An official website of the United States government
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
Privacy, Permissions, and the Health App Ecosystem: A Stack Overflow Exploration
Abstract: Health data is considered to be sensitive and personal; both governments and software platforms have enacted specific measures to protect it. Consumer apps that collect health data are becoming more popular, but raise new privacy concerns as they collect unnecessary data, share it with third parties, and track users. However, developers of these apps are not necessarily knowingly endangering users’ privacy; some may simply face challenges working with health features. To scope these challenges, we qualitatively analyzed 269 privacy-related posts on Stack Overflow by developers of health apps for Android- and iOS-based systems. We found that health-specific access control structures (e.g., enhanced requirements for permissions and authentication) underlie several privacy-related challenges developers face. The specific nature of problems often differed between the platforms, for example additional verification steps for Android developers, or confusing feedback about incorrectly formulated permission scopes for iOS. Developers also face problems introduced by third-party libraries. Official documentation plays a key part in understanding privacy requirements, but in some cases, may itself cause confusion. We discuss implications of our findings and propose ways to improve developers’ experience of working with health-related features -- and consequently to improve the privacy of their apps’ end users.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2055772
- PAR ID:
- 10398420
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the 2022 European Symposium on Usable Security (EuroUSEC '22))
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 117 to 130
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Apple introduced privacy labels in Dec. 2020 as a way for developers to report the privacy behaviors of their apps. While Apple does not validate labels, they also require developers to provide a privacy policy, which offers an important comparison point. In this paper, we fine-tuned BERT-based language models to extract privacy policy features for 474,669 apps on the iOS App Store, comparing the output to the privacy labels. We identify discrepancies between the policies and the labels, particularly as they relate to data collected linked to users. We find that 228K apps' privacy policies may indicate data collection linked to users than what is reported in the privacy labels. More alarming, a large number (97%) of the apps with a Data Not Collected privacy label have a privacy policy indicating otherwise. We provide insights into potential sources for discrepancies, including the use of templates and confusion around Apple's definitions and requirements. These results suggest that significant work is still needed to help developers more accurately label their apps. Our system can be incorporated as a first-order check to inform developers when privacy labels are possibly misapplied.more » « less
-
Over the past few years, the two dominant app platforms made major improvements to their policies surrounding child-directed apps. While prior work repeatedly demonstrated that privacy issues were prevalent in child-directed apps, it is unclear whether platform policies can lead child-directed apps to comply with privacy requirements, when laws alone have not. To understand the effect of recent changes in platform policies (e.g., whether they result in greater levels of compliance with applicable privacy laws), we conducted a large-scale measurement study of the privacy behaviors of 7,377 child-directed Android apps, as well as a follow-up survey with some of their developers. We observed a drastic decrease in the number of apps that transmitted personal data without verifiable parental consent and an increase in the number of apps that encrypted their transmissions using TLS. However, improper use of third-party SDKs still led to privacy issues (e.g., inaccurate disclosures in apps’ privacy labels). Our analysis of apps’ privacy practices over a period of a few months in 2023 and a comparison of our results with those observed a few years ago demonstrate gradual improvements in apps’ privacy practices over time. We discuss how app platforms can further improve their policies and emphasize the role of enforcement in making such policies effective.more » « less
-
The transparency and privacy behavior of mobile browsers has remained widely unexplored by the research community. In fact, as opposed to regular Android apps, mobile browsers may present contradicting privacy behaviors. On the one end, they can have access to (and can expose) a unique combination of sensitive user data, from users’ browsing history to permission-protected personally identifiable information (PII) such as unique identifiers and geolocation. However, on the other end, they also are in a unique position to protect users’ privacy by limiting data sharing with other parties by implementing ad-blocking features. In this paper, we perform a comparative and empirical analysis on how hundreds of Android web browsers protect or expose user data during browsing sessions. To this end, we collect the largest dataset of Android browsers to date, from the Google Play Store and four Chinese app stores. Then, we developed a novel analysis pipeline that combines static and dynamic analysis methods to find a wide range of privacy-enhancing (e.g., ad-blocking) and privacy-harming behaviors (e.g., sending browsing histories to third parties, not validating TLS certificates, and exposing PII---including non-resettable identifiers---to third parties) across browsers. We find that various popular apps on both Google Play and Chinese stores have these privacy-harming behaviors, including apps that claim to be privacy-enhancing in their descriptions. Overall, our study not only provides new insights into important yet overlooked considerations for browsers’ adoption and transparency, but also that automatic app analysis systems (e.g., sandboxes) need context-specific analysis to reveal such privacy behaviors.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
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3549015.3555669
