Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations (bbc.com)
302 points by Jerry2 9 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 404 comments

They're listening, but not to your voice or with a microphone.

Facebook is listening to your data--to all of our data, all at once. They have locations, searches, clicks, messaging, photos, hashtags, and any other form of browsing patterns for everyone in your country, everyone in your neighboorhood, everyone in the same room as you.

They have enough data with such advanced analysis that on occasion they can get really close what you're thinking/doing without you explicitly telling them. They're doing this frequently enough to creep a lot of people out and they're only going to get better at it over time.

What we have here is something like Turing test for privacy: a sufficiently advanced amount of data and analysis will be indistinguishable from surveillance.

It's simply unnecessary to listen with a microphone.

Edit: found this slide from F8 in 2015 where they said they store 300PB and process 10PB (with a P) of data per day https://www.instagram.com/p/0tUjrQKH6R

Yes, I think people really underestimate how much data they leak all day long, and how strong the pattern is. Simply emitting bluetooth and wifi, nevermind cellular, all day long can expose an incredible amount of stuff, provided someone can piece it all together (which is exactly what Facebook and other ad companies do).

We like to pretend we're unique and powered by free-will but the reality is most things you do are fairly easy to track and predict.

We're not in 1984, but certainly the capability is _already_ there. The difference between us and 1984 is only really one of intent, and you can guess how long that'll last.

> The difference between us and 1984 is only really one of intent

I'm not convinced intent isn't there; I'm also confused why'd you assume that. As a free software activist, I wonder have you every checked EFF or FSF websites. I'm not saying EFF and FSF are saving the world (no, they are not) but if you browse what they're dealing with, you can easily see the intent is there. It is simply hard to do all these without people thinking intent is not there, which is why nothing is done as explicitly as 1984. For example, Windows 10 has built-in ads, INSIDE operating system, your OS, which you already paid quite a price, forces you see ads; and tracks your behavior "to optimize user experience". People are not worried about this since ads are such an integral part of our lives. But Microsoft perfectly intents to track which websites I visit, what do I eat, what do I like, where would I go. Maybe you can say intention is "different" as in in 1984 they use my personal information to prosecute me, whereas this is not what Microsoft is after. Well, then this brings us to some Foucoult reading. In a world where all my information collected what is the difference between using all my information for a specific cause, when this cause can change just tomorrow. What if NSA asks Microsoft to give bunch of people's data? (we all know this already happened, but it is better practice to ask questions)

I am a programmer, I use my computer all the time, pretty much every single awake moment of mine. I don't want to be watched. But as you said it is depressingly hard to achieve this, since it feels like only 0.1% of the population shares this same desire. Most people are okay being watched, and this is part of the problem.

> ads are such an integral part of our lives

I'll skip the futurama reference for now, but for me ads are far rarer than in the 90s. Adblock handles most things online, iPlayer, Netflix and amazon don't really have adverts on TV (they have a graphical menu but I would call that an advert), Spotify doesn't have adverts. Sure there are a few adverts if I go to somewhere like london, and Sainsbury's advertise their own deals in store, and of course products on the shelf are adverts in of themselves, but the only advert I have seen in the last 24 hours was one raising awareness of cistic fibrosis in a billboard outside of Sainsbury's. Oh and the train announcement saying "the on board shop is open for teas coffees and light refreshments". There wouldn't have been any product placement in the episode of once upon a time I watched last night either.

The TV jingles I remember from childhood are still etched in my brain, the adverts I see in this decade are ones I hunt out depberatly (the John Lewis Xmas advert for example, or film trailers, or something about amazon delivery people stealing your sofa that was recommended at work)

I did see adverts on Saturday night when we went to see Thor. I don't recall what was advertised other than odeon limitless, the trailers are adverts too of course, alas they don't really work - we'd rather see more films at the cinema than we do now, but getting babysitting is a pain. We missed Spider-Man and kingsmen for example.

If anything there are more opportunities to avoid adverts than ever before.

It definitely depends where you are living, and how you travel.

If you haven't been to London recently I understand you might say there are a few ads, but lately I have really begun to notice just how prevalent they are. The tube is absolutely plastered with them - in the train carriages, the escalators, the tunnels between platforms. Construction work fences are covered in ads. And this is for thousands of people who travel 30-45mins two times every day, completely filled with ads. You don't necessarily pay them much attention every day, but they definitely have an effect on which companies, brands and even theatre performances pop into my head first.

On top of this, I took a flight to Heathrow last night and there were ads on the plane, ads all over the arrivals area as you walk to the taxi rank. In the Uber home I noticed the motorway connecting Heathrow and London has bright electronic billboards one after the other - it never seems to end.

I just wanted to give some perspective on what the commuter experience is like in London (and I'm sure in other large cities, too). It may feel like you experience less ads personally, but that may not be representative of the general public.

The apps you mentioned are a select few (admittedly good examples of how TV ads have gone down) , but most free apps now rely on some kind of advertising model to be profitable. Almost every social media platform forces ads into your timeline. Perhaps we just don't tend to notice how pervasive they are.

I guess one side effect of being glued to your phone all the time is that you don't notice adverts. But the tube had adverts in the 90s, and before - http://howlsandwhispers.co.uk/articles/bob-mazzer-london-und...

I did notice adverts on a flight from delhi last month on the front of a film, but it's very rare I'll watch anything on a plane's entertainment system, partly because of things like adverts.

Even tiny cities in comparison will give you a similar experience. You just have to look. There's probably a lot of people looking right through them.

Not sure I agree r; Netflix and Spotify. Both have curated home pages with questionable amounts of accuracy. Netflix in particular, places all of their own content on the top row of the selection. My fire tv stick home page is jammed with ads for content on the landing screen. Amazons website is a gigantic ad. My online shopping now has suggested items based on what I’m ordering( ordering strawberries - now you get suggestions for branded cream in the same search)

Product placement also appears to be rampant (despite you mentioning it explicitly in your post) - many shows highlight specific vehicles and brands, or specific phones, brands of food...

Another one I’ve found is lots of blogs (particularly food ones) have sponsored entries. So you have someone writing about food ad having recipes that use a particular brand of harissa, or a particular food processor.

All these things are advertising, and are mostly heavily targeted too.

Absolutely. Ublock origin scrubs every page clean of ads and trackers.

It's really not THAT hard to stay off the grid.

Quick note to say that despite umatrix/ublock origin, it's hard to not be tracked via canvas fingerprint tracking, where the use of a blocker can make you more trackable. I mean it's not necessarily the ad companies at that point, but you're still a data point for marketing/surveillance.


I was the audience to at least a hundred advertisements on my way to work today.

Do I mind? Not really. Probably because I can't point out a single one.

> Most people are okay being watched, and this is part of the problem.

I am not sure I agree with that. I think the vast majority of people react to the same way to surveillance, they at most don't like it, or outright hate it.

But most people are not conscious of this surveillance. If there was a guy following them absolutely everywhere, all day long, and logging on a notepad everything they do and everything they say, they would go absolutely mad. It's just that current surveillance, through cookies, CCTVs, server side logging, is too stealth for people to notice.

> We're not in 1984


"that Huxley not Orwell was right"

Implies only one can be right. There doesn't have to be only one answer.

    Some say the world will end in fire, 
    Some say in ice. 
    From what I’ve tasted of desire 
    I hold with those who favor fire. 
    But if it had to perish twice, 
    I think I know enough of hate 
    To say that for destruction ice 
    Is also great 
    And would suffice.
Everytime we avoid one possible dystopia, the possibility for another will surface. We just have to hold them at Bay faster than they can arrive

> "that Huxley not Orwell was right" Implies only one can be right.

You're very right about this observation. That being said, I'm kind of tired of the 1984 meme because the state of things and the way we seem to be heading looks nothing like the future presented in 1984. In fact, if we are expecting dystopia to present itself like the one portrayed in 1984 it might obscure the fundamental issues and complexities that our society faces. Brave New World, on the other hand, has a better chance of helping us reveal them.

Direct link to the image:


I get redirected regardless.

When a person submits their email for free Wifi at a place with Zenreach, they pull from databases and build a profile on the person.

I don't know which services provide this or how they gather data, but the thought of anyone being able to download a detailed file on you with only an email or phone number is scary.

