"Internet security firm Bitdefender has warned that the advertising framework used by free mobile apps is turning the software into the "modern equivalent of spyware" that can monitor users throughout the day.The company made the conclusion after analysing the most intrusive behaviours app developers can include in products, such as location tracking, reading contact lists and leaking email addresses, phone numbers and device IDs.
'Clueful', a privacy monitoring app created by the company, was used to look into the behaviour of 314,474 free Android apps and 207,843 free iOS apps over the past year.
The research revealed there is little between the two systems when it comes to privacy, concluding that "applications are equally invasive and curious on iOS as on Android.""
Android / iOS - Free apps dubbed the “modern equivalent of spyware”
(2 posts) (2 voices)-
mikiem2
ModeratorPosted 11 years ago # -
Bigun
MemberThe lead-in to your article makes for an ominous topic. Folks are treading on dangerous ground.
Studying the link that you furnished pours water on the fire. For "Clueful" to have any scientific or significant statistical analytic capabilities it cannot be a closely guarded proprietary application. You can make that type application do anything you want. Unless a program has an impeccable history and proven record the program's algorithms and structure needs to be made available to the public before it can mean anything. That is the way it has always done in a research project. In any statement one makes can, and will be, the individual should be ready to prove the validity of the statement - no exceptions.
"Cosoi" needs to be properly introduced. Often an individual's presence on various editorial boards and comments on his work history by recognized authorities is sufficient for a person's introduction in early "flash" reports. Think of early reports having the same status as alpha or early beta testing in comparison with software programs. All that I can say at present is " I do not know no Cosoi (grammar is intentional)
Please understand I am not criticizing your topic or the report you are presenting on the subject in your above comment.
Those in the scientific community find numerous faults in the background material presented in the article at the end of the link you included in your comment. I imagine that I and some of my rabid colleagues at the Lab (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) would take enough interest in this topic to perform a quick proper scientific analysis of the material. Early editions of a person's paper can be judged credible or not in a very short time. I think that is what you are looking for is not it? Is the material credible? I can make no comment on that fact with the scant information given. If material publicized is not credible then than the author and institution involved in publicizing a study is open to major lawsuits. Perhaps it is the fear of lawsuits that kept "Cosoi" from mentioning any big-name companies in his report.
The theme of your comment could be a wake-up call not only for mobile users but desktop uses as well. You mentioned "Google". This company has presence on desktop and mobile devices but probably its influence on desktop devices exceeds its reach when used on mobile devices. Another area of question.
I hope that I:
1. Have not offended you. Certainly that is not my intent. I can only comment on the scientific validity of some of the material that I came across as a result of studying your comment.
2. I am offering (without checking with some of my colleagues) a mathematical critique on the article that you quote.
3. I have great interest in the topic that you have presented and would like to know more of what you found in your research.
4. Unfortunately I doubt that anyone at the Lab (including myself) have ever heard of the companies being accused of malfeasance. The few number of companies mentioned certainly does not add up to the staggering statistics quoted in your referenced article. If 28,000 applications were analyzed and the malware that they contained is reflected in the report given by "Cosoi" I would think that the most prominent companies would be placed at the top of the list.
5. I am assuming that you are ringing a fire alarm to bring interest, using learned materials and people, to study what could be an alarming trend in the marketing of applications for mobile devices. I am using the word "assuming" because I do not know your history in bringing applications running in a stealth mode to the open public. Once again I would be interested in having more information on the research that you have done on the topic of studying free applications that are being accused of selling important personal information to third parties.Anything that I have mentioned above remains nothing more than a personal comment until a peer review committee or other competent investigative committee rules on the various topics involved. Thank you for bringing this interesting topic to light.
High powered transmitting equipment that I am using tonight, and will be using on Sunday as part of a research project, is playing havoc with my dictation program. As an explanation of errors you might find my final comment helpful in understanding errors in my comment. Perhaps the humor in the little ditty is too dry. But, this is not a formal forum.
[quote]
Due to a disability, it is necessary for me to dictate most of the things that I write. Unfortunately it is common for the dictation program that I use to continue to edit a document after I have finished typing and proofreading it.
You may find words sprinkled in at inappropriate places. I apologize for these errors ahead of time.
Because Dragon thinks it is an artificial intelligence program, sometimes what it writes is quite funny and upon discovery of the material that it has authored I will leave Dragon's rendition of what it has written alone .
Too often when I discover Dragon's interpretation of what it thinks that I said, or it thinks what it said is what I should have said, I will give it its own head rather than change what it has written, because what it is saying is better than what I said.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.