[zie]

> They have also made public statements that outright state that voice data doesn't get used for ad-targeting[3]

“not use customers’ voice recordings for targeted advertising.”

I guess it depends on how one reads that quote. A trusting sort could read that to mean, we don't use anything we learn from voice recordings for targeted advertising.

A skeptic might read that quote and determine:

Well we generate metadata from the recording, and we then use the metedata for targeted advertising, but we don't use the actual recording for advertising.

Which makes sense, if I was to implement something like this, I wouldn't use the actual recording, I'd process the recording(which I have to do anyway to answer the request) and if I happen to save some useful for advertising data along the way, well, more $$'s for me!

Which one is true? I guess it mostly depends on how hungry Amazon is to make a buck and what they think they can get away with. As a privacy snob, I'd prefer the trusting version to be true.

[midislack]

NSA uses the same tricky language. Clapper got before the American people and said "nobody is reading your emails." What he didn't say is, computers are processing them because there's too many for people to read. In this case, I suspect Amazon is technically telling the truth, and automatic transcription into text is what drives their ad engine.

[tensor]

Yes exactly, the text is arguably data derived from voice recordings. So they can say that they don't use the voice recordings for ads, while omitting that they do use the derived text that was recognized for ads. It's unclear language but I wouldn't be surprised if this was the correct interpretation.