Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
>A team of researchers from the Brunswick Technical University in Germany has discovered an alarming number of Android apps (234, to be exact) that employ ultrasonic tracking beacons to track users and their nearby environment. Their research paper focused on the technology of ultrasound cross-device tracking (uXDT) that became very popular in the last three years. uXDT is the practice of advertisers hiding ultrasounds in their ads. When the ad plays on a TV or radio, or some ad code runs on a mobile or computer, it emits ultrasounds that are picked up by the microphone of nearby laptops, desktops, tablets or smartphones. SDKs embedded in apps installed on those devices relay the beacon back to the online advertiser, who then knows that the user of TV "x" is also the owner of smartphone "Y" and links their two previous advertising profiles together, creating a broader picture of the user's interests, device portfolio, home, and even family members.
>>
>>60232733
>ultrasound
... so the speakers on the TVs and radios can somehow generate a signal in the hundreds of Hz now? And the microphones on these phones somehow as a portable device can not only pick it up but also process it as a encoded message?
Your tin foil hat is too tight
>>
>out of 1 billion apps you have to use one of the 234 specific apps while being near another device with a microphone while playing an ad with sound enabled
wow it's fucking nothing
>>
>>60232810
It's possible but an unlikely concern. 17khz is above most people's range, and most apps have permission to use mic.
>>
>>60232733
>who then knows that the user of TV "x" is also the owner of smartphone "Y"
Do these retards not understand how TV ads work? Do they really think every one is unique to each TV set?
>>
>>60232810
You fucking idiot. 400Hz or thereabouts is the baseline of the western music so your "hundreds of Hertz" is fucking idiotic as fuck. Besides, even the shitiest mics and speakershave no problem with us. Quality of reproduction, flatness of the spectrum and stuff like that goes bad, but just transmitting a note or maybe some simple digitally coded message is simple. Really cheap speakers have little trouble going to like 50kHz.
>>
>>60232733
post link to the research paper you faggot
>>
File: 12mT2u8.jpg (72KB, 638x800px) Image search:
[Google]
72KB, 638x800px
link to the study
http://christian.wressnegger.info/content/projects/sidechannels/2017-eurosp.pdf
>>
>>60233180
>Really cheap speakers have little trouble going to like 50kHz.
good luck trying to push that over a 44khz pcm stream.
also compression would probably ruin it too.
>>
>>60232810
>so the speakers on the TVs and radios can somehow generate a signal in the hundreds of Hz now
Go on youtube right now and look for a tone sweep video, idiot
>>
>>60233180
>digital signal
>over analog
>>>/b/
>>
>>60233180
>You fucking idiot.
>Ultrasonic
>400 Hz
>Ultrasonic
Yep.
>>
>>60232810
>somehow generate a signal in the hundreds of Hz now?
Hundreds of hertz? When have they ever not been able to do that?
>>
>owner of TV x is also owner of smartphone Y
That's dumb shit. This would require every TV to emit a different digital signal, that's just not how TV's work.
>>
Can someone provide a list?
>>
>>60233779
This. Where's the app list? The document doesn't include it.
>>60233762
It's not impossible. Seeing how almost every printer prints it's serial number onto paper in microscopic size I don't see why a TV couldn't emit an audio pattern continuously to broadcast it's ID. You could potentially store millions of ID combinations in a 1 second broadcast, and with each second the number of combinations increases exponentially. So a 4-5 second audio loop would be enough for a unique TV ID.
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1