Study: Mobile ad block use up, but fewer users turning limit ad tracking on
According to Jules Polonetsky, CEO of the Future of Privacy Forum, the limit ad tracking feature hasn’t been heavily surveyed. So while Koestier’s comment might be comforting for marketers, this means it’s possible that most mobile users are simply unaware the feature exists.
As it gets more media coverage, it’s likely that mobile users will begin turning on the limit ad tracking feature in greater numbers. That scenario seems to be playing out with ad block tech adoption with its rising trend that has been following increased attention in both the ad industry and the general media.
Yesterday, I attended the 5th annual Higher Education Privacy Conference at George Washington University with experts and data advocates from across the country to discuss student privacy and information management in higher education. The event was hosted by Daniel Solove, a research professor at George Washington University School of Law, and Tracy Mitrano a principal of Mitrano & Associates LLC. The day featured a lively panel discussion and smaller breakout sessions that fostered interactivity and engagement.
The morning plenary session was led by FPF’s own Jules Polonetsky along with Ellen Wagner the Vice President of Research at Hobsons, Andrea Nixon the Director of Educational Research at Carleton College, Jo Ann Oravec a Professor at the University of Wisconsin and Steven McDonald the General Counsel for the Rhode Island School of Design. The discussion focused mainly on the benefits and risks associated with implementing data analytics at colleges and universities and the question of how heavily should schools rely on data to inform their decisions. Attendees were treated to a healthy debate on how data analytics can help students succeed as panelists pursued ethical questions of what we “can, may and should” do with student data. One panelist shared an example of how data analytics can be beneficial when they discussed how a state university took action once it learned that students who did not begin their freshman year taking the necessary 15 credits per semester were less likely to finish in four years. The university now provides a customized set of courses for new students that ensures they take at least the “bare minimum” of credits their first semester. This is a great example of how data analytics can benefit students in a profound way when used properly.
I spoke to Kathleen Styles, Chief Privacy Officer of the Department of Education during the event about implementing data analytics at institutions of higher education and she said the following:
“Data analytics present us with exciting new opportunities to improve learning, and to address equity issues, by illuminating and ameliorating long-standing disparities in student achievement. Schools need also evaluate, however, the “should” aspect of data use. They need to ask, ‘will this proposed data use truly help students?’ Helping students should always be the ultimate goal.”
I definitely agree with Kathleen that data analytics can help identify students that require additional support to be successful in college. I also agree we need to make sure that the data collected is meant to benefit students. After the failure of InBloom, student privacy has been a hotly debated topic at the K-12 level. Colleges and universities have barely scratched the surface when it comes to using predictive analytics and other analytic tools to inform their decisions and shape the advice they provide to students. Institutions of higher education, education service providers, and data advocates must have more thoughtful conversations like the one we had yesterday.
Responding to a request by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a new GAO report analyzes the role of smartphone tracking apps in facilitating stalking, and the potential responses the federal government may take against their developers. Once installed, the 40 apps examined by the GAO display no icon and provide a user of a separate device the ability to retrieve location data, and in some cases communications data.
The report paints the majority of these apps as wolves in sheep’s clothing, with marketing materials billing them as tools for tracking children, consenting employees, or even elderly Alzheimer’s sufferers. Roughly one third of the apps are openly marketed as spying tools, with cheating spouses a leading target. In these cases, the developers sought to protect themselves with a veneer of legal legitimacy by including disclaimers in their terms of service explicitly contradicting the marketing materials.
Despite such attempts to limit liability, the report identifies four areas of federal law which may be applicable to the developers. Of these options, three are untested in the smartphone tracking context. First, deceptive marketing practices, like those detailed in the report, are the target of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The wrinkle in this scenario is that the purchaser is not the one suffering from the deceptive practices, but some experts interviewed by the GAO felt the protection of third parties would suffice. Second, smartphones qualify as computers for the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The CFAA provides criminal and civil remedies for accessing computers without, or in excess of, authority. However, this clear violation of CFAA may be hampered where a shared phone plan is involved. Third, the federal stalking statute contains specific prohibitions on using electronic communications services to stalk. The act itself previously required the stalking activity to cross state lines, but the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act empowered the pursuit of ‘cyberstalking’ under the stalking statute regardless of location.
Finally, should these untested options prove inapplicable, the federal wiretap act has been successfully applied to developers of apps which intercept and monitor communications data. However, the GAO notes that some federal courts have held that location data does not qualify as “the substance or content of a communication” for purposes of the act, and thus developers of tracking apps which solely relay location data may still escape liability.
Learning from Student Data
Just as adults’ personal lives and data increasingly inhabiting online spaces, so are students. While this shift brings many benefits and the possibility of learning tailored to individual students’ needs, it is also brings new challenges. Students create an electronic trail of information that creates an obvious concern: How can they enjoy the better learning outcomes technology makes possible but still maintain control of their data and be protected?
Nearly two years ago, a debate ignited over student information from multiple states and regions being collectively stored with the data repository InBloom. Critics charged that the not-for-profit service provider could potentially sell, misuse, or otherwise put at risk student data it held for schools. Surprised by the backlash, InBloom was ill prepared to explain its services to parents. Critics didn’t trust a third party whose name they didn’t recognize and who didn’t provide any service they could see, or track to a direct benefit for their child’s educational experience.
