Ask HN: I bought Voltaren at the chemist, now Google shows me ads for it. Why? How does google know I bought Voltaren? Is my bank purchase history shared with google somehow? I guess it could just be coincidence? |
Ask HN: I bought Voltaren at the chemist, now Google shows me ads for it. Why? How does google know I bought Voltaren? Is my bank purchase history shared with google somehow? I guess it could just be coincidence? |
2. You are using a credit card and expecting not to be identified.
Everything else is details.
Have you ever noticed how you don't seem to see much of X, and then all of a sudden you see one X. And then you can't stop seeing X.
Though, googles probably spying on you.
I did bring my Android phone that has got Messenger lite installed, but that's stretching it tbh.
Google is an ad company, they sell your profile/interests and such to advertisers, it's their core business. So it's not "stretching" at all...
You can opt out of it, or simply signup for a rewards card and not use your real info.
"I wonder if I should buy X" but I dont actually want X and never search for it. That alone makes google ads start showing me ads about X.
If you want to avoid being tracked, use cash.
Google analyzes receipts. When I still used gmail, it would automatically add flights to my calendar based exclusively on the receipt sent to my gmail account.
Usually you make a 5-10 year purchase, like a TV or a large kitchen appliance, and they keep showing you ads for the exact same model.
Did you email anyone about it or receive any emails about it?
If so...
Your perception works in 2 modes - bottom-up (signal processing) - and the ad didn't make it through - and top-down (pattern recognition) - exactly the experience you report - you recognise a recent pattern.
Could it be? of the billions of items you could be advertised for, why then exactly Voltaren?
Do you have an android phone, by chance?
It's possible they match using location but they might have other data that increases the matching like payment provider which has a lot of your personal data as well as knows your purchased something from that store at that time.
OP probably googled something related before going out to buy the item :)
Many cases of this are just clustering.
Another option would be if they're integrating something like Close-Up data.
Close-Up is a company that collects prescription data and sells it to different marketing companies. They usually collect what doctors prescribe, so they can tell if pharma marketing efforts are working. I'm not sure how deeply entrenched they are in the US (or how HIPPA compliant they are).
The eerie feeling compounded by the fact that we are sometimes correctly targeted and there's no way to distinguish the two. Zeynep Tufekci writes a lot about the this type of thing if you're interested in it.
Is it surprising that ads are targeted at someone who actually bought the product? Doesn’t this show that ad targeting works? You just happened to notice the ads after you made the purchase.
What products did you buy that you didn’t see ads for? Which ads did you see that you didn’t end up buying the product?
This is a case of you being aware of Voltaren because you bought it, saw the ads, and are now trying to connect the two.
There were two explanations:
- they are stealing my thoughts with 5G.
- random things are random and I don't remember 99% of the ads where I couldn't correlate them to other events.
(yes, there's a middle ground somewhere that they know the subjects that I'm interested in and sometimes someone throws a bullseye)
Its common and help companies target clients with ads on the internet in general (YouTube, sites, etc).
It works like that:
- The Chemist wants to sell things online or physically.
- They pay google for ads for their products on sites related to its business lines or keywords about its niche.
Google then show their ads for people in general, people interested on those subjects or to people visiting sites about those subjects.
Interest is determined by search history and navigation (every google ad in a site (chemist or not) help google know you were there).
Then the chemist want to target past customers with more specific ads (like reminding people of items in theirs carts):
- They send google ads information about clients and past physical or online purchases / interactions.
Google then match the user with its own database and connect the sent data with its own data.
- Now the Chemist benefits from the google (because google can find you online)
- Now other google clients benefit from this data (because now your google hidden profile is more accurate about your interests and habits)
- Now Google benefits from that because it can use the purchase data to hone its models about ad-to-spend.
The chemist also want to pay google a fraction of the purchases if the client saw an ad.
- Google uses information sent in realtime by the Chemist and other companies, model this data and determine which people, sites and subjects have a bigger probability to turn an Ad into a sell.
I have myself done that in the past and Facebook was quite accurate at turning ads into course subscriptions.
Walmart is rolling out facial recognition across all their stores. Doesn’t matter if you pay cash. Pay with a card once and you’re identified.
I consulted for Axciom and the best way to avoid their reach is to move to a country with good privacy laws or to a country that’s too poor for these big companies to care about.
I had such a coincidence happen to me once. I saw an ad for a product I've never heard about online... and a short while later, I saw the same ad on non-smart broadcast TV, billboard, in print or some similar place where I could be sure that the ad was not targeted. Had it happened the other way around, I would have doubted it myself, but it was clear that this could not have been anything but coincidence.
Besides that, why would the company behind it spend money on promoting the very product that you already bought? If anything, the fact that you bought it would be used to not show you ads, at least until some time later when you'd be likely to buy another one. (Retargeting frequently gets this wrong because they see the interest but don't get the purchase information.)
I left my (locked) iPhone 6 in front of a TV overnight, that was left on a Spanish channel.
The next day, ALL of my Facebook ads, across all devices, were in Spanish — along with about 20% of the ads that I came across during regular web browsing. Took about a month for them to revert back to English.
I do not speak Spanish. At the time, I lived in a rural New England area, where census data reported very low Hispanic population. Zero reason for me to get targeted with alternative language advertisements.
I’m not a Luddite of any kind. Several decades of tech industry experience, specifically with ecommerce software engineering. Hold all available certifications for Google marketing, Facebook marketing, Hubspot marketing, along with many more. Know quite a bit more about this topic than the average Joe, and it concerns the hell out of me.
Since that day, Facebook’s apps haven’t been allowed on any of my devices, and their services only get used by me for work purposes.
If you bought Voltaren as a joke though an offline random process ( which is hard to do ) then you might have more evidence it's linked to the sale part.
The other day I watched Mosquito Coast again after 30 years. Afterwards I saw Apple are making a TV series. That's not a coincidence I just have no idea how it happened. It was not simple, a Ad or Article I would have read, it's an interesting premise I always remembered. It was downloaded from the torrents. It was after looking at a movie then director then actor then movies then the decision to watch. But something I don't know what, helped me stop there on the chain of browsing and watch it.
Initial Bayesian Conclusion Histogram:
- 33% Voltaren ad push just happens to be underway, and no spying was used
- 33% Google's Android Chrome knew I visited a HN link to today's post about Voltaren, somehow added this fact into my advertising profile, Android Twitter app used it to pick me an ad
- 33% like above, except that since in Android Chrome I'm logged into Twitter, somehow Twitter itself was the upstream source of the interest hint
https://en-gb.facebook.com/business/help/1150627594978290
Wouldn’t be surprised if this data is used to refine which ad these platforms should show you.
Then they can put on their curriculum vitae that they worked as a "Googler" even though they added nothing to society (except confusion and paranoia).
Google may even allocate tax write offs because they "filled a seat" among their ranks.
I'm in Australia, and find when I pay by credit card, this same thing happens to me where I get ads for medicines related to precription medicine I've just purchased.
When I use cash however, I don't get the ads, so my best bet is that it's the credit card that's used to match the purchase to me in this scenario.
[1] http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-...
Discussed on HN earlier:
Look for activity related to Voltaren (it has a search function)
Lots of ways this data flow could happen, at least in the US. Happy to go through specific details I have seen if you want to share more about this, but two high level points
1. Remember that when you purchase something, the data about the purchase is BOTH yours AND the entity from whom you made the purchase. Most of those entities have data sharing agreements of various kinds for all sorts of legitimate business reasons
2. It isn't google who knows about the purchase, and even the advertiser doesn't "know" you made a purchase. Advertising is zillions of two sided marketplaces, with an enormous ecosystem of data packagers and conveyers and linkers, with lots of concern about recency and freshness of data. Your purchase landed some key about you in a bucket that was mixed and repackaged with many other keys that the advertiser knows as "keys recently interested in Voltaren." Some of those keys are related to people who bought it, or who searched for it, or more indirectly who lingered while reading a page with an ad for it...and in most cases are very short lived. So give it a few weeks and many of those buckets of keys will have been completely remade.
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance...
Often, through the payment.
People use the same payment methods in the same stores over and over. This data is accumulated by the stores, and sold. if you signed up for a "points card" or some other gimmick to get 2¢ off something, the personal information you used when you signed up is added to the profile.
What you bought in the store is added to your profile (within legal limits in certain jurisdictions).
Some stores have devices that listen to your mobile phone's identifiers (wifi, Bluetooth, etc) and add that to your profile. Now the data profilers know what other stores you shop in. Some stores are experimenting with facial recognition (Walgreens). That gets added to your profile.
If you go to several in a single day, your route between the stores can be guessed. If you go to one or more places (stores, parking garages, streets that pass parking lots) that have sensors that read the NFC chips in your car's tires, then that can be added to your profile.
Now they know everywhere you go, everywhere you shop, everything you buy, how much you buy, how much you spend, your race, your gender, how you dress, what brands are displayed on your clothing, and any visible hair, moles, or tattoos.
That's just off the top of my head.
And people wonder, "Wow. I am a little scruffy. How did Facebook know to show me an ad for a razor?"
* visits to websites about that medication
* visits to websites talking about symptoms for which the medication helps
* searches for the above
* I would not be surprised if Google picks up interests from other accounts using the same WiFi (or even other devices on close proximity)
* there are some scary stories about Google/FB/Amazon listening to conversations
Other example, In the US, lots of jurisdictions have restrictions on ingredients. For example, dextromethorphan and pseudoephedrine.
If you are buying over the counter medicines that contain these, in some jurisdictions, you need to provide an ID.
This is wrong. Because in my case the information is highly personal, while in the shop owner's case it's just business information.
https://marketingreportoptout.visa.com/OPTOUT/request.do
Second, disable GPS, and cellphone tower ID reporting (root needed.) So Google can't correlate you with sales records.
At the moment, there is no way to disable Google AGPS spying on the stock Android.
Third, block Google apps from reading your IMEI/IMSI/serial number, so they can't get AGPS data from your cellphone provider if it sells it.
Better, get a de-Googled ROM
I would think something like this would be the most likely culprit.
One of the first things I noticed after moving to America was that I was being served ads for oddly specific in-store purchases. I checked my bank's terms and discovered that, sure enough, they were sharing my transaction history with "non-affiliates" so that they could market to me.
From memory, they did offer opt-out methods for limiting the amount of data that they shared. Maybe you could see if your bank offers the same?
I’ve actually worked at a company that was purchasing this data from banks, it was all anonymized and we were looking for trends. Maybe there are other companies that are able to buy the pii data and use it for marketing, but I think there are better, simpler sources. The stores/brands themselves can sell the data about their customers, or they are passing it to google to run targeted ads on their own customers and then google now has that data too and can use it for other things, etc.
It needs the credit card company, the payment processor, and the merchant to all have compatible systems that support it. I know I've seen it advertised as a feature of some business cards.
Here's an image: https://i.imgur.com/KqIN6oB.png
I'm about as impressed as I am mortified. I thought I had my opsec down, I was using noscript, I use throwaway email addy's where I suspect I'll be spammed.
But I was had too.
This Hecatoncheires entity is getting ever-larger. It knows a lot. It knows me well. I have seen evidence that it knows about the medication I take, the insecurities I have, my half-baked aspirations and plans. I feel defeated at times when I see its knowledge of me manifested in the ads I am shown, I feel confronted because at the time of this writing I don't know where this leak occurred, I don't know at what vector exactly I'm being had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion?wprov=sfti1
It’s the core mechanic.
Even here in privacy conscious Germany the largest bonus card, payback Punkte, is simply giving you a 1% back just to get you to log your own purchase.
Why else would they do it? Because they like you?
> Is my bank purchase history shared with google somehow?
Google buys Mastercard (if not more) transactions and ties them to your Android location history.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/google-an...
There's something else going on here.
https://www08.wellsfargomedia.com/assets/pdf/small-business/...
A group of friends were on a road trip, driving for several days cross-country. These are university-aged young males, 20-23. None have any interest in starting a family any time soon.
At the beginning of the trip, they agreed (verbally) to test if google was listening by discussing "nappies" intermittently, loudly and jokingly. They would only discuss nappies in person - everyone agreed not to mention this on any digital channel whatsoever, not to look up nappies for any reason, etc. That is, they deliberately excluded nappies from their online lives.
They chose nappies specifically because they're completely irrelevant. None had ever to their knowledge been delivered an ad for nappies. None had ever purchased nappies or any baby product.
Sure enough, end of the trip - ads for nappies.
I would love an explanation more plausible than their phones were listening.
Then when I was done, I closed all browser tabs, I unlocked my smartphone to check Instagram, and the second ads I get is a Gundam ad. I have no idea how my shadow "desktop" ad profile and shadow "mobile" ad profile matched. I share no accounts between my desktop and my smartphone :
- I use different Google accounts on my phone and desktop (although I occasionally log in one or the other in private tabs)
- The internet connections are different : 4G for phone, fiber for desktop
- On desktop, I use Chromium with Ad block Plus
- I do not use facebook nor instagram on my desktop PC
This must stop.
