How Americans View Data Privacy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Pew Research: “…Americans – particularly Republicans – have grown more concerned about how the government uses their data. The share who say they are worried about government use of people’s data has increased from 64% in 2019 to 71% today. That reflects rising concern among Republicans (from 63% to 77%), while Democrats’ concern has held steady. (Each group includes those who lean toward the respective party.)

The public increasingly says they don’t understand what companies are doing with their data. Some 67% say they understand little to nothing about what companies are doing with their personal data, up from 59%.

Most believe they have little to no control over what companies or the government do with their data. While these shares have ticked down compared with 2019, vast majorities feel this way about data collected by companies (73%) and the government (79%).

We’ve studied Americans’ views on data privacy for years. The topic remains in the national spotlight today, and it’s particularly relevant given the policy debates ranging from regulating AI to protecting kids on social media. But these are far from abstract concepts. They play out in the day-to-day lives of Americans in the passwords they choose, the privacy policies they agree to and the tactics they take – or not – to secure their personal information. We surveyed 5,101 U.S. adults using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel to give voice to people’s views and experiences on these topics.

In addition to the key findings covered on this page, the three chapters of this report provide more detail on:

What Big Tech Knows About Your Body

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Yael Grauer: “If you were seeking online therapy from 2017 to 2021—and a lot of people were—chances are good that you found your way to BetterHelp, which today describes itself as the world’s largest online-therapy purveyor, with more than 2 million users. Once you were there, after a few clicks, you would have completed a form—an intake questionnaire, not unlike the paper one you’d fill out at any therapist’s office: Are you new to therapy? Are you taking any medications? Having problems with intimacy? Experiencing overwhelming sadness? Thinking of hurting yourself? BetterHelp would have asked you if you were religious, if you were LGBTQ, if you were a teenager. These questions were just meant to match you with the best counselor for your needs, small text would have assured you. Your information would remain private.

Except BetterHelp isn’t exactly a therapist’s office, and your information may not have been completely private. In fact, according to a complaint brought by federal regulators, for years, BetterHelp was sharing user data—including email addresses, IP addresses, and questionnaire answers—with third parties, including Facebook and Snapchat, for the purposes of targeting ads for its services. It was also, according to the Federal Trade Commission, poorly regulating what those third parties did with users’ data once they got them. In July, the company finalized a settlement with the FTC and agreed to refund $7.8 million to consumers whose privacy regulators claimed had been compromised. (In a statement, BetterHelp admitted no wrongdoing and described the alleged sharing of user information as an “industry-standard practice.”)

We leave digital traces about our health everywhere we go: by completing forms like BetterHelp’s. By requesting a prescription refill online. By clicking on a link. By asking a search engine about dosages or directions to a clinic or pain in chest dying. By shopping, online or off. By participating in consumer genetic testing. By stepping on a smart scale or using a smart thermometer. By joining a Facebook group or a Discord server for people with a certain medical condition. By using internet-connected exercise equipment. By using an app or a service to count your steps or track your menstrual cycle or log your workouts. Even demographic and financial data unrelated to health can be aggregated and analyzed to reveal or infer sensitive information about people’s physical or mental-health conditions…(More)”.

It’s Official: Cars Are the Worst Product Category We Have Ever Reviewed for Privacy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by the Mozilla Foundation: “Car makers have been bragging about their cars being “computers on wheels” for years to promote their advanced features. However, the conversation about what driving a computer means for its occupants’ privacy hasn’t really caught up. While we worried that our doorbells and watches that connect to the internet might be spying on us, car brands quietly entered the data business by turning their vehicles into powerful data-gobbling machines. Machines that, because of their all those brag-worthy bells and whistles, have an unmatched power to watch, listen, and collect information about what you do and where you go in your car.

All 25 car brands we researched earned our *Privacy Not Included warning label — making cars the official worst category of products for privacy that we have ever reviewed…(More)”.

A new way to look at data privacy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Adam Zewe: “Imagine that a team of scientists has developed a machine-learning model that can predict whether a patient has cancer from lung scan images. They want to share this model with hospitals around the world so clinicians can start using it in diagnosis.

