Slashdot Mirror


Ad Networks Using Inaudible Sound To Link Phones, Tablets and Other Devices (arstechnica.com)

ourlovecanlastforeve writes with a link to Ars Technica's report of a new way for ads to narrow in on their target: high-pitched sounds that can make ad tracking cross devices and contexts. From the article: The ultrasonic pitches are embedded into TV commercials or are played when a user encounters an ad displayed in a computer browser. While the sound can't be heard by the human ear, nearby tablets and smartphones can detect it. When they do, browser cookies can now pair a single user to multiple devices and keep track of what TV commercials the person sees, how long the person watches the ads, and whether the person acts on the ads by doing a Web search or buying a product.

21 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Microphone access. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And why can a rogue website or app access the microphone? Oh yeah cuz android.

    1. Re:Microphone access. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh yeah cuz android.

      And cuz iPhone. It works on both.

      It works on both iOS and Androidd

    2. Re:Microphone access. by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Starting with Marshmallow, you can disable microphone access on an app-by-app basis.

    3. Re:Microphone access. by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Informative

      If an app wants microphone access in ios, it has to explicitly request it. You get a popup and have to ok it. If you don't, it doesn't have access. It can refuse to work, if it wants, but fuck them.

      Does that happen in Android? I feel it does not, and you probably can, in the latest version, explicitly disable mic access or something? An android user can correct me.

      I will say that questions like this:
      http://stackoverflow.com/quest...

      SO question:
      "
      1- I want to record.
      2- User disallowed.
      3- I want to record again.
      4- I call requestRecordPermission:
      5- It simply returns granted=NO (without prompting for permission)

      Can I prompt the permission Alert to user somehow?
      "

      Make me VERY happy to see answers like: "There's no way to do this"

      "I want to spam the user with access requests that are full screen OS level stuff until he says ok. How can I do this?" -> "Nnnnnnope!"

      Anyway, if Android doesn't do this, that's sad, and hopefully they will soon. If Android and Ios both do this, I don't see how most programs will be able to get mic access at all in the first place.

    4. Re:Microphone access. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the question is why does a phone intended for *human* consumption even allow frequencies beyond human hearing?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    5. Re:Microphone access. by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google do this all the time. EVERY EFFING TIME you install an application from non google-play source, it asks whether you'd like google to scan your applications for potential threats. there's no "Decline forever" option. google treat themselves differently.

    6. Re: Microphone access. by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      i gave up on gapps (apps for google services). i run cyanogenmod without gapps with f-droid and amazon as my two package sources. if i need something from play store, i download it manually using RACCOON and install the apk. i use caldav-sync and carddav-sync to sync with google contacts and calendars.

      It is a radical improvement to my life. No google tracking, longer battery life, fast bootup, longer battery life, phone uses less memory and i have a longer battery life.

    7. Re: Microphone access. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      But does it improve your battery life?

    8. Re:Microphone access. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Phones and speakers cover frequencies beyond human hearing because they're physical objects. Making something that can record 16kHz with good fidelity but won't record 20kHz at all would actually be quite difficult. Did you know that some lossy audio codecs apply a 16kHz low pass filter to the audio signal? No? If that cutoff removed frequencies which many people can hear, everybody would know about it. Youtube does that, btw. In practice there are few people beyond their teenage years who can hear tones above 16kHz unless they're very loud, and even most teenagers can not hear 19kHz or higher. But the microphones in phones and tablets have no trouble picking that up.

    9. Re:Microphone access. by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      No it doesn't. Going high in frequencies is simple. REALLY simple, and can be done even with the cheapest off the shelf small speakers.

      Covering a wider range of octaves towards the low end is the difficult part.

    10. Re: Microphone access. by chihowa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Amazon's app store doesn't run as a system application and can't do much of anything without explicit user permission. Google's app store is tied in with Google Play Services and runs as a system application that can do whatever it wants on your phone whenever it wants.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  2. But they say adblock is bad by geekd · · Score: 5, Informative

    They pull crap like this and then have the gall to say adblock users are evil?

  3. Exempt from wire-tapping laws? by dmomo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IANAL, but I was wondering if this would be illegal under wire-tapping laws. A quick glance over the code (18 - US 2511) actually specified "oral" not "audio" communication. Would this then be exempt?

    I suppose any app that takes advantage of this would have a disclosure about the recording buried deep in its legalese.

  4. First... BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Mics don't pick up ultrasonic
    2. Speakers don't reproduce ultrasonic
    3. And even if these somehow did, Nyquist already limits it all

    Look at a high-end mic's response curve. Most barely get above 16 kHz, after which they drop off very fast. Compare that to any system that may be attached to a computer. Same for a loudspeaker. High-freqs are directional, meaning if you get off-axis even a little, even more drop-off. All BULLSHIT. The internet at play and the eager ignorants ready to believe anything it proclaims.

    1. Re:First... BULLSHIT by Mystic+Pixel · · Score: 4, Informative

      So your mic has a -3db point at 16k? OK, so all that means is your signal is attenuated.
      Solution: BPF and amplify. Nothing of interest in that range, so collateral (spectral) damage is unimportant. Add a dash of modern DSP and blizzow!
      Please retake Signals & Systems and then try again, thanks.

    2. Re:First... BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fifty years ago you would have been quite right but unfortunately the tech has been getting better. (Did I just write that?) Nowadays, speakers can easily reproduce sounds that are inaudible to the majority of the population and microphones can pick them up. Not with the fidelity of audible sound, but they aren't interested in recording hifi audio anyway. To make matters worse, we've gotten a lot better at performing mathematical tricks in software to make signals more robust against distortion. You say it cannot be done, but companies are in fact already doing this and these things are already out there, I'm sorry to say.

