' Poorly Stated Policy: The Ongoing Saga of Samsung’s SmartTVs | MTTLR

Poorly Stated Policy: The Ongoing Saga of Samsung’s SmartTVs

On Monday, February 5th, Shane Harris at the Daily Beast reported on a questionable provision in the Samsung Privacy Policy–SmartTV Supplement:
“Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition.”

This clause sparked its own share of outrage, and comparisons to George Orwell’s 1984, online:
“Samsung’s Smart TV privacy policy sounds like an Orwellian nightmare” – The Verge
“Careful what you say around your TV. It may be listening. And blabbing.” – The Daily Beast
“Left: Samsung SmartTV privacy policy… Right: 1984” – Parker Higgins, EFF Activist on Twitter

Right - 1984

Rather than trying to sweep this bad publicity under the rug, or defending itself without making any changes, the technology company amended its policy for clarity and revealed more about how the system works. In the blog post discussing the issue, titled “Samsung Smart TVs Do Not Monitor Living Room Conversations“, the company explained that the voice recognition system would only be triggered on one of two events: the user pressing a button on their television remote, or the user stating one of the several predetermined commands. In the latter event, voice data is apparently not transmitted. They also identified who the third party would be, Nuance Communications, Inc. Finally, they guaranteed that it would be possible to turn off the voice recognition system entirely, if you desired.

While public reaction to this newest revision has been decidedly more muted than the original revelation, I think Samsung deserves some recognition for the behavior they have demonstrated. It isn’t often these days you see a corporation not only admit a mistake, but take steps immediately to rectify and clarify the situation. It is apparent given their reaction that: a) the company wants to give the appearance of transparency and concern for user privacy; b) a well-organized group online, with enough uproar behind them, can effect board room behavior; and c) sometimes the lawyers may just get in the way. It may be that Samsung never intended to have access to our private conversations and that this was poor translation to legal language of a benign company policy. It is a demonstration of the interaction of technology, the public, and intent in the face of clunky language which was meant to serve as adequate notice.

Some will still poke holes into the new explanation. Senator Al Franken has taken the opportunity to address Samsung and LG and attempt to bring the issue of consumer privacy to the forefront. Others have begun to draw comparisons to perhaps establish best practices, for example Amazon will let you delete any voice recordings they have made. This clarification is in my mind a model example of how companies should treat consumers in the Internet age, and serves a warning to those responsible for drafting these kinds of policies. However, this entire debacle is yet another reminder that we may not be entirely sure about what we’re agreeing to when we hastily click “Accept.” In the past, Apple’s Siri and many of Google’s services have been criticized for invasive procedures, lax security, or extensive data retention. This is in addition to the questions of ownership, privacy, security, and responsibility in social media Terms of Use. As more and more of our lives are stored permanently online, and more and more devices can collect and transmit data about us, perhaps it’s time to consider not only the secret ways our data is being collected, but also what we’ve “agreed” to.

———————————————————————————————————————————-

Keith Jurek is an editor on the Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, and a member of the University  Michigan Law School class of 2015.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *