Free Phone Calls... If Advertisers Can Eavesdrop

Dekortage writes "Today, Pudding Media is introducing an Internet phone service similar to Skype's online service, but without any toll charges. The catch: they are eavesdropping on phone calls with voice recognition software to monitor calls, then push conversation-relevant the ads to the subscriber's computer screen. Interestingly, during tests, "conversations [were] actually changing based on what was on the screen," said the president. "Our ability to influence the conversation was remarkable.""

Comments

What numbers do they use?

[straponego]

I don't want to talk to anybody using this service. How can I block them? Do they announce to innocent (called) parties that they're invading your privacy at the beginning of a call?

Now, consider what scumbags like Comcast could do with this. They bundle phone, cable, and Internet. So they could tweak not just your banner ads, but also your TV ads (using an upgraded on-demand system). And they could use peeping on one service to affect the others. For example, they could change your web ads based on what shows you watch. The only question is whether they think the cost in lawsuits (from other advertisers and customers) would be worth it. Hmm, maybe they can tie it into the DHS "we need retroactive immunity for any crime on the grounds that it would be bad for business for us to be subject to the law" stuff. Obviously the program could service "national security" purposes as well.

It'll fail.

[suv4x4]

Interestingly, during tests, "conversations [were] actually changing based on what was on the screen,"

Of course: DURING TESTS. The sole purpose of the test is to test what they're testing, so it's the subject of interest without any magic required. How about influencing a real world call, emergent call, bad news call, good news call. Anything-else-than-playing-with-the-system call.

And their scheme has a flaw: I can keep talking with my screen turned off. Their advertisers better be dumb enough not to figure out that one.

While I personally...

[Pojut]

...would never use this service, and while I despise ads as much as the next person, I don't quite get what all the fuss is over. You KNOW that they are recording your phone call, they tell you everything up front, you get free phone service...yes, you have to look at ads, but hey! At least they are pertinent to you and yours.

If I have to see advertisements everywhere, I don't want to see shit for Viagra or a low mortgage rate...I want to see ads for video games, horror movies, fetish stores, and computer equipment.

Seriously, there is no way to escape advertisement (yes, I know there is AdBlock and NoScript), so why not at least have advertisements that you would be at least REMOTELY interested in? Target audience and all that... If Comcast knew what kind of products I was interested in and I got to see ads for only those type of products while watching what little TV I watch, I would be much less inclined to leave the room or fast forward on Tivo. Instead, I get stuck with commercials for tampons and "beer" (i.e. watered down piss...I love being from and living in the USA, but christ we have NO tatse in beer)

Voice recognition liability

[stewbacca]

They want to rely on voice recognition software? Well then I guess it will be a good deal, since that stuff doesn't work worth a damn. More interestingly, what does voice recognition software do when it identifies a threat to US persons, which, under US signals laws, would require reporting? What happens if their voice recognition software doesn't catch a specific threat? I think (hope) liability alone will put this model under.