They're probably not doing it through smartphones, since the leaked slide deck never actually directly mentions the devices they're using to listen in on people only stating they're "smart devices": https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25051283-cmg-pitch-d...
It is much more likely they're listening in using the microphones in smart TVs, which have much weaker privacy protections. This would also make sense since Cox Media Group is a broadcaster, thus they're much more likely to have broad access to data from smart TVs than from smartphones.
None of those articles provide evidence and the last article mentions how difficult it would be to hide such activity on a smartphone due to power and data constraints. A smart TV has none of those issues.
I have been using NoRoot Firewall since my day1 with Android. It takes some times but I allow the least amount of rules per app, then block . per app, and block globally the ones I identify (trackers etc.)
I also block 31... range globally and the FB and FBCDN addresses (namely)(but I don't use FB/IG/WA anyway)
So the "Hey siri"/"alexa"/"Ok Google", those features don't show your mic is recording, i dont think. Whether it's TVs or phones. all of the speech recognition and hands free control features are probably enough. there are masses of consumers that opt-in to these companies collecting data "to improve services" and other sketchy stuff. Honestly, I would think if you wanted to build a business around this it would be much better to go after the data collected behind EULAs that never got read than try to collect data from people who have all that shit turned off..
"Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition," Samsung posted in its SmartTV privacy policy.
Sure there is. I would expect a feature called "Voice Recognition" would only be active when I was using voice commands (and perhaps the occasional accidental activation), but not at other times.
> How would you activate certain voice commands if it wasn't listening to all?
One common implementation is to use a locally detected wake word (described in another post), but I've also seen many which require you to hold down a button to speak voice commands. Both solutions answer your technical question satisfactorily.
However, this is how I (and most people) expect voice commands will work based on plain reading of the fine print: the voice commands will be transmitted, but it won't establish 24/7 audio surveillance of your house.
The fine print (and therefore the "explicit" "consent" so obtained) is deceptive and fraudulent.
---
However your real concern is apparently a trust question, not a technical question. The technical question was apparently just a distraction.
Obviously if you don't trust the implementer not to lie about their implementation (ie you assume fraud at the outset), then any microphone (or speaker for that matter!) could be a 24/7 listening bug regardless of trigger implementation or EULA fine print. I see that in another reply you already moved the goalposts thusly.[1] ;)
I think amazon solved this partly with hardcoding "alexa" as the wake up word. Meaning a specialized program monitors for "alexa" and ignores everything else and does not record.
Smart TVs might work similar, but I surely won't have anything like it in my home anyway.
I was under the impression that was still infeasible on mobile devices (battery, processor, etc). Happy to be corrected, because I have to admit it's only a matter of time.
It is much more likely they're listening in using the microphones in smart TVs, which have much weaker privacy protections. This would also make sense since Cox Media Group is a broadcaster, thus they're much more likely to have broad access to data from smart TVs than from smartphones.