171

Like, we all know they're listening , but can we provide proof?

My friend was complaining about all the new super surveillance that will be government required in cars after 2027, and I said to him dude you have a stock android, you use every AI slop feature, you use a smart TV on your unsecured network, and uses x every day. They have everything they could possibly need on him. Oh and he posts questionable things to fb daily under his real name.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ResistingArrest@lemmy.zip 51 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
[-] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 24 points 1 week ago

My Samsung TV is not on the WiFi and I have AdGuard running network-wide because of shit like this.

[-] ResistingArrest@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 week ago

https://www.howtogeek.com/you-can-still-buy-a-dumb-tv-but-should-you/ This article outlines the situation really well. your two options to not be spied on out of the box are to buy a terrible TV or to buy a commercial one. They dont make "dumb tvs" anymore. I wonder if theres a way to implement one's own firmware n all that to turn a nice samsung into something more private.

[-] its_kim_love 12 points 1 week ago

I heard older versions of Android running on older smart TVs can be overwritten with Linux but once it's updated past a certain 2023 threshold that option is closed.

[-] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Here's court cases lost by Google and Apple

Also, whenever monolithic megacorporations not recording you directly, virtually everyone is still buying any data about you they can get from actual malware distributing criminals.

Microphone hijacking is real and commonplace. (Edit: Fixed link thanks to some feedback.)

The malware vendors sell what they learn about us on black markets. And in net effect, everyone is buying from them.

They "Privacy Wash" the things they learn from the illegal recordings, by passing them from one disreputable broker to another. Each broker can keep poor quality records of exactly where they got their data. Pretty soon it's just "part of your digital fingerprint" and "can't be helped".

[-] Alberat@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Thanks for providing links but I don't trust the ny post.

Here's a story where people working for Apple got access to audio recorded during seemingly unwanted times like during sex.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings

But I imagine these people were enabling voice recording in the first place. I trust my phone not to record if I disable those features (though sometimes they make this difficult).

I think Apple is generally better about this stuff then other companies though? Since they actually went to court to protect e2e encryption.

Lastly, if youre someone of interest to powerfull people, there are otherways they can use your phone against you like with pegasus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware)

[-] eleitl@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

I don't trust my smartdevices farther than I can throw them. Hence, I run GrapheneOS.

[-] frozenspinach@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

One's a settlement with a blanket denial of guilt for Siri and Google Assistant. At least mild circumstantial evidence, because there's a real mechanism (accidental activation and recording) is identified, but no proof, and certainly no proof of an ongoing intentional data broker style program. But at least enough of a pain that they won a settlement. So that counts as a trace of meaningful circumstantial evidence.

But the second one is just a link to sell you a product that doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever and doesn't even pretend to, it discusses the possibility in vague generalities as something hackable and tries to sell you a product. I'm baffled as to why you think that counts as a source.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Lars_Tanner@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago

Mark Zuckerberg puts a sticker over his laptop camera and microphone.

[-] FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago

He also gave his famous opinion about Facebook users. Deep down, he agrees with privacy advocates. The diff is that he's a shitty enough person to take advantage of the less techy people out there even if his society will be damaged badly in the process. Most of us are not that shitty.

they trust me

dumb fucks

I think we can move beyond Facebook here. Trusting big tech with your data never works out well.

[-] sakuraba@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago

the biggest hypocrites are tech CEO's limiting their children's screen time and forbidding social media

[-] harambe69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

Are drug lords who are not actively overdosing on their adulterated products also hypocrites?

[-] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

I mean kind of yeah

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You can get sound from any speaker by hacking the electrical signals generated in reverse.

Edit: instructions for the two idiots who don't know a magnet moving through a coil generates electricity.

Turn ANY Speaker Into a Microphone in Just 2 Easy Steps. - Instructables https://share.google/MIRGTgGhJ59TIVsfC

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mech@feddit.org 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The manufacturers tell you.

And they even make you click the "I have read and understood this" button under the document that explicitly states that they're spying on you and selling all your data.

[-] glitching@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 week ago

don't need any such "proof". the whole industry has lost any and all benefit-of-doubt privileges, for ever. they don't get an opportunity to gain a foothold in mi casa and possibly be in a position to do harm.

I don't get the idea that after all the shit they pulled someone's like "well maybe this new thing's nice".

those are immoral people with zero compunctions about doing anything that hurts you, your community, and humanity as a whole. we are in an adversarial position and you'd do well to remind yourself of that constantly.

[-] FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

I don’t get the idea that after all the shit they pulled someone’s like “well maybe this new thing’s nice”.

I look at my friends who do this even though I advize them not to. For them, data is invisible and out of sight, out of mind. Their TV is a consumer device like IDK a toaster or washing machien. They put it online with no real thought to data or privacy. From their perspective this is normal. Their neighbors all do it with their TVs. Their friends all do it! I am the only one who makes a warning to them. Everyone else they know does it. Who wouldn't want a "smart" TV???

They don't understand tech very well and they feel like what they see most people doing must be good. They are not thinking about the eroding effect on their whole society from normalizing dragnet surveillance and total privacy loss. It's too abstract, and the allure of the shiny is too much.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] frozenspinach@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

don’t need any such “proof”

I'm gonna stop you there. I'm okay with no benefit of the doubt in terms of them being bad actors, but your worldview still has to be built at the bones and joints out of things known to be true otherwise there's no stopping you from believing every conspiracy with no guard rails.

I don't think there's yet a specific smoking gun on this front, but I think once there is, then it is okay to presume it likely happening in other instances. But no smoking gun just yet.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Gonzako@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Puedo yo poner in foothold en tu casa?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] 9point6@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's still never been proven despite countless very smart people looking for this exact behaviour for well over a decade now. The first person to actually prove this whole mass spying via microphone to sell ads thing is actually happening, would be world-famous overnight.

For instance on an android phone, it's not really possible for an app to do something that a determined enough security researcher couldn't ultimately detect if they were looking for it. When you can build your own version of the operating system and decompile the application easily, there's not really any other places to hide that won't give something away.

If you feel like your phone is acting off of a conversation you had without interacting with it, it's nearly always one of these three:

  • The vast majority of people are super predictable most of the time.
  • You are not accounting for other people in the conversation, who may well have just googled the thing. These companies know who you spend time with, they don't need a microphone for that.
  • Baader meinhof phenomenon

Don't get me wrong, I've thought surely something fishy was going on plenty of times, but the reality is, until someone can actually prove it (which is entirely possible to do if it's happening), it's gotta just be the above. We're being tracked a crazy amount, but it's not passively by microphones in our pockets

Note: none of this applies if you're actually being specifically individually targeted (i.e. by a hostile government). All bets are off in that instance

[-] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The first person to actually prove this whole mass spying via microphone to sell ads thing is actually happening, would be world-famous overnight.

The first person that proves that Google, Microsoft, Amazon or Meta are directly doing it, using their hardware vendors privilege - would be famous overnight.

But that won't happen, because they don't have to.

(Okay, it might still happen with Meta. I'm not sure those jackasses have any self respect.)

In general, the big vendors don't need to listen to anyone's microphone, because the average user installs a free flappy bird clone that runs the microphone continuously, and then sells that to absolutely every single limited liability corporation, coffee shop, or data broker - to correlate for advertising.

Saying "they're not using the microphone" is splitting hairs to death.

Yes, a few of the biggest players can't be arsed to directly use the microphone.

Instead they buy the result of malware microphone use indirectly from the malware pushers who do absolutely use the microphone.

Absolutely every tech company, employer and three letter agency is buying the content of your voice recordings through a form of Privacy Washing. They didn't collect it themselves, and they didn't look to closely at how it was collected, so it's okay, right?

For the average user, whose kid installed some stupid little free games, yes, someone is almost certainly "listening" right now, and all the time.

But they're not using it to decide who to arrest, who to deport, or who to hire or fire (for saying "union"), or whether you really need the salary you requested...unless they are.

And yes, finding out some of that would absolutely make the news, but those are harder to find out, and could go for decades undiscovered.

[-] dev_null@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah, but that malware flappy bird clone does need to ask for the microphone permission, and the clueless user does need to click agree, that yes they want Free Flappy Bird 100% Legit Pro to have access to their microphone. Yes it happens. But that's not what people mean they say that you should use a flip phone and get the battery out when you are not using it otherwise it's listening to you. No it's not listening to you unless you explicitly gave an app permission to listen to you.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Gork@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Anecdotal, but I was on a Boy Scout trip as a chaperone where us parents were talking to each other in person about where we'd take our first break en route to the campsite. We decided on a Burger King at one of the towns along the route (it being a small town, the only one there). My phone was in my pocket at the time, powered on but black screen idle.

I got back into my car and pulled up Google Maps. As I typed in the words Burger King, it auto completed with the one we were just talking about that was half a state away in that town. It didn't pull up the closest one to me, which I would have expected it to do.

Freaked me out.

[-] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

That one could be attributed to shitty programming. Still.

[-] utopiah@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago

The very notion of proof implies that you can reproduce it. So I would suggest you forget what anybody here or elsewhere said. Instead, you :

  • get a cheap phone (so typically Android)
  • reset/format/flash it to a blank state
  • make a new testing account on it
  • use for random browsing, using app, etc and you log your history, namely what did you actually do AND what ads you actually see
  • test for something outside of your new habits with a search query, then log and compare again, seeing the threshold to change
  • repeat the last step for something said using e.g. a voice assistant, log&compare
  • repeat WITHOUT explicit search, log&compare

Yes this takes a of time but that will help you make YOUR own opinion on the matter if you genuinely care.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Xerxos@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

Okay, so here is my story:

I was on holiday with my friends and we were playing a TTRPG. In the RPG our group needed charol tablets. I have never in my life googled or needed something like that.

After the session, I opened up Amazon to buy something I forget to pack and voilà: Amazon suggested me to buy charol tablets.

My smartphone must have listened in and given that data to Amazon.

No Alexa or similar products were in the vacation home.

[-] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

Who in your group didn't know what charol tablets were and looked them up?

[-] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

I and everyone I know have similar stories. They are listening

[-] Xerxos@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago

Just think about the scale of the surveillance: every smartphone user is being monitored 24/7 in hope to find something to sell them.

If you hate AI because it wastes so much energy, think about the cost for the this: Energy, water, battery life, bandwidth, ... And in contrast to AI the 'users' don't get anything in return.

[-] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Just another reason they want to build even more data centers!

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] bl4kers@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

There's no need for uploading a constant audio feed or transcript (something that would be easy for researchers to detect in the network logs) to show you an advertisement like that.

Your phone knows all the things you wrote in the post, namely: your location, that you are physically with those friends, the wifi network, the search history of everyone there. Because of all that metadata, advertisers probably know you were playing a TTRPG, maybe even the specific one

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mulcahey@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

AFAIK this is the only evidence: a claim by a marketing company that they're actually doing it. However, they have some reason to lie about this, bc it makes them sound all-knowing and powerful to their clients.

https://www.404media.co/cmg-cox-media-actually-listening-to-phones-smartspeakers-for-ads-marketing/

[-] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago

It is not the only evidence, as you say, but it is particularly good evidence.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip 9 points 1 week ago

Aside from devices that acknowledge theyre listening all the time there actually isnt any, for undisclosed data collection via microphone specifically. Research has, to my knowledge, never found that to be the case

Researchers have generally explained that they dont need to listen to what you say with a microphone- they collect so much data about you they can accurately model what you're likely to have any interest in, and when that happens frequently enough confirmation bias takes over.

That being said, yes, that person is having all of their data collected, by meta directly and through cookies tracking them around the web. By google and android. By ai, and other companies. By the tracking images in the emails they open. Etc. Theres lots of evidence for all of those things

And there is evidence for companies having collected data that people didnt concent to, like when google tracked location data that people opted out of sharing (there was a lawsuit) or meta recently ended up in the news for circumventing the sandboxing around the Facebook app to collect mobile web activity in a way they're not supposed to be able to.

[-] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Aside from devices that acknowledge theyre listening all the time there actually isnt any, for undisclosed data collection via microphone specifically. Research has, to my knowledge, never found that to be the case

Please stop quoting this misinformation.

Microphone hijacking is real, and it is common. The average user has been a victitm of it.

And in addition, Google and Apple effectively admitted to microphone abuse in court.

[-] dev_null@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Did they? I read the article and the conclusion is they got fined but didn't admit to anything, nor was any proof shown that they did anything. The whole thing was about Siri getting activated by ambient noise.

[-] Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Neither of those sources really disagree with what I said, though I do appreciate you adding the additional context because those things are worth knowing about

Smart speaker research: Security researchers have documented potential vulnerabilities in smart speakers and voice assistants.

• Mobile security: Documented cases of spyware accessing device microphones have been reported.

• Enterprise security: Organizations have reported incidents involving unauthorized audio access.

• Application permissions: Studies have shown some applications requesting unnecessary microphone access.

None of those are really the widespread, passive, undisclosed listening for advertising data that people imagine there to be and that OP appeared to be asking about. The google and apple lawsuit is about google assistant and siri triggering unintentionally, which is a feature that discloses its always listening which I mentioned at the very beginning

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/facebook-doesnt-need-listen-through-your-microphone-serve-you-creepy-ads old article but the eff is pretty reputable

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/features/no-your-iphone-isnt-listening-to-you-heres-but-the-truth-is-even-worse/ from 2025

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

Regarding TVs, WikiLeaks' Vault 7 publication in 2017 included "Weeping Angel", CIA malware for Samsung TVs which streams audio from them while they're in "fake off" mode.

https://mashable.com/article/cia-samsung-tv-hack-weeping-angel

[-] ragas@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago
[-] f4f4f4f4f4f4f4f4@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

Fuck that tabloid, the Daily Mail... but there was the guy who was attempting to mod his robovac so he could control it with a PlayStation controller. The AI he was using to help ended up giving him keys that let him remotely access thousands of robovacs, including their cameras and mics.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Tesla employees watched videos.

Tesla workers shared sensitive images recorded by customer cars | Reuters https://share.google/MJUtuy8pySKKhu8FW

They shared a video of a child getting hit because they found it amusing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sakuraba@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

Every device made to receive voice commands (Smart TVs, Amazon Echo) WILL listen to everything you say.

And if they provide a button or setting to turn that off you are relying on trusting them to comply with it (I don't think they do and even if they are found doing it they will probably pay a minuscule fine for it)

[-] meathorse@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Think of something you've never mentioned or discussed before, then out of nowhere, start having a conversation with a friend about it, how much you like it and are thinking about getting it, taking lessons etc then see what happens over the next week on either your or your friend's ads (turn off ad blocker if you use one).

I recommend something completely unusual for most people like an instrument (didgeridoo or cowbell)

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

many tv and phone manufacturers will literally say it in their license agreement.

i have read this in many different phones and some tvs.

[-] ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago

When I talk to somebody who has Facebook on their phone, an ad for that thing pops up in their feed. It's been obvious for years.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
171 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

47573 readers
1 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

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS