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

[[new username under construction]]

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

ok maybe not lol

[Skidder.]

Whether you 'believe' or not is up to you - I don't know if they are, but I have experienced it and if anyone wishes to ridicule me for joining the dots - that is your problem.

I hear what you are saying about the data/processing power - but in all honesty, you should read one of the links that I posted - it isn't exactly as easy as to say 'they're recording/listening to everything you say'. If there is a process in place, you can bet that it isn't as straightforward as that...

For me, i'll go with my gut - too many coincidences, and far too easily explained as such.

[SP]

For me, i'll go with my gut - too many coincidences, and far too easily explained as such.

Your gut has no understanding of probability and the inevitability of coincidences. I am well aware of the issues involved in speech recognition on mobile devices - I have written software to do exactly that. Google are not listening to you. Some eastern european hackers may be, but they are not too bothered about the legality of such things.

[CraigDS]

Whether you 'believe' or not is up to you - I don't know if they are, but I have experienced it and if anyone wishes to ridicule me for joining the dots - that is your problem.

I hear what you are saying about the data/processing power - but in all honesty, you should read one of the links that I posted - it isn't exactly as easy as to say 'they're recording/listening to everything you say'. If there is a process in place, you can bet that it isn't as straightforward as that...

For me, i'll go with my gut - too many coincidences, and far too easily explained as such.

How are they selling this service to advertisers?

[conman]

Samsung have admitted that their (or some of) smart tv's actively do listen.

[SP]

Samsung have admitted that their (or some of) smart tv's actively do listen.

Devious bastards, hiding it by announcing it in their privacy policy.

If you buy a voice activated device, it will listen. If it is low processing power, it may use a server to crunch the speech. How would a voice activated device work without listening?

[Alan_X]

Your gut has no understanding of probability and the inevitability of coincidences. I am well aware of the issues involved in speech recognition on mobile devices - I have written software to do exactly that. Google are not listening to you. Some eastern european hackers may be, but they are not too bothered about the legality of such things.

I understand that it's feasible but it just doesn't make any sense as a strategy. As part of my training we did modules on marketing and demographics and in my job I have a lot of experience of market segmentation, branding and understanding how to get complicated messages across to individuals and groups. Here is why I think this is nonsense.

A short history of targeted advertising:

Companies have been targeting advertising since long before Google and the internet. You place your ads in publications or in the breaks in TV programmes that fit the target demographic. The National Readership Survey developed the A, B, C1/C2, D & E demographics to classify readers and that has been used to target advertising for years. The Acorn classification is even more detailed and is broken down into 6 categories, 18 groups and 62 individual types:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/CACI's_Acorn_Structure_%28Uploaded_June_2014%29.jpg.pdf

Loyalty cards were developed in the 1990s for loyalty (obviously) but also to allow stores to aggregate customer data. It creates individual profiles showing what beer people drink, the food they buy etc and that allows stores to focus their offer in particular stores based on what people actually buy and they can also send out individual offers to certain types of customer.

With the advent of online shopping and using cookies and purchase history it's possible to create an individual advertising profile for everyone. I am acutely aware of it because I buy things for my personal use but also for specific projects and jobs.

My recent profile on Amazon assumes I want to buy a load of computer cables, batteries, a four hole punch, archive boxes, football books and videos about crime and punishment (from my interest in the Steven Avery case). That's a mixture of work and personal searches and purchases.

My YouTube profile recommends football (including Arsenal Fan TV because it's so funny when they lose), TYT, Stewart Lee, British Pathé etc...

All of which make sense based on my choices - either searches, purchases or browsing history. And the choice factor is critical.

Because on a practical level, using a random selection of words picked up by my computer or phone. I rarely speak when I'm at my computer but will often have either music, or more usually, a film or tv programme playing on the iPad. If Google is listening to the microphone on my computer it will be hearing Tommy DeVito saying: "I'm funny how?... funny like a clown?... or "Go and get your shine box..." or Jimmy McGill talking about cucumber water and vibrating chairs at the nail salon.

