Simon Willison says:
One of my weirder hobbies is trying to convince people that the idea that companies are listening to you through your phone’s microphone and serving you targeted ads is a conspiracy theory that isn’t true.
https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jan/2/they-spy-on-you-but-not-like-that/
Will there be good evidence by 2030 that tech companies spied on users through device microphones BEFORE 2025?
This only includes major tech companies/platforms such as Apple, Google, Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram.
Evidence I would accept for this would be a mainstream media source (including smaller but reputable tech publications) publishing a story on this topic. Depending on how contentious the claim/story is, this question might have to wait for a court case before resolving.
Other requirements for this to resolve YES:
The audio spying can be reasonably considered intentional
The audio (or derived text/insights) were used to serve targeted ads, likely by sharing data with third parties
Instances of the spying are extremely likely to have occurred BEFORE Jan 1, 2025
This question will resolve NO if 2030 is reached with no good evidence of the above.
Update 2025-04-01 (PST): - Excludes government cooperation: This market focuses solely on spying conducted by tech companies for the purpose of targeted ads, not including scenarios where companies collaborate with governments. (AI summary of creator comment)
Update 2025-04-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Isolated random events, such as abuse of power by an insider, do not qualify as evidence.
Widespread perpetration is required to resolve the market.
Update 2025-04-01 (PST): - Exclusion of directed audio: Utterances directed at voice assistants (e.g., Siri, Alexa) as part of ad-targeting profiles do not count. The focus is on passive listening and undirected audio. (AI summary of creator comment)
Update 2025-05-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Update from creator
Clarification:
A single major company (as listed in the description) systematically listening is sufficient to resolve YES.
Update 2025-07-01 (PST): - Proof of Ads from Recordings: A class action settlement alone does not meet the requirements unless it includes evidence that ads were served based on recordings. (AI summary of creator comment)
1,000
3.00@MarkBowen that case does not meet the requirements for this question as it doesn't include proof of ads being served based off recordings. See https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jan/2/they-spy-on-you-but-not-like-that/
Per Ars, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/apple-agrees-to-pay-95m-delete-private-conversations-siri-recorded/ , it seems like Apple settled on the claim that the data had been used for building ad profiles, but nothing was admitted or proved.
Which is plausible, since Apple at least claims that siri data isn't used for advertising, so unintentional siri data probably isn't either.
But the similar suit against Google ( https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.345331/gov.uscourts.cand.345331.467.0.pdf ) would not be so clear and might be more persuasively relevant.
@makeworld That feels somewhere between naive and dishonest. The settlement strongly implies there is reason to settle🥰
@MarkBowen criteria is very clear though, Mark. and you've even acknowledged my comments so you know OP's take here! easy NO. mana is on sale!
@No_uh The criteria is foolish or dishonest, and I think there is value in pointing that out. An active comment section helps a market remain honest.
@MarkBowen market isn't dishonest. it's very explicit! especially with those weird-ass 'ai summary' things from comments. only people dishonest here may be the tech companies, but how this market works in particular is very fair!
There are two kinds of resolvers on Manifold: default yes and default no. Default yes will resolve yes when it's likely that the answer is yes. Default no will only resolve yes when it's absolutely indisputable that the answer is yes. This appears to be a default no market, so adjust your expectations accordingly. I would suggest mentally rewriting the question as "Will there be a documented admission or court finding that this thing happened?" and trade on that.
One interesting thing about default no questions: there's often a wide separation between likelihood the true answer is yes and likelihood the resolver will resolve the question yes, and you must understand the percentage as meaning the second thing, not the first thing.
@DCL waiting for an answer to this OP. This to me is really the meat and potatoes of this question. Apple will never admit wrongdoing and will almost always have the money to settle out of court without admitting wrongdoing. As will any other company.
@makeworld idk why im getting downvotes on the previous reply. lol im not making an argument for resolving yes lol. im just probing op's thoughts. fuckin weird
anyway, yeah the strictness of op's criteria means this essentially never resolves YEA
@BrendanJackman isolated random events (such as abuse of power by an insider) wouldn't count. Beyond that we'll have to see.
@makeworld what about "company X is systematically listening on product T, but the general idea that tech is widely listening is still broadly wrong"
@makeworld basically I have extremely high-confidence beliefs about this not being a widespread practice but with the current wording I'm still not really clear enough about how this market would resolve to take part.
@BrendanJackman a single major company (see my list in the description) systematically listening is enough to resolve YES.