So it turns out your phone is eavesdropping on you

Ohh yes my accent, its a right mixture, growing up in the southeast but having lived all over the country, I'm a right mix and it changes depending on who I'm talking too. Computers can't cope with Welsh, I heard the automated screen in the doctors the other week trying to pronounce Myfanwy, I think that name gave it a chip fart.

I currently have a lap top, I dont' know if it has a mic, I don't tend to talk when I'm around it other than to swear at it.

The thing is I'm not targetted by things I've looked for before, I doubt I'd have a problem if it was, but for some reason it thinks I want sports stuff, air fryers and tech gadgets, maybe it wants me to buy things it can listen to me on?

if your computer has no microphone (these are often a part of an external webcam as I think you said you have a desktop PC) so you will be insulated from this sort of intrusion.

It means you will be targetted based on what you have searched for before, the websites you have visited in the past and what you have written about online (posts and emails) as these are the most common sources of data mining by the big tech companies.

Could it be you have eclectic tastes and that is consusing the computer? Maybe it's your accent LOL.

I wonder if having no smart phone listening to me is one of the reasons why my internet searches end up with such random results?

Bunny said:

Don’t patronise me.

Lets break it down - the entries in bold are taken from the article:

.
Apple has agreed to pay $95m (£77m) to settle a court case

Apple are famous for using their lawyers to bulldoze any court cases with onerous requests for information and threatening the claimant with truly massive legal costs should they lose, or even buying the companies that are suing them to shut the case down.

For them to agree to pay this sum would be very damaging for them, not because of the money (they have truly massive reserves) but because of the reputational damage this will do.

I personally cannot see any situation where they would agree to settle unless the evidence was clear and overwhelming.

Apple's lawyers also say they will confirm they have "permanently deleted individual Siri audio recordings collected by Apple prior to October 2019".

Why would they agree to this if an investigation would find no evidence of the crime? It is not a trivial task for them and they lose a valuable resource for data mining.

It sounds like they are getting rid of the evidence before any more cases can be brought.

By settling, Apple not only denies wrongdoing, but it also avoids the risk of facing a court case which could potentially mean a much larger pay out.

Now this sounds like the explanation - they are scared it will grow into a much bigger case if they cannot shut down the claimants with NDAs and bags of cash.

This is a pattern I have seen dozens of times over the years whether in banking, IT or the property market where I have worked. It is standard practice because "everyone wins" - in this case everyone is the company, the lawyers, the claimants and the legal system (less cases on the books taking up court time) - only Joe Public misses out on knowing the full truth.

Maybe you did not know how this works, hence why I said it is a naive point of view.

Patronising is defined as " characteristic of those who treat others with condescension" which is starting to sound a lot like you at the moment.

Yes, I read the news about Apple eavesdropping when Siri is turned on. It was disappointing as one would have hoped Apple would protect its own customers, especially when they say their products and software give a more secure experience. I tend to turn my microphone & Siri off when not using. It isn’t convenient, yet at times I suspect my phone can read my mind! 

I have an android. And I've found it interesting the way things turn up on my feed if I've been talking about them. 

Iain said:

This is just standard legal practice in lawsuits - but if you think a company with the immense legal defence resources of Apple would base a $95 million settlement on unsubstantiated claims then you would be naive in the extreme.

Don’t patronise me. My point stands.

Bunny said:

Per the article, neither the action nor the settlement - in which Apple denies wrongdoing and the claims - confirms or proves anything. 

This is just standard legal practice in lawsuits - but if you think a company with the immense legal defence resources of Apple would base a $95 million settlement on unsubstantiated claims then you would be naive in the extreme.

This is about as bad as it gets in lawsuit terms - the companies always settle so they can use NDAs to lock down any details and stop people talking about it.

Iain said:

I saw an article today that confirmed what I have suspected for years now - mobile phones have been monitoring us and using the info to sell to advertisers:

Per the article, neither the action nor the settlement - in which Apple denies wrongdoing and the claims - confirms or proves anything. 

I have previously noticed that YouTube ads have often included things I have had a conversation about - ie not things I’ve looked up in a browser. So this does not surprise me.