No abstract

The emergence of personal assistants in the form of smart speakers has begun to significantly alter people's everyday experiences with technology. The rate at which household Intelligent Personal Assistants such as Amazon's Echo and Google Home emerged in household spaces has been rapid. They have begun to move human-computer interaction from text-based to voice-activated input, offering a multiplicity of features through speech. The supporting infrastructure connects with artificial intelligence and the internet of things, allowing digital interfaces with domestic appliances, lighting systems, thermostats, media devices and more. Yet this also constitutes a significant new production of situated and sensitive data. This study focuses on how (potential) users negotiate and make choices about household Intelligent Personal Assistant use in connection with their data. This study is based on empirical research in Europe with early adopters in Germany and potential users in the Netherlands. This examination of users' early stage technology acceptance considerations highlights particular practices and choices of users to either preserve their privacy or determine what is acceptable use for their data. Drawing on a simplified version of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2, a quantitative model for technology acceptance, we demonstrate how acceptance of a household Intelligent Personal Assistants does not imply access to all household data, how users see usefulness in relation to a proliferation of devices, and note the recognition by users regarding the efforts needed for full use and acceptance. The study highlights the complexity of data production at a household level and how these devices produce myopic views of users for platforms.

The platformization of households is increasingly possible with the introduction of “intelligent personal assistants” (IPAs) embedded in smart, always-listening speakers and screens, such as Google Home and the Amazon Echo. These devices exemplify Zuboff’s “surveillance capitalism” by commodifying familial and social spaces and funneling data into corporate networks. However, the motivations driving the development of these platforms—and the dataveillance they afford—vary: Amazon appears focused on collecting user data to drive personalized sales across its shopping platform, while Google relies on its vast dataveillance infrastructure to build its AI-driven targeted advertising platform. This paper draws on cross-cultural focus groups regarding IPAs in the Netherlands and the United States. It reveals how respondents in these two countries articulate divergent ways of negotiating the dataveillance affordances and privacy concerns of these IPA platforms. These findings suggest the need for a nuanced approach to combating and limiting the potential harms of these home devices, which may otherwise be seen as equivalents.

I n a world where "one angry tweet can torpedo a brand," 1 corporations need to embrace all possibilities. Social media 2 have transformed the business and communication landscape and organizations appear to, reluctantly or willingly, recognize this change. Evolving patterns of communication, collaboration, consumption, and innovation have created new domains of interactivity for companies and stakeholders. In this changed scenario, there are opportunities for experimentation and correction, yet challenges abound. As on date, there are no definitive methodologies nor there is a 'one-size-fits-all' formula that can be applied to all situations for optimum results.

Mobile neighbourhood crime prevention has become increasingly popular in the Netherlands. Since 2015, 7,250 WhatsApp neighbourhood crime prevention (WNCP) groups have been registered online, most of which are initiated and moderated by citizens. This entails a form of participatory policing aimed at neighbourhood crime prevention, which may provoke increased feelings of anxiety and interpersonal surveillance. Community police officers and citizens need to adapt to changed interactions and trust relations in the neighbourhood. This mixed-methods research examines both the mediation of messaging applications and its implementation by both citizens and police, indicating the tensions and negotiations around formal and informal 'policing'.