Simon Willison's Weblog: conspiracy

I still don't think companies serve you ads based on spying through your microphone

2025-01-02T23:43:31+00:00

One of my weirder hobbies is trying to convince people that the idea that companies are listening to you through your phone's microphone and serving you targeted ads is a conspiracy theory that isn't true. I wrote about this previously: Facebook don’t spy on you through your microphone.

(Convincing people of this is basically impossible. It doesn't matter how good your argument is, if someone has ever seen an ad that relates to their previous voice conversation they are likely convinced and there's nothing you can do to talk them out of it. Gimlet media did a great podcast episode about how impossible this is back in 2017.)

This is about to get even harder thanks to this proposed settlement: Siri “unintentionally” recorded private convos; Apple agrees to pay $95M (Ars Technica).

Apple are spending $95m (nine hours of profit), agreeing to settle while "denying wrongdoing".

What actually happened is it turns out Apple were capturing snippets of audio surrounding the "Hey Siri" wake word, sending those back to their servers and occasionally using them for QA, without informing users that they were doing this. This is bad.

The Reuters 2021 story Apple must face Siri voice assistant privacy lawsuit -U.S. judge reported that:

One Siri user said his private discussions with his doctor about a "brand name surgical treatment" caused him to receive targeted ads for that treatment, while two others said their discussions about Air Jordan sneakers, Pit Viper sunglasses and "Olive Garden" caused them to receive ads for those products.

The claim from that story was then repeated in the 2025 Reuters story about the settlement.

The Ars Technica story reframes that like this:

The only clue that users seemingly had of Siri's alleged spying was eerily accurate targeted ads that appeared after they had just been talking about specific items like Air Jordans or brands like Olive Garden, Reuters noted.

Crucially, this was never proven in court. And if Apple settle the case it never will be.

Let’s think this through. For the accusation to be true, Apple would need to be recording those wake word audio snippets and transmitting them back to their servers for additional processing (likely true), but then they would need to be feeding those snippets in almost real time into a system which forwards them onto advertising partners who then feed that information into targeting networks such that next time you view an ad on your phone the information is available to help select the relevant ad.

That is so far fetched. Why would Apple do that? Especially given both their brand and reputation as a privacy-first company combined with the large amounts of product design and engineering work they’ve put into preventing apps from doing exactly this kind of thing by enforcing permission-based capabilities and ensuring a “microphone active” icon is available at all times when an app is listening in.

I really don't think this is happening - in particular for Siri wake words!

I've argued these points before, but I'll do it again here for good measure.

You don't notice the hundreds of times a day you say something and don't see a relevant advert a short time later. You see thousands of ads a day, can you remember what any of them are?
The tiny fraction of times where you see an ad that's relevant to something you've just said (hence breaking through your filter that prevents you from seeing most ads at all) stick in your head.
Human beings are pattern matching machines with a huge bias towards personal anecdotes. If we've seen direct evidence of something ourselves, good luck talking us out of it!

I think the truth of the matter here is much more pedestrian: the quality of ad targeting that's possible just through apps sharing data on your regular actions within those apps is shockingly high... combined with the fact that it turns out just knowing "male, 40s, NYC" is often more than enough - we're all pretty basic!

I fully expect that this Apple story will be used as "proof" by conspiracy theorists effectively forever.

Tags: apple, conspiracy, privacy, misinformation, microphone-ads-conspiracy, digital-literacy

In Leak, Facebook Partner Brags About Listening to Your Phone’s Microphone to Serve Ads for Stuff You Mention

2024-09-02T23:56:44+00:00

In Leak, Facebook Partner Brags About Listening to Your Phone’s Microphone to Serve Ads for Stuff You Mention

(I've repurposed some of my comments on Lobsters into this commentary on this article. See also I still don’t think companies serve you ads based on spying through your microphone.)

Which is more likely?

All of the conspiracy theories are real! The industry managed to keep the evidence from us for decades, but finally a marketing agency of a local newspaper chain has blown the lid off the whole thing, in a bunch of blog posts and PDFs and on a podcast.
Everyone believed that their phone was listening to them even when it wasn’t. The marketing agency of a local newspaper chain were the first group to be caught taking advantage of that widespread paranoia and use it to try and dupe people into spending money with them, despite the tech not actually working like that.

