{"id":29030,"date":"2019-01-16T11:50:15","date_gmt":"2019-01-16T16:50:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.tun.com\/blog\/?p=29030"},"modified":"2022-03-16T09:48:24","modified_gmt":"2022-03-16T13:48:24","slug":"change-your-phone-settings-so-apple-google-cant-track-your-movements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tun.com\/blog\/change-your-phone-settings-so-apple-google-cant-track-your-movements\/","title":{"rendered":"Change Your Phone Settings so Apple, Google Can\u2019t Track Your Movements"},"content":{"rendered":"

Technology companies have been pummeled by revelations about how poorly they protect<\/a> their customers\u2019 personal information<\/a>, including an in-depth New York Times report detailing the ability of smartphone apps to track users\u2019 locations<\/a>. Some companies, most notably Apple, have begun promoting the fact that they sell products and services<\/a> that safeguard consumer privacy.<\/p>\n

Smartphone users are never asked explicitly if they want to be tracked every moment of each day. But cellular companies, smartphone makers, app developers and social media companies all claim they have users\u2019 permission<\/a> to conduct near-constant personal surveillance.<\/p>\n

The underlying problem is that most people don\u2019t understand how tracking really works<\/a>. The technology companies haven\u2019t helped teach their customers<\/a> about it, either. In fact, they\u2019ve intentionally obscured important details to build a multi-billion-dollar data economy based on an ethically questionable notion of informed consent.<\/p>\n

How consumers are made to agree<\/h2>\n

Most companies disclose their data protection practices in a privacy policy; most software requires users to click a button saying they accept the terms before using the program.<\/p>\n

But people don\u2019t always have a free choice. Instead, it\u2019s a \u201ctake-it-or-leave-it\u201d agreement, in which a customer can use the service only if they agree.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"
Marta Design\/Shutterstock.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Anyone who actually wants to understand what the policies say<\/a> finds the details are buried in long legal documents<\/a> unreadable by nearly everyone, perhaps except the lawyers who helped create them.<\/p>\n

Often, these policies will begin with a blanket statement like \u201cyour privacy is important to us<\/a>.\u201d However, the actual terms describe a different reality. It\u2019s usually not too far-fetched to say that the company can basically do whatever it wants<\/a> with your personal information, as long as it has informed you<\/a> about it.<\/p>\n

U.S. federal law does not require<\/a> that a company\u2019s privacy policy actually protect users\u2019 privacy. Nor are there any requirements that a company must inform consumers of its practices in clear, nonlegal language or provide consumers a notice in a user-friendly way<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Theoretically, users might be able to vote with their feet and find similar services from a company with better data-privacy practices<\/a>. But take-it-or-leave-it agreements for technologically advanced tools limit the power of competition<\/a> across nearly the entire technology industry.<\/p>\n

Data sold to third parties<\/h2>\n

There are a few situations where mobile platform companies like Apple and Google have let people exercise some control over data collection.<\/p>\n

For example, both companies\u2019 mobile operating systems let users turn off location services, such as GPS tracking. Ideally, this should prevent most apps from collecting your location \u2013 but it doesn\u2019t always<\/a>. Further, it does nothing if your mobile provider resells your phone\u2019s location information to third parties<\/a>.<\/p>\n

App makers are also able to persuade users not to turn off location services, again with take-it-or-leave-it notifications. When managing privileges for iOS apps, users get to choose<\/a> whether the app can access the phone\u2019s location \u201calways,\u201d \u201cwhile using the app\u201d or \u201cnever.\u201d<\/p>\n

But changing the setting can trigger a discouraging message: \u201cWe need your location information to improve your experience,\u201d says one app. Users are not asked other important questions, like whether they approve of the app selling their location history<\/a> to other companies.<\/p>\n

And many users don\u2019t know that even when their name and contact information is removed from location data, even a modest location history can reveal their home addresses<\/a> and the places they visit most, offering clues to their identities, medical conditions and personal relationships.<\/p>\n

Why people don\u2019t opt out<\/h2>\n

Websites and apps make it difficult, and sometimes impossible, for most people to say no<\/a> to aggressive surveillance and data collection practices. In my role as a scholar of human-computer interaction<\/a>, one issue I study is the power of defaults.<\/p>\n

When companies set a default in a system, such as \u201clocation services set to on,\u201d people are unlikely to change it<\/a>, especially if they are unaware there are other options they could choose.<\/p>\n

Further, when it is inconvenient to change the location services, as is the case on both iOS and Android systems today, it\u2019s even less likely that people will opt out of location collection<\/a> \u2013 even when they dislike it.<\/p>\n

Companies\u2019 take-it-or-leave-it privacy policies and default choices for users\u2019 privacy settings have created an environment where people are unaware that their lives are being subjected to minute-by-minute surveillance.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re also mostly not aware that information that could identify them individually is resold to create ever-more-targeted advertising<\/a>. Yet the companies can legally, if not ethically, claim that everyone agreed<\/a> to it.<\/p>\n

Overcoming the power of defaults<\/h2>\n
\n

\"\"
Georgejmclittle\/Shutterstock.com<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/figure>\n

Privacy researchers know that people dislike these practices<\/a>, and that many would stop using these services<\/a> if they understood the extent of the data collection. If invasive surveillance is the price of using free services, many would rather pay or at least see companies held to stronger data collection regulations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The companies know this too, which is why, I argue, they use a form of coercion to ensure participation.<\/p>\n

Until the U.S. has regulations that, at a minimum, require companies to ask for explicit consent, individuals will need to know how to protect their privacy. Here are my three suggestions:<\/p>\n