Our Findings
When you scroll on a social media app, pause on posts, leave behind a likeāor dislikeāitās no secret that the app uses your preferences to shape your feed. On a more serious note, sometimes government authorities need to access private data to address crime. But where do we draw this line, of how data can be accessed by these two entities? Furthermore, what is it that causes discomfort for surveillance in the first place? This month we aim to find out.
- Iām comfortable with government authorities looking at my personal data (like messages or search history) to try to stop crimesĀ beforeĀ they happen.
- Iām comfortable with government authorities looking at my personal dataĀ afterĀ a crime has happened to help investigate it.
- Iām comfortable with social media apps using what I doĀ inside the appĀ to recommend posts or videos to me.
- I’m comfortable with apps using my dataĀ from other appsĀ I use (like music or shopping apps) to personalize what I see.
- I would feel more comfortable if there were clearer rules and limits on how government authorities can use my personal data.
What makes you feel comfortable or uncomfortable about governments or apps using your personal data? Explain in your own words, in a few sentences.
Ā
Optional
Ā
Auckland, New Zealand
Our findings:
This survey was conducted at my high school in Auckland, New Zealand. A total of 9 students completed the survey, which was open for about one week. Overall, the results show that students are more comfortable with data being used after a crime than before one.
Ā
Personal data usage to preemptively stop crimes
For Question 1, most students were uncomfortable with the government looking at personal data to stop crimes before they happen, with an average score of 2.1 out of 5.Ā
Personal data usage to investigate a crime after the fact
In Question 2, students were more comfortable with authorities accessing data after a crime, with an average of 3.4.Ā
Data use for ināapp personalizationĀ
Question 3 showed mixed opinions about social media apps recommending content, with an average of 2.8.Ā
Data use for out-of-app personalization
For Question 4, most students were uncomfortable with apps using data from other apps, with an average of 2.2.Ā
Clear policies on data usageĀ
In Question 5, almost everyone agreed they would feel more comfortable with clearer rules, with an average of 4.7.
Moscow, Russia
Our findings:
I conducted a survey with twelve of our students to find out how they felt about data privacy and digital surveillance in our neighborhood. The survey was available for ten days in February. Overall, the results indicate that while students are open to the use of data for certain criminal investigations, they are still dubious about proactive corporate and governmental tracking.
Ā
There is a clear separation between the ideas of safety and surveillance, according to the quantitative data.Ā
Personal data usage to preemptively stop crimes
The average score was 2.33 out of 5 when asked how comfortable they were with the government having access to data to stop crimes before they happened.Ā
Personal data usage to investigate a crime after the fact
On the other hand, the average comfort level increased to 4.08 when the data was utilized to look into a crime that had already been committed.Ā
Data use for ināapp personalizationĀ
Based on internal data, students’ acceptance of social media algorithms was moderate, yielding an average score of 3.42.
Data use for out-of-app personalization
They only gave apps that shared data across platforms for personalization a score of 2.5 out of 5, indicating that they were far more cautious.
Free Response
Students’ open-ended responses revealed a profound sense of “digital exhaustion” related to their lack of control. “Privacy feels like it doesn’t exist anymore; you can never truly be alone,” one student wrote, while another voiced worry about databases being subject to “malicious use.” Every respondent also mentioned feeling as though their phones were listening in on their voice conversations in order to display relevant advertisements.
New Jersey, USA
Our findings:
Based on the responses from students in New Jersey seem most likely okay with personalization for social media but cautious about surveillance.Ā
Personal data usage to preemptively stop crimes
About 70% of students were uncomfortable with the government looking at their data before a crime.
Personal data usage to investigate a crime after the fact
On the other hand, 65% were comfortable with it only after a crime happens, suggesting that they trust investigation but not predictions.Ā
Data use for ināapp personalizationĀ
A majority, 85%, of students were comfortable with in-app personalization
Data use for out-of-app personalization
This was met with a greater split: 30% were comfortable with apps being able to track them across multiple platforms, and 55% rated cross-app tracking very low.Ā
Free response questions
The strongest agreement came from wanting clearer rules; 90% of students said they would feel a lot better if there were more strict limits on how the government can utilize the data they obtain. Interestingly enough, 85% said theyāve felt like apps were listening to them at some point in their lives.Ā
Ā
Overall, students seem okay with tech using their data to improve their experience, but they would prefer more boundaries and less surveillance that is hidden or an invasion of privacy.
Virginia, USA
Our findings:
This month we surveyed middle and high school youth in Northern Virginia (or DMV) regarding their opinions on online social media and government surveillance; aiming to understand where the line between perceived protection and an invasion of privacy is drawn in a digital environment. The poll was open for approximately 2 weeks and garnered responses from over 20 youth from varying ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, and levels of social media usage. For this poll, āpersonal dataā is defined to be any online information about a particular person or their online habits (e.g. messages or search history).Ā
Personal data usage to preemptively stop crimes
When asked to rate their comfort levels with government authorities using personal data to prevent crimes before they occur, over 80% (19 of 22) reported a comfort level of 2 or below, with only 1 individual feeling fully comfortable with a rating of 5.Ā
Personal data usage to investigate a crime after the fact
Contrastingly, when the data was used after a crime to investigate it, the comfort levels shifted: over 75% (17 of 22) reported a 3 or above. 5 individuals maintained their rating of 1.Ā
Data use for ināapp personalizationĀ
When asked about apps using personal data to customize in-app experience (eg. recommended videos), comfort levels the results were more split, yet exhibited a heavier trend towards higher levels of comfort (10 responding with a 4 or 5) compared to (5 claiming a 1 or 2).
Data use for out-of-app personalization
With the transition from the usage of personal data from adjusting in-app experience, to sharing with external applications, many more individuals displayed lower levels of comfort: 17 claiming a 2 or lower, and only 1 respondent fully comfortable.Ā
Clear policies on data usageĀ
The vast majority of respondents (21 of 22) claimed that they would have higher levels of comfort should there be clearly outlined policies and regulations on how government authorities can utilize personal data. One respondent remained at a 1, indicating that they would not feel any more comfortable.Ā Ā Ā
Free Response
Determinants of comfort level regarding data usageĀ
Respondents expressed a concern over a lack of transparency and control over how their data is being utilized. Many feel uneasy because they ādonāt always know what information is being collected or how itās being used,ā and they fear misuse ranging from identity theft to profiling or political targeting. Overall, participants indicated that their comfort only increased when there was a clear purpose and explicit disclosure to what the āreason [for the data collection]ā and āterms of conditionsā are.Ā
Perceived App āListeningā (optional)
17 of the 22 respondents reported that they have had this experience of perceiving that apps can hear what theyāre talking about in general. One student cited that they were talking about a specific pair of shoes with a family member, and images of it appeared on their Pinterest feed. Respondents indicate that they feel a great deal of discomfort or fear when it happens. āIāll see ads pop up that are related to things that have come up in conversations I just had seconds ago and itās honestly terrifying,ā reports one student.Ā
Conclusion
Regarding government surveillance, the results reported that students are generally wary about surveillance before crimes are committed. On the other hand, when used retrospectively (after crimes are committed) most students are a great deal more comfortable. This reflects a sense of desire for a purpose of data collection. Students are somewhat comfortable with having their data utilized if thereās a clear purpose, like addressing a past crime. Overall, authorities should more clearly outline policies regarding surveillance, as the ideal reflected in the data is clarity.
Regarding social media app surveillance, students skew more comfortable towards activity within the app being used to determine their feeds, and many are uncomfortable with data from other apps being used for this purpose. Furthermore students are very uncomfortable with the use of their information from regular conversations. Regarding social media companies should offer more transparent and clearly accessible policies; although there are terms and conditions, they can be overwhelming and contain unfamiliar jargon, disincentivising reading them. While thatās a personal choice, these results reflect that the youth want to know what their dataās being used for, and social media companies should respond to that.
California, USA
Our findings:
I surveyed 20 students at a school in southern California with 2000 students about their perspectives on Data and Surveillance in Southern California. The survey was open for around 2 weeks, and over the course I observed that most students are uncomfortable with data surveillance conducted by government services and apps without their knowledge.
Personal data usage to preemptively stop crimes
When asked to rate how comfortable they were with government authorities looking at their personal data to stop crimes before they happen on a scale of one to five (with five being most comfortable), most students reported a two or lower, and the overall average score of 2.00 shows that students generally felt uncomfortable with this idea.Ā
Personal data usage to investigate a crime after the fact
When asked to rate how comfortable they were with government authorities looking at their personal data after a crime has happened to help investigate it on a scale of one to five (with five being most comfortable), students on average chose a three, indicating mixed but moderate comfort with this idea. Most students selected a three or higher, suggesting that while some still felt uneasy, many were at least somewhat comfortable with authorities using their data in the context of solving a crime that has already occurred.
Data use for ināapp personalizationĀ
When asked to rate how comfortable they were with social media apps using what they do inside the app to recommend posts or videos on a scale of one to five (with five being most comfortable), about three quarters of students chose a three or higher, but the average rating of 2.75 shows that students were only somewhat comfortable with this kind of ināapp personalization overall.
Data use for out-of-app personalization
Ā When asked to rate how comfortable they were with apps using their data from other apps they use (like music or shopping apps) to personalize what they see on a scale of one to five (with five being most comfortable), most students chose a two or lower, and the average rating of 2.20 shows that students were generally uncomfortable with this kind of crossāapp data use.Ā
Data use for out-of-app personalization
When asked whether they would feel more comfortable if there were clearer rules and limits on how government authorities can use their personal data, nearly all students selected a four or five, and the high average rating of 4.55 shows strong support for clearer and stricter rules around government data use.Ā
Free Response
Ā
Determinants of comfort level regarding data usageĀ
In the short response question, students felt uncomfortable with data collection without notice or permission, and government watching, targeted ads, or sold/leaked data, were described as an invasion of privacy. One student stated, āPersonal data can often contain private matters or material which the person should be consulted with before obtaining. Excessive collections of personal data is an invasion of privacy and there should be better limits to stop it.āĀ
Ā
Perceived App āListeningā (optional)
Many also reported apps feeling like theyāre ālisteningā during conversations, such as one who said, āYes, there is a time where I was talking to someone about learning piano, and for the next 15 minutes my entire feed was about pianos, even though my phone was off, no one using it, and it was face-down against the table.āĀ
Conclusion
Per our survey results, students favor targeted approaches with clear opt-in/opt-out controls, strict surveillance limits, and stronger privacy rules over unrestricted data access.