In today's increasingly developed Internet, everyone who uses the Internet is actually "fruit running". In the Internet era, personal information security can not be guaranteed at all, mobile phone application software theft of user information often occurs, before it was only everyone did not notice. I don't know when we want to enjoy the convenience of the digital age, and we already need to give up our personal privacy in exchange.
In order to maintain information security, in the past two years, domestic mobile phone manufacturers have paid more and more attention to the user's information security, and have added privacy protection functions to the mobile phone, such as the "flare" in Xiaomi MIUI, allowing users to directly view which applications are used and which permissions are used in the mobile phone. Some time ago, iOS15 also followed up this function, and then there were users who found that in the case of not using related applications, WeChat frequently accessed their mobile phone photo album information, and meituan was constantly acquiring status, and then found that popular applications such as Taobao, AutoNavi map and other popular applications existed in such behavior. It can be said that everyone is "fruit running", there is no privacy to speak of. However, no one expected that the "family ugliness" of the domestic APP was exposed by Apple!
So why can software applications directly obtain information in the background without the user's consent? Yes, and it is the application that allows the user to open up the permissions after "asking" the user, and then clicking on the consent. It's just that this kind of inquiry is unilateral, and the user only passively accepts it, and has no right to speak. When each application software is used for the first time, it must access the address book, obtain a large number of application permissions such as location, access memory, access photo albums, etc. But do you need so many permissions for them? No, but if you don't give it, you can't, and if you don't give it, you can't use the application on the grounds that you don't have the necessary permissions to open, in which case we can only passively agree.
Application permissions are originally used to protect user information and to prevent software from obtaining user information without authorization. About the permissions for the user necessary permissions are willing to give, the user in the use of some functions is indeed need to authorize the application, a license follow-up do not authorize for the user is relatively convenient, because do not have to pop up the window to agree to authorization at each time you use. However, with the development, the convenient behavior of authorizing a follow-up without authorization has been distorted by software vendors, and after obtaining the permission, it has become very arrogant, using the permission given by the user at will, violating the principle of directly using the permission when needed and not abusing the permission when it is not needed.
Software manufacturers abuse of authority to obtain information, to make money behavior greatly damaged the rights and interests of users, so that we have been in a state of surveillance, many people may have encountered such a thing, after browsing a product through Taobao search, and then use Weibo browsing information, it will give you direct push on Taobao browsing goods, it can achieve such accurate push because some software between the search engine is connected, in Taobao to obtain the user's search information directly sent to Weibo. Weibo relies on this way to achieve accurate delivery to earn advertising fees. In fact, this way of making money is common among major software merchants. It can be said that it is invincible.
In the face of huge interests, in addition to software manufacturers abusing permissions to make money, those mobile phone manufacturers who claim to attach importance to user information are also doing the same thing themselves. They make money through mobile phone advertising, through the user's use of behavior to record, after analysis, in their own mobile phone applications for accurate advertising, ridiculous is that mobile phone manufacturers in the mobile phone also specially set a personalized advertising recommendation option, click after can only reduce the so-called push, can not be closed, but through the actual test found that there is no reduction at all.
These behaviors of the application manufacturer, seriously endanger the user's information security, must be rectified, the role of the anti-privacy function of the mobile phone manufacturer is in the absence of user consent, if the information is forcibly uploaded, the mobile phone will carry out a certain reminder, you can also return the blank information through some means to upload it back, but the fundamental problem is still there, the theft of information is still there, the application manufacturers in order to ensure the normal use of the function must be the right to steal information, which is the mobile phone manufacturer can not solve, In order to solve the problem, the official must intervene and severely punish them for this behavior, so that the use of authority can be standardized and the problem can be solved from the source.