16 Distance Learning Volume 16, Issue 3

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 020

Maintaining Privacy and Security in Cyberspace What Everyone Needs to Know

Maureen McDermott, Jennifer Reeves, Gabriela Mendez, Berta Capo, and Jason Karp

INTRODUCTION ou’ve been hacked! This cataclysmic message heralded from cyberspace incites panic in

the minds and wallets of people around the world. These ubiquitous data breaches occur frequently to seemingly innocuous targets. A breach occurs when a cyber- hacker physically gains access to files on a computer or remotely bypasses a network’s security system, gaining access to data, and stealing sensitive information. Remote net-

work security breaches are a common method for taking sensitive information from companies. The confidential infor- mation can then be sold on the deep web market, used to steal identities to open up fake credit card accounts, or to blackmail an individual or group (TrendMicro, 2018).

The first data breach of 2019 was reported fewer than 24 hours into the new year (Targett, 2019). Large corporations dominate the news concerning incurred

Y

Jennifer Reeves, Nova Southeastern University, Abraham S.

Fischler College of Education and School of Criminal Justice, 3301 College Avenue,

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314. Email: [email protected]

Maureen McDermott, Nova Southeastern University, Abraham S.

Fischler College of Education and School of Criminal Justice, 3301 College Avenue,

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314. Email: [email protected]

Volume 16, Issue 3 Distance Learning 17

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 020

security breaches that expose customers’ personal details and financial resources. Recent examples (Targett, 2019) include Facebook (up to 2 billion accounts compro- mised), the Marriott Hotel chain (over 500 million accounts hacked), and Under Armour (about 150 million accounts jeop- ardized. Additionally, Equifax, one of three major credit reporting agencies whose databases contain susceptible personal information such as Social Security num- bers, dates of birth, addresses, and so forth, was hacked in 2017. The breach affected 143 million U.S. consumers and extended to the United Kingdom with a total of 400,000 U.K. customers affected (TrendMicro, 2018). Quite possibly the largest data breach of all time occurred in January 2019 involving a collection of 773 million unique emails and 21,222,975 unique passwords from thousands of dif- ferent users onto the deep web (Davis, 2019).

This episodic hacking obliges users to be habitually cognizant that their financial information is vulnerable and could end

up being shared with unintended recipi- ents. Future breaches are predicted to be even more creative and impactful, focusing in on biometrics, mobile phones, cloud- based storage, and gamers (Bayern, 2018). Forbes contributor Kyle Torpey (2019) attri- butes this seemingly endless cycle of data breaches to the consumer’s desire for con- venience overriding concerns about secu- rity, and the willingness of malicious hackers waiting for these opportunities.

DATA BREACHES BEFORE THE INTERNET Data breaches are not a new phenome- non; breaches of paper records in the United States have been traced back almost 70 years. According to Solove (2004), most centralized record keeping at the national level in the United States was done on paper for the Census. In the 1950s, the Social Security Administration of the U.S. government assigned citizens nine digit numbers and required strin- gent reporting and record keeping of

Gabriela Mendez, Nova Southeastern University, Abraham S.

Fischler College of Education and School of Criminal Justice, 3301 College Avenue,

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314. Email: [email protected]

Berta Capo, Nova Southeastern University, Abraham S.

Fischler College of Education and School of Criminal Justice, 3301 College Avenue,

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314. Email: [email protected]

18 Distance Learning Volume 16, Issue 3

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 020

income. Records were computerized and stored in huge databases, and Social Secu- rity numbers eventually became useful identifiers in the private sector (e.g., by banks and credit card companies) and as student numbers for colleges and univer- sities. In the 1970s, the U.S. government began selling batches of census data stored on magnetic tapes to marketing companies, but supplied physical addresses and not names to protect pri- vacy (Solove, 2004). This trend of “num- ber instead of name” was the genesis of identity theft thus compromising the “dig- ital dossier” in the early 1980s. However, the invasion of the digital dossier did not pervade tech jargon rapidly. It reemerged as “digital footprint” during the time when the term “carbon footprint” per- vaded mass media. In the mid 1990s, com- mercial companies and private individuals transformed websites into cyberspace shopping experiences, thus opening the Internet information superhighway for business and cybercrime (Sommer, 1998).

BREACHING EDUCATION With these recent revelations of breaches involving social media applications, pri- vacy and security concerns have emerged for administrators, faculty, staff, students, and parents. Academia is far from safe as there has been noted cases of hacking and data loss. In March of 2019, private colleges Grinnell, Hamilton, and Oberlin reported breaches (Smith, 2019). Grinnell and Ham- ilton reported that applicants received emails from someone who claimed to have unauthorized access to their database con- taining personally identifiable information. These emails, which came from official col- lege addresses, offered to sell them their completed admission file which included comments from admissions officers and tentative decisions (M. Smith, 2019). A spokesperson from Oberlin said their applicants and students who enrolled during or after the fall of 2014 did not receive emails like the ones at Grinnell and Hamilton; however, their names, addresses, birthdays, emails, and Social Security numbers were possibly exposed. Oberlin suggested that fraud alerts should be added to victim’s credit card reports. All three colleges use software system Slate to manage this information, and all three col- leges reported this breach to Slate and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Smith, 2019).

In 2010, the Social Security numbers of 43,000 Yale affiliates became publicly avail- able on Google because they had been stored on servers that were also used to hold open-source materials (Fuchs, 2018). In July 2018, Yale notified about 119,000 faculty, staff, and alumni that their names and Social Security numbers had been compromised between the years of 2008 and 2009. This breach also compromised some of the victims’ dates of birth, physical addresses, and email addresses. The breach occurred in September 2011 when the university was clearing out unnecessary personal data, and was not discovered by Yale until June 2018. Yale offered to pay

Jason Karp, University of North Carolina at Charlotte,

9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223.

Email: [email protected]

Volume 16, Issue 3 Distance Learning 19

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 020

expenses for 12 months of identity-moni- toring services for victims of both breaches (Fuchs, 2018). According to Mariwala and McCooey (2018), two class action lawsuits have been filed against Yale alleging negli- gence; unfair trade practices; and reckless, wanton, and willful misconduct. Plaintiffs are requesting further compensatory and punitive damages.

Data breaches have also invaded the privacy of students in PK–12 school dis- tricts. The San Diego School District reported a large data breach where data including Social Security numbers from as many as 500,000 students were compro- mised and possibly stolen (Luke & Stuck- ney, 2018). The Hoopeston, Illinois Area School District’s website was compromised when families received repeated false and outrageous voicemail messages at 3 A.M. No student data were taken; however, this demonstrates the vulnerability that exists in the technology age (Francis, 2018).

Even though parents may be able to monitor what educational apps their chil- dren use at home, they have little input about what happens at school. The Elec- tronic Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit organization that defends digital privacy, free speech, and innovation, identified  school-issued devices and education tech- nology platforms as the most vulnerable for data breaches. For these reasons, par- ents should be asked for consent or given the option to opt-out of education technol- ogy. 

On December 1, 2015, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit against Google for data mining student’s personal information and internet search histories in Google Apps for Education and Google Chromebook (Alim, Cardozo, Gebhart, Gullo, & Kalia, 2017). Between December 15, 2015 and January 2017, the Electronic Frontier Foundation posted a survey about student privacy on their website and dis- seminated links on their other social media sources. Over 1,000 responses from students, parents, teachers, and adminis-

trators were compiled into the report “Spy- ing on Students” (Alim et al., 2017). It raised concerns about technology usage that tracks online student’s behavior before they are old enough to understand the implications of digital footprints, pri- vacy, and security and addressed issues of federal law, state law, and industry self reg- ulation.

One legal measure is the federal law Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act which requires technology providers to acquire parental consent before collecting student’s personal information. Enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, this law includes consent requirements for technol- ogy providers that are utilizing student data for anything other than disclosed to the school district. Verifiable parental con- sent is required for any collection of identi- fiable student information for students younger than 13. The Federal Trade Com- mission also offers a Student Privacy Pledge voluntarily signed by ed tech com- panies, but the Electronic Frontier Founda- tion identified glaring loopholes in what constitutes student information (Alim et al., 2017).

DEVELOPING DIGITAL CITIZENS Resulting from increased technology inte- gration in brick and mortar classrooms and the pervasiveness of distance education, the International Society for Technology in Education asserts that educators who use applications to engage students must “Model and promote management of per- sonal data and digital identity and protect student data privacy” (International Soci- ety for Technology in Education, 2017, para. 3). International Society for Technol- ogy in Education (2019) encourages the development of digital citizens who criti- cally evaluate online information and cre- ate positive online footprints.

Ironically, while digital citizens harness technology for the benefit of communities, hackers simultaneously undermine these

20 Distance Learning Volume 16, Issue 3

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 020

efforts for their own selfish gains. These violations demonstrate the need for curric- ular work and professional development for faculty and staff (with support from the administration) in the areas of digital foot- prints and evaluation of websites for secu- rity and privacy.

DIGITAL FOOTPRINTS DEFINED According to Dennen (2015), digital foot- prints can be likened to physical footprints rendered unique to their owners, and con- tain the information users leave behind on the Internet resulting from online activity. There are two kinds of digital footprints— active and passive. A passive digital foot- print is a data trail users unintentionally leave online. When connecting to the Internet, websites detect IP addresses and locations and download cookies, and search engines save users’ histories auto- matically with no detection. In the past few years, many websites have eliminated this potential for passive footprints by adding pop-up boxes that ask users to read the terms of service and acknowledge agree- ment by simply checking a box before entering the site (McDermott, 2018).

Active footprints, on the other hand, refer to the data trail users know they are leaving—including signing into social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, Snapchat, and various educational learning manage- ment systems such as Google Classroom, Canvas, and Blackboard. Even “liking” pages, posts, or photos on social media or commenting with an icon to a classmate’s discussion board posting contributes to a user’s digital footprint.

These active footprints generate when users retrieve email for work and school, as well as when accessing company websites and learning management systems. Regardless of whether digital footprints are active or passive, privacy and security are areas for concern. Although privacy and security are not synonymous, what

they have in common is that people don’t usually know there is a problem until it has happened already and is broadcast over the news (McDermott, Reeves, Capo, Men- dez, & Karp, 2019). Even when users select the most stringent privacy options involv- ing how their data are displayed, stored, used, and shared—this does not guarantee security from data hackers. Security involves how companies protect informa- tion users agree to share, so when some- thing is hacked both security and privacy are compromised.

EVALUATING SECURITY Before generating digital footprints, con- sumers and educators should understand a company’s security policy. According to Smith (2018), one of the strongest security indicators of a website is the first few let- ters on the browser address bar. Early web- site addresses started with HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP), the procedure that allowed network administrators to share information. Unfortunately, inter- cepting the information was almost as sim- ple as it was to share it, so an encryption encoding system was developed called HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS). Computers using HTTPS send and receive messages through the Secure Sockets Layer or the Transport Layer Secu- rity protocol which validates security cer- tificates (Sheldon, 2017). Both Sheldon (2017) and P. Smith (2018) recommend con- sumers verify five important things prior to its use: (a) authentication and authoriza- tion with multifactor identification, (b) strong passwords that contain at least one uppercase letter and a numerical char- acter, (c) email confirmation when an account is opened, (d) frequent password changes, and (e) sign-in requirements for each session.

In addition to the steps above, consum- ers should also check Breach Level Index which is a dynamic website that invites users from around the world to report/doc-

Volume 16, Issue 3 Distance Learning 21

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 020

ument security breaches. An analysis of data breaches by type was documented from spring 2013 through 2018. Identity theft has topped the number of breach incidents since 2013. In 2018 there were 957 incidents of identity theft, followed by approximately 212 incidents of financial access breaches and 211 incidences of account access breaches (Data breach sta- tistics, 2019). Malicious outsiders were responsible for more than half of all breaches in 2018, followed by accidental loss. When looking at the loss by industry, social media accounts for more than half of the industry breaches in 2018 with 2,739,445,349 records stolen  (Data breach statistics, 2019). Breach Line also reported that education had the second lowest number of data breaches at 0.27%; however, this still includes 12,984,701 compromised records in 2018 alone!

Sheldon (2017) reported that the high- est threats to mobile app security come from broken cryptography, unintended data leakage, weak server side controls, cli- ent side injection, and poor authorization and authentication. P. Smith (2018) sug- gested making good choices in regard to safety such as not disclosing too much online, not accepting friend requests or personal messages from strangers, and blocking people who write or display inap- propriate things. When evaluating for security, users should investigate if websites scan for robots. There are many types of “bots” which scan websites that save the contents of every page in the search index. Bots can also be detected when users share networks with others on proxy services, work or school networks, virtual private networks, and websites such as Amazon, EC2, and Google App Engine. Chat bots monitor for appropriate language and “chatterbots” respond to messages appear- ing to be an actual person. However, some bots contain malware that raid email address books to link them to spam mail- ing lists. Other bots raid entire computer

systems, duplicate content, and then infect them with viruses (Christensson, 2014).

The security section from Pinterest (2019) entitled “We protected your account” provides examples of some secu- rity concepts users should know. It advises users to save Pins from original sources, and use full links instead of using a redi- rect like bit.ly or other link shorteners. Pin- terest’s security features enable account blocking when it detects a bot or if users do one or any of the following: log in fre- quently, comment or save Pins quickly, and follow several people rapidly.

Additionally, Pinterest’s first require- ment compels users to verify they are at least 13. Other security tips (from their website) include activating two-factor authentication, connecting the account to Google or Facebook, verifying current email, and changing passwords regularly. Pinterest also retains the rights to suspend accounts if they believe users have violated the website’s acceptable use policy. Pinter- est also has a user-friendly contact page if users have been blocked and not restored within 24 hours.

EVALUATING PRIVACY POLICIES Before generating digital footprints, users should also be aware of a company’s pri- vacy policies to protect personal informa- tion and learn how the company uses the data it collects (McDermott, 2018). The pri- vacy statement should be dated and cur- rent and address how users communicate with each other, what details users can see about each other, and if data will be shared with third parties.

Typically, school districts and universi- ties evaluate applications, programs, and software endorsed for educational use. Everyone, in particular parents and educa- tors, needs to understand how to evaluate the privacy and security of apps and web- sites. Fortunately, there are resources edu- cators can use to address this task.

22 Distance Learning Volume 16, Issue 3

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 020

One useful tool to evaluate privacy poli- cies and practices is Haimson’s (2017) list of 20 questions individuals should use to evaluate companies’ privacy policies regarding personal data. The questions address numerous topics such as definition of terms to examining data sharing prac- tices and individuals’ rights and legal recourse. They also recommend inquiring about companies with which personal data will be shared, whether these companies are prevented from using advertising or selling data, and the reasons for disclaim- ers of liability.

The Education Privacy Resource Center of FERPA/Sherpa (2019) offers recommen- dations for using applications in the class- room. This set of best privacy practices recommends using products and apps approved by the school district, given that school districts need to evaluate the tools for privacy and security prior to adoption. FERPA/Sherpa also include a list of 10 questions to help individuals evaluate whether apps and other online products protect students’ information. The ques- tions focus on the collection of personally identifiable data, vendor’s commitment not to share information, the inclusion of advertisement within the learning product, and claims regarding change of privacy policies.

FERPA/Sherpa (2019) also recommend websites that can be used to evaluate com- pany privacy policies. One designated as very useful is commonsense.org, devel- oped by Common Sense, a nonprofit orga- nization dedicated to making the technological world a better place for chil- dren. Commonsense.org has three main areas: (a) a parent portal with a plethora of information about current technology and popular apps, movies, books, games, and TV shows; (b) an educator portal with les- sons, games, and resources on digital citi- zenship; and education technology reviews, videos, and privacy evaluations; and (c) an advocacy area for those wanting to help keep our kids safe.

Common Sense determines some of its recommendations based on App Triage, a detailed privacy evaluation workflow (Fitz- gerald, 2016). Staff members review the privacy terms present, create sample accounts, use app data to verify privacy information provided, and verify that terms of privacy and service policies are linked correctly when users are logged in. They also evaluate social app sharing poli- cies by testing them from accounts created. When evaluating websites termed “https” the staff verifies the same site cannot be found with just “http.” Fitzgerald said the information is freely available and can be used by anyone. However, these steps are time-consuming and the policies are diffi- cult to read. Therefore, Common Sense compiled an easily searchable database of app evaluations. Because policies change over time (Kelly, 2019), Common Sense developed a tool which uses an open source software (named Wdiff) into its pol- icy annotator to scan the policies and determine the actual policy changes. Then they update the original app’s policy eval- uation in the database (Kelly, 2019).

In order to use this evaluation tool, users simply enter the name of the app, game, or website in the search area at https://privacy.commonsense.org/ (Com- mon Sense, n.d.-a) and click enter. The results provide a synthesis of the evalua- tion that includes a recommendation for use (i.e., use responsibly, use with caution, not recommended); an overall score of the app (ranging from 0 to 100 and based on answers to the Common Sense’s evaluation questions); whether advertising is dis- played; and whether the company sells or rents data to third parties, shares data for advertising or marketing, uses data to tar- get advertisements, or allows third parties to use the data for advertising. Figure 1 presents the privacy evaluation of ABC- mouse.com, which has a use responsibly rec- ommendation. In contrast, Figure 2 illustrates the privacy evaluation of Pinter- est, which has a use with caution recommen-

Volume 16, Issue 3 Distance Learning 23

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 020

dation due to a number of privacy concerns.

Additionally, the evaluation provides an overview of the app and a detailed privacy report, with scores for safety, privacy, secu- rity, and compliance with federal laws. Users can see the full privacy report, as

well as read Common Sense’s education technology review (see Figure 3) with pros, cons, teaching tips, and teacher reviews. For Pinterest, although Common Sense recommends caution when using the app due to privacy concerns, they give it 4 out of 5 stars for high engagement, pedagogy,

Source: Common Sense (2019a). Used with permission.

Figure 1. Privacy evaluation for ABC Mouse.

Retrieved from Common Sense (2019b). Used with permission.

Figure 2. Privacy evaluation for Pinterest.

24 Distance Learning Volume 16, Issue 3

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 020

search features, and the simple layout. Teachers also give it 4 out of 5 stars; according to one teacher, “I love Pinterest … [it] is so helpful [for finding] so many wonderful lessons, crafts, and activities … that go with what you are teaching.”

CONCLUSION Parents, university/college personnel, and adults working in the K–12 systems are held accountable to higher standards when determining levels of technology infusion. In today’s digital world, they are obligated to have more than just a basic understanding of digital footprints, pri- vacy, and security. They need a survival tool kit! Parents need to be aware of these risks when monitoring children’s screen time at home and determining choices (when possible) about technology used at school. Students need to know what hap- pens to their information when they click on something and leave a digital footprint. As we rapidly move further into this digital reality, educators, parents, and students alike must learn to utilize online space for respectfully interacting with others and furthermore, to include those with differ- ing beliefs (International Society for Tech- nology in Education, 2019).

The growth of educational technology will always outpace legal and ethical understanding concerning digital foot- prints, privacy and security; therefore,

the  implications seem insurmountable. Ironically, one of the best ways to stay ahead of the curve is to educate oneself by reviewing the nonprofit websites devel- oped by International Society for Technol- ogy in Education, Common Sense, and Electronic Frontier Foundation. These websites provide digital tips for adult usage as well as parental guidance for minors. The websites also advocate professional development for teachers and offer online training modules, but it is up to the administration to provide professional development time.

Developing digital citizenship through this type of education has the capacity to empower everyone to avoid unnecessary risks concerning digital footprints, privacy, and security. However, the risks are too high to leave the solution to isolated indi- viduals. Consistent review of these non- profit websites and other resources should be a part of multiple strategies imple- mented. Schools need an organized approach to include not only professional development, but also a curriculum that integrates digital citizenship as necessary knowledge that is essential for digital liter- acy skills. Developing digital citizenship is a complex task that requires collaborative efforts from all stakeholders including stu- dents, parents, teachers, administrators, and everyone employed at school districts and institutions of higher learning. 

Retrieved from Common Sense (2019c). Used with permission.

Figure 3. Eduction technology evaluation for Pinterest.

Volume 16, Issue 3 Distance Learning 25

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 020

REFERENCES Alim, F., Cardozo, N., Gebhart, G. Gullo, K., &

Kalia, A. (2017, April 13). Spying on students: School issued devices and student privacy. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/wp/ school-issued-devices-and-student-privacy

Bayern, M. (2018, December 3). 5 major data breach predictions for 2019. Retrieved from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/5- major-data-breach-predictions-for-2019/

Christensson, P. (2014, February 14). Bot defini- tion. Retrieved from https://techterms.com

Data breach statistics. (2019). Retrieved from https://breachlevelindex.com/

Common Sense. (n.d.). Privacy evaluations. Retrieved from https://privacy.common- sense.org/

Common Sense. (2019a). Privacy evaluation for ABC Mouse. (Infographic). Retrieved from https://privacy.commonsense.org/evalua- tion/ABCmouse.com

Common Sense. (2019b). Privacy evaluation for Pinterest. (Infographic). Retrieved from https://privacy.commonsense.org/evalua- tion/Pinterest Copyright 2019.

Common Sense. (2019c). EdTech review of Pin- terest. (Infographic). Retrieved from https:// www.commonsense.org/education/app/pin- terest

Davis, J. (2019, January 23). Massive data breach exposes 773 million emails, 21 million pass- words. Retrieved from https:// securitytoday.com/articles/2019/01/23/ massive-data-breach-exposes-773-million- emails-21-million-passwords.aspx

Dennen, V. P. (2015). Technology transience and learner data: Shifting notions of privacy in online learning. The Quarterly Review of Dis- tance Education, 16(2), 45–49.

FERPA/Sherpa. (2019). Best privacy practices for using apps in the classroom. Retrieved from https://ferpasherpa.org/educators/using- apps-in-the-classroom/

Fitzgerald, B. (2016, July 20). Evaluating apps, step by step. Retrieved from https:// www.commonsense.org/education/privacy/ blog/evaluating-apps-step%20-by-step

Francis, J. (2018, September 3). Hoopeston area school district hacked. Retrieved from https:/ /foxillinois.com/news/local/hoopeston- school-district-hacked

Fuchs, H. (2018, August 2). A decade later, Yale discovers major data breach. Retrieved from

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/08/02/ a-decade-later-yale-discovers-major-data- breach/

Haimson, L. (2017, August 31). Parents rebel against Summit/Facebook/Chan-Zuckerberg online learning platform. Retrieved from https://www.studentprivacymatters.org/ parents-rebel-against-summitfacebookchan- zuckerberg-online-learning-platform/

International Society for Technology in Educa- tion. (2017). Standards for education. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/stan- dards

International Society for Technology in Educa- tion. (2019). Digital citizenship in education. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/learn/ digital-citizenship

Kelly, G. (2019, April 11). Our privacy evalua- tion process keeps track of policy changes so you do not have to. Retrieved from https:// www.commonsense.org/education/articles/ how-we-keep-track-of-privacy-policy- changes

Luke, S., & Stuckney, R. (2018, December 21). Data breach might impact 500,000 San Diego Unified School District students, former stu- dents, and some staff. Retrieved from https:// www.databreaches.net/data-breach-might- impact-500000-san-diego-unified-school- district-students-former-students-and-some- staff/

Mariwala, J., & McCooey, S. (2018, October 22). Second data breach lawsuit filed against Yale. Retrieved from https://yaledaily- news.com/blog/2018/10/22/second-data- breach-lawsuit-filed-against-yale/

McDermott, M. (2018). Digital footprints: Cre- ation, implication, and higher education. Distance Learning, 15(1), 51–54.

McDermott, M., Reeves, J. L, Capo, B., Mendez, G., & Karp, J. (2019, January). Digital foot- prints, privacy, and security: I know what you did last summer! Presentation at the meeting of the Florida Distance Learning Association, Orlando, FL.

Pinterest. (2019). We protected your account. Retrieved from https://help.pinterest.com/ en/article/we-protected-your-account

Sheldon, R. (2017, December). A mobile app security checklist for developers. Retrieved from https://searchmobilecomputing .techtarget.com/tip/A-mobile-app-security- checklist-for-developers

Copyright of Distance Learning is the property of Information Age Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.