From the article:
[IBM] has devised a set of design principles to guide other device- and software-makers.
It believes the onus is too often on targets of abuse having to educate themselves rather than product-makers having to think through the consequences of their creations.
"We believe the burden of safety shouldn't be on the shoulders of the end-user, and we felt it was important to shift at least some of that onus on to thoughtful designs," IBM's Lesley Nuttall tells BBC Click,
She says home devices, for example, could show alerts when they're remotely activated and have a manual override.
But the article also describes what anybody who reads MN Relationship board already knows: that the technology is embedded in a pattern of other coercive controls. So if the surveilled person does anything to undermine the surveillance device – turns it off or takes the battery out – the abuser attacks them for having done that.
In my own view, because this surveillance is by "naice", high-status consumer goods, rather than by an industrial-looking CCTV camera in the corner of the living room, the device appears like a normal and actively desirable thing. There's social pressure to accept it being installed and permanently on.
Visitors to the home will coo about "Oh, you have an Alexa! I'm thinking of getting one for Christmas! Is it fun? Do you enjoy listening to music and asking it jokes?"
Whereas anyone seeing a crude CCTV camera would go, "WTF? What's going on? You need to get out."