Google Research prototypes ambient audio contextual content

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. Joy
   

   June 8th, 2006 at 4:23 pm

   Is google crazy?!? I can’t even imagine what this current project would make the privacy advocates say. Letting it hear us over a mike, and then making ads? This is giving me the creeps, and I have no intention in allowing 1984 style loss of privacy coming any quicker that it already is. I can see this information being used for good, but in the hands of the wrong people. Oh my god! What if the government is successful in subpoening google for information? So, now apart from phone calls, they literally tap into our living rooms, and hear our conversations.. Absolutely not!

2. Steve
   

   June 8th, 2006 at 4:35 pm

   This sounds interesting and cool but good point Joy, that would be scary.

3. Erik Schwartz
   

   June 8th, 2006 at 4:36 pm

   The NSA will just love this.

   You don’t even need to sneak and an plant bugs in order to wiretap someone now.

4. John B
   

   June 8th, 2006 at 4:45 pm

   Great!!! Another way to get more, better spam!!! More ads, consumers rejoice?

5. Will
   

   June 8th, 2006 at 4:54 pm

   I agree with Joy. Aside from the other obvious issues with this idea, users are increasingly aware of the need to preserve and protect (what’s left of) their privacy online and unless the benefit overwhelmingly outweighs the cost are unlikely to have it wrested from them in the interest of “supplemental content” of dubious value (really — who cares where Tom Cruise bought his jaunty top? And the social thing — people have already found ways to self-organize around shared-viewing experiences that seem to work well…) I guess I just don’t see how organizing the world’s information and making it accessible includes spying on the world’s users and blatantly disregarding the basic right to privacy in one’s own living room to (and let’s not kid ourselves here) sell ads.

6. prayag
   

   June 8th, 2006 at 5:04 pm

   From technical stand point great idea and out of the box thinking. But from the consumer stand point, if I love my DVR, why the hack do I want google to serve me add based on what I am watching. For F*** sake T.V is for the entertainment and not for Google to listen to what I watch.

7. Serdar
   

   June 8th, 2006 at 5:25 pm

   Why stop with TV? Google should train their system to listen in on everything that goes on at home and serve ads as necessary. V*agra! Ritalin! Divorce lawyer! Metamucil!

8. Marshall Kirkpatrick
   

   June 8th, 2006 at 5:29 pm

   Serdar, I think you win the funniest comment so far award. Tough competition though.

9. Frank
   

   June 8th, 2006 at 5:30 pm

   This is really scary. Google is set to invade its users privacy now more than ever before. F*** that!

10. roth
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 5:36 pm

    Like it or not this type of internet technology is only the beginning. Good for Google to be the first to wet their feet. And for those that think i’m crazy. Think about it this way. Ten years ago the internet was a 2400 modem. Not to mention text based only internet. Irc became chat. Text based pages became web 2.0. I could go on and on. You get my point. Hold on for major life changes.

11. Marshall Kirkpatrick
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    To be fair, the research paper says that conversations will NOT be listened to, they will be filtered out. The audio data will be compressed to represent the TV shows while it’s your computer before it’s transmitted to Google. They say it several times throughout the paper.

12. Steve Macdonald
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    Thought it was a post from The Onion.

    “but it sounds like it works and people might really like it”

    Breathtaking naivete. How old are you? 17?

13. Marshall Kirkpatrick
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    Steve, I think there is ample evidence that many people would welcome a system like this and would accept assurances that they are not being spied on.

14. JakeBrake
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    Just disconnect the microphone or eat gobs of beans and fart to mask the sounds if leaving your mic live. Of course you risk getting ads about these:
    http://health-beauty.search.eb.....acatZ26395

15. Melvin Ram
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    Sounds like they want to dip their toe into TV ads. They’ve got video ad capability added to Adwords and it sounds like this would be excellent to integrate into that. I doubt this will make it to even open beta.

    What they could do with it is go to ABC or NBC and propose contextual advertising for TV shows (which I’m guessing they already have done or have plans to.)

