Liver Detoxes !

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

CEB, I made the point about it not being cost effective before the point about illegality. The point about the illegality is not that the companies wouldn't wish to do it (although I still contend that the data collected already is far more valuable than peoples conversations) but the sheer amount of people who would have to know about it, including the most junior of software engineers in a whole load of related companies, means that keeping the lid on it would be impossible. All for something that adds next to nothing and is a bit crap?

I didn't refer to the cost of data storage, I guestimated electricity costs for processing. However you do it, the costs are massive.

Sorry mate, I missed the bit where you answer the question - if, as you acknowledge, the long term storage of the data isn’t necessary, then we can revise the costs you mentioned downwards significantly, yes?

[Hoover Attack]

Very creepy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-65772154

Typical BBC lies - it's not happening, costs too much.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

no mate, you don’t understand. When they’ve been caught, they were *obviously* doing it, and it’d be bizarre not to think they were, and the customers were obviously deluded to think they might have privacy.

But when they haven’t been caught, it’s crazy to think that there’s any link at all between the fact that a device with a mic and an internet connection might have any relevance to the fact that sometimes wildly unlikely coincidences happen where your device shows you something related to something you just discussed.

[Mick McQuaid]

Ceb - er, no because I only had a stab at the processing costs, making the assumption that holding the actual recording would be daft.

Hoover - that's not a gotcha, it proves my point. If the data was constantly being recorded rather than just the recordings that we have agreed to be recorded after using the wake word, why was that not found?

All the cases where big tech have been fined or settled have been cases where they have skirted on the edges of the law or have used data we have consented to be collected in unlawful ways, which is much easier to hide but keeps getting found out. Covert always on recording and analysis would involve a massive conspiracy involving almost everyone on the supply chain but there's not been a sniff of it.

[Hoover Attack]

no mate, you don’t understand. When they’ve been caught, they were *obviously* doing it, and it’d be bizarre not to think they were, and the customers were obviously deluded to think they might have privacy.

But when they haven’t been caught, it’s crazy to think that there’s any link at all between the fact that a device with a mic and an internet connection might have any relevance to the fact that sometimes wildly unlikely coincidences happen where your device shows you something related to something you just discussed.

You say that but I can think of quite a few examples where a thing I've talked about, never having typed or googled about it or anything, has been advertised to me. That absolutely proves that the mic isn't being used and it's just a coincidence.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Ceb - er, no because I only had a stab at the processing costs, making the assumption that holding the actual recording would be daft.

Hoover - that's not a gotcha, it proves my point. If the data was constantly being recorded rather than just the recordings that we have agreed to be recorded after using the wake word, why was that not found?

All the cases where big tech have been fined or settled have been cases where they have skirted on the edges of the law or have used data we have consented to be collected in unlawful ways, which is much easier to hide but keeps getting found out. Covert always on recording and analysis would involve a massive conspiracy involving almost everyone on the supply chain but there's not been a sniff of it.

Ah yes, it was Adz that brought up the costs of data storage not you, my apologies, I got that bit wrong.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

no mate, you don’t understand. When they’ve been caught, they were *obviously* doing it, and it’d be bizarre not to think they were, and the customers were obviously deluded to think they might have privacy.

But when they haven’t been caught, it’s crazy to think that there’s any link at all between the fact that a device with a mic and an internet connection might have any relevance to the fact that sometimes wildly unlikely coincidences happen where your device shows you something related to something you just discussed.

You say that but I can think of quite a few examples where a thing I've talked about, never having typed or googled about it or anything, has been advertised to me. That absolutely proves that the mic isn't being used and it's just a coincidence.

Getting beekeeping courses advertised to me after chatting to my wife, who barely uses social media, about whether she’s gonna continue beekeeping or give it up, and I said “well I can help with the physical side of it, but I don’t know anything about bees”

[Hoover Attack]

You are obviously the beekeeping target demographic.

[Dunners]

Did we ever figure out if liver detoxes work?

[Hoover Attack]

Fear it's too late for you either way.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

You are obviously the beekeeping target demographic.

The only other explanation I can think of would be if I’d typed something complete random like “grumble feet” into Google and it autocorrected to “bumblebees” but the odds against that would be astronomical. Unless I typed it twice, then it would be two chances in astronomical

[Long slender neck]

I'd guess that your wife has been looking at "beekeeping" stuff online, on the same network as you (home wifi- you are essentially sharing the same ip address), so everyone using that IP will then be served "beekeeping' adverts.

[Mick McQuaid]

Getting beekeeping courses advertised to me after chatting to my wife, who barely uses social media, about whether she’s gonna continue beekeeping or give it up, and I said “well I can help with the physical side of it, but I don’t know anything about bees”

Meta knows you and your partner are linked. However dormant you are on social media, you have signed up for the collection and sharing of data between WhatsApp and Facebook and them having an in depth picture of your network of contacts- you dont have to be active but having multiple contacts interested in a niche hobby would increase the chances of you having some involvement yourself.

I would imagine someone into beekeeping has left some digital trace of looking for information or buying supplies, most obvious would be being in a beekeeping group and having a quick look but it doesnt need to be that obvious.

What does everyone do when they are considering making a change - a couple of idle searches or a message to someone on WhatsApp. We are told the content of messages on WhatsApp isn't shared, and I believe that (again on the basis of practically rather than not wishing to pry) but metadata on who when and where absolutely is.

