171

A marketing team within media giant Cox Media Group (CMG) claims it has the capability to listen to ambient conversations of consumers through embedded microphones in smartphones, smart TVs, and other devices to gather data and use it to target ads, according to a review of CMG marketing materials by 404 Media and details from a pitch given to an outside marketing professional. Called “Active Listening,” CMG claims the capability can identify potential customers “based on casual conversations in real time.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jmankman@lemmy.myserv.one 72 points 7 months ago

Advertising continues to prove that it is a net negative in the world every time I see it

[-] Aabbcc@lemm.ee 11 points 7 months ago

*scribbles notes*

Don't be seen.... Got it

[-] Dr_Fetus_Jackson@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

"You can always tell a Milford man."

[-] Texas_Hangover@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

And its never satisfied, and gets progressively worse.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 34 points 7 months ago

One can only hope that we will eventually amend trespass laws to include digital trespassing.

[-] FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

They (manufacturer) would just put it in the ToS that the user grants them that access, because very few actually reads those and just hit Accept.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

A proper law/regulation would aim to prevent that. Explicit consent to enter a home must be given, every time. Physically or digitally.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 7 months ago

ToS and EULAs do not override local laws.

[-] FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I get that, but the person I replied to said "digital trespassing." In my mind, that's like physical trespassing in that they can't enter your house (or collect data) without your consent. But if the EULA has the consent backed in it, the user agrees...then it'll probably be legal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dutchkimble@lemy.lol 2 points 7 months ago

But then it'll be fine for them to do it because - forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LWD@lemm.ee 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
[-] penquin@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago

I've never met a person in my life that was convinced by an ad to buy something. I know I never have and never will, I actually stay away from things that are advertised to me. So these fucking brainless fucks are literally wasting their money and energy on ads. Every human being I know loaths ads and would love to erase them from existence. When will they ever get this?

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 36 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This argument presumes that the entire many-billion and maybe even multiple-trillion dollar global ad industry is ALL based on complete, ineffective nonsense. That everyone has just been bamboozled. That's a naive view, I think.

The best argument for why we must be vigilant against ads and data collection by advertisers is because the shit does work. It influences people to make purchases, sometimes against their better judgement or reason. Because subverting someone's agency over their own body and mind is heinous at a very high level.

I'm certain you are wrong. You've absolutely purchased products that were advertised to you. You just didn't make the connection between your decision and the advertisements. You THINK seeing an ad makes you unlikely to buy a product, but you likely only really notice and have an emotional response to the ads for products you weren't likely to buy in the first place.

[-] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 7 points 7 months ago

This argument presumes that the entire many-billion and maybe even multiple-trillion dollar global ad industry is ALL based on complete, ineffective nonsense.

Strangers things have happened than money being thrown at bullshit.

NFTs were a thing, recall.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 9 points 7 months ago

All the industry analysis of the ROI on advertising would've had to come to the same spurious conclusions about that effectiveness, too. With the largest, richest, and most profitable firms being the ones MOST fooled.

No, I don't think anything that strange has ever happened. This is basically a conspiracy theory.

[-] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago

A bunch of people making money jerking one another off and you think any one of them'd be in a rush to rock the boat?

You sound much more conspiratorial with your "capitalism always results in rational and correct decisions" fallacy.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You've literally just described your own view as believing in a grand conspiracy where all players have sworn themselves to secrecy in a scheme any one of them could undermine in a moment, so I guess that's that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] penquin@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

I know for a fact that you're wrong. You just are. I have never bought a single thing based on an ad, period.

[-] Decoy321@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

My dude, no one is as self aware as you think you are. You do yourself a disservice by thinking so, it means you're ignoring an exploitable weakness.

[-] nix@merv.news 12 points 7 months ago

What phone do you hve? What computer? What shoes? What milk do you buy? Ads dont work by showing up and making you go buy it like a drone. You see the ads a thousand times and then you start believing its better than other products

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Or even as subtle as brand recognition. Nobody can research every purchase and when you walk walk up to two items and one sounds familiar. You're more likely to buy that one.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

That is absolutely impossible

[-] Neato@kbin.social 16 points 7 months ago

You really don't understand how advertising works.

[-] LollerCorleone@kbin.social 9 points 7 months ago

You are generalizing too much here. I know many who have tried out a product only after seeing its ad. Ads can give plenty of returns to brands. But targeted ads which even exploits our most intimate conversations are really bad news for our right to privacy.

[-] penquin@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

I said "I've never met a person"... then "every human being I know". Does that count as generalizing? This is basically my circle of the people I know.

[-] nevernevermore@kbin.social 5 points 7 months ago

I said “I’ve never met a person”… then “every human being I know”. Does that count as generalizing?

generalize | ˈdʒɛn(ə)rəlʌɪz | verb | 1 make a general or broad statement by inferring from specific cases

Literally, yes.

[-] penquin@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

If you say generalize within my circle of people that I know then yes I agree with you, but generalizing in general means everyone, even those I don't know and have never met, and I didn't say that. So, literally not yes. lol

[-] nevernevermore@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago

so then your argument is companies are wasting money because you and your circle aren't affected by advertising? how big is your circle that companies should fear not appealling to it?

[-] RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 months ago

Ive absolutely bought shit that ended up as an embedded ad after I visited the page previously. Youre just more likely to follow through if you see it over and over again.

