this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
217 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59381 readers
3541 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
217
Google agrees to settle Chrome incognito mode class action lawsuit (arstechnica.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Google agrees to settle Chrome incognito mode class action lawsuit::2020 lawsuit accused Google of tracking incognito activity, tying it to users' profiles.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

we still have people that do not believe that the phones are always listening when seemingly any website or app you use gives you advertisements about what you were just talking about in the other room with the phone locked.

Oh come on. Don't bring this into conspiracy territory. Yes, eavesdropping does happen, but it's not something an uncompromised Android phone will do when locked. Even when it does happen in the case of spyware, the people doing it aren't selling your transcriptions to advertisers.

People should still opt out of as many of GAPS's spyware-like features as possible, as you suggest, but not because it's a special anti-listening-device warding spell.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Read the document:

The growing ability to access microphone data on devices like smartphones and tablets enables our technology partner to aggregate and analyze voice data during pre-purchase conversations.

Key word is "technology partner". They're buying voice transcripts ripped from someone else's spyware and selling the service of scraping it for keywords and maybe somehow tying that back to an individual by cross-referencing the hit against data from traditional above-board ad platforms.

Google isn't buying transcripts, Facebook isn't buying transcripts. It's Cox Media buying shady recordings stolen from spyware-compromised devices and then trying to whitewash it into something sellable with their (unverifiable) cross-analytics middleware.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh sure, so now you're gonna insist they're buying shit that totally doesn't exist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

No, I am not contradicting myself. Let me say it again with the ambiguity removed:

  1. Cox Media isn't an advertiser, they sell a dressed-up analytics service. Think spreadsheets (that's literally the service they're selling in this copy, a monthly report spreadsheet).
  2. The "technology partner" selling this data to Cox is accessing it by bypassing the normal and correct operation of the device using malware.
  3. What does not "exist" is a shadowy cabal of smartphone manufacturers scheming to hide listening devices in the pockets of their consumers.

I'm sure you still believe this is a load of apologia and frankly you can think what you want, but you should probably know that I'd already read about the Cox story when it first broke and specifically chose my words with that knowledge in mind.