A few months ago I did a Google search for my name as i do once or twice a year just to see what comes out. This time I had mixed reactions because among first results there was full text taken from a scanned old magazine dated 1978 or so with my name complete with street address. That was long before the Internet was publicly available and having such data into a magazine would not hurt anyone because people expected it could be useful to get in touch with others with similar interests (electronics in this case), and it surely worked for me because I got a free subscription and some job offers which I would have gladly accepted if I wasn't only 12 years old:) But nearly 40 years have passed, the ubiquitous magazine called the Internet is read by anyone for free, and having your address and/or personal data there isn't that safe anymore. Luckily I relocated a few times since, but what if I didn't? Technically speaking it's great to see an old magazine brought back to life, but what about unfiltered personal information one would expect to remain buried that will instead remain available forever in other contexts? I'm not bashing Google's bots crawling around to turn anything into searchable data, and I surely would never ever want laws to limit what can be searched, but pay attention if you shared personal data on printed material because if until yesterday we said "everything you put on the internet stays there forever", today there is more.

As a company director since the age of 15 I’ve had my personal address publicly listed for quite a while now.

Prior to that there were phone books and whilst you could choose to be delisted clearly a lot of people didn’t since the books were so thick!

I thoroughly agree that privacy is important but I don’t think people ever really minded very much or if they did not enough to do something about it like lobby for laws to ensure personal addresses are not disclosed publicly.

What's the reason for keeping your address a secret? Genuinely curious, as where I live (se) almost all peoples addresses are public information, and it's really practical.

33 bits. Information is a force multiplier, not power itself (Francis Bacon was wrong.)


It takes only 33 bits of distinctive information to identify a given person. Specific information about a person, including background, can help provide further information on them -- it tells you where to look (and more importantly, a very good idea as to where not to), who to talk to, and what they might have done.

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

- Cardinal Richelieu (a/k/a Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu et de Fronsac)

"the forced revelation of information makes individual privilege and power more important. When everyone has to play with their cards on the table, so to speak, then people who feel like they can be themselves without consequence do so freely -- these generally being people with support groups of like-minded people, and who are neither economically nor physically vulnerable. People who are more vulnerable to consequences use concealment as a method of protection: it makes it possible to speak freely about controversial subjects, or even about any subjects, without fear of harassment."


(Yonatan Zunger is the former chief architect of Google+.)

I work with prisoners. I have a unique name. My family members and I are the only people with our names in the country, and possibly the world.

If you google my name, you will find my family (parents, sibling), their home address, phone numbers, ages, occupations. It is local.

Upon release or through veiled communication, I or my family members could easily be targeted for harm by inmates or former inmates.

This is a very real concern for me. I have found no way to permanently remove this information from search results.

I encourage people to think more creatively when they cannot think of potential disadvantages of easily searchable personal information.

Create a batch of new yous' with different addresses and make them public across the internet. Your problem is too little misinformation.

> What's the reason for keeping your address a secret?

I, and the people I love, have public political opinions on the internet, and SWATting is a thing.

I can either keep my address a secret (and I do; I use my PO Box whenever possible), or I can decline to participate in public civic discourse and encourage the people I love to do the same.

I think it's not so much keeping this sort of information a secret, it has never really been a secret as anyone with some motivation could find out these things. The big thing these days with computerisation and the Internet is it is making these things trivial to acquire, accumulate, and search. It's not a matter of going to offices and looking through paper records, because it's all at someone's fingertips.

> it's really practical

To what end?

I can't think of a situation when someone might need my address and not being able to get it from me directly.

Addresses can be used for authentication—it routinely is in the UK where I live now.

There are also possible physical safety issues, especially in a country like the US were people seem to have guns and are willing to use them.

I miss Sweden’s transparency and widespread’s trust.

Lookup address-by-name seems much more damning than lookup-name-by-address.

Much less is to be assumed about you, like just your name.

Versus the country you live in, state/province/territory, city/village/township, neighborhood, etc.

We _are_ in 1984, but unlike the book, it's not imposed on us. We signed up for it. And those of frequenting HN most likely are the ones helping to build it.

Think about it: tomorrow is Monday. How many folks on this board will be working on analytics and tracking once they get in to the office? A lot of us, guaranteed. And how many of us will take a principled stand, swearing not to work on products until surveillance features are removed? A few of us, guaranteed.

You say people will take a stand, but the vast and overwhelming number of us wont, we will just continue to help build the greatest surveillance system in history. And then tell each other how we’re unicorns that are saving the world, that we cherish freedom and liberty and the hacker ethis, when really we just want to get paid.

Nobody knows what stand to take. We stood and fought for open source everywhere, thinking that would be our salvation. But apperently there is more to it than that, and we aren't exactly sure what.

Sure we are sure, we just don't like it. RMS gets a lot of flack, but he's mostly right---this is not a technical problem with a technical solution, it's a political problem with a necessarily political solution. Most of us live in democracies, so if you want to fix the problem, it's actually quite straight-forward, it's just that people don't want to give up their nice job and nice hobbies.

If you know what the law should be, please tell us.

Oh my god stop being so dramatic, both of you. The vast majority of people are not actively contritubing to the sorry state of data privacy nor are they heroically working to fix it. Put the blame where its due.

Are you kidding me? HN is _built_ on startups that specialize in selling ads.

>We _are_ in 1984, but unlike the book, it's not imposed on us.

We're living in both 1984 and Brave New World.

See this illustration between 1984 and Brave New World.


the other difference between us and 1984 is that we are volunteering that data for free.

Right, like the example from Target. It is possible that facebook has access to a stream of Target purchases or credit card purchase information. I'd be 0% surprised if there was a data sharing agreement with credit rating companies.

Even if they just knew the price of the purchase, combined with the job (burn risk) and location data (traveled from work to nearest store with pharmacy during the day), it's possible that you might be able to infer a burn with enough accuracy to be valuable to advertisers.

"It is possible that facebook has access to a stream of Target purchases" ...

It's not possible, it's simply true. In fact, this feature of the facebook ad platform is available to any advertiser on Facebook/Instagram/etc, whether you have $100 to spend or $100M.

You simply upload your customer's purchases to Facebook with data such as zip code, email, etc etc which Facebook then uses to optimize your advertising budget and find more customers similar to the ones you already have (the feature is called look-alike audiences).

"Google said that it captures around 70% of credit and debit card transactions in the US."

source: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40027706

If Google has access, I am sure Facebook does it.

I'm sure Facebook would like to do what you're saying, but I think that they're a long way from having those capabilities.

They have billions of users, billions of ads, and trillions of pieces of metadata. Sifting through that to produce a guess like "User 1234 burned themselves and would be interested in product 5678" would be an amazing and scary piece of AI.

Not to mention that Facebook are limited by the ads they can sell. The manufacturer of the burn cream doesn't give Facebook a bucket of money and free reign. They choose how and where the ads are shown. There is currently no option for "Users who recently burned themselves".

Last year there were 29,000 categories that could be targeted. If an ad sales rep wanted to close a deal, how difficult would it be to add one more for recent burn victims, or people who recently bought a specific product?

From the links that m_ke posted, facebook already has ties to loyalty card information, so it's very possible that they didn't need to do any inference, they just had the data directly.

In any case, the main point is that facebook doesn't need to listen to what people are saying, it has a ton of other data streams that could explain the stories in the link.

What would the point be in advertising a burn cream to someone that just bought a burn cream? It's not like it's a common reoccurring purchase (like Toothpaste for example).

Like the article says, it's probably just the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon* at work. It's like when you buy a new car - you suddenly start seeing that same model of car everywhere.

* https://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomeno...

I think the proposed logic here is "a person like you buys burn cream so we advertise burn cream to people like you." In this scenario the person who actually bought the item will get the ad too.

To me, advertising a product to people who already bought it is a sound strategy. I see no contradiction. I'd rather like to hear a cogent argument as to why that is wasted effort, as is usually implied.

In your example, maybe I left the bottle of burn cream at the office. So I will want to get another one on the way home. It's effective to get reminded in my Facebook about that item (and the brand) isn't it? Yes it's creepy but it works.

> facebook doesn't need to listen to what people are saying, it has a ton of other data streams

The same could be said for any of those data streams. But just because Big F has access to those other sources of data doesn't mean it excludes voice recognition.

I'd be very surprised if FB wasn't in this arena. That's how big tech companies work these days — they do what everyone else is doing. Like getting into self-driving cars.

Apple[1], Google, Amazon, MS, etc... all have voice recognition boxes. FB doesn't need to market a box for your living room, it already has one in everyone's pocket.

([1] Apple says it doesn't use any of your Siri words against you. If you don't trust FB's word, you might no trust Apple's, either. But at least on the Mac you can keep dictation off the internet, if you choose.)

I agree that even with an enormous amount of data there are limits to what facebook can realistically infer...I particularly enjoyed the things that facebook’s ad platform determined to be my hobbies when I checked recently: https://m.imgur.com/nWCWn63

I’ve had an account since 2005, even if I use it much less than I used to, you’d think they’d have enough data to do better than that.

Think smaller. They don't need to consider billion users at once, for modeling you can start with hundreds of thousands or few million. Trillion pieces of metadata can be reduced to tens of thousands of features (eg. instead of feeding in the raw status updates, assign each update to some class, put in some mood measurement etc). This reduction does not need to be fully automated, it can be human assisted (humans coming up with ideas on what kind of features to extract). Instead of considering all possible ads, you can start by taking out the long tail of ads with very little interaction data and focus on some specific categories.

Building this kind of predictive models is not black magic. This is what companies do to figure out who they should target on direct marketing campaigns. Applying some magical deep learning dust can quite likely improve the results (in Facebook scale), but it's not mandatory. Computationally the hardest part is building the models. Once they are done, applying them to millions and millions of customers is more straight forward.

When considering what is possible, you need to also consider the stakes. Facebook ad revenue is something like $10 billion per quarter[1]. To make more money, I can think of three ways: add more users, make users spend more time looking at their feed or make more money per ad slot. Better targeting means more money per ad slot since some customers are paying directly based on the clicks. Since improvements lead to better revenue, extra hardware costs are easy to justify.

[1] http://www.adweek.com/digital/facebook-raked-in-9-16-billion...

Patterns like these can definitely be inferred by machine learning, with well principled models.

P(product_class=bandage | job=factory_worker, pharmacy_visit_last_month=1) >> P(product_class=bandage)

Also, Googling something on your phone is so common and easy nowadays that people just forget that they did it. It's literally become an integral part of the thinking process.

My suspicion on this is that stores offer "reward cards" so they can get you to sign something that allows them to gather and sell your data.

Rewards cards / loyalty card are designed to incentivize you to spend more with the stores. Ostensibly reselling data is a lot less valuable than directly trying to convince you to shop more at their establishments

That was true at the beginning of the loyalty card phage. But now the big chains are learning how to data mine and discovering the value of their data to others.

Now your loyalty card data is worth twice as much. Once to the retailer for internal marketing, targeting, purchasing, etc... and again selling it to outside parties.

thanks, sorry to reply to this late. I often wonder if I take a loyalty card and then for example I purchase twice as much double cream as the next person, does this get sold to health insurers who then charge me a higher premium? The permutations are endless eg too much beer. too many condoms. Too much spicy dip.

If you look at the history of the Tesco Clubcard (one of the early ones to appear in the UK), the data they mined from their new ability to tie purchasing trends to customers more than made up for the cost of the rewards being offered to get people to use it.

There's a reason they got so dominant over here - they were simply way ahead of the game on offering what their customers actually wanted, because they were the only people who actually had a clue.

That has of course changed now.

If you read the Walgreens Rewards privacy policy, it covers everything from retail transactions to security camera footage and they are able to tie everything together. They're also able to gather and sell data about your health, which would otherwise be protected by regulation using the rewards program, especially as people are incentivized to use the card, even for prescriptions...and no one actually reads [between the lines] of the privacy policy

I always thought they were up front about that being true. At least for the 1% off cards that supermarkets offer.

That's true and credit card companies are very open about it (at least if you read their reports for investors). The advantage of store cards is that the store knows exactly which products you bought, whereas they only know the total if you used a Mastercard/Visa.

>whereas they only know the total if you used a Mastercard/Visa

This is simply not true with respect to the big retailers in the US. This started as far back as '06, though the details of the implementation have changed a bit.

Only if it's a co-branded card. If you use your Visa issued by some bank to go shopping at Walmart, they won't get your personal details together with all items you bought. They can get the items but without the personal details (including age, wealth, etc), they're not that useful.

We had the ability to do this at the largest merchant acquirer 10 years ago as long as your bank signed up. Walmart was one of the first customers and would stream SKU-level data straight to our servers from the POS terminal.

You make a very good point. However, in this case there is very strong evidence that Facebook is also listening to the microphone.

Coincidentally, I recently had a friend convey a story where the Facebook app suddenly recommended a new connection immediately after certain information was spoken in a verbal conversation. This instance was particularly damning because, due to the sensitivity of the information that was spoken, it had been very carefully kept out of the digital footprint.

I consider it likely that this is merely just another example of people underestimating how much data they're leaking. I would wager to guess that there would have been far easier methods of deducing that new connection other than listening to your conversation and somehow inferring it from that stream of noise. You just don't know which, but it's not unimaginable that that certain information was leaked in another way as well, and probably in a more structured format than unlabelled audio.

Maybe the other party looked the friend up.

Once Facebook recommended me to connect to guy with an interesting name, and I wondered where I saw this name before. I looked up my emails, and I saw that I bought something from him on eBay several years earlier. I know I never gave Facebook access to my mail account, but guess what, I'm pretty sure the guy gave access to his. Facebook saw that we sent mail to each other, and it asked me if I wanted to be FB friends with this random eBayer...

It's not unimaginable, but the frequency of these stories should make you wonder.

I had this happen personally. Had a conversation about my work with this girl I know which ended up being mostly about project management. The girl told me later she started getting ads for project management stuff.

It's not a subject she's interested in, has ever searched for information on, and has no relevance to her job working the counter at a sandwich shop. We have no social media accounts in common and don't even talk that often.

The issue is in the story teller. If the person telling the story doesn't understand what other data they're leaking or the data the people they interact with are leaking you cannot take their word that "Facebook is listening to my microphone" at face value, no matter how frequently they say it.

Also wouldn't a constant stream of audio - even low quality audio - ruin battery life? I realise it's a phone so it's base usage is a constant stream of audio but I can't help but feel that or something else would be giving it away.

As they have a bug bounty program I imagine there's plenty of people watching raw network activity between app and Facebook too.

>Also wouldn't a constant stream of audio - even low quality audio - ruin battery life?

Facebook is a well-known battery hog, at least on iOS. I can't imagine their devs are any better at Android.

Facebook probably knew because she was logged in to it on her work computer, where she was also searching for and reading project management websites. Since every website has a like button it means that Facebook can correlate the two.

This girl has zero interest in project management, the whole reason she brought it up to me is because she thought it was weird because it's a subject she never even thought of outside of the one conversation we had just prior to her being fed ads for the same thing.

> Turing test

Sorry to 'actually' you but that's phrased like Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


True, but I have to say that I appreciated both references.

Exactly. People underestimate the amount of data Facebook (and companies alike) can and do scoop up. I’ve seen countless stories supposedly proofing that they’re listening through the microphone. However, most of them can easily be explained away if you consider the vasts amount of data they collect.

The idea that they're listening to your mic is rather ridiculous. I mean, we'd find out eventually, and the consequences of widespread illegal wiretapping would be severe for Facebook, they would really cease to exist.

However, as you said, they don't need to. Localization and usage metrics alone can tell you an incredible amount of extremely detailed information.

Just looking at the Facebook iOS app, they don't declare the "audio" background mode in their Info.plist. So instantly we know that they're not recording anything in the background.

For foreground, I suppose it'd be fairly trivial to tell if the app was making calls to AVAudioRecorder.

I wish someone would actually write about how ridiculous these clames are in a way that non-technical people would be able to understand. There's so much bias, conjecture and downright false proof.

I agree. I'd love something shorter than having send someone to read half of the LessWrong Sequences. I wish CGP Grey or Kurzgesagt could do a video on that.

The basic thing you need to make people comprehend: to learn a fact X, you don't have to actually learn it - it's enough for you to learn about such Y that P(X|Y) >> P(X). And you don't have to learn Y either, you have to learn V and W such that P(Y|W) >> P(Y) and P(Y|Z) >> P(Y). Etc. This method applies recursively.

And once they comprehend the causality graph this forms, you need to make them understand just how much information we radiate all the time, and how humans are still very inefficient in doing the calculations mentioned above with all that data. Facebook is only the tip of an iceberg; it's only going to get worse from here, because modern technology keeps letting us explore the causality graph even further and faster.

> the consequences of widespread illegal wiretapping would be severe for Facebook, they would really cease to exist.

