Executives from Google and Apple defended their mobile privacy policies at a Congressional hearing Tuesday as Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) called attention to recent reports that iPhones androids and other devices secretly collected user data and locations without permission.
Under current federal law, Franken said, creators of mobile phones are often “free to disclose your location information and other sensitive information to almost anyone they please without letting you know.”
Legislators on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law said that without sufficient privacy measures, mobile devices carry the genuine potential for security breaches, like the recent attacks on Sony and Epsilon, or criminal activity such as stalking. However, panel members also assured the testifying officials that their mission was not to end location-based services, but to create strong consumer protections as mobile technology continues to evolve.
“No one up here wants to stop Apple and Google from producing their products or doing the incredible things that you do,” Franken said as he opened the meeting, called Protecting Mobile Privacy: Your Smartphones, Tablets, Cell Phones and Your Privacy. “What today is about is trying to find a balance between all of those wonderful benefits and the public's right to privacy.”
After coming under scrutiny in recent weeks from consumers and legislators over its privacy policy, Apple denied that its handset tracks locations of iPhone and iPad users without permission and, instead, relies on “a database of WiFi hotspots and cell towers around your current location … to help your iPhone rapidly and accurately calculate its location when requested.”
Guy “Bud” Tribble, Apple's vice president of software technology, told the subcommittee that Apple does not share user information with third parties without permission and is “deeply committed to the privacy of all of our customers.” Tribble also said that Apple has never tracked location data “and has no plans to ever do so.”
“The PR hit that Apple took from that is really telling,” said Rebecca Jenschke, media relations director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The backlash showed that “people really do care about their privacy … you have this tracking beacon in your pocket and you don't really know what it does. These are a lot of people that you're trusting with really sensitive data.”
Similarly, Google responded to criticism over its privacy measures by pointing out that all location sharing on Android devices is “opt-in by the user … Any location data that is sent back to Google location servers is anonymized and not tied or traceable to a specific user.”
Alan Davidson, Google's director of public policy for the Americas, told the subcommittee that the opt-in selections are “in plain language” and can be turned off in the future. Davidson described Google's approach to location services as “highly transparent information for users about what is being collected, opt-in choice before the location information is collected and high security standards to anonymize and protect information.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) said the relationship between mobile operators and third-party app makers is a “wild West,” as the ever-changing technological landscape makes it difficult for legislators to create laws that protect consumers without stifling innovation. At least four bills attempting to navigate mobile and online privacy were introduced during this legislative session, but none have come to the forefront as being likely to pass.
Ashkan Soltani, an independent security researcher, said the best way to tackle mobile privacy was to increase transparency and create more specific guidelines for terms like “opt-in,” “third parties” and even “location.”
“If you imagine a historical trail of your whereabouts over the course of many days, it would be reasonably easier to deduce where you work, where you live and where you play,” Soltani said. “In many cases the location that this data refers to is the location of your device or somewhere near it … I would consider that my location.”
Franken ended the meeting on an open note. “As I said at the beginning of this hearing, I think that people have a right to know who is getting their information and a right to decide how that information is shared and used. After having heard today's testimony, I have serious doubts that those rights are being respected in law or in practice,” Franken said. “We need to seriously think about how to address this problem. And we need to address this problem now.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.