My money continues to be on number 2.

Here’s their pitch deck. My “this is a scam” sense is vibrating like crazy reading it: CMG Pitch Deck on Voice-Data Advertising 'Active Listening'.

It does not read to me like the deck of a company that has actually shipped their own app that tracks audio and uses it for even the most basic version of ad targeting.

They give the game away on the last two slides:

Prep work:

Create buyer personas by uploading past consumer data into the platform

Identify top performing keywords relative to your products and services by analyzing keyword data and past ad campaigns

Ensure tracking is set up via a tracking pixel placed on your site or landing page

Now that preparation is done:

Active listening begins in your target geo and buyer behavior is detected across 470+ data sources […]

Our technology analyzes over 1.9 trillion behaviors daily and collects opt-in customer behavior data from hundreds of popular websites that offer top display, video platforms, social applications, and mobile marketplaces that allow laser-focused media buying.

Sources include: Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, Amazon and many more

That’s not describing anything ground-breaking or different. That’s how every targeting ad platform works: you upload a bunch of “past consumer data”, identify top keywords and setup a tracking pixel.

I think active listening is the term that the team came up with for “something that sounds fancy but really just means the way ad targeting platforms work already”. Then they got over-excited about the new metaphor and added that first couple of slides that talk about “voice data”, without really understanding how the tech works or what kind of a shitstorm that could kick off when people who DID understand technology started paying attention to their marketing.

TechDirt's story Cox Media Group Brags It Spies On Users With Device Microphones To Sell Targeted Ads, But It’s Not Clear They Actually Can included a quote with a clarification from Cox Media Group:

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.

Why I don't buy the argument that it's OK for people to believe this

I've seen variants of this argument before: phones do creepy things to target ads, but it’s not exactly “listen through your microphone” - but there’s no harm in people believing that if it helps them understand that there’s creepy stuff going on generally.

I don’t buy that. Privacy is important. People who are sufficiently engaged need to be able to understand exactly what’s going on, so they can e.g. campaign for legislators to reign in the most egregious abuses.

I think it’s harmful letting people continue to believe things about privacy that are not true, when we should instead be helping them understand the things that are true.

This discussion thread is full of technically minded, engaged people who still believe an inaccurate version of what their devices are doing. Those are the people that need to have an accurate understanding, because those are the people that can help explain it to others and can hopefully drive meaningful change.

This is such a damaging conspiracy theory.

It’s causing some people to stop trusting their most important piece of personal technology: their phone.
We risk people ignoring REAL threats because they’ve already decided to tolerate made up ones.
If people believe this and see society doing nothing about it, that’s horrible. That leads to a cynical “nothing can be fixed, I guess we will just let bad people get away with it” attitude. People need to believe that humanity can prevent this kind of abuse from happening.

The fact that nobody has successfully produced an experiment showing that this is happening is one of the main reasons I don’t believe it to be happening.

It’s like James Randi’s One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - the very fact that nobody has been able to demonstrate it is enough for me not to believe in it.

Tags: conspiracy, facebook, privacy, microphone-ads-conspiracy

Quoting YouTube’s Plot to Silence Conspiracy Theories

2020-09-20T01:27:33+00:00

One academic who interviewed attendees of a flat-earth convention found that, almost to a person, they'd discovered the subculture via YouTube recommendations.

— YouTube’s Plot to Silence Conspiracy Theories

Tags: conspiracy, youtube

Why Your Christian Friends and Family Members Are So Easily Fooled by Conspiracy Theories

2020-07-31T18:28:24+00:00

Why Your Christian Friends and Family Members Are So Easily Fooled by Conspiracy Theories

I think the title undersells this: this is a really great piece of writing on conspiracy theories, why people fall for them and why it’s so hard to dig people back out again—regardless of any particular religion, despite being written for a Christian audience.

Via Ben Collins

Tags: conspiracy

Is Facebook Really Censoring Search When It Suits Them?

2007-11-23T07:50:37+00:00

Is Facebook Really Censoring Search When It Suits Them?

Apparently MoveOn’s group “Petition: Facebook, stop invading my privacy!” stopped showing up in search results for “privacy”—the search claimed 17 results but suspiciously only showed 16.

Tags: censorship, conspiracy, facebook, moveon, privacy