Hmmm yeah missed that completely, good spot
Those apps also get Phone state. Chase for example will know if you are on a call when their app is open and may block a transaction you try to make at that moment.
Some apps also detect if you have screen sharing enabled or if you have remote access apps installed.
2 Likes
Presumably that’s needed in the same way for Monzo to be able to tell when you’re on a call that Monzo aren’t calling you
Apps like Sky Go and others where there are potential rights issues love this one 
I’m curious where your… I suppose “security” conscious decisions have come from. You seem to have it in every thread in some way! Did something happen or just over time it’s become that way?
1 Like
This is a great question! But I could write pages and pages . Maybe I will…
TL/DR (unless you’re trying to sleep!)
I’ve always been concerned with privacy and security - privacy more so borne from the ever evolving ‘big tech’, ‘Nanny State’ Government overreach, a previous line of work and seeing the advances of data brokers entwined with the social media uprising which, when the idea of social media first came around some decades ago, was fairly innocuous. That was, of course, until they realised the absolute fortune they could make from people’s personal lives and the intimate details they willingly reveal not realising the serious implications of signing their lives away. This is largely ‘in the small print’ (that the average person takes no interest in or often quips “I’ve nothing to hide…” which isn’t anywhere near the point…!).
These corporations sail close to the wind when they introduce more and more surveillance and circumnavigate legislation. They don’t even need to try too hard due to the terms that users almost automatically agree to or, as is often the case, the more privacy-focussed user has to rely on/put their faith in third parties. For example, look at Facebook. Do you really think “Allow access to contacts?: No” will make a blind bit of difference if any of your other contacts answers “Yes”? And, in any case, they have your IP, WiFi connection, tags, locations, e-mail, phone number and so on. Their ‘shadow profiling’ is something of deep concern. I do not have and will never have any Meta associated product. But Zuckerberg already knows who I am, where I live, who my friends and family are, what I look like and the colour of my front door. What I won’t volunteer is my deeply personal thoughts, expressions, persuasions and context. And this is key! He may know where I’ve been, but I won’t tell him where I’m going! (I just made that up… I think that’s pretty cool way of trying to describe it )
Meta is an exceptionally dangerous, pernicious corporation who have run rings around people for many years to the point where Meta have the effrontery to charge users for their own privacy! That’s how much control and power they have been permitted to build in a relatively short space of time! And, without meaning to get political (so I will be careful with this wording), I can only hope the increase traction in the media (real media, not the heavily controlled, spun, governmental one) regarding Meta and similar will finally open up people’s eyes as to why the EU and U.K. ICO (and each respective country equivalent) cannot be trusted to monitor or intervene to protect people from harm. The ICO statement was rather telling. Naturally, you have to question whether not it is in the interest of Governments to bite the hand that feeds them… and that’s even after the 11+ sanctions and €4B in fines (not bad for Meta given that amount is less than 0.3% of its value. A bargain!)
I could go on about privacy until the end of time, but I’ll refrain. Meta aren’t the only ones. All of the ‘big boys’ are up to it. This includes Google/Alphabet and their monopoly are very much hard to steer clear of!
Security. This one is really important and goes hand-in-hand with privacy but not exclusively. They are almost intrinsically linked. We all know that privacy is often a trade off with convenience. You don’t get anything for ‘free’. You pay with money or your soul! Security shouldn’t be a trade off and doesn’t have to be. For example, 2FA via SMS/e-mail etc. This should be permabanned. It’s an entirely false sense of security and a driver in fraud (Sim jacking, ATO, payment diversions and so on). SMS/e-mail verification is so ingrained that fraudsters actually use this tactic to reinforce a false story and encourage their victims to take fraud seriously…
No. Just no.
I’m not a fan of ‘Authenticator’ apps, either - although they are far better than the SMS/e-mail ‘verification’. Instead, tokens and passkeys should be considered as part of MFA and getting rid of passwords entirely. You can’t unwittingly reveal something you don’t have! You could argue that this added security is a trade off on convenience. But is it? Or is it just education? When 2FA via SMS came out, I’m sure we all thought “oh what’s this nonsense. It’s so inconvenient”. That’s until the OTP retriever/autofill came out to bridge that gap and made the inconvenience almost ‘convenient’!
As with anything, vigilance is key. Passkeys are essential, e2e and zero access encrypted messaging apps and e-mail. I won’t use the same e-mail address nor password for logins. They are all unique. I always use a VPN with a killswitch, a browser that randomises fingerprints, ad blockers, tracker blockers, have ‘de-googled’ and do my best to cover the tracks. It is none of anyone’s business what I do, where I go, who I see, which political party I do or do not follow, what religion I have or don’t have, where I shop, what I spend my money on, what correspondence I send/receive and so on. Blanket surveillance under the guise of national security / crime prevention is a very slippery slope and must be applied objectively not subjectively. Article 8 HRA is key here. Take away privacy freedoms and you open the doors to exploitation and reduce your security putting more at risk, including financial institutions.
There’s lots of variations on the banal “But I’ve got nothing to hide” argument. As Edward Snowden once said (and others’ varied) “Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”. And just look at where we are heading on both of these points, along with the online social media ‘cancel culture’ and censorship craze being spilled over into the real world (now THAT’s another story…!). Article 8…?
Hope this covers it . You did ask… 
3 Likes