Losing Control to Data-Hungry Apps: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Mobile App Privacy

Abstract

Personal data from mobile apps are increasingly impacting users’ lives and privacy perceptions. However, there is a scarcity of research addressing the combination of (1) individual perceptions of mobile app privacy, (2) actual dataflows in apps, and (3) how such perceptions and dataflows relate to actual privacy policies and terms of use in mobile apps. To address these limitations, we conducted an innovative mixed-methods study including a representative user survey in Norway, an analysis of personal dataflows in apps, and content analysis of privacy policies of 21 popular, free Android mobile apps. Our findings show that more than half the respondents in the user survey repeatedly had refrained from downloading or using apps to avoid sharing personal data. Our analysis of dataflows applied a novel methodology measuring activity in the apps over time (48 hr). The investigation showed that 19 of the 21 apps investigated transmitted personal data to a total of approximately 600 different primary and third-party domains. From an European perspective, it is particularly noteworthy that most of these domains were associated with tech companies in the United States, where privacy laws are less strict than companies operating from Europe. The investigation further revealed that some apps by default track and share user data continuously, even when the app is not in use. For some of these, the terms of use provided with the apps did not inform the users about the actual tracking practice. A comparison of terms of use as provided in the studied apps with actual person dataflows as identified in the analysis disclosed that three of the apps shared data in violation with their provided terms of use. A possible solution for the mobile app industry, to strengthen user trust, is privacy by design through opt-in data sharing with the service and third parties and more granular information on personal data sharing practices. Also, based on the findings from this study, we suggest specific visualizations to enhance transparency of personal dataflows in mobile apps. A methodological contribution is that a mixed-methods approach strengthens our understanding of the complexity of privacy issues in mobile apps.

Keywords

privacy terms of use mobile apps trackers trust location data

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altman

(1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding. New York, NY: Ardent Media.

Article 29. (2007). Data protection working party’s definition of personal data. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2007/wp136_en.pdf

Balebako

Marsh

Lin

Hong

J. I.

Cranor

L. F.

(2014). The privacy and security behaviors of smartphone app developers. Proceedings of Workshop on Usable Security (USEC). Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/hcii/265/

Bergkvist

Rossiter

J. R

. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184.

Brandtzaeg

P. B.

Lüders

Skjetne

J. H

. (2010). Too many Facebook “friends?” Content sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 26, 1006–1030.

Chia

Yamamoto

Asokan

(2012). Is this app safe? A large scale study on application permissions and risk signals. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2187879

Chin

Felt

A. P.

Sekar

Wagner

(2012). Measuring user confidence in smartphone security and privacy. In Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. New York, NY: ACM.

Corritore

C. L.

Kracher

Wiedenbeck

. (2003). On-line trust: Concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 58, 737–758.

Egele

Kruegel

Kirda

Vigna

(2011). PiOS: Detecting privacy leaks in iOS applications. In Proceedings of NDSS (pp. 177–183).

10.

Enck

Gilbert

Chun

Cox

Jung

McDaniel

Sheth

A. N

. (2010). TaintDroid: An information-flow tracking system for realtime privacy monitoring on smartphones. In Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (pp. 393–408).

11.

Esayas

S. Y.

(2017). The idea of “emergent properties” in data privacy: Towards a holistic approach. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 25, 139–178.

12.

Falahrastegar

Haddadi

Uhlig

Mortier

(2016). Tracking personal identifiers across the web. In International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement (pp. 30–41). New York, NY: Springer International. Retrieved from http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/∼hamed/papers/pam2k16.pdf

13.

Farnden

Martini

Choo

K. K. R.

(2015). Privacy risks in mobile dating apps. Twenty First Americas Conference on Information Systems. arXiv:1505.02906.

14.

Federal Trade Commission. (2013). Mobile privacy disclosures: Building trust through transparency. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/mobile-privacy-disclosures-building-trust-through-transparency-federal-trade-commission-staff-report/130201mobileprivacyreport.pdf

15.

Felt

Egelman

Haney

Chin

Wagner

(2012). Android permissions: User attention, comprehension, and behavior (Article 3). In Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. New York, NY: ACM.

16.

Ghorayshi

Ray

(2018). Grindr is letting other companies see user HIV status and location data. BuzzFeed. Retrieved from https://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/grindr-hiv-status-privacy?utm_term=.dpom8G0Jb4#.covOaWMQld

17.

Gilbert

Chun

B. G.

Cox

L. P.

Jung

. (2011). Vision: Automated security validation of mobile apps at app markets. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Mobile Cloud Computing and Services (pp. 21–26).

18.

Golbeck

Mauriello

M. L.

(2016). User perception of Facebook app data access: A comparison of methods and privacy concerns. Future Internet, 8, 9. Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/8/2/9/htm

19.

Google Consumer Barometer. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.consumerbarometer.com

20.

Hargittai

Marwick

. (2016). “What can I really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. International Journal of Communication, 10, 21. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4655

21.

