I've been keeping a running gag with my acquaintances over YouTube's recommendations for a while now, because they're so improbably and time-sensitively on the nose.
Yesterday was the worst one yet. We were driving and my daughter was filling out MadLibs by hand in a paper booklet in the backseat. One of the fill-ins we came up with was "pantyliner".
As soon as we got home from the event, I sat down and YouTube gave me an above-the-fold recommendation for a Japanese pantyliner commercial.
I've seen enough. This word never comes up in day-to-day conversation, it's not in my interests, and it's one of the least exciting topics imaginable. None of me, my wife, nor my daughter had hands free to search it up at that time, and besides, we were totally preoccupied with driving and our event until I got home a couple hours later.
For the record, we're an iPhone family and were in a Tesla.
I had been convinced by, I think, a Simon Willison article that this isn't happening. But he's wrong. This is happening.
I wonder if the sequence of online events that lead you to “organically” come up with pantyliner was also enough for the ad algorithms to do the same.
Maybe subconsciously in videos or other browsing activity pantyliner adjacent things were discussed.
Not saying companies aren’t using audio for ads, but it just feels like there would be more leaks from the big COs if it were ubiquitous in everyday life
I also think there’s something weird going on with YouTube recommendations. The thing that I’ve noticed is that people I follow on TikTok are showing up in my YouTube recommendations, and I’ve never interacted with their YouTube accounts. Most times I didn’t even know they had a YouTube account.
I use the same email address on both accounts, but it seems weird that TT would export its follow graph to YT for any reason.
How is that surprising? Maybe you just get recommended the same stuff on multiple platforms because it reflects your interests? If I am interested in Retro computing and get the 8-Bit Guy in my recommendations on multiple platforms, would you conclude that the platforms colluded? Occams Razor tells me what’s the more likely conclusion
Because I have never interacted with any of that type of content or creators on the platform, and then when I suddenly get 10 different creators recommended to me simultaneously from 10 different topics. That’s weird.
I also explicitly said it would be “weird” for them share information, so you concluding that that I think collusion is the result is unwarranted. Perhaps you should work on your reading skills instead of injecting your assumptions.
Are Google's cookies / ads / analytics used by TikTok? Does TikTok send notifications to your email address (is it Gmail?)? Do the TikTok accounts embed YouTube / related links in their profile anywhere? Quite easy for Google to get tracking info. So many ways that metadata gets leaked.
I suspect tech companies spy us in ways they don't disclose, but
anecdotal evidence like this is not useful. The most likely culprit is cognitive bias: if you hadn't heard that word, you wouldn't have noticed the recommendation. [1]
I do believe in this. I had this experience last year where I suddenly started thinking of a pillow product I had first seen 5 years before (and had never looked into since then).
In the following days, I started noticing the ads for that product everywhere -- in the physical world! Not online, not in my browsing, but in shops and buses and street signs.
Got me wondering which came first, the ads, or me thinking of the product? Probably the ads....
His family is surrounded with microphones, cameras and sensors. The company has a long track record of unwarranted surveillance.
In the most recent case against Google for wiretapping, all claims survived the dismissal and summary judgment stages. Google settled instead of showing a jury that what the company does is not wiretapping. Why would anyone trust this company, except out of necessity.
Anecdotes are not proof, but are anecdotes needed to form a reasonable suspicion of Google conducting unwarranted surveillance.
For some reason, HN commenters will oppose the notion of Google/Meta using microphones for data collection but how much does that matter when we already know Google uses any available means it can get away with.
You mean much like the algorithms they already use, which so frequently get complained about on this site for their shitty tracking abilities despite very much being used by these companies?
It's laughable that many comments on this site would try to shame people into thinking they're paranoid when discussing a potential further means of surveillance, when these same parasitical companies persistently, pervasively reveal themselves to use a very complex, expanding range of techniques through any hardware possible for tracking of their users (and non-users too).
I mean, a car filled with tracking sensors and microphones, people inside it with their own little devices that contain similar and in both types of devices software run by some of the most prying, intrusive corporations on the planet (though these days just about any company in any tech parrots the others for "improved user experience") and somehow it's silly cognitive bias by the users of the tech to suggest that they might just have noticed being spied on in one more way?
I know HN comments have many tech employees ready to raise the battle flag for their ethically deformed corporate tech lords, but it would be nice to see a few more such people with their heads pulled out of their asses instead of deriding those who don't follow the same defensive reasoning.
1. Bypassing OS to be able to track sound without microphone icon shown. All companies who do that must have some sort of backdoor through Android/iOS permission system.
2. Not draining battery massively.
3. Being able to do all of that without anyone reverse engineering the apps, or catching odd network traffic.
4. Doing that intra company so that no one will whistle blow on that.
5. Risking the whole company with this implementation, since it would be extremely illegal.
I just don't see it happening. It would seem very obvious to reverse engineer, it requires having so many different parties hiding it, etc.
Edit:
Also listened to podcast now. Podcast authors don't seem to consider that this 3 man operation would be much more likely to scam their customer businesses. You can't upload a CSV of specific user ids to facebook. You can probably do segments that makes sense which othet marketing agencies do as well, but they could easily be just taking input from their customer and then generating segments, putting it into CSV, but claiming they have some sort of magical edge because of voice data. If they were willing yo be highly illegal with voice data, surely they would be willing to bs their customers which is much more feasible than backdooring android/ios, setting up this complicated infra.
And the CSV could also be good ROI if they share good segment data depending on their customer input. It is just that add bs unique selling points to get those customers in the first place and no one is wiser. They also probably scam their podcast customers. That is typical of this bro hustle business guru advice.
It is commmon from any sort of gurus to mix magical content with common sense, expert content. They probably learn their subject matter well, but then use charisma and magical made up things to build a following as otherwise they couldn't do any better than usual sepcialists.
E.g. they will be perfectly scientific and reasonable about most advice to win the trust, but then will have this one piece of magical supplement that is better than anything else out there that they are selling.
Why does Google pay hendreds of millions of dollars annually to be a "default search engine" when computer users have the option to change the default settings at any time.
I've seen similar things ... except that the internet-connected device in the situations where I become aware of this does not have a microphone that could be used by software. So I suspect that the cognitive bias explanation mentioned by others is more likely.
It is happening, and has been for a long time. When my first daughter was a baby, so around 2015, my wife and I were discussing options for helping her prop herself up, and came up with the idea (on our own, as far as I know) that a horseshoe shaped pillow would be perfect. I picked up my phone, opened the Amazon app, and typed the letter "h". The app autocompleted "horseshoe shaped pillow" based on just the one letter.
These are common baby items. If you searched for baby stuff on Amazon or anyone in your household sharing your IP did, and especially if you purchased baby stuff on Amazon, they're going to recommend baby stuff more often. It's called an a priori algorithm. It looks at what other people purchased that have purchased similar things as your search/purchase history and recommends based on that.
A long time ago, my friend bought a Hyundai Getz. We used to play the Getz game - nothing complex, but whenever you saw a Getz you'd yell "Getz" and get a point.
After playing for a few days, we were seeing easily 20-30 per day. I'm sure I'd seen them many times before (they were one of the most popular cars in Australia for a few years before that), but I'd never really noticed them. I've played the game with a few other car models with friends since, and it always results in a comment like "Wow, there are so many X on the road".
I understand why your story feels chilling to you and how it would convince you, however it's more likely that:
a) in the 100+ ads you see per day[0] you've seen panty liners before but it was never relevant to you (like a Getz) or
b) you've seen ads for panty liners recently but not conciously taken it in, resulting in the inverse of what you thought happened - your MadLibs suggestion was due to an ad.
I'm very confident many companies would be happy to spy on you via microphone if practical, but outside of malware I'm yet to see anyone proving this actually happening. We have billions of smartphones in the world and millions of tech people, many who would have to be keeping the secret all these years and many others who somehow couldn't find evidence of this. Occum's razor just doesn't add up here.
Haha... I'm surprised to learn my wife and I aren't the only people playing the "Getz" game! We started around 15-20 years ago, when every second hire car in Queensland was a Getz.. they're a little harder to come by now, but I still get a little thrill from calling one before she's seen it :)
I'm glad it gave you pleasure! I almost changed the model for privacy reasons to obfuscate myself, but now I'm glad I didn't.
It's actually more thrilling now because they're so rare. You can play the i30 game, but it just feels less fun than pointing out that derpy little chug-along that is the Getz.
I'm worried about falling prey to conspiratorial thought, but I'm in the same boat. I can't think of any other reasonable explanation that would explain the advertising.
