arrow-left arrow-right brightness-2 chevron-left chevron-right circle-half-full dots-horizontal facebook-box facebook loader magnify menu-down rss-box star twitter-box twitter white-balance-sunny window-close
ICYMI: Nov 9 - Nov 15
2 min read

ICYMI: Nov 9 - Nov 15

ICYMI: Nov 9 - Nov 15

ICYMI is posted every Monday recapping privacy news over the last week from around the web.


New lawsuit: Why do Android phones mysteriously exchange 260MB a month with Google via cellular data when they're not even in use?

To support the allegations, the plaintiff's counsel tested a new Samsung Galaxy S7 phone running Android, with a signed-in Google Account and default setting, and found that when left idle, without a Wi-Fi connection, the phone "sent and received 8.88 MB/day of data, with 94 per cent of those communications occurring between Google and the device."

The device, stationary, with all apps closed, transferred data to Google about 16 times an hour, or about 389 times in 24 hours. Assuming even half of that data is outgoing, Google would receive about 4.4MB per day or 130MB per month in this manner per device subject to the same test conditions.

A study back in 2018 by Vanderbilt University found the exact same behavior on Android devices.  When you factor in all of Google's constant assault on our privacy, I would be very surprised if this was full steam forward with a class action.

d. Both Android and Chrome send data to Google even in the absence of any user interaction. Our experiments show that a dormant, stationary Android phone (with Chrome active in the background) communicated location information to Google 340 times during a 24-hour period, or at an average of 14 data communications per hour. In fact, location information constituted 35% of all the data samples sent to Google. In contrast, a similar experiment showed that on an iOS Apple device with Safari (where neither Android nor Chrome were used), Google could not collect any appreciable data (location or otherwise) in the absence of a user interaction with the device.

Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says

"In fact, Zoom did not provide end-to-end encryption for any Zoom Meeting that was conducted outside of Zoom's 'Connecter' product (which are hosted on a customer's own servers), because Zoom's servers—including some located in China—maintain the cryptographic keys that would allow Zoom to access the content of its customers' Zoom Meetings," the FTC complaint said.

Zoom didn't get huge because it's a great service; it simply won the lottery with COVID. Remember when they tried to charge users money because they wanted to cooperate with the FBI?


Want to join the discussion?  Check out this post, and others, over at the CupWire subreddit and leave a comment.