Facebook Patent Imagines Triggering Your Phone's Mic When a Hidden Signal Plays on TV (gizmodo.com)

Based on a recently published patent application, Facebook could one day use ads on television to further violate a user's privacy. From a report: The patent is titled "broadcast content view analysis based on ambient audio recording." It describes a system in which an "ambient audio fingerprint or signature" that's inaudible to the human ear could be embedded in broadcast content like a TV ad. When a hypothetical user is watching this ad, the audio fingerprint could trigger their smartphone or another device to turn on its microphone, begin recording audio and transmit data about it to Facebook.

Comments

They're already doing this.

[Narcocide]

Or someone is, anyway. All this means is now it's gonna start getting ugly for their competition.

Re:They're already doing this.

[slickwillie]

You mean that wasn't . . . Fuck. You bastard!.

Re:They're already doing this.

[Tuidjy]

Oh, really? They are already doing it?

Can you please explain to me how you can possibly 'trigger' your microphone only after when you detect an 'inaudible' signal from the TV? If they have a way to detect a signal before turning on the microphone, it's sure worth a patent!

Of course, I'm just being facetious. It's probably the summary that is misguiding, as usual. In order to detect the signal, the microphone needs to be already on, i.e. the Facebook app has to already be listening to everything the phone hears. The patent is probably only about taking action afterward (sending the record home) I just love it how they assume that they will be monitoring everything around your phone. Well, those that allow it deserve it.

I know everyone harps about 1984, but I think that Lacey and His Friends was a lot more on the ball. Not quite as scary, but a lot more likely. And when I say "not as scary" it's only because what passes for the 'good' guy (a convicted rapist serving as a cop, and murdering people in cold-blood) usually prevents his (worse) antagonists from succeeding.

Re:They're already doing this.

[Calydor]

You realize the Facebook app on an average phone has already been granted access to the phone's mic and could have it running constantly, listening for such an activation sound, right? So when it gets its wakeup call in bat-level frequency it starts recording and transmitting to the mothership.

Re: They're already doing this.

[GabeGhearing]

This is pretty much how all broadcast TV is tracked. Neilson gives families trackers that listen for signals and then collects them. These psychoacoustic encodings are broadcast every 2.5 seconds. Facebook seems to have patented using a smartphone to do this rather than a dedicated device.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/w...

Re:They're already doing this.

[ConceptJunkie]

Shhh... I wanna see if anyone is dumb enough to try the drill on their Iphone.

I was going to, but I wanted to charge it up in the microwave first. Now it doesn't work. Maybe it just needs to cool off first.

Re:They're already doing this.

[ConceptJunkie]

Yeah, I hear those, too. I always thought they were glitches because they happen on the Roku, but I've never noticed them on my tablet.

There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[Rick Schumann]

1) You patent an idea like this so that nobody else can use it.
2) You're fucking evil and don't give a fuck about silly frivolous things like people's privacy rights, you want all the data so you can sell it to the highest bidder.

Time to dismantle Zuckerbook once and for all, and pass legislation preventing any company from pulling the sort of shit Zuckerbook has been perpetrating for years now.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[ArylAkamov]

What can really be done?
I explain shit like this to people, they call me paranoid.
I show them proof, they say they don't care.
Privacy? They say they have nothing to hide.
They're beyond saving, but they're the majority. They don't care about their privacy, all they know is they can trade it for more cute cat mobile games.
So what can you do?

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[Rick Schumann]

The average person has a threshold that they have to be pushed beyond before they'll actually take anything like this seriously. What makes matters worse is that the average person has been so thoroughly indoctrinated by Corporate America and so-called 'social media' sites that sharing everything is what's normal and natural, and that people who want 'privacy' either have something wrong with their brains, or they're criminals with something to hide. With any luck this will all eventually catch up with everyone and there'll be a revolt. Until then all you can do is stay on-message, be consistent, and do what you can to protect yourself (i.e. don't use 'social media', so you're not part of the problem).

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[ath1901]

If they were interested in option 1), they could just write an article and publish it somewhere which would make it prior art. Since they spent money and time on a patent application instead, I'd say 2) is the only option.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[rgmoore]

Privacy? They say they have nothing to hide.

I don't have anything to hide when I'm taking a shower, but that doesn't mean I'm OK with somebody recording it.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[MrKaos]

So what can you do?

Install malware on their phone and use their credit card ;)

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[MrKaos]

The average person has a threshold that they have to be pushed beyond before they'll actually take anything

This process has a taxonomy that comes under anal fist fucking, right now they're really enjoying it but they're looking at the fire extinguisher with some mixture of fear and anticipation.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[MrKaos]

Love your imagery. What's after the fire extinguisher?

Setting off the fire extinguisher

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[ph0rk]

What, you think Google is any better? The war is over. Privacy lost.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[jittles]

1) You patent an idea like this so that nobody else can use it. 2) You're fucking evil and don't give a fuck about silly frivolous things like people's privacy rights, you want all the data so you can sell it to the highest bidder. Time to dismantle Zuckerbook once and for all, and pass legislation preventing any company from pulling the sort of shit Zuckerbook has been perpetrating for years now.

I'm not even sure how this patent is supposed to work. How does your phone know to trigger the microphone unless the microphone is already triggered? Is this inaccurate reporting and the patent is really about sending the stream that is already being recorded by Facebook? Cause to me it sounds like Facebook is basically claiming they already use your microphone 24/7 and now they're just looking for specific sounds to log more data.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[Anne Thwacks]

Don't worry: they can't patent kidnap and bank robbery!

or can they?

Don't miss next week's thrilling installment!

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[mjwx]

What can really be done?
I explain shit like this to people, they call me paranoid.
I show them proof, they say they don't care.
Privacy? They say they have nothing to hide.

Then when their private details and credit card numbers are published online they shout "why didn't someone do something about this" in shrill nasal tones.

Someone could have done something about this Karen, you could have Karen. But you said it was too hard and too inconvenient to practice a few basic self preservation measures. You wanted to gratification now Karen and this is how you pay for it. I swear you'd still take sweeties from strangers if your mother didn't drill it into your head as a kid, I suspect literally, Karen.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[nwaack]

LOL! I really wish I had mod points right now.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[houghi]

People generally are good. They also will trust others when they have met them. This is generally a good thing. Not trusting people would be bad for the species.

People are also very bad at risk assesment.

Combine these two and you get people who will give you their credit card information without even asking for it.

I know people who do not lock their phones, even though they have passwordless access to their emails that can be used to get access to their banking info.

They will also willingly share YOUR information, Just ask a friend for a thirds friend phonenumber and they have no problem giving it to you.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[Rick Schumann]

Kevin, is that you? xD

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[sarren1901]

They could install the switch and a cute little LED to show it is REALLY off, but then just let their system applications do whatever they were doing before. How would you truly verify it was working as you want it to work, aka with privacy in mind?

Unless you root the phone yourself or get some phone that's completely open source I don't see how you can KNOW it's safe.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[Rick Schumann]

A few years ago, when privacy issues started being issues, I used to tell the "I have nothing to hide therefore I have nothing to fear" people that I'd like to install cameras and microphones, all internet-facing, in every room of their house, broadcasting 24/7. Naturally they objected to the idea; "Why would I let anyone do that?" to which I'd say "Gee, I thought you had nothing to hide and nothing to fear; were you lying when you said that?". Hilarity ensues as they get all indignated over it. Sadly, the average person doesn't usually see past the end of their own nose, rarely thinks far into the future, and almost never thinks about how something will affect everyone else, only how it affects them. Case in point: When the ACA (aka ObamaCare) was announced, my initial reaction was "..hey, great!", but not 5 seconds later I said "..wait a minute, who's going to pay for all this?". The average person doesn't have the second reaction, all they see is oh goodie, free stuff! Same more or less goes for the Universal Basic Income fanboys, all they see is Cool, I get to live for free the rest of my life! but the rest of us think Oh shit that'll never work money doesn't grow on trees!

Remember the sage words of Agent K: A person can be smart; people are stupid panicky animals.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[Rick Schumann]

Pussy little cowards like you are the reason that evil flourishes. You can't be bothered to stand up for your own rights, so you get assraped by whoever decides to do it to you, then just to prove what a useless waste of oxygen you are, you have the audacity to complain about how 'nobody is doing anything about it'. Meanwhile you're all "Thank you sir, may I have another?" to Facebook, Google, and whoever else decides to shove their virtual penis into your private-data-anus. Fix your shit, get correct, or kill yourself, either way you're not part of the problem anymore.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[Rick Schumann]

Consider yourself bitch-slapped for arguing semantics with me.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[HeckRuler]

I explain shit like this to people, they call me paranoid.
I show them proof, they say they don't care.

"Whoa now, you just called me paranoid over this. Like someone was out to get me. Do you really not care that people are out to get you? Why was it paranoia 2 seconds ago, but now it's a non-event?"

Privacy? They say they have nothing to hide.

"Oh yeah? Mind if I see your phone and look through your browsers history? Chat history? Call list?"

"How about your senator? Your boss? So you're a boring person, fine, no one is likely going to waste too much time going over your grocery list. But how would you feel if your boss had no privacy and everyone's salaries and performance reviews were public knowledge? How would you feel about Putin being able to listen in on the conversations of your US senator? Does privacy seem important now? They're people just like you and me. Not every US congressman is followed around by SS and shits in a bag. The world doesn't entirely revolve around you."

I've been using this line for about a decade. I wasn't really expecting the "facebook data used by Russia to influence US elections" to become a reality... But ok, it's time to accept our cyberpunk overlords. Bring in the pink mohawks and powergloves.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[Waccoon]

I've always been convinced the final straw will be the Deathswitch. Someone will figure out how to trigger a popular device's killswitch remotely, either via a hack or social engineering attack, and thousands, if not millions of devices will be bricked en masse overnight.

That MIGHT get peoples' attention to finally take security and privacy seriously. Maybe. For a little while.

Re:There's only two reasons you'd patent this:

[q4Fry]

Don't worry: they can't patent kidnap and bank robbery!

or can they?

Don't miss next week's thrilling installment!

No they can't. The Government already has prior art.

Even if you agreed to this

[taustin]

is the terms of service you didn't read before you clicked "I agree," if you're not in the room alone, in a place that one would expect privacy, like your own home, this would run afoul of wiretapping laws in all-party consent states. In some cases, it's a felony.

I would dearly love to see Zuck in an orange jumpsuit for this.

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[Narcocide]

They would already be on the hook for wiretapping violations caused by their app and tracking links if that was gonna happen. The problem is that our own government is just as interested in illegally collecting such data as the other cyber criminal gangs are.

Re: Even if you agreed to this

[TimMD909]

Can confirm it'd be a felony in Pennsylvania. https://govt.westlaw.com/pac/D...

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[Streetlight]

I thought it was illegal in the US to secretly electronically record conversations without the approval of those being recorded. Opt out would not be an option.

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[Narcocide]

Technically correct but what constitutes as "approval" seems to have been watered down quite heavily in the perception of the people actually executing this data collection process. For example, you've already been subject to this data collection process for years now. Facebook has decided that your consent was implied by being in close proximity to the mobile device of anyone who had consented already by installing the app. Despite the clear illegality of this, nobody so far has tried to stop them that can't be bribed or fleeced.

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[taustin]

Varies by state. Some states require consent by one party, some by all. Federal law is one party. In some all-party states, it's a civil offense, in some, a misdemeanor, in California and, apparently, now in Pennsylvania, it's a felony.

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[taustin]

Indeed. But you cannot give consent for me. If I'm a guest in your house, and your phone is recording me without my knowledge or consent, as would be the case if this is implemented as described, your phone, and possibly you, are in violation in all-party consent states.

