Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Why Are Conversational Assistants Still Black Boxes? The Case For Transparency

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2306.05218 v1 pith:ZAPQCCC4 submitted 2023-06-08 cs.HC

Why Are Conversational Assistants Still Black Boxes? The Case For Transparency

classification cs.HC
keywords assistantsconversationalprivacyassistantbeenmuchtechnicaltransparency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original 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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.