A recent Samsung ad campaign promises: “TV has never been so smart.” We’ll soon be wondering how smart a TV can get before it’s too smart for our own good.

“Smart TVs” can display web content by directly accessing a home’s Internet connection. Many of the higher-end versions, including Samsung’s, offer voice recognition technology, allowing users to change channels, search for programs or adjust the TV’s volume using verbal commands.

Samsung isn’t the first company to introduce voice controls for smart TVs, but it is at the center of a privacy group’s current concern. The Electronic Privacy Information Center has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate after a close read of the company’s privacy policy revealed that third parties could listen using the TV’s built-in microphone. The policy advises users that “if your spoken words include personal information or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of speech recognition.” (1)

While we probably don’t have to worry about the rise of Skynet in our living rooms, Americans are rightly wary of radical electronic intrusions. After revelations about National Security Agency programs and privacy lapses at companies as diverse as Anthem and Target, some consumers are understandably uneasy about an unidentified person eavesdropping on conversations taking place. while the TV is on. in. And smart TVs aren’t the only culprits: some video game consoles can also be controlled with your voice, and Apple and Android mobile devices have made voice search an everyday part of many people’s lives.

Almost all of these devices allow you to turn off the microphone or disable speech recognition software. You can also disconnect your smart TV from the network so it doesn’t stream anything, though this means losing most of the benefits of having a smart TV. And most devices that use voice controls require a start command before they start recording what you say, at least in theory.

For TV owners who choose not to disable voice controls, Samsung’s policy may still not be cause for undue alarm. A Samsung spokeswoman, speaking with Chris Matyszczyk on CNET, explained that the third parties the policy indicates are contacted only during a requested voice command search; no voice data is retained or sold, she emphasized. (1) But while this is reassuring, it requires customers to trust that the company will not retain or sell the data collected in the future.

TV buyers may be wary, especially if they’re aware of the investigation LG launched a few years ago when it came to light that viewing data from LG smart TVs was collected even if the related setting was turned off. (LG later released an update to fix the problem.) There has also been concern that Samsung data, when transmitted, is not properly encrypted. Companies don’t need to be malicious to compromise consumer privacy; they just need to be neglected.

Apple and Google have been careful to specify that voice search data from smartphones or services like Siri is anonymized, so companies can’t trace a given query back to any particular user—in Google’s case, ever. and in the case of Apple, after six months connected. to a randomly generated number. (2) But even without personal information attached, sensitive data sitting on a company’s servers could be a problem. For example, a dictation may contain legally regulated information, such as the exact time a company plans to file an initial public offering. Clearing the name of the person who entered the data may not be enough when the data itself needs protection.

There are a few ways privacy concerns could eventually be resolved. A device manufacturer may be held financially liable if it obtains certain types of sensitive information, for example information about planned criminal activity, and fails to take responsible action. If and when this happens, that manufacturer will likely quickly disable or remove the voice data collection capabilities. Cautious competitors would probably do the same rather than risk ending up in the same legal hot water.

It may not come to that, of course. Device manufacturers can voluntarily limit where our data goes, or legislators can force them to. After all, collecting information as such is not the problem. Obviously, we realize that when we ask our smartphones for directions and traffic information, the phone must communicate the request to an external server; voice recognition simply acts as a fingerless keyboard for entering search queries. The phone itself does not “know” the answer. It transmits your request to an application or a search engine and returns the response.

Similarly, if I ask my smart TV to display a channel guide or play a particular show, I know it’s getting the content from somewhere else. That is not a problem. In fact, that’s probably why I bought a smart TV in the first place. The problem is that consumers don’t necessarily agree to let the TV maker store that data, ostensibly for product improvement purposes, or share that data with third parties for marketing purposes.

If I search for a certain website on my MacBook, I don’t expect Apple to know about it. I also have no reason to expect this on my iPhone, whether I use voice technology or my fingers to enter the name of the site. Companies need research to improve products, of course, but they can do this research internally or use beta testers who know their usage is being monitored. There is no reason to turn the entire client base into unpaid research assistants, although such practices are now common.

The solution may eventually come from technological progress itself. One day, machines may have the storage and processing capacity to handle all voice commands locally, eliminating any need to transmit spoken commands (or transcripts of spoken commands) elsewhere. The more that can be connected to hardware, the less need to move data or involve third parties.

Meanwhile, the programming of the devices must limit the information transmitted to phrases that are recognized as part of the functionality of the unit. There’s no need to record or broadcast phrases like “my husband is a pompous jerk.” Our gadgets need to be smart enough to tell the difference.

Sources:

1) CNET, “Samsung Warning: Our Smart TVs Record Your Living Room Conversations”

2) ZDNet, “Apple stores your voice data for two years”