166
How much proof is there that smart tvs and phones listen to you? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
119 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Like, we all know they're listening , but can we provide proof?

My friend was complaining about all the new super surveillance that will be government required in cars after 2027, and I said to him dude you have a stock android, you use every AI slop feature, you use a smart TV on your unsecured network, and uses x every day. They have everything they could possibly need on him. Oh and he posts questionable things to fb daily under his real name.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

One's a settlement with a blanket denial of guilt for Siri and Google Assistant. At least mild circumstantial evidence, because there's a real mechanism (accidental activation and recording) is identified, but no proof, and certainly no proof of an ongoing intentional data broker style program. But at least enough of a pain that they won a settlement. So that counts as a trace of meaningful circumstantial evidence.

But the second one is just a link to sell you a product that doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever and doesn't even pretend to, it discusses the possibility in vague generalities as something hackable and tries to sell you a product. I'm baffled as to why you think that counts as a source.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    I'm baffled as to why you think that counts as a source.

    I mean, just Google it. Microphone hacking is a thing. (Edit: You know what, Let me Google that for you.)

    I only felt obligated to grab a link grabbed because folks keep repeating the misinformation that "no one is hacking your phone microphone, or it would be in the news". It's just not news anymore.

    Android and iOS malware will try to grab stuff off of your microphone.

    It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not news.

    Malware actors do malware things, and sell whatever they can harvest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Hello? Is this thing on? I sometimes worry that it's impossible to get anyone in a thread like this to stay focused on a train of thought for even five seconds. You posted an article that you thought was a good source, but it wasn't. Then instead of addressing any of that whatsoever, you say "just google it." What we just witnessed was a breakdown in your ability to tie sources to claims, not to mention your ability to keep attention focused on one point before jumping to the next one. You need to fix that before you recommend any more sources.

    And I have googled it. The closest thing to a smoking gun is Cox Media Group claiming it as a capability, inspiring uproar and then walking back the claim that they could do it. That's the best media report on it. And this has been directly studied in an academic setting, finding basically no evidence of secret listening. It doesn't mean there's no incentive or that they aren't bad actors, but you can't use a vague feeling that "it's proven" that to justify a breakdown in your ability to think critically or actually look at evidence.

    Hacks can and do happen, we already knew this from camera hacks of yesteryear. What we don't know is that major social media platforms or tech companies are doing this, either at all or at scale. And yes, it's important to distinguish those two things, because that's also part of critical thinking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent