Big Brother Barbie
The most recent finding is dubious, at the very least: Hello Barbie is a doll that, with the help of a Wi-Fi connection and a voice-recognition mechanism, is able to converse with children. Just activate the mechanism, and Barbie asks questions, answers in turn, and memorizes information for future conversations.
Recordings will be sent over the server of the multimedia company ToyTalk, partner of Mattel. The data will serve to “improve the product” and will possibly be relayed to a third party. These data are not intended for publicity or marketing, assert the designers, who do not specify the type of information that will be obtained. Faced with such hazy explanations, skepticism is permitted.
Furthermore, specialists in ethics sound the alarm because precise information about the tastes and habits of a child and her family could be collected.
The controversy burst forth as soon as the prototype was presented last month. A German magazine immediately compared the new doll to informants of the Stasi, the secret police of East Germany.
Mattel affirms instead that the invention responds to the number-one demand of young girls, which is to be able to talk with Barbie. Really?
Parents will have to give their consent, and they can be informed periodically about the conversations held. But to what they will consent is unclear. Here is the problem.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has not studied the specific case of Hello Barbie. In accordance with Canadian laws, organizations must specify to what end they collect personal information, obtain a clear consent, and limit the type and quantity of information collected.
Voice activation and intelligent or “smart” devices provoke a growing worry, such as we have recently seen with smart television: Samsung had to refrain from spying on people in their living rooms. When the question involves children, the stakes are much higher, especially as the minds of children are so easily influenced.
Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, an American organization that fights for children not to be controlled by diktats of marketing firms, launched a petition this week for Mattel to pull their new product from the market.
This debate over the protection of information otherwise masks the principal element: play. Children need to play freely, develop their creativity and imagination, and make up stories. Technology already occupies much of their lives. Is it necessary to add even more under the pretext that Barbie will promote language development and become their “best friend?”
Recordings will be sent over the server of the multimedia company ToyTalk, partner of Mattel. The data will serve to “improve the product” and will possibly be relayed to a third party. These data are not intended for publicity or marketing, assert the designers, who do not specify the type of information that will be obtained. Faced with such hazy explanations, skepticism is permitted.
Furthermore, specialists in ethics sound the alarm because precise information about the tastes and habits of a child and her family could be collected.
The controversy burst forth as soon as the prototype was presented last month. A German magazine immediately compared the new doll to informants of the Stasi, the secret police of East Germany.
Mattel affirms instead that the invention responds to the number-one demand of young girls, which is to be able to talk with Barbie. Really?
Parents will have to give their consent, and they can be informed periodically about the conversations held. But to what they will consent is unclear. Here is the problem.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has not studied the specific case of Hello Barbie. In accordance with Canadian laws, organizations must specify to what end they collect personal information, obtain a clear consent, and limit the type and quantity of information collected.
Voice activation and intelligent or “smart” devices provoke a growing worry, such as we have recently seen with smart television: Samsung had to refrain from spying on people in their living rooms. When the question involves children, the stakes are much higher, especially as the minds of children are so easily influenced.
Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, an American organization that fights for children not to be controlled by diktats of marketing firms, launched a petition this week for Mattel to pull their new product from the market.
This debate over the protection of information otherwise masks the principal element: play. Children need to play freely, develop their creativity and imagination, and make up stories. Technology already occupies much of their lives. Is it necessary to add even more under the pretext that Barbie will promote language development and become their “best friend?”
Previous article![]( "Catastrophe for Obama")