But there’s a problem. To teach their model how to predict cancer, they showed it millions of real lung scan images, a process called training. Those sensitive data, which are now encoded into the inner workings of the model, could potentially be extracted by a malicious agent. The scientists can prevent this by adding noise, or more generic randomness, to the model that makes it harder for an adversary to guess the original data. However, perturbation reduces a model’s accuracy, so the less noise one can add, the better.

MIT researchers have developed a technique that enables the user to potentially add the smallest amount of noise possible, while still ensuring the sensitive data are protected.

The researchers created a new privacy metric, which they call Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) Privacy, and built a framework based on this metric that can automatically determine the minimal amount of noise that needs to be added. Moreover, this framework does not need knowledge of the inner workings of a model or its training process, which makes it easier to use for different types of models and applications.

In several cases, the researchers show that the amount of noise required to protect sensitive data from adversaries is far less with PAC Privacy than with other approaches. This could help engineers create machine-learning models that provably hide training data, while maintaining accuracy in real-world settings…

A fundamental question in data privacy is: How much sensitive data could an adversary recover from a machine-learning model with noise added to it?

Differential Privacy, one popular privacy definition, says privacy is achieved if an adversary who observes the released model cannot infer whether an arbitrary individual’s data is used for the training processing. But provably preventing an adversary from distinguishing data usage often requires large amounts of noise to obscure it. This noise reduces the model’s accuracy.

PAC Privacy looks at the problem a bit differently. It characterizes how hard it would be for an adversary to reconstruct any part of randomly sampled or generated sensitive data after noise has been added, rather than only focusing on the distinguishability problem…(More)”

How Statisticians Should Grapple with Privacy in a Changing Data Landscape

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Joshua Snoke, and Claire McKay Bowen: “Suppose you had a data set that contained records of individuals, including demographics such as their age, sex, and race. Suppose also that these data contained additional in-depth personal information, such as financial records, health status, or political opinions. Finally, suppose that you wanted to glean relevant insights from these data using machine learning, causal inference, or survey sampling adjustments. What methods would you use? What best practices would you ensure you followed? Where would you seek information to help guide you in this process?…(More)”

Attacks on Tax Privacy: How the Tax Prep Industry Enabled Meta to Harvest Millions of Taxpayers’ Sensitive Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Congressional Report: “The investigation revealed that:

  • Tax preparation companies shared millions of taxpayers’ data with Meta, Google, and other Big Tech firms: The tax prep companies used computer code – known as pixels – to send data to Meta and Google. While most websites use pixels, it is particularly reckless for online tax preparation websites to use them on webpages where tax return information is entered unless further steps are taken to ensure that the pixels do not access sensitive information. TaxAct, TaxSlayer, and H&R Block confirmed that they had used the Meta Pixel, and had been using it “for at least a couple of years” and all three companies had been using Google Analytics (GA) for even longer.
  • Tax prep companies shared extraordinarily sensitive personal and financial information with Meta, which used the data for diverse advertising purposes: TaxAct, H&R Block, and TaxSlayer each revealed, in response to this Congressional inquiry, that they shared taxpayer data via their use of the Meta Pixel and Google’s tools. Although the tax prep companies and Big Tech firms claimed that all shared data was anonymous, the FTC and experts have indicated that the data could easily be used to identify individuals, or to create a dossier on them that could be used for targeted advertising or other purposes. 
  • Tax prep companies and Big Tech firms were reckless about their data sharing practices and their treatment of sensitive taxpayer data: The tax prep companies indicated that they installed the Meta and Google tools on their websites without fully understanding the extent to which they would send taxpayer data to these tech firms, without consulting with independent compliance or privacy experts, and without full knowledge of Meta’s use of and disposition of the data. 
  • Tax prep companies may have violated taxpayer privacy laws by sharing taxpayer data with Big Tech firms: Under the law, “a tax return preparer may not disclose or use a taxpayer’s tax return information prior to obtaining a written consent from the taxpayer,” – and they failed to do so when it came to the information that was turned over to Meta and Google. Tax prep companies can also turn over data to “auxiliary service providers in connection with the preparation of a tax return.” But Meta and Google likely do not meet the definition of “auxiliary service providers” and the data sharing with Meta was for advertising purposes – not “in connection with the preparation of a tax return.”…(More)”.

How Good Are Privacy Guarantees? Platform Architecture and Violation of User Privacy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Daron Acemoglu, Alireza Fallah, Ali Makhdoumi, Azarakhsh Malekian & Asuman Ozdaglar: “Many platforms deploy data collected from users for a multitude of purposes. While some are beneficial to users, others are costly to their privacy. The presence of these privacy costs means that platforms may need to provide guarantees about how and to what extent user data will be harvested for activities such as targeted ads, individualized pricing, and sales to third parties. In this paper, we build a multi-stage model in which users decide whether to share their data based on privacy guarantees. We first introduce a novel mask-shuffle mechanism and prove it is Pareto optimal—meaning that it leaks the least about the users’ data for any given leakage about the underlying common parameter. We then show that under any mask-shuffle mechanism, there exists a unique equilibrium in which privacy guarantees balance privacy costs and utility gains from the pooling of user data for purposes such as assessment of health risks or product development. Paradoxically, we show that as users’ value of pooled data increases, the equilibrium of the game leads to lower user welfare. This is because platforms take advantage of this change to reduce privacy guarantees so much that user utility declines (whereas it would have increased with a given mechanism). Even more strikingly, we show that platforms have incentives to choose data architectures that systematically differ from those that are optimal from the user’s point of view. In particular, we identify a class of pivot mechanisms, linking individual privacy to choices by others, which platforms prefer to implement and which make users significantly worse off…(More)”.

Vulnerability and Data Protection Law

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Gianclaudio Malgieri: “Vulnerability has traditionally been viewed through the lens of specific groups of people, such as ethnic minorities, children, the elderly, or people with disabilities. With the rise of digital media, our perceptions of vulnerable groups and individuals have been reshaped as new vulnerabilities and different vulnerable sub-groups of users, consumers, citizens, and data subjects emerge.

Vulnerability and Data Protection Law not only depicts these problems but offers the reader a detailed investigation of the concept of data subjects and a reconceptualization of the notion of vulnerability within the General Data Protection Regulation. The regulation offers a forward-facing set of tools that-though largely underexplored-are essential in rebalancing power asymmetries and mitigating induced vulnerabilities in the age of artificial intelligence.

Considering the new risks and potentialities of the digital market, the new awareness about cognitive weaknesses, and the new philosophical sensitivity about the condition of human vulnerability, the author looks for a more general and layered definition of the data subject’s vulnerability that goes beyond traditional labels. In doing so, he seeks to promote a ‘vulnerability-aware’ interpretation of the GDPR.

A heuristic analysis that re-interprets the whole GDPR, this work is essential for both scholars of data protection law and for policymakers looking to strengthen regulations and protect the data of vulnerable individuals…(More)”.

Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs)

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Information Commissioner’s Office (UK): “This guidance discusses privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) in detail. Read it if you have questions not answered in the Guide, or if you need a deeper understanding to help you apply PETs in practice.

The first part of the guidance is aimed at DPOs (data protection officers) and those with specific data protection responsibilities in larger organisations. It focuses on how PETs can help you achieve compliance with data protection law.

The second part is intended for a more technical audience, and for DPOs who want to understand more detail about the types of PETs that are currently available. It gives a brief introduction to eight types of PETs and explains their risks and benefits…(More)”.

“My sex-related data is more sensitive than my financial data and I want the same level of security and privacy”: User Risk Perceptions and Protective Actions in Female-oriented Technologies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Maryam Mehrnezhad, and Teresa Almeida: “The digitalization of the reproductive body has engaged myriads of cutting-edge technologies in supporting people to know and tackle their intimate health. Generally understood as female technologies (aka female-oriented technologies or ‘FemTech’), these products and systems collect a wide range of intimate data which are processed, transferred, saved and shared with other parties. In this paper, we explore how the “data-hungry” nature of this industry and the lack of proper safeguarding mechanisms, standards, and regulations for vulnerable data can lead to complex harms or faint agentic potential. We adopted mixed methods in exploring users’ understanding of the security and privacy (SP) of these technologies. Our findings show that while users can speculate the range of harms and risks associated with these technologies, they are not equipped and provided with the technological skills to protect themselves against such risks. We discuss a number of approaches, including participatory threat modelling and SP by design, in the context of this work and conclude that such approaches are critical to protect users in these sensitive systems…(More)”.