skip to main content
10.1145/3407023.3407057acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaresConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

How do app vendors respond to subject access requests? A longitudinal privacy study on iOS and Android Apps

Published:25 August 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

EU data protection laws grant consumers the right to access the personal data that companies hold about them. In a first-of-its-kind longitudinal study, we examine how service providers have complied with subject access requests over four years. In three iterations between 2015 and 2019, we sent subject access requests to vendors of 225 mobile apps popular in Germany. Throughout the iterations, 19 to 26% of the vendors were unreachable or did not reply at all. Our subject access requests were fulfilled in 15 to 53% of the cases, with an unexpected decline between the GDPR enforcement date and the end of our study. The remaining responses exhibit a long list of shortcomings, including severe violations of information security and data protection principles. Some responses even contained deceptive and misleading statements (7 to 13%). Further, 9% of the apps were discontinued and 27% of the user accounts vanished during our study, mostly without proper notification about the consequences for our personal data. While we observe improvements for selected aspects over time, the results indicate that subject access request handling will be unsatisfactory as long as vendors accept such requests via email and process them manually.

References

  1. Association Française des Correspondants à la protection des Données à caractère Personnel. 2020. Données personnelles - Index AFCDP 2020 du Droit d'accès. https://afcdp.net/index-du-droit-d-acces/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jef Ausloos and Pierre Dewitte. 2018. Shattering One-Way Mirrors. Data Subject Access Rights in Practice. Data Subject Access Rights in Practice (January 20, 2018). International Data Privacy Law 8, 1 (2018), 4--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Reuben Binns, Ulrik Lyngs, Max Van Kleek, Jun Zhao, Timothy Libert, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2018. Third party tracking in the mobile ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science. 23--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Coline Boniface, Imane Fouad, Nataliia Bielova, Cédric Lauradoux, and Cristiana Santos. 2019. Security Analysis of Subject Access Request Procedures. In Annual Privacy Forum. Springer, 182--209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Christina Bröhl, Peter Rasche, Janina Jablonski, Sabine Theis, Matthias Wille, and Alexander Mertens. 2018. Desktop PC, tablet PC, or smartphone? An analysis of use preferences in daily activities for different technology generations of a worldwide sample. In International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Springer, 3--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Catalin Cimpanu. 2019. Another Facebook privacy scandal, this time involving its mobile analytics SDK. ZDNet (Feb. 2019). https://www.zdnet.com/article/another-facebook-privacy-scandal-this-time-involving-its-mobile-analytics-sdk/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Mariano Di Martino, Pieter Robyns, Winnie Weyts, Peter Quax, Wim Lamotte, and Ken Andries. 2019. Personal Information Leakage by Abusing the GDPR "Right of Access". In Proceedings of the Fifteenth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS'19). USENIX Association, USA, 371--386.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Majid Hatamian. 2020. Engineering Privacy in Smartphone Apps: A Technical Guideline Catalog for App Developers. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 35429--35445.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Alex Hern. 2018. What is GDPR and how will it affect you? The Guardian (May 2018). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/21/what-is-gdpr-and-how-will-it-affect-youGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Dominik Herrmann and Jens Lindemann. 2016. Obtaining personal data and asking for erasure: do app vendors and website owners honour your privacy rights?. In GI Sicherheit 2016. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn, 149--160. arXiv:1602.01804Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Andrei P. Kirilenko and Svetlana Stepchenkova. 2016. Inter-Coder Agreement in One-to-Many Classification: Fuzzy Kappa. PLOS ONE 11, 3 (03 2016), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacob Leon Kröger, Jens Lindemann, and Dominik Herrmann. 2020. Subject Access Request response data - 105 iOS and 120 Android apps. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jacob Leon Kröger, Otto Hans-Martin Lutz, and Florian Müller. 2020. What does your gaze reveal about you? On the privacy implications of eye tracking. In Privacy and Identity Management. Springer, 226--241.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacob Leon Kröger, Otto Hans-Martin Lutz, and Philip Raschke. 2020. Privacy Implications of Voice and Speech Analysis-Information Disclosure by Inference. In Privacy and Identity Management. Springer, 242--258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacob Leon Kröger and Philip Raschke. 2019. Is My Phone Listening in? On the Feasibility and Detectability of Mobile Eavesdropping. In Data and Applications Security and Privacy XXXIII. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 102--120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacob Leon Kröger, Philip Raschke, and Towhidur Rahman Bhuiyan. 2019. Privacy implications of accelerometer data: a review of possible inferences. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Cryptography, Security and Privacy. 81--87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Xavier Duncan L'Hoiry and Clive Norris. 2015. The honest data protection officer's guide to enable citizens to exercise their subject access rights: lessons from a ten-country European study. International Data Privacy Law 5, 3 (2015), 190--204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Xavier L'Hoiry and Clive Norris. 2017. Exercising Access Rights in the United Kingdom. In The Unaccountable State of Surveillance. Springer, 359--404.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. René Mahieu, Hadi Asghari, and Michel van Eeten. 2018. Collectively exercising the right of access: individual effort, societal effect. Internet Policy Review 7, 3 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Jim McCambridge, John Witton, and Diana R Elbourne. 2014. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67, 3 (2014), 267--277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Nurul Momen, Majid Hatamian, and Lothar Fritsch. 2019. Did App Privacy Improve After the GDPR? IEEE Security & Privacy 17, 6 (2019), 10--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Rudi Müller-Glöge, Ulrich Preis, and Ingrid Schmidt (Eds.). 2016. Erfurter Kommentar zum Arbeitsrecht (ErfKoArbR) (16 ed.). Beck, München.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. David Nield. 2019. How To Clear Out Your Zombie Apps and Online Accounts. Wired (May 2019). https://www.wired.com/story/delete-old-apps-accounts-online/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Clive Norris and Xavier L'Hoiry. 2017. Exercising Citizen Rights Under Surveillance Regimes in Europe-Meta-analysis of a Ten Country Study. In The Unaccountable State of Surveillance. Springer, 405--455.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Chris Norval, Heleen Janssen, Jennifer Cobbe, and Jatinder Singh. 2018. Reclaiming data: Overcoming app identification barriers for exercising data protection rights. In ACM International Joint Conference and International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers. 921--930.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. German Federal Office of Justice. 2019. Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bdsg/englisch_bdsg.html#p0014Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Kate O'Flaherty. 2019. Huawei Security Scandal: Everything You Need to Know. Forbes (Feb. 2019). https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/02/26/huawei-security-scandal-everything-you-need-to-know/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.119.01.0001.01.ENGGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 2010. Opinion 8/2010 on applicable law (0836--02/10/EN). WP 179 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Anthony Quattrone, Lars Kulik, Egemen Tanin, Kotagiri Ramamohanarao, and Tao Gu. 2015. PrivacyPalisade: Evaluating app permissions and building privacy into smartphones. In 2015 10th International Conference on Information, Communications and Signal Processing(ICICS). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Abbas Razaghpanah, Rishab Nithyanand, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, Srikanth Sundaresan, Mark Allman, Christian Kreibich, and Phillipa Gill. 2018. Apps, Trackers, Privacy, and Regulators: A Global Study of the Mobile Tracking Ecosystem. In Proceedings 2018 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. Internet Society, San Diego, CA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Adam Satariano. 2018. G.D.P.R., a New Privacy Law, Makes Europe World's Leading Tech Watchdog. The New York Times (May 2018). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/technology/europe-gdpr-privacy.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Adam Satariano. 2020. Europe's Privacy Law Hasn't Shown Its Teeth, Frustrating Advocates. New York Times (April 2020). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/technology/GDPR-privacy-law-europe.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Keith Spiller. 2016. Experiences of accessing CCTV data: The urban topologies of subject access requests. Urban Studies 53, 13 (2016), 2885--2900.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Jörg Thoma. 2014. Datenschutzbeauftragter mahnt mangelnde Verschlüsselung an. Golem (Sept. 2014). https://www.golem.de/news/bayern-datenschutzbeauftragter-mahnt-mangelnde-verschluesselung-an-1409--109260.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Tobias Urban, Dennis Tatang, Martin Degeling, Thorsten Holz, and Norbert Pohlmann. 2019. A Study on Subject Data Access in Online Advertising after the GDPR. In Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology. Springer, 61--79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Siddharth Venkataramakrishnan. 2020. GDPR accused of being toothless because of lack of resources. Financial Times (April 2020). https://www.ft.com/content/a915ae62-034e-4b13-b787-4b0ac2aaff7eGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Nicholas Vinocur. 2019. 'We have a huge problem': European tech regulator despairs over lack of enforcement. Politico (Dec. 2019). https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/27/europe-gdpr-technology-regulation-089605Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Paul Voigt and Axel von dem Bussche. 2017. Scope of Application of the GDPR. In The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Springer, 9--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Heinrich Amadeus Wolff and Stefan Brink (Eds.). 2018. Datenschutzrecht in Bund und Ländern (23 ed.). Beck, München.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Janis Wong and Tristan Henderson. 2019. The right to data portability in practice: exploring the implications of the technologically neutral GDPR. International Data Privacy Law 9, 3 (2019), 173--191.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Nils Zurawski. 2017. Exercising Access Rights in Germany. In The Unaccountable State of Surveillance. Springer, 109--133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. How do app vendors respond to subject access requests? A longitudinal privacy study on iOS and Android Apps

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          ARES '20: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security
          August 2020
          1073 pages
          ISBN:9781450388337
          DOI:10.1145/3407023
          • Program Chairs:
          • Melanie Volkamer,
          • Christian Wressnegger

          Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

          This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 25 August 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate228of451submissions,51%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader