(I know many of you already know it but this incident I experienced made me so paranoid about using smartphones)

To start off, I’m not that deep into privacy rabbit hole but I do as much I can possibly to be private on my phone. But for the rest of phones in my family, I generally don’t care because they are not tech savvy and pushing them towards privacy would make their lives hard.

So, the other day I pirated a movie for my family and since it was on Netflix, it was a direct rip with full HD. I was explaining to my family how this looks so good as this is an direct rip off from the Netflix platform, and not a recording of a screening in a cinema hall(camrip). It was a small 2min discussion in my native language with only English words used are record, piracy and Netflix.

Later I walk off and open YouTube, and I see a 2 recommendations pop-up on my homepage, “How to record Netflix shows” & “Why can’t you screen record Netflix”. THE WHAT NOW. I felt insanely insecure as I was sure never in my life I looked this shit up and it was purely based on those words I just spoke 5min back.

I am pretty secure on my device afaik and pretty sure all the listening happened on other devices in my family. Later that day, I went and saw which all apps had microphone access, moved most of them to Ask everytime and disabled Google app which literally has all the permissions enabled.

Overall a scary and saddening experience as this might be happening to almost everyone and made me feel it the journey I took to privacy-focused, all worth it.

    • ganymede@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      no, they don’t

      Please be careful with your claims.

      In my experience, whenever investigating these claims and refutations we usually find when digging past the pop media headlines into the actual academic claims, that noone has proven it’s not happening. If you know of a conclusive study, please link.

      Regarding the article you have linked we don’t even need to dig past the article to the actual academic claims.

      The very article you linked states quite clearly:

      The researchers weren’t comfortable saying for sure that your phone isn’t secretly listening to you in part because there are some scenarios not covered by their study.

      (Genuine question, not trying to be snarky) Will you take a moment to reflect on which factors may have contributed to your eagerness to misrepresent the conclusions of the studies cited in your article?

      • .Donuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Of course a researcher is never sure something is 100% ruled out. That’s part of how academic research works.

        My eagerness stems from being tired of anecdotes presented as evidence supporting a weird privacy conspiracy. This takes away from the actual issue at hand, which is your digital footprint and how your data is used.

        • ganymede@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Of course a researcher is never sure something is 100% ruled out. That’s part of how academic research works.

          once again, that isn’t what they were reported to have said. [and researchers don’t need to repeat the basic precepts of the scientific method in every paper they write, so perhaps its worthwhile to note what they were reported to say about that, rather than write it off as a generic ‘noone can be 100% certain of anything’] it’s a bit rich to blame someone for lacking rigor while repeatedly misrepresenting what your own article even says.

          what the article actually said is

          because there are some scenarios not covered by their study

          and even within the subset of scenarios they did study, the article notes various caveats of the study:

          Their phones were being operated by an automated program, not by actual humans, so they might not have triggered apps the same way a flesh-and-blood user would. And the phones were in a controlled environment, not wandering the world in a way that might trigger them: For the first few months of the study the phones were near students in a lab at Northeastern University and thus surrounded by ambient conversation, but the phones made so much noise, as apps were constantly being played with on them, that they were eventually moved into a closet

          there’s so much more research to be done on this topic, we’re FAR FAR from proving it conclusively (to the standards of modern science, not some mythical scientifically impossible certainty).

          presenting to the public that is a proven science, when the state of research afaict has made no such claim is muddying the waters.

          if you’re as absolutely correct as you claim, why misrepresent whats stated in the sources you cite?

          • .Donuts@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I’ve said this elsewhere but it would be piss easy to prove. I think it’s weird that we’re talking about how something can be true because it hasn’t been disproven, but not that something can’t be true because it hasn’t been proven.

            • ganymede@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              piss easy

              many domain experts dedicating significant resources to it’s study

              pick one.

              when your sources repeatedly don’t say what you claim they say, maybe its time to revisit your claims ;)

                • ganymede@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 hour ago

                  always listening

                  i never claimed always, i specifically advised op to refrain from claiming always.

                  how can you pretend to represent a sound scientific approach when you misrepresent the scientific claims made in sources you cite

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      tl;dr: “Strike that, reverse it.”

      They can bid all they want to put ads in front of me, I ain’t gonna see them. Of course, they probably know that, too.

    • zerozaku@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      I will watch these later. But recently one of the Facebook’s employee’s chat was leaked saying they listen to customer mics 24/7 via a third party. Google blocked the alleged third party and Facebook has ended ties with them too.

      What about it?

      • .Donuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        17 hours ago

        It was an ad partner’s pitch deck, not much to do with Facebook itself. And it didn’t really explain how it would be listening anyway.

        Besides, if they were recording, processing and / or transferring audio, that would mean there’s data usage, battery usage, etc - stuff that’s easy to prove.

        The truth is a lot simpler (and scarier) and you will find that in the links I provided.

      • .Donuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        19 hours ago

        If they actually prove something, I’d be happy to give them a watch. 40 minutes of some dudebro’s podcast with a phone in his hands doesn’t count

        • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          Listen, mister/miss. I tried it once and the reaction was bad because geopolitical reasons. Do I want to get banned by admin abuse? No. Do I want to start a political fight in a nice thread? Also no.