this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
7 points (52.4% liked)
Privacy
32442 readers
797 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
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
correct.
the level of unsubstantiated cope in this thread is mind boggling. from people many of whom should honestly know better.
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.
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.
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 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.