Hoofnagle

C. J.

Urban

J. M.

(2012). Privacy and modern advertising: Most US internet users want “do not track” to stop collection of data about their online activities. Amsterdam Privacy Conference, 1–12. Retrieved from https://www.enriquedans.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Privacy-and-Modern-Advertising.pdf

22.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E

. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.

23.

Joshi

Mishra

D. K

. (2016). A roadmap towards trust management & privacy preservation in mobile ad hoc networks. ICT in Business Industry & Government (ICTBIG), 1–6.

24.

Kiip.me. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.kiip.me/moments-data/

25.

Libert

(2015). Exposing the invisible web: An analysis of third-party HTTP requests on 1 million websites. International Journal of Communication, 9, 18. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3646

26.

Lim

S. L.

Bentley

P. J.

Kanakam

Ishikawa

Honiden

(2015). Investigating country differences in mobile app user behavior and challenges for software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 41, 40–64.

27.

Lin

Amini

Hong

J. I.

Sadeh

Lindqvist

Zhang

(2012, 9). Expectation and purpose: Understanding users’ mental models of mobile app privacy through crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 501–510).

28.

Loo

. (2002). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 68–75.

29.

Madden

M. S

. (2014). Few feel that the government or advertisers can be trusted. Washington, DC: Pew Internet Project report. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/11/PrivacyPanelTopline.pdf

30.

Martin

Shilton

. (2016). Putting mobile application privacy in context: An empirical study of user privacy expectations for mobile devices. The Information Society, 32, 200–216.

31.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D

. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.

32.

McDonald

A. M.

Cranor

L. F

. (2008). The cost of reading privacy policies. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 4, 543–568.

33.

Njie

C. M. L.

(2013). Technical analysis of the data practices and privacy risks of 43 popular mobile health and fitness applications. San Diego, CA: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

34.

Norwegian Consumer Council. (2016a). #APPWIN: An overview of changes in terms and practice. Oslo, Norway: Author. Retrieved from http://fbrno.climg.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/appwin-update-of-changes-3-august.pdf

35.

Norwegian Consumer Council. (2016b). APPFAIL: Threats to consumers in mobile apps. Oslo, Norway: Author. Retrieved from http://fbrno.climg.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Appfail-Report-2016.pdf

36.

Palen

Dourish

(2003, 9). Unpacking “privacy” for a networked world. In Proceedings of the Conference of Human Computer-Interaction (pp. 129–136). New York, NY: ACM Press.

37.

Rainie

Madden

. (2015). Americans’ privacy strategies post-Snowden. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/03/16/americans-privacy-strategies-post-snowden

38.

Rettberg

J. W.

(2014). Seeing ourselves through technology: How we use selfies, blogs and wearable devices to see and shape ourselves. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2922572

39.

Runkeeper. (2015). Privacy policy [Runkeeper]. Retrieved from https://runkeeper.com/privacypolicy?showUpdatedPolicy=false

40.

Smith

H. J

. (2001). Information privacy and marketing: What the US should (and shouldn’t) learn from Europe. California Management Review, 43, 8–33.

41.

Spensky

Stewart

Yerukhimovich

Shay

Trachtenberg

Housley

Cunningham

R. K

. (2016). SoK: Privacy on mobile devices—It’s complicated. In Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (pp. 96–116).

42.

Statista. (2016). Statistics and facts about smartphones. Author. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/topics/840/smartphones/

43.

Sunyaev

Dehling

Taylor

P. L.

Mandl

K. D

. (2015). Availability and quality of mobile health app privacy policies. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 22, e28–e33.

44.

Tavani

H. T.

(2008). Informational privacy: Concepts, theories, and controversies. In Himma

K. E.

Tavani

H. T.

(Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 131–164). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

45.

Thatcher

(2014). Big data, big questions/living on fumes: Digital footprints, data fumes, and the limitations of spatial big data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1765–1783.

46.

Turow

Hennessy

Draper

N. A.

(2015). The tradeoff fallacy: How marketers are misrepresenting American consumers and opening them up to exploitation. Philadelphia, PA: Annenburg School for Communication; University of Pennsylvania.

47.

Upsight. (2018). About us. Retrieved from https://www.upsight.com/aboutUs/

48.

Wang

Hong

Guo

. (2015). Using text mining to infer the purpose of permission use in mobile apps. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 1107–1118).

49.

Wang

Chen

Yang

Liu

. (2015, 6). Towards understanding the advertiser’s perspective of smartphone user privacy. Distributed Computing Systems, 288–297.

50.

Macbeth

Modi

Pujol

J. M

. (2016). Tracking the trackers. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 121–132).

51.

Zang

Dummit

Graves

P. L.

Latanya

(2015). Who knows what about me? A survey of behind the scenes personal data sharing to third parties by mobile apps. Technology Science. Retrieved from https://techscience.org/a/2015103001/