It's happening and we are being gaslit by people saying oh it would never happen. Apple and Google would never allow it to happen. They're both capitalist corporations driven by profit alone. There's immense profit in this. It's happening and it makes me want to throw my phone in the river.
There are a few acquaintance over the years that have been involved in various sectors of social media and various 3 letter government agencies. The one thing they have always said is, just assume they doing to most morally questionable things to get data - they just won't public admit until it is absolutely vital to do so.
Slightly off topic but I did like one of them being so frank about Linux and open source. They worked for a while with the NSA, all they said was "Linux has 100 million lines of code. You have to fooling your self to think we didn't slip in hundreds of backdoors onto that thing". The same can be said of almost any other system though.
I have long suspected that the gaslighting thing of "it is just subconscious coincidence" is just a very neat cover for these things. There might be a slight influence but it is nowhere near as powerful an effect as they would like you to think. With advertising swaying people, they can move a few percent of people a few percent in one direction but it doesn't really target individuals effectively in guaranteeing results. Only as an aggregate.
> They're both capitalist corporations driven by profit alone. There's immense profit in this.
This is exactly why I hate this dumbass conspiracy theory. You're totally correct, they are both capitalist corporations driven by profit alone. And the fact is that if they were secretly recording us in direct opposition to what they have said on the record it would be an absolute disaster for their bottom line.
Again, that highlights the stupidity of what's being proposed in TFA. I agree, it would only be if they "got caught". But this isn't like some super secret government program found a way to listen in on your conversations. This is a shitty marketing company saying that they have this access and are making it fully available to any advertiser who wanted to use it. Given that, wouldn't it be trivially easy to verify their claims?
I've tested this before, and I'd recommend you all do it too. Its very easy: Pick a product you never need/buy/see advertised/talk about. Personally, I live in an apartment in a big city, so I used the word "mulch". Now stand in your empty apartment and talk to yourself about that product. This can be mostly meaningless babble like "I love mulch. I need to buy mulch. Mulch is best when brown." I did this for ~30 minutes.
Now the hard part: DO NOT tell anyone your word, do not type it into anything, its best you don't even mention the experiment to people. If you tell your word to people then they might type it into a computer which would taint the experiment.
Have you tried a control where you instead think of a product and see if you get ads for it, because what you're describing can also just be confirmation bias.
Yep, did the same thing with "Smoked Salmon". I went a step further and decided on this without speaking it about 2 months in advance so that I can get a clear baseline on ads I was getting.
On talking lovingly about smoked salmon, it took 2 days for it to turn up.
I have also seen it happen with folks talking about Jeep for instance.
I don't use any sort of voice-based smart assistant like Google Home / Alexa.
Since this experiment, I've been a lot more conscious of microphones. My desktop's microphone and my laptop's microphone both have hardware kill switches. My desktop's webcam no longer has a built-in microphone. My television and cellphone still have microphones without kill switches.
I analysed[0] many apps on the App Store when Apple started forcing app authors to disclose their use of data, at the time nine apps collected audio in a context that could be construed to mean use for ad targeting.
It’s been four years so I should really redo this research.
Very curious how zero investigative journalists have managed to go undercover and buy one of these ads, despite the fact that they are apparently so widely available.
When an ad is purchased, the buyer doesn't know how it's targeted, they only know if it was effective. The ad seller would necessarily keep the "proprietary details" of how the ad was targeted from the buyer.
Nobody's even been able to offer evidence that these apps are somehow bypassing iOS and Android permission systems to listen in on the microphone in the background without the OS itself knowing.
It's all just really dumb fearmongering that ultimately hurts the credibility of privacy advocates as a whole.
The sad thing is, these companies are collecting mass amounts of sensitive data and using it to drive ads, and we should be doing more about it. There's absolutely no reason to fabricate nonsense like this, the reality is already terrifying enough to creep people out.
> Nobody's even been able to offer evidence that these apps are somehow bypassing iOS and Android permission systems
Maybe a lot of the folks this happens to haven't denied microphone permission? Or maybe someone around them hasn't? Facebook has a calling feature, chances are people (or others around them) have given it access without realizing it. I have certainly caught Facebook Messenger snooping on my location when it had no business to, merely because I had granted the permission days ago when sharing my location with my friend, and forgotten to deny it again. It spooked me out and made me realize how they trick you into sharing info you didn't intend. I don't see why they wouldn't opportunistically exploit mic permissions just the same. Hell, that might be why they created the calling feature in the first place!
