So I had a verbal conversation with a coworker yesterday and now I’m getting fed very specific ads. No possible way it’s accidental. I have most of the microphone access to apps limited, I have Google assistant turned off and no VPA setup in my home. I use a Oneplus 9 pro, does anyone have recommendations on how to further root cause this or just par for the course for using any standard android OS? Have other folks had similar experience after locking down their stock phones?

  • czardestructo@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Not possible. To be explicit, he was asking me my opinion about car maintenance and if I changed the oil in my cars every X miles OR every six months, or if the expiration time of oil was BS. I told him my opinion was that the age of the oil is irrelevant unless you idle your car for many hours at a time, just change it based on the millage. Today I got fed an article about how a dude tested the oil from various cars, with various ages and miles against brand new oil and found that age made no difference on the key characteristics of the oil. That is a remarkably specific article from a VERY specific VERBAL conversation I had over a Teams call on a work computer. It certainly got me thinking but again its the first time I’ve had one of those super specific ads in a long time that made me question my privacy.

    Edit: I’m getting down voted, so people don’t think this is a markably specific ad response? People really think Google is just this good to infer this type of article in less than 24 hours is just dumb luck because ‘oil change’?

    • CameronDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Every day, millions of people discuss oil changes. If an article (was it an article or an ad?) is published on oil changes on X date, it is going to coincide with a large number of unlinked conversations. Today, it was you.

      Once is a coincidence, if you can prove a pattern then you should concerned.

      • czardestructo@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        It was an article not an ad. And the specifics of oil age vs millage is pretty damn obscure in my opinion especially for a guy who works in tech.

        • CameronDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          It may be obscure, but that doesnt make it less of coincidence. Also, there is a pretty significant cross.over between tech people and car people (and a greater crossover with car owners).

        • Chozo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Crazy that they wrote an entire article for one guy’s conversation about motor oil. Sounds like a really effective use of resources that is very real and not made up.

        • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Well, I’m not going to downvote you because I think it’s a good contribution and conversation, but I do think that is a coincidence. They know your interests and stuff and it’s black magic how good they are now of making these coincidences happen, but it’s not the mic. To much data to process and send

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because human observations are notoriously unreliable. Show me data.

          • AnEilifintChorcra@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            Facebook isn’t randomly turning on your microphone to sell you more targeted ads, as some conspiracy theories have asserted

            the company admitted that it had been employing third-party contractors to transcribe the audio messages that users exchanged on its Messenger app.

            They’re using data that people sent to their servers. If they were turning on peoples mics and sending the recordings to themselves then anyone that monitors their network traffic at all would notice all of that data being uploaded.

      • czardestructo@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        There is a chance I guess he went off and researched the topic and our relations are tethered on googles back end so it figured I might be interested in his interests. But I’m stretching here. I should ask him on Monday!

      • SGNL@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Probably because no one has any proof other than anecdotal evidence. And the vast majority of times it’s looked into it’s because the person reporting it doesn’t understand how else their information is collected (i.e. web searches, intranet data for other people, browsing histories, etc.)

        Look at it this way, is it more likely that the majority of security researchers that look into it, find nothing, and deem these use cases as inefficient and improbable, are wrong; OR is it more likely that data collectors builds good profiles, mixed with some Baader-Meinhof, a little Dunning-Krueger, and a lot of coincidence?

        Not everything is a big conspiracy, nuance is neccesary, or the sky will always be falling.

        • Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I mean if you want to deny the sky is blue when plenty of experience says otherwise that’s on you.

          I agree that it would be very inefficient to send voice recordings, and those would be easy to pick out with some packet sniffing.

          But a locally processed txt file of keywords would be such a small amount of encrypted data that it would easily pass under the nose of any security researcher and they would have no idea unless it was decrypted.

          So no, this is not debunked.