An official website of the United States government
The dominant privacy framework of the information age relies on notions of “notice and consent.” That is, service providers will disclose, often through privacy policies, their data collection practices, and users can then consent to their terms. However, it is unlikely that most users comprehend these disclosures, which is due in no small part to ambiguous, deceptive, and misleading statements. By comparing actual collection and sharing practices to disclosures in privacy policies, we demonstrate the scope of the problem. Through analysis of 68,051 apps from the Google Play Store, their corresponding privacy policies, and observed data transmissions, we investigated the potential misrepresentations of apps in the Designed For Families (DFF) program, inconsistencies in disclosures regarding third-party data sharing, as well as contradictory disclosures about secure data transmissions. We find that of the 8,030 DFF apps (i.e., apps directed at children), 9.1% claim that their apps are not directed at children, while 30.6% claim to have no knowledge that the received data comes from children. In addition, we observe that 10.5% of 68,051 apps share personal identifiers with third-party service providers, yet do not declare any in their privacy policies, and only 22.2% of the apps explicitly name third parties. This ultimately makes it not only difficult, but in most cases impossible, for users to establish where their personal data is being processed. Furthermore, we find that 9,424 apps do not use TLS when transmitting personal identifiers, yet 28.4% of these apps claim to take measures to secure data transfer. Ultimately, these divergences between disclosures and actual app behaviors illustrate the ridiculousness of the notice and consent framework.
more »
« less
A Look into User Privacy and Third-party Applications in Facebook
A huge amount of personal and sensitive data is shared on Facebook, which makes it a prime target for attackers. Adversaries can exploit third-party applications connected to a user’s Facebook profile (i.e., Facebook apps) to gain access to this personal information. Users’ lack of knowledge and the varying privacy policies of these apps make them further vulnerable to information leakage. However, little has been done to identify mismatches between users’ perceptions and the privacy policies of Facebook apps. We address this challenge in our work. We conducted a lab study with 31 participants, where we received data on how they share information in Facebook, their Facebook-related security and privacy practices, and their perceptions on the privacy aspects of 65 frequently-used Facebook apps in terms of data collection, sharing, and deletion. We then compared participants’ perceptions with the privacy policy of each reported app. Participants also reported their expectations about the types of information that should not be collected or shared by any Facebook app. Our analysis reveals significant mismatches between users’ privacy perceptions and reality (i.e., privacy policies of Facebook apps), where we identified over-optimism not only in users’ perceptions of information collection, but also on their self-efficacy in protecting their information in Facebook despite experiencing negative incidents in the past. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on the gap between users’ privacy perceptions around Facebook apps and the reality. The findings from this study offer directions for future research to address that gap through designing usable, effective, and personalized privacy notices to help users to make informed decisions about using Facebook apps.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1949694
- PAR ID:
- 10250311
- Editor(s):
- Furnell, Steven
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Information and computer security
- ISSN:
- 2056-497X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
We conducted a user study with 380 Android users, profiling them according to two key privacy behaviors: the number of apps installed, and the Dangerous permissions granted to those apps. We identified four unique privacy profiles: 1) Privacy Balancers (49.74% of participants), 2) Permission Limiters (28.68%), 3) App Limiters (14.74%), and 4) the Privacy Unconcerned (6.84%). App and Permission Limiters were significantly more concerned about perceived surveillance than Privacy Balancers and the Privacy Unconcerned. App Limiters had the lowest number of apps installed on their devices with the lowest intention of using apps and sharing information with them, compared to Permission Limiters who had the highest number of apps installed and reported higher intention to share information with apps. The four profiles reflect the differing privacy management strategies, perceptions, and intentions of Android users that go beyond the binary decision to share or withhold information via mobile apps.more » « less
-
The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) mandates a data controller (e.g., an app developer) to provide all information specified in Articles (Arts.) 13 and 14 to data subjects (e.g., app users) regarding how their data are being processed and what are their rights. While some studies have started to detect the fulfillment of GDPR requirements in a privacy policy, their exploration only focused on a subset of mandatory GDPR requirements. In this paper, our goal is to explore the state of GDPR-completeness violations in mobile apps' privacy policies. To achieve our goal, we design the PolicyChecker framework by taking a rule and semantic role based approach. PolicyChecker automatically detects completeness violations in privacy policies based not only on all mandatory GDPR requirements but also on all if-applicable GDPR requirements that will become mandatory under specific conditions. Using PolicyChecker, we conduct the first large-scale GDPR-completeness violation study on 205,973 privacy policies of Android apps in the UK Google Play store. PolicyChecker identified 163,068 (79.2%) privacy policies containing data collection statements; therefore, such policies are regulated by GDPR requirements. However, the majority (99.3%) of them failed to achieve the GDPR-completeness with at least one unsatisfied requirement; 98.1% of them had at least one unsatisfied mandatory requirement, while 73.0% of them had at least one unsatisfied if-applicable requirement logic chain. We conjecture that controllers' lack of understanding of some GDPR requirements and their poor practices in composing a privacy policy can be the potential major causes behind the GDPR-completeness violations. We further discuss recommendations for app developers to improve the completeness of their apps' privacy policies to provide a more transparent personal data processing environment to users.more » « less
-
People who are blind share their images and videos with companies that provide visual assistance technologies (VATs) to gain access to information about their surroundings. A challenge is that people who are blind cannot independently validate the content of the images and videos before they share them, and their visual data commonly contains private content. We examine privacy concerns for blind people who share personal visual data with VAT companies that provide descriptions authored by humans or artifcial intelligence (AI) . We frst interviewed 18 people who are blind about their perceptions of privacy when using both types of VATs. Then we asked the participants to rate 21 types of image content according to their level of privacy concern if the information was shared knowingly versus unknowingly with human- or AI-powered VATs. Finally, we analyzed what information VAT companies communicate to users about their collection and processing of users’ personal visual data through their privacy policies. Our fndings have implications for the development of VATs that safeguard blind users’ visual privacy, and our methods may be useful for other camera-based technology companies and their users.more » « less
-
Privacy labels---standardized, compact representations of data collection and data use practices---are often presented as a solution to the shortcomings of privacy policies. Apple introduced mandatory privacy labels for apps in its App Store in December 2020; Google introduced mandatory labels for Android apps in July 2022. iOS app privacy labels have been evaluated and critiqued in prior work. In this work, we evaluated Android Data Safety Labels and explored how differences between the two label designs impact user comprehension and label utility. We conducted a between-subjects, semi-structured interview study with 12 Android users and 12 iOS users. While some users found Android Data Safety Labels informative and helpful, other users found them too vague. Compared to iOS App Privacy Labels, Android users found the distinction between data collection groups more intuitive and found explicit inclusion of omitted data collection groups more salient. However, some users expressed skepticism regarding elided information about collected data type categories. Most users missed critical information due to not expanding the accordion interface, and they were surprised by collection practices excluded from Android's definitions. Our findings also revealed that Android users generally appreciated information about security practices included in the labels, and iOS users wanted that information added.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
