Not going to go there just yet. My thoughts 'might' be interpreted by human or alien technology but the amount of data they generate would have to be massive and could never be used, effectively at least, for detective controls - i.e. after-the-fact forensics.
I think there are many apps which tap microphones and relay information between service providers and device so that is likely how they converted your personal vocalizations into a request for the opportunity to listen to, or buy, the song 'for real'. Probably human capabilities, possibly just some smart agents.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.299.8415%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf
The human thought problem is much thornier if you think about it. All the worst things conspiracy folks worry about are really influencing capabilities, designed to modify the integrity of the human processing function, for some evil and typically in the big scheme poorly thought-out purpose, rather than purely confidentiality degrading. Put simply, right now, we'd never stand for Minority Report.
Example: If someone accused me of a thought crime, I'd say 'prove it', and they would leak evidence of a very large and very poorly deployed capability. If the targeted thoughts were corroborated with action, or paper trails, like this chan, they would have to break the canary or harm the platform or compromise the board owners to match the thinker up to the posting but even then the burden of proof would likely be too high.
We need a lawyer anon to start modeling legal implications of both loss of confidentiality and integrity of our mental processes.
Enter the influencing capabilities…if such a system were deployed, again by aliens or humans, their goal would be to perform denial of service on your normal thought processes to make you look stupid, to make you talk crazy talk and give them a reason to go snooping, or to influence your behaviors to a specific, and, likely evil, agenda. Think also of the number of human agents who would have to be watching: I'd estimate you'd need at least one master controller position (the person who does the interacting at any given moment), a half dozen clerks (with really nothing more than pen and paper), and a couple of technical guys - for every single monitored person! (Which is a very good indication that such a system wouldn't be government funded and possibly would be considered a waste of resources if it ever made it to the attentions of Congress and the Executive branch).
Aside: You may wonder why I'm not being gentle with my characterizations when my habit appears to be gentility? Simply, I have no evidence that anything I'm talking about is true - just plausible given the information on this and prior breads. But regardless, if the hypothesized capabilities exist there would be a legal framework problem that we would need to address.
In intellectual honesty, humans operating a system like that 'could' influence for good, but they are simply too short sighted to do so thinking that the quick win of a policy victory due to evil behavior, (compromising, shootings, or other stupid stuff) is more important than the long term culturation of a real lasting relationship. Since they aren't (always) forcing the action, they ethically don't feel like they owe anyone anything because of the same moronic lack of principles that lead folks to think entrapment is acceptable.
But everything works both directions.
So in summary, the example above is likely human technology attempting to sell you a good experience. The hypothesized system would likely need to be focused not on confidentiality (since the information wouldn't be meaningful in terms of getting people in trouble and there would just be too much of it after a while) but on modification of integrity (optimal) or availability (suboptimal). If such a system existed, the overhead per monitored entity would likely be too high to sustain in this economic climate. (You could test for alterations in mental processing during events like government shutdowns and holidays, if you were truly a little concerned).
Finally:
Everything works both directions. We are both acted upon and act - sometimes simultaneously.
Something doing a mental projection into your head would find the projection modified by the shape of your mind as much or more than you would be modified by that projection, at first. This is one way in which Greer may be correct, despite the aggression of the bread against him, by assuming no ill intent we may be forcing Interlopers into following the rules of no ill intent. Could they do denial of service? Sure. Does it benefit society for you to experience a snow crash? Maybe (doubtful) slightly, but I'll give it a very small maybe. But then why would you waste your time? As the aggressor, that is. Just shoot us or take away our food or turn off the simulation - or however you see it.