    Just having technology that would let them by-pass the TV stations probably gives them some leverage. From the little I know bout the media industry, they’ll need every leverage they can get.

16. Jonas
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 7:18 pm

    What a great media supplement. Heck im in front of the tv right now and on my laptop. I bet this type of interaction will be hot with the consumer.

17. RBA
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 7:28 pm

    “I have seen the future… and it sucks”.

    Could someone please draw a better future for us, humans? I mean… consumers?

18. IDunno
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 8:44 pm

    So if you’re wheezing will you get a lot of porn ads?

    Beating your spouse? Ads for guns!

    I’ll reserve judgement until I can test this out… until then, typical overreactions being seen.

19. met
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 9:17 pm

    For people watching their programs on a media center PC this roundabout method can be replicated with a widget for sideshow.

    I think Bill Gates Keynote did show something similar at Las Vegas (whatever show that was).
    They demoed something similar for HD-DVDs, too.

20. Karthik
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 10:14 pm

    Google will push a lot of its ads into that if it becomes available as a service! Makes ‘ad’ sense.

21. Simran
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 10:18 pm

    Google is getting CREEPY. From holding alll your data on GDRIVE to recording your emails and chats. I’m starting to get wary. Now they’ll have all my conversations and are going to keep records of everything I watch on TV? I forget, they also have records of everything I’ve searched for and all my research notes. And let’s not forget all my blogposts and calendar items and address book, so they know where I’ll be when and who I’m meeting and why. Are we sure we can trust an entity with so much information to stick to its motto of doing no evil? It’s been proven time and again that people and entities with power misuse it. Oh and they also know exactly who I’m meeting and chatting with on Gtalk and Orkut. They have my picture on Orkut, every personal detail of mine and what I think is a perfect date. Oh, now I know why Ms. Jr. Page was able to seduce me the other day! She knew I liked walks on the beach and tequila!

22. caw
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 10:38 pm

    Wow.. that’s almost content theft on a massive scale.. So Channel4 (UK) spends a few million quid licensing Lost so they can make a packet on advertising, and the big G displays advertising all the way through it for free… I think I’ll go into my local hypermarket and stick stickers over all the beer cans for a site I own…

    Hats off for innovation though!

    PS - wouldn’t it have been much simpler to have a web page that said ‘what channel are you watching’.. that’s 1 button click… hell, maybe we should do that instead, then scrape G through the API and display TextAds on the content.

23. Marshall Kirkpatrick
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 10:50 pm

    caw - I think you’re missing the point - people have to be able to passively enter into the active phase of TV watching Clicking your channel number is too much effort to ask from someone in order for them to enter a live chat they are honestly interested in. (For our international readers visiting right now- in case it’s not clear, I’m totally being sarcastic.)

24. caw
    

    June 8th, 2006 at 11:41 pm

    Dang, you’re right.

25. patrik
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 12:20 am

    Well, so the Google Labs reinvented, what “Radiocontrol” already does for years…:
    http://www.radiocontrol.ch/english/home.html

26. Dan
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 1:57 am

    Clever stuff … but ultimately doomed technology. With the merging of TV and internet (and radio) technologies it will all come through the same connection anyway eventually, so no need to ‘listen in’ - the data will already be logged.

27. bored
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 2:29 am

    Between this and Google’s FireFox browser sync tool (http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/browsersync/index.html) storing info on Google’s servers, I wonder if anyone is going to discuss privacy issues today?

28. Tijs
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 3:56 am

    This research ties in nicely to Cringely’s prediction that google is poised to take up video distribution (with included tv advertising model):

    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pu.....60105.html

29. Harry
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 3:56 am

    But this is like sticking a web cam so that Google knows what site we are visiting! I mean, why a mic? With IPTV, it will not be an issue to get to know what each home is viewing. Is that the expiration date of this product?

30. seekXL
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 4:38 am

    a new version of spy. what coming next? Google-Webcam? We Set you ONLINE ?!

    Google = Evil => more and more

31. Todd
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 4:45 am

    seekXL wrote: “Google = Evil => more and more”

    Hey seekXL, did you notice that the .pdf paper ( click link in post ) is 666KB?

32. Paul
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 5:49 am

    I think some of you are being complete jackasses. How many comments do we need about Google serving ads based on our conversations and the sounds of our actions, after it has been established that these noises are to be filtered out, for the point of the technology: to serve ads contextual to what you’re watching on TV.

    What’s with all the bitching about Google knowing everything about you? Don’t use their products then! All I’m seeing here is the inevitable. And it’s cool.

33. Vijaychandran
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 6:13 am

    Why cant google start an online ad making agency.Needless to say hottest in town. They can claim that they know the customer than any one because of tons of datas and clicks they can claim.

34. Darren McLaughlin
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 7:39 am

    When a company has an insane stock valuation, insane proposals start becoming accepted as reality. I cannot imagine any scenario where I’d give a company access like this (especially Google Inc.).

35. Paul Fabretti
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 7:41 am

    Awesome…bring it on. I’d be glad to be aguinea pig for this if it meant that audio (and the video) could be searchable items on google.

    This has GOT to be the next big thing. With podcasting growing so much, imagine being able to search audio and download sections only relevant to what you want.

    Despite the cliche about Google-Love this is a massive step in the right direction for me.

36. Isulong SEOph
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 7:42 am

    Isulong SEOph

    Great!

37. Medved_Preved
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 7:50 am

    Googl - жжёт))
    ток я по английски не рублю нехуя=)

38. Tim
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 8:04 am

    I really hope anything like this *ever* gets approved. Privacy out the window!

39. Tim
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 8:04 am

    I mean *NEVER* — sorry!!

40. Jim Benson
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 8:17 am

    I wanted it to provide ambient music based on my environment!

    That would not be evil.

    I say “Rats”.

41. Jimbo Jones
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 10:11 am

    Wow, fuck that, Google is invading our fucking privacy with that shit

42. lee
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 10:25 am

    I recall radioshack doing a similar form of home privacy invasion about 5 years ago with the cuecat bar code reader. Among the various similar give aways they offered a device that attached to your tv directly (i suppose ambient is enough to differentiate this as a new idea in the US’s defunked patenting system) and intercepted the audio linking you to the particular product on television. Unfortunately this was a little before widespread broadband integration and as you know never caught on. But thanks google, your love of feeding the ad machines whille playing us like pawns fed by cool techy services is what keeps the internet fresh (and your pockets loaded).

43. Wil Schroter
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 10:49 am

    #12 - the first thing I thought of when I saw this post was the Onion article with this headline:

    “Tivo gets it - you like porn”

44. Nigel
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 11:22 am

    The number and weighting of comments about this post says it all. This is a deeply flawed concept and going to kick up a shitstorm.

45. William
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 11:29 am

    Is anyone else sick of being survey and marcketed to ALL the time?

46. Bob Wyman
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 11:44 am

    Just a few days ago, Microsoft was awarded a patent on a system for monitoring “television programming” and inserting ads in content on computers as a result of that monitoring. i.e. The ads you see on web pages will be sensitive to what you watch on TV… see: http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacg.....er=7051351

    The Microsoft patent covers the case where “the client system has access to television programming viewed by a user of the information retrieval system.” The claims are not specific about the means by which “access to television programming” is achieved. The description clearly anticipates some kind of physical connection to the television device, however, the claims would appear to be written broadly enough so that picking up “ambient noise” might constitute “access to television programming.” The Google approach, being more general than the Microsoft patent, might still have a problem if it is used to do what the more constrained Microsoft system claims.

    bob wyman

47. Marshall Kirkpatrick
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 11:48 am

    Thanks for pointing that out Bob, that’s really interesting. I wonder how people would have reacted if this was a story about MS instead of Google.

48. Jahn
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    I’m just going to have to start talking nonsense whenever I’m surfing the web now.

49. Bob Wyman
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    Thanks Marshall (Comment 47). If you’re interested in this type of patents, you can find lots more at http://www.uspto.gov. Here are a few more recent Microsoft patents concerning various means of implementing advertising spyware:

    Tracking usage behavior in computer systems:
    http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacg.....er=7039699

    Transmission of information during ad click-through: http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacg.....er=7058592

    bob wyman

50. mr.ardenti
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    http://google-watch.org/
    google is not to be trusted.
    google is run by NSA Spooks

51. grouchosuave
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    PROXY! ENCRYPT! FIREWALL! hACK! UNPLUG! REPEAT!!!
    GOOGLE = LEVIATHAN = CONVENIENCE= DEATH = MARKETING = ABOMINATION = MOLOCH = MORE OF THE SAME = GARBAGE i= TOP OF MY LIST OF VELVET CHAINS to SMASH.

52. Boris Anthony
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    Trust Google. They are good people. They don’t do evil. They will certainly filter out your conversation from your response to television shows (think for a second of how that might even be possible.) Google will make the world a better place by providing more information about you to advertisers. You will have more choice of what products to buy, what presidents to vote for and what manufactured reality to live in.

    Open your eyes.

53. Dave
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    Don’t you hate seeing all these car ads……after you bought your new car. Same goes for barbeque … etc.
    So if you are watching tv and they think you are interested it a new car or barbeque is that the ads you will get?
    In an ideal world I could surf the net for just what I want to buy and find the bet price.
    Whoa…. I can do now. Guess we may not need a mindreader afterall.

54. spacemonkey
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 10:19 pm

    Purple Caviar!
    Biscuit guitar!

55. Ray in Brklyn
    

    June 9th, 2006 at 11:32 pm

    I have one thing to say here. After reading this page and it’s replys.

    I AM A VICTIM OF THIS TYPE OF TESTING. And i hate it all it has done is drive me away from my pc. and it has a unease feeling about it. This is not good. i feel as if my home has been broken and entered. i wouldn’t mind if i was told and it was an open beta but like this ! not nice at all.

56. hacker not cracker
    

    June 10th, 2006 at 7:38 pm

    that is too creapy!

57. Murali N. Rao
    

    June 12th, 2006 at 4:36 am

    Google can sell (for free) sunglasses with a buildin camera and can track what we see outside of our PCs and can popup ads when we get home.

    I am sure google’s legal team and their researchers will come up with something to protect our privacy. I heared that you can distinquish between a audio created from TV Vs people talking. So, they can just trap only our TVs.

    To protect your privacy:
    1. Switch off the pc when not in use.
    2. Use your tv’s “Closed Caption” and “Mute” functionality.
    3. Windows users, install the latest sound drivers (beta is preferred), which will anyway disable the sound system.

58. Galdren
    

    June 12th, 2006 at 7:57 am

    Calm down people…as you can see it is a seperate page that you have to visit, and since it’s in your browser, they’ll probably need you to accept the activex/java/whatever module before they can run it on your pc…

    it’s really your own choice

    and before starting to point fingers at google because they’re big and mighty…do you realize that ALL windows applications including windows itself are not open-source, which means that probably none of you actually knows what your windows operating system is doing while you’re online..

    if you’re scared software will abuse information you give to it, you better uninstall windows and start using linux

59. Tjerk
    

    June 12th, 2006 at 9:25 am

    Proves jst one point: Google is not, i repeat IS NOT, a search engine. It is an advertising trap.

60. Marijn
    

    June 12th, 2006 at 9:27 am

    William (comment 45) made a point. Privacy is not the issue (anymore). Why do companies assume that i wanna ‘buybuybuy’ everytime i visit internet? The sole purpose of internet was to provide FREE acces to information and data for everyone. Not being a huge billboard for companies. If i wanted such, i would turn on the T.V. !

61. Ferry Heemsbergen
    

    June 12th, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    Big Brother is getting bigger and bigger.

62. Kalief
    

    June 12th, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    This is great. Not for Google or their advertisers, but for me. This means I can make money by installing some yet to be invented little program which feeds fake ad info to the microphonesystem.

63. Chewtoy
    

    June 14th, 2006 at 9:08 am

    Nomen est omen: one of the guys working on this project goes by the name of Fink.

