Our website uses cookies to give you the best experience and for us to analyse our site usage. If you continue to use our site, we will take it you are OK about this. Click on More for information about the cookies on our site and what you can do to opt out.

We respect your Do Not Track preference.

More than half of Internet of Things devices don’t properly tell customers how their personal information is being used, an international study has found.

The study, by 26 data protection regulators around the world, including the NZ Office of the Privacy Commissioner, looked at a variety of devices and considered how well companies building these devices communicated privacy matters to their customers. The study included smart electricity meters, internet-connected thermostats and watches that monitor health.

The report showed:

  • 60 per cent of devices failed to adequately explain to customers how their personal information was collected, used and disclosed;
  • 68 per cent failed to properly explain how information was stored;
  • 72 per cent failed to explain how customers could delete their information off the device;
  • 38 per cent failed to include easily identifiable contact details if customers had privacy concerns.

The report also raised concerns about medical devices that sent information via unencrypted email.

The data protection authorities looked at more than 300 devices. Authorities will now consider action against any devices or services thought to have been breaking data protection laws.

The work was coordinated by the Global Privacy Enforcement Network, and follows previous reports on online services for children, website privacy policies and mobile phone apps.

New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner John Edwards said “This study has shown that there’s a significant amount of work to be done to protect privacy in the Internet of Things space. As with many quickly-developing technologies, there is a tendency to cut corners in a rush to get a product to market. The GPEN Sweep indicates that IoT providers would do themselves a favour by reviewing their privacy practice and making sure they are compliant with the Privacy Act.”

ENDS

For further information, contact Sam Grover 021 959 050

Download a PDF of this release

Note:

Results were submitted by the following agencies:

Albania

Information and Data Protection Commissioner

Australia

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

Australia, Victoria

Office of the Commissioner for Privacy and Data Protection(CPDP)

Canada

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Canada, Alberta

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta

Canada, British Columbia

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia

Canada, Nova Scotia

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia

Canada, Ontario

Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada

China, Hong Kong

Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong

Colombia

Superintendence of Industry and Commerce of Colombia

Estonia

Estonian Data Protection Inspectorate

France

Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés

Germany, Baden-Württemberg

State Commissioner for Data Protection Baden-Württemberg

Germany, Bavaria

Data Protection Supervisory Authority of Bavaria

Germany, Hessen

Data Protection Commissioner of Hessen

Gibraltar

Gibraltar Regulatory Authority

Ireland

Office of the Data Protection Commissioner

Israel

Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority

Italy

Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italian Data Protection Authority)

Mexico

Federal Institute for Access to Information and Data Protection

New Zealand

Office of the Privacy Commissioner

Norway

Norwegian Data Protection Authority

Singapore

Personal Data Protection Commission

United Kingdom

Information Commissioner’s Office

USA

Federal Trade Commission