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[Streetlight]

There may be a difference between recording telephone conversations - which is what you may be talking about - and non-telephony. However, activating a device connected to the Internet by Wi-Fi when there might be one or more persons in the room could be illegal everywhere. It's not a telephone call situation. This is somewhat like someone placing a hidden microphone connected to a recording device in a room. This scenario shows up in detective novels. The suggestion that in some locations the recording individual/company (Face Book) has given permission is good enough to allow recording is a stretch. In those locations where both ends of the recording are required to approve could be difficult if there are multiple people in a room where the one person who gave permission isn't there.

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[Khyber]

"It's not a telephone call situation"

This is where we need to actually prey upon politician's stupidity - it happened via our smartphone, it counts as wiretapping. Drill that old-fashioned concept into their heads.

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[Megol]

While it's possible to disagree entirely with your post (not saying I do BTW) you have a much larger problem: whose moral standards should apply? What person or persons should decide what's right?
Remember that the majority of the readers/posters on this site come from a place where genital mutilation is, if not supported, at least accepted.

And while this may seem obviously wrong to you (and others) many people would instead support (or even push for) the right for companies to use it if it would make their lives a little bit more convenient or alternatively it being shown as some improvement of general safety*.

(* just paint it as a way to catch evil terrorists)

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[Megol]

You should have no general expectation of privacy as a guest. The mere idea is ridiculous.

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[AmiMoJo]

This is why we need laws like GDPR. Companies know that they can use a TOS-bomb to make people agree to pretty much anything, up to and including ownership of their eternal soul, so we need to create a standard TOS of our own that they have to agree to first.

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[drew_kime]

But you cannot give consent for me.

True, but in that case the person who gave consent is the one doing the recording, not Facebook. At least that's what their lawyers will argue.

Re:Even if you agreed to this

[taustin]

No, imagine that I come into your house, where my phones starts recording you and sending those recordings to Facebook, without your knowledge or consent.

Now imaging that I accidentally leave my phone there when I leave, and it's still recording your conversations and sending them to Facebook.

Facebook now has a patent on this, and a history of selling any and all private information that comes their way to anyone who wants to buy it.

Resuming: SPAM

[franzrogar]

So, Facebook has patented a new way of SPAM... Nice.

Who wouldn't want to waste data bandwidth and battery to see SPAM?

And...

[c]

... that's why I don't have Facebook apps on my phone, or allow most apps access to the microphone.

Devices Need Transient Permissions

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love a pop-up EVERY TIME an app on my iPhone needs permission to access this or that (with the option to okay it into perpetuity should I choose). And instead of simply "OK" to grant permission, offer me a list: OK for 5/10/30 minutes, 1/3/6/12 hour(s), 1/7/30/60/90 day(s), or forever. Perhaps even the option to okay permissions for the app "for X minutes OR until the app is no longer active or is sent to the background, whichever is soonest."

Then I could be SURE that granting that one app that needed to read a QR code so got camera access doesn't FOREVER have camera access. This would fix issues with Facebook wanting to access my camera, mic, phone contact list, photo library, etc. when I'm not expecting it.

Another awesome option would be to grant FAKE permission. I.e., an app asks for my phone contacts and won't let me continue unless I grant it FULL access, I can click "OK--grant access to empty phone contacts" or "fake mic that only records white noise" or "fake camera that only records black as if obscured/covered by a phone case".

Yes, apps could detect permissions. Request access to motion/gyro sensors, grant access to fake, and suddenly movement detected is zero... that would be suspicious. Even so, I'd love that option.

And finally, I don't want apps to be able to query and discover if permissions are temporary or permanent. They just have permmissions--for now--that's all they can know.

Re:Devices Need Transient Permissions

[vlad30]

I'd prefer an option thats fills their database with random data or data I choose such as congress and senators addresses, or that facebook fanatic till they realise these companies are crap

Re:Devices Need Transient Permissions

[viperidaenz]

Cyanogenmod used to do this back in the Android 2.x days I think.

Re:Devices Need Transient Permissions

[jouassou]

If you're interested, using the XPosed framework with the XPrivacy module used to fix this problem (assuming you've rooted your phone): you could generate fake location data, white noise mic input, white noise camera input, etc., and the apps couldn't tell the difference. I haven't used it in a few years, but XPrivacyLua seems to be the modern successor of the XPrivacy project.

