A media firm that has worked with the likes of Google and Meta has admitted that it can target adverts based on what you said out loud near device microphones.

Media conglomerate Cox Media Group (CMG) has been pitching tech companies on a new targeted advertising tool that uses audio recordings collected from smart home devices, according to a 404 Media investigation. The company is partners with Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Bing.

In a pitch deck presented to GoogleFacebook, and others in November 2023, CMG referred to the technology used for monitoring and active listening as “Voice Data.” The firm also mentioned using artificial intelligence to collect data about consumers’ online behavior.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes they do. Not enough people know.

      We need everyone to talk about this until it becomes general public knowledge, and then general public outrage.

      • NessD@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Have you read the article? They’re claiming (!) that they would use ads on websites to use mic data. If you know anything about Android or IOS, you’ll know that you have to give mic permission to your browser for it to have access to anything. THEN the browser itself checks if a website needs access to your mic and you have to willingly give it. And lastly: Android indicates when your mic is hot with a green dot. So all of their claims are bs.

        Come back if one of the OS developers admit to always listen on an OS level.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Well look, not to be dismissive of what you’re saying, but the technical aspects of it really don’t matter. There is not (yet) any law in the US that would protect people from such surveillance, regardless of its current technical infeasibility. The point of getting people at large worried or upset about this is to get law established before it becomes a widespread problem, not after some company publicly admits to doing something despicable.

          The fact that companies are thinking about this, trying to accomplish it, trying to buy this functionality from other companies… that should be enough to scare people and get them angry. It’s certainly enough that we should all be talking about it, and publicly shaming them for the voyeuristic creeps that they are.

          There should be riots in the streets over stuff like this, because you can’t build a surveillance state without surveillance technology.

          • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You should probably remove the tinfoil hat. Seems to be cutting off the circulation to your 3 brain cells.

            • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              If Cox is advertising this as a product, it’s because they have a market that will buy it.

          • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            There is not (yet) any law in the US that would protect people from such surveillance, regardless of its current technical infeasibility.

            Wiretapping laws exist. There is no state in the US that allows for wholesale recording someone without consent. Even one party consent states still require ONE party to consent. Recordings taking in a private place without consent would fail to meet even that limited scope.

            • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              The problem is that when you accept the terms of service for smart devices and applications with voice interfaces, you give consent to be recorded.

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Others around you don’t. That consent isn’t transferable. Nor does it grant wholesale recording even if the owner isn’t expecting it, eg if google present “we need to record in order to do voice to text operations”, then other shit gets used, that’s a problem. And lastly, it doesn’t transfer to other applications. If I consent to be recorded by “Google” that doesn’t grant other ad partners access without explicitly stating so. EULA/TOS isn’t law. Terms and conditions get abused all the time. Law often strikes them down when those terms make it to court.

        • coolmojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Come back if one of the OS developers admit to always listen on an OS level.

          If the device does not listen at all times it cannot detect the wake word (Hey Google).

          Edit: formatting.

          • huginn@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            If a device isn’t using a local detection of the wake word it would have a constant stream of data sent back to the developer… Which is super obvious.

            It also wouldn’t be able to respond “Your device is offline” when the Internet is down.

            It’s not a thing and it doesn’t happen.

      • mods_mum@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        I agree with the premise but I have zero confidence this would cause outrage. Most people are too stupid to understand the implications

    • TJA!@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      A lot of seemingly smart people said that it would not make sense to do that.