  5. Ultrasonic jammer by CaptQuark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds like it might be time for an Ultrasonic Jammer in my house. They have them to supposedly keep pests away. I'm sure it would blanket the area and disrupt any ultrasonic tracking. Hopefully they won't bother the family pets too much. http://amzn.to/20SJgu6

    --

  6. Again, RTFA... by Y.A.A.P. · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you RTFA, you'll note that no one actually says this is happening yet.

    This is about a complaint filed with the FCC to prevent the use of this technology. One company, SilverPush, is cited as having developed the technology and details about it are in the public view, but that's the only case where there's even anything to cite about this form of intrusive technology.

    You can let your hackles go back to their normal position now.

  7. It's also rather hard to believe it would work by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ultrasonic response is not something most devices are good at. We, unsurprisingly, tend to design your sound systems around what we can hear. Particularly when you are talking cheaper equipment the high frequency response of speakers and microphones is often not very impressive. There's also the issue that the digital audio compression we use for things, like TV broadcasts, deemphasizes high frequencies.

    So for this to work they need:

    1) A TV broadcast with sufficient audio bitrate to get their high frequency signal encoded (the AC-3 streams usually used in ATSC broadcasts can be any bitrate from 64kbps to 448kbps).

    2) Encoded in such a way by the broadcaster that the high frequencies are preserved to a sufficient amount that their signal isn't distorted.

    3) Reproduced by speakers good enough to produce their signal, but to do it at a sufficient level to be picked up (speakers roll off at more extreme frequencies).

    4) Picked up by a microphone with sufficient range to be able to receive such a signal and isn't being occluded too much be being in a pocket or something.

    5) Processed by a program running on the device, that has control of the microphone at the time the signal is playing.

    Ya... While that isn't impossible, that is not likely to work any real amount of time. To have any good chance of working you'd probably have to push the signal down in to the audible range, which would of course piss people off to hear spurious high frequency noise. Likewise for it to be of any use the user would need to have an app on their device that is running. The mic doesn't magically record everything that comes in and store it for anything to access. A program has to be running and take control of the microphone to be able to get any input from it.

    This sounds like an advertiser pipe dream, not something that has been tried with real technology in realistic settings.

    People seem to think that ultrasonic communication is some kind of magic. It isn't. I mean it can be done, no question, you can encode information in sound, and you can do it in sound frequencies above human hearing. However that doesn't mean you can do it with any arbitrary device, or under arbitrary conditions.

  8. Super Duper Boy Scout Best Behavior by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    there's no "Decline forever" option.

    Yes there is. It is called death and is a part of nature.

    Well people --- you're just in a pickle because you've let 'em abandon THE SWITCH. How was grandpa sure he could get some shut-eye without the vacuum cleaner going round in circles? How'd we know that when we flicked on that AM radio, the batteries in it would be just as good as we left it? When we put down the phone how'd we know the gub'mint wasn't listening? We had honest to God switches, little bits of metal with springs that snapped 'em so far apart those electrons would just stay put.

    Now all you have are little copper titty-buttons on the sides of things, and you've got chipsets to manage the buttons, see? And everything is really connected all the time to these chips, and it's all programmable. It's all flashable. It's all exploitable. There was a time when people liked switches on things because they liked control. You could actually beat your competition if your thing had more switches than your competition's thing, even if some of them were silly. But something changed, and now consumer focus groups and product design engineers try to eliminate as many controls as they can. When we started seeing switches disappear from things we thought engineers were stupid. Turns out engineers were doing it because they thought people were stupid.

    If you think you have a Power button that's an actual Power button --- well you don't really. There's probably a timer in there somewhere I could exploit to tell your thing to turn on again. And why would I bother? I could just take control of your thing and make it sing and beep like it's shutting off and once you see that dark screen you'd be none the wiser.

    Sometimes I used to send a WAKE-on-LAN packet to my buddy's computer the moment he sat down at his desk in the morning, just as he was reaching for the power button. He'd hear the computer beep and withdraw his finger, puzzled. Took him a while to figure out what was happening.

    We now worship the Golden Calf of the Software Sandbox... and we expect our devices to be on their Super Duper Boy Scout Best Behavior. Hope that works out for everyone, but I don't want to hear any whining when shit happens. Google offering a 'Decline Forever' button,

    Shoo Google, don't bother me,
    Shoo Yahoo, don't bother me,
    Shoo Amazon, don't bother me,
    Nothin' ever turns off
    and I ain't gonna pay
    gimmie everything for free.

    I'm going to thwack off the MONSTER FRANKENSTEIN KNIFE SWITCH that I have all my modern tech wired to, and get some serious shut-eye.
    NO CARRIER

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:Super Duper Boy Scout Best Behavior by nukenerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And even when the button is actually a switch with an air gap, the push-on push-off type, you cannot see if it is on or off. With old-time toggle switches (and rocker switches, though less obviously) you could see at a glance if it were on or off.

      Last night I wasted ten minutes trying to connect my laptop to my WiFi before realising that its "Kill" button was in the "Kill" state. It does have a light in the button to show if connected, but that is not the same as being un-killed - ie the light stays off if the problem is at the wireless hub or you are out of range.

      Designers (ie the art graduate types) prefer buttons because they believe their design to be the absolute optimum aesthetic. They therefore do not want the visual distubance that would result from a toggle or rocker switch being moved into a different position. That is the way they think.