are currently listening, but they have the means to do so & have showed intent to do so to a greater extent, as have Facebook. Consider "google now", if you say "ok google", it triggers Google Now to pop up and listen to your question. The fact that it hears you say "Google Now", means they are "actively listening". Whether they transmit the data & apply it to their ads is another question entirely and you can be sure they want to. 

Big difference between actively listening for a single phrase, and actively listening at everything being said 24/7 and being able to pull both the specific keywords and context from that.

The amount of data that would be would be huge, same for processing power it would need to do so. I'm fairly sure someone, as there are loads who look for this sort of thing, would of been able to see the processes going on, or signs of the data going back to Google from the devices.

[conman]

Big difference between actively listening for a single phrase, and actively listening at everything being said 24/7 and being able to pull both the specific keywords and context from that.

The amount of data that would be would be huge, same for processing power it would need to do so. I'm fairly sure someone, as there are loads who look for this sort of thing, would of been able to see the processes going on, or signs of the data going back to Google from the devices.

Indeed.

As i said, i don't believe they are doing it. However Edward Snowden has confirmed that the NSA do passively listen to suspects devises and have been doing so for a number of years. Plus the large tech companies have applied for patents to enable them do exactly this.

[[new username under construction]]

So a good idea to phone up my mate and just say BOOBS for 10 mins?

[CraigDS]

So a good idea to phone up my mate and just say BOOBS for 10 mins?

If you want to see adverts for plastic surgery, or how to lose man boobs, maybe