Its not really a complex concept.

[-] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 7 months ago

I've never met a person in my life that was convinced by an ad to buy something.

I believe that you're being truthful, but I respectfully challenge the idea that you don't know some person who was convinced by an ad to buy something. Even if all your friends truthfully insist that their decisions are not swayed by ads, there is probably some product they chose at least partially because an advertisement reached them and left a positive impression about the product.

Ads do clearly work on people who are suggestible enough to be susceptible to them. Some of your contacts are probably these people whether they admit to it or not. If ads didn't work, they wouldn't be made. Ads aren't made inherently to be annoying or make our lives worse; they're driven by profit. Kill the profit and the motive dies. IMO that's all the more reason to get rid of them.

Anecdotally, my parents and grandmother watch TV with commercials, and they give me a bug-eyed look when I explain to them that I don't get advertisements and that I don't want to see them. Most people I know just want to get content crammed down their content-holes and will deal with ads to avoid the momentary inconvenience of change. So I feel like we're fighting an uphill battle.

[-] speck@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago

I mostly agree. But that ad with the unicorn shitting ice cream and kids eating was a rare exception that worked

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago

When I was a kid there were some things I'd see and wanted, only to get them and be seriously disappointed. I learned quickly that ads are fluff.

Nowadays, I actively stay away from things I've seen advertised. The way I see it is if a company has to pay tons of money to get their product seen, it can't be all that good to start with. Genuinely good products don't need to try and convince you they're worth it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PhantomPhanatic@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago
[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I've gotten a type of product I didn't know existed before, but it's never been the brand that alerted me to it. From experiences, brands that advertise generally have the lower quality and less value for money product. Brands that don't advertise but you frequently see mentioned are generally the top tier shit for quality and value and they don't need to advertise.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maeve@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

Marketing psychology works on sub/unconcious triggers. You could study Ed Bernays as a rudimentary source.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] vexikron@lemmy.zip 14 points 7 months ago

Why wouldnt they be serious?

If your phone has the capability to have a parental control / monitoring mode on it enabled, which can see everything you are doing on the phone, hear what youre saying and see what the cameras see and know your GPS location... and hide all of this to the user...

Why wouldnt ad companies also pay for such a live feed, or at least parts of it, if the software and hardware capabilities already exist?

People have been reporting getting advertisements based on conversations they were having 10 minutes ago with a person next to their phone for years.

[-] Lemmchen@feddit.de 3 points 7 months ago

What are you talking about? Which phone has parental control abilities like that?

[-] vexikron@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 months ago

Well, all phones with Google's Android do, and probably all iPhones too, though I am not an iPhone user so I cannot speak from personal experience on iPhones.

My brother, last year, decided to engage parental control on my android phone and used it to stalk me on foot and in his car.

He was the head of the TMobile family plan we were on. I talked to TMobile employees at different locations many times about this. They tried to helo me, but because I was not the head of the plan, the tech support people that the instore agents had to call to try to fix my situation wouldnt do anything.

At one point a T Mobile employee told me to call the police... on T Mobile.

But uh yeah everything on stock android is connected to a google account, and TMobile and Google apparently just presume that any one not the head of a family plan are children, and will allow parental control to be enabled /without informing the 'child'/.

[-] peregus@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

How can they technically do that? They would need their own app because Android by itself isn't listening (it does while using voice command). And why would they say they can while it's against the law to do it (at least in Europe, but I guess in the USA too).

[-] scytale@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

Yeah it sounds sus. Apple themselves published an explanation of how siri doesn’t actively listen to you all the time, so I’m not sure how they can bypass that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 7 months ago

I'd guess they're planning on making their own stuff that does. I've already seen a "free" TV with an extra screen that just shows ads, has a camera, etc.

People are suckers, and there's plenty of unscrupulous companies willing to monetise that.

[-] peregus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Well, "actually listening to your phone" is a very strong statement (which I think it's false) and completely different from what you've reported. This sounds to me to a very big fake news!

[-] smeg@feddit.uk 8 points 7 months ago

This seems fishy. Beyond being illegal in a lot of places, if this was actually possible without people noticing (e.g. detecting massive data usage of audio being uploaded or native battery/CPU usage of it being processed locally) then we'd know about it!

My first thought is that this is the classic tech sales bullshit of claiming your product can do something impossible in order to sell it. What's most confusing is the statement from the bottom of the article:

“CMG businesses do not listen to any conversations or have access to anything beyond a third-party aggregated, anonymized and fully encrypted data set that can be used for ad placement. We regret any confusion and we are committed to ensuring our marketing is clear and transparent,” the statement added.

So are they admitting it was bullshit or what?

[-] db2@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Sometimes it sure seems like it though.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
171 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy Guides

16167 readers
115 users here now

In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.

This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.


You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:

Learn more...


Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We've tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!

Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!


This community is the "official" Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other "Privacy Guides" communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.


Moderation Rules:

  1. We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
  2. This is not the place for self-promotion if you are not listed on privacyguides.org. If you want to be listed, make a suggestion on our forum first.
  3. No soliciting engagement: Don't ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
  4. Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
  5. Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
  6. Don't repost topics which have already been covered here.
  7. News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
  8. Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
  9. No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don't abuse our community's willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
  10. No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
  11. Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
  12. General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.

Additional Resources:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS