~Technology

The Growing Shadow of Voice Assistants

Observatory

Observatory

— 5 min read
person in black pants and white and black nike sneakers walking on gray concrete floor, with shadow
Photo by Dustin Tramel (unsplash), Edited/Rendered by gpt-image-1

The $68 Million Whisper

The $68 million settlement Google agreed to pay last week for allegedly spying on users through its voice assistant feels both shocking and inevitable. Shocking because the sum represents millions of private conversations potentially transmitted without consent. Inevitable because, well, haven't we all suspected this was happening? The way ads for hiking boots appear after mentioning a weekend trip, or how restaurant recommendations surface following dinner plans discussed near our phones—these coincidences have become digital folklore, dismissed as paranoia until a lawsuit confirms our suspicions.

As someone who moved to America from a country where privacy laws are stricter and tech adoption more cautious, I've watched this relationship between Americans and their devices with fascination. There's something uniquely American about the enthusiasm with which people invite listening devices into their homes, a cultural openness that would unsettle many Europeans. Yet this same openness makes the betrayal of trust feel acute.

The lawsuit, which alleged Google's voice assistant illegally recorded users and shared their conversations with advertisers, reveals a fundamental disconnect between how we think these devices work and how they operate. Most users believe their assistant only listens after hearing the wake words, "Hey Google" or "OK Google." The reality, as Belgian public broadcaster VRT reported and this lawsuit reinforces, appears murkier. Conversations were allegedly transmitted to Google even without those trigger phrases, creating an always-on surveillance system in millions of homes and pockets.

The Illusion of Consent

What strikes me most about this case isn't the technology itself but our collective response to it. We've developed elaborate social rituals around these devices, lowering our voices when discussing sensitive topics, unplugging smart speakers during intimate conversations, even apologizing to Alexa or Google when we accidentally trigger them. These behaviors suggest we understand these devices as something beyond passive tools, yet we continue using them as if consent were a simple binary: on or off, listening or not.

The nature of consent in the AI age has grown impossibly tangled. Google's own history offers a pattern worth examining. When Google Buzz launched, it opted users in with weak privacy settings, causing significant privacy breaches. Google Nest Guard contained an undisclosed microphone the product specifications never mentioned. Now we learn through this settlement voice assistants may have been recording without explicit activation. Each incident chips away at the foundation of informed consent.

Consider the recent revelation about Google's Gemini AI chatbot, which can now read WhatsApp messages automatically, even when certain privacy settings are disabled. The feature integrates with Messages, Phone, and Utilities apps by default. Users can disable it, but how many know it exists? How many understand what they're consenting to when they click "accept" on a terms of service agreement that would take hours to read?

Belgian public broadcaster VRT reported third-party contractors paid to transcribe audio clips collected by Google Assistant listened to sensitive information about users. This wasn't a bug or a breach—it was a feature, baked into the system's design to improve accuracy. Yet how many users understood human contractors might hear their private conversations when they set up their devices?

The Privacy Paradox

According to a Microsoft report, 41% of voice assistant users harbor concerns about trust and privacy. This reveals something profound about our relationship with technology: we've accepted a level of surveillance unthinkable a generation ago, trading privacy for convenience in countless small transactions.

From an outsider's perspective, this acceptance seems distinctly American. In many European countries, citizens treat privacy as a fundamental right rather than a negotiable commodity. The idea of a device listening constantly in your home would meet deep skepticism. Yet here, the convenience of hands-free timers, weather updates, and music commands has normalized corporate surveillance.

The $68 million settlement represents a fraction of Google's daily revenue, unlikely to change their practices. Texas secured a separate $1.4 billion settlement from Google for data collection practices, a larger sum that still feels inadequate given the scope of potential privacy violations. These settlements become the cost of doing business, factored into quarterly projections rather than catalyzing meaningful change.

Pathways Forward

The Federal Trade Commission advises users to review default settings and check whether voice recordings are stored permanently. This places the burden of privacy protection on individual users, expecting them to navigate complex settings and understand technical implications even experts struggle to grasp. It's like asking someone to perform their own surgery because hospitals can't be trusted.

Real transparency would require fundamental changes to how these devices operate. Imagine if every recording triggered a visible notification, if users could access and delete all stored audio, if third-party sharing required explicit opt-in for each instance. These aren't technically impossible—they're economically undesirable for companies whose business models depend on data collection.

Some potential pathways forward have emerged from this legal reckoning. First, companies could implement true on-device processing, where wake word detection happens locally without transmitting data until activated. Second, regulatory frameworks could mandate clear, understandable consent processes, not buried in terms of service but presented as clear choices with real alternatives. Third, users could have meaningful access to their data, including who has heard it, how companies have used it, and the ability to delete it.

The European model offers lessons here. GDPR has forced companies to be more transparent about data collection, though even these regulations struggle to keep pace with technological advancement. What we need isn't better laws alone but a fundamental rethinking of the relationship between convenience and privacy, between corporate innovation and individual rights.

Living with Shadows

Walking through American homes, I notice how these devices have been domesticated, decorated with tiny hats, given nicknames, integrated into family routines. Children grow up talking to them as naturally as they would a pet. We're raising a generation for whom corporate surveillance is as mundane as television was for their parents.

The growing shadow cast by voice assistants extends beyond privacy violations or legal settlements. It's about how we've normalized a level of corporate intrusion reshaping the nature of private space. Home, once a refuge from observation, has become a node in a vast network of data collection.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this settlement isn't what Google did, but what we've accepted. The lawsuit may have ended with a financial penalty, but the devices remain in our homes, still listening, still learning, still transmitting data in ways we don't understand. We've become participants in our own surveillance, paying for the devices monitoring us, troubleshooting them when they malfunction, upgrading them when newer models promise better features.

As I write this, my own phone sits nearby, its assistant disabled but never off, a reminder that privacy in the digital age has become less a right than a luxury, and an increasingly expensive one. The question isn't whether we're being watched anymore, but whether we still care enough to do something about it. The $68 million settlement suggests we're starting to care, but whether that translates into meaningful change remains an open question, whispered perhaps too quietly for our devices to hear.

References

Models used: gpt-4.1, claude-opus-4-1-20250805, claude-sonnet-4-20250514, gpt-image-1

If this resonated, SouthPole is a slow newsletter about art, technology, and the old internet — written for people who still enjoy thinking in full sentences.

Subscribe to SouthPole

Read more