(I know many of you already know it but this incident I experienced made me so paranoid about using smartphones)
To start off, I'm not that deep into privacy rabbit hole but I do as much I can possibly to be private on my phone. But for the rest of phones in my family, I generally don't care because they are not tech savvy and pushing them towards privacy would make their lives hard.
So, the other day I pirated a movie for my family and since it was on Netflix, it was a direct rip with full HD. I was explaining to my family how this looks so good as this is an direct rip off from the Netflix platform, and not a recording of a screening in a cinema hall(camrip). It was a small 2min discussion in my native language with only English words used are record, piracy and Netflix.
Later I walk off and open YouTube, and I see a 2 recommendations pop-up on my homepage, "How to record Netflix shows" & "Why can't you screen record Netflix". THE WHAT NOW. I felt insanely insecure as I was sure never in my life I looked this shit up and it was purely based on those words I just spoke 5min back.
I am pretty secure on my device afaik and pretty sure all the listening happened on other devices in my family. Later that day, I went and saw which all apps had microphone access, moved most of them to Ask everytime and disabled Google app which literally has all the permissions enabled.
Overall a scary and saddening experience as this might be happening to almost everyone and made me feel it the journey I took to privacy-focused, all worth it.
No, they don't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtfU9AsUmc4
Again, no, they don't: https://gizmodo.com/these-academics-spent-the-last-year-testing-whether-you-1826961188
If you don't trust a 4 minute YouTube video or an independent (?) study, try a Reddit comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/q1u71q/comment/hfhynid/
A phone can notice when it’s in the hands of a security expert and start acting normal. Before dieselgate, Volkswagen cars had been emissions tested for years without finding anything suspicious. Turned out VW used the car’s sensors to detect when it was being tested.
tl;dr: "Strike that, reverse it."
They can bid all they want to put ads in front of me, I ain't gonna see them. Of course, they probably know that, too.
Please be careful with your claims.
In my experience, whenever investigating these claims and refutations we usually find when digging past the pop media headlines into the actual academic claims, that noone has proven it’s not happening. If you know of a conclusive study, please link.
Regarding the article you have linked we don’t even need to dig past the article to the actual academic claims.
The very article you linked states quite clearly:
(Genuine question, not trying to be snarky) Will you take a moment to reflect on which factors may have contributed to your eagerness to misrepresent the conclusions of the studies cited in your article?
Of course a researcher is never sure something is 100% ruled out. That's part of how academic research works.
My eagerness stems from being tired of anecdotes presented as evidence supporting a weird privacy conspiracy. This takes away from the actual issue at hand, which is your digital footprint and how your data is used.
once again, that isn't what they were reported to have said. [and researchers don't need to repeat the basic precepts of the scientific method in every paper they write, so perhaps its worthwhile to note what they were reported to say about that, rather than write it off as a generic 'noone can be 100% certain of anything'] it's a bit rich to blame someone for lacking rigor while repeatedly misrepresenting what your own article even says.
what the article actually said is
and even within the subset of scenarios they did study, the article notes various caveats of the study:
there's so much more research to be done on this topic, we're FAR FAR from proving it conclusively (to the standards of modern science, not some mythical scientifically impossible certainty).
presenting to the public that is a proven science, when the state of research afaict has made no such claim is muddying the waters.
if you're as absolutely correct as you claim, why misrepresent whats stated in the sources you cite?
I've said this elsewhere but it would be piss easy to prove. I think it's weird that we're talking about how something can be true because it hasn't been disproven, but not that something can't be true because it hasn't been proven.
pick one.
when your sources repeatedly don't say what you claim they say, maybe its time to revisit your claims ;)
It would be piss easy to prove your phone is always listening to you. Stop being obtuse.
i never claimed always, i specifically advised op to refrain from claiming always.
how can you pretend to represent a sound scientific approach when you misrepresent the scientific claims made in sources you cite
I will watch these later. But recently one of the Facebook's employee's chat was leaked saying they listen to customer mics 24/7 via a third party. Google blocked the alleged third party and Facebook has ended ties with them too.
What about it?
It was an ad partner's pitch deck, not much to do with Facebook itself. And it didn't really explain how it would be listening anyway.
Besides, if they were recording, processing and / or transferring audio, that would mean there's data usage, battery usage, etc - stuff that's easy to prove.
The truth is a lot simpler (and scarier) and you will find that in the links I provided.
I have videos that prove the opposite so like idk
If they actually prove something, I'd be happy to give them a watch. 40 minutes of some dudebro's podcast with a phone in his hands doesn't count
Hey, looks like you forgot to post them so we'll ignore your comment for now until you do!
Listen, mister/miss. I tried it once and the reaction was bad because geopolitical reasons. Do I want to get banned by admin abuse? No. Do I want to start a political fight in a nice thread? Also no.