SAMINT-MILI 2005 Master’s Thesis 30 credits May 2020

Always Listening? An Exploratory Study of the Perceptions of Voice Assistant Technology in

Anisa Aini Arifin

Master’s Programme in Industrial Management and Innovation Masterprogram i industriell ledning och innovationi Abstract Abstract Always Listening? An Exploratory Study of the Perceptions of Voice Assistant Technology in Indonesia

Anisa Aini Arifin Faculty of Science and Technology Voice assistant technology on smartphones, smart speakers, or those on the Visiting address: Ångströmlaboratoriet wearable devices is one of the fastest-growing artificial intelligence applications Lägerhyddsvägen 1 in the market now. However, with the potential ethical issues related to the House 4, Level 0 voice technology, it still has not been extensively covered in major markets Postal address: such as Indonesia. Therefore, this study aims to explore Indonesians’ Box 536 751 21 Uppsala perception of voice assistant technology, mainly focusing on whether ethical concerns might play a role in their adoption and use of the technology. Telephone: +46 (0)18 – 471 30 03 Firstly, the picture of the discussion about voice assistants and the possibilities of ethical issues is surrounding the technology in the Indonesian landscape by Telefax: media is presented using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The findings +46 (0)18 – 471 30 00 indicate that educational and informative material has a wider resonance Web page: compared to ethical concerns and the downsides received from the technology. http://www.teknik.uu.se/student-en/ Secondly, the study also explored the motivations to adopt and use the technology, focusing on whether ethical concerns might play a role in their perception of the technology, attitude, and experience toward voice assistants through semi-structured interviews. The data, then, was analyzed using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). It shows that the users who perceive the voice assistant useful or easy to use still use it to a varying extent. It indicates that TAM variables are not fully explaining the adoption of technology. Adding an ethical framework, we can see that most of the users do not have enough knowledge of the technology they use. It resonates with the portrayal of the subject in media. However, those who are unaware of or neglect the situation to adopt and use the technology still use voice technology influenced by peer pressure, their respect for authority, and other rationalization behavior. Meanwhile, mediation theory explores the influence of the human- technology relationship on the ethical behavior of the users. It also explains that the relation between technology and users is an alterity relationship.

Keywords: Voice assistant, Indonesian market, Critical Discourse Analysis, Technology Acceptance Model, Ethical perception, Mediation theory

Supervisor: David Skold Subject reader: Thomas Taro Lennerfors Examiner: David Skold SAMINT-MILI 2005 Printed by Uppsala Universitet

ii Popular Science Summary

The market for Voice assistants installed on smartphones, smart speakers, or those on the wearable devices like Apple's Siri, 's , Amazon's Alexa, and Microsoft's Cortana is growing aggressively nowadays. However, this technology can create opportunities and risks for users. The growing number of voice assistant has been accompanied by a debate amongst Western communities about how the users perceive the technology. However, with the potential ethical issues related to them, they still have not been extensively covered in major markets such as Indonesia. Thus, it is important to direct a study to this under-researched area. This study explores the attitude to voice assistant technology by Indonesians, mainly focusing on whether ethical concerns might play a role in their perception of voice assistant technology. In the end, knowing the current state of awareness about the ethical issue surrounding the voice assistant and any technology, in general, will improve the knowledge among Indonesian customers about the technology, bring more insight for the digital players, and help the government to regulate the industry and its development. In this study, an analysis of how the voice assistant technology is portrayed and discussed in the Indonesian online media has been conducted. It revealed that mostly the media conveys a hefty 79% informative and educative postings about the technology, followed by provoking and promoting and advertising news, as many as 14% and 7%, respectively. Eighteen interviews with Indonesian users of voice assistants were also conducted. In exploring user acceptance to adopt and use emerging technologies, considering the ethical perception of the users is a rather new approach. This study showed that most of the users lacked knowledge about technology. They adopt and continuously use voice assistants with certain adjustments due to peer pressure, their respect for authority, and other rationalization behavior. Additionally, the study also shows that with the consideration of mediation theory, we can see a more in-depth insight into how humans and technology are the result of the interaction and mutually shape each other in the relations that come about between them (Verbeek, 2015).

iii Acknowledgement

Alhamdulillah, for this sweet and pleasant journey. Firstly, I would like to thank my subject reader, Thomas Taro Lennerfors, for his vast contribution to constructive comments, discussions, supports, and inspirations during this master’s degree project. My appreciation and thanks are also conveyed to all contributors for this project. I equally acknowledge efforts paid by my colleagues and opponent during discussions and useful insights the extended to refine this study better and would like to say that without your contributions, it was impossible to achieve this great work. Also, a great thanks to all my teachers, Lena, and colleagues in the Industrial Management and Engineering (MILI) Program for the learning experiences I have since I joined the program two years ago. Last but not least, I want to convey my great gratitude to the Swedish Institute to fully support my study at Uppsala University for the previous two years. And finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis, especially to my parents and sister, and also my super big family and friends for their love and support.

iv

MasyaAllah Tabarakallah Alhamdulillah Thank you, you have finished what you started.

v Table of Content

Abstract ...... ii Popular Science Summary ...... iii Acknowledgement ...... iv Table of Content ...... vi List of Figures ...... viii List of ...... viii 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Objective of the Research ...... 2 1.3 Research questions ...... 3 1.4 Scope and Limitation of the Study ...... 3 1.5 Structure of the Report ...... 3 2 Literature Study ...... 4 2.1 The Existing Studies In The Context of Indonesia ...... 4 2.2 The Acceptance of Voice Assistants outside Indonesia ...... 6 2.3 Existing Framework Model For Analysing Technology Acceptance ...... 6 2.3.1 Methodological Approach ...... 6 2.3.2 Theoretical Perception ...... 7 3 Theory ...... 8 3.1 Technological Acceptance Model (TAM) ...... 8 3.2 Ethics ...... 8 3.2.1 Privacy ...... 11 3.2.2 Trust ...... 11 3.3 Mediation theory ...... 12 4 Methods...... 15 4.1 Ontology ...... 15 4.2 Epistemology ...... 15 4.3 Research Design and Strategy ...... 15 4.4 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of Media Text ...... 16 4.5 Semi-structured Interview as Data Collection Method ...... 16 4.6 Observation on how people interact with the Voice Assistant ...... 17 4.7 Population and Sampling ...... 17

vi 4.8 Trustworthiness ...... 18 4.9 Ethical Considerations ...... 19 4.10 Limitations ...... 19 5 Result and Analysis ...... 21 5.1 Media Text Analysis ...... 21 5.1.1 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) ...... 23 5.2 Interview study ...... 30 5.2.1 Interview result based on TAM ...... 31 5.2.2 Analysis of acceptance to adopt and continuously use the voice assistants considering ethical aspect (privacy and trust) ...... 35 5.2.3 Mediation Theory ...... 42 6 Discussion ...... 45 7 Conclusions ...... 48 7.1 Conclusions ...... 48 7.2 Contributions ...... 49 7.3 Recommendations ...... 50 References ...... 51 Appendix A ...... 61

vii List of Figures

Figure 1 Number of Article per Release Year ...... 22 Figure 2 Article Distribution per Media ...... 22 Figure 3 Timeline Voice Technology Development ...... 23 Figure 4 Discourse Distribution ...... 24

List of Tables

Table 1 Discourse Distribution per Media ...... 24

viii 1 Introduction

1.1 Background More than two and a half centuries, technological innovation has driven economic growth. Data Science (DS), a human-centered concept that focuses on extracting knowledge from complex data to generate further insight (Sanchez-Pinto et al., 2018), is a general approach that also encompasses the Artificial Intelligence (AI) field. The term AI is coined by John McCarthy, an Assistant Professor of mathematics at Dartmouth College, when he conducted a seminal conference on the topic of AI in 1956 with their group members (Rajaraman, 2014). AI is a technology devoted to mimicking human thought processes and behaviors when a system makes decisions or takes actions (Russell and Norvig, 2003). In a study at Stanford University, Stone et al. (2016) mentioned that the AI revolution since it was first introduced had seen changed rapidly, because of the increase in machine learning maturity and the rise of the digital economy, providing and leveraging large amounts of data. Also, the growth of cloud computing resources and the increase of customer demand on AI-based services contribute to the development. Brynjolfsson and Mcafee (2017) argue that in general, the two most explored broad areas using AI technology are perception and cognition. For example, (1) vision system, image recognition used by Facebook and smartphone in general, and (2) practical advances concerning speech, voice recognition used in the voice assistants like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant. These technologies have shaped industries around the world. The topic of AI has been debated and discussed for more than half a century, both in the news or from academic perspectives. When searching for “Artificial Intelligence” or “AI” in , there are more than a thousand retrieved results that mostly focused on the Western world (e.g., North America, Europe). For example, a critique of AI by Chalmers et al. (1992) and a book by Rahwan and Simari (2009) about AI showed that this technology is massively developed, and people are interested in the development of the technology. Thus, one could assume that many people in the West know about AI to some extent. Nevertheless, AI-based solutions will most probably spread and be adopted across the globe. Although attitudes and perceptions in Western markets are somewhat more known, the situation in some big markets, like Russia, China, or Indonesia, is less explored. As the biggest economy among Southeast Asian countries, Indonesia has shown significant economic growth in the last two decades. It is the fourth most populated country with 267 million inhabitants (BAPPENAS, 2019). Indonesia has an increasing internet penetration, reaching 171.17 million at the beginning of 2019, approximately 64.8% of the total population (Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia, 2018). Also, the growth of access to smartphones, more than half of mobile phone users (Moneythor, 2019), makes this archipelago country attractive among developers of digital services. In terms of AI, several companies already implement the technology in their businesses to enhance their business strategy, and some others might also make AI-based platforms. For example, the current most significant players in the market, namely kata.ai and nodeflux, focus on offering a platform for conversational AI and vision AI, respectively. Voice assistant technology is one of the fastest-growing artificial intelligence applications in the market now. The popularity of Google Assistant, Amazon’s Alexa, Apple’s Siri, and other voice assistants has increased since a few years back. Based on a white paper published by UK-based Juniper Research in 2019, there will be a growth rate of devices supporting voice assistant technology with about 25.4% between 2019 to 2023, and there will be an estimated 8 billion voice assistants

1 installed in 2023 (Moar, 2019). The market leader Google Assistant, was available on a billion devices by the end of January 2019, doubling from 500 million devices in May the same year (Huffman, 2019). Globally, Google Assistant is followed by Apple’s Siri (more than 500 million devices), Microsoft’s Cortana (approximately 400 million devices), and about 100 million installed Amazon Alexas. Furthermore, in developing countries like Indonesia and , more facilities to engage with the customers, like providing Google Station (providing internet access), shortcuts in search and locally-tailored answers to questions about health on (Keusgen, 2017; Jusuf, 2018). They also, for example, has seen Indonesia as a big market for its products judged from their specific features for the Indonesian markets such as Google Assistant in Bahasa Indonesia and the first built-in Google Assistant phone made by Indonesians. Voice assistant technologies can create opportunities and risks. The idea of AI and intelligent machines has spurred significant debate about ethical issues, ranging from discrimination to the notion of the singularity - where artificial intelligence “rival[s] or surpass[es] [that] of humanity” (Armstrong, 2017, p. 1). Given this, companies need to pay careful attention to the legal and ethical implications of their AI-based business strategy. There are several technologies encompassed by the term AI that vastly used in the industry, like machine learning, deep learning, computer vision, and natural language processing. Each of them works with a similar concept; they process datasets for training and testing their model, transform data into information and ultimately knowledge, and use this knowledge towards goal-oriented behavior. Here, there is a high tendency that a significant number of sensitive personal data are collected and used. Following that, several debates may arise, such as individual data protection rights (Greenberg, 2015; Hee et al., 2019). The growing number of voice assistants has been accompanied by a debate amongst Western communities about how they perceive the technology. This debate takes place in several fora, for example, in the media and academic journals. The general topics of discussion concern trust and privacy issues related to the use of voice assistants. Take, for example, Lau et al. (2018) and Foehr and Germelmann (2020). They study the reason for people to support or reject the technology based on people’s perception and concern related to privacy and also associated with their understanding of the development of trust-building in technology. Most of the existing studies related to attitudes to voice assistants are concerned about the Western markets. Meanwhile, only two studies originate in Indonesia, even though it is a big market. A similar debate is ongoing in Western media. The rising prevalence of this technology and its potential collisions with ethical values in society may (or should) be causing more articles and discussions about this amongst the public. In short, voice assistant technologies are becoming more widespread, and there are potential ethical issues related to them. The debate about the ethical problems of voice assistants is prevalent in research and media in the West. Still, my contention is that it has not been extensively covered in other major markets, such as Indonesia. It is towards this under-researched area that this master thesis directs its focus. By “voice assistant”, I mean those installed on smartphones, smart speakers, or those on the wearable devices. 1.2 Objective of the Research Based on the explained problematization above, this study will explore the perceptions of voice assistant technology by Indonesians, mainly focusing on whether ethical concerns might play a role in their adoption and use of the technology. Knowing the current state of awareness about the ethical

2 issue surrounding the voice assistant and any technology, in general, will improve the attitude of Indonesian customers toward those technologies, bring more insight for the companies marketing such technologies, and help the government to rule the industry and its development. As discussed in the previous section, there is an opportunity that exists with the literature of adoption, attitude, acceptance, and the relation of Indonesians toward voice assistant technologies with a particular focus on the ethical issue surrounded. This study will discuss both the intention to use and adopt technology and why they do so or not. 1.3 Research question Given the previous objective, the study will raise one main research question: RQ 1. What influences the adoption and use of voice assistants by Indonesians, and how do awareness and understanding of ethical issues (privacy and trust) influence the attitude? 1.4 Scope and Limitation of the Study The scope of the voice assistant will be broad, including the ones installed on smartphones, smart speakers, or those on the wearable devices. In this master thesis, there are two empirical studies: a critical discourse analysis of media texts collected from the national online newspapers in the Indonesian market. It captures how the new technology is discussed and debated, which throws light on what reasonings and arguments are seen to resonate with Indonesians thereby presupposing awareness and understanding. Secondly, a convenience sampled interview study with Indonesian respondents who, to some degree, use voice assistants. The first study is aimed at capturing the debates on the general level, while the second study is aimed at understanding people’s perceptions of the technology in depth. 1.5 Structure of the Report This study consists of seven chapters. This first chapter introduces the overall background of the study, and further consists of background, problem statement, research questions, objectives, and the scope and limitation of the study. The second chapter presents a literature review of studies about voice assistant technology, as well as related technologies, both in Indonesia and in other countries. Chapter 3 presents the theories that will be used to analyse the data. Chapter 4 explains the methodological approach taken to generate and analyse data. Chapter 5 presents the empirical data, and analyses are based on the theories in chapter 3. The sixth and the last chapter contains discussions and conclusions, respectively.

3 2 Literature Study

This chapter presents a literature review of studies about perception, adoption, diffusion, attitude, or relation toward voice assistants and similar technologies. It first covers the studies originating from Indonesia and then goes on to broaden the perspective. Finally, the methodological approaches and theoretical aspects of the reviewed studies are presented. Before proceeding to these steps, a short historical contextualization is presented. Voice assistants evolved since the early 1960s when IBM first introduced a voice assistant with its Shoebox device in 1961 (Mutchler, 2018). Although it was very primitive, it did recognize 16 words and nine digits and converted the sounds into electrical impulses (Shoebox, n.d.). Thirty years later, the very first voice and virtual assistants became available to consumers. Dragon’s speech recognition software led the way, followed by Microsoft’s text-based virtual assistant, Clippy. Clippy embodied a system that can track, interpret, and use the natural language in the text as a basis for interactive feedback. One lesson learned from Clippy is that an assistant should not appear without being asked or called for, which is a base for the more positive user experience we have today. In 2011, Siri and the modern era of voice assistants started, where smartphones and voice interaction merged. Apple Siri was the first voice assistant reaching a global audience, followed by others, like and Microsoft Cortana. Then in 2014, Amazon introduced the Alexa voice assistant and Echo smart speaker, and the development of intelligent speakers continued in the following years. This literature study began with collecting more information about diffusion with artificial intelligence since the search is carried out using several keyword combinations that previously start with a search in the Indonesian context. Here, I realized that the selection of appropriate keywords is essential. The term Voice Assistant is described with different words. Some call it Voice Assistant Systems (VASs), Voice-Activated Personal Assistants (VAPAs), Intelligent Personal Assistants (IPAs), Virtual Personal Assistants (VPAs), Smart Voice-Interaction Technologies (SVITs), voice interfaces, intelligence assistants, smart assistants, or virtual assistants only. The problem is that the term may also refer to other forms of AI technology such as chatbots, which are also ‘assistants’. 2.1 The Existing Studies In The Context of Indonesia Studies about attitudes of Indonesians toward voice assistants is arguably limited. Systematic searches in Google Scholar has been done, and there are, to my knowledge, only two articles that discussed attitudes toward the use of voice assistants. The first concerned the attitude of students towards the use of Apple Siri for English as a foreign language learning (Haryanto and Ali, 2018), and the second one was focused on the effectiveness of Indigo assistant, Lyra, to enhance speaking skill (Charisma and Suherman, 2018). However, the study solely focused on a particular case of attitude toward the voice assistant, and the respondent was limited to specific communities, that are not of particular relevance for my study. Other research related to voice assistants in the Indonesian context was mostly about making prototypes for voice-command-based apps or the implementation of commercial-assistant-based apps. For example, Nugraha et al. (2010), Afandi and Wahyuni (2018), and Zulfikar et al. (2018) created a prototype of applications using voice command for certain guidance cases like for Muslim praying tutorial, museum’s object navigation, and business intelligence assistant, respectively. Also, some have studied the implementation of Google Assistant and other commercial voice assistants.

4 Hadi et al. (2019) implemented the Google assistant for making an app for monitoring and control system of electronic appliances. Susanto et al. (2019) and Listyo et al. (2019) utilized Google Assistant for controlling smart household devices based on the IoT module. The voice assistant also has been deployed to deepening the Bible in the work of Kristian et al. (2019). Furthermore, there is another study focusing on building an application based on Amazon Alexa (Reza et al., 2018) for controlling a lamp. Given that I did not find any studies related to the topic of the research, namely people’s perceptions, particularly ethical, the search query was broadened. The query about perception of Indonesian people toward AI (not only voice assistants) was searched for in Google Scholar. Some studies discussed the adoption of conversational AI, chatbot, in several sectors such as for education (Murad et al., 2019; Muhyidin and Nurkhamid, 2019) and Customer Services of business (Perdana and Irwansyah, 2019; Richad et al., 2019), and also an emotionally intelligent chatbot in the work of Hakim et al. (2018). Also, the adoption of other AI applications like bitcoin technology (Gunawan and Novendra, 2017) and IoT at home (Sinaga, 2019) study also appeared in the ranks of search results. There is one interesting study about the legal context of AI given how centrally Indonesia positions AI, particularly in the event of harm or danger caused by AI systems (Sumantri, 2019). From this study, one can learn that there is concern about the diffusion towards this technology among some Indonesian researchers. The result so far has not given a clear position of the study about the attitude of Indonesian toward voice assistants. With this intention, the search was then expanded to use the keyword of ICT products and also technology or innovation in general. Accordingly, there are some findings of the adoption of the internet, information system in several fields, and some general technologies. From this literature review, one can learn that the internet is a relatively new communication medium in Indonesia, similar to other countries; it began in the university area, Institute of Technology Bandung (ITB) and UI (Universitas Indonesia). The first issued Indonesian Internet Service Provider license was in late 1994 (Alam, 2003). Since then, the diffusion was not distributed evenly across the country. This situation might be interesting to study during some period, such as what had been done by some scholars. Nugroho (2007, 2011) focused on the implication of the internet for civil society organizations; meanwhile, Rudito (2010) investigated mobile broadband technology acceptance in Indonesia. In 2011, Roostika focused on mobile internet adoption research, and Wijaya and Polina (2016) compared the adoption of the internet by gender basis. The popularity of information systems and the transformation of the offline-based business to the online ones are shown in how researchers try to understand the players toward this technology stream. There are more results returned related to online shops, e-commerce, and e-business. Generally, they saw the trend of the Indonesian SMEs to be reluctant to go with the mainstream, go online. They tried to figure out how to support those businesses or what hindered the movements (e.g., Astuti and Nasution, 2014; Rahayu and Day, 2015; Chairoel et al., 2015; Setiowati et al., 2015; Ramdansyah and Taufik, 2017; Suhartanto and Leo, 2018). Meanwhile, Sarosa and Underwood (2005) tried to see from a manager’s point of view, while both Kurnia et al. (2015) and Janita and Chong (2013) put more focus on how Indonesian B2B business adopting e-business and what barriers they faced. Some works also have been carried out for e-auction diffusion (Chandra, 2015), e-learning in banking industries (Purnomo and Lee, 2012), and online shop consumer’s behavior (Rumokoy, et al., 2014).

