“Hello Barbie” is designed to have conversations with its young users through recording, storing and analyzing their voices and then responding to them. This creates a “creepy concept” in which children’s intimate conversations can be kept and listened to, said John M. Simpson, the director of the privacy project at Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group.

“That potential there is tremendously privacy invasion,” he said. “It’s not clear yet all the things they may do if they start to have further data analysis of the kids’ voices and what they’re talking about.”

The latest toy from Mattel uses voice-recognition software to receive and process the audio transmitted from the doll’s built-in microphone. Soon after the introduction of the Barbie doll at a New York City toy fair in February, a petition emerged online calling on Mattel’s CEO to halt the production of the toy.

The advocacy group calling for the doll’s demise, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, says it generates mechanically-designed play and inhibits children from developing and being creative.

“Computer algorithms can’t replace — and should not displace — the nuanced responsiveness of caring people interacting with one another,” pediatrician Dipesh Navsaria said in a statement. “Children’s well-being and healthy development demand relationships and conversations with real people and real friends.”

Privacy experts questioned why parents would buy such a toy when in-person interactions are readily available and children’s imaginations run wild without the use of technology

The privacy of children is compromised as Mattel is able to have access to recordings and could use the information for personal gain or sell it off, said Jeffrey T. Child, an associate professor of communication studies at Kent State University in Ohio.

“We’re in an era of big data. Companies pay all the time for whatever they can get about people,” Child said. “Any piece of our identity really have some sort of value.”

Child conceded that Mattel seems to be within legal and ethical bounds when it comes to privacy by disclosing to customers the functions of the toy and the information that the company receives.

However, children’s privacy can still be at risk.

The company does require that a parental permission form is signed before the doll is used, a move that verifies Mattel is not in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, known as COPPA, Simpson of Consumer Watchdog said. Parents are given the opportunity through Mattel to listen into the doll’s recordings on a regular basis — something that may not be told to children who tell the toy intimate details of their lives they don’t necessarily want their moms and dads to know.

“Maybe the kid’s being vulnerable, talking about their friends,” Child said. “They don’t anticipate their parents to have ownership over that type of private information that they would disclose to this object.”

Private information that children tell the doll could be used to figure out more personal data that could lead to identity theft and family information being compromised, Child said. Mattel should be doing all it can do, he said, to ensure the data is secure and protected from third parties and potential hackers.

The advancement in technology has both its benefits and drawbacks. Child said the iPads his nephews and nieces possess have allowed him to easily talk and interact with them while seeing their faces, even if they are separated by several states. It’s up to people to decide if the technology’s advantages outweighs its risk, he said.

But Child said the privacy that is being given up to Barbie is too drastic to make the toy a good purchase. He predicted that Mattel would not make a profit off the toy once it was released into the buyer’s market.

“In the world of hi-tech, just because you can do something does not necessarily mean you ought to or even want to,” Simpson, the director at Consumer Watchdog, said. “Sometimes I fear that some of our hi-tech people say, ‘oh we can do this, let’s do it.’ That isn’t necessarily the best outcome.”