Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

Footer About

Footer About

Labels

Showing posts with label Child Privacy. Show all posts

39 Child Tracking Brands Linked to One Chinese Server, Exposing 45 Security Vulnerabilities

 

GPS trackers for children may put the tracked individuals and the people tracking them in danger, according to an investigation presented at the Black Hat security conference. Vangelis Stykas, CTO of Kumio, and Felipe Solferini, principal AI security engineer, discovered that 39 different consumer brands of parental monitoring devices share the same server in China where the data stored on them are processed. 

The researchers named the producers of the technologies, which the mentioned companies used in their devices, SeTracker, SinoTrack and TKStar. They found 45 different vulnerabilities that could allow unauthorized access to children’s smart devices enabling eavesdropping, video surveillance, and total remote control of the system where valuable information is stored. The researchers stated that to perform all these actions, a hacker would need only a free account on any of these platforms. 

The scientists also found that parental monitoring devices of different brands did not have the necessary authorization restrictions, which allowed accessing their systems freely. These devices could collect and store much more personal information than monitoring their location. Some of them have the functionality to record the screen, as well as control the camera and microphone. Thus, the location of the tracked device, photographs and video, the child’s screen, the applications and websites he visits, and his personal information can be known to unauthorized people. 

At the beginning of the demonstration, the researchers showed how they managed to run a script on a children’s smartwatch, which, among other things, dialed a phone number and transmitted an audio signal without any notification on the displayed screen that the call had begun. The scientists emphasized that the experiment was carried out ethically, and they used devices provided to them for the investigation. Stykas and Solferini also discovered that attacks on the system could have been made two years before the investigation began. 

This indicates that, in principle, someone could have been able to track the child’s location and personal data without his knowledge. The researchers contacted the companies more than 30 times, but received no response. One unknown dealer, however, responded to the scientists, noting that he was helping them investigate and would forward the information to the manufacturer. Researchers have concluded that parental monitoring devices pose a serious danger to privacy and safety by possessing many vulnerabilities. 

The investigation demonstrated that the same server is used for different brands, and the lack of protection allows hackers to gain full control of the system and track all the child’s activities. The report also suggests giving up these devices, and for those parents who want to control their children’s devices, the scientists recommended using the built-in tools of the giants: Apple Screen Time, Google Family Link, and Microsoft Family Safety.

EU Accuses Microsoft of Secretly Harvesting Children's Data

 

Noyb (None of Your Business), also known as the European Centre for Digital Rights, has filed two complaints against Microsoft under Article 77 of the GDPR, alleging that the tech giant breached schoolchildren's privacy rights with its Microsoft 365 Education service to educational institutions. 

Noyb claims that Microsoft tried to shift the responsibility and privacy expectations of GDPR principles onto institutions through its contracts, but that these organisations had no reasonable means of complying with such requests because they had no more control over the collected data. 

The non-profit argued that while schools and educational institutions in the European Union depended more on digital services during the pandemic, large tech businesses took advantage of this trend to try to attract a new generation of committed clients. While noyb supports the modernization of education, he believes Microsoft has breached various data protection rights by offering educational institutions with access to Microsoft's 365 Education services, leaving students, parents, and institutes with little options. 

Noyb voiced concern about the market strength of software vendors like Microsoft, which allows them to dictate the terms and circumstances of their contracts with schools. The organisation claims that this power has enabled IT companies to transfer most of their legal obligations under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to educational institutions and municipal governments. 

In reality, according to noyb, neither local government nor educational institutions have the power to affect how Microsoft handles user data. Rather, they were frequently faced with a "take it or leave it" scenario, in which Microsoft controlled all financial decisions and decision-making authority while the schools were required to bear all associated risks.

“This take-it-or-leave-it approach by software vendors such as Microsoft is shifting all GDPR responsibilities to schools,” stated Maartje de Graaf, a data protection lawyer at noyb. “Microsoft holds all the key information about data processing in its software, but is pointing the finger at schools when it comes to exercising rights. Schools have no way of complying with the transparency and information obligations.” 

Two complaints 

Due to suspected infringement of information privacy rules, Noyb represented two plaintiffs against Microsoft. The first complaint mentioned a father who requested personal data acquired by Microsoft's 365 Education service on behalf of his daughter in accordance with GDPR regulations. 

However, Microsoft had redirected the concerned parent to the "data controller," and after confirming with Microsoft that the school was the data controller, the parent contacted the school, which responded that they only had access to the student's email addresses used for sign-up. 

According to Microsoft's own documentation, the second complaint stated that, despite not giving consent to cookie or tracking technologies, Microsoft 365 Education installed cookies analysing user behaviour and collecting browser data, both of which are used for advertising purposes. The non-profit alleged that this type of invasive profiling was conducted without the school's knowledge or approval. 

noyb has requested that the Austrian data protection authority (DSB) investigate and analyse the data collected and processed by Microsoft 365 Education, as neither Microsoft's own privacy documentation, the complainant's access requests, nor the non-profit's own research could shed light on this process, which it believes violates the GDPR's transparency provisions.