A marketing team within media giant Cox Media Group (CMG) claims it has the capability to listen to ambient conversations of consumers through embedded microphones in smartphones, smart TVs, and other devices to gather data and use it to target ads, according to a review of CMG marketing materials by 404 Media and details from a pitch given to an outside marketing professional. Called “Active Listening,” CMG claims the capability can identify potential customers “based on casual conversations in real time.”
Advertising continues to prove that it is a net negative in the world every time I see it
*scribbles notes*
Don’t be seen… Got it
“You can always tell a Milford man.”
And its never satisfied, and gets progressively worse.
One can only hope that we will eventually amend trespass laws to include digital trespassing.
They (manufacturer) would just put it in the ToS that the user grants them that access, because very few actually reads those and just hit Accept.
A proper law/regulation would aim to prevent that. Explicit consent to enter a home must be given, every time. Physically or digitally.
Except the device is already in your home, and most people leave their account logged in. That’s basically like you inviting someone into your house, they hang out in your spare bedroom…and they’re still there. So no need to re-grant consent to a situation that hasn’t changed. Unless you mean it auto-logs out (or you log out) and have to re-grant consent then? Most do require consent on logging in, and the average consumer would hate having to log in every time and would probably use weak passwords because of this.
But, you can at least kick them out (revoke consent).
I just don’t see how a proper law/regulation would fix/restrict this, except to make certain personalization attempts (targeted ads) illegal.
Except the device is already in your home, and most people leave their account logged in.
People buy products to serve a purpose to themselves and their family, so yes, the device is in their home FOR THEIR USE.
Being logged in isn’t an open invitation to be spied, so laws need to address that.
That’s basically like you inviting someone into your house, they hang out in your spare bedroom…and they’re still there.
The invite, in this case, is not for a company to spy on you and your family. I don’t think anyone would actually want that, especially not for the purpose of targeting them with ads.
People use voice activated devices, which do record and react to voice prompt, but the permission here is given only for that use. A company shouldn’t be able to say “hey, you can use the service you’ve paid for, and by agreeing to use that service, you also agree to give us permission to digitally invade your home and privacy.”
I just don’t see how a proper law/regulation would fix/restrict this, except to make certain personalization attempts (targeted ads) illegal.
Yes, make it illegal. And make everything opt-in without strings attached (i.e. if you agree to use the service you paid for, you agree to being spied on).
I will personally continue to use my wallet to yield power. I won’t buy devices or support companies who are evil, and will support companies who respect privacy and data freedom. The whole enshitification of the digital landscape is incredibly sad to see, TBH.
ToS and EULAs do not override local laws.
I get that, but the person I replied to said “digital trespassing.” In my mind, that’s like physical trespassing in that they can’t enter your house (or collect data) without your consent. But if the EULA has the consent backed in it, the user agrees…then it’ll probably be legal.
One of the nice things about GDPR is that the consent must be given freely, with no detriment for refusal.
You can’t say “agree to this or you can’t use our product”.
But then it’ll be fine for them to do it because - forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us
Probably. Can I wake up on a different (better) timeline?!
You can hound your legislators, relentlessly. Will it be effective? 2% chance > 0%.
deleted
Why wouldnt they be serious?
If your phone has the capability to have a parental control / monitoring mode on it enabled, which can see everything you are doing on the phone, hear what youre saying and see what the cameras see and know your GPS location… and hide all of this to the user…
Why wouldnt ad companies also pay for such a live feed, or at least parts of it, if the software and hardware capabilities already exist?
People have been reporting getting advertisements based on conversations they were having 10 minutes ago with a person next to their phone for years.
What are you talking about? Which phone has parental control abilities like that?
Well, all phones with Google’s Android do, and probably all iPhones too, though I am not an iPhone user so I cannot speak from personal experience on iPhones.
My brother, last year, decided to engage parental control on my android phone and used it to stalk me on foot and in his car.
He was the head of the TMobile family plan we were on. I talked to TMobile employees at different locations many times about this. They tried to helo me, but because I was not the head of the plan, the tech support people that the instore agents had to call to try to fix my situation wouldnt do anything.
At one point a T Mobile employee told me to call the police… on T Mobile.
But uh yeah everything on stock android is connected to a google account, and TMobile and Google apparently just presume that any one not the head of a family plan are children, and will allow parental control to be enabled /without informing the ‘child’/.
I’ve never met a person in my life that was convinced by an ad to buy something. I know I never have and never will, I actually stay away from things that are advertised to me. So these fucking brainless fucks are literally wasting their money and energy on ads. Every human being I know loaths ads and would love to erase them from existence. When will they ever get this?
This argument presumes that the entire many-billion and maybe even multiple-trillion dollar global ad industry is ALL based on complete, ineffective nonsense. That everyone has just been bamboozled. That’s a naive view, I think.
The best argument for why we must be vigilant against ads and data collection by advertisers is because the shit does work. It influences people to make purchases, sometimes against their better judgement or reason. Because subverting someone’s agency over their own body and mind is heinous at a very high level.
I’m certain you are wrong. You’ve absolutely purchased products that were advertised to you. You just didn’t make the connection between your decision and the advertisements. You THINK seeing an ad makes you unlikely to buy a product, but you likely only really notice and have an emotional response to the ads for products you weren’t likely to buy in the first place.
This argument presumes that the entire many-billion and maybe even multiple-trillion dollar global ad industry is ALL based on complete, ineffective nonsense.
Strangers things have happened than money being thrown at bullshit.
NFTs were a thing, recall.
All the industry analysis of the ROI on advertising would’ve had to come to the same spurious conclusions about that effectiveness, too. With the largest, richest, and most profitable firms being the ones MOST fooled.
No, I don’t think anything that strange has ever happened. This is basically a conspiracy theory.
A bunch of people making money jerking one another off and you think any one of them’d be in a rush to rock the boat?
You sound much more conspiratorial with your “capitalism always results in rational and correct decisions” fallacy.
You’ve literally just described your own view as believing in a grand conspiracy where all players have sworn themselves to secrecy in a scheme any one of them could undermine in a moment, so I guess that’s that.
I don’t see where I did that. To say you sound more conspiratorial (which you do) is not an admission of any conspiratorial thinking on my part.
A bunch of people making money jerking one another off and you think any one of them’d be in a rush to rock the boat?
In case you edit it away later. Very good, bye now.
I know for a fact that you’re wrong. You just are. I have never bought a single thing based on an ad, period.
What phone do you hve? What computer? What shoes? What milk do you buy? Ads dont work by showing up and making you go buy it like a drone. You see the ads a thousand times and then you start believing its better than other products
Or even as subtle as brand recognition. Nobody can research every purchase and when you walk walk up to two items and one sounds familiar. You’re more likely to buy that one.
That is absolutely impossible
You really don’t understand how advertising works.
I’ve never met a person in my life that was convinced by an ad to buy something.
I believe that you’re being truthful, but I respectfully challenge the idea that you don’t know some person who was convinced by an ad to buy something. Even if all your friends truthfully insist that their decisions are not swayed by ads, there is probably some product they chose at least partially because an advertisement reached them and left a positive impression about the product.
Ads do clearly work on people who are suggestible enough to be susceptible to them. Some of your contacts are probably these people whether they admit to it or not. If ads didn’t work, they wouldn’t be made. Ads aren’t made inherently to be annoying or make our lives worse; they’re driven by profit. Kill the profit and the motive dies. IMO that’s all the more reason to get rid of them.
Anecdotally, my parents and grandmother watch TV with commercials, and they give me a bug-eyed look when I explain to them that I don’t get advertisements and that I don’t want to see them. Most people I know just want to get content crammed down their content-holes and will deal with ads to avoid the momentary inconvenience of change. So I feel like we’re fighting an uphill battle.
You are generalizing too much here. I know many who have tried out a product only after seeing its ad. Ads can give plenty of returns to brands. But targeted ads which even exploits our most intimate conversations are really bad news for our right to privacy.
I said “I’ve never met a person”… then “every human being I know”. Does that count as generalizing? This is basically my circle of the people I know.
I said “I’ve never met a person”… then “every human being I know”. Does that count as generalizing?
generalize | ˈdʒɛn(ə)rəlʌɪz | verb | 1 make a general or broad statement by inferring from specific cases
Literally, yes.
If you say generalize within my circle of people that I know then yes I agree with you, but generalizing in general means everyone, even those I don’t know and have never met, and I didn’t say that. So, literally not yes. lol
so then your argument is companies are wasting money because you and your circle aren’t affected by advertising? how big is your circle that companies should fear not appealling to it?
When I was a kid there were some things I’d see and wanted, only to get them and be seriously disappointed. I learned quickly that ads are fluff.
Nowadays, I actively stay away from things I’ve seen advertised. The way I see it is if a company has to pay tons of money to get their product seen, it can’t be all that good to start with. Genuinely good products don’t need to try and convince you they’re worth it.
Oh boy, all those toys ads on TV where the make the toy look so awesome with all those animations then you get it, and it’s a piece of plastic that does absolute none of they advertised.
Prove it.
I mostly agree. But that ad with the unicorn shitting ice cream and kids eating it was a rare exception that worked
lol. Was that a real thing? Never heard of it. I wasn’t born in the US, so I might have not seen it
It really was. It was for a toilet foot stand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYWhdLO43Q
(and this is how marketing works)
I’ve gotten a type of product I didn’t know existed before, but it’s never been the brand that alerted me to it. From experiences, brands that advertise generally have the lower quality and less value for money product. Brands that don’t advertise but you frequently see mentioned are generally the top tier shit for quality and value and they don’t need to advertise.
Thank you!!! I’ve always said that. If you need to advertise it so hard then it’ll probably suck.
met a guy in the psych ward who convinced his doctor to put him on an antidepressant because of an ad on tv.
Marketing psychology works on sub/unconcious triggers. You could study Ed Bernays as a rudimentary source.
Ads only work when you are searching them out yourself. Like, if i go to steam looking to buy a new game I’d be susceptible to a video game ad. And ads for established brands are complete wastes of money, I’m not gonna buy a coke because i saw an ad for it.
How can they technically do that? They would need their own app because Android by itself isn’t listening (it does while using voice command). And why would they say they can while it’s against the law to do it (at least in Europe, but I guess in the USA too).
Yeah it sounds sus. Apple themselves published an explanation of how siri doesn’t actively listen to you all the time, so I’m not sure how they can bypass that.
And Google says:
About this voice and audio activity setting
When you speak to Google services, Google uses its audio recognition technologies to process your audio and respond to you. For example, if you touch the mic icon to search by voice, Google’s audio recognition technologies translate what you say into words and phrases that Search looks up in an index to give you the most relevant results.
Web & App Activity saves things you do on Google sites, apps, and services in your Google Account on Google servers and can include associated info like location. Certain interactions may not be saved.
This optional voice and audio activity setting lets you also save audio recordings with Web & App Activity when you interact with Google Search, Assistant, and Maps. This setting is off unless you choose to turn it on
And here’s what I saw on a comment from another post about this. From arstechnica:
The company added that it does not “listen to any conversations or have access to anything beyond a third-party aggregated, anonymized and fully encrypted data set that can be used for ad placement” and “regret[s] any confusion.”
I knew it was bullshit.
Haha, well spotted!!! So this is a fuc…ing fake news…
I’d guess they’re planning on making their own stuff that does. I’ve already seen a “free” TV with an extra screen that just shows ads, has a camera, etc.
People are suckers, and there’s plenty of unscrupulous companies willing to monetise that.
Well, “actually listening to your phone” is a very strong statement (which I think it’s false) and completely different from what you’ve reported. This sounds to me to a very big fake news!
This seems fishy. Beyond being illegal in a lot of places, if this was actually possible without people noticing (e.g. detecting massive data usage of audio being uploaded or native battery/CPU usage of it being processed locally) then we’d know about it!
My first thought is that this is the classic tech sales bullshit of claiming your product can do something impossible in order to sell it. What’s most confusing is the statement from the bottom of the article:
“CMG businesses do not listen to any conversations or have access to anything beyond a third-party aggregated, anonymized and fully encrypted data set that can be used for ad placement. We regret any confusion and we are committed to ensuring our marketing is clear and transparent,” the statement added.
So are they admitting it was bullshit or what?
Sometimes it sure seems like it though.
