Will the ECJ Kill the Privacy Safe Harbor for Facebook, Google and All Others?
Christie Barakat reports in SocialTimes that the ECJ, the European Court of Justice, will review the compatibility of the EU-US Safe Harbor with Europe’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The Safe Harbor is a legal convention under which US companies doing business in Europe may permissibly transfer the personal information of EU residents outside of the EU zone. To qualify, the Safe Harbor requires that American companies commit to certain protections of that data in their processing and sharing practices, including stringent commitments on security of data. The Safe Harbor is a self-certification process rather than a license or regulatory ruling process. Although a little bit dated, see Henry Farrell’s nice primer on the Safe Harbor, here.
Barakat quotes from Farrell’s Washington Post blog, “Monkey Cage”, covering the immediate issue, which involves an Irish resident who sued Facebook in Ireland claiming that Facebook’s Safe Harbor self-certification status could not meet European Constitution standards for privacy protection due to Edward Snowden’s revelations of US government snooping of foreigners’ personal data. As Farrell blogged in the Post, “the judge has presented the case to the ECJ in a way that seems designed to get the higher court to rule that the Safe Harbor is incompatible with European human rights standards, and hence invalid.”
Farrell describes the likely outcome of the ECJ’s review as “very hard to say”, at best.
* * *
Apple Mobile Ad Identifier Commits Mobile Developers to User Privacy
In April, Jason O’Grady wrote in ZD Net about Apple’s new “Acceptable Use” agreement with mobile app developers, concluding “This move by Apple is a win for privacy-minded iOS users everywhere and I hope that developers take note.”
What specifically does O’Grady find so pleasing? For its iOS 7, Apple provides users a “limit ad tracking” feature, but goes one step further by requiring app developers to affirmatively commit to honoring a user’s selection of ad-tracking preference. So … not only does the user have the ability to opt-out of ad tracking (although still opt-out only by default), Apple has established a contractual legal framework for punishing developer offenders. That, according to O’Grady, and together with a companion requirement to designate how developers use a user’s “Advertising Identifier” (referred to as the “IDFA and described by Apple as “a unique ID for each iOS device and … the only way to offer targeted ads”), “can lead to an apps denial or removal from the App Store”. O’Grady adds: “and it should.”
Sarah Perez reported similarly in TechCrunch, and included a screen shot from the agreement page on iTunes Connect. Perez also points out that the agreement requires developers to confirm “that their application as well as any third party that interfaces with the application uses the Advertising Identifier and honors the end user’s “Limit Ad Tracking” setting in iOS.” (emphasis in original).
* * *
“Everywherables” May Pose Threats to Privacy and Security
John Brandon writes for FoxNews.com that the explosive growth of wearable technology such as Google’s computer-mounted glasses, Google Glass, could lead to a privacy and security nightmare.
Brandon suggests that with wearable tech, security issues may outweigh privacy concerns due to the fact that no gadget is one hundred percent hacker-proof. Brandon reports that several tech companies have taken steps to avoid security problems, recommending that companies start with tight security, as opposed to adding it on later. Hooray for proactivity, right?
Earlier this week, Politico reporter Tony Romm explained that Google is taking proactive steps – but in a very different direction. According to an analysis of state records, Romm reports, Google has been making efforts to protect its various, emerging technologies, including wearable tech, from rules and restrictions. In Romm’s view, “It’s an aggressive offensive meant to counter local regulators, who increasingly cast a skeptical eye on Silicon Valley and its ambitious visions for the future.”
Brandon of FoxNews.com explains that while not everyone is worried about his or her own personal privacy, wearables, when used to snap photos and shoot videos in public places, could affect others’ privacy. Brandon quotes Rob Enderle, consumer analyst for the Enderle Group in San Jose, who forecasts: “The problem will quickly become how you identify folks using [wearables] as they become far more concealable.”
* * *
Facebook Users Will Now Gain Insight into Why They Are Shown Certain Ads
Vindu Guel reports in the New York Times that Facebook recently announced plans to to give users an inside look at what information it keeps on them. Guel writes that along with this insight tool, users will be given the ability to add, remove or modify information in these files. And on top of all of this, Facebook said, you also get a car! (No, not really.) According to Guel, this insight will come also with the addition of more details to user profiles, using information gained from monitoring user activities on other websites and apps.
So how did this go over with privacy folks? Not so well. According to Guel, “The additional tracking immediately raised the hackles of privacy advocates, who warned that the end result will be a Facebook that knows more about its users than ever before and uses that information to sell products to them”.
Facebook also announced that it will follow its competitors in joining the Digital Advertising Alliance, granting users rights to opt-out of data collection for ads, writes Hayley Tsukayama for the The Switch. However, it appears that this part of the announcement failed to strike a chord. Indeed, Tsukayama quotes Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, saying “Facebook may simply be offering its own version of what other companies already do … but it is a significant change in the advertising landscape because of Facebook’s size.”
Add Comment