64. isulong seoph
    

    June 16th, 2006 at 5:34 am

    I wonder what will Google point out next?…they seem to have a great number of tools right now..but i think few people knows them?..i think they should put more people on their advertising staff..!!!

65. You r stupid
    

    June 21st, 2006 at 10:28 am

    hoax, fake, w/eva 666 kb published on 06/06/’06 , kthxbai

66. eli
    

    July 9th, 2006 at 11:24 pm

    Take care and DO make sure you DO speak loudly enough when Googling your tv’s noises… or The Agency will come and knock you down for all the noticed secrecy.

67. rezepte
    

    August 15th, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    Awesome…bring it on. I’d be glad to be aguinea pig for this if it meant that audio (and the video) could be searchable items on google.

    This has GOT to be the next big thing. With podcasting growing so much, imagine being able to search audio and download sections only relevant to what you want.

    Despite the cliche about Google-Love this is a massive step in the right direction for me.

68. Isulong SEOPH
    

    August 22nd, 2006 at 1:46 am

    Imagine if this is seen by everyone!

69. Amanda
    

    September 3rd, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    I have trouble believing this will ever happen.. too many privacy issues

70. JoAnn
    

    September 4th, 2006 at 9:17 am

    This abhorrent breach of one’s privacy is outrageous. I have already deleted Google toolbar and switched my search engine. I will not take a chance now or in the future to have my privacy breach in such a way not only be Google but by any one else or any other organization using such a program. NOW, the question is, how do I disable the built in microphone on my computer. I just watch a report regarding Google ears on CBC (Canadian Broadcast Channel) and the man being interviewed did say that people will NOT be able to opt out and there is a possiblity private conversations could be picked up. I don’t care if I’m talking to my cat about her fat belly, I do not want anyone listening in without my knowledge or consent. I have a Dell computer if you know how to disable the microphone please post instructions. Thank you. JoAnn

71. 2Much
    

    September 4th, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    Google is going too far. Their reasons to listen to ambient noise in our homes are lame!!! I do not intend to be listened to in my home. I am getting in contact with the office of the privacy commissioner of Canada to file a complaint under the Privacy Act. I hope others will do the same.

72. Bob
    

    September 6th, 2006 at 4:24 am

    Hey Google, good luck with that here. All computers in the household either don’t have microphones hooked to them or, in the case of laptops, the mic input is muted.
    I’ve pretty much been trusting of Google…until now.

73. fucks_google_in_mouth
    

    September 6th, 2006 at 8:51 am

    Hey guess, what - no more Google in this household. I bet Google’s market share, which eroded from 80% in 2002 to less than 45% in 2006, will be under 25% by 2008. Bye Bye Buggy Whip.

74. from ray in brooklyn
    

    September 15th, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    The company, which was spun off from a Carnegie Mellon University project in 2001, announced this week the AKU2000, a single-chip microphone that can be produced on standard silicon processes. Ultimately, the chip could lead to better voice quality on Skype phones embedded in laptops, for example, or sharper, more distinct sound on video captured by digital cameras.

    A few Asian laptop manufacturers may begin to offer notebooks with the chip in a few months, said Akustica CEO Jim Rock.

    “If you are serious about VoIP, you need to offer a digital microphone,” he said.

    Microphones in laptops, cell phones and MP3 players/voice recorders are largely Electret Condenser Microphones. ECMs are analog devices, which mean they capture real-world sound waves with a membrane and transmit them to an analog-to-digital converter. To prevent signal interference or noise, ECMs have to be insulated from wires and components.

    The membrane in the AKU2000 is one of the metal layers of the chip. (Chips are made up of layers of silicon and metal.) An integrated analog-to-digital converter then turns the captured vibrations into a digital signal. The entire microphone is contained on a single chip–a first, according to the company.

    With the digital microphone, interference is less of an issue, meaning the chips can be placed more freely inside a notebook or cell phone. Two to four of the chips can be embedded into the bezel of a notebook, for instance. The first notebooks with Akustica’s product will likely have two chips. With more microphones, sound quality improves.

