Law in the Internet Society

View   r3  >  r2  ...
LaraNurickFirstEssay 3 - 03 Dec 2017 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstEssay"
Line: 9 to 9


I recently witnessed an apparently endless line of people waiting for free giveaways of the newly launched Google Home Mini ‘Digital Assistant’ (‘DA’). The current proliferation of DAs, from Amazon’s Echo, (which goes by ‘Alexa’), to Apple’s HomePod? , provoked me to question the impact of DAs on humanity, specifically on behavior, privacy and agency.
I recently witnessed an apparently endless line of people waiting for free giveaways of the newly launched Google Home Mini ‘Digital Assistant’ (‘DA’). The current proliferation of DAs, from Amazon’s Echo, (which goes by ‘Alexa’), to Apple’s HomePod? ,

Still vaporware, delayed again, is it not? Insanely great, to be, one day, it is. No doubt?

provoked me to question the impact of DAs on humanity, specifically on behavior, privacy and agency.



Line: 22 to 29
 Using technology to mediate and action basic human needs is fundamentally altering human interaction. As Sherry Turkle warns, it conditions us to “expect more from technology and less from each other”. Whilst DAs’ hands-free centralized control is highly convenient and may benefit the disabled and the elderly; children’s behavior may be at risk. Although children enjoy the speedy access to information and available games along with the simulated company of DAs, research suggests the impact of increasing mediated interaction and the DAs’ lack of emotional intelligence may promote the use of simplistic language and inquiry, bad manners, compromised adult-child communication along with the need for instant gratification. DAs value simple clear diction over niceties and patience, potentially leading children to adopt similar behavior in all interactions.
Potentially. But children adeptly speak different languages with different persons, which might also "potentially" mean that they will use machine-speak with machines, as my high-school French teacher in his childhood spoke French with his parents, German with his nursemaid, and Russian with the cook. And these "natural language" voicebrowsing products will grow up too, right? Hinging our long-term analysis on the current state of the software is likely to result in the obsolescence of the analysis before the replacement of the product.



Amazon’s Echo comprises two speakers, seven microphones and omnidirectional audio. When it detects its wake word ‘Alexa’, it streams what it hears as well as the fraction of a second beforehand to the cloud. This is troublesome because this information likely contains fragmentary intimate conversation which cumulatively may reveal significant information from within the most private of places; the home. While the Fourth Amendment historically provides the idea of an inviolate home, the controversial third-party doctrine suggests that one’s privacy may be overridden when one voluntarily shares information from inside the home with a third-party corporation. This was discussed following James Bates’ murder trial where police requested DAs’ recordings for the first time. While Amazon initially refused, these were eventually given up consensually, precipitating unresolved privacy questions. As DAs prevalence proliferates, moot questions arise regarding the operation of state law and the use of DA recordings where unknowing guests may be recorded, especially in states that require both parties consent for recordings. This issue is exacerbated by companies’ efforts to camouflage DAs within one’s home decor by improving their appearance, possibly making users even less aware of their potential intrusion. Bates’ case therefore highlights DAs’ potential to exploit owners and their invitees. It also confirms that companies like Amazon retain data indefinitely. Although deletion of information is possible on DAs, it is strongly discouraged as it “may degrade your Alexa experience” since DAs “get better over time” by processing speech, timbre and accents. For the majority of purchasers of DAs for convenience, deletion is counter to optimization and seems unviable. Moreover, manually turning a DA off fundamentally undermines its ‘beck-and-call’ utility. This compromise of privacy and agency for convenience may prove too high a tradeoff.

Really? Sending the servants out of the room and regulating one's speech "devant les enfants" has been convenient enough for the last several thousand years.

 Notably, whilst devices like smartphones and apps like Facebook, FaceTime? and Skype already impinge on the private domain of the home, these differ in that they are not permanent fixtures in the home, are not necessarily always on, require more deliberate engagement and active "interfacing with a screen" and do not automatically impact their non-immediate users and surroundings. Additionally, whereas the privacy implications of DAs are still largely unknown and spoken conversation is not yet as self-conscious as written communication, there is greater public awareness of the privacy compromises entailed in using these other services.


Line: 40 to 62
 If DAs perform human tasks, are privy to and participate in human conversation and punctuate daily behaviors, they may soon predict human thought and action it independently. This is troublesome. The more capable and humanized the machine becomes the more DAs will be embedded in the human psyche. This reliance on the machine by humans, who are traditionally defined by their capacity for independent thought and responsive action, paradoxically increases the chances of a role reversal whereby the consumer becomes consumed by the machine.

Given Aral Balkan’s observation that “data about us is us” as it can reveal everything about us, the potential issues with, and capabilities of DAs are problematic. Profit-motivated companies must ultimately decide how to use such data. This data allows them to make use of and influence the users’ behavior, thereby depriving humans of their agency and giving DAs a life of their own.


The most interesting avenue for improvement here, in my opinion, begins by rewriting to eliminate the metonymy, the container for the thing contained, that dominates the essay now. The object, the "DA," is just another dense sensor aggregation, a device for collecting behavior, like the phone and (soon) the car. You are talking about the meaning of the tentacle with the eyeballs and the eardrums on the end of it, as though the rest of the organism---and most importantly the intelligence in it created by the software you can't see, read or understand---didn't exist. This isn't "Alexa," or "Echo," it's Amazon, which is to the Machine overall what KGB was to the Soviet Union: an organization for creating and protecting a structure of power. (Not for nothing were and are such entities referred to as "organs" [of state security].)

If you want to work with me next semester, we can discuss the Fourth Amendment aspects of this arrangement more closely. For the moment, however, the State is a bystander to the metabolic relation between humans and this other entity, whose sense organs are being "behaviorally implanted" throughout the human world. Power arrangements are being remade. Concentrating on what has already happened means treating the things with appropriate disrespect: they are mere anatomical details. Understanding the elephant is not necessarily advanced by thinking of the spy satellite at the end of its trunk as "Bob," or "Alexa," or Carol, Ted and Alice altogether. That humanizes, deliberately, what it is crucial to experience fully as not-human.

 \ No newline at end of file

Revision 3r3 - 03 Dec 2017 - 16:29:27 - EbenMoglen
Revision 2r2 - 02 Nov 2017 - 02:35:44 - LaraNurick
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM