PAPER LIQUID SPHERES ON SMARTPHONES: THE PERSONAL INFORMATION POLICIES Liquid Spheres on Smartphones: The Personal Information Policies http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v9i1.4065 A. Serrano Tellería, M. Oliveira Beira Interior University, Covilhã, Portugal Abstract—Data collected from the profiles and the digital identities has become a valuable currency for the mobile ecosystem, especially between users and providers. Services that required them are also described as the ground floor in direct linked with the infrastructures and as intermediate layers between networks, platforms and applications. The frontier debate between innovation and protection of priva- cy is shown off undefined and unstable. Therefore, a com- parative analysis between ‘Privacy Terms and Conditions’ as well as the interrelation between operative systems (Ap- ple iOS, Android, Blackberry and Windows Phone), social media platforms (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and Google +) and applications (Instagram, WhatsApp, Line and Vine) were carried out focusing on Privacy issues. Two main tendencies were appreciated in relation with the two princi- pal operative systems: Apple iOS closed environment and Google Android open source. They reconfigured the func- tional structure and design of platforms and applications in different ways. The liquid spheres observed varied from the first approach that tried to control every action and person- al information from the binomial operative system-device and the second one that allowed the user actions and infor- mation to be more susceptible to interact with any kind of applications and platforms while the system was linked to information aggregation services to collect the data. Promi- nent aspects were the various stages of synchronization between the different levels of personal information (con- tacts, profile, digital identity and localization). Focusing on the case of Portugal, other complementary conclusions ob- tained from focus group and surveys showed a strong cir- cumstantial pattern behaviour and a concern about privacy issues taking care of some actions while admitted checking if they had the terms and conditions involved - which were too ambiguous - but not reading them. Described also by other international previous researches, they showed lack of ra- tionality in some attitudes and performances as well as limitations on the extension between knowledge and action. Index Terms—Liquid Spheres, Operative Systems, Privacy, Terms and Conditions, Smartphones. I. AN UNDEFINED AND UNSTABLE ENVIRONMENT The delimitation of the public and private spheres in the construction of the different profiles and the digital identi- ties through smartphones on the Internet, especially with the expansion of the different type of applications and social media, has become a focus of attention both from providers and users perspective. It ought to be considered the ever-changing privacy policies of the platforms and the applications, the increasingly requested synchroniza- tion of different types of data between the operative sys- tems and its environments, the applications and the plat- forms1, the geo-localization, the emergence of companies to safeguard privacy, of platforms and apps that run the contents of others in order to improve the personal image –for example, the content curators-, to promote anonymity and to build on anonymous profiles. Therefore, the data flux in a continuum and diluted paths that reflects this undefined and unstable environment. This uncertainty may be described from a technological perspective by the tension emerged between the willing to promote innovation and to protect user’s data since mobile services –which stated to require this type of information to improve its services- are described as the intermediate layers between networks, operative systems, applications and platforms [1]. On the other hand and from a theoretical perspective, the tension arose between the transformation of people into merchandise [2] and the ‘Right to be Forgotten’, that European Commission is working on, specially focused on assignment an expiration date for personal data that should be applicable in the specific context of social net- works. It occurs in a society where a “curious reversal” redefined the private sphere characterized by the right to confidentiality as a sphere that has become prey to the right to publicity [3]. Concerning policies, there exist two main tendencies: Europe’s undefined one trying to control the market and USA and Asia letting it freewill and fol- lowing the model of testing in progress. Remembering Wellman’s concept of portal2 [4] applied to Human Being process of communication by smartphones, users exist in a timeless time [5] that is framed by the possibility of the perpetual contact [6] and in a kind of virtual configuration of the online space where the directionality and the distance are confused or unde- fined [7]. Moreover, in this undefined and unstable mobile ecosystem, users generate an ever-changing profile and digital identity, both conscious and unconsciously, as they have to deal with the liquid spheres constantly to be nego- tiated. II. THE LIQUID LIFE AND THE SMARTPHONES Characteristics that described Digital Media were fo- cused on the constant negotiation of rules where norms and values were not clear, on being a decentralized model with a multimedia and flexible format –constantly chang- 1 Platforms referred to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google +, while the environment (that may also be called platform) related to Apple iOS, Google Android, Blackberry and Windows Phone as opera- tive systems with its relation to apps and mobile services. 2 “It was I-alone that was reachable wherever I was: at a house, hotel, office, freeway or mail. Place did not matter, person did. The person has become the portal”[4]. 4 http://www.i-jim.org PAPER LIQUID SPHERES ON SMARTPHONES: THE PERSONAL INFORMATION POLICIES ing, updating, correcting and being revised -, where con- tent was insensible to distance and nonlinear, as well as on diverse resources fonts with fragmented audiences whose feedback were so valuable to bear in mind [8]. Those are intertwined with Bauman’s metaphor of modern life, so liquid life: fluidity, transience, reticularity and dissolution of borders or boundaries defined [9]. Therefore, the characteristics of Digital Media are liq- uid ones as none of its frontiers are delimited and they are constantly being negotiated. Even more, the same delimi- tation might be considered as useless if bearing in mind that the content flows on diverse resources fonts and fragmented audiences –willing to expand-. Concerning the process of communication by smartphones, the state of perpetual contact [6] enables people to recreate a network of protection similar to that of traditional societies [10], where people maintain a no- madic intimacy within a social system based less on loca- tion and more on themselves, so one can stay in touch on the go [11]. “This create a kind of nomadic intimacy in which the public space is no longer a full itinerary, lived in all its aspects, stimuli and prospects, but is kept in the background of an itinerant ‘cellular intimacy’” [11]. More than any other media, stated Fidalgo [12] follow- ing Geser3, is the mobile phone that restores the social relations typical of the small communities, a "throwback to pre-modern models of social life” [13]. In this trans-spatial communalism, individuals are los- ing the habit and confidence to think and decide for them- selves due to the umbilical cord that keeps them connected - although physically far - to the original community. Nowadays, this permanent and ubiquitous connection is the cause of much tutored thought [12]. The mobile phone was described as the 7th Mass Media by Ahonen [14] because: It is the first personal mass me- dia, it is permanently carried, it is always on, it has a built- in payment mechanism, it is available at the point of crea- tive inspiration, it has the most accurate audience meas- urement, it captures the social context of media consump- tion and it offers a digital interface to the real world. But, as Katz summarized [15], mobile communication im- proves several dimensions of freedom and increases our choices in life, while it may also be turned against the user: invading personal privacy and causing emotional, political and technological distress. The spheres liquidity favours the data recollection of personal information since perpetual contact and ubiquity may entail tutored though and lack of behaviour autonomy – for example, when users accept terms and conditions without reading them, just because other people did it before -. The nomadic and cellular intimacy ‘on the go’ is constantly delimiting the sphere boundaries in this diluted and unstable ecosystem. Too much effort is required from users to be properly updated and to know how to deal with technology, even more, when it is ever-changing. Fur- thermore, emotions are also liquid, as a result of managing permanent feelings and impulses as well as emerging motivations to be fulfilled. Therefore, delimiting the different spheres is closely tied to the ability to manage wilfulness, taking into ac- count the importance of the temporal priority as a relevant 3 Sociology of the Mobile Phone. University of Zürich. Online publica- tions. Consult 18 February 2014. URL [http://socio.ch/mobile/] variable in the process. Also, the balance between the authenticity and the anonymity, the privacy and the func- tionality are considered key elements trying to distinguish what may be defined as public or private. Moreover, the game between the obscurity and the hyper-visibility that allows users to reach the spotlight of attention and the scope of the common space ought to be considered [16]. III. THE LIQUIDITY BETWEEN THE PUBLIC & THE PRIVATE SPHERES If remembering Goffman (1959) description of the dai- ly life performance, - where people move between the front-stage and the back-stage, between the public and the private spheres -, the integration of remote communica- tions may be underestimating the importance of face-to- face interactions [17] and undermining the traditional rituals of separation in the different spheres of life [18]. In the emergence of the industrial capitalism and accel- erated growth of metropolises of the nineteenth century, the representation of the individuals in public was no longer primarily a mechanism of social identification but also to be - and essentially – producer of personal mean- ings about each subject [19]. Thus, when and where the change between action and character as appearance oc- curred? The visual presentation stepped to be invested with meanings associated to personality. Under these conditions, the public system is expressed and transmuted into a system of personal representations. The personality in public considered - widespread belief - that appearance is an indicator of character, which results in the private individuals’ anxiety [19]. A situation framed by the fact that electronic audio vis- ual media were increasingly bringing elements of the individual "back-stage" for a facade region, favouring the expression of personal characteristics and exposing areas that before were private [20]. In the world of Goffman [21], people behaved but had no experience [19] where the media was converting the private space into merchan- dise [20]. Remembering McLuhan, the medium is the message and, it seems even more on the mobile devices, the (pro) consumer – (active) user has become the mer- chandise. Bauman’s metaphor of the liquid life - fluidity, transi- ence, reticularity and dissolution of borders or boundaries defined -, consistent with the logic of the consumer socie- ty, provides a useful counterpart to address some of the characteristics of the mobility. Beyond the correlation between the impact of the digital technology and the digi- tal features of the liquid society (which refers to the reflec- tions on the acceleration, the dislocation, the consumption and the role of identity), the mobile medium particularly fits the parameters of fluidization of technological, institu- tional and cultural dimensions of the medium previously described by McQuail [22], [1]. IV. CHARACTERISTICS AND STRUCTURE OF THE MOBILE DEVICES The dissolution of the link between content and sup- port, which had been the basis for the definition of genres and formats, reaches its peak with the expression of the distribution models based on storage services and cloud sync. The mobile environment is, in essence, a multi- device one, whose core lies in a conception of the mode of consumption and access to the content and services. iJIM ‒ Volume 9, Issue 1, 2015 5 PAPER LIQUID SPHERES ON SMARTPHONES: THE PERSONAL INFORMATION POLICIES The ubiquity, the diversification and the intertwining of the consumption scenarios, with a marked tendency to- wards transversal use of the media and access modes (multi-use), as well as its insertion into social dynamics where real identity games become objects of consumption; redefines the value perception of the contents by the users and converts them into a valuable source of the new re- source of the digital economy: the personal information. Focusing on smartphones, both Apple-iOS and Google- Android laid the basis for the environment – platform – (services, features and content) grouped around an app store, led either by an operative system – Google Android - or by the binomial terminal-operative system – iOS iPh- one/iPad -. While Apple leads from its devices, Google does it based on an operative system linked to information aggregation services. Apple relies on the tight control of their customer data- bases, which sells content and apps through iTunes and the App Store. Google also sells both through its Google Play Store, but its main bet does not need so much explicit information about the users, who become audiences for the commercial communication that handles Google and its technologies of contextual and behavioural targeting [23]. Both sell content, services and advertising to advertis- ers, but the formula for success is based on combining the three elements in different proportions and presentations, and this also leads to attract around nuanced public with different experiences. For example, studies tend to appre- ciate that iPhone users spend more money on their data plans and more time on Social Media that the owners of Android smartphones with similar performance [24] in [1]. Operative systems delimit programming environment, mobile platforms, user interface and experience as well as being the norm to which apps developers, providers and distributors ought to stick to. Amazon Android and Apple iOS prohibit access to rival shops. Meanwhile, platforms group the relation between the different actors through channel and services content distribution, configuring the app stores. Thus, in addition to including specific relationships (usually external and often strained) with network opera- tors; mobile platforms articulated hardware access (mobile and / or fixed), the operative systems and its user inter- face, a content management software / applications and a software development kit (SDK) with language and pro- gramming parameters specific to the environment – plat- form -. The content management software / applications also serves as a control of user activity, gathering infor- mation on the profile and preferences and limiting forms of income and execution in order to minimize the integra- tion of foreign content to the platform [1]. V. THE PERSONAL INFORMATION The use of personal information adds value to advertis- ing (discriminated and targeted), is the basis of business models and a clear challenge to the ones of traditional content industries, offering information about users behav- iours. Therefore, this raises important questions about privacy and transparency, as well as cookies tracking and data mining. In this environment, consumer protection laws are in a changing and challenging context, where it may be distinguished two main tendencies: USA and Europe. OECD Privacy Guidelines4 have described personal in- formation as the information that relates to an individual identified or identifiable. There is some controversy about providers and users on the one hand and, on the other, administrations where are the limits of what is strictly personal information. A restricted conception covers the "who we are" personal data such as name, address, identi- fication, financial records, sanitary ware, etc. A broader concept does the "what we do" behavioural data such as search, navigation, shopping, etc.; and “how, where and when we do”, usage habits such as location, time, fre- quency, time spent, and so on [1]. A. The Profile and the Digital Identity A profile is structured information about the users of digital services. Its concrete structure depends on the way the information has been gathered, the technology in- volved, the types of data or what the law allows. In the mobile ecosystem, this profile is usually richer than in the generic case of Internet and also is linked more clearly – mobile identifier device to the IP address - with a particu- lar individual. Moreover, in the case of having ambient intelligence (context-awareness), the user profile may even include biophysical parameters, charge level of the battery and a rich set of variables on the environment; what may include, in addition to the location and the ori- entation, temperature, humidity, noise, etc. [1]. Especially mobile technologies show the biggest chal- lenges regarding the use and the abuse of personal infor- mation. Main examples are location, and its access to Wi- Fi. A compilation of information that suppliers of the major mobile platforms, Apple-iOS and Google-Android argue that is done to accelerate the provision of different services based on the user's position [25]. According to the theory of multilateral markets, the use of personal information has become a bargaining chip between users and providers, where a strategic relationship occurs be- tween agents involved in the platform: providers, users and advertisers. The concept of Digital Identity (ID) arises from the combination of three main factors [26]: the concrete mani- festation of the self-image of the person on the digital service in question (a professional social network, for example), the elements arising from the protection / limi- tation / modification or concealment of certain infor- mation that users consider according to their preferences (highlight certain employment) and the implementation of policies regarding provider data (creating a unique user ID and log all activities that occur when accessing the social network in question). Therefore, a certain individual may have multiple digital identities. In structuring information about the users profile and combining the three factors to obtain the possible multiple digital identities, the liquid spheres are once again repre- sentative. The personal data flux in an environment sup- ported by the norms of platforms, applications and other 4 OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. Consult 28 February 2014. URL [http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/oecdguidelinesontheprotection ofprivacyandtransborderflowsofpersonaldata.htm]. 6 http://www.i-jim.org PAPER LIQUID SPHERES ON SMARTPHONES: THE PERSONAL INFORMATION POLICIES services, each one with their own market interests and their programming code. B. Concerns about Privacy At this point, several researches showed the users con- cerns about privacy but they were not willing to pay for their protection in the case of UK [27] or even willing to sell it. A study indicated that 32% of Canadians would be willing to sell their digital data to the right company for the right price and 45 % would sell at least some of it5. Both focused on the fact that it was neither provided in- formation nor tools to ensure contextual integrity, being the use of it out of context what most worries. Contextual integrity refers to the use of personal information in the specific context of the service employed and not outside the concrete relationship established between supplier and consumer [28]. In the USA, findings from January 2014 survey at Pew Research6 manifested an increase of 7% in information stolen from 2013, with 18% of adults recognizing it as important ones and 21% of them with an email or social networking account being compromised. Half reported becoming more worried about the amount of personal information available online since 2009 (33%). About anonymity in September 20137, 86% took steps online to remove or mask their digital footprints and 55% to avoid observation by specific people, organizations, or the gov- ernment. Continuing with the case of Canada, many of those who participate in social networking used these spaces to create profiles expressly for public distribution. At the same time, and according to Dr. Burkell8, the potential hazards of sharing personal information online – from concrete risks such as identity theft to more esoteric risks such as the erosion of personal autonomy as a result of surveil- lance – were too remote to influence their decisions; espe- cially, when compared with the immediate and tangible benefits of that same sharing. This is especially true when the collection, sharing and analysis of the personal information occurred invisibly, without our consent or even our knowledge. “Quite frank- ly, from an individual perspective, we still feel – many of us – as if we have privacy. And on a day-to-day basis … the kind of surveillance we’re under, the kind of oversight we’re under is not evident to us,” commented Dr. Burkell, “The risks we are running are not risks that are immedi- ately evident to us”. Feijóo and Gomez-Barroso [1] explained two main tendencies to reduce privacy risk: by design and by law. Regarding technology, the PET (technologies enhanced 5 “45% of Canadians willing to sell their digital data”, in: CBC News Business. 30 January 2014. URL [http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/45- of-canadians-willing-to-sell-their-digital-data-1.2517427]. Consult 4 February 2014. 6 “More online Americans say they’ve experienced a personal data breach”. Pew Research. 14 April 2014. URL [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/14/more-online- americans-say-theyve-experienced-a-personal-data-breach/]. Consult 14 April 2014. 7 “Anonymity, Privacy, and Security Online”. Pew Research. 5 Septem- ber 2013. URL [http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/05/anonymity- privacy-and-security-online/]. Consult 14 April 2014. 8 “Trading privacy for security in the online world”, in: GRAND NCE. 4 February 2014. URL [http://grand-nce.ca/newsandmedia/news- container/2014/trading-privacy-for-security-in-the-online-world]. Con- sult 4 February 2014. privacy) may help to rebalance the relationship between users and providers, extracting general patterns of con- sumption and protecting the particular information. Other possibility will be that users may move their data between suppliers, portability of personal data, which would help to reduce the market power of these providers with respect to users, increase competition and, ideally, facilitate ser- vices that appeared more respectful with the use of per- sonal information to prevent leakage of users to other suppliers. These advances must be accompanied by a regulatory framework. There appear to be conclusive user’s lack of rationality when confronted with digital services that are based on the personal information provided by them. To establish and implement the necessary regulation faces considerable challenges: the balance between the innova- tion and the consumer protection, the risks associated with invasion of privacy in the short, medium and long term and the fact that personal information is handled and transferred in a globalized world where geographic boundaries are irrelevant. In Europe, the debate is still pretty theoretical without a stable regulatory framework, debating the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ by the European Union. Meanwhile, USA and Asia are leaving the market to dominate this debate. They follow a process of trial and error on innovations that are offered to users and proved somewhat uncertain to the benefits of the whole society. The European proposals on their territory are intended to be applicable regardless of the origin or the geographical location of the supplier, what requires a number of international initiatives and agreements that still seem distant. C. Perception of Privacy In the context of communicative functions, Jin Park [29] analysed three dimensions of the impact of digital literacy behaviours related to online privacy: a) familiarity with the technical aspects of the Internet, b) awareness of common and institutional aspects and c) understanding of the current privacy policy. The analysis showed a strong predictive capability of user's knowledge, but results were mixed when representing the interaction between the knowledge and experiences. There were limitations on the extensions of the knowledge and the action related to personalized information. Moreover, these limitations were divided by socio- demographic characteristics such as age, gender, income and education. The study demonstrated the presence of a second-level digital divide in Internet privacy, apart from the level of access, both strongly influenced by temporal priority. In this context, Fathi [30] distinguishes the following areas: perspective of security, authentication against im- personation, leakage resilient schemes, identity-based encryption for privacy, anonymity for privacy, private information retrieval for privacy and trust. The lack of awareness about the immediate risks, the lack of rationality of users when providing personal data, the relevance of the temporal priority in literacy as well as the limitations between interaction of knowledge and action / experiences intimately related to memory, the liquid spheres from a technical perspective as from users behaviour one; lead to a worrying environment if bearing also in mind that Privacy Policies / Terms and Conditions iJIM ‒ Volume 9, Issue 1, 2015 7 PAPER LIQUID SPHERES ON SMARTPHONES: THE PERSONAL INFORMATION POLICIES are described as ambiguous and confused for a long time – 2005 [31] -, and unfortunately, still does as our research and others concluded. Moreover, it ought to be strength the relevance of language in the cognition process. Therefore, in this liquid mobile environment where the data fluxes without frontiers, users deal with a great diffi- culty in applying their knowledge to actions; partly be- cause of their own lack of awareness, partly because the information about Privacy Policies / Terms and Condi- tions as well as about technologies is ambiguous and con- fused. Temporal priority as a key factor also aggravates their ability. The Architecture of Intimacy [32], the Architecture of Disclosure [33] and the Interface Design of Exposure [16], representing Facebook a primary example; strengthens this liquid environment, setting a design structure that encourages exposure and visibility to the detriment of protection and privacy. D. Some Tendencies The concept of ‘continuous partial attention’ proposed by Stone9 explains how “being –always- on” affects the quality that users deliver to each of their tasks, under less "mind share”. Focused on the identity, it refers how peo- ple think about their lives and priorities, which may be also affected. In this regard, the “Self” may lose the sense of conscious communication choice, since the media are always hold on in the background [18]. Hypothesis sup- ported also by Starner10, whose research to date suggests that our ability to multitask is not as great as we think, “when we multitask we do less well on more tasks”. Experience related to the concept of “mobile identity”, introduced by Stald [34] and focused on youth, identity and mobile communications. It is mainly characterized by the "fluidity of identity" – constantly to be negotiated – based on four axis: 1) availability; 2) experience of pres- ence where the social presence in public space is being invaded by mobile communication in progress; 3) person- al log