    “You can focus better on the speaker and get rid of noise,” Rock said.

    The AKU2000 takes up less space than traditional microphones because additional components for preventing signal interference aren’t needed.

    In other news:
    Let there be light, optical cables included
    Windows Vista on the horizon
    Digital cameras’ focus on revised reality
    News.com Extra: TiVo tastes some sweet revenge
    Video: Robot takes to bottom of Crater Lake
    The basic chip technology may also be used one day to make accelerometers, be incorporated into car-braking systems or be built into different types of communications chips.

    The difficult part, at least for now, is the price, noted Allen Nogee, an analyst at In-Stat. “It is not the cheapest microphone on the market,” he said.

    Akustica’s chip will sell for $3.76 in quantities of 1,000, while conventional microphone chips sell for $1 or less. Still, Rock said the price difference is actually rather slight, because most customers will order more than 1,000.

    “We’re talking 50,000 and 100,000,” he said.

    A system recently outlined by researchers at Google amounts to personalized TV without the fancy set-top equipment required by previous (and failed) attempts at interactive television. Their prototype software, detailed in a conference presentation in Europe last June, uses a computer’s built-in microphone to listen to the sounds in a room. It then filters each five-second snippet of sound to pick out audio from a TV, reduces the snippet to a digital “fingerprint,” searches an Internet server for a matching fingerprint from a pre-recorded show, and, if it finds a match, displays ads, chat rooms, or other information related to that snippet on the user’s computer.
    ——————————————————————————–

    Someone want to clue me in to the built-in microphone in every PC? I’m guessing some laptops have a built-in microphone, but how about desktop computers? Desktops usually have a microphone port on the back of the motherboard which you can hook up a mic, but is there another surface mount microphone on the motherboard itself? Anyone heard of this?

    Google Using Your Mic to Listen In?
    Then feeding you ads based on what they hear…

    Posted on 2006-09-04 11:22:10 by Karl

    A strange story in the Register this morning that suggests the search giant is working on technology that would listen in on ambient noise via a user’s PC microphone, then deliver contextual ads based on what was heard. Google apparently promises that the service only listens to music or TV noise and bases the ads off of that, but privacy implications are so far reaching that it’s hard to believe this idea has any real traction.

    Story tag: business content privacy

    Voice Over Internet Protocol and Skype Security

    Simson L. Garfinkel

    With the increased deployment of high-speed (“broadband”) Internet connectivity, a growing number of businesses and individuals are using the Internet for voice telephony, a technique known as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). With a VoIP system, two people can speak with each other by using headsets and microphones connected directly to their computers. Skype is a proprietary VoIP system developed by Skype Technologies S.A. Like the popular KaZaA file-trading system, Skype is based on peer-to-peer technology: instead of transmitting all voice calls through a central server, as some VoIP services do (Vonage, for example), Skype clients seek out and find other Skype clients, then build from these connections a network that can be used to search for other users and send them messages. Is Skype secure? How does its security compare with that of conventional telephone calls, or of other VoIP-based systems? In this article commissioned by OSI’s Information Program, Simson Garfinkel, an expert on Internet security and networking issues, looks at the security properties of key importance for civil society organizations relying on Skype for voice communications.

    This paper is under Creative Commons license, so, please, distribute it freely

75. yo mom
    

    September 17th, 2006 at 9:04 am

    fuck this bullshit ,

    ill never knowingly let this operate in my house ,

76. yo mom
    

    September 17th, 2006 at 9:07 am

    oh and by the way ,

    for you people who value your privacy ,

    use this instead of google search

    http://scroogle.org/

77. the truth
    

    September 17th, 2006 at 11:00 am

    every phone in the world is an active microphone into your home. the phone can be “on-the-hook” and still transmit sound to anyone with the capacity and desire to listen. check out the FoxNews reports on Comverse’s (an Israeli company) widespread spying on and in the U.S.A and see the 2006 film ‘The Listening”

    Google at least has the class to be upfront about their spying

78. Roger
    

    November 18th, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    After ma