Companies Say They're Using Microphone Audio to Target Ads [audio] (2023)

Overall controversy: are mics used to target ads?

• Some commenters argue that phones, TVs, and smart speakers are clearly used for ad targeting, citing company marketing pages and product warnings about “listening” devices.
• Others insist this is unproven and likely false at scale, especially for major platforms, and demand concrete technical evidence or reproducible demos.

Anecdotes vs. cognitive bias

• Multiple users share uncanny ad coincidences (e.g., obscure words said aloud then quickly appearing in ads or recommendations).
• Others counter with frequency illusion / confirmation bias explanations and “car game” style stories (once you notice something, you see it everywhere).
• Some say cognitive bias is real but still think existing surveillance practices make “mic spying” a reasonable suspicion.

Technical feasibility and OS constraints

• Several argue that bypassing iOS/Android mic permissions at scale is implausible: would need 0-days, evade indicators, avoid battery drain, resist reverse‑engineering, and survive whistleblowers.
• Counterpoint: it might not be phones; could be smart TVs, streaming boxes, voice assistants, or obscure apps with legitimately granted mic access.
• A few mention side‑channel possibilities (e.g., other sensors) and app privacy labels showing some audio collection for ads.

Data brokers, adtech, and shady intermediaries

• One view: you don’t need mics because ad tracking is already extremely invasive through normal means; mic-theory is a distraction.
• Another: small or offshore adtech firms may do the truly shady collection, then launder it via data brokers into mainstream ad systems.
• Some suspect the specific companies bragging about “active listening” may simply be lying or scamming clients, not actually tapping microphones.

Corporate incentives, law, and trust

• One camp: big device makers have strong financial and legal incentives not to secretly record; if exposed, they’d face enormous lawsuits and regulatory backlash.
• Opposing camp: these firms already push privacy boundaries; users should “assume the worst” and not trust denials.
• There’s surprise that no investigative journalist has conclusively bought and traced one of these purported “mic-targeted” ad campaigns.