5 Around the same decades, there are only two studies on the adoption of information systems for the governmental system (Rokhman, 2011; Witarsyah, 2017). The adoption of general technology and innovation in companies and agricultural sectors was also included in the final general search. Some studies put more attention on the farms’ field on how farmers adopt technology for their business (e.g. Sambodo, 2007; Alam, 2015), and the rest generally raising the concern of technology or innovation adoption in the manufacture or general industries. Morris and Venkatesh (2000) brought up an adoption study based on age group, but most studies focus on a particular sector. In general, there is a common result of those adoption studies. They tried to uncover the culture or attitude of Indonesian people toward particular technology. These results give a picture of how the study about diffusion (especially) toward voice assistant technology is rarely discussed in the Indonesian context. 2.2 The Acceptance of Voice Assistants outside Indonesia More research output has been identified about attitudes toward voice assistant for markets outside Indonesia. There are some papers related to perception of people toward Virtual Assistants even though more research related to the application of that technology for empowering other applications. For example, Campagna et al. (2018) and Mhaidli, A. et al. (2020), respectively, aim for improving voice assistants to be more responsible when sharing user’s digital assets and for privacy control. In general, there are some studies related to the diffusion of voice assistants. First of all, some are concerned with how consumers use the assistants, including exploring their behavior and interaction with the technology, pointing out emerging policy challenges (Lopatovska et al., 2019; Arnold et al., 2019). Meanwhile, others like Chopra and Chivukula (2017), Lau et al. (2018), Yang and Lee (2018), Han and Yang (2018), Liao et al. (2019), and Foehr and Germelmann (2020) discussed the continuance and intention to adopt and use the voice assistants, the reasons or motivation for and against it, also, the perceptions and expectations from these assistants. Furthermore, both Lau et al. (2018) and Liao et al. (2019) also considered the privacy and trust aspects of each individual in the decision making to adopt this assistant technology. On the other hand, Adams (2019) tried to identify the trust in Smart Home Voice Assistants, while Foehr and Germelmann (2020) developed an understanding of how to build consumer trust in Smart Voice-Interaction Technologies. Following that, there are research that explores customer satisfaction with digital assistants (Brill et al., 2019), that which examines the impact of the driver’s cognitive workload (Strayer et al., 2017), and the anthropomorphizing of voice assistants (Pradhan et al., 2019). 2.3 Existing Framework Model For Analysing Technology Acceptance

2.3.1 Methodological Approach Research about the acceptance of technology started and grew from the Information System (IS) field. Technology acceptance has predominantly been investigated using quantitative, survey-based analysis methods. More than half of the retrieved studies during this literature study are using quantitative methodology combined with various theoretical models. Take, for example, Lee at al. (2003), who made a meta-analysis and discovered that 98 of 101 technology acceptance studies used questionnaire-based studies while the rest incorporated qualitative data. Quantitative approaches are appropriate for the testing of theories. However, the individual differences among the survey

6 respondents were not examined. Here, for this study, we proposed a qualitative-based approach study, with semi-structured interviews to get an in-depth analysis of the issues than what can be achieved with a quantitative approach. 2.3.2 Theoretical Perception Many models or frameworks are used to understand consumer’s acceptance or adoption of new technologies in the reviewed literature. Firstly, most of the studies about the acceptance of new technology is dominated by the technology acceptance model (TAM) and its successors as an underlying theory construct. TAM is simple for predicting system use and understanding user’s adoption and use of emerging technologies (Davis et al., 1989). The range of usage TAM to measure the adoption of certain technologies is broad. It is applied for theorizing and understanding the user attitude and usage behavior of social media services (Pinho and Soares, 2011; Rauniar et al., 2014) and for finding the relationship between the TAM aspects (perceived usefulness and perceived of ease of use), years of driving experience, driver’s age, and the intention to use of driverless cars (Koul and Eydgahi, 2018). Additionally, TAM is also used for the adoption of online banking (Pikkarainen et al., 2004) as well as predicting the behavioral intention to use learning management systems (LMS) (Alharbi and Drew, 2014). It has also been a popular model in medical research like in Hu et al. (1999), used for explaining physicians’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology in the health-care context. Besides, when looking at the adoption of technology in general or artificial intelligence-based technology, Oliveira et al. (2014) and Sinaga (2019) used Unified Theory of Acceptance And Usage of Technology (UTAUT) and Task Technology Fit (TTF). Oliveira et al. also combined the Initial Trust Model (ITM) for their model. Both studies use the models in understanding the adoption of mobile banking services in Portugal and IoT in Indonesia, respectively. UTAUT has also been used for predicting and explaining the diffusion of bitcoin technology (Gunawan and Novendra, 2017). This model is an extended version of the TAM of Davis et al. (1989), which was a unified model built from the previously established models. An essential contribution of UTAUT is to distinguish between factors determining use behavior, namely the constructs of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions, and then factors mediating the impact of these constructs. When discussing AI, acceptance of robot technology is also taken into account, and they usually also use a more specific approach models; for instance, the pet robot Aibo was studied using Negative Attitude Towards Robots scale (NARS) (Bartneck et al., 2006). NARS measures the degree of humans’ attitudes towards communication robots in daily life. Also, another human-centered approach to investigate what having a robot companion in the home means to people using a European project called Cogniron (Cognitive Robot Companion) model (Dautenhahn et al., 2005). To sum up, this chapter has shown a lack of studies about voice assistant technology in the Indonesian context. There are studies about voice assistant technologies in other countries, some focusing on privacy and trust, which will also be a focus for the present thesis. I have also shown how there is a predominance of quantitative methodologies, which implies that the application of a qualitative method can be a contribution given that the results can be more in-depth. Furthermore, the majority of the studies are based on TAM or related models. A potential contribution could thus be to go beyond the focus on TAM as a way to study perceptions of technology, such as the voice assistant technologies.

7 3 Theory

Given that TAM is the major theoretical model used to study technology acceptance and use within the reviewed literature in chapter 2, it will be used as a base in this study. However, it will be supplemented by central concepts from ethics. 3.1 Technological Acceptance Model (TAM) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is adapted from the Theory of Reasoned Action (Davis, 1986), a social psychology model concerned with the determinants of consciously intended behavior, firstly specifically tailored to information systems (Davis et al., 1989). Over time, it has been used, tested, and extended for predicting system use and understanding user’s adoption and use of emerging technologies by many researchers. TAM describes the general determinants of technology acceptance. Yet, it is claimed to be capable of explaining user behavior across a broad range of end- user computing technologies and user populations (Davis et al., 1989). This model is simple and the fundamental purpose of TAM, therefore, is to provide a basis for tracing the impact of external factors on internal beliefs (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use), attitudes, and intentions to use. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, in this model, are the primary concepts of relevance for technology acceptance behaviors. A person’s intent to use (acceptance of technology) and usage behavior (actual use) of technology is, according to TAM, predicated by his or her perceptions of the benefit of using the technology and ease of use it. Based on Davis, perceived usefulness includes, for example, how technology can increase productivity. By using it, one can improve work performance, enhance work effectiveness, and overall find the application useful at work. Meanwhile, perceived ease of use refers to the degree to which the user expects that using the technology will be free of effort. Included in “ease of use” is that it is easy to learn how to operate the technology, easy to get the technology do what we want it to do, and the flexibility to interact with it. 3.2 Ethics The discussion about ethics will take a textbook by Lennerfors (2019) as a point of departure and complement it by referring to additional literature. Based on Lennerfors (2019), ethics is about how we should live our lives, what is good or bad, how we should act in the right way, which can be concluded that ethics is everywhere. Ethics from the point of view of an actor can be seen as consisting of four steps: awareness, responsibility, critical thinking, and action.

Becoming aware that there are ethical issues is a prerequisite for acting ethically, to do good. This crucial first step seems easy, but most of the time, it is difficult for us to sense ethical issues because of one common psychological barrier (introduced by Claes Gustafsson) called the wall of obviousness. It can make us blind to the problems because of our expectations and the pile of our habits. In the step of awareness, one needs to think about both how people and things affect us, but also and, more importantly, how we affect others (Lennerfors, 2019). People and things around us can shape our perceptions (about what is right or become desirable) and shape our actions. On the other hand, we should also be aware that we have impacts on others, meaning that through our actions, we contribute to forming other’s perceptions and actions.

8 The term ‘technology’ could be described as (a) artifacts, (b) the skills and knowledge necessary to develop, produce, and use these such objects, or (c) more intricately linked technological systems (Lennerfors, 2019). As a material artifact, it means a thing that has a function. Although some conclude that technology is value-neutral or amoral, some others argued that values are embedded in it. For example, there is a discussion of Langdon Winners about overpass designed by Robert Moses in the 1930s near the New York area, which affected society since the low design makes public busses cannot pass it. Here that material artifact became the bearers of value, not value neutral. Another argument showed by philosopher Slavoj Žižek about how values are also built in a simple thing like the toilet. He explained how people around the world not only put the concern to functional and rational terms but also reflect people’s ideological perception, a normative view about how we should relate to our excrement (Lennerfors, 2019). A similar context also can be seen wherein most Eastern Asian countries and the western, when people feel nauseous, they can easily put their faces near the toilet seat and do their things. Still, in Indonesia, such a thing looks improper and not following the norms of customs in society. Also, sometimes, in Japanese or South Korean movies, there is a setting where people clean their toilet with a gloved hand thoroughly; however, in Indonesia, most people cannot relate to that situation. Here, one can say that technology shapes our perception and action. Furthermore, technology, based on the influential approach of Heidegger (1977), is a ‘supreme danger’ when people see technology only as a set of raw materials only and later make them unable to interpret reality in other terms. This discussion about awareness indicates that users of voice assistants need to be aware of potential ethical issues – that is a prerequisite for reasoned action. Voice assistants, seen as a technology, can potentially shape perceptions and actions. The second step in ethics is responsibility (Lennerfors, 2019) which consists of component freedom to, freedom from, and impact. First of all, freedom to that is focused on the people who act can be seen from two dimensions descriptively: first, the ability of the agent to make choices and secondly, his or her knowledge. The ability to make choices needs cognitive ability to think about different alternatives and choose one, which is seen be met by all human beings, including those in this study. The second dimension in freedom to concern knowledge, meaning that they have awareness and competence or ability. As mentioned previously, people cannot have responsibility if they were even unaware of influencing something. Here, being aware is wholly needed. Also, competence means that knowledge about how to make the desired impact in certain situations. Therefore, those with knowledge have more responsibility to blow the whistle than those without the needed competence (whistleblower). This situation is the fundamental idea of ‘with knowledge comes responsibility’. There is also a normative (prescriptive, how we want to be) component to take responsibility, ‘we have to be competent to take responsibility’. In freedom from component, responsibility is seen in its context. In this concept, with more external pressure (can be explicit threats or implicit norms), it becomes more difficult to take or be held responsible. Finally, component impact can be seen first though backward-looking responsibility. When someone is to blame for an action, he or she must have an impact on it (causing it or not). If there is no causal relationship between the person and the action, then he or she is most likely not responsible for it. The causality relationship does not need to be direct, even the implicit one (like supporting culture or movement) can cause an impact. Lennerfors (2019) also describes factors to avoid taking responsibility and explain away our responsibility.

9 a. Being determined. When a person not in any way can make a reasoned choice, he or she has no place to take responsibility. Here, the free part can also be considered influenced by one’s psychological characteristics, drives, and desires. b. No resources. A frequent way not to avoid responsibility is saying that we do not have resources, and another is we do not feel well enough to do good. c. Lack of time. This can be both no time as part of ‘no resource’ and also no time to make a reasoned decision. Sometimes, people need to make decisions quickly and, therefore, not have time to consider the ethical impacts. Or people postpone responsibility claiming that we will take the responsibility later, just not now. d. Too many demands. Philosopher Simon Critchley describes how ethics poses infinite demands on us that difficult to fulfill. This is also perhaps each stakeholder has its own ethically ‘enough-good’ level. e. Respect for authorities. Sometimes, people do something because some authorities told them to do so, or they want to please the authority figure. f. Peer pressure. A situation of being influenced by a group of people (like authority case), that has a magic statement, “But everybody else is doing it”. There is a mechanism called conformism which states that we should act like others in the group. g. Division of labor. As a way proved to be an effective way to organize work, division of work makes it possible to not morally responsible for that which we are not formally responsible. Here also mentioned that developer of technology has no responsibility for how the customer uses the technology. h. Rationalization. When someone can convince themselves that a bad action is good. An excuse for doing something we should not be doing. Which can be; denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of the condemners, appeal to higher loyalties, legality, refocus attention, and metaphor of the ledger. In the context of voice assistants, the responsibility step could concern that in order to take responsibility for the adoption and use of the technology, one needs to be an agent capable of reasoning, that one has sufficient knowledge and competence about the technology, and that one is not under too much external pressure to adopt the technology (e.g. “all the others are using voice assistants”). Thirdly, Lennerfors (2019) mentioned the next step of ethics is critical thinking. It is thinking about making a judgement about a particular practice, situation, or dilemma, and then making a decision. It is not about being judgmental, but more about using our understanding (critical thinking). Critical thinking also is not about finding arguments to support our gut feeling right; it is more about trying to think as open as possible about certain situations. The process is based on the presupposition that there are some values, principles, norms, codes, and so on that have to be taken into consideration when thinking critically about ethical issues. In the context of voice assistants, critical thinking would be to think about if the technology should be adopted, and how it should be used (How often? Related to what?). Within the critical thinking step, one takes a range of legitimate values into account. From the literature that I surveyed, such values are identified as important are privacy and trust, and they will be described in the following sections.

10 And the last step is action. After making a reasoned decision, it will be followed up with action. Ethics is never only about reasoning and thinking without action. 3.2.1 Privacy Privacy, in a legal right, is synonymous with a ‘right to be let alone’ (Warren and Brandeis, 1890). Charters (2002) argued that individual rights are the ground of the notion of privacy. Burgoon et al. (1989) stated that privacy is multidimensional in nature. Although most theorists agree that privacy is fundamentally important to the human experience, there is no agreement on what that concept means or encompassed by it. Then it is possible to justify an invasion of the right to privacy on another ethical basis since privacy has developed as a weaker right for not having such a clear definition (Charters, 2002). Nowadays, in this artificial intelligence era, people live with complex privacy implications. Also, the private companies that produce such technology collect and use data with interests that differ from the benefits of their users, which creates conflicts of interest. Consumers have to balance the tradeoff between maintaining their privacy and the convenience afforded by the technology (Kirmse, 2012). Sometimes, people need to choose between comfort and giving up on their data being collected to get their gadget personalized by letting the technology ‘learn’ about the person. The sensitivity of activity (Choe et al., 2011), the physical location of sensed data, the type of data collected, and the data retention period (Naeini et al., 2017) will affect how comfortable people are with their data being collected. In Naeini et al. (2017) work, some people did not what to share their data in IoT scenarios because there was a perceived risk of their data being misused or used in a way that would harm them. Furthermore, although audio or video recording can be useful, they can be harmful when taken out of context (Choe et al., 2012). Meanwhile, Oulasvirta et al. (2012) found that long-term surveillance subjects not only would engage in privacy-seeking behaviour around sensors and felt deprived of the solitude and intimacy expected at home but also got used to and began tolerating surveillance over time. Few studies have proved the privacy implications and perceptions of voice assistant use (Lau et al., 2018). Talking to a phone-based voice assistant, especially in public, can create discomfort (Mennicken and Huang, 2012). Moorthy and Vu (2013) found that smartphone-based voice assistants users were alert when sending private information such as their location (public vs. private space) and accessing options (keyboard vs. voice). Besides, Zeng et al. (2017) studied security and privacy concerns in smart homes, including smart speakers. They found that reasons for participant’s lack of security and privacy concerns regarding smart homes were because of not feeling personally targeted, trusting potentially adversarial actors (like companies or governments), and believing their existing mitigation strategies to be sufficient (Zeng et al., 2017). Moreover, Lau et al. (2018) included the ‘always listening’ feature of voice assistants in their study as an additional privacy challenge. 3.2.2 Trust Trust is an aspect of relational ethics (Lennerfors, 2019). It is often used when discussing relationships, sometimes it also related to material artifacts or even larger entities like a system or organization. Trusting someone means that this person can harm one in the way he or she is exposed to this person. There is a view from Aristotle’s that all things have a purpose or function. Often, we trust other parties to fulfill their duty in different roles. Nonetheless, there is no guarantee for the trustor that the trustee will act as expected. We make judgement between trusting and mistrusting

11 depending on who we relate to and in what function. Indeed, there are laws to punish people who misuse the trust, but it only applied after the violation took place. Since trust is a significant value of society, when it is breached, it will be seen as a seriously unethical. Good ethical action is that which builds trust. A similar concept also defined by Mayer et al. (1995) and Rousseau et al. (1998) that by being trust, the trustor accepting the situation of vulnerable to another party with the expectation that the other will perform a particular action to the trustor. Mayer et al. (1995) added, “irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other part”. Additionally, by having trust in technology, McKnight (2011) stated that users face the risk of unfulfilled expectations and responsibilities. Li et al. (2008) even determine trust as a “primary predictor” of technology use (Li et al., 2008, p. 39) and De Kruijff (2018) research showed the users’ intention to use new technology affected by trust and that technology adoption is related to trust concerns. Meanwhile, Adams (2019) adapted and shifted the conceptual trust model of Li et al. (2008) and focused on the Willingness to pay concept. The modified trust model is based on three trusting bases, namely personality base (personnel innovativeness), cognitive base (perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, reputation data security), and knowledge-base (usage). These trusting bases correlate with the demographic factor like age, gender, nationality, and education then later explain the Willingness to pay of the consumers. However, from a more philosophical point of view, Kiran and Verbeek (2010) describe trust is a central dimension in the relation between human beings and technologies. They argued that most technological discourses place humans and technologies as two external entities that can give impact to each other but do not mutually constitute each other. This means relations of trust can vary between reliance (e.g., technology as the extension of human-help humans based on the aim of it) to suspicion (e.g., ethical precaution focused on the risk of technology). While in the notion of trust in the philosophy of technology, Kiran and Verbeek argued that using technologies does not imply an uncritical subjection to technology, rather more about trusting ourselves to technologies. “Recognizing that technologies help to constitute human subjectivity implies that human beings can get actively involved in processes of technological mediation. Trust then has the character of confidence: deliberately trusting oneself to technology” (Kiran and Verbeek, 2010, p.425). 3.3 Mediation theory There are implicit elements of mediation theory in Lennerfors (2019), but for the purposes of this thesis one needs to go deeper. The idea why mediation theory is invoked is to get a theoretical model of human-technology interaction that surpasses that in the TAM model. TAM only considers perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness as factors that influence the user in adopting and continuously using a product or services. TAM places the user and the technology as two different entitities. However, in the mediation theory, it is more than that. They can influence and form one another. The mediation theory in this study is based on Verbeek’s (2015) work. In the interaction design field, it focuses on designing the interaction between human and things. Interaction can be defined as ‘action in-between’ which talks about what is going on between the human and a technological artifact. Verbeek mentioned that this theory could help designers to anticipate the impact of products for human practice and experience. It can increase user experience, which related to the increasing

12 user engagement to the products or services. A responsible design does not shy away from influencing human behavior but rather aims to give such influences a desirable direction. This theory was based on its predecessor, Ihde (1990), describing technological mediation between humans, technologies and the world (human—technology—world). The position of technologies which is ‘in-between’ those using the technology and that which the technologies are used on and for, makes us see ‘something’. The mediation approach let us see human and technologies, not as two poles but instead as ones that mutually shape each other in the relations that come about between them (Verbeek, 2015). This view changes the relationship we have to the world and possibly transforms our entire perception, experience, and understanding of it. Thus, without technology or with a different one, we would have been positioned in, phenomenologically speaking, different kinds of the world (Kiran, 2016). Human-technology relations can be distinguished as (a) technology as the extension of human which here, the technology appear as tools or instruments, or extended mind. Based on this approach, a human can share responsibility with the technology (Pitt, 2014), and help us to think, remember, and have experienced (Clark and Chalmers, 1998; Clark, 2003). Afterward, (b) there can be a dialectics between humans and technologies. Instead of enabling people to realize their intentions, technologies are a significant force themselves, and technologies as “externalizations”. Approaching technologies in terms of extension of or opposition to the human implies that the humans as the subject and the other (the technology) are the objects. Verbeek (2015) said that this separation fails to grasp the complex intertwining of humans and technologies. Thus, to understand this relationship, we need to think in terms of (c) hybridity. Technologies and human beings help to shape each other. Based on Don Ihde’s (1990) work, in Mediation Theory, there are 4 types of relations of human- technology-world. Later, Verbeek (2015) added the other (last) three since there are many new technologies that did not exist when Ihde wrote in the 1990s. a. Embodiment. A of technology with the human being directed at the world. For example, we speak with the other people through the phone, rather than we speak to the phone, and we look through a microscope, rather than at it. (Human-technology)à world b. Hermeneutic. Human beings read how technology represents the world. Technology forms a unity with the world, not human use technology. Humans are directed at the way in which technology represents the world. For instance, an MRI represents brain activity or the beeping of metal detector represent the presence of metal. Human à (technology-world) c. Alteration. Humans interact with technology with the world in the background of the interaction. This can be seen as a central domain of interaction design. For example, human-robot interaction, getting money from an ATM, accessing built-in sat navs, or operating a certain machine. Human à technology(world) d. Background. Technologies are the context for human experience and action. The technology is a context of human existence not being experiences themselves. It can be seen in the sound of AC and fridges, the warm air from heating installation, or the notification sound of a cellphone during a conversation. Human (technology /world) e. Cyborg. Merge with human body or hybrid being. This can be more intimate than embodiment yet more contextually influence than the background. Take for instance brain implant for deep brain

13 stimulation (Parkinson treatment). It is not merely embodied, the technology merges with the human. Human/technology à world f. Immersion. Technology merge with our environment, into ‘smart environment’, with ‘ambient intelligence’, sometimes even ‘persuasive technology’. The relation is not just a background for our existence but also an interactive context. The examples are ‘they (the technology-camera) detect if there are people present or not, recognize faces, or give feedback on behavior. Human ßà technology /world g. And lastly, augmentation. A combination of embodiment relation and hermeneutic relation. Take wearable technology like as an instance. The glass can be embodied to give an experience of the world, however, it also represents the world in a parallel screen. (Human-technology) à world+human à (technology-world) By reading mediation theory, a different view of the relationship between humans and technology can be presented than the one which is implicit in the TAM model. My understanding is that the TAM is based on a separation between humans and technology, and not one where humans and technology shape each other. Summarizing this chapter, I briefly presented the TAM model which suggests that decisions to adopt and use technology follows from perceived usefulness and ease of use. My survey of ethical theory suggests that decisions to adopt and use a technology is or could be based on awareness, responsibility-taking, and critical thinking considered a range of values, such as privacy and trust. Finally, the mediation theory problematizes the relationship between humans and technology assumed in the TAM model.

14 4 Methods

4.1 Ontology Mentioned in the Business Research Method book by Bryman and Bell (2011), the way researchers view the world can influence their interpretations. This can be one of two: objectivism or constructionism. Objectivism presupposes that social phenomena are fixed, objective, and external to the involved subjects. The alternative ontology, which is constructionism, proposes that social phenomena are continuously changing with time and are constructed by social actors and their perception, action, understanding, and interpretations. This study is based on the constructionism approach since the study attempts to explore the relation, motivation to adopt and use, and experience of Indonesian people toward voice assistants and how their awareness and understanding influence the adoption. Studying the experience of using the assistant and the awareness and understanding of the related ethical issues require no fixed structures. It is more about interpretations, which could be unpredictable and might be influenced by continuously changing conditions, situations, and feelings of interviewee during the assessment process. 4.2 Epistemology Epistemology explains what is considered as knowledge and acceptable knowledge in a discipline (Bryman and Bell, 2011). There are two views: interpretivism and positivism. Interpretivism is when researchers to interpret elements of the study, meaning that it integrates human interest in the study. Researchers assume that access to reality can be possible only through social constructions, such as language, consciousness, shared meaning, and so forth (Bryman and Bell, 2011). On the contrary, positivism suggests that a phenomenon must be objective and should generate hypotheses since only the one confirmed by our sense can be regarded as acceptable knowledge. 4.3 Research Design and Strategy As mentioned in the ontology and epistemology section, this study adheres to constructionism and interpretivism. Therefore, a qualitative approach was chosen for this research (Bryman and Bell, 2011). This approach was chosen because the study attempts to explore phenomena of interest through perceptions of people, and this requires a deep engagement with them and interpreting their responses qualitatively. This study used inductive reasoning due to the fact that it started with some vague and embryotic thoughts about the Artificial Intelligence topic in the Indonesian market. Within this broad interest area, the study was narrowed down to focus on Voice Assistant technology (such as Google Assistant, Siri, Alexa, Cortana, and so on). It was surprising to note that there was not much literature specific to the Indonesian market. This literature study resulted in theories that were generally revolving around the topic, such as artificial intelligence, voice assistant, technology acceptance, attitude toward technology, the relation between human-technology theories, and so on. Also, the fact that this topic has not been treated enough led to curiosity about the understanding and acceptance of this technology in Indonesia. With these general theories and information in hand, I, then, tried to map the general understanding from the online media point of view. Thus, the first analysis was conducted, a critical discourse analysis of Indonesian media texts. It was then followed up by semi-structured interviews to get a more in-depth insight into how people perceived voice assistants. This combined methodology was

15 selected since I could then both get a broad and general understanding of perceptions about voice assistants in the media. At the same time, I could also get a deep understanding of selected interview participants. A brief observation in between the interview process was also conducted to investigate how the respondents relate to their assistants. 4.4 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of Media Text Critical discourse analysis (CDA) stresses the role of language as related to ideology and socio- cultural change (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Also, based on Bell et al. (2019), CDA is used to capturing and analyzing how language is used in specific socio-historical contexts to produce certain effects. It also emphasizes the role of language as a power source to relay some message or create an opinion. One way to understand how Indonesians view the voice assistant is by following how this technology is presented and discussed in media in Indonesia using CDA. This can represent the Indonesian point of view toward this technology. It throws light on what reasonings and arguments are seen to resonate with Indonesians thereby presupposing awareness and understanding. Analysis of media texts shows how some phenomenon was reported in media, and how or in what way the media describe the event. I study “how meaning is created” in media since maybe that meaning could trickle down to the individuals in the society because they read media or people talk about events reported in the press. Thus, the opinion of media is affecting people. The CDA of media texts is not only commenting on media text, but it is also about how we understand words and meanings of the context since it provides social sense to individuals, situations, or the topic. To make the analysis, I made a record of all relevant articles one-by-one in Microsoft Excel. I listed all the retrieved items on the search result, and then put the title, media name, date of publishing, the link, a brief description, and after analyzing the article I assigned it to a category. Later, as the analysis evolved, I had to go back and re-read articles. 4.5 Semi-structured Interview as Data Collection Method The method of semi-structured qualitative interviews with Indonesians was chosen to explore their motivation to adopt and use, as well as their attitude and experience towards voice assistant technology. This method was selected because it could accurately answer the research question. As mentioned in Bryman and Bell (2011), unlike quantitative research, the researcher wants rich, detailed answers in this qualitative one. This method also gives the opportunity for the interview to diverge slightly out of the topic—which encouraged — since it provides insight into what the interviewee sees as relevant and essential. The possibility of follow-up questions to the respondents’ replies and the flexibility to vary the order of items and even the wording of the question makes it possible to emphasize context and can provide a great deal of descriptive detail when reporting later. Before conducting the actual interview, the list of questions was first tried out to a friend. It was to feel and see how the flow of the items went, and to check whether or not the order of the questions would catch the desired context. The interview schedule was done individually following the participant’s flexible time. Since the interviews were done online, and mostly the interviewees live in different cities around the world, the time and the interview setting, like the video conference or phone call application, were discussed at least a day before the interview. When discussing the interview time, I also asked their willingness to have a video call since I had a brief observation to see how they interact with their voice assistants and the possible long interview duration which about an hour discussion on average. The flexible

16 approach and a semi-structured format of the discussion also gave the participants enough room to explain their opinion and answers (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Twenty-six Indonesian were recruited to participate in this study through phone and message, but only twenty-two could make the time or agree to join. This group consists of equal ratio of women and men and most were 26-30 years old. At the beginning of the interview, to contextualize the other answers, there were general questions, such as age, gender, and name, highest level of education, occupation, the voice assistant that they usually use, and if they have a career/education in technology. A critical aspect of conducting the interview was to emphasize the quality criteria, especially the requirements of openness since I wanted to listen to the interviewees’ perspectives. This criterion responds to what is essential to the interviewee and is flexible. Another principle, which was noted firmly on, was the “ethical” criteria since, in the beginning, I clarified the purpose of the interview, that the interview will be audio- recorded, and highlighted how I would handle their data appropriately. It is sensitive to the ethical dimension of interviewing, ensuring the interviewee appreciates what the research is about, its purposes, and that his or her answers will be treated confidentially. Lastly, I also considered the “sensitive” criteria by showing empathy and listening to what and how the interviewee said (Bryman and Bell, 2011). When doing the interview, the focus was not only on what they say but also on the way they deliver the answer. Also, I anticipated that I would be distracted when taking notes while focusing on what was being said—following up interesting points made, prompting and probing where necessary, drawing attention to any inconsistencies in the interviewee’s answers. This is another argument for recording interviews (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Besides, since the interviewees are all Indonesian, although the questions are in English, they were also translated to Bahasa Indonesia before conducting the interview. Thus, the answers are mostly in Bahasa Indonesia and were transcribed whenever possible. However, after half-way making the transcription of these recordings, by considering the limited time left, I saw that I could not do it to all the recordings; thus, I needed to choose. I also see that there was a tendency of achieving theoretical saturation. I decided that those who differ from others for example using a different voice assistant, their experience with the assistant, and occupation would be transcribed since they would give more insight into this study. Therefore, in total, I used eighteen interviews for this study (Appendix A). 4.6 Observation on how people interact with the Voice Assistant This observation is not as extensive as the participant observation or ethnography method. This method indeed observed behavior and listened to what the respondent said (Bryman and Bell, 2011). However, it was only to see how they communicate with their voice assistants. There were several prepared cue cards containing questions or commands that the interviewee needed to give to their assistant. The goal was to hear how such commands or questions were given to the assistant. Before finishing the observation, the observed would be asked what they would be comfortable calling their voice assistant. This results from this method will be discussed when talking about the relation between people and technology. 4.7 Population and Sampling The sampling technique that is used in this study is a nonprobability sampling in which a random selection concept is used. This study focuses on the Indonesian people no matter where they live. Since the breakout of Covid-19 at the beginning of 2020, the target interviewees were those who

17 could easily be contacted (convenience sampling). Considering the limited time and resources to do this study, accessibility and availability of the interviewee took the most prominent part, which supported the choice of the convenience sampling method (Cooper and Schindler, 2014). Secondly, since there is no data available about the voice assistant user in Indonesia yet, and based on Cowan et al. (2017) that in general, most of the voice assistant users are infrequent users (people who use it occasionally), purposive sampling was conducted for this study. According to Cooper and Schindler (2014), purposive sampling is a technique sampling where the respondents arbitrarily were chosen based on their unique characteristics, experiences, behavior, and perceptions. Although the findings may prove quite interesting, there will be an issue that it is difficult to define which population represented by this group since the result cannot be generalized. I recruited Indonesian voice assistant users as my interviewee candidate based on my contact list I have on my phone and approached them one by one through phone calls and sending a message. I selected those who aged more than 17 years old (adult), and both live in Indonesia and abroad, thinking that they may have different characteristics. To reduce self-selection bias, although I used convenience and purposive sampling when choosing the prospective candidate, I used screening questions, (i) whether they are using voice assistant and (ii) how often they used it lately. The foremost requirement is that they supposedly have experience in using a voice assistant. To make the data more appealing and reduce the possible theoretical saturation, which voice assistant they usually or experienced to handle was also taken into consideration. Based on screening survey responses, I only proceeded with those who use at least one voice assistant and time-wise, I purposely approached those who, I think, use and experience using the voice assistant for some time. I tried to overcome the limitations to approach people caused by the outbreak of the pandemic issue, Coronavirus disease (Covid-19). 4.8 Trustworthiness Trustworthiness is a set of criteria advocated by Lincoln and Guba (1985) for assessing the quality of qualitative research. The requirements are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Based on Bryman and Bell (2011), the way to construct credibility is to validate responses by quoting what the respondent said during the interview, also rely on the actual respondents only as a source of collecting the data. After making sure that the proposed respondents have experience in using voice assistants for several periods and willing to be interviewed, this study relies upon those as the main source of primary data. Furthermore, transferability criteria refer to what extent the finding of qualitative research can be transferred to other settings (Anney, 2014). The sampling methods may cause the difficulty to meet this transferability criteria. However, the result of this study may be the start to unveil the behaviour of the Indonesian market toward this voice technology. Thus, future researchers can take further action on the result of this study. Geertz (1973) mentioned ‘thick description’ (rich detail of culture), which later used by Lincoln and Guba (1985) to describe that with that detail, others can have a ‘database’ to make a judgment whether or not the findings can be transferred. The dependability criteria for Bryman and Bell is related to reliability in quantitative research. While for Guba and Lincoln, researchers should adopt an ‘auditing’ approach, ensuring that complete records are kept of all phases of the research process in an accessible manner. For ensuring transparency, the study uses the technique suggested by Lincoln

18 and Guba (1985), which recommends (1) avoiding data loss by recording the interviews. Then, (2) making them accessible when required. However, to ensure the privacy of the respondent, those who get access are ones with permission, the voice owner, and me. Furthermore, (3) semi-structured questions used to ensure most of the relevant subject areas addressed. And (4) the responses are transcribed and recorded and presented if required. The last construct is confirmability, which parallels objectivity. It is about keeping the researcher’s reality away from the finding and considering only the participant’s fact (Anney, 2014). This situation is often difficult, especially in qualitative research, as researchers involved interpretations of responses. 4.9 Ethical Considerations Ethical principles and individual/group work guidelines that are in place in Swedish higher education are strived to be appropriately followed when conducting this study. Before taking part in the research, I informed the participant and asked for their consent. They also could decide whether or not to participate in the study, as mentioned as part of the ethical principles in the research book of Bryman and Bell (2011). All of the collected data was only used for the aim of the research, and when the research is done, all of the recordings will be deleted. I respect and value the dignity and worthiness of individuals involved in this study, keep their privacy, and avoid anything that could harm them physically and mentally. Also, when taking reference, I tried to cite others’ work properly, acknowledge their contribution, and avoid plagiarism in any way. Lastly, the study was conducted in such a way to prevent any misinterpretation and fraud of the research process. 4.10 Limitations This study contributes to getting insight into the relation of Indonesian people toward voice assistant technology, and how their awareness and understanding about the ethical issues affect the adoption. They are supposedly useful for understanding the Indonesian market both from the government point of view and technology players, also for the customer’s side. However, this research also has delimitation. This study is time-limited work, which approximately five months long. It means I need to deal with a very tight schedule, particularly in collecting media data and also for the interview. This time- limitation forces us to discipline following predefined timetable and milestones to be able to finish on time. In terms of media searching, I tried to use many keywords and searching-options to gather as many articles as possible. Nevertheless, the fact that many terms used to identify voice assistant and also the various and different terms used in Bahasa Indonesian and English might cause some articles were skipped. Moreover, the pandemic issue around January influenced the option of the interviewee, becoming more limited and select those that are easily be contacted and match with the characteristic needed. The respondents of the interview were chosen by using purposive and convenience sampling. Although it will be difficult to be generalized since it is difficult to define which population represented by this interviewee group, it will give prominent findings as to the first voice assistant study in the Indonesian context, on the other hand. Furthermore, phone or video interviews were conducted for gathering data by considering an effective and efficient way to approach the respondent who lives in different areas and have varied schedules.

19 Besides, another acknowledged limitation is a language barrier is considered in this study, in which some of the respondents are non-speaking English. Although some others tried to speak English, mostly they combined with English or entirely spoke Bahasa Indonesia. Therefore, the result of the interview is transcribed and translated thoroughly as precisely as possible without reducing the original meaning. This way, more information could be captured since they can express their feeling, share all their knowledge and information without barriers and difficulties. The problem when they tried using English was they answer the question to the point and limited supporting answer for it.

20 5 Result and Analysis

The result and analysis of the paper will be presented in this report. The empirical data from the interviews will be analyzed and compared to the literature review. 5.1 Media Text Analysis In the Literature Review chapter, I was intrigued by the difficulty of finding academic journals related to relation of voice assistants in the Indonesian context. Meanwhile, more debate and discussion occur in Western media or academic studies about this technology. This part focuses on how voice assistants are portrayed in Indonesian media. Media is still playing an essential part in delivering such information to the people in Indonesia, although, on the other hand, it also a party that can direct people’s opinions. There are seven national media in Indonesia used in this analysis, namely CNN Indonesia (CNN), Antara News (ANT), Detikcom (DTK), Kompas (KPS), Koran Tempo (TMP), The Jakarta Post (TJP), and Tirto.id (TTO). In addition, to make a balanced discussion, voice assistant technology development in general and measures taken by the Indonesian government to protect the population were discussed too. Online articles were used since accessing the printed version would be difficult considering the place where the research conducted, namely Sweden. Also, the business model in Indonesian media made some media companies break up their news portals for several market segments. Some are totally free, and some have both subscription and free-access articles. By considering the consistency of data research, free access articles were chosen. Besides, commonly, to be discussed further, some Indonesian medias adapted the content from other media abroad. However, the way they translated the content sometimes resulted in a confusing wording that led to difficulties in interpretation. Keywords such as “voice assistant”, “asisten pintar”, “intelligence assistant”, “personal assistant”, “google assistant”, “apple siri”, and “amazon alexa” were used for gathering articles in those media. Those three trademarks are the most common voice assistant brand used in the market. In general, when searching for the documents, the media portal will have two searching options, by time or by relevancy. This study collected news articles from both options. The gathered reports were from 1st May 2010 until the 28th February 2020 time period. In total, there were 501 articles collected and only 327 whose content focused on voice assistants, while the rest were about artificial intelligence in general or other viewpoints. Statistically, KPS was dominating the distribution of the voice assistant news based on media publisher, which is 100 publications (see figure 2). However, according to my study, there is no record match with the desired keywords in ANT, and only eight CNN articles did mention the voice assistant technologies. From that 300 news items, more articles related to the voice assistants were produced in 2019 in the Indonesian market, as many as 88 reports. The overall trend was increasing from 2010 to 2019, with two small downtrends in 2014 and a plateau in 2018 (see figure 1). The first assistant technology-related news was published on May 1st, 2010, by TMP, which told about the use of Siri in Apple devices in the US. When sorting the media, the timeline of each vital milestone in voice technology was also traced. Figure 3 shows the timeline of voice technology progression in the world side-by-side with the articles produced in Indonesian media and also how the government tries to accommodate in terms of regulation and supervision (based on government press releases mentioned in the media texts). It can

21 be seen that in general, there was a ‘delay’ in the translation from English-speaking contexts to Indonesia to share an update of the development. Sometimes, it was difficult to get real-time information about voice technology update abroad in the Indonesian media. What “real-time” means is that precisely in the same they or one to two days after the incident took place, Indonesian people can see the information. For example, the release of Cortana in the market place on June 26th, June 2013 (Mutchler, 2018) was posted three months later in KPS on September 15th, 2013 titled “Cortana, “Teman” Baru Apple Siri dan Google Now” (translation: Cortana, a new ‘friend’ of Apple Siri and Google Now) (KPS, September 15th, 2013).

Media Article Release Year

88

58 58

36

17 18 18 15 13 5 1 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 1 Number of Article per Release Year

Article Distribution

100 92

61 49

17 8 0 ANT CNN DTK KPS TMP TJP TTO

Figure 2 Article Distribution per Media There is an interesting fact about the government contribution to this technology journey in Indonesia. Although the development of AI at the global level already began years ago, and the modern voice assistant technology already started in the 2010s, the Indonesian Government through the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology started to concern about personal data protection of the people around mid-2013. Through their published press release on their website, the need for a regulation to protect personal data was urgent (Kemkominfo, 2013). It was the first article that can be found in their portal archive. In 2015 (Kemkominfo, 2015), the ministry released another article saying that they prepare the regulation called RUU PDP, which nowadays similar to GDPR in Europe, and earlier this year (Kemkominfo, 2020), the manuscript was just sent by the president to the legislative body.

22 Development of Virtual Assistants Indonesian Media articles Indonesian Ministry Press Release

Figure 3 Timeline Voice Technology Development

5.1.1 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) CDA was done to analyse the mentioned 327 articles. This analysis is necessary for capturing and analysing how language is used in the voice assistant context (Bryman and Bell, 2011). In general, since there are no studies done before, I was wondering about what kind of discourses Indonesian media has described this assistant technology so far. As mentioned in Bryman and Bell (2011), CDA is used to capturing and analyzing how language has a power source to relay some message or create an opinion. I started to read some articles and found that there was a tendency that there are three tones of the news. They are, first, (a) Informing, announcing, or educating articles.

23 It delivers a neutral story about voice assistant(s) to the readers. Meanwhile, the second one is (b) promotional or advertising posts, which persuade the reader to do something that still related to this voice technology, like to buy smartphones powered by a voice assistant. And the last one, I found that there is some news contained (c) provocative articles toward the use of voice assistant technology. These are based on the tone of content used to deliver the information. The title was also taken into consideration. However, an analysis of the full content was the main influence for my classification. In general, it was dominated by 259 informing/announcing/educating reports followed by 45 provocative articles and 23 promoting/advertising news. These categories will be described in the following. a. Informs/Announces/Educates Those articles included in the informing/announcing/educating category deliver a neutral story about voice assistant(s). In the beginning, the media was dominated by articles focused on Siri. Only TMP did produce an article about voice assistants during 2010 titled “Asisten Pribadi Bernama Siri” (translation: Personal Assistant called Siri) (TMP, May 1st, 2010). It reported that there is a personal assistant named Siri several days after Siri acquired by Apple in late April 2010 (Mutchler, 2018). There was no further news related to any voice assistant that can be found until late July the next year when DTK posted an article with a click-bait tone title, “iPhone Terbaru Dilengkapi Fitur Asisten?” (translation: The Latest iPhone Equipped with Assistant Features?) (DTK, July 26th, 2011). Only an exclusive community in Indonesia did afford iPhone; thus, most of the time, their features, including Siri, seemed unique in the market.

Discourse Distribution

259

45 23 inform/ announcement/ Provoke Promotion/ advertising educate

Figure 4 Discourse Distribution Discourse CNN DTK KPS TMP TJP TTO Total Inform/ announcement/ educate 7 53 75 73 35 16 259 Provoke 1 3 19 11 10 1 45 Promotion/ advertising 0 5 6 8 4 0 24 Total 8 61 100 92 49 17 327 Table 1 Discourse Distribution per Media Therefore, having an ‘assistant’ controlled by voice command was ‘something’ at that time. It could be seen that although the article tries to attract the reader with a catchy title, the content was only information about a new Apple product rumour in the latest iOS version. DTK relayed

24 the information that there would be a new update of the iOS (a mobile operating system created and developed by Apple Inc. exclusively for its hardware) in their new phone, iPhone 4S. However, Apple already introduced Siri to the market in mid-April 2011 (Mutchler, 2018), so there were a late four months spread of information that may be due to less interest of people of the new technology. Siri-related articles became the trend dominating the media between 2011 to about mid-2016 before Google Assistant’s debut on May 18th, 2016 (Mutchler, 2018). Although there were times when the press informed of some other voice assistants like when Cortana from Microsoft in 2013 followed by Alexa in 2014 entered the market, sometimes, they tried to relate it with Siri. This might be because Siri was more familiar to Indonesian people during that period. For example, “Nuance Coba Peruntungan Besut Aplikasi Siri Wannabe” (translation: Nuance tried their luck making a Siri-wannabe application) (DTK, October 26th, 2012), “Kembaran’ Siri Hadir di Windows Phone 8” (translation: Siri’s ‘twin’ launched in Windows Phone 8) (DTK, February 28th, 2013), “ Siri ala Windows Phone Hadir April” (translation: Siri-like App in Windows Phone Comes April) (KPS, January 17th, 2014), and “Echo Hadirkan ‘Siri’ di Rumah” (translation: Echo presents ‘Siri’ at home) (KPS, November 9th, 2014). For instance:

“Microsoft diekspektasikan bakal mengumumkan kehadiran Windows Phone 8.1 lebih awal, yakni pada bulan April. Tentu saja, salah satu fitur yang paling ditunggu adalah voice assistant pesaing Siri, Cortana.” (translation: Microsoft is expected to announce the presence of Windows Phone 8.1 earlier in April. Of course, one of the most awaited features is the voice assistant of Siri’s competitor, Cortana.) (KPS, January 17th, 2014)

“… mirip asisten pribadi Siri-nya Apple, fitur Google Now ataupun Cortana-nya Microsoft. Bedanya, Echo dimaksudkan sebagai asisten rumah, tidak menempel di perangkat pribadi.” (translation: ... like Apple’s Siri personal assistant, Google Now features, or Microsoft’s Cortana. The difference is that Echo is intended as a home assistant, not attached to a personal device.) (KPS, November 9th, 2014). A challenging part of finding a correct discourse for an article was when the title prone to provoke the reader. Still, the content is just informing, announcing, or educating the reader about some instances or features. This click-bait style is becoming a trend lately in most Indonesian media; thus, it should be wiser if the reader read the full article and not triggered just by reading the title. Take for example, there is a news titled “Google Ternyata Menyimpan Rekaman Suara Pengguna Android” (translation: Google Apparently Saves Recordings of Android User Voices) (KPS, June 4th, 2016). For some, those who are aware of privacy concerns will be triggered to read, followed by questions like how come a giant company saves the user’s voice recording, for what reason, how they do it, or else. After reading the full content, in a small portion, only one paragraph, it is mentioned a provoking statement:

Meski aneka rekaman audio itu hanya bisa diakses oleh pengguna dengan memasukkan username dan password akun Google, keberadaan mereka menimbulkan kekhawatiran soal privasi karena seolah membiarkan Google “menguping” (translation: Although the various audio recordings can only be accessed by users by entering username and password, their presence raises concerns about privacy because it seems to let Google “eavesdrop”) (KPS, June 4th, 2016).

25 Nonetheless, in a bigger picture, the article was focusing on how Google provides a way to delete the recordings. It shows step-by-step on how to remove the desired information and explanation about other related features. There is no further discussion about the privacy issues. Another article from TMP in June 9th, 2016, “Fitur di Ponsel Ini Selamatkan Nyawa Bayi, Begini Ceritanya” (translation: Features on this cell phone Save Baby’s Life, Here’s the Story) tells a story about a mother and her sick baby. When the baby suddenly stops breathing and instinctively, the mother used the Always on Siri feature.

“Dia berteriak “Hey Siri, call the ambulance (Hey Siri, panggil ambulans)”. Tak berselang lama, ambulans datang dan bayinya mulai bernapas lagi.” (translation: She shouted, “Hey Siri, call the ambulance (Hey Siri, call the ambulance)”. Not long after, an ambulance arrived, and the baby began to breathe again.) After reading the full text, it shows that, in the end, the writer tries to tell the reader how to activate the always-on feature. Although, in this case, this feature helped the mother, there is also a risk to let Siri always hear our daily conversation. Yet, it was not discussed there. Starting in around mid-2016, after Google announced its assistant called Google Assistant, there is a new trend in the Indonesian media in terms of this voice technology. The focus of the news gradually shifted to the non-Siri assistants, and around 2017s, more articles discussed Google Assistant. This assistant became even more famous in the media since it started to speak Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian language) in late August 2017 (Keusgen, 2017). Take these articles for examples, firstly, “Google Assistant able to cite Pancasila principles in Indonesian” (TJP, April 5th, 2018) which informed the reader that the digital assistant is able to do various activities including citing the five principles of Indonesia’s ideology, Pancasila. TMP and DTK also once had published articles about features owned by Google Assistant that only can be used by users living in the US. They are “Google Assistant Bisa Pesan Tiket Bioskop, Begini Caranya” (translation: Google Assistant Can Order Movie Tickets, Here’s How to do it) (TMP, May 7th, 2018), and “Google Assistant Kini Bisa Pesan Kopi dan Donat” (translation: Google Assistant Now Can Order Coffee and Donuts) (DTK, June 5th, 2018). Articles published during 2019, overall, try to ‘educate’ the reader about how to maximize the use of Google Assistant or show step-by-step to activate certain features. When Google made some specific features for the Indonesian market, some media tried to provide details step to those features. For instance article “Cara Kirim Pesan WhatsApp (WA) Menggunakan Google Assistant” (translation: How to Send WhatsApp (WA) Using Google Assistant) (TTO, September 9th, 2019), and “‘OK Google’ Kini Bisa Pesan GoFood dan Cek Saldo BCA” (translation: “OK Google” Can Now Order GoFood and Check BCA Balance) (KPS, November 20th, 2019). They are showing that Google Assistant had integrated with Whatsapp for messaging, with GoFood by GoJek for food delivery, and with BCA for banking services (check balance). A remarkable part of that KPS article was one of the newly released features was the ability to delete our command history.

“Anda sekarang bisa menghapus aktivitas perintah suara dengan mengucapkan “Ok Google, hapus percakapan saya pada Anda” atau “Ok Google, hapus semua percakapan suara minggu lalu” (translation: “You can now delete the voice command activity by saying, Ok Google, delete

26 my conversation to you “or” Ok Google, delete all voice conversations last week”) (KPS, November 20th, 2019). There is no further discussion about this privacy control unless an informing-tone paragraph about this feature. That phenomenon also captured in a post by KPS in mid-May 2019, “Cara Mematikan “Google Assistant” di Ponsel Android” (translation: How to turn off “Google Assistant” on Android Phones) (KPS, May 13th, 2019).

“Adakah cara untuk mematikan Google Assistant supaya tak sebentar-sebentar muncul? Tentu saja ada. Simak langkah-langkahnya berikut mini...” (translation: Is there a way to turn off Google Assistant so that it doesn’t intermittently appear? Of course, there is. Check out the following steps ...) (KPS, May 13th, 2019). In that article, the writer started the discussion about the possibility of Google Assistant become annoying because being activated accidentally. It could be because the user unintentionally presses the home button or the Google Assistant button on their phone. Thus, the article showed five steps to turn off the assistant. There was no further discussion that turning off the assistant is also one of the privacy controls provided by Google. b. Promotes/Advertises The media text discourse having the smallest number is the category of promoting/advertising certain products, including voice assistants. Based on Table 1, both CNN and TTO did not produce any article to promote or advertise something (related to voice assistant). At the same time, TMP uploaded the most news, eight promotional/advertisement articles in total. Those which biased to one product and praised the excellence of it will be included in this theme. For example, the first promotional-contented article was posted by DTK was about Siri titled “Siri iPhone 4S yang Jenaka dan Menghibur” (translation: The humorous and entertaining Siri iPhone 4S) (DTK, October 19th, 2011). This article published based on another report from foreign media called Today in Tech. This article shows the convenience of using Siri, and it has a sense of emotion and humor. This discourse theme also includes articles that persuade people to do something toward certain products, can be to buy, use, or others. There is a promotional post of a movie called ‘Her’, which tells how in the future, features like Siri on Apple gadgets, are very close to the daily lives of its users. It is the first Hollywood movie about (modern) voice assistant posted by DTK.

“Film yang disutradari Spike Jonze ini, rencananya akan dirilis di Amerika Serikat pada 18 Desember 2013. ... Tebak, siapa yang menjadi pengisi suara Samantha? Si seksi Scarlett Johansson. ... Scarlett hanya muncul dalam bentuk suara sepanjang film. Penasaran? Lihat dulu trailernya.” (translation: “The film directed by Spike Jonze is planned to be released in the United States on December 18, 2013. ... Guess who the voice of Samantha is? A sexy Scarlett Johansson. ... Scarlett only appears in the form of sound throughout the film. Curious? Look at the trailer first. “) (DTK, October 16th, 2013). KPS, on May 7th, 2019, posted an article promoting a Google Assistant-smartphone, Nokia 4.2. It shares the best feature offered (a specific button for calling Google Assistant directly), the specifications, and the estimated price and launching date. They use a positive opinion for the entire content.

27 “‘Nokia 4.2 merupakan ponsel pertama dengan tombol Google Assistant pertama di Indonesia. Belum ada ponsel lain dengan tombol ini,’ klaim Miranda Warokka....” (translation: “Nokia 4.2 is the first mobile phone with the first Google Assistant button in Indonesia. There is no other phone with this button yet, “claims Miranda Warokka ...) (KPS, May 7th, 2019). c. Provokes As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, I want to see how the picture of the discussion about voice assistants and the possibilities of ethical issues is surrounding the technology in the Indonesian landscape by media. This last discourse category, provoking text-media discourse, also exposes which way media triggered people toward certain situations or conditions. About half of the articles discuss privacy issues, which the most discussed around was about the leakage of voice assistant recordings starting in May 2019 of Amazon Alexa followed by Google Assistant’s and then Siri’s case. Google Assistant issue was revealed in the article “Ribuan Rekaman Perintah Suara Google Assistant Bocor” (translation: Thousands of Google Assistant Voice Command Recordings Leaked) (KPS, July 19th, 2019).

“Google Assistant dan juga speaker pintar Google Home merekam suara dari para penggunanya dan diam-diam bisa didengar oleh pegawai Google. ... dalam syarat dan ketentuan memang telah disebutkan bahwa apapun pesan suara yang diperintahkan ke Google Home dan Google Assistant akan direkam dan disimpan...” (translation: Google Assistant and also Google Home smart speakers record the voices of their users and can be secretly heard by Google employees. ... in terms and conditions, it is stated that any voice messages ordered to Google Home and Google Assistant will be recorded and stored ...). A month later, CNN published a similar privacy case issues about Siri, “Apple Diduga Pakai Siri untuk ‘Nguping’ Ribuan Percakapan” (translation: Apple Allegedly Use Siri to ‘Eavesdrop’ Thousands of Conversations) (August 27th, 2019). Moreover, in “Asisten Virtual Cortana Bisa Jadi Si Pengingat Janji” (translation: A Virtual Assistant, Cortana Can Be A Reminder of an Appointment) (TMP, February 11th, 2017)., the writer tried to provoke the reader that our assistant has access to our email and it can classify the content, for example only work-related ones. The article did mention that it will help us;

“... mengingat hal-hal yang Anda ingin lakukan di surel Anda -- bahkan tanpa Anda menanyakannya” (translation: ... reminding the things you want to do in your email - without even asking). However, this also makes another assumption that, in order to create an automatic reminder for us, it will check all of our emails. If they only check and find those that can help us and increase our engagement with the assistant, it will not be privacy invasive. Yet, no one can make sure how they exactly find it and learn to find it. Additionally, the articles containing a negative opinion, especially citing the view of a remarkable person in the field, are included in this category. For example, the article titled, “Snowden: Aplikasi “Chatting” Tidak Aman” (translation: Snowden: Google Allo’s “Chat” Application Is Not Safe) (KPS, May 23rd, 2016). In this article, there was a provocative tweet about Allo from Edward Snowden, an American whistleblower who copied and leaked highly classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA). Allo was

28 a messaging app integrated to Google assistant released a week before the news published. Edward mentioned that the app was not safe since Google turned off the end-to-end encryption feature for the Allo. In the last part of the article, the writer tried to elaborate on what Edward mentioned.

“AI Google Assistant bekerja dengan menganalisa isi pesan pengguna. Kalau enkripsi diaktifkan, maka kecerdasan buatan ini tidak bisa membaca pesan pengguna dan tak mampu berfungsi. ... Namun untuk sementara, pengguna Allo harus memilih antara privasi atau bantuan Google Assistant.” (Translation: AI Google Assistant works by analyzing the contents of user messages. If encryption is enabled, this artificial intelligence cannot read the user’s message and is unable to function. ... But for the time being, Allo users have to choose between privacy or Google Assistant assistance.) (KPS, May 23rd, 2016). A similar articles also reported titled, “Google Kembangkan AI Suara Mirip Manusia di Google Assistant” (translation: Google Develops Human-like AI Voice in Google Assistant) (TMP, May 12, 2018).

“Tidak semua orang memuji keberhasilan Google mengembangkan suara robot yang mirip dengan manusia, laman Techcrunch menuliskan Thomas King, seorang peneliti di Digital Ethics Lab, Oxford Internet Institute berpendapat percobaan Duplex Google ini dirancang untuk menipu…” (translation: Not everyone praises Google’s success in developing robotic voices similar to humans. The Techcrunch webpage wrote that Thomas King, a researcher at the Digital Ethics Lab, Oxford Internet Institute believes the Google Duplex experiment was designed to deceive people…) It began with an informative tone telling that Google continuously innovates developing their artificial intelligence (AI) by announcing the Duplex virtual assistant embedded in Google Assistant. Then it shared the situation on how the Google CEO demonstrated Duplex in an I/O conference in Mountain View. Afterward, this article started to provoke the reader with the perspective of Thomas King that the application was built to deceive people. Here, we can see that ‘who’ gives opinions toward specific issues matters, influence for the readers to support or object that, especially when someone objects something, it may trigger or provoke others. There are several posts that discussed the security concerns of voice assistants. They provided information that tended to create worrying thoughts and support the idea with data or arguments. For example, the idea that people can give commands to the voice assistant without being around it in was mentioned in two TMP articles. In “Hacker Bisa Kontrol Siri dari Jarak 5 Meter” (translation: Hackers Can Control Siri from a Distance of 5 Meters) (TMP, October 16th, 2015);

“Sekelompok peneliti Prancis membuat penemuan yang membuktikan bahwa Siri akan mematuhi perintah hacker yang berbicara kepadanya. Modusnya, diam-diam si hacker mentransmisikan perintah melalui radio dari jarak 4,8 meter... menunjukkan mereka dapat menggunakan gelombang radio untuk memicu perintah suara ke ponsel Android atau iPhone yang memiliki Google Now atau Siri sedang aktif, ... Semua yang dapat Anda lakukan melalui antarmuka suara, dapat Anda lakukan dari jarak jauh dan diam-diam melalui gelombang elektromagnetik...” (translation: A group of French researchers made a discovery that proves that Siri will obey the orders of the hacker who spoke to him. The mode, the hacker, secretly transmits commands via

29 radio from a distance of 4.8 meters ... shows they can use radio waves to trigger voice commands to an Android phone or iPhone that has Google Now or Siri is active, ... All that, You can do it through the voice interface; you can do it remotely and quietly through electromagnetic waves ...). That is similar to an article titled, “Peneliti Ungkap Peretasan Speaker Pintar dengan Laser” (translation: Researchers Reveal Smart-Speakers Hacking using Lasers) (TMP, November 7th, 2019) also raised a security issue about voice assistants. It was stated that we can access and control smart speakers without any noise using a laser. This kind of article supposed to convince the reader that there are risks of their security from the hardware point of view. Creating awareness can be effectively done by using common cautions wording. It is like “Smart speakers are often present without extra security protection” or “find out what approaches hackers might take in the future since our lives will increasingly be filled with voice-activated gadgets”. This provoking statement can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can create awareness, but on the other hand, it can make future buyers reconsider buying or using the products. 5.2 Interview study The online interviews were conducted at the beginning of the work from home trend, thus, some were still getting used to the online apps for video calls. Eventually, we managed to use either Zoom, Whatsapp, Skype, or Facetime video calls. There were some troublesome experiences when conducting this online interview, such as loss or weak signal making the interview process paused for awhile. From those 18 respondents, more than 70% of them have experience of living abroad or are still living abroad. The majority of the respondents, as many as 13 people, hold a Master’s degree, and one person has a doctoral education, and remaining four have bachelor degrees. With the same population, seven interviewees are working in the Engineering or IT area and another seven are in Education, Health, or Science sectors. The remaining four are students at the postgraduate level. The vast majority are tech-savvy; three people have experience joining a tech-related workshop or training included in the ‘little’ experience group (see Appendix A). Otherwise, there are four people grouped in non-tech expertise or background. Additionally, Google Assistant and Siri were the most popular assistants amongst the respondents. There are also Alexa, Cortana, and Bixby that mentioned once each. The interview was divided into three parts; first of all, the respondent was asked questions about their demographics. These questions will help to contextualize the answer later (Bryman and Bell, 2011). They include the age, highest level of education, occupation, background or experiences related to technology, experience living or traveling abroad, their smartphone type, and whether they live by themselves or with other people. Participants also got some basic questions about their experience or knowledge about voice assistants. Mostly it covered questions about how many voice assistant they know or ever heard, how many they usually use and which ones are they, in which device they have it installed, their perception and the range of how often they use it, and also how long have they used it continuously. Afterward, the interview was paused for some observation. Participant received some random ‘cue card’ could be question or command that they have to give to their voice assistant. For example;

30 Find out what the weather will be like in your city tomorrow Get driving directions to your city center Send a text/WhatsApp message to one of your contacts Set a reminder Search for a recipe The participant’s interaction observed is how they ask or order their assistants. How they start to ‘activate’ the assistant, how they form their questions or commands, how interviewee act when facing problems regarding the interaction, or maybe they do some unique treatment. In the last observation section, I asked them about how they would comfortable calling the voice assistant, whether as a machine, assistant, friend, helper, or partner. Subsequently, the interview continued with some groups of questions. There are nine groups, which are (1) about their digital literacy of smartphone/laptop use concerning security & privacy, followed by (2) general privacy and mobile data concern. Later on, they got (3) some questions about the voice assistant use, (4) questions related to reasons for the adoption of the assistant, and (5) their experience and expectation. (6) privacy concern, (7) their perceptions and attitudes around ‘always listening’ and sharing of data, (8) privacy control, and finally, (9) about their foresight about this technology. After trying out my question list to a friend, I realized that their ethical behavior to a particular technology could be captured by asking other kinds of or general technology. So when they could not answer the question because of lack of experience or because they did not think about it in some cases, I would take a detour by asking a similar problem for other technology. For example, if they cannot answer what their ethical concerns toward voice assistant technology are, I would ask about other artificial technology, information systems, or application they supposedly use or know like robots or Facebook apps. On average, the interviews were about an hour and twenty minutes long. In the data analysis activity, the first thing to do is to convert the interview voice record to the transcribe format. For an hour recording, it needed approximately 2 hours to transcribe, and since the interview was conducted using Bahasa Indonesia, the textual transcriptions were also in Bahasa Indonesia. This transcription was, again, utilizing Microsoft Excel to record the result. It is easy to keep track between the question group, questions, answers, who is giving the answers, and the answers. Since the ‘cells’ and the ‘sheets’ are adjustable, additional information can be put directly easily. To simplify grouping information, several prominent questions, from each question groups, are taken to be processed and then translated from textual to contextual.

5.2.1 Interview result based on TAM Eleven (R01, R04, R05, R06, R09, R10, R12, R14, R18, R21, R22) from those eighteen interviewees admitted that they started to adopt their voice assistant because of it is an innate feature of their new device. Unlike the nature of buying smart speakers, they do not consider the assistant first when purchasing a notebook, smartphone, or tablet. It is more because the assistant included as part of the new device. I divided the respondents into four groups based on people’s perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Here, discussed ‘acceptance’ based on the TAM is based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and how it relates to their actual use.

31 a. It is easy to use and useful (E-U) As many as nine people (R03, R04, R05, R08, R11, R12, R14, R16, R20) grouped in this category. In general, they see that their voice assistant is easy to become useful and helpful, either only for some features or that it has become an integral part of their daily life. R16 decided to adopt the assistant technology since he enjoys following technology development in general. He started to put his interest in this AI technology when he tried an artificial intelligence conversation program called Simsimi and also watched a movie titled ‘I, Robot’ about a dozen years ago. Additionally, after moving abroad, he uses Cortana regularly, “it accompanies me when I feel lonely here”, he said. On the contrary, R14 is more a sceptical person. When he heard the technology in 2011, he was curious about what things can be done by the assistant, how smart it is, could it use Bahasa Indonesia. “Since 2011, I already sceptical about most new technologies because I think they are most probably ‘R&D products’, which we need to pay for something that is not perfect or ready to sell. So, being sceptical has become natural for me when there is a newly launched tech. How good it can or will be?”. In 2013, he had a chance to try out an assistant, and then there is a gap period before he started to use the technology continuously. A few months ago, he just realized that his android box has an assistant installed, Google Assistant. It helps him to access his TV, entertain his child, and it can speak and understand Bahasa Indonesia, which later increases his curiosity to try out his assistant skill. Most of these people in this group have no doubt when deciding to activate their voice assistant, except R20, who have small anxiety toward the technology. She started to activate a Google Assistant in 2014 out of curiosity because of the continuous advertising from Google. At that time, she was taking a machine learning course, as she thought the assistant was not smart enough; she wanted to test the ability of it. Additionally, I ask two different questions about how often they use their assistants, objectively, and based on their perception. Six people (R03, R04, R11, R12, R14, R20) use it 1-2 times a week, and the rest (R05, R08, R16) use it almost every day (5-7 times per week). Intriguing facts from those people, R04 admitted to using it often (1-2 times), while the others perceived their frequency as occasional usage. R05 described her 5-7 use per week as occasional use, although R08 and R16 described themselves almost ‘always’ use their voice assistant. From those nine users, only two people (R08 and R16) included the assistant in their daily activity. When I asked a question about when they prefer to use their devices manually over calling the assistant, R08 replied that whenever he needs to call some Indonesian relatives or mention activities or places using Indonesian. While R16 prefers to access his phone manually only when he does not want to talk otherwise, he asks his assistant most of the time for opening an app, doing a countdown, or telling a joke. The others use their voice assistant for some limited activities. Whereas R16 shared his thought that in the future when he lives with his wife, he will be most probably rarely uses the voice assistant because he is no longer lonely.

32 b. It is easy to use, yet not useful (E-NU) There are only R07 and R09 included in this group, those who see this assistant technology as easy to master but that does not give much value for their life. The two respondents talk to their assistant. They only used a short command, not a full question form for example “Find the recipe of sponge cake” or “driving direction to (name place)”. R09 never gives questions but clear commands. She said that she sees her assistant as her friend since it can crack jokes, “... I don’t think it is my assistant since I like to take notes myself. So, it is either my friend or just a tool (machine)”. For R07, it is just a machine, “… I don’t think I want to have a conversation with it or even thinking it as my partner. Just as a tool. I don’t think it as a helper since I think that a helper can do anything for me, but it only helps me sometimes and for a specific task.” He started to activate the technology because he actively follows the development of AI technology. Therefore, he had no hesitation, and, in the beginning, so excited to try himself. R07 admitted that he only felt the excitement in the beginning and that he got bored after some time. He doesn’t see any added value; now he uses it only when he feels tired to type or to turn on his smart lamp. R09 also has the impression that she doesn’t get what she expected. She didn’t see any added value because there is no supporting environment demanding the existence of the voice assistant. She only keeps using it for checking the weather or to open some particular applications. Both of them told that they use it 3-4 times per week. But they have different perspectives about this frequency of use. R07 occasionally uses it while R09 said she uses it often. That those who perceive that the assistant does not really enhance any value in their life, still use the assistant 3-4 times a week is interesting. c. It is not easy to use, but useful (NE-U) This group belongs to those who face difficulties when operating their voice assistants but still thought that assistants can bring some benefits in their life. There are four people in this category, which are R01, R02, R18, and R21. R01, R02, and R18 started to activate their assistant since they had a new device that had an assistant on it, while R21 began to use it out of his curiosity. “I just want to test Siri, ‘what can it do?’ We learn speech recognition, and now (at that time) Apple introduce its assistant, so I was curious to know how far its ability? And I saw that the first version still had difficulty to understand the Indonesian accent. Thus, basically useless. But it looked cool, nothing more, I think”. All of them started using it without hesitation, but for those who have the assistant installed on a new device, they felt excited. For R02, her Siri is an assistant, while for the others, their voice assistant is seen as a machine, although R18 and R20 refer it first as helper and assistant, respectively. For R18 “it is a machine helper, doesn’t have a feeling and no need to emphasize, not a helper because physically it does not exist, and I don’t want to spend some time to have ‘me time’ with it. So, we can easily make a boundary in our relationship with other humans or just a machine”. However, all these people give a similar expression toward their assistant. If I can summarize it, it could be, “the voice assistant can be really helpful although it can also be troublesome since it doesn’t have feelings or cannot sense the situation or context”. In a general context, R02 is a bit off the pattern. Although sometimes she faced hardships when interacting with her Siri, she admitted that it helps her in some ways. While R01, R18 and R21 usually will keep using the technology when needed (like, navigation, reminder, game, play

33 music, or call), R02 rarely use it lately. She admitted that when she stays longer in her family place, she became a more infrequent user. She experienced it better in use abroad. R02 explained that using Siri in Indonesia could be challenging since the data is still not fully available and then there is also the language barrier. Since she went back to Indonesia, she has faced issues related to the language barrier of her Siri, “It is difficult when I look for directions, and the place contains the Indonesian name. It is also the same when I ask Siri to call my (Indonesian) friend...” R21 expressed his pain when using his Siri or Google Assistant, “I only use a short command, and never explored its ability. If I give a long command or even questions, highly likely, it will not understand what I am saying. They capture my pronunciations incorrectly. For instance, ‘how, is, weather, today’. By using three syllables, the successful rate become 60-70%. Otherwise, I’d better use a swipe keyboard”. All these four respondents have an almost similar usage frequency of 1-2 times per week except R01, who use it 3-4 per week. However, there is an intriguing perception of this frequency use by R21. He uses his Google Assistant 1-2 per week, but he classified it as often. Maybe this is related to the fact that he lives with his family, thus talking to a ‘machine’ 1-2 per week is already more than he could expect. d. It is neither easy to use nor useful (NE-NU) The last group consisted of three people (R06, R10, R22) who rarely use the voice assistant. They asserted that they use it 1-12 times per year. They started to activate it because of their new device and continuously used it to accompany or kill time. Coincidentally, they are all live by themselves, and they expressed that it is complicated to use, and they are more comfortable to use the phone directly. Also, they think that the assistant does not improve much value in their life. While R06 and R22 think that their voice assistant is an assistant, R10 sees it as a friend despite the limited ability. She argued that it is not a machine since it can give responses, and it makes her get used to saying thank you and please. Regardless of how they see their assistant, they tried to use a full question/command form when asking something. In general, I see that they share similar behavior. They prefer to have control over their hand, thus, when I ask whether they have set any automation setting on their assistant, R10 explained, “I don’t think I will use that feature, it is far from my personality. I will never use it”. They realize that the assistant technology has become more mature compared to several years ago. But the three respondents decided to not regularly use it. “Sometimes it doesn’t meet my expectation”, said R06, but later she said an appealing argument, “... I am too lazy to speak to it; it is easier to do it manually.” This group shows that when technology is challenging to master and that it does not give enough value, they rarely use it. R06, R10, and R22 (NE-NU group) showed that they accept to adopt and continuously use the voice assistant, but it is rare, about 1-12 times a year. The notion of acceptance to adopt and continuously use a particular technology is rather vague. Based on the TAM concept, the primary relevance for technology acceptance behaviors are perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Davis et al., 1989). Davis et al. also mentioned that in TAM, attitude toward use is jointly determined by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and influence the behavior intention to use the technology. The empirical data

34 gives information that all interview participants accept to adopt and continuously use the voice assistant despite the difference in the frequency of usage and the purpose of use. It shows that the user's perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the TAM theory alone cannot express how users decided to adopt and use voice technology. Based on the data, it only can distinct the NE-NU group that the member accepts to adopt the technology, but the frequency of use is rare. Meanwhile, members of other groups adopt the technology and use it with some adjustments in both the frequencies and purposes of use. 5.2.2 Analysis of acceptance to adopt and continuously use the voice assistants considering ethical aspect (privacy and trust) As discussed in the previous chapter, ‘acceptance’ in the ethical process (Lennerfors, 2019), when deciding a course of action, people should be aware of what to determine, including the benefits and impacts. They are also not under too much pressure. Thus, they can be responsible for it and then later make considerations by using their critical thinking and follow up by taking actions. When considering some options, maybe we could draw some insight into how these people relations with their assistants. However, based on their attitude toward ethical aspects like privacy and trust, some aspects need to be explained further. Here, I will not divide the participants into several groups instead combine altogether and later point out some findings through the analysis. We begin by reflecting their view on the ethical stage defined by Lennerfors (2019); awareness, responsibility, critical thinking, and action. a. Awareness of Ethical Issues or Implications of Voice Assistant Technology and Privacy Control Before we discussed further about their awareness about ethical issues, I asked them about some voice assistants that they know, and mostly they named Google Assistant, Apple Siri, Microsoft Cortana, and Amazon Alexa. However, some also mentioned Samsung Bixby and Line Cova. Some of them sometimes forget the name of the assistant but remembered the companies producing them. The 'right to be let alone’, or privacy, defined by Warren and Brande (1890) is something that is rather vague for some yet becomes a sensitive issue in this digital era. To see whether they already went beyond the wall of obviousness (Lennerfors, 2019), I tried to get their understanding of the notion of ‘privacy’ by taking a detour asking about their privacy perception. It is because there is a possibility that they have not experienced any problematic cases related to the use of voice assistants. Easy access to information through the internet and social media were the first question themes given to the interviewee. All of the interviewees were aware of privacy issues related to sharing information. They agreed to keep private messages shared in public space only when they got permission to make it public. Some questions relating to awareness and understanding of interviewees regarding general data privacy and mobile data concerns were also given. All of them have privacy-conscious and well aware of public and private contexts while sharing data or information. R08 expressed his thought, “When you set your social media to Public, it means, everyone can see, capture, or other. However, although you set your account to Private, any friends still can take a

35 screenshot, share your posting, like ‘leaking out’ your postings through your friends”. Taking a screenshot or share private chats to the public also another question toward this public-private issue. Some mentioned that they do not like it when people take their photo, or even record theior voice. R09 told that “I have begun to remove my photos on Facebook. It’s kind of creepy when they could recognize my face even though it was only partially” Some expressed their concerns on how their data is used for cybercrime or even ads. Also, I gave questions about share features in social media, the experience of being tracked or monitored by some free-open platforms, and a provoking question about the possibility of private email service being accessed. Personalized features increase engagement between users and a product or service. However, to allow for personalization, in general, users need to provide their personal data. Similar to the result of Kirmse (2012), these users face the dilemma of choosing between maintaining their privacy and the convenience afforded by the technology. When I asked about their experience of getting an automatic notification about their upcoming trip in their email, some were unaware or avoided to think further that there is a tradeoff between their convenience and their data. R05 argued, “Actually, I don’t want to get dizzier. We need it, and if we don’t use it, what is our other option? On the other hand, with these services (like calendars, etc.), my life got better, more organized. Although after moving here, I got more suitable ads, I feel like they have a more sophisticated ad system here. It feels more ‘naked’ here. I am surprised. I was ignorant in the past”. Although others accept that tradeoff, when I ask other cases with similar privacy-convenience tradeoffs concern, I see that they give different impressions. For example, R22, unaware of the tradeoff of comfort to be reminded for his upcoming trip, but he explained that he aware that free-open platforms like Google ‘learned’ about his activity and accepted the tradeoff. I think the experience of technology influences this awareness. Take R21, for instance, his work and background in the IT industry make him more strict when using open-free applications for job- related things; for example, , “... When I use Google translate, our data won’t be removed completely; it will be cased. Imagine if there is some confidential information on it, it will backfire on you in the future.” Also, R21 feels threatened after enjoying the automatic notification for some time. She senses something was off by thinking about how this could happen. Since most of these people keep using such apps, all 18 respondents act similarly. Similar behavior occurred in terms of the voice assistant. I asked whether or not they ever heard, read, or experienced any recent event concern about the assistant, either from security or ethical point of view. Everyone claimed that they were not actively or interested in searching for information about specific that technology. Only did R20 actively search for some information about artificial intelligence, including voice assistant technology, since she needs them as part of her occupation tasks. Once R20 read articles about Google Assistant, she became more cautious. “Yes, after reading several articles that Google Assistant records our conversation, since then, I turn off the ‘auto calling’ feature because we don’t know who is listening on the other side. If Google Assistant knows when I call it, it means that it always listens to what I am saying”. However, her background and experience in IT let her become more comfortable using the assistant. She asserted, “Because I use it for things that aren’t too private, so it still OK”. Also, she convinced that “maybe because I know what data I am giving,

36 which is ‘maybe’ that’s just the only thing was sent, and I kind of know (from some article I read) how is the process, so I am not too worried when using it”. Moreover, the notion of ‘always listening’ should be well-known among voice assistant users, yet it is intriguing that only four people (R03, R10, R20, R22), claimed to have heard about it. This notion plays the most prominent role in making this digital voice assistant play its part in its user’s life. To be able to assist effectively, it is advised to set the assistant to always ready to answer questions or command of the owner. However, this also creates an opportunity for the invasion of user privacy. So then, I tried to see how they perceive the notion and what they think about it. Only R03, R10, R20, and R22 did know about this mechanism, and when taking part in the observation, they showed me that they use a button to call the assistant. Some do it because they disabled the auto calling feature, while others even do not realize that they have the option like R18 who said “Oh, I just knew it today. So I can call them directly? (tried to call his Google Assistant directly) It did it! It replied to me when I called ‘OK, Google!’ So it’s listening all the time then?!” Those people mostly do not fully understand the notion. R05 explained that she had an A-ha moment, “I heard it, but I thought it just a branding term from Google or Apple making prospective users more engaged with their product. But after you ask me this, I just realize, I think it is true that they are listening, even eavesdropping on our conversation now. Well, I feel insecure, but again, I don’t have any other options. I need them”. R04 doubted it “I don’t think they always listen to us; it will not be efficient for the battery. Even so, well, I don’t have problems with it. So far, it doesn’t cause any harm to me. It doesn’t cause robbery or threat. But still, I felt uncomfortable if it listens to my conversation.” I believe, they might hear or have chosen the option - with or without intention (some providers like Apple give an option called ‘always listening’, while others do not), but they do not pay much attention to it. However, by being unaware of this situation and notion, there is a possibility that those people also are not aware of the way the technology could impact their lives (Lennerfors, 2019). b. Taking Responsibility, or Avoid or Explain Away Their Responsibility From the awareness step point of view, we see the practical situation that with knowledge comes responsibility (Lennerfors, 2019). To take responsibility, we have to be competent. Thus, people’s experience and knowledge about this technology are also explored. The participants have used the voice assistant ranging for four months to 8 years, but they knew the technology way longer than that. What keeps them using it? Both awareness and responsibility step are related to the ‘trust’ given to the service or application providers by the user, then it influences their critical thinking. As defined by Mayer et al. (1995), Rousseau et al. (1998), and Lennerfors (2019), that while being trust, the trustor is accepting the situation of vulnerable to another party with the expectation that the other will perform a particular action to the trustor. When a user trusts their data collected by a company, it means he or she opens an opportunity that his or her data will be treated unfairly. Based on the collected data, those who are clearly aware and sense the tradeoff convenience and private data in general are all had a background in IT or technology (R03, R04, R07, R08, R09, R11, R14, R18, R20, R21, R22). They tend to sense it since they know how the system works and how to prevent being trapped in any malicious cyber activities. They trust what data

37 they have given to the providers and how the company supposedly treats the data. R11 said that “Basically, there must be provisions for a platform like that, so if you have given your consent, then we have to be aware that we already allow that ‘something’ will happen with our data. I often heard that social media/marketplace application is like eavesdropping on our conversation, or vice versa when looking for goods, then the ads of our desired products appear”. R14 and R20 gave a similar compelling argument “I often heard that, if you use the product for free, then you’re the real product. Surely, Google is free because they take our data. For example, I search on YouTube; then, it can track my search history, which later they can give me some personalized ads”, R14 added, “... so that is indeed the business. They might not provide a free service, because we give our data to them.” It is also appealing when I ask about how they give consent when first install an app, all of the participants admitted that they never read the Term and Condition, Privacy Policy, or other documents; they just directly gave their agreement. They mentioned that they do not have enough time to read all of those lines for every application installation process. Some argued that they just do it since others do the same, or at least they check how many users of these applications and their reputation based on user ratings on the application marketplace. R14 expressed his surrender, “No, because I did let it go. They (the documents) all have similar content, I believe. But later, if I experience some strange situation, then I will briefly check their Term on Condition document, if there was a violation, I will delete my account and uninstall the app.” R16 added, “... They got 5 stars for reasons.” Nonetheless, R03 tried to defend his attitude based on his experience and job in the IT industry, “If it is from a highly reputed company like Google, I directly give my permission. But if it is an application with a small rating, still on a beta version, usually, I will check them through, including the authorization for camera or else. For example, the VPN server application which can gather our data, I read the documents thoroughly, or application that includes money transaction. Yet, I rarely read the finance technology applications from banking services. I just trust them.” In addition, R11 explained that the privacy concern does not affect how he uses technology, “Since we live (working) in the technology area, we know that there will always be collecting data process, although we don’t really know the detailed procedure. If you do not want it, then just don’t use your smartphone. However, since we understand how the technology-making process, therefore, we know the limitations of what we can or should not do.” Mentioned in the previous section, most users started to adopt the voice assistant because they have a new device, and the voice assistant is a feature on it. Unlike a smart speaker, a general voice assistant is installed as a part of a smartphone, tablet, or laptop, so it is not the priority consideration when buying a device. There is also no obligation to use the voice assistant unless they are under external pressure like “all my friends are using it”. Therefore, when they are aware that there are highly probable ways that their privacy is invaded, why do they still use the assistant? In the interview data, trust plays the biggest part as defined in Li et al. (2008, p. 39; De Kruijff, 2018). They showed that trust influence technology adoption and intention of use. In the component freedom to (Lennerfors, 2019), the voice assistant user can be seen from two dimensions descriptively, first is the ability of the agent to make choices and secondly, his or

38 her knowledge. We presuppose that all human beings are capable of making reasoned choices. Hence, we now focus on their knowledge of the problem (Lennerfors, 2019). If we reflect on what was mentioned earlier in the awareness part and the beginning of this section, some people donot have a background and experience in technology or IT, and only R20 actively looks for information related to voice technology. Thus, in a way, the lack of knowledge could make it difficult for them to take responsibility. However, what influences their decision could also be seen as ways to avoid or explain away their responsibility (Lennerfors, 2019). Some said that they use it to trust the service provider (Google, Apple, Microsoft, or others), and even R16 stated that when an app got a good reputation on the app market it means it is trustworthy. One can say that this shows how respect for authorities can affect their decision to use or keep using it. R14 expressed his trust to Google, “I trust with data Google, ... I believe Google already thinks about it… I let Google do it...” R05 and R12 motivated to start using their assistant because of their friends, thus we see that peer pressure behavior also influences them. When they see that others use it, and have no complaint or so, they have the courage to activate it. This attitude also was apparent in privacy control-related questions. Several people, like R08 and R18, might be more worried that there will be a threat to their confidentiality only if they see someone close to them who have had their privacy breached, or if they become an essential figure in the future. Otherwise, they have no fear of sharing their data. Also R08 and R16 showed peer pressure behavior, “When I see my friends use that app and have no complaint about it, I will install it and directly give my consent for the documents. It’s too long, I am too lazy for it”. It seems like when they did not install the app, they could be left behind and difficult to connect. Here we see how other people’s perspectives or attitudes can have an impact on ourselves. The last reason could be rationalization behavior. They use the assistant since it is part of their new phone or other devices. So, it is a legal application that they think cannot be unethical. Some said that “if they do take our data, that’s the tradeoff, otherwise people should use the paid services”, this expresses an attitude of denial of victim of the user. Meanwhile, those who perceive the application useful might show refocus attention, that this technology is useful and then they begin to neglect the possibility of their data being threatened. c. Critical Thinking and Action Based on Lennerfors (2019), what happens after people have some particular practice, situation, or dilemma on their hand, they then need to make a decision, for example about if and how to adapt or continue adapting the voice assistant. Critical thinking is not about being judgmental, but about thinking about the pros and cons of an issue. As a user who have enough knowledge, have options and not under too much pressure to use voice assistant, R20 showed an interesting insight. For instance, because of her understanding of the ‘listening’ process of voice assistant, R20 became uneasy about activating the ‘always listening’ feature and turn it off. She had capability and ability to think, “It will be active if we call the keywords meaning that as long as it is active, it will listen continuously. That made me nervous; that is why I turn it (the always listening feature) off.” Now when she needs her

39 assistant, she has to long-press a specific button on her phone. It does not sound convenient at all, but she prefers to do it to protect her privacy. I see the dilemma that those participants have. In general, they see that there are possible threats when using their voice assistant, other applications, or online services. Some realize that by choosing the free services, it means people are aware of what tradeoff they are agreed upon. Otherwise, they should choose the paid services since that is how the business works today. R11 once tried to emphasize his thought, “Apple might seem safe and trusted, but it is their service they sell and push the user to buy all their product. It is like building an environment, a market, thus, it is not only about trust or not.” While R20 expresses her dilemma with, ‘I heard this a lot, if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product’, R21 asked me back with what he believes, “there is no such thing as a free lunch, right?”. A dozen interviewees perceived that Google is their most trustworthy company offering voice assistant, mostly because they do not have any experience with other assistants, and they have used Google services for a long time. Some users who trust Apple, reason in the same way, like R06: “I only use Apple, so I have no idea about the other (never have other company products).” However, the notion of trust also has several meanings. When I asked, ‘which one (company) do you trust the most?’, R22 and R02 explained in a similar tone. They trust those who can keep their data well, those who gather their information and distribute the data only with their permission. “It is better to have a central data point in their device compared to centralize in one system or federated learning” they added. For R01 and R18, Google is the most trusted company producing voice assistants since the voice assistants can give the result they expected. They believe that more users mean more data to train the system, which leads to more reliable answers from the assistant. Yet, there is only R04 who said that he does not trust any company since he believes that all of them will eventually sell the user’s data. Their trust in the company may be affected when they see or hear any information or concern about it; then they would question their trust. Like R20, who knew some possible problems with voice assistant use from articles and therefore took preventive action and became skeptical about the technology. Although most of them trust the company producing their voice assistant, regardless of their perception toward the voice assistants, R04 said that “I don’t trust anyone, even Apple. They are (all) have our data, they used it then they sell it”. R11 argued he could not choose which one, he thought “Apple might seem safe because that is what they sell, the service, forcing users to use all Apple products. So, this is not a matter of we trust or not, but Apple has its built- environment, made-market. While the pattern of Chinese business, they sell a good technology, but cheap, and the trade-off is the user’s data. When we talk about business, if you do not trust, don’t use the product.” He claimed that “For now, there are no problems ... but after all, we already hand over our information. Even for some applications like LinkedIn, we voluntarily give them out.” In contrast, R14, and R20 showed their resignation to conservatively protect their data and bring out a different perspective of “trustworthy”. R14 described “As far as I know, a company with minimal privacy issues, and provides options that are quite dynamic and reasonable is Google. And if they use our data for advertising, that is the trade-off” and R20 explained that

40 “Trustworthy means they honestly take what data, and who uses it for what.” While R08 felt that the fact that AI can be smarter when having more ‘knowledge’, which is inputs from the users, as the advantages he looks for. Thus, he prefers Google as his most trusted company offering voice assistants, “I have more experiences with Google, and we know that if artificial intelligence systems always learn. The longer and the more android users will make Google Assistant smarter”. In Oulasvirta et al.'s (2012) work, long-term surveillance subjects engaged in privacy-seeking behavior around sensors. These users have used their voice assistants for at least four months. By considering the trust to the company producing voice assistants and being aware of privacy can lead to privacy-seeking behavior, which leads to the concern of privacy control. From the options provided by the service providers, there are, firstly, a mute button on a device, like a smart speaker, or a mute option, which can be accessed in the application. Secondly, to respect the ‘right to be let alone’ and ‘right to delete’ (Warren and Brandeis, 1890), providers also provide the ability to delete user’s voice model on their database. I can see that most of these interviewees were not aware of these nor looking for the options. For example, R02 explained that she did not know that the voice that her Siri collected can be accessed, “I just know that I can see it. I never think about it and look for it, maybe after this interview, I will check it”. The only interviewee who has a smart speaker is R08. Even after around a year he had the speaker; it was the first time he knows the function of ‘that switch’. “I know that there is something that can be slide on the side, but maybe because I am too excite to use it, I never thought to turn it off”. R08 always keeps the speaker standby, “Well, maybe there is some sensitive information about me was taken, but I think it is still under control. That’s it. Maybe in the future, when I have an important position, job, I will put more concerns on it, but later. For now, I don’t think I can live without technology, without smartphones, laptops, or else. It will be very difficult. I am afraid I will be separated from the world if I don’t use technology.” Most of them also showed surrender behaviour by mentioning that they have no available options. With the same tone, R04 and R12 agree “What else can we do? we need the technology.” Uniquely, R12 tried to trick the assistant, “I set the microphone use a local language (foreign language), so then when I speak Indonesian, it wouldn’t understand to what my saying, or just simply turn off the phone (to protect my privacy).” Regarding the two options of privacy controls, some people (R03, R11, R14) trust that it will do like the agreement they made with the company. It will stop listening and delete our data from the company database. However, some others choose rather to be sceptical. Are they really stop listening? R20 was not convinced “Maybe, for now, the controls are enough rather than nothing. But Google got our voices first before we actually delete them from their database. So, what is different? We already train their ‘brain’ “. The last step in ethics is action (Lennerfors, 2019). In terms of the understanding of 'privacy', those people show that they make some adjustments to protect their information. For example, when sharing photos or private messages in the public area, they put more consideration into their action. They hide the face, name, or other credential data when needed. However, in the privacy-convenience tradeoff cases, I can see a bit more pattern of the users. It is either they are (a) unaware and keep using, (b) neglect their worry feeling and enjoy it without thinking

41 further how these conveniences happen, or (c) they know or sense something problematic and decided to accept it with some adjustments. Meanwhile, their attitude in using their voice assistant, as many as four people (R02, R06, R10, R22) tend to use it rarely, and some others (R01, R03, R04, R05, R07, R09, R11, R12, R14, R18, R20, R21) use it when needed and only some particular activities. Only do R08 and R16 try to fully utilize the assistant abilities by taking them in their daily activity. Dividing the empirical data based on ethics steps (Lennerfors, 2019) helps us to breakdown the process of how and why people make their decisions. Several aspects influence any decisions, which can be internal or external factors. Every step is essential and highly determine how and what to decide in the following measures. I do not think people skip certain steps when making a decision. Instead, they avoid taking responsibility or explain away their responsibility before deciding something. Additionally, trust and privacy concerns were blended in the process of ethics steps. 5.2.3 Mediation Theory a. The relations between these users and the technology based on Mediation theory Seeing the relation between these users and their voice assistant can be reflected using the mediation theory of Ihde (1990) and Verbeek (2015). This theory is used to possibly get a theoretical model of human-technology interaction that surpasses that in the TAM model. In reflecting on the ethics steps based on Lennerfors (2019), there is something more than just easiness and usefulness for someone to decide their actions toward a technology. Firstly, when the users interact with their voice assistant, the assistants do not form any unity with the user. It is not like the human do something through the assistant, likes speaking through the smartphone. Instead, users position themselves and their assistants as if they were equal, talking to other 'human'. Therefore, the relation is not the embodiment one. Moreover, voice assistants also do not represent the world from the user's perspectives. When the assistant answers the user's questions or commands, it did not serve the world for the user, like when people read an MRI scan. Also, in background relation, technology distinguished by Ihde as part of the context for human experiences and actions. However, based on the empirical result and the observation result, the assistants were not as a context for human existence. They are not similar to the sound of the phone's notification or the warm air from a heater. Rather, they act as one thing which possessing a kind of independence; it can hear and give responses to the users. Furthermore, the voice assistants are not implanted or merge to the user body into a new, hybrid-being named cyborg relationship. Neither are included in an augmented relation with their users since they are not creating a bifurcation impact. The voice assistant cannot be embodied to give an experience of the world nor represent the world in a parallel way. Additionally, most of the users I interviewed have their voice assistant installed on their smartphone, tablet, TV, or laptop. Only R08 did have his Google Assistant on his Google home. No one, also, did have smart home appliances except R07. R09, for example, defined that the impression of her experience with Google Assistant been so far was no added much value in

42 her life. "My impression is that since there is no supporting environment demanding for the technology, I don't feel the added value from it," she argued. This kind of situation also affects the relationship between the user and the voice technology. It is because the assistant does not merge with the user's environment into a 'smart environment' with ambient intelligence' like a smart home. There is also no full interactive context; thus, it cannot be categorized as immersion relation. This technology appears to make the job easier from manual access to now using voice command. The empirical results, the observation, their perception of their assistant technology, and their foresight about it shows how the users place their assistant as quasi-other. Several statements from the interview reflect on the conclusion that they are possibly in alterity relation. First of all, Ihde (1990) mentioned that in alterity relations, humans are related to or with technology. Verbeek (2015) described it as humans interacting with technology with the world in the background of the interaction. The role played by technologies in this set of relations can be characterized as that of a ‘quasi-other’. For these people, the voice assistant appears in alterity relations as quasi-other, because while the technology we interact with seems to behave as an ‘other’, of course, it never be present as a real person. People tend to approach the technology that they use in anthropomorphic ways. Also, this voice technology in alterity relations are possessing a kind of ‘independence’ and can give a push to the popularity of the ‘interaction’ between human and technology. Simply, Ihde mentioned that humans are have always fascinated by a quasi-autonomy of technology. This fascination is very evident seen with how people perceived the technology in the beginning. However, with this also comes a degree of trust involved in this relationship. Here, we see that the possible connection on how these people ethical perception and their relations to this technology. Interestingly, take R12 for instance, she even tried to ‘trick her phone’ by setting her phone language and her usual language for daily conversation differently. She tried to explain how she protect her privacy, “... so it wouldn’t understand what I am saying”. She also refers her Siri a person when she described how useful the assistant, “It’s effortless to use, make our job easier, it saves our time to type, don’t need to think much, only ask the person inside your phone and they will tell you everything.” R12 said that her assistants “are helpful and entertaining and can give a hand especially to access the TV to become easier.” She uses a Siri for her smartphone assistant and Alexa for “...making my TV smart,” she said. It is fascinating to see how she mentioned that ‘there is someone’ inside her phone. It showed how she gave attribution of human characteristics to her assistants, although she said that she would call her voice assistants as ‘machines’ only. She explained that often she preferred to ask the assistant “as a machine to look up or for something, not as a friend, we are not that intense, it’s just like a usual phone”. R12 also mentioned that while staying in Indonesia, she rarely used it since “I know my country better than the assistant and it sometimes gives not detailed information. Meanwhile, when staying abroad, it ‘understands’ (the situation, the environment) better than me”. Similarly, R05 also influenced by her friends and her husband to start having one voice assistant for herself. She referred to her assistant as her friend; thus, she tried to put “thank you”, “never mind”, and “please” when asking the assistants. R05 attempted to treat the assistant like her

43 friends, but she questions herself, “Is this normal, do you think?” She added, “When I ask someone some help, I said the same, and although it is a machine, I am just comfortable, and since it does something for me, I am grateful for it.” Again, R05 puts human attributes to her assistants, which may be influenced by her current situation, where she lives by herself abroad. She said that when she stays together with her husband, she would use the assistant less and instead ask her husband. Additionally, both R14 and R16 see their voice assistant as a machine. Interestingly, R16 first said that it is his ‘slave’ and further he clarified that it was not a slave in the human context instead he said, “On the contrary, because it is a machine, I can give orders as I please. It has no right, and we do not consider its feelings. I once asked my Cortana – ‘please take off your shirt,’ and it replied, ‘I am not that kind of assistant’ “. Both of these participants interestingly use thank you and please when asking or commanding their assistant. Nevertheless, R16 used full question statements, while R14 only used commands like “Please show me the direction (name place) “, “Route to (name place),” and “The weather in (place name) tomorrow... OK, thank you.” R14 argued that his assistant is “a machine because of its limited ability, and as an assistant since Google Assistant has a unique ability to access several applications. As a machine, it is flexible enough to reply with comments; however, as a ‘living’ assistant, it still has some limitations. So, it is at the machine level.” To sum up, based on the empirical data, the relations between the users in this study and their voice assistant are alterity relations. As a central domain of interaction design (Verbeek, 2015), it shows how humans (the users) interact with or with the technology (voice assistants) with the world in the background of the interaction. Mediation theory bridges our perspective on the relation of these users to their voice assistant. The empirical data show that most of them perceived their voice assistant as 'something' with the ability to answer questions and do as commanded. It does not matter how they think their Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa, or others as an assistant, helper, machine, or friend. More than what TAM theory can explain, the mediation theory shows that users have an alterity relation with their voice assistant.

