Thread by @WolfieChristl

Some academic research including papers in high-profile journals relies on location data obtained from shady data brokers, that secretly gather it from people while misleadingly describing it as 'opt-in' or 'anonymized'.

@jenuhhveev on why this must stop:
eff.org/deeplinks/2022…

@jenuhhveev "SafeGraph is not alone among location data brokers in trying to 'research wash' its privacy-invasive business model and data through academic work. Other shady actors like Veraset, Cuebiq, Spectus, and X-Mode also operate so-called “data for good” programs with academics"

Some researchers incorrectly describe the location data they receive from data brokers, others make contradictory claims about it.

These firms don't collect 'anonymous' data, there is no such thing as 'anonymized device IDs', and app users didn't knowingly 'opt-in' or 'consent'.

In addition, one data broker's "data access agreement" contains a clause that gives it control over how its involvement may be disclosed.

Papers that rely on location data from shady data brokers seem to use similar language to describe a company's involvement, or mention NDAs.

"Location data brokers do not come close to meeting human subject research standards"

"The question of how to balance data transparency with user privacy is not a new one, and it can’t be left to the Verasets and X-Modes of the world to answer"

Yes and yes.

Researchers shouldn't use shady data harvested from people's phones without their knowledge.

Journals including Nature shouldn't accept papers that make questionable 'data ethics' claims.

Institutional Review Boards must take a look.

And shady data brokers must cease to exist.

Yep, in March 2020 even I said ok perhaps we could use data gathered secretly or illegally in the public interest. But this was a *long* time ago, and I've neither seen safeguards in the US nor GDPR enforcement in Europe.

What remains is the #covidwashing
wsj.com/articles/gover…