Facebook patent describes using inaudible sounds in TV ads to activate smartphones' microphones

midian182

Posts: 9,662   +121
Staff member
Forward-looking: Facebook has spent years denying rumors that it surreptitiously records people’s conversations for ad-targeting purposes using their smartphones' microphones. Yet a recently discovered patent application suggests such a thing could one day become a reality. Facebook, however, says it’ll never happen.

First reported by Metro, the patent, which is titled Broadcast Content View Analysis Based On Ambient Audio Recording and was published on June 14 this year, describes how an "ambient audio fingerprint or signature" could be embedded in the audio of a TV ad or other content. The high-pitched “non-human hearable digital sound” would trigger a device such as a smartphone to start recording the surrounding “ambient audio.”

This information would then be analyzed and stored so Facebook could determine what ads people watch on their “broadcasting device.” This will give ad firms an idea of their audience size and whether viewers sat through an entire advertisement or switched it off. This in turn could allow Facebook to show ads on the social network that it thinks would appeal to specific users.

This does all sound very worrying for consumers. Facebook is under intense scrutiny right now for the way it handles users’ data, and won’t welcome suggestions that it plans to spy on people. But the company claims it never intends to use the technology described in the patent, which was first filed back in 2016.

It is common practice to file patents to prevent aggression from other companies," said Facebook VP and Deputy General, Counsel Allen Lo. “Because of this, patents tend to focus on future-looking technology that is often speculative in nature and could be commercialized by other companies. The technology in this patent has not been included in any of our products, and never will be. As we’ve said before, we often seek patents for technology we never implement, and patent applications should not be taken as an indication of future product plans."

Despite Lo’s words, there’s no 100 percent guarantee some form of this technology won’t one day become a reality. So don't be surprised if the ads on Facebook and Messenger start looking eerily familiar.

Permalink to story.

 
*sigh* so the technology basically uses audio to trigger software on devices and yet this article has warped this into... “would trigger a device such as a smartphone to start recording the surrounding ambient audio.”???

Lets jump straight to the worst-case scenario why don't we?
 
Last edited:
"such a thing could one day become a reality. Facebook, however, says it’ll never happen. "

One day? You mean like one day - years ago? Please explain how my friend got flight lesson advertisements on facebook - two in a row - after for the first time discussing it in a verbal conversation... never having searched for anything related?

So, and most especially following on the cambridge analytica scandal, we are supposed to trust them? Ummk... Like I am supposed to trust any business...
 
In my opinion this is already happening. My husband and I discuss a product or a place to eat and suddenly ads for it pop up on our laptops or on my smart phone without us ever doing a search for it.. I don't believe it when they say they will never use it. It is FaceBook after all and we all know they lie.
 
*sigh* so the technology basically uses audio to trigger software on devices and yet this article has warped this into... “would trigger a device such as a smartphone to start recording the surrounding ambient audio.”???

Lets jump straight to the worst-case scenario why don't we?

Typically I'd agree but isn't this exactly what tech publications should have done regarding Facebook years ago because we found out they were doing exactly what the worst case scenario was? If anything, blame facebook and their determination to mine your data.
 
It shouldn't even be possible to patent an idea before having done ANY work on a technology or product. That said, I hope that this technology never IS developed, and even if it is we should demand it be outlawed.
 
*sigh* so the technology basically uses audio to trigger software on devices and yet this article has warped this into... “would trigger a device such as a smartphone to start recording the surrounding ambient audio.”???

Lets jump straight to the worst-case scenario why don't we?

Typically I'd agree but isn't this exactly what tech publications should have done regarding Facebook years ago because we found out they were doing exactly what the worst case scenario was? If anything, blame facebook and their determination to mine your data.
I am sure many are not going to like what I have to say here, but personally, I would extend this to each and every fakebook user enables fakebook to do this kind of thing. Every fakebook user has known for years that fakebook has been spying on them by collecting data about them, so as I see it, fakebook users have only themselves to blame. Without users, fakebook is just a bunch of servers.

Personally, I have never had nor never will have a fakebook account. I also go so far as to put *facebook* and *twitter* filters in uBlock Origin, and I do not allow third-party cookes.

Fakebook is a parasitic plague, IMO.

It shouldn't even be possible to patent an idea before having done ANY work on a technology or product. That said, I hope that this technology never IS developed, and even if it is we should demand it be outlawed.
Well, it is, and furthermore, working models of patents are not required. https://www.uspto.gov/custom-page/i...ines-submiting-models-your-patent-application Even if they did not have the tech to actually do what the patent says, it is the idea that they are patenting meaning anyone else wanting to use a tech like this would possibly owe royalties to fakebook. What fakebook describes in this patent is not beyond the realm of technical possibility.
 
I am sure many are not going to like what I have to say here, but personally, I would extend this to each and every fakebook user enables fakebook to do this kind of thing. Every fakebook user has known for years that fakebook has been spying on them by collecting data about them, so as I see it, fakebook users have only themselves to blame. Without users, fakebook is just a bunch of servers.

Personally, I have never had nor never will have a fakebook account. I also go so far as to put *facebook* and *twitter* filters in uBlock Origin, and I do not allow third-party cookes.

Fakebook is a parasitic plague, IMO.


Well, it is, and furthermore, working models of patents are not required. https://www.uspto.gov/custom-page/i...ines-submiting-models-your-patent-application Even if they did not have the tech to actually do what the patent says, it is the idea that they are patenting meaning anyone else wanting to use a tech like this would possibly owe royalties to fakebook. What fakebook describes in this patent is not beyond the realm of technical possibility.

In a sense facebook users are responsible, yes. Anyone still using Facebook despite the recent revelations are completely ignoring their privacy risks. I can't muster sympathy for people who would sacrifice privacy for temporary amusement.

I made a facebook account 3 years ago and have still yet to even add a picture. That account will likely remain that way until facebook completely changes or they go bankrupt.
 
Last edited:
Another reason not to use Facebook at all, well I dont but when you take a look at it its almost like people are forced to use it for one reason or another. I am just wondering where does this so called mass hysteria thing end? Do you get a chip in few years?:p
 
Another reason not to use Facebook at all, well I dont but when you take a look at it its almost like people are forced to use it for one reason or another. I am just wondering where does this so called mass hysteria thing end? Do you get a chip in few years?:p
I would not necessarily say that people are forced to use it. There are still other means to accomplish anything that can be accomplished on fakebook. What fakebook does is make it easier for people to seemingly accomplish some things, for instance, companies gaining a reputation. IMO, what is lost is not necessarily made up by what is gained.

Personally, I will choose a company's web site over its fakebook page. From my limited experience, the company web site is usually far more useful than its fakebook page.
This is direct snooping on Customers.

How in the f*ck can these companies be so greedy, that they think this would be legal...?
Agreed. It is like the people who use fakebook WANT 1984. And the greed is one of the prime things that the economic systems in the world reinforce. IMO, the problem lies in those economic systems.
 
Well Kidz, this could all turn out for the better. I predict that Amazon's "Alexa"", will be programmed with a Facebook "signal killer signal", and once again all your conversations will be private, save for Amazon';s entire marketing network. But don't worry retail minions, Jeff Bezos doesn't have time to listen to everyone's conversations, only the really big spenders! (y):'(

amazon-echo-dot-930x465-1.jpg
 
I don't watch Ads ever. I don't need them, and neither does anyone else. What we need is manufactures putting out quality products that will sell by itself. People will talk about quality products.
 
"People will talk about quality products". ' Yes, and inferior products as well. It's called social networking and is why social media purports to foster dialog. How easy it has become to fudge a fact or statistic to skew the dialog. Why do you think advertisers pay the big bucks to Facebook, Google and others?
A truly good product needs neither advertising or salespeople, just informationlists to 'spread the word'. The current term is 'product evangelist'.
 
The problem with this patent (if we look purely at the patent and not at its wider implications or how it can be misused) is that I don't WATCH ads. When they come on, I either flick to another channel or stop paying attention to them. So, just because an ad for female cosmetics is on doesn't mean that I want to be targetted by L'Oreal ads for the next month. Because that is not going to be very successful.
This patent breaks so many laws (I need to be informed if I'm being recorded) and has so little benefit that it should never be released. But the technology for a TV or radio broadcast to send an inaudible signal to a mobile device like your phone or Alexa is already there and may already be running. It gets even more fun if you have enabled your device to make online purchases.
 
Wow, an inaudible sound to humans that will trigger listening devices in the home such as smartphones, Alexa etc. This is so, so, so far beyond creepy it's like sci-fi except it's real. What a world.

They did something similar, McDonald made an ad in which the employee said "Hey Google.." and the phone responded with McDonald ad, didn't took long to have the ad take down too.
 
Back