We're Listening
December 14, 2023 3:45 PM   Subscribe

404 Media: '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.”'
posted by mittens (46 comments total) 17 users marked this as a favorite
 
Massive bucket of salt.
posted by kickingtheground at 3:50 PM on December 14, 2023 [3 favorites]


I will be quite interested to see how this situation develops.

The claim that this level of spying on individuals is legal because they click yes on terms of service agreements with various pieces of software or websites is... spurious at best.

I do look forward to EFF and ALCU having phone calls with each other about how to approach this.

But also, I'm not sure this is actually deployed tech working in anyone's life right now.

I will be interested to see how this develops. If it goes one way, it will end the company who developed this technology.
posted by hippybear at 4:04 PM on December 14, 2023 [4 favorites]


My Dad was convinced this was happening in the 1980s.

You could say that he was susceptible to conspiracy theories, or you could say that he was ahead of his time.
posted by clawsoon at 4:24 PM on December 14, 2023 [10 favorites]


I'm getting "Infinity Bug" nostalgia flashbacks.
posted by Nerd of the North at 4:33 PM on December 14, 2023


As a former Cox customer, I have zero doubt they’d do this if they could – it’s not a name but a description – but I’m skeptical of the claimed technology here. They couldn’t do this on iOS or, I’m told, current Android devices without a visible alert for the microphone being active. Maybe they have some weasel wording for clients which qualifies that down to some fraction of phones whose owners enabled all of the privileges for untrustworthy apps but battery life alone makes that seem dubious.

For Alexa or smart TVs, it’s quite plausible that they’d do this but the bandwidth needed seems like it’d be noticeable unless they’re doing on-device processing. That definitely seems possible and I could believe someone will try claiming that improves privacy because they’re not sending recordings but “only” identified ad topics.

My general rule applies: you should not have a smart TV on a network – treat it as a subsidized display for an Apple TV or Roku – and I wouldn’t use a smart speaker other than Apple’s unless you live in the EU.
posted by adamsc at 4:35 PM on December 14, 2023 [11 favorites]


I love Martha Well's Murderbot series.
Unfortunately, we now live in the Corporate Rim, and everything's for sale.
posted by BlueHorse at 4:51 PM on December 14, 2023 [5 favorites]


Too much of my targeted ad feed appears to be things I've mentioned IRL within the last week or so but not actually clicked on in a browser or entered into a search field. I'm talking relatively obscure things. Could just be synchronicity but I would not be surprised if Google or Samsung or another Android app was sharing keywords with affiliates.
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:52 PM on December 14, 2023 [7 favorites]


Hmmmm. How about a microphone near a cafe or restaurant table, or as part of a display in a mall, with a device that knows what smartphones are in the area (because you're hooked into the Wifi, maybe you ordered through an app)? Perhaps it's feasible to target devices without using their microphone.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 4:52 PM on December 14, 2023 [4 favorites]


My general rule applies: you should not have a smart TV on a network – treat it as a subsidized display for an Apple TV or Roku

I follow the same rule. I have a smart TV with an external Roku.

However, that Roku is very very eager for me to engage its voice control features, it prompts me continuously to talk to it, and there's no microphone indicator or battery life considerations in play there. I really doubt that voice recognition feature is there solely to improve my Roku UX.
posted by Sauce Trough at 4:57 PM on December 14, 2023 [2 favorites]


Do not want.

I don't buy a lot of stuff. The ads served to me by supposedly sophisticated marketing intelligence are really off the mark. Instead of pushing ads at me so hard, ask me what I like or in some way verify. It's especially bad on streaming services, notably Hulu, who cache some ads and show the same 5 - 8 ads on repeat to the point where it'll be a cold day in hell before I buy that product. What's in my wallet? Not a Capital One card.

Facebook gives me ads for 'local' businesses in small towns 15 - 30 miles away, and I'm so not likely to drive there for your nice family restaurant. Fb is ripping them off while claiming to target ads.

