US Sen. Franken calls on Apple, Google to require app privacy policies
U.S. Sen. Al Franken on Wednesday formally requested that both Apple and Google create privacy policies for all applications available for their respective iOS and Android mobile platforms.
Franken, D-Minn., called on the two companies "to require clear and understandable privacy policies for all of their apps." The letter, addressed to Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs and Google CEO Larry Page, is a follow-up to discussion that took place earlier this month during a Senate hearing in Washington D.C.
At the meeting of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, Franken asked if both Apple and Google would be open to requiring application developers to commit to a fixed privacy policy in their respective mobile application stores.
Apple Vice President of Software Technology Guy L. "Bud" Tribble, participating in the hearing, said that Apple's current developer agreement does not currently require a privacy policy, and that he believes the addition of a policy likely wouldn't go far enough. Instead, Tribble said indicators need to be put into the user interface to make it clear to users what is being done with their information -- a method Apple currently employs with a location services icon that is displayed in iOS-powered devices like the iPhone.
Franken noted on Wednesday that a recent study found that among the top 340 free applications available on mobile devcies, less than 20 percent included a link to a privacy policy. He said that means users who purchase apps have "little knowledge" about what is being done with their personal information.
"Apple and Google have each said time and again that they are committed to protecting users? privacy," the senator wrote in a letter to the companies. "This is an easy opportunity for your companies to put that commitment into action."
Franken acknowledged that the implementation of formal policies would not resolve most privacy concerns in the mobile market. But he also argued that it would be a "simple first step" toward protecting personal data.
"Although I believe there is a greater need for transparency and disclosure for the collection and sharing of all personal information, at a minimum, I ask that you require all location-aware applications in your app stores to provide privacy policies that clearly specify what kind of information is being gathered from users, how that information is used, and how it is shared with third parties," Franken's letter to the companies reads. "These apps constitute only a subset of all of the apps available on your stores."
Privacy concerns related to mobile devices gained international attention when a pair of security researchers discovered that Apple's iOS 4 mobile operating system recorded location data and saved it in a hidden file unbeknownst to users. That data was never transmitted to anyone, and the issue was quickly addressed with the release of iOS 4.3.3.
Apple also issued a series of answers about the controversy, and Chief Executive Steve Jobs himself participated in interviews in an attempt to ease concerns. But Apple still faces government investigations on iPhone privacy across the globe, including in France, Germany and Italy.
Franken, D-Minn., called on the two companies "to require clear and understandable privacy policies for all of their apps." The letter, addressed to Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs and Google CEO Larry Page, is a follow-up to discussion that took place earlier this month during a Senate hearing in Washington D.C.
At the meeting of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, Franken asked if both Apple and Google would be open to requiring application developers to commit to a fixed privacy policy in their respective mobile application stores.
Apple Vice President of Software Technology Guy L. "Bud" Tribble, participating in the hearing, said that Apple's current developer agreement does not currently require a privacy policy, and that he believes the addition of a policy likely wouldn't go far enough. Instead, Tribble said indicators need to be put into the user interface to make it clear to users what is being done with their information -- a method Apple currently employs with a location services icon that is displayed in iOS-powered devices like the iPhone.
Franken noted on Wednesday that a recent study found that among the top 340 free applications available on mobile devcies, less than 20 percent included a link to a privacy policy. He said that means users who purchase apps have "little knowledge" about what is being done with their personal information.
"Apple and Google have each said time and again that they are committed to protecting users? privacy," the senator wrote in a letter to the companies. "This is an easy opportunity for your companies to put that commitment into action."
Franken acknowledged that the implementation of formal policies would not resolve most privacy concerns in the mobile market. But he also argued that it would be a "simple first step" toward protecting personal data.
"Although I believe there is a greater need for transparency and disclosure for the collection and sharing of all personal information, at a minimum, I ask that you require all location-aware applications in your app stores to provide privacy policies that clearly specify what kind of information is being gathered from users, how that information is used, and how it is shared with third parties," Franken's letter to the companies reads. "These apps constitute only a subset of all of the apps available on your stores."
Privacy concerns related to mobile devices gained international attention when a pair of security researchers discovered that Apple's iOS 4 mobile operating system recorded location data and saved it in a hidden file unbeknownst to users. That data was never transmitted to anyone, and the issue was quickly addressed with the release of iOS 4.3.3.
Apple also issued a series of answers about the controversy, and Chief Executive Steve Jobs himself participated in interviews in an attempt to ease concerns. But Apple still faces government investigations on iPhone privacy across the globe, including in France, Germany and Italy.
Comments
So why are only Apple and Google being targeted? App stores existed long before they came on the scene and there are plenty of others in existence. MS is even creating one for Windows desktop. Are they excused from this?
Because they are, by far, the biggest ones, perhaps? You know, the ones that more than 90% of all mobile app sales go through?
I'm amazed at the opposition here--this can only be good for consumers. There are literally no downsides for us. Now if you're Apple or Google (which I swear to god some of you think you are), then you have a right to be slightly worried as it requires further transparency in exactly how user's data is being used and shared.
Because they are, by far, the biggest ones, perhaps? You know, the ones that more than 90% of all mobile app sales go through?
According to the infograph Android Market and App Store account for over 96% of the top 6 app stores active as of April. However, that figure isn?t the same as the number of unique users that can access those app stores. Symbian followed by BlackBerry clearly has more customers being able to access apps than another system.
But that?s beside the point. It sounds like you?re saying privacy rights aren?t worth protecting for the other stores simply because they have less apps to sell. Regardless of how the percentage breaks down either this is about protecting individual rights or it?s not.
According to the infograph Android Market and App Store account for over 96% of the top 6 app stores active as of April. However, that figure isn?t the same as the number of unique users that can access those app stores. Symbian followed by BlackBerry clearly has more customers being able to access apps than another system.
