Spotify New Speech Monitoring Patent: Second Hand Surveillance is worse than Second Hand Smoke
Digital Asset ownership and the Right to Transact
(2 min read)
There is nothing benign or helpful that would result from this type of surveillance, from the reselling of analysed personal data to advertisers or or third parties, or from the data collection vacuum cleaner pulling background noise that might involve second party, non-related confidential communication.
An individual concerned about confidentiality, privacy and strong ownership of their assets including their data could decide not to use Spotify or other app ML/AI powered powered services that employ this kind of pervasive surveillance. Consumers can vote with their dollars to use Spotify or not, but it doesn’t stop there.
There is a social recognition and regulation to protect people from the effects of second hand smoke from cigarettes. What if you had decided not to use Spotify for this reason and are now next to others using such apps that are monitoring you now as well? Should there be a similar approach to protect people from second hand surveillance when they did not have a choice to assent or have a fair exchange and be properly compensated for the use of their data?
We are here to restore strong ownership of your digital assets and the right to transact, which also includes the right not to transact.
Is there a better way for businesses selling streaming music to earn money that could move away from relying on increasing surveillance of the product (you) in order to sell your data to the true customer (advertisers). We believe so.