If ads were even remotely useful, somebody would understand that some of us will never, ever, watch sportsball, and it wouldn't be pushed at me so relentlessly. If you enjoy hockey, great, but Prime can't figure out that I'm not interested.

There are tons of streaming services, and they all want us to want the same stuff. Find a niche and sell it to me. Use the data to serve me ads for stuff I'll really like. It should be good enough to do this by now. Capitalism is so anxiously greedy, it's stupid.
posted by theora55 at 5:11 PM on December 14, 2023 [8 favorites]


OK, I checked that actual website. I note it is very careful to just talk about devices listening. It does not use the word record, or microphone, or give any clues at all how it really works.

I am prepared to bet that they are actually selling targeting based on analytics and browsing behaviour and being very cute about what it means for a device to "listen" to you. In other words, this is Sea Monkeys for ad people.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 5:18 PM on December 14, 2023 [21 favorites]


Having been on the ad buying side – organizations have been saying stuff like this for ages, and still people are more likely to get struck by lightning than click a banner ad. Color me skeptical.
posted by rednikki at 6:09 PM on December 14, 2023 [2 favorites]


No, it's not a Black Mirror episode—it's Voice Data, and CMG has the capabilities to use it to your business advantage

They actually compared their own (claimed) technology to Black Mirror. That's one step away from just adopting the corporate motto "Do be evil."
posted by Foosnark at 6:14 PM on December 14, 2023 [8 favorites]


There is absolutely zero chance they are actually doing the thing they are purporting to do. It’s clearly just a scummy marketing group plying on peoples’ conspiracies and fears of this actually happening in order to drive interest. Which is clearly working since, you know, we’re talking about it.

Balderdash, I say.
posted by potent_cyprus at 6:22 PM on December 14, 2023 [1 favorite]


A few years ago, I was talking to a friend several states away, both of us on landlines with computers inactive though present in the room, and I happened to mention a brand of cookware I hadn’t thought of for years (Tramontina) that she'd never heard of.

Both us got Google search and YouTube ads for Tramontina the next day and for several days after that.

I certainly didn’t Google it, or seek it out in any way online, and I take her word that she didn’t.
posted by jamjam at 6:27 PM on December 14, 2023 [8 favorites]


Too much of my targeted ad feed appears to be things I've mentioned IRL within the last week or so but not actually clicked on in a browser or entered into a search field. I'm talking relatively obscure things.

I’m sorry, I’ve just never met someone who was able to actually convince me this was happening, and all evidence to the contrary (packet-sniffing network traffic on home assistants, for instance,) indicates this is absolutely not happening.

Did you talk to anyone else about these things? Is it reasonable to believe that they searched for them or clicked on them (before or after your conversation)? Did you see something online that made you think of them? On your smart tv? Did you shop in real life at a place where these things are sold? Did you search for related items, or a triangulation of items that would logically lead to said obscure thing?

All of these vectors are ways that are definitely tracking you with cookies. It’s far, far more likely (and much more concerning frankly,) that you thought of the item because of a confluence of marketing activations that you weren’t even aware were happening.

Also never discount Baader-Meinhof.
posted by potent_cyprus at 6:34 PM on December 14, 2023 [14 favorites]


"There is absolutely zero chance they are actually doing the thing they are purporting to do. It’s clearly just a scummy marketing group plying on peoples’ conspiracies and fears of this actually happening in order to drive interest. Which is clearly working since, you know, we’re talking about it."

NOT targeting this post specifically but... if any of you are naive enough to download an app which offers (for example) to store meg/gig abytes of your favorite media for 'free' ... but all you need to do is click on 'Accept Terms and Conditions' which enable the MICROPHONE for PICTURES/MUSIC etc then the level of lack of comprehension is high. Mrs. IndelibleUnderpants was recently talking with her mother (MILIndelibleUnderpants) regarding compression stocking which she (MIL) would likely need due to a medical condition. Mrs. IndelibleUnderpants AT NO TIME searched or Googled for 'compression stockings' or any related matter. SHE JUST SPOKE ABOUT IT!!!!

15 minutes later, as she drove home from visiting MILIndelibleUnderpants, started receiving Amazon etc 'recommendations' for said product. On a totally unrelated subject, Mrs. IndelibleUnderpants and I were discussing something else (cannot remember... let's go on a cruise or book a vacation etc...) and, a few moments later, she received a 'Hey! We can offer you a super discount on cruises to the Caribbean! Leaving from NY!'. That was the 'this is too creepy' moment when she went through her phone and deleted a whole bunch of apps which seemed innocuous at the time.

Sorry hippybear but... "The claim that this level of spying on individuals is legal because they click yes on terms of service agreements with various pieces of software or websites is... spurious at best. does not ring true at all...
posted by IndelibleUnderpants at 6:47 PM on December 14, 2023 [2 favorites]


It’s far, far more likely (and much more concerning frankly,) that you thought of the item because of a confluence of marketing activations that you weren’t even aware were happening.

On top of that someone not actively resisting ads (and maybe even then) is exposed to litterally hundreds to thousands of ads every single day. Random chance and large numbers mean this sort of coincidence probably happens to several people every single day. No one notices the half a million ads they were served in a year that didn't relate to a recent conversation.
posted by Mitheral at 6:58 PM on December 14, 2023 [10 favorites]


Mrs. IndelibleUnderpants was recently talking with her mother (MILIndelibleUnderpants) regarding compression stocking which she (MIL) would likely need due to a medical condition. Mrs. IndelibleUnderpants AT NO TIME searched or Googled for 'compression stockings' or any related matter. SHE JUST SPOKE ABOUT IT!!!!

This is demonstrating my point. I guarantee the aggregate data surrounding your MIL’s web presence could (did!) predict a need for these. Possible she searched for them or was fed an ad while reading an article about them. Perhaps doctor emailed her about them, or the condition? Your wife was then connected to the same Wi-Fi as her mother. It’s pretty simple calculus here. Phones are not listening this way.

On a totally unrelated subject, Mrs. IndelibleUnderpants and I were discussing something else (cannot remember... let's go on a cruise or book a vacation etc...) and, a few moments later, she received a 'Hey! We can offer you a super discount on cruises to the Caribbean! Leaving from NY!'.

This is classic Baader-Meinhof. It wasn’t listening to you, you are just bombarded with ads daily and because you happened to be talking about it earlier, you were primed to respond.

You know the meme “YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO PROPAGANDA”? This is that. And it’s way scarier than phones simply listening in.
posted by potent_cyprus at 7:29 PM on December 14, 2023 [15 favorites]


At a minimum they should get in big trouble for false claims about their advertising. Telling clients they can do this is is a lie. If they could do it then they should be hit with a class class action suit the size of an alp. Either way they deserve a swift kick in the ass.
The question is who has standing to blow the whistle on them. I am, thankfully, not a customer, but if I was I would seriously consider filing a complaint on general principles. (Hint, hint.)
posted by Metacircular at 8:10 PM on December 14, 2023 [5 favorites]


I suppose it must have occurred to you coincidence theorists that your hypothesis is quite literally, and demonstrably by your comments in this thread, unfalsifiable?

And therefore altogether unscientific by the standard Popperian criterion, because it cannot be falsified by observed exceptions?
posted by jamjam at 9:56 PM on December 14, 2023 [1 favorite]


I don't think phones are listening without anyone noticing, but smart TVs? I don't trust those further than I could throw one.

“Is this legal? YES- it is totally legal for phones and devices to listen to you. That's because consumers usually give consent when accepting terms and conditions of software updates or app downloads,” the website says.

Setting aside whether clickwrap T&Cs count as consent (c'mon), only the owner of the device did that, not everyone in the room.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:15 PM on December 14, 2023 [1 favorite]


@potent_cyprus

Nail on the head methinks. Why listen to people's conversations when you can tell them what to talk about and then - wham! - give them exactly what they wanted?
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 11:40 PM on December 14, 2023 [1 favorite]


For some context on this, I would recommend TechAltar's "Why voice computers always fail" - many tech companies have lost huge sums of money from investing in voice controlled devices that people are not really interested in using (beyond a few very simple functions such as controlling music playback or setting alarms). Faced with these losses, I would expect the companies to thrash around looking at any way of recouping some costs - and ambient speech detection would be on that list.
posted by rongorongo at 12:09 AM on December 15, 2023


@jamjam are you doing a bit right now? It’s definitely giving the “average redditor does x” comedy shorts on YouTube
posted by thedaniel at 2:18 AM on December 15, 2023 [3 favorites]


There is absolutely zero chance they are actually doing the thing they are purporting to do. It’s clearly just a scummy marketing group plying on peoples’ conspiracies and fears of this actually happening in order to drive interest. Which is clearly working since, you know, we’re talking about it.

The ghost of John McAfee smiled.
posted by Cardinal Fang at 2:54 AM on December 15, 2023


My general rule applies: you should not have a smart TV on a network

Who needs a smart TV? MI5 listened to Mike Corley through a regular one.
posted by Cardinal Fang at 3:04 AM on December 15, 2023 [1 favorite]


And therefore altogether unscientific by the standard Popperian criterion, because it cannot be falsified by observed exceptions?

I’m not saying that these observed experiences (read: anecdotes) aren’t happening. I’m saying it is very likely you are attributing incorrect cause.
posted by potent_cyprus at 3:10 AM on December 15, 2023


Cox Enterprises is one of the biggest donors to Cop City, and its CEO is the chair of the fundraising committee for Cop City. This surveillance will absolutely not stop at targeted advertising.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:22 AM on December 15, 2023 [5 favorites]


My sense is that it is not plausible that phones are doing this. Keeping the microphone on and performing speech recognition on that input would be pretty energy-intensive (although compute per watt might be cheap enough nowadays; maybe the economics of this have changed). Regardless, I don't think either Apple or Google want to enable third parties to do this.

Your smart TV has got a few watts to spare though. It's plugged into the wall.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 5:21 AM on December 15, 2023 [1 favorite]


Thanks, hydropsyche, for saying what I wanted to say, better than I was going to say it. It's so embarrassing to be a Georgian and people like Cox CEO Alexander Taylor are a big part of the reason why.

I also wanted to note for the record that Apollo Global Management is a majority shareholder in Cox Media Group.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:59 AM on December 15, 2023


You know what, I appreciate this post -- true or not -- because I believed this was actually already happening. So why do I even still have a smartphone? Or an account on anything? Well ...

When I was a kid in the 80s, back when cigarettes were cheaper, I often wondered why grownups didn't just quit smoking. They could use gum and get help and they knew it was bad for them, they'd tell you not to do it. So why didn't they quit? My inability to quit being online has given me a whole lot more insight into that.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:31 AM on December 15, 2023 [5 favorites]


I was pleased when I recently upgraded my Roku to see the latest model incorporated a hardware switch on the voice control microphone. For the old one I’d opened up the remote and carved the microphone module off the board, I’d figured at worst I might need to replace it with a resistor but that was completely unnecessary.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 8:16 AM on December 15, 2023


Yeah, this isn't happening. At least not from end-user devices.

Having implemented legal wiretapping a few times I can tell you that the hardest part of it is hiding the fact that you're doing it. All it would take is one interested person to monitor the data coming out of your app and you'd be blown.

There are organizations who have made a science out of analyzing network traffic -- not decoding it, but rather looking at amounts and timing. Live transmission, timed batch transmission, and triggered transmission all have very clear signatures.