Unfortunately, I don't think they would. They'd get a slap on the wrist fine, maybe have one or two senior executives resign, they'd post a mea culpa, saying how they now it was wrong and promise to do better, and then everyone would forget about it a few weeks later when some new thing started to dominate the news cycle.

Indeed. I doubt they would go down due to this. They'd receive some negative attention. They'll make some sweet PR statements and hop, they're back in business.


It's a pretty easy test - they just said "cat food" a bunch of times and ads for cat food came up in their feed the next day. I'm sure if you were interested you could probably do the same experiment with some other product you've never posted about or talked about online and come up with similar results. It seems strange that you would just assume that the people who are bringing up this issue are simply misinformed, or do not also know that facebook also looks at other parts of their data. I think most lay people understand how data mining is leveraged these days.

Hi, first comment so please be gentle.

I'd like to point out that this video doesn't actually provide any evidence that Facebook was listening.

They said they talked about cat food all day, then they showed an ad on Facebook for cat food.

There's no way to verify that they didn't make the video of the cat food ad on Facebook and then talk about cat food all day.

Nor is there any evidence that they talked about cat food all day at all. No recording of the conversations etc.

In fact I'm a little confused about how this is even a question.

I'm not a programmer so I don't know, but: Wouldn't it be trivial for someone who knows how to write Android software to monitor if an an application is accessing the audio input device?

I mean, I know that on Linux you can monitor whether or not a device is being opened.

Why doesn't someone check if Facebook is accessing the audio input?

That's been done, and no one has found any evidence that this is happening. Hence it's status as a conspiracy theory.

As soon as you start assuming that the OS is giving the facebook app access to the microphone regardless of whether you allowed it in the settings, things start to get absurd

Link please?

> I'm not a programmer so I don't know, but: Wouldn't it be trivial for someone who knows how to write Android software to monitor if an an application is accessing the audio input device?

Or even by MITMing the connection and looking at the network packets. But yes, it's not outside the realms of possibility to hook into the microphone driver on a rooted Android phone and check when it's being activated.

I'm not one to leap to Facebook's defence and if this is happening it needs to be shut down ASAP, but I suspect that there would be at least some credible evidence out there if it were indeed the case.

I'd like to see some more rigorous testing than this. They said it took 2 days to happen? Other people's anecdotes indicate it happens within minutes. I don't think this is conclusive, it's still within the realm of confirmation bias.

I feel like there'd be hundreds of these videos if it was real. How many people tried to make this video and it didn't work? I hope someone buys 10 new phones, opens 10 new Facebook accounts, and does some statistically rigorous testing.

This is easy also to fake, and I trust some random YouTuber much less than a public Facebook statement. It would be intensely stupid for the head of ads at to deny this if they were doing it.

Well, she wasn't under oath, so there is no firm legal requirement for her to be truthful. Or maybe, being a public representative, she's not been briefed about this. Legal security through compartmentalization is pretty common in the corporate world.

> Well, she wasn't under oath, so there is no firm legal requirement for her to be truthful.

The same is true for the random YouTuber ;)

For sure :)

That could easily have been a random ad, combined with something like the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.

To be a scientific test it needs a list of products, and then randomly assign half into a study group and half in to a control group. Then talk all the time about stuff in the study group but not the control group. And see if there is a statistically significant difference between the ads shown for products in the study group vs the control group.

IN the video he claims not to have owned a cat or talked about cats for 20 years. they chose a subject that they are certain they have, as a couple, never exchanged words on.

Explaining away doesn't explain. For an average, normal FB user, this was as scientific as they could get. It would be nice to see someone repeat the experiment with a pro-hacker type on hand and a packet sniffer ++.

There are too many people giving a company like fb, who have form on the implementation of morally and ethically dubious practices, the benefit of the doubt, all the while dismissing any and all claims of users. It looks fishy at best, and I'm not name calling, it isn't allowed on this forum, but there are a disproportionate number of FB defenders popping up wherever this story surfaces.

Except he probably sees hundreds of ads for things he's never talked about for 20 years. It's not scientific at all, because he has no way of distinguishing a listening ad from luck. My statistical method would distinguish that.

But I guarantee you there are hundreds of pro-hacker types not giving facebook the benefit of the doubt. They're reverse engineering the apps, monitoring API calls from rooted phones, monitoring network traffic, etc. There are entire forums of people dedicated to hacking on android and finding rooting methods, etc.

There are tons of security researchers in academia desperate for a nice paper, eagerly looking for something juicy like facebook app listening to users. In fact these researchers have found that hundreds of android apps are listening to you[1]. But facebook isn't on that list.

The EFF has tons of smart people eager to dig into any little privacy mistake that a major company makes. They for sure would launch a huge lawsuit against facebook if this came out, and they very likely have some researchers looking into whether there's any listening.

Why haven't you heard about all the pro-hacker research into facebook's spying? Because they have all found no spying, because there isn't any. They don't want to publish that they found nothing, because then it would look like they're defending facebook, and these pro-hacker types don't like facebook and don't want to defend them.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/there...

This is what I came here to say. They may or may not be listening, but the end result is the same.

> Facebook is listening to your data--to all of our data, all at once.

So is Google. What makes FB even creepier is that they don't just watch everything people do, but they manipulate people in controlled experiments to extract as much money from them as possible.

> they manipulate people in controlled experiments to extract as much money from them as possible.

You just described A/B testing. This is a technique used by every successful company. The only thing unique about Facebook is the data.

FB is also okay using data other companies choose not to. Ethics is definitely a factor, too.

This is the thing. It's a fine line between offering someone a solution they might want or appreciate based on their search. Another to manipulate them into wanting it through emotional plays.

> and any other form of browsing patterns for everyone in your country

Definitely. Basically every major website has facebook code on it for social sharing and for "analytics". Facebook surely uses this analytics data to track you from site to site and know exactly what you're looking at. If your browser is signed into facebook, they know exactly who you are too.

That's all very true and very important, but I think it misses the point of contention that many people are rightly focusing on.

There's an issue of whether facebook is, despite what they say, doing some sort of data analysis that's relevant to advertising, in addition to all the other listening and analyzing they do with the rest of our data.

"all of our data" includes recorded audio.

What an insightful comment. Not sure if that’s your idea or not but the bit about enough data being indistinguishable from surveillance is very interesting and if evolved properly may one day make a great argument for constitutional protections around data collection and privacy.

> a sufficiently advanced amount of data and analysis will be indistinguishable from surveillance.

What’s surveillance if not “sufficently advanced amount of data”? They’re indistinguishable becaus they are the same.

Facebook isn’t “collecting data”. It really is following you.

So... Why should we care?

If I had to give my father some reasons why this should concern him, I'd come up blank. Maybe you can fill in a few.

The number of reasons you should care are numerous. One facet of the dystopian nightmare that total surveillance inevitably brings is already being realized in China.


They're collecting data on children without their informed consent, babies today have their information capital compromised from the moment they are born, via their parents shares, purchases, and activity, without their say.

But then why should anyone care about "informed consent" of their "information capital"?

Because the risks involved with complete knowledge of everyone at every moment are huge. Consider that most developed countries have for decades spent millions in spy agencies to get just enough dirt on people of interest to be able to manipulate them.

Imagine that the same information is now available on all people to many giant companies, some with almost government like spheres of influence, you can see the potential for manipulation grow.

The other part of Facebook in particular is that they sell that leverage to advertisers. An example of that would be the possibility that Russia influenced the US election. Whether or not it happened in either direction, the concept and possibility is something to be worried about.

The reason we should still care even though it seems ubiquitous already is because we messed up by getting here, but we can still fix it.

Well I'm paranoid enough to think such possibilities are a problem. But how do you sell those concerns to the average person?

Already many companies check the social media accounts of people applying for a job. A company can't legally discriminate against you based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, etc... But an HR drone can easily roundfile your resume because he doesn't agree with your political views.

That's why employers requiring social media information is illegal in a dozen states or so. (Illinois, I know for sure. There are others.)

Is your question why privacy is important, or are you thinking of something else?

They have to respect our privacy. The moment they don't, it will cause widespread outrage.

Once I realized that, it was hard to think of reasons why their actions are wrong.

Facebook is amassing a huge amount of valuable information on every member.

I disagree that the threat of outrage is sufficient to stop the information being used badly. For example, there is outrage against Equifax, but their cache of information has still been compromised. We have seen data leak after data leak from various companies. If a country's spy agencies want to go after the data, they have a lot of resources, from hacking to legislation to physical intrusion or coercion.

Add to that, it seems like Facebook doesn't institutionally care about privacy (probably because it is hard to explain something to someone whose paycheck depends on them not understanding it). For example, http://actualfacebookgraphsearches.tumblr.com has some very damaging graph searches. Or people who have been outed as gay by incomprehensible privacy settings.

Facebook is a sieve, and the reason to care about them having a lot of information is the same reason to care about privacy in general.

Remember when Target snitched to a teenager’s parents that she was pregnant because her purchases fit the “is pregnant” profile, and everyone got outraged, and they stopped profiling people?

Actually, only the first two things happened.

Actually, only one of those things happened, the one in the middle. I'll let you dig into Forbes's "sources" to figure out how they managed to twist a hypothetical into something that already happened.

I did a quick search and found a Forbes article based on a New York Times article which claims it really happened:


It is possible that their source was lying or mistaken, of course.

I think degrees of hearsay is getting up there, but that's for everyone to decide.

The author talked to an employee who talked to the man whose daughter was flagged as pregnant. It would be nice if they could have talked directly to the man, but that doesn't seem too distant. In any case, it hardly seems to warrant a scare-quoted "sources," nor would I describe that as "twist a hypothetical."

You have now refuted the story twice in this thread without providing any evidence of its inaccuracies. While I don’t know for certain the validity of the story, you aren’t doing much to persuade me of your position.

I ... don’t know what to say. What they are doing now is respectful?

If we ever come to widespread outrage, it will be much to late. In fact, I don’t think there can be outrage. FB would detect it and make it disappear. Somehow.

There has been enough manufactured outrage to make people or decision makers stop caring about it.

> The moment they don't, it will cause widespread outrage.


For me the fear is insurance companies denying cover or increasing premiums based on some random search, share or like that actually has no relevance to the cover, then not telling you why they made that decision.

> "At work, happened to me though earlier this year. Working as a barista, got a burn, talked to my partner in person about it, went to Target, bought the burn cream, and saw an ad on FB for the exact product I purchased. Never searched for product either," wrote Brigitte Bonasoro.

Facebook has data sharing agreements with many, many companies. It's most likely that the cream was bought with a card then linked together with your facebook profile. It's not that hard, especially when you use the same email identifier for all those loyalty cards you have.


A video that explains what Facebook does https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dy...

I have a similar anecdote. Girlfriend was having some symptoms, we briefly talked about it then walked to the pharmacy and bought a pregnancy test. Maybe 30 minutes after purchasing the test we watched a youtube video on her phone. The ad on the video was for the exact test we bought.

I figured that youtube got the credit card info from the purchase but I was shocked at how quickly that translated into something showing on the screen. I've always thought about these things in the back of my mind but this was still eye opening for me.

I'd never had it happen to me personally since I aggressively block all ads :)

It's certainly a technical possibility but my bets are on your girlfriend's recent searches. Was the yt video on anything to do with being pregnant?

Was the pharmacy a national chain, regional, local, or one-off?

In my experience in data exchanges with other large companies, data is usually shared and processed in batches where even an hour lag would be considered "very quick".

It's possible she had done some searches before talking to me, I'm not sure. The video was unrelated though. National chain pharmacy so they certainly have some kind of data sharing scheme.

> National chain pharmacy so they certainly have some kind of data sharing scheme.

I don't know if you can say that for sure or not.

Regardless of whom shares customer data with whom, this whole issue has a number of legal/compliance issues beginning with HIPAA. The pregnancy test purchase, when anonymized, is just a sales data point, sure. When combined with identifying your girlfriend, and then giving that data to a third party (especially for non health-care treatment or paying claims needs), is most certainly illegal. If she had purchased a Coke, then no, but given she purchased a health-related product it falls into a myriad of laws that govern health care privacy.

> I have a similar anecdote. Girlfriend was having some symptoms, we briefly talked about it then walked to the pharmacy and bought a pregnancy test.

The funny thing is, this is a horrible use of ad data. With a few exceptions (luxury cars being one, making someone feel good about their purchase) showing ads for a product someone just bought is the height of uselessness.

Advertisers are suckers.

Facebook and YouTube are selling ads to people who have already bought their product.

In a sense, they are suckers. Plus, as another story on HN suggested, their abandonment of advertising you things you don't need right now(but you may find you want later in life) proves counterproductive. A heck of a lot of things advertised to me on Facebook are things I already searched for and either purchased or already decided wasn't worth buying. I don't believe that modern internet ads are as valuable as the industry seems to think, which may be a sign of an impending bubble burst.

Internet ads are far more measurable than most other forms of advertising.

The advertiser certainly has all the data necessary to see if it's profitable or not to do those seemingly counterintuitive ad campaigns.

except the data is controlled by the entity selling you the ad, so they have reasons to make the profitablity difficult to discern

But still, when you advertise X to people who searched for X' (or even X itself), you can see the conversion rates of those ads, right? And you should be able to measure if that setup is profitable or not.

im bombarded with ads for Ecwid. a product i purchased and have used for 5 years. I feel bad, they must have spent more on ads than I actually pay them.

Credit card information is not tied to the products that are purchased. It is an aggregate purchase amount tied to a store location, that is it. Whatever is going on here needs to be investigated and brought to light.

Do credit card companies get the list of items you purchased, not just amount and the place?

No, they do not not. I have access to many billions of credit card transactions. Aggregate amount, date/time, maybe merchant location, merchant name, and a merchant classification--plus some other things but not much that is interesting.

Depends on which country you are in. Your bank card in some European countries is not allowed to receive or store info about the items you purchased, but the shop obviously will and there is a limit on what they can do with that info and for how long they can store it.

So if I pay for petrol with a card and also buy donuts and coffee the bank and the shop cannot market to me according to what I bought, but if I join a loyalty card scheme then I'm opting in and the shop can, but not the bank.

In Norway btw, where govt. are strict about this sort of thing.

Or it's coincidence? How many ads does Facebook show to how many people? It would be weird if zero of them were relevant.

This. With billion users being shown ads daily, coincidences are just bound to happen.

I don't see how it's beneficial to the advertiser when the person has already bought the product before they've seen the ad?

It sounds like someone is trying to game the advertiser by correlating ad views with sales.

> It sounds like someone is trying to game the advertiser by correlating ad views with sales.

Shhh. If advertisers realize how utterly wasted most of their advertising spending is you'll destroy about 80% of "tech" companies and plunge the world into a global recession.

Or maybe you're wrong about how useful advertising is?

(Is it really easier to believe that we, the "smart techies" of HN, just know so much more and can see so much more clearly than everyone else?)

To be fair, coke can't get many new customers buying their product. Yet they spend quite a bit of money advertising their product so that their existing users keep purchasing.

For example in the Automotive industry a mail piece with a tracked phone number is used and that is cross referenced with Dealer sales data. The pieces are mailed to targeted lists of people qualified by credit score, postal code and recent purchase of vehicle make. Should the site be accessed via a personalized URL the user now appears through a variety of methods, same if they come from FB they’re claimed through offline conversions where sales data is compared to audiences. Using this readily sold and available data it’s easy to calculate spend and determine response. Even with single digit response (not uncommon for email) industries thrive.

These ads also help in talking to you unconsciously, the next time a person is looking for a burn cream, its the company's product whose ad you saw will be the first thing that comes to your mind.

Alternatively they might be so freaked out by the surveillance aspect that they decide never to buy that brand again.

reinforce the quality of the product to make the buyer feel good purchasing again? odds are if someone's of a certain age/relationship status and buying a pregnancy test, they're trying to conceive and will possibly buy more.

Not all ads have to be relevant to be valuable. Especially when you're still training the AI.

Not sure if this is better or worse.

Agreed and I am not sure the majority of population realize this or would be accepting of it.

Well, I'm (marginally) more comfortable with a company like Facebook having this data compared to... Equifax

Why? FB has agency to actually do something, probably horrible with it. Equifax would just get hacked.

Don't forget the sell out when they finally jump the shark.

Would you still be comfortable with it if Zuckerberg was running for president?

What ways do you think they company might be able to use that information to sway the outcome of the election (passively or actively), and do you think there is a greater than zero chance they would try to do this?

I'll sometimes see ads for products I bought at Costco, so that makes sense. But then again I get a lot of ads I don't understand -- Facebook has me pegged for a drug addict considering divorce who loves Urdu-language television, but where it came up with those ideas I don't know.

