The Insiders Report: 03

Is Technology Reading Our Minds?

[Image by alexmogopro from Pixabay]

This question involves a bit of urban legend and whether it has any basis in fact. It seems
pretty clear that our mobile phones are at least some of the time, eavesdropping on our conversations, even when they’re not being used for a phone call; when they’re supposedly idle.

Many of us have experienced talking about something, only to have that topic appear in our social media feed, in an advertisement or in our YouTube suggested videos.

Increasingly however, people report having merely thought internally about something, not having spoken about it or discussed it with anyone, only to have that topic similarly appear in their electronic media.

I experienced this myself recently when out walking. I spontaneously thought of someone I worked with more than 25 years ago and whom I had not seen or heard from since. The very next day, this person appeared in my suggested Facebook friends. I almost didn’t recognise her at first as so much time had passed but the name confirmed it. This person was not incidentally in my phone contacts.

IN OTHER NEWS: Today’s question is; It seems like technology is reading our minds. Is this really what is happening and if so, how?

THE INSIDERS: We can confirm that technology companies that develop mobile phone software indeed can and do eavesdrop on what they can pick up through the devices’ microphones. Now this does not occur all the time but can be triggered by the confluence of certain events which the business entities in question have deemed to be reliable triggers. We note that these companies deny that such eavesdropping occurs but if you take the example of voice activated assistants, in order to be activated by your voice, they must be listening for it. And so it is a small step technologically speaking, to harvest verbal information at certain strategic times.

Now the matter of whether your phone is reading your mind is a little more complex, because at this time at least, there is no direct electronic connection between the device and the user’s brain. But that is not to say that a form of connection does not exist. The interesting thing in this example is that this next level of interaction is largely in the opposite direction to that which your urban legend, as you put it, may have it.

Modern technology companies are very adept at harvesting information about the users of their technology and they are able to construct remarkably cogent profiles on each user. And we would say that in almost every case that if the individual were to see a copy of the profile that has been developed on them simply through monitoring their use of the various applications on their devices, their search queries, their purchases, their social media habits and so forth, the individual would be incredulous at the level of detail that can be discerned about them.

Not only are these corporate entities aware of this, but we would point out that very many of the world’s intelligence agencies are acutely aware of this too, and that is why access to these platforms by those agencies has been of such significance to them. And of course, the agencies can credibly claim that they are not collecting data themselves on their citizens but are merely accessing commercially available data that citizens have purportedly volunteered. Although very many of those citizens would be horrified to know the level at which these technologies surveil them and the detail of the profiles that they’re able to create.

It is widely known that the collection and analysis of this information on individuals is remarkably effective as a tool for targeting advertising. And it should be noted that there is an element of human nature here when such a company analyses your profile and elects to send you an advertisement or a news story or some other information that it deems to be of interest to you, the human recipient will notice when they get it right and will very often be surprised. But they do not notice the countless other times when the algorithm gets it wrong, or at least the information that it chooses for you is not exactly precise enough to elicit that surprise response.

So that is occurring on the one hand. The other side of the coin, so to speak, is not so much that the device or the technology is reading the human mind, but rather that the desire of the individual is affecting the media that the system sends. What we would say is that if the individual were to sit down and think about something that they would like to see on their media feed, their suggested YouTube videos for example, this would likely have very little if any effect. Because that is not how desire works. But the quiet voice you might say, that is powered and enabled by nothing more than one’s desire, is an incredibly powerful influence.

In the example that you gave of your former colleague, you did not spend a long time thinking about that person or where they might be. It was a spontaneous question if you like, that came to you and just as quickly left you. And yet, there was a genuine enquiry of the Universe, you might say, in that process; very quiet but very powerful. There is something in the letting go of that, the moving on, that is a part of this, what we will call, ‘quiet voice’ phenomena.

What is new and different about this is that the very existence of these electronic and media
technologies has meant that these are new ways in which one’s desires can manifest. The Universe could not respond to your genuine query about your work colleague by presenting that person to you on Facebook, before Facebook existed. But now it can. And equally your desire to know about products that you’ve contemplated purchasing could not be fulfilled in the manner in which we’re discussing before the advent of electronic advertisements of this nature. It is interesting to point out that people would comment in similar fashion in days past, about television and radio commercials, and would note with surprise when a product or service about which they had just been thinking would be mentioned.

So this phenomena in a wider sense is not new. It is simply able to present itself in these new types of media that have become a very central focus in the lives of so many around the world. We would say that there are many in the audience for this article who would perhaps be more comfortable with the idea that the technology companies were indeed reading their minds, than with the concept that their minds were influencing the media companies.

What is of far greater concern is the willingness of the individual to hand over the type of information that enables these tech companies to profile individual members of the public, individual users of their services, in such unbelievable detail. And we reiterate that if the general user were aware of the capabilities that the sharing of this information, or rather the handing over of this information, to these firms enables, they would be horrified. Now whether they would be willing to forgo the convenience and the pleasures of participating in these services is another thing, and that is something that these technology firms are very aware of and exploit to their own advantage.

Privacy is one of those things that might be described by saying you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til its gone. Meaning that the value of privacy is greatly underappreciated, until such time as one realises that they no longer have it. It is something that once relinquished is all but impossible to regain. And so to value privacy should be of very high order.

Now that is not to endorse secrecy. For privacy and secrecy are not the same thing in most cases. We would say that privacy is inspired by desire, whereas secrecy is inspired by fear. That may give the reader a helpful yardstick by which to define and measure these similar but different concepts.

We would encourage everyone to value privacy, while you have it. And to be very conscious of the consequences both to the individual and to society, of devaluing, of neglecting, of giving up one’s privacy far too easily and willingly. Because indeed, you do not know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.