| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Paper Title | >
> | Why Can't Strict Data Privacy and Convenience Co-exist? | | | -- By MylsMarsina - 04 Mar 2024
Section I - Intro | | | Section III - App Security | |
<
< | In the context of smartphones, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures becomes a nuanced issue. Courts have grappled with the question of whether individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the extensive collection of personal data on their devices. One key thing to think about when it comes to data protection is the concept of voluntary disclosure. The issue is when users willingly sign off access to data with third-party developers when they use their phones, like location data, app usage, and search history. Apps are ubiquitous in today’s day and age, where often there’s an app for everything, down to minute tasks like calling a tip at a restaurant. Initially, apps were the new shiny world of convenience offering streamlined and easy experiences. Downloading a new app used to be exciting, and a chance to utilize new features to simplify things in our lives. However, in recent years, the focus for app development has sort of tilted towards corporate interests and reinforcing capitalism rather than being user-centric. Apps have become a sort of gatekeeper, a necessary hurdle to jump through just to use basic services. From booking a hotel room, scheduling a dentist appointment, or even ordering takeout, it seems every interaction now requires downloading yet another app, chock full of data permissions and tailored ads – this overload can feel like more of a burden than a convenience. It can be argued that the overflow of apps on both the Apple and Google Play stores are ultimately leaving the simple tasks we typically use our brains for up to our phones, which, cognitively could spell issues. This voluntary sharing of information that users typically skip past and press “allow” just to get through the hoops, much like the extensive licensing and terms of agreements associated with digital purchases, diminishes the expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Some courts have leaned toward this perspective, emphasizing that users are aware of and consent to the data collection practices through terms of service agreements. With the rapidly evolving technology of smartphones and excessive sharing of our lives on the internet, stronger privacy protections might necessitate heightened Fourth Amendment scrutiny in Courts – the argument being that users might not fully comprehend the extent of data collection or the potential downstream consequences when consenting to terms of service. Additionally, as smartphones have become integral to daily life, individuals may need a more comprehensive expectation of privacy in relation to their digital footprint and sensitive information. | >
> | In the context of smartphones, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures becomes a nuanced issue. Courts have grappled with the question of whether individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the extensive collection of personal data on their devices. One key thing to think about when it comes to data protection is the concept of voluntary disclosure. The issue is when users willingly sign off access to data with third-party developers when they use their phones, like location data, app usage, and search history. Apps are ubiquitous in today’s day and age, where often there’s an app for everything, down to minute tasks like calling a tip at a restaurant. The issue with apps, regardless of whether you decide to access the service via a website or pro-privacy browsers, many companies block access to services behind an account creation guise. It can feel like companies are holding core functionality hostage to pressure users into signing up for an account. Subsequent account creation often leads to unwanted emails or marketing messages, where companies may see your contact information as an opportunity to promote other services or products, which can be a nuisance. The company dictates how your data is used and secured, and you may have limited control over targeted advertising or data deletion. Service providers' privacy policies can be lengthy and complex, making it difficult to understand exactly how your data is being used. The lack of transparency can be a major concern for users who value their privacy. While privacy tools can help mitigate some risks, such as blocking tracking cookies or masking your IP address, they can't eliminate them entirely.
Voluntarily sharing of information that users typically skip past and press “allow” just to get through the hoops, much like the extensive licensing and terms of agreements associated with digital purchases, diminishes the expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Some courts have leaned toward this perspective, emphasizing that users are aware of and consent to the data collection practices through terms of service agreements. With the rapidly evolving technology of smartphones and excessive sharing of our lives on the internet, stronger privacy protections might necessitate heightened Fourth Amendment scrutiny in Courts – the argument being that users might not fully comprehend the extent of data collection or the potential downstream consequences when consenting to terms of service. Additionally, as smartphones have become integral to daily life, individuals may need a more comprehensive expectation of privacy in relation to their digital footprint and sensitive information.
But how do Apple and Google fit into this?
Apple and Google have contributed to lack of user data privacy with apps, given that they provide sprawling platforms like the Apple Store and Google Play Store. This definitely provides a convenient and seemingly secure way to download apps. However, this convenience can come at a cost. While they curate app selections, they also grant developers a lot of freedom in how they build their apps. This prioritizes innovation, but can also mean looser rules on data collection. The problem is, users are then left on their own to navigate complex and hidden privacy settings within each app. This lack of transparency makes it hard to understand what data is being collected and how it's used. Again, there are ways to circumvent the necessity of downloading apps, however how far will the average user go to actually protect their data? Can we expect the average user to effectively use a FreedomBox? instead of downloading an app? Currently there are approximately 6.84 billion in use globally. Isn't the point of smartphones a ubiquitous method of making life more convenient and autonomous? The goal isn't to expect corporate entities to do the work of maintaining our liberties, rather, we should expect that the government would regulate the erroneous and sometimes deceptive use of data because the right to privacy should be an enumerated one. For example, Section 5 of the FTC Act acts as a broad shield for consumers' informational privacy. It prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)). This includes situations where companies collect or share personal data in ways that are considered unfair or deceptive. There are limits to this Act, in that it doesn't give consumers a private right of action, and it begs a broader question as to why with the evolving landscape of technology, the Constitution hasn't been amended to include an explicit right to data privacy -- frameworks like the Fourth Amendment and aforementioned FTC Act only providing a peripheral protection. Regardless, it should be a priority for the government to more diligently protect user data, and implement regulations that lend themselves to monitoring the collection and dissemination of data, and increasing transparency for users. As two of the biggest platforms for enabling collection, Apple and Google's marketplaces should be the target of measures like data minimization and granular/individualized user consent in a way that strikes a balance between the need for privacy and the inevitability of innovation. | | |
|
|