Tales from the Senate Judiciary hearing on privacy
By: Tom Lee
Usually, when a tech company representative is answering questions about privacy from a senator in a congressional hearing and time runs out, they’re relieved. But yesterday, the company was Mapbox, the representative was me, and I was sincerely disappointed when the clock ran out on an important exchange.
Senator Mazie Hirono asked each of the witnesses about opt-in data permissions — which by default would prevent any data sharing and collection unless users take specific action. She supported opt-in on the theory that most people simply wouldn’t view their settings and would never turn on data sharing. It’s not hard to see why that might seem appealing, as we heard senators from both parties express their skepticism (well deserved, in many cases) about current data collection practices.
I started to share that a take-it-or-leave-it approach to opt-in doesn’t actually solve the problem. We’ve already seen what that looks like as companies start to comply with the EU’s GDPR privacy rules: the dialog boxes are more prominent, but everyone still clicks through them as automatically as any pre-GDPR terms of service. Users are still agreeing to fine print they don’t understand, giving companies who-knows-what blanket data permissions.
I wasn’t able to share that such an approach would substantially limit Mapbox’s ability to improve our core products using limited, anonymized data. I was the last speaker and Senator Hirono’s time was up.
The exchange shows why the specific details matter when drafting privacy legislation reform, why not all data collection is alike, and why Mapbox was in such an interesting position yesterday sitting next to giants like Google and Intel in that Senate hearing room.
We’ve prioritized the privacy of our users from the beginning, even in the absence of privacy legislation. We collect only anonymized data, minimize and protect what we do collect, and only use it to add value back to our users — to improve the quality of our maps.
The way Mapbox collects and uses data, and the data we have access to, is very different than how a company like Google — as a mobile operating system, web browser, email service, and application provider — is able to collect and use data. The data we receive from applications built with our SDKs and APIs is less than the applications themselves have access to, which is less than what the operating system can access.
As a company that has been closely considering user privacy from the beginning, we absolutely support a strong, unified national standard on privacy. And it was highly encouraging to see so much alignment from all present: senators, privacy advocates, and tech companies.
At the same time, the focus among the senators in the room was clearly on the biggest companies and personal data used in advertisements. Neither of those applies to Mapbox. We have more than half a billion monthly active users — Mapbox isn’t small, exactly. But in that room, I was representing the little guy: the fast-growing startups that have to prioritize their products and users.
So it was strange to feel the need to raise these nuanced points which might otherwise sound like hedging or undermining of such an effort. But the nuance matters and Mapbox’s success shows that you can protect user privacy while growing a business. A strong privacy standard can and should uphold the responsibility to put user privacy first while enabling secure, ethical data collection which adds value for users and builders.
These are important conversations, and getting the details right will take more of them. If you are in DC, we’ll be continuing the conversation on March 26th at Gov Summit. Please join us to talk how government and the private sector can make gains for privacy, critical services, and innovation. If not, feel free to reach out to discuss.
My prepared testimony is below and the full hearing is here.
Tom Lee - Policy Lead - Mapbox | LinkedIn
What it’s like to testify was originally published in Points of interest on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.