for activities, networking and communication of experiences, a role which has implications both for the relationship between the individual and the group, as for the emotional experience; and 4) learning of social norms. These tendencies are closely related to the three tech- nology revolutions according to Pew Research Centre 2014: ‘Broadband, Mobile and Social’, where contacts, location and synchronization between them seemed to be an increasingly valuable resource in the mobile ecosys- tem, as showed by recent business models strategies like the purchase of Instagram or WhatsApp by Facebook. Another tendency underlined by MIT in its technology reviews was that some mobile apps were starting to add anonymity to social networking. Specialized ads for mo- bile devices, mainly local, were also a growing trend. In this environment, less than 40% of web traffic came from Human11 where a new generation theory of the user 9 “What is Continuous Partial Attention?” In: Lindastone.net. URL [http://lindastone.net/qa/continuous-partial-attention/]. Consult 8 Febru- ary 2014. 10 “Multiplexing versus multitasking”. In: The Technium. URL [http://kk.org/thetechnium/2011/03/multiplexing-vs/]. Consult 11 Feb- ruary 2014. 11 “Report: Bot traffic is up to 61.5% of all website traffic” by Igal Zeifman. In: Incapsula.com. URL [http://www.incapsula.com/blog/bot- traffic-report-2013.html]. Consult 24 January 2014. interface stated that there ought not to be a user interface; information ought just to be around [35]. Moreover, the ability to add new features to mobile search has just be- gun, with proposals for the future as MindMeld, Expect Labs (2013), a personal assistant that infers the future user behaviour from the analysis of their conversations [1]. VI. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY On the one hand, operative systems delimit program- ming environment, mobile platforms, user inter- face/experience and the norms to which apps developers, providers and distributors ought to stick to. On the other hand, environments – platforms - group the relation be- tween the different actors through channel and services content distribution, configuring someway the apps stores. They articulate, apart from network operators, the opera- tive system and the user interface/experience, the content management software/applications that serve as a control of user activity and the SDK, the software development kit. Therefore, our research focused on the analyses of the interrelationships between the operative systems and its environment, the platforms and the applications choosing the privacy features configurations: Apple iOS (6.4.1), Android (2.3.5), Blackberry (5) and Windows Phone (7.5) with the platforms: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google + and the applications Instagram, Vine, WhatsApp and Line. Secondly, a comparison between the conditions and terms of privacy of the four platforms and the applications mentioned were carried out. Finally, the installation of all these platforms and applications were made both in Apple iOS and Android systems mainly as well as Blackberry and Windows Phone in order to appreciate similarities and differences in the process, in the results, in the interface design and in the action visibility. Finally, some incipient conclusions from an exploratory focus group and a survey carried on in north Portugal will be added as a complement. VII. DISCUSSION A. Operative systems-environment, applications and platforms. Main differences were found between the Apple iOS, Blackberry and Windows Phone system and the Google Android one. If establishing a comparison with solid and liquid spheres, the first group was observed as solid and the second one as liquid, whereas iOS Jailbreak or Ama- zon OS, for example, were placed in the middle of an ongoing process. From the date our analyses started until nowadays, an approximation and even dissolution of boundaries have been appreciated as a tendency. Closed ones have initiating a process of openness in its system and vice versa. Generally, Apple iOS, Blackberry and Windows Phone made efforts trying to create ‘Closed Environments’ while Android followed the ‘Open Source’ market conception. Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2013–2018. URL [http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service- provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white_paper_c11-520862.html]. Consult 1 April 2014. 8 http://www.i-jim.org PAPER LIQUID SPHERES ON SMARTPHONES: THE PERSONAL INFORMATION POLICIES This division in operative systems related to most of other aspects analysed due to the main root characteristic ob- served: whether it controlled more or less all functions and relationships between its hardware and the applications and platforms installed, as well as other services. As ex- plained in the theoretical framework, Apple iOS relies on the tight control of its user database through the binomial OS-device, while Google Android does on an operative system linked to information aggregation services and its technologies of contextual and behavioural targeting. In this sense, Apple iOS asked the user for permission before downloading any kind of app; whereas, in the rest, users had to confirm or not the access to them after down- loading. This aspect was well exemplified when the Apple iOS asked for the control of all its registers – to be able to share content after, for example - as well as all the access of them to the hardware and to the mobile data. Another example was that the user did not need to be connected to the app or platform (with it opened) to carry on actions through it. For instance, it was observed