> "I run ads product at Facebook. We don't - and have never - used your microphone for ads. Just not true," Mr Goldman wrote.

Personally, I am so used to corp speak and word play by major companies that it is difficult to take anything at face value. Therefore, I think the nature of the question asked to Facebook should be different. It should be on what they do rather do they do X. So, here's my question - "What does Facebook use data gathered from user microphones across any devices for?"

How could they respond to remove all doubt they're listening?

Edit: https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11854860/facebook-smartpho...

    In a statement issued on June 2nd [2016], Facebook said it "does not use your
    phone’s microphone to inform ads or to change what you see in News Feed."
That's pretty fucking clear to me.

Original comment:

If they had said something like "We don't use microphones to gather data to drive personalisation on users profiles" there would be comments here on HN complaining about corporate speak and how they didnt just flat out deny using it for advertising.

Apps get busted for doing dodgy things all the time. The Facebook app has been decompiled and network traffic inspected and studied so often that if this actually was true then it would have been proven by now. Instead, all we have is this weird 'survivorship bias' where one time someone said something out loud there was a tangentially related ad on FB.

Today I was looking up bars in Budapest and found one on Google. I started looking at images, at the only one that loaded so far on the slow internet was of food. "Wow, Google knows me so well. All I care about right now is food and the first image it loads is of food" I said out loud to my friend. Eventually the internet caught up and the rest of the images that loaded were of food. It only showed me food photos (in a bar thats more known for its decoration and alcohol). Nothing more than a coincidence.

My question was NOT "Does Facebook use the phone's microphone to inform ads or change what we see in the News Feed?". It seems you have misunderstood my question. Let me repeat my question again :

"What does Facebook use data gathered from user microphones across any devices for?"

To allow people to post audio/video messages in Messenger?

I understand what you're asking and you do have to be particularly aware of what /you/ are asking.

That particular question, in context of these allegations, would presuppose that they use microphone data for something other than what the user clearly is aware of, e.g. voice chat.

So an answer like "to provide users the service they need" would undeniably be spun by media to be: Facebook uses microphone to tweak news feed. The longer the answer is, the more likely it can be misunderstood and taken out of context.

You shouldn't expect a public company to answer questions like that, simply because the media will gladly take the answer out of context. You need to phrase it specifically, so they can answer without being misunderstood.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

No, it's not a loaded question. It's much more like "list everything you've punched". Maybe with "in my house" appended as an analogy to it being user microphones.

The question does not presume any misuse. It just leaves no room for implications.

Modify their apps to not request microphone permission.

Apparently people think there's a secret backdoor that lets an iPhone app record audio without turning the status bar red. You could deny mic permission and people would still think it's the secret backdoor.

There was a backdoor that let the Uber iPhone app record the screen invisibly from the background that went unnoticed for years.

Well no, Apple (in an unprecedented move), granted the Uber app the com.apple.private.allow-explicit-graphics-priority entitlement.

    "Apple gave us this permission because early versions of Apple Watch
    were unable to adequately handle the level of map rendering in the Uber
    app," an Uber representative, Melanie Ensign, told Business Insider.
    "Subsequent updates to Apple Watch and our app removed this dependency,
    and we're working with Apple to remove the API completely."
Uber was doing other sneaky stuff to read the devices serial number (or other unique identifiers) and evade Apple's countermeasures, but that's seperate from this.

What is the meaningful difference, in the context of tedunangst's post, between an entitlement that allows surreptitious recording of video and a backdoor that allows surreptitious recording of audio?

I'm 95% sure that there will be an entitlement for recording audio without showing the red mic bar (look at the Phone app), but it won't be a public one. There is no way for a third party app to get past app review with a custom entitlement without explicit permission from Apple. I'd be very surprised if it even passed automated review when the app was uploaded.

Uber's entitlement was always 'public'. Facebook doesn't hold any private entitlements that would allow it to record audio in the background without notifying the user.

Recording audio from an iOS app does not turn the status bar red, FYI.

It does for me while outside the app; tested with FaceTime (Built-in), Voice Recording (Built-in, recording not streaming), Snapchat, and Discord.

Inside the app I believe they can record whenever, without the banner appearing.

It does if the application isn't running in the foreground.

Facebook doesnt request microphone access on iOS.


Edit: Actually, FB will ask for microphone permission if try to record a video. Based on every other app that records video also prompts for permission to record using the microphone, I'm lead to believe the microphone permission is required on iOS if you want to record video.

FB Messenger does not prompt for Microphone until you record a video or voice memo.

> https://imgur.com/a/ifaiT

I can see "Messenger" and "Instagram" with access to microphone.

Those apps have voice and video features, so it makes sense that they'd request microphone access. (And iOS lets you disable those specific features if you want.)

iOS also shows an indicator if an app is using the microphone. This is true even for built-in Apple apps like Voice Memos. There's no way to surreptitiously record.

This indicator only shows while the app using the mic is in the background.

The banner won’t show if the app using the mic is in the foreground.

Instagram can record video posts and Messenger can make video calls, both requiring microphone access. In either case the recording is obvious with a red bar for microphone access in the background, like all other iOS apps.

> How could they respond to remove all doubt they're listening?

Amend their privacy policy.

How? Where's the limit? Should they list everything they don't do in their privacy policy?

“Facebook does not use microphone input for ads, user interest assessment or for any purpose other than facilitating a single user initiated transaction.”

"We don't gather data using microphones"

But they most likely do. Voice corpora are extremely useful to train voice recognition systems, for one.

Its only useful to train if they also have the transcript by a human. Eavesdropping conversations and having armies of people transcribing them seems like a very expensive and illegal way to get that data when there are probably millions of available samples, TV shows, etc that have both voice and transcription available already off the shelf.

The 2017 F8 developer conference featured a lot on Machine Vision. Processing images and video for objects, such as for automatic close captioning, is where vast resources are focused. I highly recommend watching a few of the videos, they’re specially aware as well and can infer orientation of obscured things like limbs. Microsoft has real-time audio translation, doing machine transcription at scale is totally feasible.

The OP that I was replying to was insinuating that FB is collecting audio as training data to create AI models like the ones you are talking about. I was pointing out that raw audio is useless to train an AI model for recognizing words, the whole point of training data for AI is that you have an input and a known output (transcription) that you can use to train and test the model with, having just input is useless for training.

And people have a problem with it, and so the companies use Corp speak to try and make it seem like they aren't doing what you asked. The poster higher up asked how they could remove all doubt, and it's really easy. The problem is that they are trying to remove all doubt while continuing to do business as usual

That makes sense. So, given that this is data it's users have an obvious interest in keeping private, Facebook could at least inform of this. The only reason I could imagine they aren't doing this is that their voice recognition isn't used for any released products. I think that's a viable theory of what they would be doing with the voice data.

EDIT: User 'crucifiction' makes a good point about needing the transcript to use it for voice recognition. So, who knows.

It doesn't in any sense justify collecting data and being so elusive about their intent. We naturally have reason to get the impression that Facebook just wants the data, will try anything it can to keep collecting it until so much energy has been invested in the PR issues that the collection has an attributable effect on their market.

But maybe they are using the voice data to change the world for the better and bring people together yada yada! :)

>In a statement issued on June 2nd [2016], Facebook said it "does not use your phone’s microphone to inform ads or to change what you see in News Feed."

>That's pretty fucking clear to me.

Said nobody who understands law, language, or politics. It's absolutely fucking clear to everyone who reads with discrimination what this means. It means they are using your microphone to vacuum up your information. That they added the qualifier "..to inform ads or to change what you see in the News Feed" gives them the verbal and legal wiggle room they need to do absolutely anything they want with your information. For example, they could use your microphone to monitor, record and quantify everything they hear to "adjust a user profile" that they keep on all users. In that case, they could simply claim that the ads you see and the news feed you get are based on your user profile.

>How could they respond to remove all doubt they're listening?

They could very simply. "We do not listen to your microphone or record content, data, or metadata from your microphone in any circumstance". Without qualifiers of any kind.

They can’t say that though, because recording a video involves accessing the microphone. Otherwise Facebook Live and Stories couldn’t exist.

..."except when Facebook Live and Stories are explicitly accessed by the user."

I was about to leave an extremely similar comment, but I was going to frame it in terms of the NSA "direct access" story. I got the impression from that story that immediate denials from tech companies, which seemed categorical, turned out to hinge on which magic words were used.

