But instead of downloading the application code you could use the same service through the Web; the phone has a browser. And you don't have to use a smartassphone or tablet ifyou weould prefer to use a laptop, many kinds of which are available at very attractive prices. And you could use a pro-privacy browser like Brave, or a FreedomBox in your home or office, and you could avoid many of the problems you are describing. Why should we expect the task of making our own liberty to be performed by other people for us?

Paper Title

-- By MylsMarsina - 04 Mar 2024

Section I - Intro

The boom in smartphone usage has become so potent that it would be safe to say they have become sort of an extra appendage. The convenience of smartphones along with instantaneous communication is its ‘ease of use’ and streamlining of all our tasks. This intimacy comingled with the personal data we store on our phones goes hand in hand with the concept of privacy and the Fourth Amendment. I’d like to explore how data storing and collection differs between Apple and Google’s operating systems, and how the Fourth Amendment appears to offer protection to users.

Section II - Apple vs. Google

The Fourth Amendment plays a role here when it comes to law enforcement seeking access when it comes to data. A prolific case, Riley v. California (2014), is one that made a distinction between non-smartphones and smartphones, establishing that the latter hold a reasonable expectation of privacy as it is defined in the Fourth Amendment. Ultimately, the requirement of a warrant for law enforcement to access the contents of our smartphones, has become a safeguard against arbitrary data collection. As we are all familiar Apple, has employed many measures to shield user data and has even used this fact as a key marketing tactic in the race between the iPhone and Android. The features include encryption that essentially makes data impenetrable without a specific key. Apple also uses biometric authentication like Face ID (and Touch ID on older models) that uses your physical characteristics for access. Of course, with these measures, the collection of biometric data is a necessary evil. While Apple's security features seek to franchise users with control of their own data, and the option to decline collection of said data by way of third-party applications, this can pose challenges for law enforcement investigations. Google and Apple approach user privacy in different ways. Apple emphasizes privacy, and because it acts as both a hardware and software integrator, it allows for a more secure lock on the connection between device and software. On the other hand, Google, which leans more on the side of an advertising company, relies on data. This distinction inspires skepticism of user privacy, as it is almost in diametric opposition to Apple’s security measures. Google’s services usually involve both the collection and analysis of user data, and while its implemented privacy settings and transparency reports, at the crux, Google’s model necessarily uses user data for targeted advertising.

Section III - App Security

In the context of smartphones, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures becomes a nuanced issue. Courts have grappled with the question of whether individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the extensive collection of personal data on their devices. One key thing to think about when it comes to data protection is the concept of voluntary disclosure. The issue is when users willingly sign off access to data with third-party developers when they use their phones, like location data, app usage, and search history. Apps are ubiquitous in today’s day and age, where often there’s an app for everything, down to minute tasks like calling a tip at a restaurant. Initially, apps were the new shiny world of convenience offering streamlined and easy experiences. Downloading a new app used to be exciting, and a chance to utilize new features to simplify things in our lives. However, in recent years, the focus for app development has sort of tilted towards corporate interests and reinforcing capitalism rather than being user-centric. Apps have become a sort of gatekeeper, a necessary hurdle to jump through just to use basic services. From booking a hotel room, scheduling a dentist appointment, or even ordering takeout, it seems every interaction now requires downloading yet another app, chock full of data permissions and tailored ads – this overload can feel like more of a burden than a convenience. It can be argued that the overflow of apps on both the Apple and Google Play stores are ultimately leaving the simple tasks we typically use our brains for up to our phones, which, cognitively could spell issues. This voluntary sharing of information that users typically skip past and press “allow” just to get through the hoops, much like the extensive licensing and terms of agreements associated with digital purchases, diminishes the expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Some courts have leaned toward this perspective, emphasizing that users are aware of and consent to the data collection practices through terms of service agreements. With the rapidly evolving technology of smartphones and excessive sharing of our lives on the internet, stronger privacy protections might necessitate heightened Fourth Amendment scrutiny in Courts – the argument being that users might not fully comprehend the extent of data collection or the potential downstream consequences when consenting to terms of service. Additionally, as smartphones have become integral to daily life, individuals may need a more comprehensive expectation of privacy in relation to their digital footprint and sensitive information.