Why Are Conversational Assistants Still Black Boxes? The Case For Transparency
Authors:
- Trung Dong HuynhTHTrung Dong Huynh
- William SeymourWSWilliam Seymour
- Luc MoreauLMLuc Moreau
- Jose SuchJSJose Such
Preprint
Abstract
Much has been written about privacy in the context of conversational and voice assistants. Yet, there have been remarkably few developments in terms of the actual privacy offered by these devices. But how much of this is due to the technical and design limitations of speech as an interaction modality? In this paper, we set out to reframe the discussion on why commercial conversational assistants do not offer meaningful privacy and transparency by demonstrating how they \emph{could}. By instrumenting the open-source voice assistant Mycroft to capture audit trails for data access, we demonstrate how such functionality could be integrated into big players in the sector like Alexa and Google Assistant. We show that this problem can be solved with existing technology and open standards and is thus fundamentally a business decision rather than a technical limitation.Keywords
All Related Versions
- Version 1, 2023-06-08, ArXiv
- Published version: , 1.
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Privacy Norms for Smart Home Personal Assistants2021
- Amazon vs. My Brother: How Users of Shared Smart Speakers Perceive and Cope with Privacy Risks2020
- Informing the Design of Privacy-Empowering Tools for the Connected Home2020
- FoxIT2018
- Alexa, Are You Listening?Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2018
- X-Ray Refine2018
- Consumer Attitudes Towards Privacy and Security in Home Assistants2018
- A Templating System to Generate ProvenanceIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2017
- Leakiness and creepiness in app space2014
- Consent for all2013