44 6 Discussion

In this section, the results are discussed in more detail. This study began with the statement that a fast-growing technology, the voice assistant, has not been extensively covered in major markets, such as Indonesia, despite the potential ethical issues related to the technology. Therefore, firstly, this research is aimed at capturing the debates on the general level, and the second study is aimed at understanding people’s perceptions of the technology in depth. In particular, it focuses on whether ethical concerns might play a role in their understanding of technology. Many works of literature, like Bryman and Bell (2011), mentioned that critical discourse analysis stresses the role of language as a power source to relaying messages or creating opinions. The idea of utilizing this analysis in the study is to see how media position themselves in the development and diffusion of this technology. Since there is no prior study about this, it is expected to fill the gap in the literature. Because of the location when conducting the research, it is difficult to get access to the printed newspapers. Hence, online media were chosen to be the main data collection. It turned out more than the expectation; this decision allowed exploring the archive of the press until approximately ten years back. However, the media industry in Indonesia has a different business model compared to that of other countries. This situation also creates another challenge for the study. Some of the selected national media divide their online portal based on their chosen market. Some need to have a minimum one or two monthly subscriptions to read the articles, although they also have one with free access. Sometimes, the premium users read a long comprehensive article. In contrast, the free-users read similar-content articles divided into two or three separate posts, while other media give full free access for any reports. That is why, as mentioned previously, to be consistent only the free online media considered in this study. Additionally, another difficulty when conducting this analysis was dividing whether the article is informing, promoting, or provoking the reader. Because informing and promoting can be similar at some points and provoking articles are sometimes promotion news using negative tones. Based on this discourse analysis of online media text in Indonesia between mid-2010 until the beginning of 2020, the climate in the Indonesian market was built with a flood of informative, educative posts about the assistants. The socio-economic situation may also cause this situation among the people. Siri was the first modern voice assistant introduced by Apple in 2011. It was introduced as part of the new iPhone at that time. As a high-end product, the users of Siri in Indonesia were limited. A lot of articles try to introduce that product and inform the people. That is why Siri-related reports became trend dominating the media between 2011 to about mid-2016 before Google Assistant debut in May 2016. Also, there are 45 provocative articles of 327-collected news concerns about several categories like sexist, privacy, security, legal issues, or others. Among those, half discuss privacy issues, which the most discussed around was about the leakage of voice assistant recordings starting in May 2019 of Amazon Alexa followed by Google Assistant’s and then Siri’s case. Ethical issues surrounded this technology increases the debate and discussion among the public in the western market. Yet, during the last ten years, I only found less than 350 voice assistant-

45 related articles in the Indonesian context, and provoking ones were only 15% of it. It leads to a bigger picture, how big Indonesia users for voice assistant technology and what is their behaviour toward ethical problems so that not so many people discuss the issues, and what consideration when they decided to adopt and continuously use it. One may be argued that this technology is still not that popular in the Indonesian market, making the media dominantly try to be informing and educating the how-to of this technology. Secondly, to explore the motivation to adopt and use mainly focusing on whether ethical concerns might play a role in their perception of the technology. It is, firstly, the most extensive part of this study. It began with analysing the interview using TAM, comprehensively seeing through the relationship build between the user and the technology by reflecting on mediation theory and then breaking down their ethical perspective following the ethical steps of Lennerfors (2019). The features of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of TAM used to divide the data into four groups. There are four groups formed, (a) easy to use and useful, (b) easy to use but not helpful, (c) difficult to master but beneficial, and (d) complicated and not advantageous. The empirical data shows that there is a tendency that someone perceived their voice assistant useful or easy to use is, yes, willing to adopt the technology and use it continuously with some adjustments. Using the TAM model is simple. Naturally, it is common to use it for survey-based or quantitative study so researchers can clearly add and relate the model with any external features they want to include, and then prove the model. However, since I want to see a more in-depth analysis, I need to use a qualitative approach with TAM. The relation among features is rather vague, and it does a bit challenging to see a clear perception of the users since I cannot bias the interviewee by giving options for answering my questions. Users can choose how they will use it, and it varies like they include their assistant in their daily activity (fully utilized) and uses it daily for particular ability or use it for an appropriate adjustment (time of use, and for what reason). While those who do not see any benefit in using it and perceived it difficult to use, rarely use the voice assistant and prefer to manual access. Although there is one who out of the model, one could say that there is something more than TAM feature that define their behaviour in using voice assistants. The patriarchal system culture, which is still prevalent in Indonesia, influences the perception of interviewees toward assistant and help terminology in the observation section. Some considered it equal, and others believe the assistant is 'better and higher' than the helper. The term "assistant" is usually used for someone who helps with scheduling meetings or such, while the helper identic with those who do the house chore. Ethics is everywhere, like Lennerfors (2019) explained. It then triggers the question of whether people include this value in every decision they made or not. Whether they have enough needed knowledge to be aware of any issues and not under pressure, to be able to take any responsibility. After people have some particular practice, situation, or dilemma on their hand, they then need to make a decision and take action. They need to make wise decisions based on their value and needs. One challenge in collecting data for this part is sometimes the users had a difficulty to answer ethical perception in using the voice assistant. Therefore, it is good to take a round trip asking them with comparable technology.

46 The result and analysis show that most of the users are do not have enough knowledge and information about the voice assistant, although they had used it for some periods. Comparing to their behaviour when using general technology, most likely those who have background or experience in technology or IT are confident with the decisions they made since they kind of understood the system process. This confidence, I see, is influenced by their trust in the company treating user's data privacy. Reflecting on one interesting case where an interview participant becoming more knowledgeable on the possible ethical issue because she actively searches for articles and publications related to this technology. Although one reason she did it as part of her job tasks, it is proved that the willingness to dig more information about any ethical issues surrounded voice assistants can increase awareness of the users. So, it is suggested that actively read and gain more knowledge about the technology we use can increase our awareness of any possible risks related to the technology. Also, being aware of any possible ethical issues has a correlation with privacy-seeking behaviour. It is shown in the tendency of surrender behaviour, not conservatively protect their privacy and trade it off with their convenience in using technology.

Moreover, including the mediation theory in this study is helpful to explain that voice assistants and the users are not two different things like how TAM treats them. However, it is more than that; they can influence and form one another. This study gives more insight into how the users perceive their voice assistant is influenced by their relationship build between these two parties. Since the beginning and based on its name, the voice assistant explicitly positions the technology as an 'other' (non-human) to the user. It meets the description of the alterity relations characteristic by Ihde (1990), and it shows that there is something more than what TAM can explain. However, since the study considers general voice assistants like those on smartphones, smart devices, wearable devices, and others, might influence the analysis. For those that included as a feature on the phone (bundled technology), the relations of the technology and the users are closer and smaller than that of the ones in smart speakers installed in the intelligent environment. Voice assistants included as a feature in the smartphone, is something that usually does not a priority be chosen and avoided by the users. Although, yes, they can deactivate the assistant, but compared to those on the smart speaker, users can decide to buy it or not. Studying the technology acceptance, ethical behaviour of these, and the mediation theory to Indonesian users may reflect on how people, in general, usually make a decision. I believe a similar pattern may occur in other markets around the world, although local or national culture influences the attitude.

47 7 Conclusions

This part will provide conclusions of the study by addressing the research questions and the contribution of the study. Subsequently, will further recommendations for research be made. 7.1 Conclusions This research has one main research question. It is an exploratory study and the objective of this thesis is to shed light on the gap in the literature. The perception of voice assistant technology by Indonesians has been explored, mainly focusing on whether ethical concerns might play a role in their perception of the technology. The research questions have been answered but it is important to mention that the goal was to explore the research questions. Nevertheless, the conclusions to the research questions will bring further understanding and a new perspective to the discussion. A need for further research exists and has been discussed further in Part 7.3. The main research question was RQ 1. What influences the adoption and use of voice assistants by Indonesians, and how do awareness and understanding of ethical issues (privacy and trust) influence the attitude? From the critical discourse analysis, the picture of the discussion about voice assistants and the possibilities of ethical issues is surrounding the technology in the Indonesian landscape by media is presented. There are three discourses found, and it is dominated by a hefty 79% informative and educative postings about voice assistant, followed by provoking, and promoting and advertising news, 14% and 7% respectively. This can represent the Indonesian point of view toward this technology. These findings indicate a wider resonance with educational and informative material, rather than that which concerns ethical issues and the downsides with the technology. The media seems to presuppose a subject which needs education about new technology and is not that receptive to more provocative ideas concerning ethics. A preliminary answer to the research question is that Indonesians are posited by the media to need more information in order to adopt and use voice assistants. Furthermore, given the lower prevalence of provocative articles, one could deduce that Indonesians have little awareness, understanding, and interest in ethical issues related to voice assistants. One might also speculate that the low number of provocative articles is meant not to disturb the overall education and information about new technology, such as voice assistants. From the interview study, the TAM model shows that the users who perceive the voice assistant useful or easy to use, still use it to a varying extent. Some use it daily for a particular purpose while others use it occasionally. On the other hand, those who see it complicated to operate and not useful rarely use it although they accept to adopt and continuously use the technology. It shows that TAM variables are not fully explaining the adoption of technology. Adding an ethical framework, we can see that most of the users do not have enough knowledge of the technology they use. It resonates with the portrayal of the subject in media. However, there are factors influencing the attitude for those who are unaware or neglect the situation to adopt and use the technology, which are (1) peer pressure also take a role when people decided to adopt and use their assistant, (2) their respect for authorities like the service provider to keep their

48 data and the application reputation in application marketplaces, and (3) rationalization behavior (legal, denial of victim, and refocus attention). Hence, for the surveyed respondents, some are unaware of ethical issues relating to the technology, some are aware but avoid taking responsibility for handling the ethical issues, while few critically think about how to handle the ethical issues. Concerning the research question, the answer would be that awareness and understanding of ethical problems are quite low, but when it exists, it influences the attitude towards voice assistant technologies. Finally, mediation theory explores the influence of the human-technology relationship on the ethical behavior of the users. It also explains that the relation between technology and users is an alterity relationship. From this study, it is not clear how mediation affects the will to adopt or use the technology, but we can see clearly that the technology is often not only seen as just a technology, but that it is anthropomorphized, and therefore it creates trust and enables the continued use of voice assistants. The question is perhaps less about adopting technology rather than starting or continuing a relationship with a particular kind of technology. Also, in this theory, there is no neutral starting point, but a person is always already imbricated in relation to technology, which implies that the research question needs to be nuanced.

In the end, knowing the current state of awareness about the ethical issue surrounding the voice assistant and any technology, in general, will improve the attitude of Indonesian customers toward those technologies and help the government to rule the industry and its development. 7.2 Contributions For theoretical and methodological contributions, an inductive qualitative strategy is used for this study. The approach found that there was not much studies specific to the Indonesian market, and most of the research about this acceptance issue dominant by quantitative studies. Also, the standard and basic idea of TAM and other technology acceptance models divide the human as the users and the technology as two different poles between which there is an interaction. However, with the consideration of mediation theory, we can see a more in-depth insight into how humans and technology are the result of the interaction and mutually shape each other in the relations that come about between them (Verbeek, 2015). This may not be contributing to the mediation theory instead of only reflecting the concept and explore its influence on the ethical behaviour of the users. Additionally, acceptance of technology started and grew from the Information System (IS) field. They have predominantly been investigated using quantitative, survey-based analysis methods (Lee at al., 2003). However, by using that strategy, the individual differences among the survey respondents were not examined. Thus, a qualitative-based approach is used for this study with semi-structured interviews to get a more in-depth analysis of the issues than what can be achieved with a quantitative approach. Moreover, extensive research about how the Indonesian media build the general climate of voice assistant technology discourses was also carried out in this study. These studies possibly can unveil the insight of the discourse of the voice assistants made by the Indonesian media and the market's behaviour toward this voice technology. It likely becomes one of the first studies to discuss the attitude of Indonesian users toward voice

49 assistant technology, exploring how climate made by media and how the behaviour of users accepting to adapt and continuously use the assistant by considering their ethical perception. As described in the second chapter, so far, many reports are studying the user's perception of the general AI system or product in the Indonesian context. Still, I only found two studies about that of voice assistants. Therefore, the unveiling of Indonesian market behaviour toward this technology into the technology players. Lastly, this research was also conducted in the hope of increasing the awareness of Indonesian users and helping the government to rule the industry and its development. Although there is not enough evidence to picture a bigger market based on the unrepresentative number of samples, the result of this study can be a good start for further studies. 7.3 Recommendations As mentioned earlier is the result of this thesis is to unveil the gaps in the literature. The users of this voice technology are predicted to be aggressively increased, including in the Indonesian market. The rising prevalence of this technology and its potential collisions with ethical values in society may (or should) be causing more articles and discussions about this amongst the public and scholars. Thus, there are seven recommendations for further research provided. 1. One recommendation would be to conduct a survey designated for Indonesian users. Since there is no extensive study about this, it will be a great opportunity. Also, it would be interesting to conduct comparative research in order to understand if age or profession has the most impact on what influences the behavior to accept voice assistant technology. 2. If the researcher desires, the recommendations can be focusing on voice assistants installed on a specific device only. It is because there is a possibility of a different relation between users and the technology if the assistant installed on smartphones, smart speakers, or other intelligent devices. 3. Finding the number of Indonesian users for this technology could be proposed for further study. 4. Investigate the role of organizational policies and possibly industry players specific for the Indonesian market, and how they perceived any ethical issues about this technology. 5. When understanding and knowledge about technology are crucial for a user, investigation on how and what measures taken or planned by the government and the industry will be interesting. 6. Critical Discourse Analysis about this voice technology focusing on particular social media is also an attractive study. It is because Indonesia has a vast user share for several social media. 7. Explore the influence of national culture to the perception of the voice assistant technology.

50 References

Adams, R.J. (2019) ‘Alexa, how can we increase trust in you?’: An Investigation of Trust in Smart Home Voice Assistants. Afandi, M. and Wahyuni, E. (2018). Prototype of Voice Commanded University Executive Business Intelligence Assistant (BELA). Proceedings of the International Conference on Science and Technology (ICST 2018). Alam, J. (2003). PERKEMBANGAN E-COMMERCE INDONESIA. [online] Indonesian Internet Exchange (IIX) APJII. Available at: https://www.iix.net.id/library /Iix_history.pdf [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Alam, M. (2015). Effect of Farmers Socio-economic Toward Adoption Level of Agricultural Technology in Sigi Regency Indonesia. Journal of Applied Sciences, 15(5), pp.826-830. Alharbi, S. and Drew, S., (2014). Using the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding Academics’ Behavioural Intention to Use Learning Management Systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1). Anney, V. N. (2014) ‘Ensuring the Quality of the Findings of Qualitative Research: Looking at Trustworthiness Criteria’, Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5(2), pp. 272–281. Armstrong S. (2017) Introduction to the Technological Singularity. In: Callaghan V., Miller J., Yampolskiy R., Armstrong S. (eds) The Technological Singularity. The Frontiers Collection. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg Arnold, R., Tas, S., Hildebrandt, C. and Schneider, A. (2019). Any Sirious Concerns Yet? – An Empirical Analysis of Voice Assistants’ Impact on Consumer Behavior and Assessment of Emerging Policy Challenges. SSRN Electronic Journal. Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia (2018). Laporan Survey: Penetrasi & Profil Perilaku Pengguna Internet Indonesia. Astuti, N. and Nasution, R. (2014). Technology Readiness and E-Commerce Adoption among Entrepreneurs of SMEs in Bandung City, Indonesia. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 16(1), p.69. BAPPENAS (2019) Jumlah Penduduk Indonesia 2019 Mencapai 267 Juta Jiwa | Databoks, Databooks. Available at: https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2019 /01/04/jumlah-penduduk-Indonesia-2019-mencapai-267-juta-jiwa (Accessed: 10 November 2019). Barra, H. and Burke, D., 2010. Just Speak It: Introducing Voice Actions For Android. [online] Googlemobile. Available at: [Accessed 10 May 2020].

51 Bartneck, C., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T. and Nomura, T., (2006). The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI & SOCIETY, 21(1-2), pp.217-230. Bell, E., Bryman, A. and Harley, B. (2019). Business Research Methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Biljon, J. and Renaud, K., (2008). A Qualitative Study of the Applicability of Technology Acceptance Models to Senior Mobile Phone Users. Advances in Conceptual Modeling – Challenges and Opportunities, pp.228-237. Boatright, M.: 2000, ‘Privacy’, Ethics and the Conduct of Business, 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall, Saddle River New Jersey), pp. 159–183. Brill, T., Munoz, L. and Miller, R. (2019). Siri, Alexa, and other digital assistants: a study of customer satisfaction with artificial intelligence applications. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(15-16), pp.1401-1436. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011) Business research methods. 3rd ed. Cambridge; New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Brynjolfsson, E. and Mcafee, A. (2017). The Business of Artificial Intelligence. Harvard Business Review. [online] Available at: https://starlab-alliance.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/The-Business-of-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf [Accessed 17 Jan. 2020]. Burgoon, J.K., Parrott, R., LePoire, B.A., Kelley, D.L., Walther, J.B., Perry, D., 1989. Maintaining and restoring privacy through communication in different types of relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 6, 131–158. Campagna, G., Xu, S., Ramesh, R., Fischer, M. and Lam, M. (2018). Controlling Fine-Grain Sharing in Natural Language with a Virtual Assistant. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2(3), pp.1-28. Chairoel, L., Widyarto, S. and Pujani, V. (2015). ICT adoption in affecting organizational performance among Indonesian SMEs. The International Technology Management Review, 5(2), p.82. Chalmers, D., French, R. and Hofstadter, D., (1992). High-level perception, representation, and analogy: A critique of artificial intelligence methodology. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 4(3), pp.185-211. Chandra, C. (2015). The Adoption of E-Auction in Indonesia: The Extended Technology Acceptance Model Study. iBuss Management, [online] 3(2). Available at: http://publication.petra.ac.id/index.php/ibm/article/view/3770/3438 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Charisma, D. and Suherman, S., (2018). The Effectiveness Of Using Lyra Personal Assistant In Improving Students’ Speaking Skill. Community Concern for English Pedagogy and Teaching (CONCEPT), [online] 11(1). Available at: [Accessed 12 March 2020].

52 Charters, D., 2002. Electronic Monitoring and Privacy Issues in Business-Marketing: The Ethics of the DoubleClick Experience. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, pp.243–254. Choe, E., Consolvo, S., Jung, J., Harrison, B. and Kientz, J., 2011. Living in a glass house. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Ubiquitous computing - UbiComp ‘11,. Choe, E., Consolvo, S., Jung, J., Harrison, B., Patel, S. and Kientz, J., 2012. Investigating receptiveness to sensing and inference in the home using sensor proxies. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing - UbiComp ‘12,. Chopra, S. and Chivukula, S. (2017). My phone assistant should know I am an Indian. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI ‘17. Clark, A., (2003). Natural Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford Univ. Press. Clark, A. and Chalmers, D., (1998). The extended mind. Analysis 58, 1, 7–19.

Cooper, D. R. and Schindler, P. S. (2014) Business research methods. Twelfth edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin (The McGraw-Hill/Irwin series in operations and decision sciences business statistics). Cowan, B., Pantidi, N., Coyle, D., Morrissey, K., Clarke, P., Al-Shehri, S., Earley, D. and Bandeira, N., (2017). “What can i help you with? : Infrequent Users’ Experiences Of Intelligent Personal Assistants.” Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI ‘17,. Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M., Kheng Lee Koay and Werry, I., (2005). What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler?. 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,. Davis, F. D., (1986). “A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End- User Information Systems: Theory and Results,” Doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. and Warshaw, P., (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), pp.982-1003. De Kruijff, R.W. (2018). Technology Acceptance of the Smart Speaker Exploring factors affecting the Use Intention of an emerging technology. Erumban, A. and de Jong, S., (2006). Cross-country differences in ICT adoption: A consequence of Culture?. Journal of World Business, 41(4), pp.302-314. Everdingen, Y. and Waarts, E., (2003). The Effect of National Culture on the Adoption of Innovations. Marketing Letters, 14(3), pp.217-232. Foehr, J. and Germelmann, C. (2020). Alexa, Can I Trust You? Exploring Consumer Paths to Trust in Smart Voice-Interaction Technologies | Journal of the Association for Consumer

53 Research: Ahead of Print. [online] Doi.org. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1086/707731 [Accessed 5 Mar. 2020]. Geertz, C. (1973a). ‘Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture’, in C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Greenberg, A., (2015). Hackers Can Silently Control Siri From 16 Feet Away. [online] Wired. Available at: [Accessed 19 March 2020]. Gunawan, F. and Novendra, R. (2017). An Analysis of Bitcoin Acceptance in Indonesia. [online] Available at: https://journal.binus.ac.id/ index.php/comtech/article/download/3885/3272 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Hadi, M., Shidiqi, M., Zaeni, I., Mizar, M. and Irvan, M. (2019). Voice-Based Monitoring and Control System of Electronic Appliance Using Dialog Flow API Via Google Assistant. 2019 International Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Information Engineering (ICEEIE). Hakim, F., Indrayani, L. and Amalia, R. (2018). Time-Free and Time-Bound Greeting Expressions Found in Replika Chatbot. Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Science, 2(2). Han, S. and Yang, H. (2018). Understanding adoption of intelligent personal assistants: A parasocial relationship perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 118(3), pp.618- 636. Haryanto, E. and Ali, R. (2018). Students’ Attitudes towards the Use of Artificial Intelligence SIRI in EFL Learning at One Public University. [online] Universitas Sriwijaya. Available at: http://www.conference.unsri.ac.id/index.php/semirata/article/view/ 1102/482 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Hauser, J. R. And S. M. Shugan, (1980). “Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference,” Oper. Res., 28, 279-320. Hee, L., Baert, D., Verheyden, T. and Den Heuvel, R., (2019). Google Employees Are Eavesdropping, Even In Your Living Room, VRT NWS Has Discovered. [online] Flandersnews. Available at: [Accessed 19 March 2020]. Hu, P., Chau, P., Sheng, O. and Tam, K., (1999). Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), pp.91-112. Huffman, S. (2019). Here’s how the Google Assistant became more helpful in 2018. [online] Available at: https://www.blog.google/products/assistant/heres-how-google-assistant-became- more-helpful-2018/ [Accessed 17 Feb. 2020]. Ihde, D., (1990). Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Indiana Univ. Press.

Janita, I. and Chong, W. (2013). Barriers of B2B e-Business Adoption in Indonesian SMEs: A Literature Analysis. Procedia Computer Science, 17, pp.571-578.

54 Jusuf, R (2018). Building a better internet experience together with Indonesia. [online] Available at: https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-asia/google-for- Indonesia2018/ [Accessed 17 Feb. 2020]. Kiran, A., (2016). Mediating patienthood-from an ethics of to an ethics with technology. Nursing Philosophy, 18(1), p.e12153. Kirmse, A. (2012). Privacy in Smart Homes. Technical Report. http://kirmandi.rumeln.net/data/paper-Privacy.in.Smart.Homes.pdf Keusgen, T (2017). 11 announcements from Google for Indonesia. [online] Available at: https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-asia/11-announcements-google-Indonesia/ [Accessed 17 Feb. 2020]. Kiran, A., and Verbeek, P., 2010. Trusting Our Selves to Technology. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 23(3-4), pp.409-427. Koul, S. and Eydgahi, A., (2018). Utilizing Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) for driverless car technology Adoption. Journal of technology management & innovation, 13(4), pp.37-46. Kristian, D., Palit, H. and Santoso, L. (2019). Pemanfaatan Google Assistant dan Sistem Rekomendasi untuk Belajar Alkitab. [online] Available at: http://publication.petra .ac.id/index.php/teknik-informatika/article/view/8049/7259 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Kurnia, S., Karnali, R. and Rahim, M. (2015). A qualitative study of business-to-business electronic commerce adoption within the Indonesian grocery industry: A multi-theory perspective. Information & Management, 52(4), pp.518-536. Lau, J., Zimmerman, B. and Schaub, F. (2018). Alexa, Are You Listening? Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), pp.1-31. Larcker, D. F. And V. P. Lessig, (1980). “Perceived Usefulness of Information: A Psychometric Examination,” Decision Sci., 11, 121-134. Lee, A. S., and Baskerville, R. L. (2003). “Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research,” IS Research (14:3), pp. 221–243.

Lennerfors, T.T. 2019, Ethics in engineering, First edn, Studentlitteratur, Lund. Li, X., Hess, T.J. & Valacich, J.S. (2008). Why do we trust new technology? A study of initial trust formation with organizational information systems. Liao, Y., Vitak, J., Kumar, P., Zimmer, M. and Kritikos, K. (2019). Understanding the Role of Privacy and Trust in Intelligent Personal Assistant Adoption. Information in Contemporary Society, pp.102-113. Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

55 Listyo, A., Purwanto, A. and Lutfi, S. (2019). Pengendalian Lampu Rumah Berbasis Google Asisstant Melalui Smartphone Menggunakan Nodemcu-12e Esp8266 Di Nuke Komputer Service. Lopatovska, I. et al. (2019) ‘Talk to me: Exploring user interactions with the Amazon Alexa’, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(4), pp. 984–997. doi: 10.1177/0961000618759414. Luger, E. and Sellen, A., (2016). “Like Having a Really Bad PA.” Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review 20 (3), 709-734. McCarthy, J., Minsky, M., Rochester, N., & Shannon, C. E. (1955). A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence. Retrieved October 2006, from http://wwwformal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html McKnight, D.H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J.B. & Clay, P.F. (2011). Trust in a Specific Technology: An Investigation of its Components and Measures. Mennicken, S. and Huang, E., 2012. Hacking the Natural Habitat: An In-the-Wild Study of Smart Homes, Their Development, and the People Who Live in Them. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp.143-160. Mhaidli, A., Venkatesh, M.K., Zou, Y. and Schaub, F., (2020). Listen Only When Spoken To: Interpersonal Communication Cues as Smart Speaker Privacy Controls. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 1, p.20.

Moar, J. (2019). The Digital Assistants of Tomorrow. Hampshire: Juniper Research Ltd. Moneythor (2019) Unbanked Potential | Moneythor. Available at: https://www.moneythor.com/2019/09/24/unbanked-potential/ (Accessed: 12 November 2019). Moorthy, A. E. and Vu, K. P. L. (2013). Voice Activated Personal Assistant: Privacy Concerns in the Public Space. M.S. California State University, Long Beach, United States – California. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1513579796/abstract/ DFF130DF16554E2FPQ/1 Muhyidin, A. and Nurkhamid (2019). Pengembangan Media Komunikasi Kehumasan Berbasis Chatbot “Unysa” Sebagai Layanan Informasi Tentang Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. Murad, D., Iskandar, A., Fernando, E., Octavia, T. and Maured, D. (2019). Towards Smart LMS to Improve Learning Outcomes Students Using LenoBot with Natural Language Processing. 2019 6th International Conference on Information Technology, Computer and Electrical Engineering (ICITACEE). Mutchler, A. (2018). A Short History of the Voice Revolution. [image] Available at: https://46ba123xc93a357lc11tqhds-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/03/voicebot_voice_assistant_timeline_2018.pdf [Accessed 6 Mar. 2020].

56 Naeini, P., Bhagavatula, S., Habib, H., Degeling, M., Bauer, L., Cranor, L. and Sadeh, N., 2017. Privacy Expectations and Preferences in an IoT World. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017)., [online] Available at: [Accessed 22 May 2020]. Nugraha, A., Taufiq, A., Utama, N. and Prihatmanto, A. (2010). Smart Assistant for Museum’s Objects Navigation (SAMsON). Proceedings of the 5th AOTULE International Postgraduate Students Conference on Engineering 2010, [online] pp.186-189. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aditya_Nugraha4/publication/261439414_Smart_Assist ant_for_Museum’s_Objects_Navigation_SAMsON/links/00b495344da2908f0b000000/Smart -Assistant-for-Museums-Objects-Navigation-SAMsON.pdf [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Nugroho, Y. (2007). Does the Internet Transform Civil Society? The Case of Civil Society Organisations in Indonesia. https://ftp.unpad.ac.id/orari/library/library-ref-eng/ref-eng- 3/application/policy/final-submission-phd-thesis-ynugroho-c.pdf. [online] Available at: https://ftp.unpad.ac.id/orari/library/library-ref-eng/ref-eng-3/application/policy/final- submission-phd-thesis-ynugroho-c.pdf [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Nugroho, Y. (2011). Opening the black box: The adoption of innovations in the voluntary sector—The case of Indonesian civil society organisations. Research Policy, 40(5), pp.761- 777. Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M., Popovič, A. (2014). Extending the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM. International Journal of Information Management. 34. 689–703. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.004. Oulasvirta, A., Pihlajamaa, A., Perkiö, J., Ray, D., Vähäkangas, T., Hasu, T., Vainio, N., and Myllymäki, P., (2012). Long-term effects of ubiquitous surveillance in the home. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing - UbiComp ‘12. Perdana, R. and Irwansyah, I. (2019). Implementasi Asisten Virtual Dalam Komunikasi Pelayanan Pelanggan (Studi Kasus Pada Layanan Pelanggan Telkomsel). Jurnal Komunikasi, 11(2), p.183. Pikkarainen, T., Pikkarainen, K., Karjaluoto, H. and Pahnila, S., (2004). Consumer acceptance of online banking: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Internet Research, 14(3), pp.224-235. Pinho, J. and Soares, A., (2011). Examining the technology acceptance model in the adoption of social networks. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 5(2/3), pp.116-129. Pitt, J.C., (2014). ‘Guns don’t kill, people kill’: Values in and/or around technologies. In The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts. P. Kroes, P.-P. Verbeek, eds. Springer, 89–101. Pradhan, A., Findlater, L. and Lazar, A. (2019). “Phantom Friend” or “Just a Box with Information.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), pp.1-21.

57 Purnomo, S. and Lee, Y. (2012). E-learning adoption in the banking workplace in Indonesia. Information Development, 29(2), pp.138-153. Rahayu, R. and Day, J. (2015). Determinant Factors of E-commerce Adoption by SMEs in Developing Country: Evidence from Indonesia. Rahwan, I. and Simari, G., (2009). Argumentation In Artificial Intelligence. Dordrecht: Springer. Rajaraman, V. (2014). John McCarthy—Father of artificial intelligence. Resonance, 19(3), pp.198--207. Ramdansyah, A. and Taufik, H. (2017). Adoption Model of E-Commerce from SMEs Perspective in Developing Country Evidence – Case Study for Indonesia. EUROPEAN RESEARCH STUDIES JOURNAL, XX(Issue 4B), pp.227-243. Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J. and Johnson, B., (2014). Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1), pp.6-30.

Reza, M., Akbar, S. and Fitriyah, H. (2018). Kontrol Lampu Berbasis Voice Command Pada Raspberry PI. Jurnal Pengembangan Teknologi Informasi dan Ilmu Komputer, [online] 2(9), pp.3124-3133. Available at: http://j-ptiik.ub.ac.id/ [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Richad, R., Vivensius, V., Sfenrianto, S. and Kaburuan, E. (2019). Analysis of Factors Influencing Millennial’s Technology Acceptance of Chatbot In the Banking Industry in Indonesia. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), [online] 10(04), pp.1270-1281. Available at: http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType= IJCIET&VType=10&IType=04 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Rokhman, A. (2011). E-Government Adoption in Developing Countries; the Case of Indonesia. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, [online] 2(5). Available at: http://lab.dnict.vn/Resource/Courses/UnZip/ 16/2012111_2/data/downloads/Egovenment%20adoption%20in%20developing%20countries .pdf [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Roostika, R. (2011). The Effect of Perceived Service Quality and Trust on Loyalty: Customer’s Perspectives on Mobile Internet Adoption. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, [online] 2(4). Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c171/3a015fd79793fff296a51aaa4efae543291d.pdf [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. The Academy of Management Review 23 (3). Rudito, P. (2010). An investigation into the role of moderating variables on mobile broadband technology acceptance in Indonesia. [online] Available at: https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:160736 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020].

58 Rumokoy, Farlane S., et al. “The Influence of Demographic Factors (Age, Gender, Education and Income) on Consumer Buying Behavior of Online Shop.” Jurnal Riset Ekonomi, Manajemen, Bisnis dan Akuntansi, vol. 2, no. 1, 2014. Russell, S. and Norvig, P. (2003). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 2nd ed. Pearson Education. Sambodo, L. (2007). The decision making processes of semi-commercial farmers : a case study of technology adoption in Indonesia. [online] Research Lincoln University. Available at: http://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/241 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Sanchez-Pinto, L., Luo, Y. and Churpek, M. (2018). Big Data and Data Science in Critical Care. Elsevier Inc.. [online] Available at: http://chestjournal.org/[Accessed 17 Jan. 2020]. Sarosa, S. and Underwood, J. (2005). Factors Affecting IT Adoption within Indonesian SMEs: Manager’s Perspectives. Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS). [online] Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 1118&context=pacis2005 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Setiowati, R., Hartoyo, H., Daryanto, H. and Arifin, B. (2015). Understanding ICT Adoption Determinants among Indonesian SMEs in Fashion Subsector. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 8(1). Shoebox. (n.d.). [Webpage] IBM Archives, 78-013. Sinaga, M. (2019). Adoption of IoT at Home in Indonesia. [online] Available at: https://essay.utwente.nl/77191/1/Sinaga_MA_BMS.pdf [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Sriwindono, H. and Yahya, S. (2012). Toward Modeling the Effects of Cultural Dimension on ICT Acceptance in Indonesia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, pp.833-838. Stone, P., Brooks, R., Brynjolfsson, E., Calo, R., Etzioni, O., Hager, G., Hirschberg, J., Kalyanakrishnan, S., Kamar, E., Kraus, S., Leyton-Brown, K., Parkes, D., Press, W., Saxenian, A., Shah, J., Tambe, M. and Teller, A. (2016) “Artificial intelligence and life in 2030”, One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: Report of the 2015-2016 Study Panel, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, September, available at: http://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report (accessed 19 Jan. 2020). Strayer, D., Cooper, J., Turrill, J., Coleman, J. and Hopman, R. (2017). The smartphone and the driver’s cognitive workload: A comparison of Apple, Google, and Microsoft’s intelligent personal assistants.. Suhartanto, D. and Leo, G. (2018). Small business entrepreneur resistance of ICT adoption: a lesson from Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 21(1), p.5. Sumantri, V. (2019). Legal Responsibility on Errors of the Artificial Intelligence-based Robots. Lentera Hukum, 6(2), p.331. Susanto, D., Mujaahid, F., Syahputra, R. and Putra, K. (2019). Open Source System for Smart Home Devices Based on Smartphone Virtual Assistant. [online] Journal Universitas

59 Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta. Available at: http://journal.umy.ac.id/ index.php/jet/article/view/8159/4916 [Accessed Feb. 2020]. Swanson, E. B., (1987). “Information Channel Disposition and Use,” Decision Sci., 18, 131- 145. Verbeek, P.-P., (2005) Artifacts and attachment—a post-script philosophy of mediation. In Inside the Politics of Technology. H. Harbers, ed. Amsterdam Univ. Press, Amsterdam, p.125– 146. Verbeek, P., 2015. Beyond Interaction: A Short Introduction To Mediation Theory. [online] Interactions. Available at: [Accessed 22 May 2020]. Warren, S., Brandeis, L.D., 1890. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 5. Wijaya, S. and Polina, A. (2016). Male and Female Internet Access Usage Patterns at Public Access Venues In a Developing Country: Lessons from Yogyakarta, Indonesia. [online] Available at: http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/download/798/ 1141?inline=1 [Accessed 18 Feb. 2020]. Witarsyah, D., Sjafrizal, T., MD Fudzee, M. and Salamat, M. (2017). The Critical Factors Affecting e-Government Adoption in Indonesia: A Conceptual Framework. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 7(1), p.160. Yang, H. and Lee, H. (2018). Understanding user behavior of virtual personal assistant devices. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 17(1), pp.65-87. Zeng, E., Mare, S., and Roesner, F., (2017). End-User Security and Privacy Concerns with Smart Homes. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017. Santa Clara, CA. Zulfikar, W., Syaripudin, U., Kurahman, O. and Junjunan, M. (2018). Enhanced shalat and wudhu learning media through speech recognition application. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 434, p.012060.

60 Appendix A

Career/ Which Highest Living Experience Age educational VA(s) that ID Gender level of Occupation alone/ living/traveling group background you use education together? abroad? in tech usually? Education, Google R01 26-30 Female S2 Health, or No Together Yes Assistant Science Education, R02 26-30 Female S2 Health, or No Alone Siri Yes Science Engineering Siri, R03 31-35 Male S2 or IT Yes Together Google No Professional Assistant Engineering Siri, R04 26-30 Male S1 or IT Yes Together Google Yes Professional Assistant Student Siri, R05 26-30 Female S2 (Graduate, Little Alone Google Yes Doctoral) Assistant Student R06 26-30 Female S2 (Graduate, No Alone Siri Yes Doctoral) Engineering Google

R07 26-30 Male S1 or IT Together Assistant, No Yes Professional Cortana Student Siri, R08 26-30 Male S2 (Graduate, Yes Alone Google Yes Doctoral) Assistant Education, Google R09 26-30 Female S2 Health, or Yes Alone No Assistant Science Education, Google R10 31-35 Female S2 Health, or Little Alone No Assistant Science Education, Google R11 26-30 Male S2 Health, or Yes Together Assistant, Yes Science Bixby Education, R12 26-30 Female S2 Health, or No Together Siri, Alexa Yes Science Engineering Google R14 26-30 Male S2 or IT Yes Together Yes Assistant Professional Engineering Cortana, R16 26-30 Male S2 or IT Little Alone Google Yes Professional Assistant Student Google R18 26-30 Male S3 (Graduate, Yes Together Yes Assistant Doctoral)

61 Education, Google R20 31-35 Female S2 Health, or Yes Together Yes Assistant Science Engineering Siri, R21 36-40 Male S1 or IT Yes Together Google Yes Professional Assistant Engineering R22 26-30 Male S1 or IT Yes Alone Siri No Professional

62