Mobile

4/10/2018
10:07 AM
100%
0%

89% of Android Users Didn't Consent to Facebook Data Collection

A new survey shows most Android users did not give Facebook permission to collect their call and text data.

Facebook is in hot water as more users find out how much of their personal data the social media giant has collected. In a new study by anonymous social app Blind, 89% of 1,300 Android users claim they did not give Facebook permission to gather their call and text history.

Following news of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Android users began investigating the extent of Facebook's data collection. They learned the company had been recording their call history records and SMS data, which the majority of them did not consent to. More than 30% of 2,600 users surveyed in March say they plan to delete their Facebook account, Blind reports.

Last week, Facebook shared several steps it's taking to cut back on the amount of data it pulls from Android. CTO Mike Schroepfer says call and text history is part of an opt-in feature for Messenger and Facebook Lite on Android devices. The purpose is so Facebook can surface frequent contacts, he says, and the content of message is not collected.

Read more details here.

Interop ITX 2018

Join Dark Reading LIVE for an intensive Security Pro Summit at Interop IT X and learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the agenda here. Register with Promo Code DR200 and save $200.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
BrianN060
50%
50%
BrianN060,
User Rank: Ninja
4/11/2018 | 12:15:19 PM
Informed consent
@Pyker42  Yes, ISVs are burdened with TOS and EULAs, as well.  Perhaps standardized agreement forms, at the  vetted distribution-store level, would help.  Part of the agreement would be that all permissions would be off by default - leaving the end user to enable each explicitly.  At the very least, the user would be made aware that all of the functionality they crave comes at a price; and that it's up to them to determine if it's worth it.  A benefit would be that while users would still have the responsibility to read the ToS/EULA/privacy notice, they'd only have to read ONE for any app they install from that store-vendor.  While that wouldn't cover the likes of Facebook, it could help the app publishers and end users.  
Pyker42
50%
50%
Pyker42,
User Rank: Strategist
4/11/2018 | 11:17:19 AM
Re: Comment
While I agree that TOS and EULA contracts are heavily weighted to favor the companies issuing them, that doesn't negate the fact that most users never read eaither before proceeding. Android is especially easy with permissions. Every new app gives you general categories with specific permissions granted to that app. There is blame to be put on companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. But there is equal blame to be put on the people who use those services without realizing the implications of the data rights they are granting these companies. I agree that such services are ubiquitous and hard to eschew all together. That doesn't absolve people of their personal responibility to conciously think about what they are doing, what they are using, and what information they are sharing.
BrianN060
50%
50%
BrianN060,
User Rank: Ninja
4/10/2018 | 12:43:26 PM
Re: Comment
Important point.  In general, TOS have been very unfair to consumers.  It's not enough to include wording such as "Read the Terms of Service and Privacy Statements carefully before...".  For starters, how many consumers have the ability to evaluate what's written, as the contract law professionals who wrote it? Also, the more comprehensive the TOS agreement, the less likely consumers are inclined to read through it, or comprehend what of it pertains to them. 

 

Another factor is that a number of such services are, de facto, compulsory: events, webinars, conferences, etc., which are available exclusively through such services.  Does it matter what the TOS says, or if it's read, if there is no real choice but to accept? 
Pyker42
100%
0%
Pyker42,
User Rank: Strategist
4/10/2018 | 10:56:30 AM
Comment
I think that should read 89% of Android Users didn't know they consented to Facebook data collection.
Higher Education: 15 Books to Help Cybersecurity Pros Be Better
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  12/12/2018
Worst Password Blunders of 2018 Hit Organizations East and West
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  12/12/2018
2019 Attacker Playbook
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer, Dark Reading,  12/14/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
10 Best Practices That Could Reshape Your IT Security Department
This Dark Reading Tech Digest, explores ten best practices that could reshape IT security departments.
Flash Poll
[Sponsored Content] The State of Encryption and How to Improve It
[Sponsored Content] The State of Encryption and How to Improve It
Encryption and access controls are considered to be the ultimate safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of data, which is why they're mandated in so many compliance and regulatory standards. While the cybersecurity market boasts a wide variety of encryption technologies, many data breaches reveal that sensitive and personal data has often been left unencrypted and, therefore, vulnerable.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-1265
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
IBM Security Guardium 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.1.4, and 10.5 does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate. This weakness might allow an attacker to spoof a trusted entity by using a man-in-the-middle (MITM) techniques. IBM X-Force ID: 124740.
CVE-2017-1272
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
IBM Security Guardium 10.0 and 10.5 stores sensitive information in URL parameters. This may lead to information disclosure if unauthorized parties have access to the URLs via server logs, referrer header or browser history. IBM X-Force ID: 124747. IBM X-Force ID: 124747.
CVE-2017-1597
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
IBM Security Guardium 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.1.4, and 10.5 Database Activity Monitor does not require that users should have strong passwords by default, which makes it easier for attackers to compromise user accounts. IBM X-Force ID: 132610.
CVE-2018-1889
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
IBM Security Guardium 10.0 and 10.5 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. IBM X-Force ID: 152080.
CVE-2018-1891
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
IBM Security Guardium 10 and 10.5 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. IBM X-Force ID: 152082.