that the user was able to share the contents through different apps and platforms without having them officially opened. User data were defined in the operative system so it was able to be used by any app and its content sharing menu in Apple iOS and in WhatsApp for Windows Phone. On the contrary, Android and Blackberry needed to have all the applications and platforms, specifically in the case of Facebook and Twitter, installed and opened for their options of content sharing menu were able to appear in others. Deepening into concrete questions made to all systems, analysis started measuring whether they let modify all ‘Privacy Settings’ or not and at what level. Remembering previous main difference explained, Apple iOS controlled all of them, including those specific ones from applica- tions and platforms, through its operative system by itself. Any time users want to alter the configuration of ‘Securi- ty’ or the ‘Privacy Settings’ of them, they had to change it through the operative system. On the contrary, Android established its ‘Privacy Set- tings’ in direct link with the applications and the platforms so they had to be modified from the same (apps and plat- forms). Due to the fact that they may come from unknown and uncontrolled authors, Android provided a specific option to let or not let install them - “installation of appli- cations from unknown authors” -. As an example, users were not able to register the applications and the platforms that employed the GPS and, then, alter its configuration in the operative system ‘Settings’. Then, the main aspects concerning the interrelation- ships between OS, its environment, apps and platforms will be listed and employed as epigraphs. They were the features or applications that employ personal information for different kind of purposes. A.1. Privacy Settings Elements analysed were: ‘Location’, ‘Contacts’, ‘Cal- endar’, ‘Reminders’, ‘Photos’, ‘Bluetooth’, ‘Twitter’, ‘Facebook’, ‘Phone ID’, ‘Safari’, ‘Chrome’, ‘Internet Explorer’, ‘BB Browser’, ‘Opera Mini’, ‘Backup’, ‘Feed- back-Data Sense’ (when you signed the contract), ‘Transmission of data application usage’ (feedback appli- cation) and ‘Sharing files between applications’. The applications listed are the ones that established a direct link between the device and the user. For example, ‘contacts’ were high susceptible of offering great quantity of user data. A characteristic observed in Android was the fact that contacts did not have specific privacy settings in the operative system and neither in the applications and platforms. Windows Phone followed same patterns as Android when asking about if they allow modifying op- tions of ‘Privacy Settings’ in the operative system. Black- berry was also similar to Android regarding ‘Privacy Set- tings’, being the only one that offered specifically the possibility of defining ‘Firewall’ protection – others might have it but they did not specify it -. Another unique feature of Blackberry was that the installation of the application had to be made through the computer connection. Then, three tendencies were able to be described from ‘Location’ to ‘Phone ID’ elements: the first one was Ap- ple iOS with all categories included in ‘Settings’ and with a list of authorized applications; also allowing access to Phone ID. Second one was Android with ‘Location’ and ‘Bluetooth’ in ‘Settings’, specific ‘Google Calendar’, ‘Twitter’ and ‘Facebook’ also in ‘Settings’ only if you had previously installed the application and allowed access to Phone ID. Third one was Blackberry and Windows Phone with much in common as, for example, the inability to find the ‘Phone ID’ in ‘Settings’ as well as ‘Contact’, ‘Calendar’, ‘Reminder’ and ‘Photos’ and without a list of authorized applications. Blackberry had its ‘Bluetooth’ defined in ‘Settings’ while Windows Phone had ‘Location’ and ‘Bluetooth’ in ‘Settings’. From this part of the analysis, two main different models of operative systems and mar- ket models, as mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, were able to be distinguished: Apple iOS, Blackberry and Windows Phone with a control over all applications and apps stores installed through its operative system and Google Android that allowed multiple apps stores being controlled by others. Each operative system had a default browser installed (Safari, Chrome, BB Browser, Internet Explorer). These browser settings disposed of ‘Private Browsing’ and their own privacy, similar to a PC browser. In the case of Win- dows Phone, the option was the similar one ‘do no track’. All of them supported ‘Opera Mini’ browser. Regarding browsing settings, a liquid convergence in the privacy settings were observed. That is to say, that all browsers had already found a common balance point to deal with privacy control. Apple iOS and Windows Phone did not allow applica- tions to have access to the common mobile files’ system (except to the camera roll) while Android did it to part of the files. To end up with, Apple iOS, Blackberry and Windows Phone were able to be named as ‘Controlled Developers’ or ‘Closed Environments’; while Android was able to be called ‘Open Source’. Here, it was ob- served a clear delimitation of models (liquid-solid). How- ever, the tendency is to open the closed ones and vice versa in order to share items with more security. As an example, the upcoming iOS 8 will share information be- tween apps like Android already allows. A.2. Features In the following group, ‘Java support’, ‘Flash support’, ‘Security’, ‘Social Media Integration’, ‘Social Gamming’, iJIM ‒ Volume 9, Issue 1, 2015 9 PAPER LIQUID SPHERES ON SMARTPHONES: THE PERSONAL INFORMATION POLICIES ‘Movie Store’, ‘Music Store’, ‘Book Store’, ‘Default Browser’, ‘Cloud Support’, ‘Cloud Messaging’, ‘Wireless Cloud Support’, ‘Parental Control’, ‘Remove Clear Data’, ‘Internet Wi-Fi’, ‘Internet 3G/4G’, ‘SIM/telephone’ and ‘Notifications System-Messages’ were categories studied. Only Android supported ‘Flash’, and with Blackberry ‘Java’. It was someway a bit dangerous because of the ligations arose next to the hardware. In this regard, this aspect seemed to continue fixed, without variations. Regarding ‘Security’, Android and Blackberry encrypt- ed personal folder and Windows Phone had multilayer, secure boot, sandboxing and an encrypted sync. All of them presented ‘Social Media Integration’ while Apple iOS (Game Centre) and Windows Phone (Microsoft XBOX Live) its own ‘Social Gamming’ as well as ‘Wire- less Cloud Support’. There, it would be interesting to know whether it is an encrypted backup and if the connec- tion is secure. The convergence point seemed that it is going to be the encrypted personal data and the wireless transmissions. About Stores, nothing especially interesting might be mentioned. Most of them had their own applications, being Apple iOS: iTunes and iBooks, Android: nothing specific for music and Google Books, Blackberry: Rovi and Music Store RIM and Windows Phone: Zune, where- as the latter two might have also Amazon-Kindle. All offered as well ‘Cloud Support & Messaging’ being for Apple iOS: iCloud and iMessage, Android: Google Sync and Google Cloud Messaging, Blackberry: Third Party and Windows Phone: Sky Drive and Windows Messaging. Only Apple iOS and Android systems offered ‘Parental Control’ and all of them allowed ‘Remote Clear Data’ except Android by default, but it could be offered by Sam- sung services. The reason might lay on the existence of different developers involved in the market and without an agreement between them. Internet Wi-Fi, 3G/4G, SIM/telephone, notification system and messages were placed in applications. That is to say, all applications and platforms had freedom to choose / set / select those fea- tures or not, they can be controlled by the user in the same. A.3. Official Applications The following ones have been studied: ‘Maps, Google Play and Search, Gmail, Youtube, Pandora Radio, Apple iTunes, Cooliris, purchases in applications, Twitter, Ya- hoo Messenger, eBay Mobile, Amazon Mobile, LinkedIn, Flikr, Instagram, WhatsApp, Skype, Line, Viber, Four- square, Pinterest and Facebook’. Main aspect to underline was ‘Purchases in Applications’ where Apple iOS con- trolled it as well as Windows Phone through MS Mar- ket/XBox Live and while Android and Blackberry did it through Google Wallet, Paypal or the application itself as in the case of Kindle. A logical difference was that Apple iTunes only existed in Apple iOS. Android was the only one that allowed ‘Google Play’ and while Apple iOS had ‘Cooliris’, An- droid and Windows Phone had ‘LiveShare’ –Blackberry anything -. Flikr was not been found for Blackberry, nei- ther Instagram for Windows Phone. Despite all the differences, the convergence point seemed to be that all environments are going to have all the applications available in the future. B. Privacy Terms and Conditions Generally, it seemed that ‘Privacy Terms and Condi- tions’ were written to protect the company rather than the user since they were sometimes very ambiguous, opened to different interpretations and likely to expand its content to define future situations, the benefit of whom? Many aspects were analysed but, due to a matter of space, only those more linked to the delimitation of privacy were selected. One characteristic to underline was its volatility and constant change, therefore, its liquidity. On the one hand: Facebook12, Twitter13, LinkedIn14 and Google15 (as Google +, our aim of study, followed the same terms and conditions of Google). On the other hand: Instagram16, Vine17, WhatsApp18 and Line19. The first four were considered web services (although they had applica- tions for mobile phones). The last 4 were App services (App called) because they required a previous installation of the application on the mobile device (even in the case the user only employed the web service), which makes sense as they are specifically designed to be used by a ‘mobile phone behaviour’. Another difference was that the terms and conditions of the first group were more com- pleted, developed and offered in more languages. Three of the web services required a valid email to con- clude the registration (only Google not), where Facebook required also date of birth and sex. Applications linked with calling functions required obviously your phone number and in the case of ‘Line’ a password was required for ‘phone-book’ multi-device function. Regarding minimum age required to register: Twitter specified 13, LinkedIn 18 while Google did not specify it (leaving the requirement opened to the case of some addi- tional products) neither Facebook, although this last one requested it to do the registration (13) and for some appli- cations (18). A different approach was observed in the applications: “Instagram does not knowingly collect or solicit any information from anyone under the age of 13”, Vine did not discriminate but indicated the service was for older than 13, “You affirm that you are either more than 16 years of age, or an emancipated minor....” WhatsApp and Line did not stipulate it but they had a child protection policy. Differences were observed about who was the owner of personal information: Facebook did not particularize it although indicated that were the ones that you decided to share, neither Twitter pointing out the user allowed the company to use it. LinkedIn and Google designated that 12