It's obviously pointless to try and change your mind, but for someone who prides themselves on their ability to consider and change their views based on new information, can you not see how much you are grasping at straws to maintain your position on this?

[Currywurst and Chips]

Maybe he just clicked on the “Buzz about town” thread

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Got it. Haven’t had any mention of bees on my social media ever, but a couple of hours after I offer to help my wife with her beekeeping, the digital trace of my wife maybe having mentioned beekeeping a year ago on social media coincidentally decides that now it’s gonna randomly advertise beekeeping at me.

Mate, you haven’t provided new information. I am fully aware of the arguments used to dismiss the idea that our devices listen to us. My point is that these arguments do not satisfactorily address the level of implausibility at play here, and since, as Conkles points out above, there are occurrences of companies actually having a dishonest and cavalier approach, it’s bizarre that you’re simply maintaining “nothing to see here”

I mean, if the story HA linked to hasn’t come out, what would you have said if I or someone else said “hmmm I’d be careful of ring doorbells, I reckon all that video is being kept by employees of companies wanting to perv on female customers”, what would you have said?

[Max B Gold]

Getting beekeeping courses advertised to me after chatting to my wife, who barely uses social media, about whether she’s gonna continue beekeeping or give it up, and I said “well I can help with the physical side of it, but I don’t know anything about bees”

Meta knows you and your partner are linked. However dormant you are on social media, you have signed up for the collection and sharing of data between WhatsApp and Facebook and them having an in depth picture of your network of contacts- you dont have to be active but having multiple contacts interested in a niche hobby would increase the chances of you having some involvement yourself.

I would imagine someone into beekeeping has left some digital trace of looking for information or buying supplies, most obvious would be being in a beekeeping group and having a quick look but it doesnt need to be that obvious.

What does everyone do when they are considering making a change - a couple of idle searches or a message to someone on WhatsApp. We are told the content of messages on WhatsApp isn't shared, and I believe that (again on the basis of practically rather than not wishing to pry) but metadata on who when and where absolutely is.

It's obviously pointless to try and change your mind, but for someone who prides themselves on their ability to consider and change their views based on new information, can you not see how much you are grasping at straws to maintain your position on this?

Maybe he bought some honey online?

[Long slender neck]

Apple has filed a proposed settlement in California suggesting it will pay $95 million to settle claims that Siri recorded owners' conversations without consent and allowed contractors to listen in.

The class-action case, Lopez et al v. Apple Inc, was brought after a whistleblower at Cupertino alleged in 2019 that Siri was listening in on audio conversations without the requisite "Hey Siri" spoken command or manually activating the voice assistant. Court filings [PDF] reference that California requires consent from both parties for recordings.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/02/ ... i_lawsuit/

Wonder why Apple are settling this case?

[Long slender neck]

Google is also facing a similar lawsuit after Belgian journalists reportedly found that the Chocolate Factory's Assistant was also listening in without authorization. That case is still unresolved, and a German investigation into the matter is also ongoing.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

is there a precedent for MM being completely certain of something and then getting a bit narky when his original confident claims end up looking a bit shaky?

[Max B Gold]

And don't forget when British Military Intelligence fitted out Trent Park High ranking Jerry POW camp with bugging devices all over the place and the Jerries blabbed away all their secrets.

CEB is right. This listening in thing has been going on for years.

[Mick McQuaid]

More examples which absolutely aren't the deliberate always on recording you are claiming, but which have been called out by whistleblowers.

[Long slender neck]

I think whether its always on or not is not the point. Its on when its not meant to be.

[StillSpike]

We could always try an experiment.

Everyone on here pick a subject that you have no interest in, and have never even considered having an interest in (and, I guess, would be considered unusual for your age / demographic / friends group). Then, without googling about it, or leaving any other digital footprint about it, have a couple of verbal conversations on the subject in earshot of your Alexa / Phone etc. Then let's see if you get served any ads about it over the next few days.

I did consider a similar experiment where I would wonder aloud about the logistics of "taking out" a certain very wealthy individual who's prone to flinging his arms around in a way redolent of 1930's Germany, but decided that might be leaving myself open to all sorts of unintended consequences.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

I don’t think it works like that. I’m sort of coming from what LSN mentions above; not that it’s *always listening* and recording audio data 24 hours a day to try to flog a ticket to an obscure band or a beekeeping course.

More that the occasional blatant bit of “this is very specific to what I mentioned out loud ten minutes ago” is a perhaps unintended outcome of how sporadic harvesting of data is sometimes used very literally

[Hoover Attack]

We could always try an experiment.

Everyone on here pick a subject that you have no interest in, and have never even considered having an interest in (and, I guess, would be considered unusual for your age / demographic / friends group). Then, without googling about it, or leaving any other digital footprint about it, have a couple of verbal conversations on the subject in earshot of your Alexa / Phone etc. Then let's see if you get served any ads about it over the next few days.

I did consider a similar experiment where I would wonder aloud about the logistics of "taking out" a certain very wealthy individual who's prone to flinging his arms around in a way redolent of 1930's Germany, but decided that might be leaving myself open to all sorts of unintended consequences.

The problem is they’ll know what we’re up to from our footprint on this forum, so deliberately wont listen. Which proves we’re right and they do listen.

But I’ll give it a go anyway.