Re:Devices Need Transient Permissions

[AmiMoJo]

Fake data doesn't seem to offer any real benefit. It will be too easy to detect if any developer really cares about it. Also, I like that simply denying a permission sends a clear message to the app and the developer.

If not a phone, then something else nearby

[theCat]

Amazon eventually has something similar planned for Alexa, where casually spoken words (not directed at Alexa) will do exactly the same thing. The trend here is that any device in your vicinity (not even your own home, anywhere at all) can be triggered by any kind of sound (voice or ads, audible or not) to turn on your phone and record other conversation, or maybe to direct your phone web client to an online ad or retailer.

We're screwed.

Re:If not a phone, then something else nearby

[Daralantan]

Reminds me of one of the original things for the Xbox Kinect. It was going to scan your room for things to advertise about, eg: Dorito bags, Mountain Dew bottles, etc.

Re:If not a phone, then something else nearby

[AmiMoJo]

Just build an app that whispers random things now and then to trigger these devices. Enjoy the ensuing chaos.

Turning on the microphone?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if it only turns on the microphone when it "hears" the sound, how does it hear it?

Of course the microphone is turned on all the time, just that when it hears the sound it starts recording and send it home.

Still a horrible idea and whoever conceived it should lose their basic human rights as a punishment since they want to take some of them (privacy) away from others. There is a special place in hell for people like these.

Re:Turning on the microphone?

[Carewolf]

It is basically how all smartphones already operate. The microphone is on all the time, an when detecting key audio signature they start sending all it picks up to Apple or Google. Those signatures being "Ok Google" or "Siri".

Remember La Liga?

[drew_kime]

Remember the story here just two weeks ago?

The La Liga app, which is the official streaming app for Spain’s most popular football league, has reportedly been using the microphones on fans’ phones to root out unauthorized broadcasts of matches in public venues like bars and restaurants.

Sounds like the same thing.

This isn't new or original technology

[mnemotronic]

Arbitron, now owned by Nielsen, had a technology that injected inaudible information into radio signals. The information contained the station and content. This was picked up by small recording devices that people ("panelists") wore on their belt. These people were monetarily compensated for the privilege of sharing their listening habits, unlike Facebook. At night the user would connect the device to a base where it would recharge and send the information to the main office. Later devices used cell phone technology to send the data. The information was then anonymized and provided to customers who paid to know what users were listening to and when.

Arbitron is my gold-standard when it comes to "extremely siloed", "micro-kingdoms" and "back-stabbing, throw-em-under-the-bus infighting". OTOH my manager was trying to do "Dev-Ops" long before the term even existed.

mmmm Interesting how about

[oldgraybeard]

TV, Radio ads triggering, these Alexa, whatever devices? Companies throwing out ads to buy a pretend product just to get peoples money!

Just my 2 cents ;)

Manually disable camera and microphone

[myid]

Phones and computers need a manual (not software) "data capture" on/off switch. This switch would physically disable the phone's microphone and cameras (and if possible, screen capture).

If I manually slide the data capture switch to OFF, then the mic and cameras are physically disabled. No matter what any data, software, or user preferences are, the mic and cameras are physically unable to capture sound or images. They can't capture sound or images again, until I manually slide the data capture switch back to ON.

Re:Manually disable camera and microphone

[AmiMoJo]

You can get cases with a cover for the camera, or stick-on privacy sliders designed for laptops but which fit phones okay. Add a bit of acoustic blocking foam to cover the microphone when closed.

Another option to block the microphone is a dummy one in the headphone socket for phones that support headsets that way. Bluetooth and USB also work. Or you can go the other way and physically disconnect the mic on the phone, then connect an external one when you need it.

Re:Manually disable camera and microphone

[mjwx]

Phones and computers need a manual (not software) "data capture" on/off switch. This switch would physically disable the phone's microphone and cameras (and if possible, screen capture).

If I manually slide the data capture switch to OFF, then the mic and cameras are physically disabled. No matter what any data, software, or user preferences are, the mic and cameras are physically unable to capture sound or images. They can't capture sound or images again, until I manually slide the data capture switch back to ON.

Or rather the OS denies access to everything by default and you have to approve use when they app tries to use it. I mean all sensors, camera, GPS, microphone, accelerator/gyro, so on and so forth.

I beleive Android does this already, not that it stops people from somnambulently clicking "allow", but it at least gives those of us who care a chance.

Also default deny of sensor access when the application isn't open and active. A messenger application does not need to listen when I'm not using it.

They got in just in time

[jrumney]

I thought there was some pretty obvious prior art for this, but checking the filing date, it seems they got in just in time, 3 weeks before their competitors who actually have devices capable of it started doing this shit in real life.

But really, we need to stop letting companies patent obvious orwellian crap.

"hypothetical user is watching this ad..."

[SeaFox]

Hey, another reason to not subscribe to pay TV.

Problem solved

[fahrbot-bot]

My cellphone isn't allowed to watch television.

microphone is already on

[markdavis]

>" It describes a system in which an "ambient audio fingerprint or signature" that's inaudible to the human ear could be embedded in broadcast content like a TV ad. When a hypothetical user is watching this ad, the audio fingerprint could trigger their smartphone or another device to turn on its microphone"

How can it "turn the microphone on" if it was already "on" and constantly listening for this audible signal? Thus, the mic was already "on" and analyzing everything, all the time. This is aside from the asinine premise of this whole concept. I am sure we all have a BURNING need for our phones to be listening all the time, burning up the battery, doing god-knows-what in the background, sending personal info to places like Facebook, all so we can watch COMMERCIALS and then get even more automatic COMMERCIALS on our phones and give companies even more metrics about our personal lives, whereabouts, believes, and associations. Oh, man, sign me up now! I will make sure to throw away my DVR in the process, too, so I can watch COMMERCIALS religiously...

What I want are HARDWARE switches for: microphone, cameras, and radios on my devices. Funny how many devices USED to have such things in the past.

Re:microphone is already on

[markdavis]

>"Okay Google"

Indeed. First thing I turned off on my phone.... and hoping it really is off.

Re: microphone is already on

[Jesus H Rolle]

What I want are HARDWARE switches for: microphone, cameras, and radios on my devices. Funny how many devices USED to have such things in the past.

What devices used to have hardware switches for the microphone, radio, and camera?

Re: microphone is already on

[Calydor]

Off the top of my head, microphones, radios and cameras did.

Re: microphone is already on

[Reverend Green]

It's not. Big Brother Google is always listening.

Re: microphone is already on

[markdavis]

And my Palm phones had a mic mute and camera shutter.
And my laptops all had shutters and radio on/off switches.

Re: microphone is already on

[Jesus H Rolle]

Good point. Guess I'd forgotten about the radio switch on my old laptop.

Re:microphone is already on

[q4Fry]

> What I want are HARDWARE switches for: microphone, cameras, and radios on my devices. Funny how many devices USED to have such things in the past.

Ask, and ye shall receive: https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/ (development prototypes are currently being produced, first orders are expected to ship in January 2019).

Your Slashvertisement got lost in mod-0 hell, but I'm going to bump it anyway.

Variant of audio beacons.

[shm]

This has already been done. Audio beacons. Those tracking companies hate microphone permissions on iOS (and possibly android now) for this reason.

Earlier they could turn on the mic at will, now users a bit more aware.

Pollute their data

[Solandri]

As I've said before, I believe the best strategy for fighting this type of privacy invasion is to simply pollute their incoming data. Figure out which triggers they're using to initiate the recording (e.g. inaudible audio signal at the beginning of a commercial), and duplicate it and program your phone and other speakers to play them back anywhere and everywhere. The mall, the park, stadiums, restaurants, concerts, movie theaters, amusement parks, traffic jams (over your car stereo with your windows rolled down), YouTube videos, etc.

There's an apocryphal story that at the end of the Cold War, members of the KGB and CIA got together for beer and to swap war stories. The CIA spooks lamented how hard their job had been. They had to struggle just to get anyone into the country since the Soviet Union was such a closed society, while the KGB could simply enter on a tourist visa and drive up to (and even take a tour of) most targets in the U.S. The KGB spooks disagreed, saying that theirs had been the harder job. The U.S. produced so much information that they had to devote huge resources to sift through it all to figure out which was credible and which was not. e.g. If the National Enquirer published a story about the USAF testing a captured UFO at Area 51, they had to figure out if it was made-up or if there was really something to it.

Prior shArt

[dohzer]

Prior shArt; already shouldn't exist.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So.....

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

....how is this not illegal?

It seems like a classic example of wiretapping, especially as it's done without the user's consent (EULAs notwithstanding).

Fucking marketers...they should all die in a fire.

This is reason #3,255,094,649 as to why I don't use Facebook.

Re:So.....

[Travelsonic]

It seems like a classic example of wiretapping, especially as it's done without the user's consent (EULAs notwithstanding).

Being in an EULA alone doesn't make it legal or un-challengable.

Re:So.....

[thegarbz]

....how is this not illegal? It seems like a classic example of wiretapping

Since when is wiretapping wiretapping when the person being "wiretapped" actively consents to the "wiretapping"?

Don't use apps

[tsa]

This is why I don't use apps. They steal your contact lists, use your camera and microphone when it's not necessary for the functioning of the app and they do some mining on the side. Apps suck. Use the website.

Re:Don't use apps

[thegarbz]

This is why I don't use apps. They steal your contact lists, use your camera and microphone when it's not necessary for the functioning of the app and they do some mining on the side. Apps suck. Use the website.

This is why I don't do generalisations. Posts like the above which make wildly inaccurate generalisations would make me look stupid so I apply some thought and only talk in specifics.

Re:Don't use apps

[mjwx]

This is why I don't use apps. They steal your contact lists, use your camera and microphone when it's not necessary for the functioning of the app and they do some mining on the side. Apps suck. Use the website.

This, uninstalled Facebook and now use Firefox with Ublock and Ghostery. As a side effect, I get about 20% more idle time on my battery.

Re: Patent? Should be a law BANNING THIS!~

[Reverend Green]

Or just make it illegal, no option for (always fake) consent.

Begin to record?

[Askmum]

How can the smartphone ever hear the audio fingerprint if it is not already listing to everything at all times? So this can only work if the smartphone is already hearing everything and then I don't see a reason why you need a trigger to send everything that is overheard to facebook.

Lets just hope that this only works when you have the facebook app installed. So don't install that app. If you really need that shite... errr... site, you can also open it in you browser.

Re:Begin to record?

[GumphMaster]

Indeed, but here is the bit I didn't initially get... if it starts recording when it hears an audio signal from a TV or the like then surely what it records will mostly be the audio from said TV. If the trigger is at the start of an advert and then starts recording then they would the record the audio of the ad... something they already know. If they collect say 10 seconds of audio from before the trigger event and run for ad-length-plus- 20 seconds they get to hear the content that precedes and follows. I could see this being useful to advertisers trying to verify the honesty of the broadcasters. You'd generate verifiable trace of the ad being broadcast. You could see when you ad triggers a channel change. You could also verify compliance with contract conditions stipulating that your ad not run next to competitor's adverts, inside certain shows etc. These are thing FB could make money from: privacy be damned.

Re:Begin to record?

[Askmum]

Why need such an elaborate scheme to check if your ad is being broadcast? Surely you can rig something to record a channel and check that programmatically? Why would you need a third party phone for that? Unless you want to check your exposure rate. And then still: why does Facebook need this and not the party that paid for the ad?
My first idea when reading your response was that Facebook was maybe trying to get the reaction to the ad from the viewer. "Hey! That's a cool gizamadoodle! Let's go out and buy that right now!"
But however I look at it, it is a wholly new level of intrustion alltogether. And yet another proof that that robot that's controlling Facebook can not be trusted.

Re:Begin to record?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the track you were running down, it was just heading the wrong direction. Now, it is plausible that compliance can be monitored this way but I'm thinking that would just be a happy side effect. What is more important to the advertisers, which is what FB wants to provide, are things like did they change channels as soon as it aired? Did they watch the whole thing? Did they swap channels but then come back a minute or 2 later or did it run them away from the channel altogther. Did users immediately go to the advertised website or hit up the hashtag or whatever. The advertisers want us to prove to thier prospective customers that correlation DOES equal causation. "Our firm averages an uptick of 72% in wepage traffic when you buy this ad. Our competition can't provide you these stats so why waste your time with lesser bitches?"

Re:Begin to record?

[Miamicanes]

It would also help advertisers to catch networks and streaming services that habitually mangle their commercials by cutting them off a second or two early, or showing the same commercial multiple times in a row. Anybody who's ever used the CW's streaming app (and CW Seed) knows exactly what I'm talking about... it's not bad enough they show 30-40 minutes of commercials per 40 minutes of actual show... they make you watch the same commercials over... and over... and over... often back to back (to back to back), and routinely cut off the last 2-3 seconds.

Seriously, though... CW is the worst, but other streaming services do it too. I can almost see it being tolerated with live TV channels (where cable companies or local affiliates get to insert a commercial or two of their own into specific timeslots marked by embedded DTMF tones, and when that time's up "the show must go on"), but it blows my mind that streaming services don't just do it... they (seemingly) do it a hundred times WORSE than cable, satellite, and OTA channels EVER did. And WHY?!? It's not like anybody is going to genuinely CARE if a streaming show with nominal length of 60 minutes ends up running for 60 minutes and 19 seconds. Streaming is on-demand ANYWAY. There's no NEED for shows to be rigidly tied to any specific timetable. If they only have enough ads to show 3 minutes worth of ads instead of 20-40, they should just show each ad once (maybe twice, at least 20 minutes apart), show the ad in its entirety from start to finish without cutting anything off, and end the show in 43 minutes instead of senselessly subjecting you to the same ads over and over just because their system is set up to do it that way. And if they can fill enough ads to run the full 60 minutes, but showing the ads in their entirety means it takes 60 minutes and 19 seconds, SO FUCKING BE IT.

Another thing that's utterly PLAGUED the CW streaming channel lately in South Florida... they've been running endless ads in Spanish during shows like "The Flash", "Supergirl", "Legends of Tomorrow", and "Supergirl". If you think about it, it's completely INSANE... they're showing Spanish ads on a channel that shows only English-language shows and whose viewers, by literal definition of watching the show, know English. And unlike broadcast TV, the streaming shows don't have alternate captions in other languages, or SAP.

I can't help wondering, what crazy local ad agency is pissing away their client's advertising budget on those pointless ads, or what possible additional value they think they're getting from showing Spanish ads on English shows compared to the value they'd have gotten from showing a commercial in English.

Re: Disable Mic

[Reverend Green]

Airplane mode is software controlled. You're just asking the OS, "pretty please turn off the cell modem".

Android is a user-hostile system where actual control of the OS is in the hands of an overtly evil corporation. I therefore see no reason whatsoever to imagine that Android would respect a user's request to disable the cell modem (or camera or mic) if Google preferred otherwise.

prior art: Miranda !

[e**(i pi)-1]

Somebody watched too much Serenity (movie from 2005), where reactions of River are triggered by TV messages https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0... It is insane what some consider now patentable.

How is that patentable?

[drinkypoo]

Just because they do it with a microphone instead of a cable? AGES ago, there was a product for your desktop PC that did the same thing. You'd run a cable from one of the audio outputs from your sound system (and the cable end had an RCA passthrough) and then into your sound card. Then a daemon on your PC would listen for audio blips that would tell it what website to visit to accompany programming. IIRC they gave them away at Rat Shack, and I went in just to get the cable which was a nice long piece of free coax with RCA on one end, and a miniplug on the other.

How is this not...

[mchall]

... straight up illegal wire-tapping? Facebook is effing evil.

Re: If you have Facebook installed ...

[ConceptJunkie]

That's awful. I do use Facebook a lot, but I never installed it on my phone, and don't want it.

Read: CueCat

[Kancept]

It's already been done.