Senator Asks Apple and Google to Require Clear Privacy Policies for Apps

[SkyStudios]

Al Franken (Senator Internet) is doing a commendable job of protecting consumers in the digital world. He's doing great work in terms of protecting net neutrality and keeping the internet open.

Apple and Google could save themselves a lot of future problems by agreeing on these standards early and through protecting the privacy of their consumers.

It's only going to take one good event involving a data breach or personal information breach due to lack of digital privacy/security before the public really starts demanding that something be done to protect them from malicious programmers.

Right on, anyone who disagrees has to be con artist, i can not see why anyone would agree to allow people to fallow someone's every move, this alone gives murders, stalkers, assassins, kidnappers, burglars etc too much information and leaves law enforcement , especially federal chasing the case endlessly, its got to be tightened thats all, so why would anyone cry about it, i say if they refuse to respect Congress then hey, fair is fair, its what Congress is for, the people.

 

[SkyStudios]

Definitely sounds reasonable to me. I don't understand why so many people here seem to be against a request for a clear, understandable contract.

Facebooks staff did the same thing, all these companies tell employees to get online and share their minds, they dont want to get fired obviously lol, Congress can investigate who is behind every IP in these cases. ,

It would be stubborn of Apple, Google, Facebook, Myspace etc to NOT respect the request and be clear, just as it would be for the Senator here to bring on the LAW, i am sure it snot his personal choice, its hard job but hey, if they dont respect his then who will.

 

[blackpond]

You all only wish Apple cared where you were last week.

 

[econgeek]

FRanken, who has voted for TWO bills that are now law, both of which GUT privacy protections for health care information, can shove his demands for privacy where the sun don't shine.

In fact, why the hell is the Attorney General not launching an investigation into these senators who think they can violate the first amendment by dictating to Apple what they do and don't publish on the appstore?

Violations of anyones constitutional rights is a felony under USC 18-242.

(the two bills were the "Stimulus" bill which had very little to do with actually stimulating the economy, but does require hospitals to turn over all health care info to the federal government and obamacare which turns all health information over tie the IRS.)

 

[CFreymarc]

What Apple has been doing instead is allowing the user to mis-trust the developer and lock them out of the location information if the app asks for it. That is easy to enforce and puts the power in the hands of the user. Unfortunately, it doesn't help situations where an app with legitimate reasons to access the information also uses it for more nefarious purposes, but depending on how nefarious, a privacy policy requirement isn't going to stop it.

You hit the nail right on the head. This is where branding is very important. I'd like to see a company have a public policy stating what data is used and where for their purposes. Also, paying the customer back for tracking and demographics data in the form of a discount should happen. This is what all of these "buyer club" cards in supermarkets do. I can see a similar program happen for mobile apps.

 

[econgeek]

Al Franken (Senator Internet) is doing a commendable job of protecting consumers in the digital world.

By requiring all of your private healthcare information to be shared with unaccountable burocrats and to be used against you?

Don't fall for this grandstanding BS.

He's violating the law here-- attempting to dictate terms to Apple which are outside his constitutionally granted powers. (The first ammendment forbids federal involvement in publishing, and nowhere in the constitution is the government given the power to regulate privacy.)

He is, quite frankly, a criminal.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Except when it's consumer driven because people are tired of losing information or money.

Then, due to a lack of action on issues of security/privacy, it will become regulated.

'Doing nothing' isn't a solution.

What about consumers who are willing to make a compromise in order to use some app or service? Should they be denied to use such services for their own good? When government steps in, opportunities disappear.

Just imagine if government years ago had decided web crawlers were illegal, due to privacy concerns. There'd be no search. Or go back further and say it's a copyright violation to link to someone else's content. No web. And no one would ever realize anything was amiss. But we wouldn't have what we have today.

 

[Small White Car]

In fact, why the hell is the Attorney General not launching an investigation into these senators who think they can violate the first amendment by dictating to Apple what they do and don't publish on the appstore?

Maybe because the Attorney General actually read the article and realized it doesn't say what you say it does?

What about consumers who are willing to make a compromise in order to use some app or service? Should they be denied to use such services for their own good? When government steps in, opportunities disappear.

How would having "clear and understandable privacy policies" prevent you from using an app?

I'm at a loss for why so many of you think that "explaining what the app does" means the app won't exist anymore.

