I hear this theory being claimed so much, but I don't see any real evidence for it; we have routers that you can monitor traffic on, we have microphone use indicators on mobile, and I would imagine it would be pretty clear if an app was uploading audio with even very basic monitoring tools. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.

I'm not denying that a lot of data is likely surreptitiously collected, but I'm talking microphone/camera in particular.

▲

sciencejerk 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

we have routers that you can monitor traffic on

Most traffic is encrypted with HTTPS unless you can root every single device you own

we have microphone use indicators on mobile, and I would imagine it would be pretty clear if an app was uploading audio with even very basic monitoring tools.

Complicated smartphone OS, firmware, drivers might have bugs allow overrides of visual indicators.

Companies have also been known to secretly eavesdrop and not tell users before (Apple + Siri https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-approves-95-million-app...)

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

anonym29 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How confident or certain are you of what CSME or PSP or some code in TrustZone is doing? How certain are you that not a single piece of software on your machine, be it in the kernel, userland, drivers, is performing some type of surreptitious communication with CSME or PSP or program running in TrustZone?

Do you know for sure whether PSP or CSME has ever done DMA, or fingerprinted stack/heap allocation patterns and timing, or inspected the contents of your disk (after FDE was done being decrypted, of course), to evaluate whether common packet capture software is installed, or even whether it's currently running?

Detecting spyware is one thing. Detecting surreptitious nation-state spyware that behaves differently when it's being observed is a different challenge entirely.

▲

jesterson 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I recall there were quite a few experiments where people use certain keywords heavily just to get closely related ads later on. I can totally relate my experience with it as well. Of course it is inconclusive - but if there is an incentive, management of big companies will venture into it. And chinese management is no different from western ones to that matter.

▲

gkbrk 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They don't pick the keywords uniformly randomly from a list of all keywords though. They think they randomly picked something that popped up in their mind, but those keywords are either

- stuff they saw online recently — ads or otherwise, which put the keywords in their mind

- or stuff they were already interested in recently

Not hard to imagine targeting algorithms picking up on either of these

	▲	MadnessASAP 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		As I tell my friends You dont see those "coincidental" ads because your phone is listening to you, you see them because your freind showed interest in the product and theirs enough information to infer they talked to you about it. The good news is, your phone isn't listening to you without your consent. The bad news is, because it doesnt need to.
	▲	jesterson 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Are those your assumptions or something that have been tested?

▲

nottorp 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's been a while since I browsed anything without an ad blocker.

Do you still get ads for the exact thing you just bought for a week after buying it? :)