Facebook uses people’s phones to listen to what they say, professor suggests (independent.co.uk).
“Facebook could be listening in on people’s conversations all of the time, an expert has claimed. The app might be using people’s phones to gather data on what they are talking about, it has been claimed.”
Could be? Pardon me, but it seems it undoubtedly and quite admittedly is, it’s just whether we define “F’book’s” ear invasive, like we may a human beings, like a F’book moderator perhaps or a jihadi seeking spook, and, regardless, what is the the motivation for potentially sampling regional swear words and slang and—presumably—the occasional aural coitus (un)interruptus:
“Facebook says that its app does listen to what’s happening around it, but only as a way of seeing what people are listening to or watching and suggesting that they post about it. The feature has been available for a couple of years, but recent warnings from Kelli Burns, mass communication professor at the University of South Florida, have drawn attention to it.
“Professor Burns has said that the tool appears to be using the audio it gathers not simply to help out users, but might be doing so to listen in to discussions and serve them with relevant advertising. She says that to test the feature, she discussed certain topics around the phone and then found that the site appeared to show relevant ads.”
No wonder you miraculously got an ad for that then just after screaming that then:
“The claim chimes with anecdotal reports online that the site appears to show ads for things that people have mentioned in passing. Facebook said that it does listen to audio and collect information from users – but that the two aren’t combined, and that sounds heard around people aren't used to decide what appears in the app.
“‘Facebook does not use microphone audio to inform advertising or News Feed stories in any way,’ a spokesperson told The Independent. ‘Businesses are able to serve relevant ads based on people’s interests and other demographic information, but not through audio collection.’”
But thankfully though if your regional slanging and screaming is Estuary English, Cockney or something dark from Brum:
“At the moment, the feature is only available in the US.”
So there you go, still a chance to reject that feature before it tries to sell you toilet paper for your exclamations here then. Are you listening? Are you listening to while trustingly tapping in what you had for tea to all your “friends”, “fans” and assorted strangers making up popularities numbers on that thing?
4th July 2016
But no, if you can’t trust F’book—presumably to intrigue you with things you need to buy—who can you trust to keep your privacy? Perhaps if they had an unrefuseable “xxx just bought” like on Amazon… for that haemorrhoid cream to let all those “friends” and assorted strangers know…
“Facebook has added a new ‘setting’ letting people choose whether or not they want to be tracked and shown adverts. It comes after the social network said it would add ads that track and were used across all the internet—even if you did not have a Facebook profile or page. Facebook has said it does let people switch off the tracking, but users have to actually opt out of the system and manually turn it off.”
But not supprisingly, on the same page as the article The Mirror—which ad-blocking addons ignored—ran:
Indeed, those are the companies banks who you take up your PPI claim with first off tell you to ignore and go through with them so they don’t take a huge cut of your reimbursement by simply picking up the phone the same as you would, something I do indeed remember used to be flagged spam, something that “search giants” peddling ad-revenue schemes are known to de-list your site for, but that’s what makes the world—or at least comitment to publishing content on the internet—go round. Watch out for the PPI scam (moneywise.co.uk, Nov. 2011). Please note: I make no claim that the particular company featured is doing wrong or is not ligitimate in any way, but I am certain they won’t be doing it for you for free.
22nd July 2016
He may be able to hear you, but F’book’s head social honcho doesn’t seem to want it—or supposedly hackers—to hear—or see—what he has to say—or do—that may target ads for him:
Mark Zuckerberg tapes up his webcam (theverge.com).
“Today, as Instagram celebrated reaching 500 million monthly users, Mark Zuckerberg posted a photo of himself enjoying the moment. But after he did, some sharp observers noticed another detail: the laptop on his desk, which seems to have a webcam wrapped up with tape. Zuckerberg is apparently paranoid enough about hackers that he took the extra security step, in a move to shut down any prying eyes savvy enough to gain control of the camera. There also appears to be some sort of obstruction on his mic jack, although it’s unclear what—tape, or some kind of dummy plug?”
Or perhaps personally targeted ad was for said “dummy plug” after it caught him uttering “those damn spying hackers, listing in to what I’m saying for their own personal gain and glory!”
Saying that though, I remember when most webcams did indeed come with a pop down shade or cover and rightly so, indeed, when on conference call on Skype for whatever group MMRPG World of Warcraft shenanigans, WoW’s own voice chat having an oft unfortunate quality of allowing those briefly invited to group for 5 min. of PvP defending Undercity pre-dungeon instance to have to hear us jabber on about what Kylie Jenner’s bedunk is casting off on today, I—and most I play with—place bluetack or similar over tablet, netbook or laptop camera in case the video connect is inadvertently hit so we can concentrate with voice and not be distracted by any sitting in pants or panties while giving sanity-eating Yogg Saron what for.
- Is email dead… again? (Latest Picks 16th May 2016)
- Amazon is going to (ad-revenue) battle with YouTube (Latest Picks 12th May 2016)
- Pressure mounts at Google to find something beyond search; meanwhile roll out six-second ads that you can’t skip will have to do (Latest Picks 23rd April 2016)