If you worked really hard at it -- military Signals Intelligence hard -- you might be able to manage something that had millions of devices surreptitiously shipping voice data to a central source, but at that point you'd be better off selling the technology to the military instead of doing marketing pitches.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:36 AM on December 15, 2023 [4 favorites]


I wish they would serve me ads for stuff I talk about. The drug ads are the worst, none of them apply to me. Amazon thinks I want to purchase dozens of 2005 Altima driver side sideview mirrors (still!) since I replaced one in the past year. I have gmail, but google still is just throwing stuff at the wall.

Having implemented legal wiretapping a few times I can tell you that the hardest part of it is hiding the fact that you're doing it.

Having done a few test-pilot projects where we reviewed the data coming off of phones to target ads: it's not a real product for most companies. Generic targeting works really well, and tiny companies don't have the capital to fund its design & construction. Most people are just not that special in what they want to buy - especially in the US with so many big box stores.

So collecting all that data is almost complete nonsense and a waste of corporate time. It's fine -it's creating ok-paying tech jobs I guess.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:44 AM on December 15, 2023 [1 favorite]


What if, instead of listening in on the call yourself, you got the data from amazon or apple or whoever made the phone and offers the voice-activated features like Siri and Alexa? We already know those are sending voice data to external servers for processing, and who's to say just by looking at the data traffic that the data isn't being sold to third parties ?
posted by I-Write-Essays at 8:55 AM on December 15, 2023 [1 favorite]


The scenario I-Write-Essays presents seems to be incredibly likely and probably already in some terrible click through license.
posted by advicepig at 9:41 AM on December 15, 2023 [1 favorite]


What if, instead of listening in on the call yourself, you got the data from amazon or apple or whoever made the phone and offers the voice-activated features like Siri and Alexa? We already know those are sending voice data to external servers for processing, and who's to say just by looking at the data traffic that the data isn't being sold to third parties ?

It wouldn’t surprise me to find out they were selling every single word that was addressed to the devices, but it would be very obvious if they were sending every bit of talk the microphone picked up.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:16 PM on December 15, 2023


Didn't the TVs in "Fahrenheit 451" spy on the watchers, or am I misremembering that?
posted by kjs3 at 2:08 PM on December 15, 2023


Didn't the TVs in "Fahrenheit 451" spy on the watchers, or am I misremembering that?

You’re thinking of 1984. In Fahrenheit 451 the populace is almost entirely self-regulating.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:52 PM on December 15, 2023 [2 favorites]


And yet despite googling the internet like a crazy person I still haven’t gotten an ad for eyeshadow shade exactly as seen in the lavender haze music video. Why can’t analytics do me a solid just this once.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 4:48 PM on December 15, 2023 [1 favorite]


Your TV may actually be watching what you watch though.

“Your Smart TV Knows What You’re Watching,” Mohamed Al Elew and Gabriel Hongsdusit, The Markup, 12 December 2023
posted by ob1quixote at 4:53 PM on December 15, 2023


It’s clearly just a scummy marketing group

but you repeat yourself.
posted by flabdablet at 10:50 PM on December 15, 2023 [1 favorite]


Who needs a smart TV? MI5 listened to Mike Corley through a regular one.

Blast from the past. A former uk.misc regular, by any chance Cardinal Fang?
posted by reynir at 3:52 AM on December 16, 2023


Ok, I've got a nice counter example.

My brother has always had issues with his nose. When I was at his place I needed to go into his office and he had like, a huge row of nasal sprays.

He came over for dinner last week. We did not discuss his nose or nasal sprays. Not a word.

He left, we watched something on You Tube, bam, ad for nasal spray.

He was on our network, he probably has a ton of stuff in his targeting history about nasal sprays so we got served the ad. It would've been so easy for this to be a "the microphones are listening" moment if I had asked him about how his nose was doing. But I didn't, so here we are
posted by damayanti at 4:02 AM on December 16, 2023 [6 favorites]




« Older You've Come A Long Way Over The Past 25 Years...   |   As a heartless killing machine, I was a terrible... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments