Data partnerships are increasingly justified as a social good, but in a climate where companies are losing consumer trust through data breaches, privacy concerns begin to outweigh the social benefits of data sharing.
This week, Apple is gaining consumer trust with its revamped Privacy Page. Facebook follows Apple’s lead as they become more wary about sharing a petabyte of data with Social Science One researchers due to increasing data privacy concerns. Also, law enforcement may be changing the genetic privacy game as they gain unprecedented access to millions of DNA records to solve homicide cases and identify victims.
Apple is setting the standard for taking consumer privacy seriously—Privacy as a Social Good
Apple is setting the stage for consumer privacy with its redesigned privacy page. Apple CEO Tim Cook announced, “At Apple, privacy is built into everything we make. You decide what you share, how you share it, and who you share it with. Here’s how we protect your data.” (Source)
There is no doubt that Apple is leveraging data privacy. When entering Apple’s new privacy landing page, bold letters are used to emphasize how privacy is a fundamental part of the company, essentially one of their core values (Source).
Apple’s privacy page explains how they’ve designed their devices with their consumers’ privacy in mind. They also showcase how this methodology applies to their eight Apple apps: Safari browser, Apple Maps, Apple Photos, iMessage, Siri Virtual Assistant, Apple News, Wallet and Apple Pay, and Apple Health.
A privacy feature fundamental to many of Apple’s apps is that the data on an Apple device is locally stored and is never released to Apple’s servers unless the user consents to share their data, or the user personally shares his/her data with others. Personalized features, such as smart suggestions, are based on random identifiers.
- Safari Browser blocks the data that websites collect about site visitors with an Intelligent Tracking Prevention feature and makes it harder for individuals to be identified by providing a simplified system profile for users.
- Apple Maps does not require users to sign in with their Apple ID. This eliminates the risk of user location and search information history linking to their identity. Navigation is based on random identifiers as opposed to individual identifiers.
Photos taken on Apple devices are processed locally and are not shared unless stored on a cloud or shared by the user.
- iMessages aren’t shared with Apple and are encrypted via end-to-end device encryption.
- Siri, Apple’s voice-activated virtual assistant can process information without the information being sent to Apple’s servers. Data that is sent back to Apple is not associated with the user and is only used to update Siri.
- Apple News curates personalized news and reading content based on random identifiers that are not associated with the user’s identity.
- Apple Wallet and Pay creates a device account number anytime a new card is added. Transactional data is only shared between the bank and the individual.
- Apple Health is designed to empower the user to share their personal health information with whom they choose. The data is encrypted and can only be accessed by the user via passcodes.
Facebook realizes the ethical, legal, and technical concerns in sharing 1,000,000 gigabytes of data with social science researchers
Facebook has been on the wrong side of data privacy ever since the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018 where users’ data was obtained, without their consent, for political advertising. Now that Facebook is approaching privacy with users best interest in mind, this is creating tension between the worlds of technology and social science.
Earlier this year, Facebook and Social Science One partnered in a new model of industry-academic partnership initiative to “help people better understand the broader impact of social media on democracy—as well as improve our work to protect the integrity of elections.” said Facebook (Source).
Facebook agreed to share 1,000,000 gigabytes of data with Social Science One to conduct research and analysis but has failed to meet their promises.
According to Facebook, it was almost impossible to apply anonymization techniques such as differential privacy to the necessary data without stripping it completely of its analytical value.
Facebook half-heartedly released some data as they approached deadlines and pressure, but what they released and what they promised was incomparable. Facebooks’ failure to share the data they agreed to counters the proposed social benefit of using the data to study the impact of disinformation campaigns.
Facebook is torn between a commitment to contributing to a socially good cause without breaching the privacy of its users.
This exemplifies how Facebook may not have been fully prepared to shift its business model from one that involved data monetization to a CSR-driven (corporate social responsibility) model where data sharing is used for research while keeping privacy in mind.
Will Facebook eventually fulfill their promises?
Socially Beneficial DNA Data: Should Warrants be given to access Genealogy website databases?
At a police convention last week, Floridian detective, Michael Fields, revealed how he received a valid law enforcement request to access GEDmatch.com data (Source).
GEDmatch is a genealogy website that contains over a million users’ records. But, does the social benefit accrued outweigh the privacy violation to users whose data was exposed without their consent?
Last year, GEDmatch faced a mix of scrutiny and praise when they helped police identify the Golden State Killer after granting them access to their database (Source). After privacy concerns surfaced, GEDmatch updated its privacy terms. Access was only permitted to law enforcement from users who opted-in to share their data. Additionally, police authorities are limited to searching for the purposes of, “murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, aggravated rape, robbery or aggravated assault” cases (Source).
This recent warrant granted to detective Fields overrode GEDmatch privacy terms by allowing the detective to access data of all users, even those who did not consent. This was the first time a judge agreed to a warrant of this kind. This changes the tone in genetic privacy, potentially setting precedent about who has access to genetic data.