this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
107 points (93.5% liked)

Privacy

47374 readers
851 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
k_o_t@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
Yayannick@lemmy.ml
ranok@sopuli.xyz
107
How much proof is there that smart tvs and phones listen to you? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 4 days ago by bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Like, we all know they're listening , but can we provide proof?

My friend was complaining about all the new super surveillance that will be government required in cars after 2027, and I said to him dude you have a stock android, you use every AI slop feature, you use a smart TV on your unsecured network, and uses x every day. They have everything they could possibly need on him. Oh and he posts questionable things to fb daily under his real name.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frozenspinach@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

One's a settlement with a blanket denial of guilt for Siri and Google Assistant. At least mild circumstantial evidence, because there's a real mechanism (accidental activation and recording) is identified, but no proof, and certainly no proof of an ongoing intentional data broker style program. But at least enough of a pain that they won a settlement. So that counts as a trace of meaningful circumstantial evidence.

But the second one is just a link to sell you a product that doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever and doesn't even pretend to, it discusses the possibility in vague generalities as something hackable and tries to sell you a product. I'm baffled as to why you think that counts as a source.

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I'm baffled as to why you think that counts as a source.

I mean, just Google it. Microphone hacking is a thing. (Edit: You know what, Let me Google that for you.)

I only felt obligated to grab a link grabbed because folks keep repeating the misinformation that "no one is hacking your phone microphone, or it would be in the news". It's just not news anymore.

Android and iOS malware will try to grab stuff off of your microphone.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not news.

Malware actors do malware things, and sell whatever they can harvest.

[–] frozenspinach@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Hello? Is this thing on? I sometimes worry that it's impossible to get anyone in a thread like this to stay focused on a train of thought for even five seconds. You posted an article that you thought was a good source, but it wasn't. Then instead of addressing any of that whatsoever, you say "just google it." What we just witnessed was a breakdown in your ability to tie sources to claims, not to mention your ability to keep attention focused on one point before jumping to the next one. You need to fix that before you recommend any more sources.

And I have googled it. The closest thing to a smoking gun is Cox Media Group claiming it as a capability, inspiring uproar and then walking back the claim that they could do it. That's the best media report on it. And this has been directly studied in an academic setting, finding basically no evidence of secret listening. It doesn't mean there's no incentive or that they aren't bad actors, but you can't use a vague feeling that "it's proven" that to justify a breakdown in your ability to think critically or actually look at evidence.