Meta's Muse Assistant Sparks Privacy Controversy
Meta's artificial intelligence assistant, Muse, is drawing criticism from security experts for allegedly collecting sensitive data not only from users but also from third parties.
Meta's artificial intelligence assistant, Muse, has raised serious privacy concerns due to allegations that it collects not only users' personal data but also the sensitive information of family members, friends, and third parties they communicate with.
Privacy Concerns and Data Collection
Meta's newly launched AI assistant, Muse, has drawn criticism from security experts after being downloaded millions of times while requesting access to sensitive data such as bank accounts, passwords, contact lists, and chat logs. Experts note that the application encourages users to share data through dark patterns.
Third-Party Data at Risk
Meredith Whittaker, President of the Signal Foundation, emphasized that such systems collect the most intimate information of not just the person who installs the assistant, but everyone they communicate with. Experts point out that there is no meaningful opt-out option to protect the data of people in the user's circle.
Meta's Defense and User Consent
Meta spokesperson Daniel Roberts stated that Muse collects only publicly available information and data the user chooses to share. Company officials argue that the app's permission settings are entirely optional and provide users with the opportunity to make proper privacy choices.
Security Vulnerabilities and Unintended Incidents
Experts state that due to the app's complex interface, users inadvertently share excessive amounts of data. In previous incidents, it was reported that the assistant accessed millions of text messages due to misconfigured permissions or leaked a tech reviewer's home address.
Experts Call for AI Regulation
Figures such as Eva Galperin from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and law professor Neil Richards stated that the burden should not be placed on consumers lacking technical knowledge. Experts argue that AI tools should be treated as ultra-hazardous products and that companies should assume legal responsibility.