Also, it's plausible that one of your contacts has your phone number connected with the email of your desktop google account.
Your home ISP's assigned IP is also in a database with your name and a unique identifier. So it doesn't matter what adblocking you use, they still know where the hits are coming from.
All this data is traded around the ad "ecosystem" and integrated real-time, so it can be milliseconds from action to ad-impression.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/19/opinion/locat...
Visa has very strict rules about audience size, and all the audiences are modeled. (Your criteria can’t target something like less than 20k users, and then they model that up to a few million users).
In this case either the store, the pos/crm, or bank used his purchase data.
Most people, myself included, do so many searches so casually that we don’t remember doing it much of the time.
Source: FB Ads and IG ranking for 7 years.
What I'd like to know is if the same happens when I pay with Apple Card, or when I use Apple Play with, say, a VISA card?
Not necessarily. I’ve only seen a few huge merchants sending level 3 data:
https://paymentdepot.com/blog/level-3-data-processing/
Staples.com and airlines are the only ones where I can see the items bought on my credit card statement. Although it’s possible that some banks are not reporting that information on the statement, but I couldn’t find any more data on the subject, other than the fact that smaller businesses are not sending this information.
The ad copy is funny - Voltaren, not just for accelerated healing, or something to that extent. Everyone I know uses it (or, more likely, cheaper generics) for pain relief, without any particular expectation that the injury will heal faster. So that's the claim they hone in on, as opposed to the thing everybody knows. Standard ad stuff, I'm sure, but it's interesting when you notice it.
The players in the surveillance ecosystem have shaped themselves into narrow forms that allow for plausible deniability. App makers, device makers, the monetization SDK providers, the re-targeting platforms with their Orwellian forecasting & optimization calculations and especially the data brokers each play their part in a division of labor as powerful as Adam Smith's pin factory.
The pushback will come from the EU in my opinion. The U.S Big Tech file is going to be taken up with tackling the monopoly power of platforms for the next few years.
In the meantime beware of free apps on your phone and look up how to opt out of marketing on your smart TV. Pay for sensitive items with cash. If your phone is Android use the Firefox browser with the uBlock Origin plugin.
In my family’s case, my wife’s hospital admission and prescription was sufficient to correctly identify her as likely 10-12 weeks pregnant. Their confidence in that was sufficient to yield us a Fedex’d box containing congratulations and starter kits of enfamil, on her due date. Since they don’t read your records, just infer from events, they didn’t know that she had miscarried, and nearly died in the process.
I know this, because Enfamil identified the list used to target her, and I bought it for my zip code. I also learned that my neighbor 4 doors down has type 2 diabetes, and has expressed interest in a BMW or Audi at the end of her then-current lease. (She went Audi btw)
When people lecture you about various observational biases, you’re being paranoid, etc, they are full of shit. The marketing machine is way more wired up into everyday life than you can imagine.
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance...
HIPAA protects you against receptionists gossiping and wholesale release of your records. Not much else.
When your doctor writes a script, that data is in the hands of a data aggregation company before your pharmacist looks at it. Every pharma rep has a report card for each doctors prescription practices as a result.
Insurance companies and others sell claim data in aggregate and so do downstream partners like subrogation services. Some states even shared Medicaid claim data to aid in targeting ads and analysis to fight opioid abuse.
It is deeply invasive and should be blocked.
It works like this. You go to a store and buy, say, a sexual wellness product. You then get targeted with ads online (search result ads, facebook ads, news media ads, amazon sponsored results etc) for the same product, or something related (let's say something embarrassing that you might not want other people to see). Other users on your same network or IP may also be re-targeted with the same ads.
Credit card data tracking is a levelling up of surveillance capitalism. It is deeply intrusive. Not all card providers participate, but it is a significant source of revenue for them [1]
[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90490923/credit-card-companies-a...
[Edit: Removed specific reference to a medication as it likely triggered anti-spam]
The majority of targeted advertising I see is for items I just bought. There’s also a reasonable explanation for this...
Not every merchant shares purchase data, so if you do any research anywhere before making a purchase, they know you are interested, but as there was no tracking beacon on the site you ultimately bought from (or the purchase was misidentified or delayed or any number of reasons), that’s why you are now seeing targeted ads for it.
At this stage I’m just assuming it’s a coincidence.
It has made me realize the holy grail for google and advertisers is to access your bank transactions and advertise to you based on that.
It would be cleverer to identify the replacement cycle for each kind of product and only promote stuff the victim is likely to be looking for at that point in time (after 3 years likeliness of looking for a laptop replacement is higher).
If prices were unique you could deduce something from a few items bought together though.
In the business of advertisements the user pays for clicks. However, it would be much more reliable for the user to pay for ads that led to actual transactions instead of just clicks.
Is there some reason for why this hasn't happened so far? (Or has it already happened?)
This is like how you get a million ads about dishwashers the day after you Google around and buy one. At least wait for a short duration of time to let the target run out of medicine before adversiting new stuff.
Consider: one of the hardest parts about advertising is figuring out when someone is ready to buy the product. That is why car companies bombard ads everywhere, just to catch you in the rare moment when you may be buying a car. Lets guess that maybe the odds of a random person wanting to buy a dishwasher is 1 in a million.
Now consider someone who has just bought a dishwasher. What are the odds they need a new one or a second one? Maybe the one they bought is a few cm too tall/wide/deep. Maybe it came broken on arrival. What are the odds here? I have no data, but I would guess like 1 in ten thousand.
The odds of you buying a dishwasher and then needing to buy another are much better than the odds of someone wanting to buy a dishwasher in the first place, because the hard part is finding people who want to buy a dishwasher.
Also, completely unrelatedly, if you saw some armchair internet rando claim they'd debunked a major and long-standing business strategy of market sector leader, how seriously would you take them?
P(buying crap) < P(buying crap | has bought crap before)
Advertising is applied statistics and works on large cohorts. Nobody cares about you personally or your psychology.
Thus far, the clearest signal for answering the question "will I buy a mechanical keyboard in the next few days?" is "did I just buy mechanical keyboard?"
https://www.shopify.com/retail/examples-of-great-post-purcha...
... or not. Maybe their recommender systems have simply decided that buying product X is highly correlated with buying product Y where Y = X. Who knows? Probably not even google itself knows.
Also, remember that google is not trying to sell you anything, they're only trying to maximise adoption of their ad platform by advertisers. Who cares what you actually buy? Not Google.
Other comment explains it though: Many people return the dishwasher or screwdrivers (they might have ordered several) - Amazon wants to make sure you buy with them (though my account history should show that I practically never return things because I hate getting returned things as new).
For medicinal products I’d be keen to see research on whether a treatment group being re-targeted would report better efficiency of a treatment than a non-retargeted control.
Also, this person is now in a certain class of shopper (I think some this may be Experian Mosaic classes), so the advertiser knows what quality level of dishwasher this person is buying. The cheapest kitchen applicances, or premium kitchen applicances? Premium kitchen applicances on credit or premium kitchen applicances full price?
This will have a massive effect of choice of other items to advertize, the difference between ads for loans (credit purcahse) or ads for international holidays (full price purchase).
It throws dust into eyes of advertising efficiency measurement.
Company pays for ads, and Google just sizes the ad impressions to what it can find.
Why is this even a thing? Maybe I should just go back to buying everything with cash, it's impossible to keep up with all the crap we need to disable or hack around
I guess this is one of the things that just has to be forbidden by law.
And some agencies may be more interested in these exclusion databases. So I don't think there is any way to get out of this maze. When you sign up to exclude from a list, you get included in many other.
You should.
If you have the patience and knowledge, I can't recommend this enough. If you don't have the patience and the knowledge, this is a good way to end up with a non-functioning phone. (It will probably be recoverable, provided that you have the patience to acquire that knowledge and don't mind being without a phone in the meantime.)
When I say I can't recommend it enough, I mean it. I have been okay with simply disabling Google services for the past few years, yet Google seems to be embedding their services deeply in applications like Phone, Messages, Contacts, and Files. It is at the point where these applications would throw up a stream of notifications when Google services were disabled on Android 10. Even though they appeared to be usable, they are clearly trying to annoy people into re-enabling Google services.
https://adwords.googleblog.com/2017/05/powering-ads-and-anal...
> Google’s third-party partnerships ... capture approximately 70% of credit and debit card transactions in the United States
See also https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/google-an... and https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/05/25/242717/google-no... - Google has deals with the credit card providers to get purchase data so they can link them back to your online behavior.
Geolocation is not very accurate from gps, so unless the store was off in a field by itself that’s not what happened here.
The only real way to avoid this happening would be to use a new credit card for each purchase, with a fake name/billing address.
I mean, if you have to try and double-guess your phone to make sure it's not spying on you the game is lost. I don't even know what game that is. But it's lost.
> U.S cardholders may opt out of Visa using their card transaction data for VAS, a suite of aggregated data products in the United States.
So while outside of US, I don't get the perks like cashabacks and no privacy either!
> We will not scan or read your Gmail messages to show you ads.
If you're using a store card, the merchant == the CC company and so knows everything about you anyways.
If you're not using the store card, the merchant probably has an agreement with the CC company to share the information, so the technical implementation is irrelevant.
Which means no push, breaking an absurd amount of apps.
Is there no way to get GPS location, without sending it to Google? As I understand, GPS positioning does not require the phone to send any data?
But it does "work". iPhone is the only phone besides a GrapheneOS phone with an intact security model worth writing about.
How many times have you opened up your laptop and not seen a Facebook add for something you just did, or something you discussed? You'll never notice those occasions.
Frankly, Facebook and their proxies always speak in meaningless nonsense about everything. If you asked Zuck if he ate kittens, you’d get some reply about facebooks mission and why cats are important.
For some mysterious reason, all explanations for the “Facebook is listening” phenomenon are uniquely cogent, clear and dismissive.
Personally, I have zero doubt that a downstream “partner”, data provider, or affiliate is processing audio data of questionable origin for ad insights. Call center companies with tight margins do it, why wouldn’t an ad company?
AdTech is frankly a revolting industry.
There's a moral hazard that incentivizes any company that can do so to bug user's homes for advertising purposes. IMO it should be illegal.
Ever since, about 1/3 of my instagram ads are for it. Never had an instagram ad for it before.
I would agree with you last decade. This decade, I have my doubts.
That, and I tend to go to bed between 21:00 and 22:00. But I don't attribute it to anything but me being in a position to look at the clock around that time, and I haven't wondered if I see it any more than 21:09 or 21:30. Would be an interesting histogram, if nothing else.
Adtech is creepy and dystopian.
When I finally overcame the shock, the very first thing I did was to ask her if she, or a guest, indeed searched for, or otherwise "input" anything related to usb-sticks or water-proofness into a computer system. The answer was no.
I don't know what to make of it. I don't want to succumb to conspiracy theories of the sort that ambient sound is recorded by our devices at all times. Most plausible explanation is perhaps the one about cognitive bias.
I say this not because I am especially skeptic or rational, I say this because a similar thing happened to me yet I know for a fact that it was a coincidence. It feels unbelievable yet 1/1000 events happen every now and then. All in all, if Facebook knew you were a technical person it’s not unlikely that an ad for a water proof usb stick would be relevant to you.
Suppose you were building this capability. Would you necessarily leave it on 100% of the time, and if someone started acting 'weird' around their phone ("hey, I'm sitting in a lab, and someone is just talking to me a lot") it might be a good time to turn off the capability.
Plenty of malware knows to turn itself off when someone has Wireshark installed (or a number of other "tells" that the malware can get that you might be running on a security researcher's machine). Even simply running microphone-based data gathering infrequently might be enough to confound a journalist or researcher with limited time budget.
Now otoh as far as I know, microphone usage is not cheap on mobile devices. So either these apps are doing sporadic on/off recording or we would see a strong impact on the phone charge life.
(don't recommend it of course)
we need better legislation. advertising is a cancer on the entire earth.
Also I guarantee I went directly to a website for a product, a vitamin, which I never searched for and purchased it and then received ads for the exact product and brand I purchased for the next week on Google searches and other Google ads and that was after they supposedly stopped personalizing ads. I don’t know if it was the credit card company, or Google analytics being installed on their website, or then just selling my data but it was obvious that someone was sharing my data and I wasn’t being told about it.
Lastly just last week I had been searching for a bed on Google, a very specific California king bed so that I could try to find the lowest price. Literally the day after I bought the bed, my girlfriend saw that exact model of bed appear on her Facebook ads. She had never searched for the bed or any bed but was browsing from the same IP address as me so I assume and that’s how they targeted her.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety.com/2017/digital/news/g...
Now how they know you bought X
1. Say CC sells data to say Bluekai (now salesforce). If you bought a hammer, they need not have known it was from HD, a middle man might simply be bidding for anyone categorized as shopping for home improvement goods and hoping to cash in on HD lead-gen/affiliate $$$
2. You likely searched online for these at some site and probably just don’t remember that you did.
The only thing that will get rid of this is to ban/regulate “affiliate” marketing (so shady companies who don’t follow rules can’t cash in), because so long as someone is willing to pay to bring sales, it will happen on way or another.
On my way I looked up directions in google maps, then for a week had dental insurance adds.
This one is obvious though.
That was on iOS with it’s pretty strict location tracking rules etc.
I’d be interested to see if you can get it to show you adds just by visiting the dentist (and not searching) on a vanilla android phone (IE google’s location history on by default)
The way it worked at [former employer] was, we had a lot of digital properties. Every digital property collected analytics on all visitors. All that analytics got post-processed and cross-referenced until we could form a "profile" on every visitor. Because you leave a teeny tiny trail of information everywhere you go, we cobble it all together until we know who you are on each site. The probability just gets higher as we collect more data. And we'd collect data from everywhere - e-mail marketing campaigns, ad traffic on partner sites, user profile data, web surfing habits, and buying access to privately maintained databases.
Even if everyone wore a mask and black clothes everywhere they went, surveillance cameras still capture height, gait, mannerisms. Watch long enough and you know "Gait #24434 mannerisms #593483 height #933 goes in/out of this residence at these specific times, goes to this supermarket, goes to this nail salon, sometimes goes to a house somebody else seems to live in".
Maybe it's multiple people with the same gait, mannerisms, height - but in the same neighborhood? In any case, it doesn't matter if they are all different people as long as they behave the same way; we market to them the same. Your entire life is just a string of digits in a marketing-recommender algorithm.
I no longer have a Android phone, but too frequently I would buy something offline and have the item follow me - including impulse buys and things that I definitely didn't look for online.
It happened with things I would talk about as well on occasion. I joked in front of my phone about visiting Greece, and a few minutes later auto-suggest in Google offered me "How much.. [is plane tickets to Greece]"
Next day, voila, the whole internet is plastered with ads for this product.
I switched to an iPhone.
Not every instance of someone providing an explanation for something you don't understand is "gaslighting."
I know my devices are (probably) not listening, but I can't explain it either. Neither of us searched for the product or saw it online or anything, we just discussed something and got ads about it a few minutes to hours later.
The wierdest instance of this is I told my wife her father should consider geting those fixed bridge dentures, next day I start seeing all-on-4 ads on the phone. I asked her if she looked it up (to rule out IP tracking) and she said she hasn't. It's a very random thing to advertise to me, I'm not the target group, I didn't look it up.
A lot of it is IP tracking - I'll start browsing for guitars or some other random stuff my wife has no interest in - she'll start seeing ads for it.
Ads are getting more targeted and getting closer to the kind of things you would talk about based on your interests and data that networks have collected about you, but we are still pretty far from continuous ad surveillance.
Not thinking this is happening either. But just to speculate on a fictitious scenario..
Given a shady company, maybe even outright involved in illegal practices, where employees employ any surveillance tech they can lay their hands on. All in order to collect as much personal information as possible, from as many people as possible. As such, they won't shy away from breaking & listening in and do subsequent speech-to-text information gathering (e.g. via some Ad-obtained Windows malware, or a malicious mobile app).
They trade the collected info on the data markets, selling to anyone who'd pay. Wouldn't it be likely that this data then indirectly ends up at Google, so they can indeed target - in this case Voltaren - ads to you?
Also: If any illegally obtained information enters the data markets.. won't it be 'whitewashed' automatically as it is trading hands?
It's probably statistical to a certain extent: people of your specific demographic are interested in a certain thing, and you are talking about it the same as all of your peers are, and a statistically significant amount of your peers did Google for it such that now Google assumes that anyone in your demographic will be interested.
Of course that only metas the problem up one level, which is that Google knows enough about you to do this kind of analysis a) on your cohort and b) on you.
How do you know?
I've seen examples of this too, and it's downright creepy. At the same time, I love my Google Assistant. Yes, I know. I'm the product.
One of the three deviated and searched for nappies online prior to the trip.
Rather than relying on external people to make judgement, you could test the hypothesis yourself: write on paper a phrase. Spend one week without ads and document all ads you see. Spend second week saying word N times per day. Also document all ads you see.
Ask N people to do this and report your findings, then you might provide statistical insight and validate your hypothesis.
Otherwise, who's to say one of those students didn't Google it before the trip?
Does anyone have any ways to improve the design of the above experiment?
This is a hypothetical which was deliberately excluded when they decided to run the experiment. These are intelligent young people acting in good faith to test if they're being spied on. Why would they have googled nappies?
I'm sorry but I don't find that explanation convincing at all.
They could also have looked up something relevant to nappies, stayed in a house (and used internet there) where the owners have a baby, etc.
For the sake of good faith I think we should exclude "they broke the rules". Frankly, my friends aren't that stupid.
If it's deanonymized, is it then not personal information?
> I doubt the advertiser knows OP's name or address when they choose which ad to show.
Nonetheless, an advertisement is then targeted and it's well known that targeted advertisements reveal personal information.
edit: and to clarify his comments were mostly that the data is not realtime, but the idea that audio recorded is then processed and within a day or two was much more realistic.
You can get a new internet provider and a new Gmail account, but your purchasing habits won't change and are easily mined. A real-life connection between an online account and the stuff you buy in physical stores crosses a boundary that I think should not be crossed
i get what you are saying, but calling a price ending in .99 "neat" feels very wrong
Better to focus on privacy laws.
Personal anecdote: Recently I cancelled an order because a better product was shown in ads post-purchase.
If you want the above, but also want access to Google Play apps, then install CalyxOS.
The third option is LineageOS (was originally CyanogenMod back in the day). This custom ROM is the most accessible for a variety of devices. It's good for privacy, but, because the bootloader is left unlocked (which may or may not be relevant depending on your threat model), it is the least secure of the three.
Both GrapheneOS and CalyxOS have very user-friendly installation methods, but exist primarily for the Pixel line of devices. LineageOS has the most involved installation process, but it's available for the widest variety of Android devices.
I've installed all three ROMs on several different devices. For the average person, CalyxOS will probably be the best bet (though I think the Trebuchet launcher in LineageOS is better).
What I will suggest is looking at the device specific forums at XDA. You will get an idea of what is available and what is reliable. Personally, I shy away from distributions that don't include a "what works" and "what doesn't work" section in the first post. I also prefer "official" distributions. At the very least, it is easier to track updates. The next filter I use is feature based. In this context, look for distributions that don't include Gapps and offer additional privacy enhancing features. Once you have something that you think you want, read the thread for the distribution. It often reveals pitfalls, variations within the model, and variations between carriers. These pitfalls exist even with the popular distributions, which is another reason to check out the forums.
I went with OmniROM this time around, but I have been happy with Resurrection Remix on other devices. Some devices have nice alternatives that are specific to them. As an example, I use KatKiss on the Asus TF300T. For a while, it was running a more recent version of Android than my much newer phone!
You need a non-Verizon version of the device to do so, but there are services out there that'll hunt the devices down and even install the OS for you if you lack the time/patience https://grapheneos.org/ https://noagendaphone.com/
Most people don't NOTICE the ones that are, either.
Recommended. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZm1_jtY1SQ
But the tv 'recognition' is a big part of selling ads on connected tvs, vizio, roku etc.
You know this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26970960
I agree with you that the term gaslighting is overused but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate uses of it that you can also utilize.
Right. This was is actually much more alarming to me.
Whenever this topic comes up in conversation I point out that the fact that the most attractive-seeming explanation is “they’re listening”, but they actually _aren’t_, should have one even more concerned.
So consumer credit cards can’t get this.
Use cash!
It's a start. But unfortunately, doesn't get you out of a lot of the other surveillance methods.
Also, paying cash is yet another bit of entropy. Like using Firefox.
I do not understand. I am typing this on Firefox. Felling the low entropy vibe!
And even if you pay via card/phone ( which is literally multiple times faster and less hassle), the payment processor and card issuer don't know the individual items.
Their incentive is to not annoy their rich & powerful customer base with privacy violations.
Apple knows how much they can get away with annoying, that's why they can push updates that slow down your phone, or make devices less repairable.
Privacy is trickier though because it's based on trust not annoyance and it doesn't take much to lose it. I've already lost trust in Apple. What I do trust is that 'privacy' is currently working for Apple to increase their market share. It also conveniently keeps data away from competitors.
Pervasive targeted marketing is not a legitimate business reason.
That's why running an experiment and capturing data (of searches amongst other things) could be more meaningful than anecdote from friends if a friend or such.
A similar performance to a perceptive fortune teller. Google can appear to be a mind reader.
Apparently, walmart used to send targetted ads when the pattern for pregnancy was detected - which created problems where not all parties knew about it, so walmart disabled it.
Another commentor's two week experiment might need to have you think about nappies for the first "control" week, to account for this bias.
Also, note that "nappies" wasn't randomly selected, but suggested by the group. This choice and the ads may have had a common cause. e.g, Young adults concerned about pregnancy.
This seems like something which privacy researchers might be interested in, and wouldn't be too difficult to run - I wonder if anyone here can point us towards any more formal experiments that have been run on this?
Edit: The more I reflect, the more difficult the experiment seems to be. How does one recruit for an experiment, contact and instruct participants, etc., probably via surveilled email or messaging platforms, without creating data linking participants to one another?
The question is what unintended (and specifically undesirable) consequences that poses to the members of the list.
Maybe they are sick of surveillance capitalism and don't wish to be part of it?
I'd do the same, but I really don't want a flip phone. Maybe once Pine Phone with GNU/Linux is working reasonably well, I'll switch to that.
I bought a locally made KaiOS phone but it has too low RAM and keep crashing.
Nokia makes flip phones with KaiOS but they aren't allowed in my country sadly.
Reason is I want a phone I can repair myself, all my previous phones I had to replace because some unrepairable part that didn't need to be unrepairable (one of them it was the battery!) broke down.
Instead of shelling a ton of money to be tracked and buy a product that won't last, I wish I could spend my phone on something that will last.
And the flip cover is convenient for me because I keep forgetting to lock my phone and managed to pocket dial even with an android.
Its reducing the attack surface as I see it.
Something like 30% of purchased products (including appliances) are DOA or returned.
The follow-on advertising is hoping to capture your replacement activity.
I think once your dishwasher breaks, the time you are “live” to buy is closer to a week :). Also it is (maybe?) harder to identify a person with a broken dishwasher than one who just bought one and may need another.
"A standard dishwasher is about 24 inches wide, 24 inches deep and 35 inches high. Most cabinet openings are made to fit a standard dishwasher size. Note that certain handles may affect the overall dishwasher depth. Oversized dishwashers are built wider than the standard opening."
they come in three sizes compact standard and custom.
Also in general I've noticed there are a lot of people that return online purchases a lot, even the non broken ones, since you can't determine if the clothing fits, if the colors really look good, if it has a good texture, from pictures and descriptions online.
They may not be good customers, but Google probably gets money per purchase, not for customer quality.
People really do return major appliances though. Perhaps dishwashers less frequently than refrigerators, though people never fail to surprise me.
That clicks all adds for you. Maybe it can be modified somehow to click already bought item?
In some cases, it's even something like my wife joking about selling the car to a friend on WhatsApp, and suddenly Facebook show ads where you can sell the car. One time I told my wife to buy something at the grocery store (verbally, no text) and FB shows me the ad for that exact item.
Incognito mode is mostly a convenience for you to do browsing without saving local history or cookies. It doesn't stop tracking.
I assume the fingerprint is different in incognito versus a regular window. But unless you are using VPN/adblockers/pihole/etc your browser is still executing third party JS and potentially sending tracking data to google using a plain https connection coming from your residential IP.
I can imagine it's not that hard for Google to link different requests from the same IP with slightly different fingerprint data to be coming from the same user.
edit: and for searches it is even easier, because you are communicating directly with google by performing the search, no tracker or JS necessary.
She uninstalled the app after that.
Edit: the purchase could have been involved somewhere in the chain but it’s not necessary.
There's not really that much ambiguity in this sentence from the second bullet point.
Unless my mental model of online advertising is wrong, your physical in-store purchase should not be landing you in some Google advertising bucket.
I know because after discussing extremely rare chemicals at an officemate's desk, he began seeing ads for them. Neither of us had ever Googled or emailed anything related. It was a brand new idea for a brand new project which we had started working on that morning.
My funniest was talking with someone at work (who works for a different company) then when I got home facebook suggested adding them. That I didn't have a phone at the time made it extra comical. Plenty of other people work there, it never suggested those and there are no common contacts. How the CONSPIRACY works exactly I have no idea, the candidate theories are all to hard to imagine. (Like, I'm easy to track because I have no phone?)
