Many More Android Apps Leaking User Data

eldavojohn writes "After developing and using TaintDroid, several universities found that of 30 popular free Android apps, half were sharing GPS data and phone numbers with advertisers and remote servers. A few months ago, one app was sending phone numbers to a remote server in China but today the situation looks a lot more pervasive. In their paper (PDF), the researchers blasted Google saying 'Android's coarse grained access control provides insufficient protection against third-party applications seeking to collect sensitive data.' Google's response: 'Android has taken steps to inform users of this trust relationship and to limit the amount of trust a user must grant to any given application developer. We also provide developers with best practices about how to handle user data. We consistently advise users to only install apps they trust.'"

Comments

15 of the 30...

[GweeDo]

15 of the 30 got on their list due to providing location data for advertising. I hardly consider that a sending your personal data as the article implies.

Prevasive?

[jambarama]

Doesn't someone spellcheck these summaries?

Re:And In Other News...

[bonch]

Once again, you completely miss the point. You criticized people for trusting Apple's "security screening" (a phrase you used). Yet, you defend Google for remotely removing applications, meaning that you trust Google's security screening. Your bias is completely obvious. How much is Google paying you to post here?

You're falling apart at the seams here. Next.

Re:And In Other News...

[bonch]

Your argument completely fell apart when I called you out for defending Google while criticizing Apple, applying a typical double-standard that Google fanbois employ. The only thing you could come up with was to use lame insults.

You got destroyed. Next.

Re:And In Other News...

[bonch]

Of course you're MrHanky. The fact that you're anonymously tracking my comments is bizarre and proof that I utterly destroyed your absurd arguments. You are desperate to dance around the fact that you:

1.) Criticized people for trusting Apple's security team.
2.) Cited Google's security team as something to trust.

You got called out as a fanboy. This embarrassed you so deeply that you've resorted to posting as an anonymous third person. You've completely run out of steam and have to resort to using tired debate terminology like "strawman arguments," even though what you wrote is as clear as day in your post history.

I won, and it's obvious that it struck a nerve with you because you continue to reply. You will reply again because your only recourse now is to seek the last word.

Next.

Re:And In Other News...

[bonch]

You not only have no evidence that even remotely suggests that I am MrHanky, but you don't believe it yourself. You just want to believe it, so that you can tell yourself that you've humiliated an opponent.

Logical common sense dictates that you're MrHanky. You lost the argument, so you have to post anonymously now as a sockpuppet. With no other counterargument, your only tact now is to go the tired psychology route, which will falter as your last post did.

At no point did he "cite Google's security team as something to trust". Nothing that he said even remotely implies such a thing. You know this, and you acknowledged it by your steadfast refusal to show where he spoke words anything like those you clumsily tried to put in his mouth.

I already cited where in your post you did, in fact, imply that Google's security team was to be trusted. You got called out on this and were completely embarrassed by it, leading to your current predicament.

Your claim about his "defending" Google was rightly called a lie by him and also by me. You had the choice of either citing something specific he said and showing how it supported your claim, or admitting that it was an incompetent lie. No other choices were possible. You chose the latter, and continue to choose it by repeating your assertion without proof. Variations of "it's right there in your post" don't fool anyone, not even yourself.

Again, your words have already been cited, and you've also gotten confused, as you apparently believe that citing your own post isn't a good enough citation of your own post. Mind-boggling. Clearly, your utter decimation here has left you in such a jumbled state that you're just throwing out any mindless distraction you can think of in an attempt to try to make everyone forget that you got called out on your double-standard. Unfortunately for you, it won't work.

And if "strawman argument" is tired debate terminology, that is only because the strawman argument is itself a tired debate tactic. The reason you are complaining about my use of the term is because it is absolutely appropriate, as the claims you routinely make about what other people say are classic examples of the well-known logical fallacy. Knowing that logic is not on your side, you heap scorn on logic itself. In other words, you want to lie without being called out as the liar you are, and you are raging impotently that this was not allowed to happen.

You can declare the reason for something if you want, but it doesn't make it true or remove that fact that you criticized people for trusting Apple security team while implying Google's security team was someone to trust. You've been backed into a corner and forced into lamely claiming that I'm "raging impotently" simply because I'm dismantling every one of your troll posts.

This is an attempt on your part to trick me into not replying as a way of "defying" you, so that you can tell yourself that you scared me away, and that this somehow proves you right.

Having lost the argument, and seeing now that I'm far better at this than you are, your only recourse is to go the tired "detached narrative" routine, describing everything that's going on as if you're some third-party who's not involved, removing yourself from the position of defeat. I'm afraid that you're quite firmly in the loser's bracket here, MrHanky. Let this serve as a lesson to you in the future not to argue with your betters.

It is another attempt to forestall your humiliation through lying. Like all your other attempts before it, it is a failure, fit only to serve as an unconditional surrender of the argument due to your own intellectual inadequacy. Of course, now that I have replied you'll backpedal and tell yourself that I proved you right by responding after all. But you won't be able to believe that either.