At least on iOS, things like microphone permissions are opt-in rather than opt-out. iOS also displays an icon prominently at the top of the screen whenever an app is using that permission, and regularly reminds users when they leave an app running with these permissions in the background, so it's kind of hard to miss when it is happening.
Is there any chance an accelerometer or other sensor could be used to pick up voice? It wouldn’t have to be great quality if you are searching for keywords. If you miss a few that’s fine since you are going for aggregates here.
What about EM field detectors? Voice vibrates things which shows up indirectly.
Modern phones have numerous sensors.
Edit: one interesting paper found after some searching:
This is a really interesting idea! Wow. I love when I hear something that totally filps my worldview. Sensor fusion and enough AI could almost certainly do this.
Of course this is how they do it. They trick you into installing software for one purpose, and install other shit along with it. This is how spyware has worked for the last 30 years. Did anybody actually go out and install Bonzai Buddy or all those fucking toolbars in IE? Of course not!
And how do they trick the OS into not displaying this to users? At least iOS has indicators for camera, microphone and location. How do they access these hardware features without making the indicators show up?
I'm pretty sure a normal iOS app can't start a recording while it is not open (which also applies when the phone is locked). And even if they could, at least some people would notice when there are billions of iOS devices around, that's a bit risky to just hope nobody sees the indicator.
Maybe not those devices in particular, but there are plenty of terms of service and spokespeople on the record saying utterances are captured and passed on to third parties. One TV company CEO famously said you should leave the room to have a private conversation.
To prove that it's possible to buy ads targeted on microphone audio. If this kind of targeting was really as widely available as the article implies, a journalist would be able to do it fairly easily and write an article about it.
But how would you know how the targeting was done? You place an ad and it gets a lot of clicks because it was targeted accurately (for example by using microphone recordings). You look into the dashboard and see a high click rate. What’s your story now?
The meaning of this is that the proposed technology doesn't exist and is bullshit. If "CMG Local Solutions" were actually able to listen in on your conversations, investigative journalists would be all over this trying to prove/disprove and understand the privacy implications. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.
Or maybe it's not a good enough story, and they know most people will not be shocked, and most people will not care, so it's a non story for most people.
If your phones and other devices were secretly listening to and recording every word you said to market to you, despite Apple, Google, Amazon and others explicitly saying they don't do this, not only would this be a scandal of epic proportions, every lawyer who could fog a mirror would be salivating at the billions in class action payouts that they would win.
That's why I hate this stupid conspiracy theory so much - it makes no sense in the real world even if you assume all the companies and people involved solely care about making more money.
These kinds of topics come up frequently ("Your phone is secretly tracking you!!!") and this may sound a bit harsh but it always is interesting to me how people aren't able to use basic critical thinking skills to debunk them. It's like I sometimes say "The conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense even if you take everything it presupposes at face value":
1. As you point out, this isn't even some "super secret government" tracking you. They are basically advertising that anyone selling any random shit could take advantage of this feature. So obviously it would be trivially easy for anyone with the motivation to go and buy some of these ads to get clarity if some voices were actually being tracked. There is literally no way for this technology to be hidden given how it is described in TFA.
2. Companies don't need these secret tracking technologies, because the overt tracking ones already give them tons of information: your location, what you searched for, browsing history, your friends and family, etc. etc.
3. Given that ads are already super targeted, whenever this story comes up you always get these anecdotes of "I was talking about some totally random thing like pantyliners and then THE VERY NEXT AD I SAW WAS FOR pantyliners! Indisputable proof!" I've certainly had a similar experience. But it's certainly not that hard to see how these kinds of coincidences would be quite common given how good ad targeting already is.
Like the saying goes, "Anyone who is a conspiracy theorist has never been a project manager..."
These companies are themselves claiming they can do this.
They could be lying, but it’s not at all unreasonable to take their word for it when so many people report dramatic specific hits on their speech.
If the CIA put up a page on their web site saying that they really did sell crack in the 80s, would you still try to debunk that claim? (to pick a random example)
> These companies are themselves claiming they can do this.
"These companies" in this context are shitty 3rd rate ad companies that have provided no proof of their capabilities. The reason it's fine to dismiss their claims as BS is that the companies that actually make the devices have explicitly said it's not possible, and if these device-making companies were lying it would be a scandal of gargantuan proportions.
The device makers may not think it's possible, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. The very definition of a vulnerability is something someone finds that someone does not know is possible.
This could also be a weasel answer. What they're saying is that apps are not allowed to do this via official permissions or channels in the OS. It's like YouTube saying there is no CSAM on YouTube. What they're saying is that they do not allow CSAM on YouTube and remove it when they find it, not that it can't possibly exist.
Phones have so many sensors with legitimate uses it might actually be hard to prevent an AI-enhanced sensor fusion approach from extracting this kind of information. Mitigations may require things like the injection of randomness into sensor feeds, which is also a mitigation used to prevent timing side channel attacks against hardware. But this is a lot harder to get right than it sounds. You have to make sure it's enough randomness to completely swamp the signal but not enough to destroy the usefulness of the system.
Then there are microphones in devices like smart TVs and other Wifi-enabled gadgets that have a well established history of shady behavior. It may not be your phone. It may be other devices in the room. But if your phone is there then your location can be matched to the data later in a data fusion pipeline.
As for these being crappy little companies: (1) if you listen to the pod or read some of the articles on this, some of them are larger companies like Cox Media Group and (2) crappy little companies are actually more likely to do shady fly by night shit.
I'd find it much more likely that some crappy little adware company would do something like this than Meta or Google, because the latter can be sued while the former will just evaporate if you try to sue it. But once the data is gathered it'd be sold to data brokers where it'd be fused with lots of other data and made available to larger companies to power their targeting algorithms. This is how the adtech industry operates. The shady stuff is done by disposable or offshore companies and then the data is laundered through the data broker market.
I don't know if acoustic eavesdropping is happening at any scale, but I am absolutely 100% sure that if it can be done it is being done by someone.
> I appreciate that Gizmodo actually calls out ridiculous nature of the claims. The original 404 Media article took every claim at face value and stirred some additional hyperbole to boot.
Just because these capabilities exist doesn’t mean they exist broadly. They may have a few apps in their network that had a reason for the user to provide microphone access and then they exploit it for this. But it’s likely relatively obscure apps that aren’t well scrutinized. They might be able to target hundreds of users with it, and play up the “modern” approach and then do some lookalike thing to pad the audience into something that appears more effective to the customer.
I have always denied Instagram access to my camera, microphone, photos, and location, on top of disabling background refresh. Sometimes, upon switching to the app, I get this screen: https://i.imgur.com/Sj8Dikg.png
This has always struck me as odd, because it means the app would have started both the camera and microphone if it had permissions, without me clicking the right buttons to get to it.
I'm too lazy right now to see if I can trigger the screen, and whether iOS would show the microphone/camera activity icons, but maybe there's a bug that's actively being exploited by Meta. I don't know how active the microphone stays if it has permissions, but I wouldn't put it past them to send all the data captured by the sensors even if I'm not posting a story. They did it with "status updates" on Facebook back then, when they gathered the data even if I deleted whatever I wrote without posting.
Until I see an actual demo of this, I'm calling bullshit for what I think should be obvious reasons. Every device maker (Apple, Google, Samsung, etc.) has a huge vested interest in ensuring that any random app on your device can't listen to your conversations without explicit permission. So if this were actually happening, it must be one of the following things:
1. There is a 0-day in iOS or Android that is allowing this to happen. This could certainly happen, but would obviously be patched as soon as it was discovered. And if this 0-day did exist I think a lot more money could be made selling this to state actors instead of as a rando marketing tool.
2. There is some app that is being nefariously marketed as something innocuous, but then is actually selling your background conversation data. Also possible, but if discovered Apple, Google, etc. would still have a vested interest in kicking them off their devices.
3. There are some shitty devices that are sold that have always-on microphones. Also a possibility but wouldn't have the reach of devices from major manufacturers.
So, to Mindsift and CMG, I say "put up or shut up".
> Every device maker (Apple, Google, Samsung, etc.) has a huge vested interest in ensuring that any random app on your device can't listen to your conversations without explicit permission.
That's right - they don't want OTHER people gathering this valuable data on their devices. Why give that gold away when you can mine it yourself and make a fortune selling it to third parties?
