6 ms·
>If a child answers a phone, and someone on the other end tells them to harm themselves, the phone wouldn't be considered the risk. You mean that the person on
by whatatsentyways 5y ago
>If a child answers a phone, and someone on the other end tells them to harm themselves, the phone wouldn't be considered the risk.
You mean that the person on the other end of the phone would be considered the risk, right?
There is no person inside of an Amazon Echo. Your question does not go to a call center where someone decides how to answer it. There are no human beings involved, it's all automated.
- emodendroket 5y agoOn this theory, is the computer also a hazardous device? Because you could type this into a search engine and the same thing could happen?
- zamfi 5y agoWouldn't that make the search engine the hazard, not the computer itself?
- emodendroket 5y agoI can't really see a principled distinction here; both devices are getting information from online search engines and presenting it to the user.
- floatingatoll 5y agoThe missing “principled distinction” is tied up in the user interface design choices that intersect with child safety concerns, even if equal content is presented to both means. Voice search and response has a very different intersection with child safety concerns than keyboard-browser search and response. A voice assistant can be reasonably expected to be operated by a very young child, who would be responsive and trusting to verbal commands in an adult-like voice from it. A keyboard computer with a search engine in a browser cannot reasonably be expected to be operated by a very young child, and would not be reasonably expected to issue spoken-verbal commands in response to queries. The information content is a relevant factor in the former case but not the latter; keyboard use of search engines is not in-scope for evaluating the child safety risk of voice assistants, though it is certainly an interesting topic as well.
- emodendroket 5y agoThe child in question is 10, right? It doesn't sound credible that a 10-year-old child could not operate a search engine.
- floatingatoll 5y agoWhether or not a child is at risk from a browser search and result is not relevant to whether or not a child is at risk from a voice assistant search and result. They are separate concerns and considering the browser case does not nullify the necessity of considering the voice assistant case. For example, replace “10-year-old” with “3-year-old” (a simple and effective safety test for potential threat to children) and apply that test to both devices: A) Could a 3-year-old child be reasonably expected to operate a keyboard-browser search and result interface? Could they be placed into danger by doing so? B) Could a 3-year-old child be reasonably expected operate a voice assistant search and result interface? Could they be placed into danger by doing so? The answers to A and B are not the same, because the threat models (to the child) are very different when “can read and type” is not taken for granted, as is implied for a 10-year-old. This is why the US has a safety commission to consider these things: common sense can hide critical threats to children that are invisible and unrecognized by well-meaning adults.
- lawtalkinghuman 5y agoGood thing Amazon have never specifically marketed Alexa devices for kids. Oh, wait. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNdZAgij-K0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNdZAgij-K0
- floatingatoll 5y agoThe question of the day for that video will end up being: “In what ways do they restrict the available voice commands and results to protect children?” And I bet it will be found that their interface allows never-reviewed-by-Amazon content to be read out loud to children, because Amazon loves to externalize human costs.
- kube-system 5y agoI think curation, or the appearance thereof, makes a big difference.
- emodendroket 5y agoGoogle presents excerpts from pages in an authoritative way all the time.
- kube-system 5y agoThat'a a great example. Google's "answer box"/"featured snippets" have received a great deal of criticism for this... for incorrect information that was in the search results anyway. The key difference is in presentation.
- dcanelhas 5y agoThe source for the information is a warning to parents about the challenge. Alexa only returned the challenge statement, without the context of it being potentially life threatening. A search would have been fine.
- gruez 5y ago>A search would have been fine. But what about a search that didn't return it, or returned it in a way that's not really obvious (ie. google's answer panels for questions)? Should we report google and/or the computer manufacturer to the CSPC?
- shkkmo 5y agoIf the answer panels are stripping important safety information out in a way that endangers children? I would so say your should definitely report Google.
- foxfluff 5y agoI think there's a difference in how you present the information. So returning things in a way such that it is not obvious you're looking at mere search results should perhaps be viewed as something requiring a bit of responsibility (-> don't do it if you can't take responsibility), and dangerous/libelous/etc. information perhaps should be reported if it appears as the though the site returning it is providing editorialized content and not just aggregated search results. On the other hand, the status quo is kinda funny: https://i.imgur.com/ux42v8p.png https://i.imgur.com/ux42v8p.png
- gruez 5y ago> So returning things in a way such that it is not obvious you're looking at mere search results should perhaps be viewed as something requiring a bit of responsibility That seems like a pointless distinction. Do you think kids even know what a search engine is? I'm sure some do, but are the ones who don't out of luck? I'll even say that a significant chunk of adults think that the content in google info boxes comes from google, rather than from the site itself.
- code_duck 5y ago> There are no human beings involved Humans created and manage the behavior of the automaton.
- bryanrasmussen 5y agoat that point humans created the lawn darts that killed kids as well.
- code_duck 5y agoYes, that’s accurate. I’m pretty sure that would be called negligent product design. Where are you saying the lawn darts came from?
- bryanrasmussen 5y agoThere was an earlier observation that lawn darts were regulated because it turned out they were designed in a way that kids could die using them as designed. I brought it up because in your comment you quoted the following >> There are no human beings involved to which you replied >Humans created and manage the behavior of the automaton. The no human beings involved is an explanation why the scenario of Alexa telling a child to do something dangerous is not the same as a human on the phone doing it, because there are no humans involved at the time that Alexa says this. This was considered an important distinction to make because if it were like a human being talking on the phone and saying do this dangerous thing the phone would not be considered a dangerous product and only the person would be considered dangerous. Thus when you say "Humans created and manage the behavior of the automaton." this in context must function as a saying the use of Alexa is equivalent to the use of a phone and therefore Alexa cannot be considered a dangerous product, however the humans involved in Alexa are removed in time and do not take part in the actual dangerous action (in opposition to the example given of a bad actor on a phone call) and thus that a human created and managed the behavior of the automaton is analogous to the fact that humans created the lawn darts. If the lawn darts are negligent product design then it at least leaves the question open as to whether or not Alexa is as well.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y agoImagine a suicide hotline which played a prerecorded message saying “you’re useless, KYS” and so on. Who or what would be liable for a death resulting from a suicidal person calling up and killing themselves? Obviously someone is at fault, because we all instinctively realize that such a setup is monstrous and horrific. I hope.
- whatatsentyways 5y agoThe person or organization that created the answering machine would be responsible. Seems straightforward, right?
- fennecfoxen 5y agoOperating this hotline sounds like a First Amendment protected activity, and laws banning this encouragement have been struck down as unconstitutional. However, providing specific instructions that could be construed as assistance can be a crime or make you an accomplice (suicide is often a crime) and patterns of harassment could also be prosecuted. See e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Melchert-Dinkel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Melchert-Din... (law found unconstitutional in part, convicted of assisting)
- shkkmo 5y agoPretty sure operating something billed as a "suicide hotline" and then playing a message to every caller that says "kill yourself" would open you to significant criminal and civil liability in every court in the USA if anyone attempted suicide after calling your hotline. While there are certainly free speech protections for discussing suicide, there is a pretty solid line between that and using something billed as a crisis resource to directly encourage suicide.