My android phone often asks how did I like this or that shop. Sometimes I was just passing by those shops but on average the phone is quite correct which shops I have visited.
Google knows when you are in the pharmacy and might use a different routine interpreting ambient sounds when you are there. Voltarol (ibuprofen gel) is a distinct sound that even very lossy algorithm with low level of processing power can distinguish with a sufficient level of accuracy.
Alternatively if someone near you overheard your conversation, and Googled it, then Google could link all of your locations together and conclude that you are all interested in the same thing. This is how Facebook has its creepy ability to indirectly predict what items you are interested in - usually someone near you searches for what you're talking about later on in the day, and it guesses that it's important to both of you.
So this isn't covered by the 1-3% transaction fee the merchant pays every time you use your card?
>Most consumers are okay with this trade off
No they aren't. Most consumers aren't even aware they are paying with their privacy, so you cannot take a low opt-out rate to mean high levels of consent.
PS: this is really a response to grandparent poster, not parent.
Your friends, family, and coworkers might though, so the critical mass of people not okay with this can still grow :)
It might not be legal, but CocaCola is allowed to import coca leaves by the millions.
(which is to say, thanks for encouraging me to learn about this)
As debit cards became popular here (well after Europe) the banks push them hard on people who aren't excellent credit risks (good credit risks = profit), because they push essentially all the risk onto the account holder and absolve the banks of any responsibility.
I have three CCs (one of each major network) and pay them off every month; it's like having three debit cards except I get a free loan of a month's worth of spending. The term used in the banking business for people like me is "deadbeat"
I used to believe that too. You might call it the unwieldy conspiracy principle. But I'm not as certain of it anymore. Things like the Snowden revelations might seem evidence for the principle but I kind of see it the opposite. For years, thousands even tens of thousands of people knew about that and they still kept it secret. It's entirely possible it could've gone on for years more without a particularly conscientious person happening to be let in on it.
The same goes for the Pentagon papers. And COINTELPRO was only uncovered due to people actively breaking into an office and stealing records.
Who's to say if stories like those are inevitable conclusions that befell all the major conspiracies worth writing about in our recent history or if they are just some portion of ones uncovered. Similar maleficence has persisted in the private sector too.
I'm not saying for sure they are listening in but at the same time, I'm not sure I buy unwieldiness as a surefire principle demonstrating it is not happening either.
So they would be caught out pretty quickly if they did this.
I'm sure they did it before though, ultrasonic identifications during TV ads etc were really a thing.
The only reason I don't think the big players are doing this _is_ the potential for scandal. Random apps on the app store that ask for a million permissions, on the other hand, are probably doing this.
It only takes one clever hacker looking to make a name for themselves. With that said, there are plenty of cases where companies _were_ caught spying, so maybe it's not so cut and dry.
Also: people seem to be looking at modern speech recognizers on their phones and wrongly concluding that speech recognition in general is very compute-intensive. It isn't, if you're willing to make some sacrifices on accuracy and generality, and to do it locally instead voice data off to a cloud somewhere. A proper benchmark here isn't Siri or Google Assistant - it's Microsoft Speech API, as shipped with Windows 12+ years ago.
I disagree - even shitty, low CPU on-device transcription could give a signal to advertising algos.
I doubt this is being done, but it is definitely within the range of possibility and wouldn't even drain your phone battery that much.
[0] https://www.mastercard.co.uk/en-gb/vision/terms-of-use/commi...
The page is super vague, and the question remains if they can fully anonymise the data, but if they can, it's allowed. Personal data is covered under the GDPR, while anonymous data isn't [0].
[0] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...
Ok Nat west has Coutts but not just any euro trash millionaire can get an account there
> Some of those keys are related to people who bought it, or who searched for it, or more indirectly who lingered while reading a page with an ad for it...and in most cases are very short lived.
* Big businesses are unaffected as they use click fraud prevention services.
* Businesses that don’t use that have to pay more money to Google because people clicked on their ad, and they think their marketing is effective (at least from a click through perspective).
* Google makes even more money because you are clicking on all the ads and it makes them look better. They can demonstrate how well their marketing platform works even better!
Oh yeah, and Google frames asking for a birthdate as being "in order to comply with the law". They are deliberately ambiguous in order to imply that it is me who could be breaking the law, rather than Google. Also, the law only requires verifying age, and doesn't require storing the birthdate afterwards. That one is entirely on Google.
So overall, my trust in anything that Google claims is rather low.
If you are referring to reading email for ad targeting, you are correct that dishonesty in one area doesn't necessarily imply dishonestly in another. However, it does mean that a person or entity loses the benefit of the doubt, and must have independent verification of their claims.
I don't trust Google. They are evil.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-to-stop-reading-users-em...
Also, hiding order info is a way to push you back to the store to engage in more Amazon ads.
If you want to make a moral argument for why it shouldn't be allowed, then do that.
For example: When I set up a new facebook account for my mother (at her explicit wish), she had no friends or interests marked yet. Facebook showed her some random ads and posts.
During the setup I was scrolling through her timeline and my phone beeped so I stopped scrolling for about 2 seconds. The post shown was a random post about some fish.
When I picked it up, I saw it quickly replacing the next random post with something about the same kind of fish. So evidently it even looks at how long you look at certain content to determine your interests.
I suppose it is possible to derive other algorithmic determinations using similar methods.
It does. Instagram constantly sends back telemetry including your scroll position, which can then be used to determine what you were looking at and for how long. Scroll right past an ad? you probably won't see it again; the algorithm knows it didn't have an impact on you. Meanwhile, spend a few seconds reading what it says, and this teaches the algorithm that you are interested in similar content.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
The same cannot be said for phone apps.
But about your first point. I don't think even the designers and maintainers of this blackbox understand the system. Looking at it from that point of view, the chances of a hacker finding proof for this is pretty low.
It would be pretty easy to show that a) sound is not being continually recorded and streamed over the internet and b) the device is not using enough processing power to decode speech. Both have been done, so this is veering into conspiracy theory territory.
There's actually nothing hard about the concept of a mobile phone, it's just a computer (or could even be a simple PCB) with a mic and speaker. No need for "secret sauce" standards such that nobody can tell if it's secure (I mean it isn't, the bugs just get patched every week, day, nanosecond, whatever). Hell, you can even make a completely open and simple (even more important than open) phone communication standard and charge 1 billion people tens of dollars per month to use your network and become the richest person on earth.
edit: I mean facebook, or whatever (also facebook would have to gain access to the mic [maybe facebook has mic permission i guess, i am unfamiliar with smart phones])
Facebook has access to your mic if you ever use it for its voice com functions (do not do that) and do not explicitly remove the permissions to access teh mic (do do that).
