You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Spoilers:
- There's a secret microphone in google nest.
- Google made Pokemon Go with the help of the CIA partly as an experiment in behavioural control and also sell 'lure modules' to businesses like rare Pokemon etc to get footfall at their establishments.
- A pregnant woman's dad found out they were pregnant before they even knew because he was bombarded with baby related products - an algorithm detected changes in scent levels in her shampoo purchases as olfactory senses become more sensitive during pregnancy
- FB sell complex data from all pictures posted to facial recognition companies for military/repressive state use in places like eg China where it's used to oppress Uighur minorities
I wondered whether some of this was a bit conspiracy theorist, but it seems to check out. Makes me want to go and live in a cave.
sounds like conspiracy nonsense to me
If that video will make me think, I CBA with it.
Cool* will watch later, thanks.
I know the name, I'm sure I've watched her on a Ted talk? seems like she knows her stuff.
*Well, not cool, obvs, but you know what I mean
What really p***** me off here is that all this amazing maths is used to sell nappies and repress minorities when it could be used to target global poverty, plastic use and climate change. I wouldn't even care if this nonsense was a by-product of solving the above, a kind of quid pro quo for the cost of developing it but no...its the main event.
Still humans want shiny things, always have always will.
Well, the Pokemon one is real (renting pokemon zones or whatever they’re called to businesses, not the CIA thing 🤣). The others maybe sound far fetched but undoubtedly companies like FB and Google are always working on new ways to leverage the data they collect, that’s how they make money.
sounds like conspiracy nonsense to me
That's what I thought, but she is a legit academic and most of what she's saying is provably true from reliable sources. The preview image totally looks like she's a tinfoil loon, but watch the video and 'do your own research', ha! But from legitimate sources.
not the CIA thing
The CIA part is true.
Pretty sure the pregnancy one is true but here’s the thing you don’t HAVE to share your data you can opt out of it.
– A pregnant woman’s dad found out they were pregnant before they even knew because he was bombarded with baby related products – an algorithm detected changes in scent levels in her shampoo purchases as olfactory senses become more sensitive during pregnancy
That's making it sound far more interesting than it actually was- it was also 10 years ago so hardly cutting edge info. Kinda interesting though, and a good wee story:
There was a pub in Dunoon who had " we have pokemon inside" sign on their door
you don’t HAVE to share your data you can opt out of it
Good luck with that.
What really p***** me off here is that all this amazing maths is used to sell nappies and repress minorities when it could be used to target global poverty, plastic use and climate change. I wouldn’t even care if this nonsense was a by-product of solving the above, a kind of quid pro quo for the cost of developing it but no…its the main event.
This is the part that bothers me also, this tech could be used for amazing things but mostly it's just going to be used to make money for people like Mark Zuckerberg and make us all broke and unhappy.
it seems to check out
Really? You've just got someone you've not actually heard of giving you their word for YouTube hits? That doesn't constitute 'checking out' really.
Re secret listening - this has been debunked many times, at least with Alexa. Many security geeks have attached network monitoring to their networks and watched Alexa do nothing at all until the wake word is spoken. It's not storing it up, because it's not sending large amounts of audio data; and it's also not processing it on the device because it doesn't have the power to do that.
I remember, when Facebook first became a thing, thinking that it was a brilliant rouse by the CIA, in that they no longer had to spend ages working out who knew who and mapping webs of contacts like you see in the films, they could just create this thing and let everyone do it all for them.
@mashr - really you read that article and thought it was nothing concerning?
“Then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy, so the baby ads looked random. We’d put an ad for a lawn mower next to diapers. We’d put a coupon for wineglasses next to infant clothes. That way, it looked like all the products were chosen by chance.
“And we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn’t been spied on, she’ll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don’t spook her, it works.”
Re secret listening – this has been debunked many times, at least with Alexa. Many security geeks have attached network monitoring to their networks and watched Alexa do nothing at all until the wake word is spoken.
If it's not listening how does it know the wake word has been said
To take your headline items.
One of the google nest products did have a microphone in it that wasnt on the product listing.
The Pokemon company did start off at google but got spun off several years earlier. There are some links to In-Q-Tel which is the CIA venture capital fund.
The pregnant woman example is a well known big data story. Basically dad storms into a store complaining they have been sending his teenage daughter coupons for baby stuff. Few days later he apologises and says he wasnt aware of things which were going on. If someone is consistently shopping at one store then there are apparently give aways in terms of purchases. Nothing only surprising and it is, after all, the entire point behind store cards to be able to gather massive amounts of info and then play connect the dots.
For Facebook too lazy to check but it wouldnt really surprise me beyond wondering why the Chinese authorities would use them and not their own companies.
– A pregnant woman’s dad found out they were pregnant before they even knew because he was bombarded with baby related products – an algorithm detected changes in scent levels in her shampoo purchases as olfactory senses become more sensitive during pregnancy
How much shampoo was this woman getting through :-0 ?
No molgrips as I've already mentioned I've read up on it and found legit sources backing up what she says. 🙄
.
Oookay, first sentence of the video - pushing her status on the listener by likening her to previous intellectuals. Second sentence - describing the book (that she's flogging) as 'monumental' thereby inflating its status; then inserting the idea that there is a 'dubious' surveillance economy.
All rhetorical devices to persuade you to believe the same things as the speaker/writer already does, rather than presenting evidence that we can evaluate ourselves. This is a campaign video for someone's personal cause.
Our private lives have been monetiesed? Really? Are our choices of shampoo actually private? Not really, because the shopkeeper knows what you bought. The only difference is that in the past, they didn't care or weren't able to sell that information. However, arguably, the past was more insidious - I mean if your local shopkeeper saw you buying say, a pregnancy test, that would have started the gossip mill amongst the people who actually knew you. Rather than a corporation anonymously flogging you stuff, you'd be being judged by those around you. So I'm arguing that what some of us think of as 'private' never really was.
If it’s not listening how does it know the wake word has been said
It stores a couple of seconds of audio and scans it for the wake word you've chosen. It can only do very basic recognition of a single word, that's why you can only choose three pre-programmed words and not any phrase, it's also why you can't naturally talk to it or include it in context, and why you can't ask it about stuff you've already said before the wake word.
Amazon/Google are businesses, very successful, and dominant. They have published terms and conditions that say what they do and how the devices work. They would have to be outright lying about what they did with your data. The risk of lying like this would be absolutely massive - the US govt would destroy them - and they don't even need to do it. So it would make no sense as a business decision.
Re secret listening – this has been debunked many times, at least with Alexa. Many security geeks have attached network monitoring to their networks and watched Alexa do nothing at all until the wake word is spoken. It’s not storing it up, because it’s not sending large amounts of audio data; and it’s also not processing it on the device because it doesn’t have the power to do that.
These devices apparently 'accidentally' record you up to 19 times a day for up to 43 seconds at a time. According to researchers at Northeastern University and Imperial College London “these aren’t just hypothetical concerns from paranoid users”.
molgrips did you actually watch more than the first 5 seconds of the video before making up your mind? The point is that the level of information available and the tools to analyse it is indescribably more massive than anything we've ever had before, and that's only going to increase.
You are totally fine with the incredible power and lack of oversight that companies like FB and Google have? Or are you just being contrarian for the sake of it as usual.
Given that 90% of the verbal interactions in our house are me and Mrs Binners shouting "what?" at each other from other rooms, I doubt any device is going to benefit too much from listening to us 😀
These devices apparently ‘accidentally’ record you up to 19 times a day for up to 43 seconds at a time.
You can view what they've recorded. And it's pretty obvious when you accidentally set it off, as it starts blathering on about nonsense. So yes, there is a risk that some personal information might be sent to Amazon, but that's a VERY long way from them having purposefully created the software and infrastructure to parse those accidental recordings sniffing out clues as to what you might want to buy next.
Re accidentally activating a listening device - I'm thinking of making a dance track that simply contains the lyric 'Alexa, louder!' repeated over and over.
We had to move our Alexa during United games when Alexis Sanchez played for us
molgrips did you actually watch more than the first 5 seconds of the video before making up your mind?