But theoretical numbers are meaningless compared to the reality. Yes, BlackBerry customers CAN download apps. Most don't. And the ones that do are far fewer in numbers. And they're declining in numbers; it's clear that the momentum is on Apple's and Google's side.
Regardless, just because Al didn't target every App maker on the planet doesn't, in any way, negate his point. Instead, it just offense some of the die-hards who believe an attack on Apple is an attack on themselves.
Btw, that infograph either has some inaccuracies or is way out of date, as they peg Apple's app store at half the apps that it currently has.
But theoretical numbers are meaningless compared to the reality.
Hence my query and focus on platforms with the MOST unique users, not a theoretical potential from apps users may or may not download from an app store.
Yes, BlackBerry customers CAN download apps. Most don't.
Now you?re making generalizations that are meaningless compared to reality.
Again, why shouldn?t all users not have their rights protected?
Btw, that infograph either has some inaccuracies or is way out of date, as they peg Apple's app store at half the apps that it currently has.
It is out of date, but I think the 6 biggest app stores are still the 6 biggest, save for perhaps Apple?s Mac App Store.
They had 350,000 as of January 2011. I don?t know what they have now but I don?t think it?s the 500,000 you?re probably thinking of.
Now you’re making generalizations that are meaningless compared to reality.
That wasn't a generalization; it's a fact. But it's convenient that you ignored my next point which addressed, but didn't excuse, this:
"Regardless, just because Al didn't target every App maker on the planet doesn't, in any way, negate his point. Instead, it just offense some of the die-hards who believe an attack on Apple is an attack on themselves."
Again, why shouldn’t all users not have their rights protected?.
I never said they shouldn't. This is still a step in the right direction.
They had 350,000 as of January 2011. I don’t know what they have now but I don’t think it’s the 500,000 you’re probably thinking of.
It is, actually. This very site reported on it just a few days ago:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ps_report.html
I never said they shouldn't. This is still a step in the right direction.
What you said is that anyone that disagrees with Franken?s motives are "die-hards who believe an attack on Apple is an attack on themselves.? while implying that an attack on Apple is a good thing for customers. Yet you?ve ignored that this is also going after Google (which I addressed) and that it?s not going after anyone else (which I?ve addressed).
It is, actually. This very site reported on it just a few days ago:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ps_report.html
No it wasn?t. Read the article not just the headlines. It clearly states there are only about 400,000 apps in the App Store.
They had 350,000 as of January 2011. I don’t know what they have now but I don’t think it’s the 500,000 you’re probably thinking of.
Most of the major Mac-oriented websites had big "500,000 apps" headlines this week. That's the takeaway and the # Apple will be tossing around.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Why not share the information with the users which data is gathered, shared with 3rd party and for what it is used for?
A trustworthy company has nothing to hide in in this respect.
A privacy policy sounds nice but I fear it will lead to those twenty pages of legal phrasing. I'd prefer a short description of what, for which purpose, shared with whom in the privacy section of an app near by a button with which I can turn it on and off.
This might be a way to turn down a lot of unnecessary paranoia.
What you said is that anyone that disagrees with Franken’s motives are "die-hards who believe an attack on Apple is an attack on themselves.” while implying that an attack on Apple is a good thing for customers. Yet you’ve ignored that this is also going after Google (which I addressed) and that it’s not going after anyone else (which I’ve addressed).
First of all, you're twisting my words. I never said "anyone who disagrees." You cut out the part that clearly states that "it just offends some of the die-hards who believe an attack on Apple is an attack on themselves," which is seemingly true based on this thread, which is whom I was addressing it.
Secondly, where did I "ignore this is also going after Google"? I quite clearly refer to them both twice (an equal amount) in my first post, which you've seemed to have forgotten. Here's the quote again:
Because they are, by far, the biggest ones, perhaps? You know, the ones that more than 90% of all mobile app sales go through?
I'm amazed at the opposition here--this can only be good for consumers. There are literally no downsides for us. Now if you're Apple or Google (which I swear to god some of you think you are), then you have a right to be slightly worried as it requires further transparency in exactly how user's data is being used and shared.
You still haven't explained why they need to target everyone at once for this to be a valid argument to propose? Again, I reiterate that just because Al didn't target every App maker on the planet doesn't, in any way, negate his point.
There are zero downsides to consumers based on this, hence why any defense of Apple or Google based on this seems purely a knee-jerk reaction.
Sen. Al Franken is still an idiot.
Please explain. I find him an extremely effective and thoughtful US Senator.
Because they are, by far, the biggest ones, perhaps? You know, the ones that more than 90% of all mobile app sales go through?
I'm amazed at the opposition here--this can only be good for consumers. There are literally no downsides for us. Now if you're Apple or Google (which I swear to god some of you think you are), then you have a right to be slightly worried as it requires further transparency in exactly how user's data is being used and shared.
The downside is that we are paying Sen. Al Franken and the like from our tax dollars. They are also people who control our lives through their legislation. If someone wants to take my tax dollars and control my life, I'd like them to be thouroughly informed and be reasonable intelligent. Unfortunately, Al Franken is not informed, does not care to be informed, and seems to care more about media coverage than the people who elected him.
There are zero downsides to consumers based on this, hence why any defense of Apple or Google based on this seems purely a knee-jerk reaction.
Let see?
1) ? because singling out the companies with the biggest mindshare without looking for the biggest offenders isn?t good governing, only good for grandstanding.
2) ? because the big picture is that the majority of users being ignored by Franken on this issue, not to mention more important and pressing issues of privacy that aren?t being addressed.
3) ? there are downsides if he could have protected everyone but instead only protected those who can get him reelected.