Microsoft's Acoustic Caller ID Patent

theodp writes "A new patent granted to Microsoft Tuesday for automatic identification of telephone callers based on voice characteristics covers constructing acoustic models for telephone callers by identifying words or subject matter commonly used by callers and capturing the acoustic properties of any utterance. Not only that, it's done 'without alerting the caller during the call that the caller is being identified,' boasts Microsoft in the patent claims."

Why?

[Aoreias]

What's the purpose of caller ID after I've picked up the phone? I'm not going to talk to some challenge response bot if I'm someone who needs to be IDd and screened anyway.

How is this different from existing voice recog?

[Ngarrang]

I read the patent, but I guess I don't get it. How is what Microsoft claiming to do different from existing voice recognition systems?

You have to train current voice systems so they recognize your voice pattern (or, acoustic ID) and translate it to text or action. Take that and add a system that keeps profiles for a more advanced version of caller ID. It seems like a natural evolution of the technology.

Err

[OverlordQ]

Wont this most likely violate wiretapping laws in two-party states?

Re:Only Innovation: Real Time versus Offline?

[LiquidCoooled]

It might not be useful in a home environment, but how about in an office where after the initial greeting the customer details are popped on-screen without you typing anything?

Wiretapping law

[w9ofa]

It is my understanding that recording a telephone conversation is against the law in most states, without notifying the other parties on the line.

Thus, a practical device for this patent would most likely be illegal.

Re:Only Innovation: Real Time versus Offline?

[Ctrl-Z]

Isn't that why they ask for my account number?

Prior Art - Invented in 1968

[sk999]

Inventors: Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick

First publication: 2001 A Space Odyssey (Released 1968). Heywood Floyd checks in to the space station:

Female voice: "Thank you. You are cleared through Voiceprint Identification."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/quotes [imdb.com]

Re:Only Innovation: Real Time versus Offline?

[Nasarius]

I have. As I remember, it's one of the least painful parts of working tech support.

Sounds cool, but...

[fyrewulff]

I have Caller ID so I know who's calling BEFORE I pick up the phone, not afterwards.

4th Amendment?

[ivanmarsh]

Should I even ask? Does the 4th Amendment mean anything anymore?

Cops bust a guy for video taping them and charge him with wiretapping and Microsoft is going to be recording my voice and compiling a profile of me and that's okay?

Words I'm guessing it will be looking for by default: bomb, liberal, weed, nuke, bush, 1st Amendment.

My tinfoil hat is starting to look stylish.

Re:Only Innovation: Real Time versus Offline?

[fractoid]

You're the kind of rude, arrogant bastard that loses companies customers. Stop thinking of the people you're being paid to support as automatons, and maybe you'll grow some career scope. As a side effect you may end up with people actually liking you.

*sigh* IHBT, I know.

On-topic now, I'm surprised I haven't (yet) seen much FUD about this technology being used to identify and track people. Seems to me that it'd be the sort of thing enforcement agencies would love to bits...

Re:Only Innovation: Real Time versus Offline?

[Yoozer]

Me: "Thank you for calling, may I have your store's telephone number, area code first please?"

You're the kind of rude, arrogant bastard that loses companies customers.

Yeah, but only if he adds the insulting part to the call or changes tone with "your phone number?" (but that could indeed benefit from a "please").

Part of the problem is that when you call any company, you generally get a barrage of useless information such as "This is Quux speaking, Foo and Bar suppliers, we now have a wonderful FooBar for only $39.95, how can I help you?" - which is swiftly (and rightfully) ignored because it's just noise; it does not solve the customer's problem. Make enough calls like that and they become a protocol.

By trying to cut short and asking the phone number and area code, the call is made longer; for the customer it belongs to the last part of the first sentence and is therefore ignored, hence people will ask for it again. People generally want to identify themselves first after hearing contact has succeeded. To put it in computer terms; the AC is trying to cram the payload in the header of the packet and is then pissed off that the protocol doesn't support it.

More effective would probably be "Thank you for calling, I'm Anonymous Coward, how can I help you?" - the latter part of this sentence ("I'm Anonymous Coward, how can I help you") will be ignored, but at least that information is completely irrelevant to the rest of the call. Then ask for important information, since that's actual payload.

Re:Only Innovation: Real Time versus Offline?

[Anonymous Coward]

FUD isn't just any piece of misinformation, it refers specifically to a tactic companies (*cough* MS *cough*) use and most of the time is orchestrated, dishonest in nature and accompanied by a campaign. How you can liken this to a person on /. who expresses an opinion is beyond me and even scares me a bit. Do you really think all people on /. are somehow in a plot to orchestrate FUD campaigns against everything Microsoft releases? Of course we all know this effect exists, but it's because people judge Microsoft on technical merit, which sucks. I hope you can see the difference...

Have a nice day,
Fred