Page 12 - Fall2020

FEATURED ARTICLE
An Introduction to Speech Privacy: Can You Hear Me Now?
Kenneth W. Good Jr. and Neil A. Shaw
What Is Speech Privacy?
Did you ever have a nearby conversation interrupt your focus? Have you ever heard the doctor/patient conver- sations in the next examination room? Do you discuss sensitive or personal information in private conversa- tions? These are just some of the examples where speech privacy is required in the built environment. This article is intended to provide a basic introduction to and under- standing of speech privacy in architectural spaces.
In most architectural spaces, good speech intelligibil- ity is an important aspect of aural communication. This is especially true for classrooms and meeting rooms. However, it is also important that some types of aural communication are limited to those for whom it is intended and that all reasonable safeguards are taken to ensure that these conversations are not heard by an unintended listener(s). Speech privacy is defined in Acoustical Society of America (ASA)/American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S12.70 (1996) as (the) “Mea- sure of the degree to which speech is both audible and can be understood by casual unintended listener(s).” Speech privacy is required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) for health care spaces and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA; also known as the Financial Modernization Act) for spaces conducting financial communication.
Expectations for Speech Privacy
The focus of the ASA Technical Committee on Architec- tural Acoustics (TCAA) is the acoustical environment within buildings. Because speech privacy is an expec- tation and sometimes a legal requirement, the TCAA formed a subcommittee to specially focus on speech privacy within the built environment. The term “speech privacy” is ultimately an umbrella term for several simi- lar, but yet different, occupant concerns.
During the first speech privacy subcommittee meeting, the members discussed the needs and expectations for speech privacy. However, it was immediately clear that there was a fundamental disagreement among members as to the general expectations for speech privacy. After further discussion, it also became clear that various members were talking about different kinds of archi- tectural spaces and thus had different expectations for speech privacy. For example, one member based his expectations from a recent visit to a doctor’s examina- tion room. Another member based her expectations on an open-plan office project. Other members were describing the speech isolation needs for classrooms.
Finally, after much discussion, it was clear that all of the experiences were correct but also very different. It was agreed that there are subcategories of speech privacy, and the “kind” of speech privacy is dependent on the application and occupant expectation. Perhaps this was best presented by Cavanaugh et al. (1962, p. 480):
“The degree of speech privacy required by the occupant of a room depends on his activity. As an example, consider the case of an engineer or other technical person. During most of his work day, his desire for speech isolation is set by his wish for freedom from distraction. We have called this "normal" privacy. However, if he should be called into the office of his supervisor or employer to discuss salary or personal matters, the need for speech isolation is different. It no longer is the freedom from distraction, but now becomes the assurance of not being overheard. This kind of privacy we have called
‘confidential.’ Let us further imagine that a part of his work concerns a highly classified project. Conferences he may have in this connection may need to be truly secret.”
Thus, the Cavanaugh et al. paper identified three “kinds,” or categories, of privacy needed.
©2020 Acoustical Society of America. All rights reserved.
12 Acoustics Today • Fall 2020 | Volume 16, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.1121/AT.2020.16.3.12