Android Study: 20% of Android Apps Expose Private Info

While iPhone users are busy worrying about Apple's latest admission that it can share your precise location with its partners, Android users are fretting about the safety of their data too.

A new report claims that as much as a fifth of all Android applications allow a third-party application access to sensitive or private information. CNet reports that a recent report from security firm SMobile Systems...

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Android-...news-7185.html


Although the potential for misappropriation of personal info by free Apps probably won't surprise anyone here, I found the statistic that 20% of Android apps out there have been found to be some form of spyware to be a bit alarming. Take caution with what you install on your eDGe.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Let's be careful about this study:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/c...Planet+Android)

SMobile Systems neglected to mention industry ties that rendered its report less credible. For example, their President and Vice President of Operations are former AT&T employees. AT&T is listed as a strategic partner of SMobile Systems on the company web site. (AT&T of course is the sole US carrier for Apple’s iPhone, a competitor to Android). And SMobile itself sells security software to address perceived threats that its reports “expose.

A Google spokesman quickly refuted the claims made by SMobile Systems:

This report falsely suggests that Android users don’t have control over which apps access their data. Not only must each Android app get users’ permission to access sensitive information, but developers must also go through billing background checks to confirm their real identities, and we will disable any apps that are found to be malicious.

Originally Posted by fgruber

Let's be careful about this study:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/c...Planet+Android)

Thanks for posting that. Interesting, I would have expected/hoped that Tom's Hardware would have disclosed that fact.

Originally Posted by borisb

Sigh. Can we trust any "report" / "study" published by anyone anymore, I wonder? They all seem to be paid by someone with an interest in promoting something...

Welcome to the 21st Century. Religion, Politicians and Business have always used media to influence the masses. The internet has merely expanded the audience to which they can instantly get their message across. All we can do is not take any piece of information or opinion in isolation as gospel but merely take it on board in context, say "thank's for sharing" then do our own research and form an opinion based on that. Unfortunately many don't have the patience to do their own research so get hooked in by the first sensational garbage that comes along. I'm reminded of the old adage "Quot homines tot sententiae". This is the classical way of saying that opinions are like ar**holes, everyone has one. I would extend this to say that you'll find plenty of both on the internet. The real challenge is sifting out the valuable opinions from the ar**holes. We also have to understand that at the end of the day they are merely just that - opinions. Moreover they are opinions usually biased by some kind of funding or political agenda. Sad but true.

Originally Posted by drsteve

Welcome to the 21st Century. Religion, Politicians and Business have always used media to influence the masses. The internet has merely expanded the audience to which they can instantly get their message across. All we can do is not take any piece of information or opinion in isolation as gospel but merely take it on board in context, say "thank's for sharing" then do our own research and form an opinion based on that. Unfortunately many don't have the patience to do their own research so get hooked in by the first sensational garbage that comes along. I'm reminded of the old adage "Quot homines tot sententiae". This is the classical way of saying that opinions are like ar**holes, everyone has one. I would extend this to say that you'll find plenty of both on the internet. The real challenge is sifting out the valuable opinions from the ar**holes. We also have to understand that at the end of the day they are merely just that - opinions. Moreover they are opinions usually biased by some kind of funding or political agenda. Sad but true.

I've always been fond of that English expression precisely for the reason you extended it.
Sometimes this even runs deeper too. One of my biggest pet peeves is media reporting on real [mostly] objective scientific research, as I often find that when you track down and read the actual peer-reviewed study, one finds it has been badly distorted for the sake of snagging headlines or furthering a political agenda. Sometimes the lead scientist goes bragging to the media about their latest discovery, only for the premise to fall flat on its face when the bio-statistical analysis and peer-review process is done and it actually gets published.