The rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), powered by large language models, has led to the emergence of real-time, voice-based conversational applications that enable dynamic, multi-modal interactions for everyday tasks such as checking the weather or planning a trip. These human-to-GenAI calling applications blend speech processing, generative intelligence, and real-time communication, presenting new challenges in latency optimization, network infrastructure design, and resilience under load. Despite their growing popularity, little is known about the operational characteristics and performance of these applications. This paper conducts an empirical measurement of six human-to-GenAI calling applications from Google, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI, focusing on their input/output modalities, network behavior, latency metrics, and robustness. Our findings reveal key design choices and performance bottlenecks in these emerging applications. For example, the conversational latency often reaches several seconds, far exceeding the typical sub-second delays of human-to-human voice communication and potentially impairing interactivity. Moreover, voice-based GenAI traffic is inherently asymmetric: the uplink, carrying real-time human speech, benefits from streaming-based transmission, while the typically large downlink GenAI responses are better served through batch-based delivery.

Since its launch in 2014, Amazon Echo family of devices has seen a considerable increase in adaptation in consumer homes and offices. With a market worth millions of dollars, Echo is used for diverse tasks such as accessing online information, making phone calls, purchasing items, and controlling the smart home. Echo offers user-friendly voice interaction to automate everyday tasks making it a massive success. Though many people view Amazon Echo as a helpful assistant at home or office, few know its underlying security and privacy implications. In this paper, we present the findings of our research on Amazon Echo’s security and privacy concerns. The findings are divided into different categories by vulnerability or attacks. The proposed mitigation(s) to the vulnerabilities are also presented in the paper. We conclude that though numerous privacy concerns and security vulnerabilities associated with the device are mitigated, many vulnerabilities still need to be addressed.