Talk in specifics, because otherwise it's still obviously bullshit:
1. Given how prevalent Alexa devices are in homes, if Amazon was recording background conversations and using it in marketing this would be huge news. Again, I'm not saying a 0-day is impossible, but there is simply no above-board way to use ambient conversations with Echo devices.
2. The vast majority of smart TVs run Android or a derivative. Again, an "always on" listening feature if it existed and was being used would be a career-making scoop for an investigative journalist.
Again, I'm not saying it's impossible that there aren't some devices with shitty security that were hacked. I'm saying it's not possible to do it legitimately, and it's not possible to do it with devices that have a huge install base.
You know how Alexa listens for a keyword to activate? There's no reason to think that the number of keywords would be limited to exactly one. Alexa can listen for "tennis bracelet" and flag a profile completely transparently to the user.
To emphasize, I'm not saying Amazon doesn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm saying they don't do this because, from a purely financial perspective, it makes no sense for them to do it.
What is it that you think that link is saying? I see no financial incentive for Amazon to not listen to their microphones for marketing purposes. From a certain point of view, they could even honor their word and not activate Alexa, but some other program.
> I see no financial incentive for Amazon to not listen to their microphones for marketing purposes.
The financial incentive is that Amazon has detailed very clearly in that link how their listening works (or doesn't) from Alexa devices:
> I’m not talking to Alexa and am having a conversation at home near my device. Is Alexa still listening and recording everything I say?
> No. Alexa is a part of your life only when you ask Alexa to be. By default, Alexa begins listening after your Echo device detects the wake word, so Alexa does not listen to your personal conversations.
If Amazon were lying here, it would be a multi-billion dollar class action suit, not to mention hauling all of their chief execs up before Congress, and another big push to restrict big tech.
The overall point that I'm trying to make is that if your devices were listening to you without your consent (and, again, not a 0-day, etc), this would be a scandal of gargantuan proportions. Not something some shitty 3rd rate marketing company like CMG claims to be able to do with no evidence.
In what way would it even be actionable? This is ridiculous. People bought microphones and put them in their homes. The microphones recorded audio. This is known.
You defrauded the shareholders because you led them to believe that you were not doing a thing that most of your customers would find odious. So they bought stock in your company believing that you were not doing a thing that would obviously lead to backlash if anyone ever found out. And then the stock went down when someone found out, and they lost a lot of money, and now you're out of a job and maybe in jail.
That's certainly a theory. In general, publicly traded companies are not held to account like this. Many examples to choose from, but listing any of them would derail the argument to the exact specifics. Also, if the stock does not take a hit, then there's no crime at all under this theory.
Huh, nice, 404 media has a podcast. Gonna have to check this out.
Curious about mic and cam permissions in modern smartphone and web. All of that is pretty locked down, but I wish there were a more standard way to know when an app is accessing sensitive hardware.
My conspiracy theory is that data brokers want you focusing on the things that aren't happening (any meaningful use of microphone audio to target ads) because it distracts from that their collection methodology is already so robust, invasive, and complete that they don't need to do that to deliver ads that seem as good as if they were listening.
I feel like I’m imagining it at this point, but didn’t both Apple and Google come out and directly say they were doing it?
The distinction was “recording”. No one admitted to recording, but they did say that they did voice to text (on-device) then sold the interesting keywords. Since even a complete transcription is technically metadata it falls under the very large umbrella and gets to be hand-waved.
I can't help how I feel, but I can control my actions. I feel like a climate doomer, but I'm still doing my part because I might be wrong and I want to minimize my own feelings of culpability.
Yesterday was the worst one yet. We were driving and my daughter was filling out MadLibs by hand in a paper booklet in the backseat. One of the fill-ins we came up with was "pantyliner".
As soon as we got home from the event, I sat down and YouTube gave me an above-the-fold recommendation for a Japanese pantyliner commercial.
I've seen enough. This word never comes up in day-to-day conversation, it's not in my interests, and it's one of the least exciting topics imaginable. None of me, my wife, nor my daughter had hands free to search it up at that time, and besides, we were totally preoccupied with driving and our event until I got home a couple hours later.
For the record, we're an iPhone family and were in a Tesla.
I had been convinced by, I think, a Simon Willison article that this isn't happening. But he's wrong. This is happening.