And when I'm talking it will only occasionally have any relevance to the choices I may make when buying things. And even when I do how does the speech recognition know what was relevant? I've been discussing my summer holiday and the options included walking holidays in Scotland, a cottage by the beach in Cornwall, a house in France up in the hills, or possibly somewhere near Nice, or Normandy?... maybe Spain... Italy... or we might go to see my brother in Denmark...   

And that example is why it makes no sense to me and would represent a huge backwards step in terms of targeted advertising. The whole emphasis has been to narrow down from very broad A, B, C classifications to more and more focused advertising based on actual choices. Using chance eavesdropping of partial conversations that are as likely to be about speculation and aspiration as actual choices will create a profile that is less exact than one produced through searches and actual purchases.

There is absolutely no point basing advertising on what people say they would like. Your computer eavesdropping while you're watching Top Gear will assume you're in the market for a Bugatti while your internet searches and purchase history will make it patently clear that you can actually afford a used Peugeot 208.

It would be simple to set up a blinded experiment to see whether this is real or not. But people seem to prefer to rely on anecdote (about the most unreliable type of 'evidence' their is) to get their knickers in a twist and moan than get off their arses to prove it one way or another.

[Alan_X]

Samsung have admitted that their (or some of) smart tv's actively do listen.

Apple have too. It's called Siri.

[conman]

Apple have too. It's called Siri.

Is this meant to sound as condescending as it does Alan?

[Skidder.]

How are they selling this service to advertisers?

I don't know how they would sell this and to be honest mate I am not here to blindly argue for the sake of it. I would rather just discuss with others, learn what I can, as oppose to wasting my time trying to convince obstinance in the face of sheer belligerence. They may not be selling it, but big companies sometimes simply do something just because they can - much like the space race, was it fundamental to humankind's survival that we went to the moon?

I do know that Google and the likes have far cleverer people working for them than within the public forum. The idea that this is not possible due to legality, morality and or technological constraints though is terribly naive. A lot of the evidence supporting claims is either wooly or anecdotal - but on a personal level, I now know that this isn't just 'delusionary'; after reading around, there are other people who have had the same experiences.

At certain times things like this come down to schisms. Unfortunately however, there comes a point when people begin to look stupid - I don't claim to be more englightened than any other, but reading some of the material that I have on this matter, the arguements tend to turn into a pissing contest - one side arguing without factual evidence, and the other trying to intellectualise the subject and win.

[Alan_X]

Is this meant to sound as condescending as it does Alan?

No - it's meant to point out that a device picking up speech is not a big secret. We have to be precise in our definitions. What does it mean if a TV is 'listening'. Is it just picking up vocal vibrations? Is it recording them? Is it relaying them somewhere? Is it decoding them and using algorithms to compile a profile? 

Siri 'listens' to my speech. It might even add to the profile Apple has for me based on my searches, purchases browsing profile etc. The irony is that I find Siri ridiculous and only ever activate it by accident or when I'm pissed and asking the way to the Moon. 

For me it's the price of living in a world where I can access the Internet from my phone. I can make bank transfers on re tube and book airline tickets in the park. For those to work it makes sense to allow cookies and for the 'Internet' to remember things about me. If I wanted to I could back out, reduce my internet presence, but I choose not to.

I try to make informed decisions about my life. I'm not naive and I'm well aware of the risks and the possibilities. I also refuse to live in fear of what big corporations may or may not be doing. If I had real concerns (over and above the standard venality of big businesses) I would do something about it.

[conman]

No - it's meant to point out that a device picking up speech is not a big secret. We have to be precise in our definitions. What does it mean if a TV is 'listening'. Is it just picking up vocal vibrations? Is it recording them? Is it relaying them somewhere? Is it decoding them and using algorithms to compile a profile? 

Siri 'listens' to my speech. It might even add to the profile Apple has for me based on my searches, purchases browsing profile etc. For me it's the price of living in a world where I can access the Internet from my phone. I can make bank transfers on re tube and book airline tickets in the park. For those to work it makes sense to allow cookies and for the 'Internet' to remember things about me. If I wanted to I could back out, reduce my internet presence, but I choose not to.

I try to make informed decisions about my life. I'm not naive and I'm well aware of the risks and the possibilities. I also refuse to live in fear of what big corporations may or may not be doing. If I had real concerns (over and above the standard venality of big businesses) I would do something about it.

Isn't that what I said though in relation to "Ok Google". These devises are listening, but listening doesn't mean they are transferring and using this data.

[Elmo!]

Samsung have admitted that their (or some of) smart tv's actively do listen.

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of devices that actively listen to you (pretty much every smartphone is capable of it). What was newsworthy about Samsung TV's was that they were sharing the voice data with third parties, which everyone assumed meant selling to advertisers. It turned out Samsung were using a 3rd party company to analyse and process the voice recognition.

[Alan_X]

Isn't that what I said though in relation to "Ok Google". These devises are listening, but listening doesn't mean they are transferring and using this data.

I'm reading your post in the context of the whole thread while at work. Apologies if I read it out of context - to me it read as if you were making a stronger point about Samsung than you actually were.

[conman]

I'm reading your post in the context of the whole thread while at work. Apologies if I read it out of context - to me it read as if you were making a stronger point about Samsung than you actually were.

no worries.

[Alan_X]

I don't know how they would sell this and to be honest mate I am not here to blindly argue for the sake of it. I would rather just discuss with others, learn what I can, as oppose to wasting my time trying to convince obstinance in the face of sheer belligerence. They may not be selling it, but big companies sometimes simply do something just because they can - much like the space race, was it fundamental to humankind's survival that we went to the moon?

I do know that Google and the likes have far cleverer people working for them than within the public forum. The idea that this is not possible due to legality, morality and or technological constraints though is terribly naive. A lot of the evidence supporting claims is either wooly or anecdotal - but on a personal level, I now know that this isn't just 'delusionary'; after reading around, there are other people who have had the same experiences.

At certain times things like this come down to schisms. Unfortunately however, there comes a point when people begin to look stupid - I don't claim to be more englightened than any other, but reading some of the material that I have on this matter, the arguements tend to turn into a pissing contest - one side arguing without factual evidence, and the other trying to intellectualise the subject and win.

Not trying to win the internet mate. It's an interesting discussion. A couple of things.

They may not be selling it, but big companies sometimes simply do something just because they can - much like the space race, was it fundamental to humankind's survival that we went to the moon?

Governments sometimes do things because they can, companies rarely do. And Russia and the US went to the Moon as an extension of the Cold War.

A lot of the evidence supporting claims is either wooly or anecdotal - but on a personal level, I now know that this isn't just 'delusionary'; after reading around, there are other people who have had the same experiences.

It's difficult discussing on line because we all have different experiences and backgrounds. A particular interest of mine is scepticism and critical thinking. One of the things that often comes up is how misleading anecdote can be and how confirmation bias works. The bottom line for me is that I require evidence before I believe something like this. Anecdote is not evidence. Many of the worst kinds of quackery are supported by anecdote - anti-vaccination, homeopathy, 'black-salve', chiropractice, acupuncture - all scientifically proved to be either useless or actually harmful but still surviving primarily on the back of anecdotal evidence.

The same is true of cherry-picking evidence and quoting out of context. Both of which are in evidence here. That BBC video seems to support the claims but in fact it does nothing of the sort. The fact that Google (a massive profit-led corporation) stretches the bounds of legality is evidence that they misbehave, not that they did the actual thing they are accused of.

As I said, it would be a piece of piss to set up a double blinded experiment to prove this is happening*. if some one did it and published the results I would accept it. What I don't do is assume that just because they are a big corporation, that any accusation against them is true.

*Set up three identical computers (or devices) in three sound proof rooms connected to the internet on the same IP address with the relevant software installed. They are all clones of the other and each follows the same pre-determined set of keystrokes and searches at exactly the same time. The first computer has a pre-recorded set of keywords that are picked up by the device's microphone, the other two are in complete silence. If there is software picking up words and targeting advertising then the ads will be different on the first computer and reflect the words spoken. The reason for two silent computers is to ensure any differences are not random.

This is very basic and it would be far better to have a larger cohort of computers.

[redbyrdz]

You could do some testing.

Call someone and talk about something you have absolutely no interest in, and neither anyone else who might hqve used your computer. Something you'd never put into a search, but something rare enough to not get advertising for anyway (so not cars). Then see if any related ads turn up.

Also, collect some stats - write down every ad that pops up, and put it into a broad category (travel, camping etc). Calculate frequencies after a couple of days. Also write down what you looked for on the internet during that time, because you will have to discount those.

[Skidder.]

You could do some testing.

Call someone and talk about something you have absolutely no interest in, and neither anyone else who might hqve used your computer. Something you'd never put into a search, but something rare enough to not get advertising for anyway (so not cars). Then see if any related ads turn up.

Also, collect some stats - write down every ad that pops up, and put it into a broad category (travel, camping etc). Calculate frequencies after a couple of days. Also write down what you looked for on the internet during that time, because you will have to discount those.

I do actually plan on doing this - but am busy with other things at the moment.

I may do that thing where you put your phone in front of a foreign channel for the night - apparently turns your ads and popups into that language.

[Titi Camara]

[Chakan]

[CraigDS]

If I speak to my missus about a frozen pussy pic I saw on RAWK later on what sort of adverts are Google gonna show me?

[Chakan]

If I speak to my missus about a frozen pussy pic I saw on RAWK later on what sort of adverts are Google gonna show me?

"Best Eskimo porn on the internet, click here for details."

[SPLee]

Big Brother is listening......

My job is in search marketing, I consult with and sell individual services to businesses.

Googles' whole business model is to generate more and more revenues from selling adspace on a per click basis, they provide the worlds biggest search engine but place paid for listings in prime position to encourage clicks for the business and therefore revenues for Google each time this is done, around 16% of all searchers will click on a paid for ad(ppc). Its not hard to see how Google makes so much cash globally with over 3 billion searches per day made.....

One thing Google clearly knows and understands is your online history, this is understood through 'listening' which in real terms is the monitoring of internet behaviour.

Google listens and captures all relevant data, it knows your search history, browsing history and interests based on the sites you visit, this is where a strong targeted ad campaign can work.

When Google understands this data for a user it can also assume your age/location/sex/interests based on your activity.

So as an example, if you are 25, Male, live in Liverpool and are football, music and fashion crazy, Google knows this. What Google then does is sell the fact to business that its targeted Ads/Remarketing/Display can tap into the right audience and generate success by only placing the right type of ads in front of the right type of people.

Can you imagine what a failure Google would be if it wasnt for smart use of this data, businesses would reject the platform whereas the opposite is true, basically as a business you can set up your ad campaign with Google to target specific and tightly detailed users, based on demographic/location/interests.

If you dont want Google to know so much granular detail about you the individual, then log out of your account!

[Skidder.]

Not trying to win the internet mate. It's an interesting discussion. A couple of things.

Governments sometimes do things because they can, companies rarely do. And Russia and the US went to the Moon as an extension of the Cold War.

It's difficult discussing on line because we all have different experiences and backgrounds. A particular interest of mine is scepticism and critical thinking. One of the things that often comes up is how misleading anecdote can be and how confirmation bias works. The bottom line for me is that I require evidence before I believe something like this. Anecdote is not evidence. Many of the worst kinds of quackery are supported by anecdote - anti-vaccination, homeopathy, 'black-salve', chiropractice, acupuncture - all scientifically proved to be either useless or actually harmful but still surviving primarily on the back of anecdotal evidence.

The same is true of cherry-picking evidence and quoting out of context. Both of which are in evidence here. That BBC video seems to support the claims but in fact it does nothing of the sort. The fact that Google (a massive profit-led corporation) stretches the bounds of legality is evidence that they misbehave, not that they did the actual thing they are accused of.

As I said, it would be a piece of piss to set up a double blinded experiment to prove this is happening*. if some one did it and published the results I would accept it. What I don't do is assume that just because they are a big corporation, that any accusation against them is true.

*Set up three identical computers (or devices) in three sound proof rooms connected to the internet on the same IP address with the relevant software installed. They are all clones of the other and each follows the same pre-determined set of keystrokes and searches at exactly the same time. The first computer has a pre-recorded set of keywords that are picked up by the device's microphone, the other two are in complete silence. If there is software picking up words and targeting advertising then the ads will be different on the first computer and reflect the words spoken. The reason for two silent com for the sake ofputers is to ensure any differences are not random.