This is not a new topic, and it's not the first I've heard of it either.
You are totally fine with the incredible power and lack of oversight that companies like FB and Google have?
Where'd you get that idea from? I'm simply adding context, which is that people have always been interested in what you get up to and this isn't some dystopian horror show. Privacy in terms of how you interact with companies (i.e. shop) has always been an illusion.
A supermarket loyalty card will tell Tesco or Morrisons a damn site more about your shopping habits than any internet surveillance or listening devices, but nobodies bothered about them
Whataboutery binners
This is a campaign video for someone’s personal cause.
She has an angle obviously. But the video comes from a Dutch public service broadcaster, she is a Harvard academic dealing with social psychology in the Harvard School of Business. My initial prejudiced reaction was why is YouTube showing me this conspiracy BS after I watched a video by Prof John Ashworth about Coronavirus, but then I actually watched it and looked into it. And I have actual research and critical thinking skills that I studied at university, not that I'm claiming that's infallible but I'm not just accepting naturalearthnews as a source.
but nobodies bothered about them
Well aside from it being one of the examples given in the first post.
Without watching the video, I suspect the TLDR/W is just "if you're not paying for the service, you are the product"
but nobodies bothered about them
Some of us are and don't use them.
you don’t HAVE to share your data you can opt out of it.
Not on google you can't, nor Facebook. Hence I use Brave and get it to clear cookies at each close. What I do is my business alone, you want to know pay me for my data!
I don't use supermarket loyalty cards either due to privacy concerns.
BTW another aspect to Brexit is that we are no longer covered by EU privacy laws, woo!
Also, some of the info used by people like eg Cambridge Analytica was taken illegitimately in contravention of what people had agreed to.
The data was collected through an app called thisisyourdigitallife, built by academic Aleksandr Kogan, separately from his work at Cambridge University. Through his company Global Science Research (GSR), in collaboration with Cambridge Analytica, hundreds of thousands of users were paid to take a personality test and agreed to have their data collected for academic use.
However, the app also collected the information of the test-takers’ Facebook friends, leading to the accumulation of a data pool tens of millions-strong. Facebook’s “platform policy” allowed only collection of friends’ data to improve user experience in the app and barred it being sold on or used for advertising.
Whataboutery binners
Not every single comparative argument should be dismissed as inconvenient what-aboutry. the comparison to store cards collecting data about you and Alexa listening to you...to collect data about you is a valid point.
the part that bothers me also, this tech could be used for amazing things
Perhaps it is, but the perpetually offended can't easily get upset by stuff like Google search data being able to identify potential disease outbreaks a week or more before they start to show up in medical data.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61686-9
Well I'm not convinced any of you have actually watched the video, but as I already said lots of people are bothered about supermarket loyalty cards and don't use them due to privacy concerns - but this stuff is taking that concept to new completely unprecedented and fairly extreme levels, and it has profound implications for democracy in a way that store loyalty cards never did. They could be seen as a precursor, but other than that I don't really see the relevance. It's like saying nuclear weapons are fine because no-one cares that much about kid's catapults.
Perhaps it is, but the perpetually offended can’t easily get upset by stuff like Google search data being able to identify potential disease outbreaks a week or more before they start to show up in medical data.
I'm aware of that, thanks, but it doesn't alter the fact that the main motive for the development of this technology is profit for unaccountable billionaires. Is it worth it to get the good stuff? Maybe, but I don't recall that ever being discussed/voted on etc
BTW another aspect to Brexit is that we are no longer covered by EU privacy laws, woo!
Except we are because the data protection act was amended to include gdpr and the ico have confirmed this will continue to apply.
that's not what the whattaboutary was aboutNot every single comparative argument should be dismissed as inconvenient what-aboutry. the comparison to store cards collecting data about you and Alexa listening to you…to collect data about you is a valid point.
Well if anyone from GCHQ or MI5 or whatever is reading this.....
You know as well as the rest of us grownups that Brexit is a lie and the rise of populism under that cynical greased piglet Johnson is predicated on that lie and other lies of a similar ilk. Those of us who can see it for what it is will never let it go. So tell that to Alexander on his next briefing.
There, that felt goooooood.....
but this stuff is taking that concept to new completely unprecedented and fairly extreme levels, and it has profound implications for democracy in a way that store loyalty cards never did.
I don't disagree with this. But it's an evolution of what's been going on for decades, not some new evil phenomenon. Although the targeted (no pun intended) political ads are new.
You can opt out of Facebook, by the way, by not using it. There are also alternatives to Google. I think the big issue is that people are taking these services for granted without realising what they give to obtain them. Even though it's there in the T&Cs that no-one reads.
Magic always has a price...
that’s not what the whattaboutary was about
wasn't it? what was it then?
I'm not sure anyone is claiming it's new. In the video no-one bothered watching she suggests surveillance capitalism has been around for 20 years or so.
You can opt out of Facebook, by the way, by not using it.
I don't.
Look how easily this tech can be used to manipulate people even without some of the more sophisticated tools/data that has become available.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html
You can opt out of Facebook, by the way, by not using it
Well aside from the shadow profiles.
I don’t use supermarket loyalty cards either due to privacy concerns.
I don't really regard my weekly shop as private. It is just not interesting enough for me to care if other people know about it. Besides, would the truly paranoid not assume they can link purchases to your payment card anyway, or do you only use cash?
In return for them knowing how much hummus, bog roll and Fab ice lollies I buy, they give me points that I spend on meals out or, more recently, nice Denby crockery for my house. Seems fair.
Simply put, I don't care that much about most of my data to worry if algorithms are mining it or organisations are trying to use it for commercial gain. Ultimately only I chose where to spend my money.
PS, watching YouTube videos is not research. This is clearly proven by flat earthers.
I’m not sure anyone is claiming it’s new.
It's insinuated - people seem automatically to think 'oh these new things are evil we need to go back to the good old days', from reading the knee-jerk comments on SM, but it's not quite that simple. And that lack of thought from many irritates me.
PS, watching YouTube videos is not research. This is clearly proven by flat earthers.
What if you are researching 'village idiot, ducking stool, witch hunting, ****wittery in a modern context' for your PhD?
I don’t use supermarket loyalty cards either due to privacy concerns.
If this is the level of paranoia you’ve achieved - then you’d better ditch everything & I mean EVERYTHING. Go completely off-grid. No tech. Live off the land. Cash only for any purchases you might make, that’s if you’re not going to barter for things. Ditching loyalty cards won’t change anything. Every time you drive past an ANPR camera, enter a shopping precinct or town centre with its CCTV, use your credit card, tap in & tap out on public transport - your movements are recorded. Ditching a loyalty card isn’t going to cover your tracks.
Surveillance is everywhere - now, whether or not you’re concerned about whether someone knows that you went & bought a pasty from Greggs in the town centre with your debit card & you parked in the multi-story for 43 minutes or not...I don’t know, but if you’re worried enough to ditch your loyalty card then I don’t think you’ve gone far enough with your precautions.
Personally, I’ve nothing to hide. My tastes are pretty simple: bikes, beer, good food & coffee. Security Services can knock themselves out with my browser history.
@nickc whattaboutary is claiming that thing A is irrelevant because thing B is similar, but worse, which seems to be at odds to your actual point, so maybe just a misunderstanding of semantics, because obviously both ARE relevant in this instance.
Re accidentally activating a listening device – I’m thinking of making a dance track that simply contains the lyric ‘Alexa, louder!’ repeated over and over.
Pete Tong played a track last month which did something similar
PS, watching YouTube videos is not research.
Good thing no-one has claimed it is then.
Cash only for any purchases you might make, that’s if you’re not going to barter for things. Ditching loyalty cards won’t change anything.
Reductio ad absurdum. You don't have to take everything to extremes to have the right to take small steps, and TBH I don't not have loyalty cards because I think it will change anything I just don't like the idea of them, and frankly I always have too much shite in my wallet without them anyway.
And I don't use Facebook partly because I think they are evil data-mining ****s but mainly because it's designed to be addictive and I have poor impulse control!
Ooh look there's the sneering I was expecting.
Just because it's everywhere, doesn't make it right nor proper. My choices are mine and yours are yours I'm happy that you're comfortable with your choices.
I'm no longer on the major social media websites as a logged in user, I occasionally look in to follow a post from somewhere else as far as is practicable but in the main life is much better without them.
Simply put, I don’t care that much about most of my data to worry if algorithms are mining it or organisations are trying to use it for commercial gain. Ultimately only I chose where to spend my money.
This. I get free stuff and they tell me about offers on other stuff that I like.
It's hardly the decline of western civilisation, is it?
You don't have to use facebook or Google. Its not like they're compulsory
I pity anyone having to look into any aspect of my life. Particularly at the moment where nipping to Tesco is like a trip to a theme park.
Should anyone be interested, I'm having a cheese and onion pie for my lunch
Personally, I’ve nothing to hide. My tastes are pretty simple: bikes, beer, good food & coffee. Security Services can knock themselves out with my browser history.
Not really the point though is it, as I'm sure you're well aware.
It’s hardly the decline of western civilisation, is it?
Not in itself, but there's good evidence it was fairly important in the success of the Brexit campaign, which led to the subsequent installation of the same team at No 10. I'm not sure you're a big fan?
I don’t use supermarket loyalty cards either due to privacy concerns.
&
TBH I don’t not have loyalty cards because I think it will change anything I just don’t like the idea of them, and frankly I always have too much shite in my wallet without them anyway.
Make your mind up!
Should anyone be interested, I’m having a cheese and onion pie for my lunch
That had better be British cheese or Liz Truss will send you to one of the camps.
Should anyone be interested, I’m having a cheese and onion pie for my lunch
I know.
Nice slippers, by the way.
Make your mind up!
It's both. I don't like the idea of them because I don't like the idea of them using my data to sell me more stuff. If you look into the way supermarkets use psychology it's a bit creepy. I'm sure you think you're too smart to be affected or unless I live in a bunker and grow everything hydroponically I've no right to comment, or something equally stupid.
You don't have to buy the stuff they try to sell you, you know?
If you look into the way supermarkets use psychology it’s a bit creepy.
Why? We all know what they're doing. They just want us to buy more stuff off them and not their competitors. If you play the game then you get free stuff and cheaper stuff. Theres not much sinister about that.
I spend most of my life designing stuff to aid various businesses doing the same thing. Theres nothing sinister about it. I'm doing so for a large cosmetics retailer at the moment. I'm not using mind control techniques. I just make it look nice
Really? Wow. Any more brilliant insight to offer binners? Are you one of those people who likes to kid themselves that marketing/advertising doesn't work on you? 🙄
And yes, if you just ignore all the stuff you don't want to think about and highlight one benign aspect of all this then it's fine, yay!
Makes me want to go and live in a cave.
Using complex data harvesting and subliminal systems for influencing behaviour ,developed by Mosad and sold to a clandestine black ops wing of Wookie Hole Visitor Centre Marketing Department, you've been persuaded to want to go and spend more time in a cave.
you’ve been persuaded to want to go and spend more time in a cave.
I knew Big Cave would have a hand in this somewhere.
Are you one of those people who likes to kid themselves that marketing/advertising doesn’t work on you?
Marketing/advertising is just another form of communication. Done well it works, done badly (which it mostly is) it doesn't.
On the scale of 'stuff I need to worry about' people using my data to market things at me is right up there with what should I have for my tea
Most of you arguing this doesn't matter are basically just saying, 'so what if this tech is used for really sinister stuff which I'm indirectly contributing to, and to the general destruction of the planet by driving ever greater consumption, the concentration of power in the hands of billionaires, and the erosion of democratic oversight, I'm doing fine thanks'. That's a legit position but you could at least try and be honest about it.
And you find the time to watch people take penalties with fake crowd noise and not win any titles on a regular basis so you'd think you might have some headspace for caring about this stuff available. 😉
I think you're overthinking it
My pie was very nice. If I tell you where it was from is that sinister mind-manipulation too?
As far as I'm aware no bunnies were stamped to death or water courses poisoned in the procurement of my lunch
I think you’re overthinking it
I think you're underthinking it, but yes.... I've been self-employment furloughed for a loooooooong time..... Over-thinking is kinda my thing.
It’s both. I don’t like the idea of them because I don’t like the idea of them using my data to sell me more stuff. If you look into the way supermarkets use psychology it’s a bit creepy. I’m sure you think you’re too smart to be affected or unless I live in a bunker and grow everything hydroponically I’ve no right to comment, or something equally stupid.
WOOOOSHHHH.....
My point being loyalty cards are the least of your worries if you’re concerned about your privacy. Far greater steps are required if you truly want to escape it all - small steps just won’t be effective.
Ditching it all is the only way you’ll make a difference.
I'm aware of all that thanks and considered it to be so obvious as to not need pointing out, especially not in such a self-congratulatory, sneering way. But thanks for your contribution.
Ditching it all is the only way you’ll make a difference.
https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/black-and-white-thinking
so what if this tech is used for really sinister stuff which I’m indirectly contributing to, and to the general destruction of the planet by driving ever greater consumption, the concentration of power in the hands of billionaires, and the erosion of democratic oversight, I’m doing fine thanks
That's not what I'm saying at all.
I don't think you can directly blame data gathering for this. The implicit alternative to what you seem to be arguing is that if we DIDN'T have data gathering, everything would be fine. But this is not the case. All of those things did happen, to a lesser or in fact greater extent - and have been happening without Google and Facebook doing their bit. The problem has changed, for sure, but is it worse? When was the golden age of good government and democratic responsibility? Sure, evil forces can target voters effectively, but so can good causes, can't they?
A key point being overlooked here is that most of this stuff is still optional. But people don't choose to disengage. If they did - if we all left Facebook and went back to texting and calling - they'd collapse overnight. This is why it's essential to have this debate and to force transparency and yes, oversight. But it has to be better than just 'blame the evil companies for exploiting us' because that's really a weak argument and engages few people. Telling people to not use Google and Facebook isn't going to stick. I'm not citing you directly here, grum, I'm just talking about the general debate.
But campaigning for transparency, oversight and responsibility - that is a more positive and achievable goal, I think. For example - banning all political campaign postings on Facebook - that would be a good start, because of the ease with which it can be abused. They don't need political postings on there to make a living, and the parties don't need it either. Then something needs doing about the bot problem.
The implicit alternative to what you seem to be arguing is that if we DIDN’T have data gathering, everything would be fine.
First logical fallacy klaxon has sounded already...
🙄
I've read it along with a couple of her books - Shoshanna is a brilliant writer and anyone who doesn't believe that data is the next oil needs to read this!
But campaigning for transparency, oversight and responsibility – that is a more positive and achievable goal, I think. For example – banning all political campaign postings on Facebook – that would be a good start, because of the ease with which it can be abused. They don’t need political postings on there to make a living, and the parties don’t need it either. Then something needs doing about the bot problem.
The solution is simple. Social media firms should be subject to the same laws as publishers or broadcasters. You couldn't book a 30 second slot in the middle of Corrie or take out a full page ad in the Times to tell a pack of lies, so you shouldn't be able to do it on Facebook either.
The Hidden Pursuaders is a good read for some history on advertising & manipulation.
First logical fallacy klaxon has sounded already…
You missed the key word 'seem'. As in, that's what your posts APPEAR to be implying, whether or not you intend them to be. I'm not asserting that you are intending it.
If you assert A is false then people always infer that not A is true, even if it's not your point and it's not a binary thing.
A pregnant woman’s dad found out they were pregnant before they even knew because he was bombarded with baby related products
That pronoun is so wrong there. 🥵
If you assert A is false then people always infer that not A is true, even if it’s not your point and it’s not a binary thing.
People always try to read things into what you've said and argue against that rather than what you've actually said? Isn't that the straw man logical fallacy?
That pronoun is so wrong there.
It was a pretty clumsy sentence, are you meaning it sounds like dad and daughter were both pregnant? Not my intention!