In this case, when I read a sentence like "We don't use your microphone for ads" I end up doing that game where you re-read the sentence over and over and emphasize a different word each time, trying to guess which one is the magic word.

"We don't use your microphone for ads, your phone uses its microphone for our ads" /s

"We don't serve you advertisements through your microphone."

My favorite is "WE" don't, but our partners do.

"We don't use your microphone for ads", we use the microphone of whoever is near you based on location data

We don't use your microphone for ads

Why would they even bother? On the one hand, they don't need to, they already collect an incredible amount of data on everyone. And on the other, if they were to get caught listening, that's a gross violation of so many federal laws that it's possible Facebook wouldn't even exist the day after it was uncovered.

The risk is incredibly high, and the payoff not that great.

What we're seeing is simply that people fail to understand how much data they leak, and how effective Facebook is at putting it all together. They assume it must be magic, listening to their words, listening to their thoughts, but the reality is they don't need to, because we are _voluntarily_ telling them all this info already.

I just assume that they hire a 3rd party to do it and just incorporate the processed "external data source". Now they don't use the mic, just a text stream purchased from Acoustic Magic Analytics Inc.

I’m sure they don’t use the microphone for ads. If they use the microphone, they surely use it to feed data into their profile of you which gets used for all sorts of things... like ads. One level of indirection is enough to make this denial technically true.

> "Just not true"

Somehow this kind of phrasing turns several lights bright on my bullshit detector.

Once happened while remarking on the Fruit Loops shake at Burger King. Opened Facebook minutes later and got a Fruit Loops ad. I assure you I don’t message, post, or in any other way remotely suggest an affinity for Fruit Loops. Commenting on it at Burger King was the definition of a one-off incident.

I guess another possible explanation is some very sophisticated combination of location tracking and Kellogg’s targeting people they know will be primed by that promotional item. And then of course it could always just be an amazing coincidence.

All I know is I revoked microphone permission after that.

EDIT: Something just occurred to me. Facebook doesn’t have to be the one using your microphone to target ads. The ad buyers just have to have a way to match your phone to your ID (which they can easily; there was a site posted here a while back that sells that) and then listen in through ANY one of the apps you have installed. If this were the scheme, Facebook could reasonably get away with saying “WE don’t use your microphone to target ads.”

I was once sitting at a bar having a beer, chatting with the bartender (one of my best friends) and the guy sitting next to me, whom I had never met before. I pulled out my phone to show my friend something that had been posted on Facebook and, while browsing Facebook right after that, the app showed the guy sitting right next to me as the first person under "People You May Know". I had not "checked in" or posted any updates while I was there, FWIW. It was at that point that I removed all permissions (i.e. location tracking) that I could from the Facebook app.

More on-topic: I recall reading that the Facebook app would activate the microphone when one was posting a status update, apparently listening for things like a movie playing in the background and such.

ETA: Related Snopes articles:



After Obama’s comments on the NSA surveillance program back when sh*t was hitting the fan, I’m always keenly parsing these kinds of statements for word play. There’s usually a way out of accountability and liability through evasive rhetoric.

I agree. Really, I don't see why Facebook wouldn't monitor audio like this for targeting ads. If you make money from serving ads, that seems like exactly the kind of thing you would want to do.

Like you, I have gotten pretty good at noticing "weasel words" and such in the government's statements (denials). It is clear that they take their time to make sure they word their statements ever so carefully.

> Really, I don't see why Facebook wouldn't monitor audio like this for targeting ads.

Horrible battery life?

From another comment [0] in this thread:

> Remember the time they kept the app open in the background on iOS devices by sending an empty audio buffer to the phone for playback?

> People started discovering that after iOS introduced the battery/power usage section in the Settings app.

They couldn't do it 24/7, of course, but they could certainly take "samples" at regular intervals or in certain locations or something. From my own experience, it doesn't seem that Facebook has ever been worried about battery life or preserving it.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15580748

What would be the purpose of taking "samples"? How is this possibly supposed to work?

Anecdotally, Facebook battery performance is pretty poor, it's always the app that drains my battery the fastest. I don't think they care about power consumption.

There's a very significant difference between "Facebook's battery impact is pretty shitty because the app is clunky" and "this would mean the average smartphone standby time would be two hours because it would require a phenomenal amount of power."

>Really, I don't see why Facebook wouldn't monitor audio like this for targeting ads.

Because they'd get hit by huge lawsuits and fines from governments all over the world. Europe is especially hungry to fine US companies for privacy issues.

Also it would be terrible for their reputation. Hordes of people would uninstall the app, and even delete their accounts. I would for sure.

It's becoming harder to avoid their apps now that people I need to stay in touch with are on the inevitable Whatsapp that needs voice+other permissions, plus whatever other apps they bring into our lives next. I think it's kinda hopeless.

If you both had connections to the same free WiFi, and thus the same IP, it's virtually guaranteed you're at the same location. No GPS required.

Facebook may not be recording audio, but they do pay attention to your cell phone, GPS, and wifi, so they know that you're at a particular fast food place. Then the brand-named shake is probably something they're trying to advertise, maybe even time-limited, so the fact that you're at that place is enough. Past that it's coincidence, the law of large numbers, and confirmation bias - you remember that instance and no others, and while a few people have their own anecdotes to share, HN's readership is large enough that FB could produce that population of anecdotes with a hit rate of "One time out of ten, advertise $restaurant and mention a single totally random item selected off their menu".

The "People you may know" anecdote below is, similarly, some combination of location, wifi sniffing, luck, and confirmation bias.

> then listen in through ANY one of the apps you have installed

If there was some third party ad library that was installed across multiple apps that streamed audio and/or performed local speech recognition on everything you said don't you think somebody would have a) noticed by now, b) a security researcher figured it out, or c) everyone's battery's would be running red hot all of the time.

Teams at Apple and Google reverse engineer and debug the top 100 apps on their platforms all the time (there are teams dedicated to doing it). Facebook is also not the NSA - people leak stuff from them all the time. You're suggesting that either everyone is complicit in this, or there's a conspiracy so large and technically complex that it's managed to be kept secret all this time with no technical evidence outside of anecdotes.

Presuming Facebook has some sort of totally encompassing omniscience is a little foolhardy in light of e.g. the Russia issues, isn’t it? I tacitly admitted they may at worst suspect but not know that third parties are targeting in this way.

I’m not sure I trust that security researchers can be relied upon to catch everything. There are so many flagrant abuses of user privacy that go unchecked or remarked upon and nevertheless ignored that such an avenue of prevention seems highly unreliable.

Also you’d be surprised at what people are willing to do when you define a certain culture and incentive structure. While you may dismiss it, I find it frankly astounding that the NSA program managed to metastasize into the behemoth it became before it was finally outed to the public. And even a cursory reading of behavioral psychology will help to explain how that can happen.

I also know that Facebook perversely prioritizes metrics above pretty much all else. And it means they’re perfectly willing to indulge in dark patterns if the numbers line up.

Yep. My immediate read of the denial was, "the legal entity that is Facebook does not itself spy on users in this exact manner".

Once they have a business model that does not revolve around selling data about their users to their customers, claiming they don't spy can be something other than a bad punchline.

Out of curiosity, why did you remark on the Fruit Loops shake? Could it be due to an ad campaign that started prior to your remark, and continues after it?

We were going through the drive-thru and saw a sign. It seemed so magnificently revolting, I wondered at the time if it was a red herring to drive word of mouth.

It’s a great shake btw. Tastes amazing. Seriously.

What about the possibility of geofences detecting your proximity to a Burger King and perpetuating through ad networks to trigger the current ad campaign which happens to be the Fruit Loops shake?

It wasn’t an ad for the shake though. It was for Fruit Loops cereal.

In my case I was talking about flying with some coworkers and mentioned the entertaining safety videos that New Zealand Air had done. Probably hadn't thought or talked about it for 3 years. Opened up Facebook and had an ad announcing their new video. The microphone permission was turned off on Facebook, Messenger, and Instagram on my phone too, so either Android isn't blocking permissions properly, or they are getting it from somewhere else which is even worse.

And you're sure none of the coworkers you were with Googled it?

Perhaps the friend you were talking to about the Fruit Loops shake did a search on Facebook on their smartphone?

Anyway, I want a LED on my camera and microphone. And a hardware switch.

Why would any rational human being search ‘Fruit Loops shake’ on Facebook? Let’s also assume for the sake of argument that I only associate with rational people.