They have been caught several times. Thing is people give them permission to record through the mic so it is legal.
Do not confuse legal with good, it is evil.
Then randomly assign the products from the first step to the volunteers, give them information about the product on paper and ask them to hold verbal conversations about such such products.
If they start getting adverts that happen to match the subject of those verbal conversations, something is going on.
Sometimes you never do find out what happened.
So, one meta-step up in abstraction? People "notice" these these things which they talk about and now you're especially sensitive to hearing them?
Business is subject to fads and stupidies, we have proof that open officez are a net negative, yet businesses continue. We have proof that getting people to change passwords every month is bad for security, but its still policy in many places. We have proof that using basalt or stainless rebar in RCC is more cost effective in the long run, but bs still continues.
For urban life multiple doesn't make sense. For professional/rural it really does.
At a certain point in my life, one where I sought fewer material comforts (and had less media exposure), I used to claim that advertising won't convince me to buy anything but it may convince me not to. There is a very fine line between persuasion and overstepping ethical boundaries.
And it kind of makes sense if you think about it... really, what are the consequences of seeing these silly over-recommendations? Did you stop buying from Amazon? I bet the vast majority of people shrug or laugh, but don’t change habits.
Also, big one-time purchases tend to be rare, so optimizing a recommendation system around those is probably suboptimal compared to optimizing it around frequent consumable purchases.
Or you tell all your friends about it and end up having a conversation about guitars/dishwashers or whatever.
It may not be intentional on their part, but spin off conversations can be a nice by-product for them. Feels like it helps it stick in the mind, a bit like writing a witty TV ad.
- You fit the demographic of Kombucha drinkers in your locality
- You visited a Kombucha blog/website recently that used retargeting to deliver an ad to your Instagram
- An initial ad that caught your attention and Instagram used “dwell time” to determine that the ad is relevant to you
Still, I got home from the store and started seeing the ads immediately.
In fact, you didn't even have to be on the phone. You could just come home and told you wife what you bough. That would be enough to send keywords and know what you maybe interested in. I know for fact my cable box (Spectrum) is listening and analyzing to my conversations. We used to talk with my wife about the most crazies stuff and less than 48 hours, Spectrum TV, Sling and YouTube would inject relevant ads. Some were extremely home made and amateurish but always spot on.
Do an experiment in home. Talk about something you dont have or is irrelevant to you. For example if you have no kids start talking about them. Use keywords like "our first child", "baby sitting", "hospital", "giving birth", "baby shower", I bet you less than 48 hours later your TV will be interrupting you with ads related to baby products; ads you have never seen before.
if you think the thing sucks, just say it sucks.
except here, y'all want it to mean not-lawful.
I'm legitimately not smart enough to continue this conversation.
The processing power required for this isn't big either - remember that 12+ years ago Microsoft Windows shipped with a speech recognition system that was in many ways better than what the phones currently offer, and worked off-line and with almost unnoticeable performance penalty. And if you're interested in probabilistic reporting ("there's 86% I've heard a word matching this tag in the last hour..."), you can relax performance requirements even further.
So, out of the things you mention, the only somewhat convincing piece of evidence would be that the apps in question are not accessing microphone in the background.
AFAIK the main reason people prefer CC’s over debit cards for fraud prevention is simply that with a debit card your money comes out immediately if it is used by someone else, whereas with a CC there is a 30-day buffer.
The TL;DR is:
- you have a short window to report DC fraud before you bear the full risk; CC risk is capped
- dispute a CC charge: you don’t owe anything / accrue interest until resolved; DC case you don’t get any money back until bank decides it’s not your fault. Tough luck if you needed that money to pay your rent.
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0213-lost-or-stolen-cr...
https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/are-credit-cards...
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/credit-cards/credit-card-...
https://creditcards.usnews.com/articles/why-credit-cards-are...
https://komonews.com/sponsored/wafd/financial-focus-tips/cre...
Preparation:
1. Get two identical phones, one that you use, and one that has a dead battery.
2. Fix a set of product-categories.
Experiment:
Every week,
1. Label the phones A and B. Use a coinflip to decide whether the working one is A or B. Record which it was.
2. Hand the phone to someone else. They exchange the labels for 1 and 2. If heads A=1, if tails A=2, and record the coinflip.
3. Get the phone labelled 1 back. Neither of you know whether it is working or not.
4. Randomly pick a topic from the pre-fixed list and talk about the topic near the phone.
5. Let the other person remove the labels.
6. Pick out the working phone and go about your day.
7. Write down whether you see ads relating to the topic, yes or no.
Analysis:
Join the records, to see which weeks you used a working phone, and if those corresponded to seeing ads.
Good target markets are: Grown adults with $$$ who either don’t have teeth or know someone who doesn’t have teeth (likely parents/grandparents/in-laws). This is basically every upper-middle class adult. More people than you think are missing their teeth.
This is perhaps even more creepy than just "phones listening in", but it's not an explanation I hear very often.
If it's listening, you'll start getting ads specific to that snack food, best to try it with a bunch of different products to try and find a pattern.
I am pushing the boat out because I rely on my memory. But there were reports from Apple contractors about what they heard on Sirri. It is always on, always listening.
These 2 sentences may not necessarily need to both be true. As I recall, one could opt in (or was it opt-out?) to an Apple program to upload bits and pieces of spoken word for its people to parse "humanly" for it to improve its speech to text.
I'm no Apple fan, but I'm not sure one implies the other, here.
They’ve conflated “most purchases of a toilet seat are made by someone who buys another” and “most people who buy one toilet seat buy a second”.
There’s a small, but high volume group of toilet seat purchases — eg, office buildings or apartment maintenance.
If right and wrong are important then "legitimate" encompass them. So it s possible for something to be legal but not legitimate.
There are not a lot of legal but absolutely immoral (the other way, illegal but legitimate - plenty) the actions of the FANG IMO definitely fall into the category of legal but illegitimate.
Because to me good and evil are important considerations
Here are two (abridged) definitions from the Oxford dictionary:
1. conforming to the law or to rules
2. make legitimate; justify or make lawful.
You're choosing to ignore the verb make in the second definition, describing the act of conferring legitimacy on something, which necessarily implies that it was previously lacking.