Richard Hsu Interviews CEO of the Future of Privacy Forum
Shearman & Sterling, LLP Partner Richard Hsu, a CIPP/US and CIPM Certified Privacy Professional, Global Head of the Intellectual Property and Technology Transactions Group and Co-Head of the Global Technology, Media and Telecommunications (TMT) Industry Group, interviewed Jules Polonetsky, CEO of the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF), on finding the sweet spot between corporate data, personal privacy and innovation.
Should Colleges Report When They Get Government Data Requests?
Last year, the University of California, Berkeley, announced that it was publishing a transparency report detailing government requests for data, similar to what tech companies including Google and Facebook have been doing for years.
Universities also have to worry about how they share data with the public, said Brenda Leong, director of operations for the Future of Privacy Forum.
“By being too transparent, you could impede on students’ individual rights,” she told NBC News.
Sharing information that could be used to identify students would be a bad idea, Leong said, but simply divulging the number of requests received and granted by a university would be a step in the right direction.
Use of Limit Ad Tracking Drops as Ad Blocking Grows
Behind the scenes in the escalating war between ad-blocking consumers and advertisers and ad-supported publishers, the use of one privacy tool has decreased. Mobile marketing platform firm Tune reports that, as the number of ad-blocker downloads rises, the limit-ad-tracking feature available in iOS and Android devices has actually dropped.
Use of the limit-ad-tracking setting fell to 16.7% of devices in February from 22% in August 2015, according to Tune, which observed 1.3 billion mobile app installs by about 150 million people over seven months, from August 2015 to February 2016.
This is the first example of data measuring the use of the limit-ad-tracking feature, said Jules Polonetsky, CEO of the Future of Privacy Forum. Limit ad tracking, he continued, “despite being this central privacy control, really doesn’t get a lot of debate or discussion.”
We are pleased to announce that John Verdi will be joining FPF as our new Vice President of Policy beginning May 23, 2016. John will be responsible for furthering our efforts to advance the FPF agenda on big data, wearables, connected cars, smart cities and ethics, among other privacy related matters.
John joins FPF after serving as Director of Privacy Initiatives at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. John led NTIA’s privacy multistakeholder process, and his work touched on unmanned aircraft systems, facial recognition technology, and mobile apps. Prior to NTIA, he was General Counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. John earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2002 and his B.A. in Philosophy, Politics, and Law from SUNY-Binghamton in 1998.
Department of Commerce Director of Privacy Initiatives Joins the Future of Privacy Forum
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2016
Contact: Melanie Bates, Director of Communications, [email protected]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DIRECTOR OF PRIVACY INITIATIVES
JOINS THE FUTURE OF PRIVACY FORUM
Washington, DC – Today, the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) announced that John Verdi will join the organization as Vice President of Policy to lead the development of its rapidly growing privacy policy portfolio. Verdi will be responsible for furthering FPF’s efforts to advance responsible privacy practices.
“It has been a great privilege to work with industry, advocates, academics, and policymakers on codes and best practices for new technology,” Verdi said. “I look forward to collaborating with FPF’s diverse group of stakeholders to help shape policies that support beneficial uses of data, while ensuring privacy protections.”
Verdi joins FPF after serving as Director of Privacy Initiatives at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA, located within the United States Department of Commerce, is the principal advisor to the President on telecommunications and information policy issues. Verdi’s work focused on digital privacy and security issues. He led NTIA’s privacy multistakeholder process, and his work touched on unmanned aircraft systems, facial recognition technology, and mobile apps. Prior to NTIA, Verdi was General Counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, where he supervised the organization’s litigation program, pursued federal lawsuits regarding privacy issues, and authored Supreme Court briefs.
“John’s unique blend of diplomacy and intellect has helped him navigate among stakeholders with a range of privacy viewpoints during his time at Commerce,” said Jules Polonetsky, CEO, FPF. “We look forward to his leadership advancing the FPF agenda on big data, wearables, connected cars, smart cities and ethics, among other privacy related matters.”
“John’s legal skills, personality, and passion for consumer protection are the key combination needed to help tackle the challenges of advancing responsible practices in this complex and nuanced privacy debate,” said Christopher Wolf, Board President, FPF. “With the addition of John, FPF is proud to expand its team of thought leaders.”
Verdi earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2002 and his B.A. in Philosophy, Politics, and Law from SUNY-Binghamton in 1998.
###
The Future of Privacy Forum is a Washington, DC based think tank that seeks to advance responsible data practices. Learn more about FPF’s work by visiting www.fpf.org.
Clear Channel Faces New Questions Over 'Spying Billboards'
Earlier this year, Clear Channel unveiled a new outdoor advertising initiative that involves telling marketers whether their stores are visited by consumers who have viewed ads on billboards.
Jules Polonetsky, CEO of the think tank Future of Privacy Forum, tells MediaPost that Clear Channel would do a service to consumers by providing more information about how its program works. “It may not be deceptive, but it’s certainly not transparent — which is driving the concerns,” he says.