This is very basic and it would be far better to have a larger cohort of computers.

I am not suggesting that you are - I am directing my views towards reddit and myself (to be honest).

But you and I have locked horns before and whilst I respect your ability to argue, I am too much of an outlier and will naturally oppose you because you represent all the things that I am not. Contradictory dichotomy, I know, but I never pretend to be anything other than crass, illogical and totally reactive...

I hope you will forgive me for personalising for a minute, but this is and always is a personal opine; especially so, in that I believe Google have either invaded, or facilitated, the invasion of my personal space. Sensationalist statement, I know, but the more and more I read on  this - however ludicrous - the more it just boils my blood.

This has happened to me Alan. I am not paranoid, nor am I a blatant cynic... But I really don't like being pissed on and told that it is raining.

I will, however, be more than happy to means test this and post my results. If I am wrong and it proves nothing, I will hold my hands up and admit that I may have let my imagination run away with me.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/samsungs-warning-our-smart-tvs-record-your-living-room-chatter/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31296188

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shopping-and-consumer-news/11399677/Samsung-SmartTV-customers-warned-personal-conversations-may-be-recorded.html

http://www.snopes.com/2016/02/12/samsung-smart-tvs-spying/

https://www.samsung.com/uk/info/privacy-SmartTV.html?CID=AFL-hq-mul-0813-11000170

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/09/technology/security/samsung-smart-tv-privacy/

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I am not suggesting that you are - I am directing my views towards reddit and myself (to be honest).

But you and I have locked horns before and whilst I respect your ability to argue, I am too much of an outlier and will naturally oppose you because you represent all the things that I am not. Contradictory dichotomy, I know, but I never pretend to be anything other than crass, illogical and totally reactive...

I hope you will forgive me for personalising for a minute, but this is and always is a personal opine; especially so, in that I believe Google have either invaded, or facilitated, the invasion of my personal space. Sensationalist statement, I know, but the more and more I read on  this - however ludicrous - the more it just boils my blood.

This has happened to me Alan. I am not paranoid, nor am I a blatant cynic... But I really don't like being pissed on and told that it is raining.

I will, however, be more than happy to means test this and post my results. If I am wrong and it proves nothing, I will hold my hands up and admit that I may have let my imagination run away with me.

As technology progresses and especially once TTIP comes into force then privacy at any level anywhere will be a laughable pipedream.

[G1 Jockey 4(betfair)]

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of devices that actively listen to you (pretty much every smartphone is capable of it). What was newsworthy about Samsung TV's was that they were sharing the voice data with third parties, which everyone assumed meant selling to advertisers. It turned out Samsung were using a 3rd party company to analyse and process the voice recognition.

"3rd party"
that 3rd party could be anyone....

[AndyMuller]

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if they did, I've noticed a few coincidental advertisements in the past but I think that was down to my search history.

[Alan_X]

"3rd party"
that 3rd party could be anyone....

It's Nuance Communications according to Samsung's updated documentation. They're one of the leading specialists in voice recognition software. From their website:

Today Nuance powers the voice experiences across a variety of Samsung devices and consumer electronics, including Samsung's Smart TV and the S-Voice virtual assistant shipping across a range of Samsung's Galaxy smartphones, tablets and smart watches.

http://www.nuance.com/company/news-room/press-releases/Nuance-and-Samsung--Extend-Strategic-Partnership.docx

[Kenny's Jacket]

Ivef been reading this thread with interest, but nothing too add as I had no strong opinion on whether or not it was true.

My Dad has cancer at the moment and requested a Dr to visit the house over some issues. So we were all in the living room with the Watford v Leicester game in the back ground.  Dr starts asking about football. He tells us hes originaly from South Wales and supports Swansea etc etc, then we chat about Liverpool football in general.   

I have no connection with Swansea as a town or football team and would not be inclined to research them in anyway.

He prescribed morphine as we are running so we start discussing chemists that are open late Saturday or Sunday.
I do a google search and get as far as "Chemists Open"  then the google predictor gives options
"Chemists Open" in Swansea
"Chemists Open" in Neath
"Chemists Open" in South Wales

I immediately thought of this thread.   

Why would it suggest those results if I don't have an ISP from there, my laptop has never been there and I never do any internet searches on the South Wales area.

[CraigDS]

I do a google search and get as far as "Chemists Open"  then the google predictor gives options
"Chemists Open" in Swansea
"Chemists Open" in Neath
"Chemists Open" in South Wales

I've just done the same search and got 'my area', 'Hull', 'Gosport' and 'Dundee'.

There will be some reasons those came up for me no doubt, but it's not because I live near any of them, or even been to any of those 3 places to be honest. I've certainly not been speaking about any of those places!

[Alan_X]

Ivef been reading this thread with interest, but nothing too add as I had no strong opinion on whether or not it was true.

My Dad has cancer at the moment and requested a Dr to visit the house over some issues. So we were all in the living room with the Watford v Leicester game in the back ground.  Dr starts asking about football. He tells us hes originaly from South Wales and supports Swansea etc etc, then we chat about Liverpool football in general.   

I have no connection with Swansea as a town or football team and would not be inclined to research them in anyway.

He prescribed morphine as we are running so we start discussing chemists that are open late Saturday or Sunday.
I do a google search and get as far as "Chemists Open"  then the google predictor gives options
"Chemists Open" in Swansea
"Chemists Open" in Neath
"Chemists Open" in South Wales

I immediately thought of this thread.   

Why would it suggest those results if I don't have an ISP from there, my laptop has never been there and I never do any internet searches on the South Wales area.

I did an IP lookup on your IP and it gives different locations depending on which search you use. The results included Rotherham, Mansfield and Nantglyn in Wales. IP location finding is not precise. I did the same search for me and the first choices were for chemists in a town ten miles away.

If voice recognition really is being used then your story emphasises exactly the point I made earlier - that it is worse than useless. Instead of providing carefully targeted adverts it gives useless results based on the random eavesdropping of strangers. What company in their right mind is going to pay for their chemist shop in South Wales to be advertised to people hundreds of miles away that will never go there?

[Millie]

I've just done a Chemist search and my top results were all local

[Kenny's Jacket]

I did an IP lookup on your IP and it gives different locations depending on which search you use. The results included Rotherham, Mansfield and Nantglyn in Wales. IP location finding is not precise. I did the same search for me and the first choices were for chemists in a town ten miles away.

If voice recognition really is being used then your story emphasises exactly the point I made earlier - that it is worse than useless. Instead of providing carefully targeted adverts it gives useless results based on the random eavesdropping of strangers. What company in their right mind is going to pay for their chemist shop in South Wales to be advertised to people hundreds of miles away that will never go there?

Nantglyn is 10 miles as the crow flies.  Giving results of  Rotherham and Mansfield indicated what I wonder?

I suppose this is a very good example of anecdotal evidence Alan.   If I hadn't read this thread I would not have given the google results a 2nd thought. 

[johnsmithlfc]

I've just done a Chemist search and my top results were all local

I got

Ingleby Barwick
Welling
Leicester
Bolton
Blackburn
Coventry
Bradford
Liverpool
York
Luton

In that order.

 

[Upinsmoke]

Yeah they do. I now talk in code on the phone.

One evening I was watching Snatch, Hatchet Harry was on screen, anyhow I took a call whilst watching said scene. Few days later I started getting targeted ads from Ann Summers, for massive black rubber cocks. Anyway it was only when I put two and two together and remembered when Hatchet Harry battered someone to death with it. So yeah.

I keep it under the bed now, for protection.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I got

Ingleby Barwick
Welling
Leicester
Bolton
Blackburn
Coventry
Bradford
Liverpool
York
Luton

In that order.

 

Liverpool eh.  So tell me, has anyone in your house said the word Liverpool at all in the last week?

See, I rest my case.   

[johnsmithlfc]

Liverpool eh.  So tell me, has anyone in your house said the word Liverpool at all in the last week?

See, I rest my case.   

No... but my Dog's name IS Ingleby Barwick   


 

[Jake]

I got

Ingleby Barwick
Welling
Leicester
Bolton
Blackburn
Coventry
Bradford
Liverpool
York
Luton

In that order.

 

No mate that's the league table.

[CraigDS]

He's talking about what comes up in the drop down 'suggestions' I think, not the top search results.