Huh?

Just imagine if government years ago had decided web crawlers were illegal, due to privacy concerns. There'd be no search. Or go back further and say it's a copyright violation to link to someone else's content. No web. And no one would ever realize anything was amiss. But we wouldn't have what we have today.

And if the government had made dogs illegal then...no dogs!

Ok, yeah. But what does any of this have to do with asking that apps explain to customers what they do?

 

[WestonHarvey1]

By requiring all of your private healthcare information to be shared with unaccountable burocrats and to be used against you?

Don't fall for this grandstanding BS.

He's violating the law here-- attempting to dictate terms to Apple which are outside his constitutionally granted powers. (The first ammendment forbids federal involvement in publishing, and nowhere in the constitution is the government given the power to regulate privacy.)

He is, quite frankly, a criminal.

Sadly, I don't expend too much mental energy worrying about the Constitution anymore. It's effectively been done away with, and there's nothing I can do but be angry about it.

I've come to accept that congress has the power to do absolutely anything for which they can secure a majority vote, and when they can't do that, via new regulations in existing bureaucracies.

Once in awhile the Supreme Court will strike down this or that, but the decisions are always political versus constitutional. It's just another legislature.

 

[Baumi]

Two wrongs don't make a right

I don't understand why people keep pointing at government shortcomings in order to ridicule this proposal.

It's true that US government – just like any other givernment around the world – has its share of problems and bad policies. However, unless you seriously think government shouldn't have a say in anything at all until it gets its own issues sorted out (which would probably mean anarchy for the forseeable future and most likely beyond that ), you should reject or embrace this issue on its own merits. Either you agree with Franken's idea or you don't. Pointing at anything else to change the subject is just muddying the waters.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Ok, yeah. But what does any of this have to do with asking that apps explain to customers what they do?

Well, one, they're telling, not asking. The "asking" part is just a courtesy.

Two, you're opening the door to massive software regulation by supporting this. We're eventually going to have government dictate that Doodle Jump must provide unlimited pauses, because three is unfair.

Computers and the internet were sort of the last refuge of unmitigated freedom and the last wild frontier. We're not likely to colonize space and establish new societies any time soon, so this was pretty much it for us, and now it's slipping away.

 

[farmboy]

The hypocrisy of my country is disgusting. We ask Apple and Google to tell users why their locations are tracked for FEATURES THEY SIGNED UP FOR, but then sign another 4 years of an unamended Patriot Act. Why are my politicians even paid to care about whether Angry Birds knows where I am? What a sad waste of tax dollars. Seriously, **** this place.

Uh, yeah, as if all legislation in this country and every other country has always been completely consistent and without contradiction, and this just puts it over the edge.

 

[rudigern]

Useless

This has not been thought through at all. Privacy policies should be written by lawyers. Indie developers can't afford them so then what. Apple writes a global one that developers subscribe to linked to their Apple Developer Account? That currently already sort of happens. Even if it is refined, Apps that want location data for ill intent will just send it encrypted so no one knows. This does nothing, its just for the Senator's reputation.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

This has not been thought through at all. Privacy policies should be written by lawyers. Indie developers can't afford them so then what. Apple writes a global one that developers subscribe to linked to their Apple Developer Account? That currently already sort of happens. Even if it is refined, Apps that want location data for ill intent will just send it encrypted so no one knows. This does nothing except for the Senators reputation.

Your approach keeps Apple in control of their ecosystem, protects developers from litigation, while still allowing the consumer to decide whether or not to use these services.

Clearly, this is dangerous and the government cannot let this stand!

 

[Small White Car]

Computers and the internet were sort of the last refuge of unmitigated freedom and the last wild frontier. We're not likely to colonize space and establish new societies any time soon, so this was pretty much it for us, and now it's slipping away.

What are you talking about?

Right now companies like Google totally own us. You're asking me to believe that if congress wrestles a little bit of that control away it'll be a bad thing for me?

"Freedom?" Please. Don't tell me I have freedom just so you can act like a patriot or George Washington or something. The opposite of "the government owns you" isn't freedom. No, it's "a company owns you." Pick one or the other, I don't care, but don't try and tell me that "freedom" is some magical 3rd option.

 

[coder12]

What a joke.

He was a comedian ...

Don't look at me for this guy, I voted against him

 

[Xtremehkr]

By requiring all of your private healthcare information to be shared with unaccountable burocrats and to be used against you?

Don't fall for this grandstanding BS.

He's violating the law here-- attempting to dictate terms to Apple which are outside his constitutionally granted powers. (The first ammendment forbids federal involvement in publishing, and nowhere in the constitution is the government given the power to regulate privacy.)

He is, quite frankly, a criminal.

I can only characterize this as an onerous mischaracterization of what Sen Franken has done, there's really nothing else to be said about it.

 

[Vizin]

.

 

[Xtremehkr]

What about consumers who are willing to make a compromise in order to use some app or service? Should they be denied to use such services for their own good? When government steps in, opportunities disappear.

Just imagine if government years ago had decided web crawlers were illegal, due to privacy concerns. There'd be no search. Or go back further and say it's a copyright violation to link to someone else's content. No web. And no one would ever realize anything was amiss. But we wouldn't have what we have today.

I don't think legislation that mandates Apps do only what they claim (as opposed to spying on and selling users information) is taking anything away from consumers. It's nothing more than another level of consumer protection that could come from Apple, Google, or the government. Most reliably from the government but probably best implemented by Apple or Google.

If you still wanted 'non government tainted' Apps for your iPhone you could always jailbreak it and run the risks of dealing with App developers who have a reason to avoid being held to the standard that their App will do what it says it will.

I think you're letting your distaste of government cloud your judgement.

 

[Vizin]

.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

I think you're letting your distaste of government cloud your judgement.

I like government just fine when it does the things it's supposed to do.

I don't consider regulating software to be one of those things. That's far better left to developers and consumers.

 

[Doctor Q]

As an indie developer, I'm more than willing to tell users what my app is doing with their information. I have nothing to hide, and if a user is more likely to use my app because of this peace of mind, that's good for me.

I'm for it if the requirement is just a plain-English description of what is done with the information. However if all apps required formal, legal privacy policies, I'd be in real trouble. I absolutely can't afford a lawyer to draft up a legal document.

What would you think if Apple offered you a way to provide your privacy policy to users by filling out a form Apple gives to developers? Would that interfere with your ability to pick your own policy and publish it as you see fit, or would it help you by having Apple take care of the formalities for you?

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Apps are sold across state lines, meaning Congress has jurisdiction.

Unfortunately you are correct, thanks to many spectacularly bad Supreme Court decisions over the centuries.

It was intended quite literally to regulate interstate commerce - to prevent states from punishing other states by erecting trade barriers. It was not intended to give the federal government absolute power over a person or company just because they sell something across state lines. Some jurisprudence eliminates the across state lines bit entirely.

It means that now, unfortunately. It's why the federal government has absolute legislative authority.

 

[farmboy]

FRanken, who has voted for TWO bills that are now law, both of which GUT privacy protections for health care information, can shove his demands for privacy where the sun don't shine.

In fact, why the hell is the Attorney General not launching an investigation into these senators who think they can violate the first amendment by dictating to Apple what they do and don't publish on the appstore?

Violations of anyones constitutional rights is a felony under USC 18-242.

(the two bills were the "Stimulus" bill which had very little to do with actually stimulating the economy, but does require hospitals to turn over all health care info to the federal government and obamacare which turns all health information over tie the IRS.)

First, as an Econgeek, you should make yourself aware of the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3), which gives Congress the specific power to regulate commerce. The buying and selling of software products constitutes commerce and is subject to regulation. Franken has a right to *request* that Apple and Google make such changes, both as a Senator, and as a private citizen (you can do it too). It's not the same as passing legislation, which Congress could also do under these powers, and it has nothing to do with First Amendment rights.

Second, the Stimulus Bill sets up a long term provision to computerize health care records, and establish federal guidelines on the structure of the records, so that they could be shared across platforms and systems. Records could be shared among health plans/providers, but individuals would have the opportunity to opt out of such sharing. It in no way gives your health care information to the federal government. It is estimated that 200,000 jobs could be created by this provision.

Third, Obama's health plan works the other way: the IRS must report to the Health Commissioner the income records of those who apply for federal assistance in purchasing qualified health plans. Your health care records do not go to the IRS.

 

[Vizin]

.