• Team

The Data Drop Panel: June 2021

This month, our host and self-confessed ‘data protection contrarian’ Carey Lening takes a deeper dive into some of the most important, concerning, and downright fascinating data privacy and data protection items covered by the Data Drop News podcast in recent weeks.


Carey: Hey, so my name is Carey and I'm the data protection contrarian and I just wanted to welcome you all to the first inaugural episode of the Data Drop Panel hosted by the Data Collaboration Alliance. So each month I'll be sitting down with privacy pros, data mavens, transformational technologists, and anyone I can find off the street to talk a little bit about deep dives into the pressing issues around personal data, including data protection, transparency, and perhaps most importantly ownership and control.


So you might be asking yourself "Okay, what's the Data Collaboration Alliance and why should I listen to yet another privacy podcast?" Well, the Data collaboration Alliance is a Toronto-based nonprofit and they're dedicated to building a future where data is fully controlled by its rightful owners and they're guided by #AccessNotCopies,


The alliance does research into data ownership and control into best practices, and they also offer some really cool free training on the data collaboration approach. We also produced the Data Drop Podcast, which offers listeners a weekly news roundup, and also this monthly panel.


We hope to make it worth your while by offering insightful analysis, good verbal repartee, and a good discussion of pressing topics and privacy. Think of this as sort of a non-partisan version of William Buckley's The Firing Line. And here I go, dating myself there. So with that, let's go ahead and introduce today's guests.


First up, we have Dan DeMers. He's based out of Toronto, Canada. He is the President of the Data Collaboration Alliance and the CEO and Co-founder of Cinchy, the Dataware platform.


Next up, we have the lovely Sarah Clarke who's based out of, and I know I'm going to say it wrong, Teesside Northeast England. Sarah Clarke is a data protection and cybersecurity governance specialist working for her own firm, Infospectives Limited.


Next up is Jeff Jockisch from Port St. Lucie, Florida in the US. Jeff is the CEO of PrivacyPlan where he does independent data privacy research and creates privacy-centric data sets.


So that's the panel and we have three topics for today. The first step is we're going to talk about vaccine passports, and then we're going to go talk a little bit about Apple's new app tracking tool. And finally, if we have time, we're going to talk about the latest and one of many Facebook data breaches.


The privacy challenges of Vaccine Passports

Carey: So the US, EU, UK, and numerous other countries are all rushing ahead now that we have vaccines and they want to get to a point where they have a functional system for actually tracking who has and hasn't been vaccinated. Proponents of these so-called vaccine passports argue that certifications will help reopen economies safely for those who are fully vaccinated, but many folks in the privacy sector, especially have concerns about scope creep and privacy abuses. A few days ago, the UK announced that they would be rolling out a digital certificate vaccine passport via their NHS app, which has already used widely to arrange doctor appointments and includes access to patient medical records.


Meanwhile, the EU has announced plans for a slightly more subdued version called the Digital Green Certificate, which attract vaccine status and whether someone tests negative for COVID-19 and in the US of course, there's IBM's efforts working with various states including New York to develop a digital health pass built on the Blockchain.


So the European Data Protection Supervisor states that a vaccine passport must not allow for and must not lead to the creation of any sort of centralized database of personal data at an EU level. But beyond that, there hasn't been a lot of guidance and there certainly isn't a lot of legislation around this issue.


So I have a couple of questions for you panelists. First things first, and come on, let's be honest here, how many of you are going to sign up for a digital vaccine passport?


Sarah: Well, I'm going to start kick off and say unless I need it - unless I need it to travel and depending on where it creeps into in terms of controlling access - I will attempt to avoid doing so because the push for the COVID app, to push it into the Google and Apple basis so it was decentralized, at the point that happened with the COVID app in the UK, I was incredibly supportive of it. The people who are involved in it were people who I knew were good people. They were sharing impact assessments. And it, it wasn't this evangelical zeal of let's just get it done. And suddenly there was some constructive information. I haven't got that with the intent of the data being gathered centrally through this specific process.


And it's not that they haven't already got our NHS records. I don't, I have absolutely no issue for a direct purpose that has got a public health interest. What I don't have is clarity about limiting it to that.


Carey: And the NHS app, in particular, I've read up into it. It's a little concerning how much overlap that they plan to include.


And, you know, there, there's some kind of weird things that I've heard about biometric data and other things, and it's like, oh, that one, that one strikes me as a little dicey. But what about, what about something like the, the more EU kind of passport where it's a digital green certificate where it's literally just yes or no, I've been vaccinated or if I haven't been vaccinated, I am negative for COVID-19.


Sarah: If it's limited to those purposes if the data are minimized for purpose. It's all about the purpose and it's all about making sure it stays that way and it's secure when it's happening that way and we are very clear about all of those things


And there are, it's more than just assurances, it's contractual, and it's the third parties have also covered off in those, in those same ways. Then I would have far less issue within that case.


Dan: Yeah, and for me, it's a very similar perspective of my, my own only concern really is, does the set of precedent that the world rushes into that facilitates the eventual expansion of scope to the point where you know, what about other vaccines?


What about you know, kids proving that they've been vaccinated within the school, and does it stop there? Does it go beyond that and cover your entire medical history and and that's where we just need to be really, really careful, but for myself as a, as a one-time use for a very specific issue and potentially even setting a bit of a precedent for such issues, which don't happen all that often, I think is the only way that's going to actually work.


Carey: Yeah, no, I agree. What about you, Jeff? What do you think.


Jeff: Well, I don't love the idea of a digital version of a passport for COVID. I do think there are reasons to do it, and then there are certainly a lot of reasons not to. Scope creep is, is a definite concern. I think sort of on the other end of the spectrum, people that are, that are banning COVID passports I've got a problem with some of that, right.


And I think if you're, if you're banning passports because you're, you're trying to look strong for your political base, you're probably just a demagogue trying to support the same people that won't wear masks now, or perhaps get vaccines for any kind of illness. So I've got a real problem with that. But in terms of supporting vaccine passports, I think there are certainly some reasons to do it.


And I would, I would be definitely in support of a vaccine passport if it was administered by a nonprofit agency that I trust. And if it had to be a centralized database, I'd be much happier if it was in that kind of, kind of an organization. And frankly, I'd be much happier if it was a paper passport, you know, rather than a digital passport.


Carey: The old school way of doing things, that's what they did before and during the 1918 pandemic


Jeff: I mean, it's working with yellow cards, you know, the yellow cards. So why can't we try that if we're going to have to do this? And the other thing that I think we need to really be careful of is if we're going to put vaccine passports in place, I think we need to be very sure that there are rules against discrimination. Or, you know, people who need to have access to essential services.


Carey: I completely agree. In fact, I think that the discriminatory aspects are very interesting and they really aren't being discussed as much as. I have a very firm position on vaccines, but, you know, I don't think it's necessarily right in the same end to say you know, there's concerns out of Israel, for instance, where they've, you know, cut things off, they cut services and access to things off to people who can't or won't get vaccinated.


Jeff: Yeah. You know, and I'm not trying to say that, that the people that won't get vaccinated should you know


That I want to support that behavior. But I think there are probably reasons that some people can't get vaccinated. Like they've got a valid reason, a life-threatening illness, maybe religious persecution or something. I'm not going to try to decide who has a valid reason or not, but I think there are valid reasons.


Carey: So here's one as a follow-up Jeff, because, because you know, I can't get away with asking something about the blockchain and not pinging you about it. So what do you think about the IBM digital health pass and putting this information on the blockchain?


I am deeply skeptical because I find everything on the block... Okay, not everything. A lot of things on the blockchain are sort of like the old adage of like, what happens when you add digital to problem X? Well, then you have digital problem X, right? So in my opinion, sometimes adding the blockchain to it means you just have a new problem on the blockchain. Prove me wrong.


Jeff: I like it in theory but you're right. In practice, I don't know whether it would work, so I would have to look into it more and I don't really know that all the details are out there yet that would make me a believer.


Carey: Should we put this on Cinchy Dan?


Dan: I'm not sure. What I would say though is the eventual standard of Zero Copy Integration would be very appropriate for this, whether it was on Cinchy or not is a separate thing. But, yeah, my view is that the only way to ever get control over data, and be it your vaccine records or anything is that the owner of that data has control over that data.


And that data is treated as if it had value, like other assets, like intellectual property people and, and money where you can't create copies of it. Cause it's the copying that creates the risk. So definitely this would be in scope for Zero Copy integration.


Carey: So my last question, Sarah, do you think it's possible to have a kind of a user-centric or user-focused vaccine passport initiative since you're skeptical of the current crop of things going on? You know, I guess the question is how do we apply vaccine passports or kind of vaccine and record-keeping fairly and ethically?


Sarah: Well, I'm not an app designer. But there are incredibly creative people who are designing software in this space. And I don't see why we can't follow a decentralized record if it's just the fact of vaccination or not.


Why does it need to be linked to your unique identity? Certainly, people could be given a unique code associated with confirmation of their vaccination status that is only put back together with anything, resembling a medical record in the protective backend systems that don't have to be shared with third parties.


Is this a valid pairing of an alphanumeric string and a positive statement of vaccination? And if I, in my position with a little bit of technical knowledge - enough to be dangerous can say that - and I've got people like Jeff nodding along suggesting that it's probably feasible and talking to people like Terence Eden, who were working, I haven't spoken personally, but from what I understood from his kind sharing around the NHS COVID app or the COVID app, why not? Why shouldn't we? And they specifically rejected the COVID app as a candidate for the vaccine passports, because it didn't allow them to get centralized storage of data.


Carey: I am genuinely deeply worried about some of the UK stuff, but that's a different conversation. I don't want to get into another Brexit debate.


Apple's App Tracking Transparency Tool (ATT)

Carey: So we'll move on to topic number two, which is Apple's new app tracking tool. So, a couple of weeks ago, Apple released its new App Tracking Transparency privacy protection framework, as part of its latest iOS 14.5 release.


I don't have an iPhone so, you know, I follow this, but I'm not, I don't have any dogs in this fight, I guess. But the aim of ATT is to give users direct control over how downloaded apps track users across websites and third-party other, other third-party applications. If users opt out of tracking, developers will be stopped from accessing the users' identifier for advertising, which is a unique apple identifier.


And that, that allows for that sort of a tracking kind of mechanism to occur. ATT allows users to opt-out device-wide, which is kind of interesting or on a per-app basis. But it also requires developers to refrain from sharing information with data brokers, which I did not know until I started looking into it.


So there's a question, there's no question that ATT gives users a tremendous amount of transparency and control, and it's kind of, it follows along with their other initiatives like the privacy food labeling that they're doing and that what Google is doing there. But of course, you can't have any good thing without lots of criticism.


So many people, including, you know, media outlets, the internet, and various internet companies and advertising folks are complaining. Most notably Facebook released a huge anti-ATT campaign complaining that ATT would destroy small businesses who rely on Facebook advertising to promote their offerings.


And, you know, generally create the downfall of man. There's also been a couple of potential lawsuits that have been roaming around and a few antitrust complaints that have been filed so people are genuinely concerned. Still, privacy pros have lauded ATT as a good next step and there are definitely some signs that users are actually getting a lot out of this.


And finally, maybe able to get off the treadmill of always-on-tracking. So in fact, there are some reports that are even suggesting that opt-in rates for this tracking are as low as 4 - 13%. So that is a huge impact on third-party advertising potentially.


So the question for you guys first is Apple controls nearly 20% of the worldwide mobile market according to IDC. Do you think that this will force a similar transparency effort or hastening of Google's own kind of privacy sandbox initiatives? Or do you think it will encourage, you know, app developers to change their tune and how they're developing apps and the kinds of things that they're tracking? Let's start with you, Dan.


Dan: First of all, I think the trend towards this is actually inevitable and highly predictable. I think the business model over the past number of decades where I'm going to a trap and monetize your data, its days are numbered. It's just the question of when so it is just the inevitable future.


I think what this is actually going to do just drive awareness to the general population that this is possible, also giving better transparency into the fact that how it worked even before this. You'll find consumer demand will shoot through the roof where people will expect this, not only of other mobile devices but devices in general, to the point where I would anticipate this eventually mature as a standard such that the connected oven that you buy in the future has mechanisms that have the enablement of you to have control over this.


Carey: Well, the pop-up window for what your connected oven is going to be sharing with the world would probably horrify me, to be honest. But it would be definitely a good step no question!


Dan: Well if you think about it, It's going to know when you're home. It's going to know what you eat. It's going to know what it needs to know to tell you when dinner's done.


That's going to go through the internet and that information could be correlated with other information. Then if you use the oven, you know, you could blame the person who buys it and turns it on for basically giving it access to this information, because if it's putting food into the oven, therefore now the oven knows about us.


But is it really their fault? You can't inspect every device that you interact with. You need to be able to trust the machines that you interact with. So whether it's your mobile phone or your oven or your coffee maker, you need to be able to trust that. And right now you can't.


So I think the enforcement of this as a consumer demanded standard will become the future. So this I think is just the beginning.


Carey: So it sounds to me like you're saying that this, this is actually going to encourage good behavior.


I'm forever skeptical because it's always one of those situations where you know, you come up with a new set of rules and someone comes up with a new way to break those rules and the new way, you know, it's like fingerprinting or any of the other kind of weird on device identifiers. So Sarah, do you think this is actually going to lead to a change in behavior or do you think that this might just end up in lots and lots of litigation and appearances before various competition authorities in Europe or other regulatory bodies by Facebook and Apple and all those other guys.


Sarah: So I like the awareness-raising. The challenge I did raise tho