Apple has finally to the that iPhone and iPads keep records of their users' whereabouts. We're glad that Apple has promised to change this practice. At the same time, nobody should think of this dust-up as some overblown quirk or mere bug, as Apple has portrayed it. This incident should be a wakeup call to Americans that we need to demand greater transparency and accountability from the companies that collect and use our personal information.
It would have been better if Apple had frankly admitted that this was a mistake, rather than trying to minimize the problem. In its issued in response to the scandal, Apple says that "The iPhone is not logging your location. Rather, it's maintaining a database of WiFi hotspots and cell towers around your current location." That seems like a bit of a precious distinction for Apple to be building its defense around, since WiFi and cell tower information can be used to determine your location with increasing accuracy (which is why law enforcement ).
The existence of these location-records files in the iPhones naturally raised suspicion and alarm over the possible uses of those files. Now Apple has offered an explanation: these files were intended to be used in conjunction with a "crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data that is generated by tens of millions of iPhones sending the geo-tagged locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers in an anonymous and encrypted form to Apple."
But the fuss over the iPhone location tracking never centered around Apple itself directly tracking or watching users and storing their whereabouts in some . The issue is the fact that this location log is being created in the first place — that it stores a full year's worth of data, and does so without customers' permission or knowledge. Think about how potentially revealing a year's worth of location records can be for many people. It could reveal not only where you live, work and play, but your religion, your political activities, medical problems, your friends and lovers, how often you drive to the liquor store, or bars, or sexually oriented establishments of various kinds, what other cities and towns you visit and where you go there, and how you get there. None of this anybody's business.
If you put all that stuff in a diary, you would probably want to keep that diary private. Yet here Apple programmed its devices to create that diary for you, without your knowledge or permission, and in unencrypted form, and copy it to your computer. Just by bringing such a document into existence and letting it float around people's computing ecosystems, it has created a significant privacy and security vulnerability for its customers.
It's easy to imagine everyone from criminals to divorce lawyers and other civil litigants to the police wanting to get their hands on these logs. The ACLU of Michigan recently over how the police were using that can instantly give them a copy of everything on your cell phone. CNet has that companies selling data extraction devices to government agencies already knew about the iPhone location diaries. Meanwhile, the government asserts that cell phones don't enjoy full constitutional privacy protections, and claims that it can examine phones (along with laptops) whenever you cross the U.S. border from another country.
That was the problem with storing a location diary on iPhones and iPads. Apple should have acknowledged that in its statement, rather than trying to explain away the error as a result of software bugs, "confused" users and tech companies not having "provided enough education about these issues."
The problem is not users who are confused and uneducated. To the contrary, the users who are up in arms over the iPhone movement diary appear to be quite clear over the privacy implications of such a document. Clearer, apparently, than Apple.
When a household name like Apple does something like this, it should be a reminder to everyone that as computing power expands, and devices shrink into our pockets and plug into location networks, we need better protections for our data.
Learn more about digital privacy: Subscribe to our newsletter, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.