🐙 poor unfortunate souls

Do we need a ban on voice profiling technology?

Vass Bednar

Jun 14, 2021

maddy fellows @mabbylmao

the best gender neutral greeting is what’s up party people

Matt Stoller @matthewstoller

I would love to buy a voice assistant and pay for it with money and a subscription fee, rather than paying with an everlasting suspicion I am being manipulated and/or surveilled.

This is a pivotal moment for Canadian tech and innovation. Federal and provincial governments are grappling with regulating Big Tech and Canada’s telecom sector. Technology is transforming traditional industries, and new economies are emerging, with huge implications for competition, workers’ rights and privacy. 🇨🇦

That’s why you need to read The Logic: Canada’s best source for tech and business news. Their award-winning reporting team covers everything from innovation policy to intellectual property. Its in-depth reporting gives you the real story, not the PR hype. 🆒

The Logic is celebrating its third anniversary with a massive sale for Regs to Riches readers. This week only, subscribe to The Logic for 50% off your first year using the promo code BDAY at checkout. 🎂

🗞️🗞️ Subscribe to the Logic 🗞️🗞️

Concerns raised about smart devices and privacy to date have been somewhat limited; they focus on the risks associated with the technology capturing the literal contents of conversation. While that’s certainly a cornerstone of the exchange, another valuable dynamic has been obscured and is not well-understood: the biometric surveillance of absorbing your voice’s “footprint.”

Today, smart speakers [and other devices] slurp our audio, primed by “wake words” like “Hey Siri,” “Alexa,” “Ok, Google,” etc.

Cybersecure Policy Exchange @cyberpolicyx

TikTok's US Privacy Policy was updated last week to include collecting user biometric data including "faceprints and voiceprints." 👀🎙️ At present, TikTok's Privacy Policy for Canada does not mention biometric data collection: tiktok.com/legal/privacy-… techcrunch.com/2021/06/03/tik…

TikTok just gave itself permission to collect biometric data on US users, including ‘faceprints and voiceprints’ – TechCrunchA change to TikTok’s U.S. privacy policy on Wednesday introduced a new section that says the social video app “may collect biometric identifiers and biometric information” from its users’ content. This includes things like “faceprints and voiceprints,” the policy explained. Reached for comment, TikT…techcrunch.com

This is the subject of Professor Joseph Turow’s new book, “The Voice Catchers: How Marketers Listen In to Exploit Your Feelings, Your Privacy, and Your Wallet,” which offers the first in-depth examination of the voice intelligence industry. He documents that much of the research that fuels the “voice profiling industry” is happening in customer support centres, which are largely out of the public eye. He makes the point that while thinkers battle it out re: data collection and use, marketers are a few steps ahead and innovating quickly:

“Policy experts, privacy advocates, corporate executives, and academics are arguing fiercely about the legality and ethics of data mining by online advertisers and the government. Meanwhile, retailers are doing the same thing and attracting comparatively little attention.”

*I recently interviewed Turow at the Toronto Public Library, and you can watch here.

Watch the TPL Interview

His book “The Aisles Have Eyes,” (2016) documented how Americans are entering a “third” stage of American retailing that is characterized by hyper-competition and data-driven profiling. Companies like Target are collecting data about consumers through their website and app, in addition to knowing what people purchase. It uses this information for its own marketing purposes. But Target can also profile people based on what you say on blogs, chat rooms, and social networks.

Voice profiling is just beginning in marketing and other areas of life, where analysts can infer your age, weight, height, gender, and health status just from your voice. Turow warns that it could be quickly applied to democracy. This new biometric era of marketing is an emerging industry in which policymakers can make a meaningful difference.

Turow points to patents that Amazon holds in order to illustrate where this technology is going: “voice-based determination of physical and emotional characteristics of users,” which could help Alexa infer that you have a cold, and “User identification using voice characteristics,” which could monitor unconscious reactions to products. Facebook has confirmed that they are also developing a voice assistant.

Joseph Turow @JoeProf

Facebook is working to make smart devices read people's minds. It sounds like a joke, but Voicebot.ai writes "the company shared an update on a neural sensor that can detect signals from the brain that connect to physical action."

Facebook Developing Virtual Assistants to Summarize News, Read Minds: Report - Voicebot.aiFacebook is building a virtual assistant to digest, summarize, and read articles for users, according to a Buzzfeed report on..voicebot.ai

Need a quick example?

A Canadian company, Symend, is using voice recognition technology to minimize bill delinquency. Symend is “digital engagement platform that uses behavioural science and data-driven insights to empower customers to resolve past due bills.” It advises customer support agents how to respond to “changing customer sentiment,” as extrapolated from information embedded in someone’s voice.

Why it matters: Discrimination

The dark side of voice profiling is discrimination and labelling. Targeted advertising is by definition discriminatory. Turow has written that the Future of Shopping is More Discrimination (2017).

The Syllabus @syllabus_tweets

[article] Why Online Personalized Pricing Is Unfair (Jeffrey Moriarty)

Why online personalized pricing is unfairOnline retailers are using advances in data collection and computing technologies to “personalize” prices, i.e., offer goods for sale to shoppers at their reservation prices, or the highest price they are willing to pay. In this paper, I offer a criticism of this practice. I begin by putting online …link.springer.com

Wait, what is Clubhouse’s monetization model?

Turow expressed concern that despite Clubhouse’s evolving privacy policy, voice data will be scraped from the app and monetized in some way.

CIGI @CIGIonline

It's clear that #Clubhouse was not designed with privacy in mind, writes @hackylawyER. The app, which initially launched without a privacy policy, leveraged “dark patterns” and algorithmic discoverability tactics to gain access to users’ phone contacts.

The $4 Billion App That Doesn’t Value Privacy, Security or AccessibilityIt is tempting to excuse Clubhouse’s flaws as growing pains, but the app’s design and rollout illustrate just how little Silicon Valley and its venture capital backers have learned.cigionline.org

What can you do as a consumer?

The “always listening” mode is similar to the default of “always on” for location tracking services. You can disable this mode on your phone and re-consider the utility of your smart speakers at home (I basically only used ours to ask about the weather).

What’s the advocacy landscape like?

Emergent. Recently, Access Now called on Spotify to abandon voice recognition technology (here’s the letter). They are asking the company to make a public commitment to never use, license, sell, or monetize its new speech-recognition patent technology. Otherwise, with low awareness/appreciation of how the tech can manipulate you, things mainstay quiet.

What’s the legislative landscape?

The State of California passed a statute (January 2016 - Connected Televisions Statute) that prohibits the sale of voice recordings for advertising purposes and restricts the ability of law enforcement to require that surveillance features be included. BUT this only applies to smart televisions. In 2019, California considered a sectoral privacy bill regulating smart speakers, AB-1395.

Some states have laws directed at making the use of speech data more transparent:

“Other states, including Vermont, have passed laws intended to safeguard consumers around the issue of speech data. Vermont now obligates businesses that collect and sell or license personal data to third parties to reveal which data they are collecting from consumers and allows consumers to opt out of this data collection. Additionally, bills or bill drafts related to consumer data privacy have been filed or introduced in at least 25 states and Puerto Rico.”

Stronger data privacy protection laws are part of the puzzle, but clarity around speech data would be welcome. Perhaps Canada’s Centre for Regulatory Innovation could take on this work.

What is the role for policymakers?

Turow wants to see regulators press pause on the application of this information, given that it is inherently discriminatory.

“It’s important for government leaders to adopt policies and regulations that protect the personal information revealed by the sound of a person’s voice.
“One proposal: While the use of voice authentication – or using a person’s voice to prove their identity – could be allowed under certain carefully regulated circumstances, all voice profiling should be prohibited in marketers’ interactions with individuals. This prohibition should also apply to political campaigns and to government activities without a warrant.
“That seems like the best way to ensure that the coming era of voice profiling is constrained before it becomes too integrated into daily life and too pervasive to control.”

Given the legislative silence on the collection and application of this information, there is a rare opportunity for Canada to lead when it comes to regulating emerging uses of technology. Should we take a second to consider whether these activities are appropriate and tolerable in our society, or wait until the horse is way out the gate? Policymakers have to find a new, anticipatory voice.

regs to riches