While voice attendees and smart speakers have become a common place in recent years, a policy change for Amazon Echo devices has left some wondering how much information they are absorbing their devices.
Amazon is eliminating a configuration called ‘Do not send voice recordings’, which allowed some users in the United States to process their recordings locally on their device instead of being sent to Amazon.
This option was never offered to users in other countries.
Amazon said that Australian Echo users can use their privacy settings to administer their recordings in other ways, including the elimination of them individually or bulk, or choose not to save them after Amazon has processed them.
“Alexa’s experience is designed to protect the privacy of our clients and maintain their safe data, and that is not changing,” said a Amazon spokesman about recent changes.
“We are focusing on the privacy tools and the controls that our clients use more and work well with generative experiences that depend on the processing power of the safe cloud of Amazon.”
Almost half of the Australians considered the potential of websites, applications and devices that listen to them as one of the greatest privacy risks, according to the most recent Australian community attitudes towards the privacy survey.
What are the benefits of smart speakers?
Vision Australia executes an intelligent speakers program through which participants with vision disabilities are configured with an Amazon Dot Echo and cross a group training program.
John Clower, a specialist in access technology at Vision Australia, said it has been “really great” for customers.
He said that the program, now in their ninth iteration, had helped them develop a sense of community while learning how to use devices to establish timers and alarms, administer their calendars, reproduce radio stations and more.
John Clower is a specialist in access technology in Vision Australia. Fountain: Supplied
“All our clients are over 65, so they are a bit older,” he said, adding that some were “cautious of technology.”
“There are some people who simply disconnect it when they are not using it, and that’s fine, of course.”
Despite the apparent benefits for some, privacy concerns about smart speakers are left.
Does accessibility have privacy cost?
Dhaval Vyas was a principal researcher in a project of the University of Queensland who worked with 14 participants with disabilities to understand how AI could help them support them.
“We want to make sure it is something where humans are involved in decision -making and they are the ones who are really guiding the design process,” he said.
While the participants in the study, entitled Human Centered for the Life of IA Support Assistance for people with disabilities, found tools such as useful tools, some shared concerns about data collection, storage and property, among other topics.
“I don’t want to be part of some algorithm that sells my voice data to advertisers,” said a participant.
Many participants wanted to retain control over recordings and felt uncomfortable with the devices they constantly listened.
Kathryn Gledhill-Tucker, a Nyungar technologist, writer and digital rights activist, told SBS that there should be no compensation between accessibility and privacy.
“Even if he is not a disabled person or has no disabled people in his life, having those chances of accessibility or even having a device that facilitates life is something we should be able to enjoy without sacrificing our privacy … and our personal security and the security of our house and the security of our communities,” said Gledhill-Tucker.
Gledhill-Tucker said that Amazon’s last change was part of a broader pattern of companies that claim that they need more data to “develop all these new brilliant features such as generative AI” offering “the next thing in the garbage market.”
“They are looking for new ways of monetizing Echo and Alexa and, unfortunately, privacy and security controls are brought on the way to monetize user data.”
There are more concerns in the current political context.
“Having a recording device in each home is to appeal to the application of the law and it is a particularly terrible concern in a political climate of the growing authoritarianism,” said Gledhill-Tucker.
What are the risks?
Associate Professor James Parker studies machine listening at the University of Melbourne.
“When I started working on this issue, everyone was very worried about smart speakers,” he said.
“People were quite anxious for what was precisely heard.
“And I think that has gone large now.”
Parker said that the initial launch of the Amazon echo in the mid -2010 arrived “after which also have to do with government surveillance and corporate surveillance and listen. “
The Amazon Echo Dot was first introduced in 2014, before being available in Australia in 2018. Fountain: AP / Elaine Thompson
“All these companies can say: ‘Well, these devices do not listen until you say the word of vigil.’
“That is a rather powerful outer trick.”
Parker said that the borders of Wake’s words (for example, ‘Hey Alexa’ or ‘Hey Siri’) have eroded over the years in the name of convenience, since companies have gone from shorter phrases to handle multiple commands in a row to listen to all the time.
“Sometimes we consent,” said Parker. “But there are many situations in which you really do not know exactly what is heard and Amazon reserves the right ways to change exactly how you are listening and how the data is used without you knowing it.”
“Now we have so many listening devices everywhere that are pirateable by disastrous people, governments, etc., etc.”
While there are examples of specific damage raised by smart speakers, Parker warns against elaborating the problem in this way.
“At the time you begin to frame in terms of these specific problems or violations, Amazon or Apple or who can promise to solve them,” he said.
Companies will often apologize for an error, they will thank for being alerted and promise to improve security standards, he said.
However, they often respond by saying: “Well, we just need more data.”
“The biggest problem is the political economic problem basically, which we have admitted our data on scale.
“We have just granted, or just give up, all this power and wealth to these types by giving them our data or allowing them to tell us that our data is fine.”
Are there adequate protections instead?
Gledhill-Tucker said there was no need to exchange privacy and security for accessibility.
“I want to tools in which they can have privacy and accessibility at the same time,” they said.
Groups like Digital Rights Watch, where Gledhill-Tucker is campaigns and defense manager, have been campaigning for a significant privacy reform.
Unlike countries that have a declaration of rights, there is no right to privacy of federal privacy in Australia. On the other hand, protection comes from the Privacy Law and its related privacy principles.
Although the law was updated last year, many of the recommendations made by the revision of the Attorney General who preceded it remained for a second section of established reforms for after the elections.
“Not only does people privacy,” said Gledhill-Tucker.
“There are broader concerns about national security and also for organizations.
“Having a privacy reform is good for business and is good for people and is good for the country, so you really can’t expect.
“Until we have a robust privacy act, we are particularly vulnerable in this country.”