You think they need microphone access for that? Froot Loops is in the middle of a massive co-branding campaign with Burger King, and you are surprised that you'd get an ad for Froot Loops while at a Burger King? Occam's razor says no.

Delete both Facebook apps from your phone and just use it from Chrome. Haven’t had a problem since.

Many people here may have missed something. From the link in the article, Facebook does listen using your microphone. They say so themselves, they say that you have to give the app permission, and that it's used to listen to say a background music or TV show. they also deny using it to target ads, but they say they do use it for other things.

now, I also remember them writing that they only listen when the app is open and a status is being written, but I'm not sure about that statement. Anyhow, the key thing is that Facebook does overtly and publicly use your microphone with its app.

We can look at the OS permissions to see what it’s doing in the background. Facebook definitely doesn’t have the ability to listen to the mic in the background on iOS unless you’re implying that Apple created a back door for them...

The thing that frustrated me with Lance Armstrong over so many years was the smirk on his face when asked whether he used drugs, and he would reply, "Hey, I passed the test, isn't that good enough for people to stop asking?"

I suspect Facebook is falling in that same boat - technically following rules so they can answer questions the right way. But we're not seeing the smirks on their faces as they give that answer.

Besides Facebook denial and the complete lack of empirical evidence, what are you looking for? Why do people keep talking about "this one time it maybe happened", when it should be happening to everyone all the time, if it's happening at all?

I was totally skeptical when I first heard stories about people's feeds being curated to suit what they were talking about in front of their computers, but then a couple of things made me rethink my views.

I was in the car with my friend once (both our phones were in the car with us too), and we were driving and it started raining. His wiper blades were shoddy and doing a bad job of clearing his windscreen. We had a 5 minute discussion on cleaning blades, where was the best place to get a replacement, etc. Neither of us picked up our phones, or did a search on 'wiper blades', nor asked Siri etc. about nearest places to buy.

But the next day, for the first time ever, I started seeing ads for wiper blades on my feed. They disappeared after a few days, but it was spooky, as it was for an item that I have never ever discussed, or seen on my feed before, or since.

Another anecdote. I was sitting working in my office the other day, when my son came in to talk to me about something. While chatting, he picked up a bass guitar that sits behind my desk and started playing the riff from 'Seinfeld'. I may have said something like "Oh, the Seinfeld theme - you know that was played on a synth and not an actual bass guitar?". Our conversation though, was about something else altogether.

A day later, on my feed, I see an ad about "How they played the Seinfeld theme" [0]. A totally specific ad like that, within 24 hours, totally unrelated to any searched I had done in my past. This one too disappeared within a couple of days.

[0] - https://twitter.com/dsabar/status/924763005014831104

> But the next day, for the first time ever, I started seeing ads for wiper blades on my feed. They disappeared after a few days, but it was spooky, as it was for an item that I have never ever discussed, or seen on my feed before, or since.

Could be something like this: Facebook knows from location data you were driving/riding together. Soon after your ride, your friend searches for wiper blades. Facebook then shows you wiper blade ads based on that knowledge.

Also very creepy.

This is called the "Frequency Illusion" (also often called / a similar thing is called the "Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon").

The problems with this 'psychological explanation'

1. It is just as unscientific as saying that Facebook MUST be listening, without finding any evidence in the workings of phones, app source code, etc. Almost by definition, there is no experimental evidence for the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon.

2. It posits that everyone who has experienced this is unsophisticated and ignorant about cognitive distortion. Clearly, some people who believe that Facebook is listening to them talk also believe that there were no planes on September 11th, etc. However, many many people today have a good understanding of psychology, are well aware of (basic) cognitive biases, have thought about these experiences. People also have experiences of unlikely events but which have well understood or easy-to-estimate probabilities, which didn't occur much historically. Lots of people can distinguish quite well between their own illusory biases and events which are coincidental, but not 'in the mind'. Some of these people seem to also believe their speech has found its way into advertisers' profiles.

> 2. It posits that everyone who has experienced this is unsophisticated and ignorant about cognitive distortion.

Not really, it just suggests people aren't perfect statisticians and perfect at recording information. Which we aren't.

> People also have experiences of unlikely events but which have well understood or easy-to-estimate probabilities

The probability of seeing a relevant advert is not something we can easily estimate.

> Lots of people can distinguish quite well between their own illusory biases and events which are coincidental,

I would be shocked if this was even a reasonable percentage of people. I am certainly not a perfect innate statistician with perfect recall, and I think most other people are not either. Humans are just bad at this stuff.

> which didn't occur much historically.

I'd be shocked at anyone with a very solid recall of all the adverts they see.

Without strong evidence, this seems like a perfectly reasonable base view. It'd be a complex, expensive, power and data hungry way of targeting adverts, extremely controversial and possibly illegal. There's no evidence they're actually doing it, no whistleblowers, and many of their adverts are just terribly targeted.

People here are bringing up examples like a young couple being advertised a pregnancy test. Hardly requires invasive monitoring of a billion people to achieve.

What is the strong evidence in support of the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon?

I would disagree with that phenomenon. In direct contrast, my awareness of these ads kicked into overdrive after seeing them for the first time, so I was hyper aware and looking out for them afterwards, which is why I noticed they disappeared a day or two after popping up.

Since then, my feed has been a bland sea of adverts for mattresses, knives etc. that almost all of my friends complain about seeing.

I don't use ad blockers, due to my development work in web apps etc. I like my browsers to be as stock as possible, and I do actually at least glance at nearly all ads I see in FB etc. just to see how their targeting is being skewed by my search history or messaging online.

These were two quite distinct cases of ads that I've never seen before, which popped up within 24 hours of me talking about (but not doing anything else online related to them) and then disappearing soon after.

Sure, an anecdotal sample size of 2 could just be pure coincidence, but something about it still doesn't sit right with me.

It would be weird if that sort of coincidence never happened. Two incidents of this happening to you ever doesn’t sound like much. Maybe even a bit low.

If they really are using audio for ad targeting like they do with search history, then it should be easy enough to prove it by experiment.

Sure. I am used to, nay, I _expect_ ads for software tools and music gear given my work and hobbies in my life, as I frequently talk about those things to my friend on FB and IRL all the time.

But wiper blades is so off the charts for me, that I was totally surprised to see about 3 ads for them the day after I had a discussion in the car. I don't even go to sites remotely associated with the automotive industry. Not even locality based, as it was a full 4 months out of the real 'wet season' we have later in the year. (NOTE: Not even in our wet season did I see random ads for wiper blades).

Having said that, I won't be surprised to see more wiper blade ads now that I have been talking about it on HN - who knows if they have linked up the data from online forums back to FB etc.? The handle I use here I tend to use on nearly all online forums I belong to.

I read that you do web app work and like to keep browsers stock, if it’s not too forward consider debugging in private mode in a pinch.

> I don't use ad blockers, due to my development work in web apps etc. I like my browsers to be as stock as possible, and I do actually at least glance at nearly all ads I see in FB etc. just to see how their targeting is being skewed by my search history or messaging online.

You are doing yourself a disservice. Have two users (or at least two browsers), one for work, which you keep ad-blocker free, and one for life, which you shouldn't.

Just a note, not trying to pick your anecdote, but the experience of something seemingly occuring frequently out of nowhere is exactly the baader-meinhof phenomenon. You’d need to demonstrate a causal link to firmly disprove it, which would assumably be difficult in this case.

I think that it's more likely that the companies that manufacturer wiper blades run targeted ads in places where it's raining and that your son looked up the sheet music for the Seinfeld theme on his phone and Facebook thought you would like it because you are Facebook friends or because your GPS coordinates were next to each other.

Fair call - this reasoning I can relate to. I was the first spot of rain in a long dry season spell, so it stands to reason that drivers in the area were highly likely to have dried out, unserviceable wiper blades just when they needed it.

The link about friends search history and close GPS co-ordinates also makes sense.

I had a similar experience in June when I was on a car journey and we got a crack in the windscreen. My phone was out (was using it to navigate) but it wasn't touched at all. It was a Sunday, and I didn't bother researching how to get it repaired.

Later on when I checked my phone I started getting ads in the Facebook feed for windscreen repairs.

It’s useful to specify iOS or Android in the anecdotes. iOS will show a banner at the top of the screen when an app in the background is using the microphone. On Android, the last I’ve seen, this isn’t the case.

Why do you give the Facebook permission to access your microphone?

People with smartphones do a lot of things they shouldn’t. Unknowingly.


Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact