WhatsApp is allowed to do almost anything without our consent

Android alert: new fraud using WhatsApp name

Taking a look at the permits you need the latest official update of the sensational instant messaging app Whatsapp, I have come to realize how much consent you need and practically have our okay to do and undo as you please without us even noticing.

I myself am a faithful user of Whatsapp and I think it is the best application of the style, I don't understand why this amount of permissions is due, which includes some that I really can't understand.

Between the more serious permissions that I can observe, there are those of poser make phone calls without our consent or the ability to do or even receive text messages of the SMS type.


Does this application really need to be able to use this kind of options from our terminal? options such as being able to call at your discretion to telephone numbers without our explicit consent or for example if you wanted send SMS to the wrongly called Premium services that later they hit us with a slap on the phone bill.

Apart from these dangerous options for our telephone bill, I have also found others no less curious and serious, especially regarding our privacy and privacy it means. Options such as using the camera of our terminal to take photos and videos when you feel like it and always without the need for user consent or power make audio recordings also without our consent.

How do I tell you, this of the permits in the apps on Android they would have to be a little more controlled by Google and only validate those that are really necessary for the correct operation of the application in question.

With the powers that we have given to applications like WhatsappYou know, apart from the private data they collect about us, what other things they may have. Audio recordings? Private photos and videos? The truth is that only they will know because what is real is that permissions to perform these actions if we have granted you.

More information - WhatsApp reaches 400 million users worldwide

Spy WhatsApp
You are interested in:
How to spy on WhatsApp or keep the same account on two different terminals
Follow us on Google News

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *



  1. Responsible for the data: Actualidad Blog
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   Carlos said

    Hello Francisco, I sincerely believe that you are something wrong. The applications show the permissions required to perform the actions, as you can take photos from the application or call a contact directly, the application requires these permissions ...

    1.    Francisco Ruiz said

      I believe that to perform these actions you do not have to be able to have permissions to perform them without your consent, I emphasize the part of WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT!.

  2.   David said

    I think you have shown off, a bit of interest at the time of writing.
    The messages to "register" the phone number in the mobile.
    Call, when you are in a chat you give a menu and call.
    And I will not continue ...

  3.   James said

    And you can also access the internet! Imagine that it gives you to download 5 gigs just like that. File system access! How is it possible that they need it to save the photos or videos that we receive? Absolutely nefarious article, I hope because of ignorance and not because of trying to sow confusion about an application that is widely studied in other sites.

  4.   Dani said

    About how an app is developed, no idea, right?
    It seems that my grandmother has written the post that she does not know what this is about, you have missed writing wasá and you had embroidered it

  5.   Jesus Jiménez said

    "Without your consent" means that it does it directly, without going through the operating system component it touches. That is, when you call, it does not send you to the operating system's telephone dialer and forces you to press the button again, but calls directly. And so with everything else.

    You have definitely covered yourself in glory ...

  6.   pepper said

    I hope you rectify the article before more people read it because you have excelled to be a writer who writes about android practically every day. This gives an idea of ​​what the blogging level is like.

  7.   Jose Antonio said

    I sincerely believe that you are very wrong. The permissions are to access the functionalities. If you cannot have permission to record audio, Android will not allow the application to access that functionality. If you do not have permission to access the camera, you will not be able to take photos from WhatsApp. It does not mean that you do it when you want and without our consent.

  8.   Manuel Lathes said

    Totally unfortunate, Francisco. You don't give a single one in this post. What's more, I would seriously consider deleting it as soon as possible (and I mean it). The permissions of these actions need them to execute their functions and without these functions, the application would not use it or the tato.

    All this from a dark animosity against WhatsApp, honestly. It can be criticized for being insecure, for being a dark and opaque company, for Yankee or for vice ... but what you have put in the post is not held even with tweezers.

  9.   uptheirs said

    well they have put you fine to comments….

    1.    Francisco Ruiz said

      To start debating all the comments received, I want to say that apparently you either have not understood the article or are only reading what interests you. I repeat that for me WhatsApp is the best application of the style and with what I have said in this article I do not want to discredit it or say that it was malicious, I only comment that with these same permissions a malicious application could make and undo a their whim without the user noticing. This is a possibility that unfortunately has already happened with other apps and on more occasions than we all would like.

      That WhatsApp is a respectable application does not mean that if they wanted to abuse these privileges or permissions they could do it perfectly.


      1.    yonkomom said

        You have no idea of ​​programming, of course ...
        When you do this:
        Intent call = new Intent (Intent.ACTION_DIAL);
        call.setData (Uri.parse ("tel:" + number));
        startActivity (Intent.createChooser (call, «Select the call format:»));

        It asks you for permission to call phone numbers directly ... And with these lines, the only thing you get is that the call terminal opens ... not that it calls without warning ... It is true that changing ACTION_DIAL by ACTION_CALL, makes the call directly, but let's see who is the monguer who puts that in the code, because it is reportable.
        ALA, let's see if you listen to people who tell you that you are making a fool of yourself, because they are absolutely right.

        1.    yonkomom said

          No, but now seriously ... you are partly right, because ACTION_CALL asks for permission because it makes the direct call, but ACTION_DIAL does not.

  10.   Fight said

    Well, I happened to say practically everything that the other users already said in the comments. Really surprised by the article. I hope they rectify it since inexperienced users believe it and then what happens happens.
    A greeting.

  11.   Tito said

    You have shown that you have no idea what you are commenting on….

  12.   David said

    first, check the permission of some of the applications that you consider safe from the play store. You may still be surprised.

    Second, give alternatives to the permissions that you think should replace the current ones. For example, what permission would you give instead of "calling phone numbers directly"? You can also tell us how we could call a contact directly from WhatsApp without that permission.

    At least, I think that replacing the word WhatsApp with Android in the writing would be a success. They are the permissions that you have in android and you have to adapt or eliminate functionalities.

    1.    Francisco Ruiz said

      When it comes to changing the name of the example application, I am absolutely right, I could have used the word Android or Android Applications but without a doubt the word WhatsApp has much more impact and attention. It is clear that the same or worse could be said of the permissions of applications such as Line, ChatOn, etc, etc.


  13.   Alberto said

    With all the respect in the world, really, but articles like this lower the level of the blog, low in itself, to zero. Francisco, do not try to say in the comments that "you have not understood bla bla ..." or what is worse, justify how bad the article is in that "we have not understood it" (you call us stupid or what?). The article is simply wrong and bad. Either you remove it so as not to mislead and alarm absurdly, or publish a correction, but above all, don't insult the intelligence of the reader in the comments.

    All the best

    1.    Francisco Ruiz said

      I do not know where you see my intention to insult, nothing is further from reality and it is worth repeating in front of everything.
      I take this opportunity to ask a question addressed to all these outraged experts:
      If WhatsApp, Line or any application with all these permissions wanted to act maliciously, could it do so without our explicit consent?

  14.   Manuel Lathes said

    Now yes, Francisco, you just showed off with your comment. From the moment you say that "for me WhatsApp is the best application of the style" you are qualifying yourself in your knowledge of the world of Android and its applications, and you put yourself at a very low-cut user level.

    WhatsApp is a -very- bad application, but with an amazing market penetration rate. Nothing more. And if you have applied some changes this last year (voice notes, for example) you have been pushed by the competition. And even so, they continue to skip the security requirements that advanced users ask of them.

    The approach you give in your comment (it was an example with an application) is fine, but to be true, but you would have to change the entire wording of the article from head to toe.

  15.   uptheirs said

    do not be so strong, I think the intention of the article was good, watch the issue of permits ..., what happens is that it has not been expressed well, and also that we have taken it from minute one on the bad side ..., but at least being an android blog you could have put a whatsapp image on an android and not on ios.

  16.   Manuel Lathes said

    Cañeros either, but the truth is that in a blog you are supposed to have time to prepare an article before publishing it, so it does not seem serious that it is published with such glaring errors and on top of that it does not pay attention to comments that do not seem destructive in principle if not constructive to make a better post.

  17.   androllo said

    In addition to all these pretty spot-on comments, everything the article says is true.

    The program needs all those permissions to do what it offers peeeeero ...
    ... you can also do (at any time) what the article says:
    - Record videos, photos and audio.
    - Read, copy, use or send the contact list with all your data online.
    - Make calls and send SMS to any site.
    - Send any file from the phone over the internet.
    - And many more doggies.

    Unfortunately, there are many programs that ask for many permissions and we cannot limit them ... without being ROOT.

  18.   Manuel Lathes said

    "If WhatsApp, Line or any application with all these permissions wanted to act maliciously, could it do so without our explicit consent?" Yes, we are telling you, but your article does not talk about "the danger of application permissions in Android" but about "the list of exaggerated permissions that we give to WhatsApp". Paint it any color you want, but it's all a mistake from the start.

    By the way, the Android permission control is not ideal but what about the iOS permission control? (It is a sincere question, from the total ignorance of iOS).

  19.   David said

    "WhatsApp has much more impact and attention"
    Do you prioritize the impact over the reality of the news? That has a name: yellow press.

    "If WhatsApp, Line or any application with all these permissions wanted to act maliciously, could it do so without our explicit consent?"
    Everyone knows that security in android is weak ... just like windows and other operating systems ...

    I insist, the article could make sense if you change WhatsApp for Android, but of course "WhatsApp has much more impact and attention."

  20.   Alvaro M. said

    Obviously, any application that has a permission, can use that permission correctly, or maliciously. The question is the "reputation" that the developer / company may have, to trust you or not. You can give the keys to your house to your mother, and to the junkie on the corner, and it is not likely that your mother is going to ransack your house, but being able to do so, she can.

    Comments to your article:

    "I myself am a loyal user of WhatsApp and I think it is the best application of the style, I do not understand why this amount of permissions is due, including some that I really cannot understand"

    - >>>>>> Ask those who do not understand that we explain them to you

    "Does this application really need to be able to use this kind of options from our terminal?"

    - >>>>>> Yes, if you want to call from WhatsApp, which I find very convenient, you need the call permission. If you want to register, the SMS. If you want to send a photo, the one to access the camera. You need access to the file system if you want to send a video or photo already recorded in your terminal. The microphone, to send the audio notes ... a long etc.

    As I say, this of the permissions in the applications in Android would have to be a little more controlled by Google and only validate those that are really necessary for the correct operation of the application in question.

    - >>>>>> Google cannot control the permissions, because they are permissions, you are the one who must control them. Without all those "permissions that Google should control" that you comment, WhatsApp would be a text chat, period. Wouldn't it look so wonderful to you anymore?

    «With the powers that we have given to applications like WhatsApp, you know, apart from the private data they collect about us, what other things they can have. Audio recordings? Private photos and videos? The truth is that only they will know because what is real is that permissions to perform these actions have been granted »

    - >>>>>> Alert! Yellowness and conspiracy !!!

    Anyway, I'm not going to tell you anything that other colleagues haven't told you before, but the article as it is is pure rubbish. Those of us who have some idea get it to the fourth sentence, and to people who have no idea, you are confusing them for no reason. If you want to work on a security article on Android, you have plenty of material, but what you have perpetrated does not work even for the most creeping Apple-fan blog.

    Rectifying is wise, although according to the line of your responses to the comments, it gives me that we better take a chair.


  21.   CopperFix said

    To see the article is not that it says anything false, but in my opinion it is something alarmist. It is true that WhatsApp asks for too many permissions but it is that without them many of its extras would not work, such as sending a recorded message or calling directly from a user's profile.

    Many of you ask the author to delete the post when precisely with the flame you are achieving the opposite, that visitors move and therefore stay here with your head held high.

  22.   Manuel Lathes said

    Coper Fix. You say "true that WA asks for too many permissions but it is that without them they would not work ..." So, where do we agree? Are they too many? Or are they the ones you need? If you need them, they are fine, if you asked for access to the Wi-Fi passwords, surely that would be too much, but in order to receive (and save) the images and videos, you will have to record them somewhere ... I say right?

    So, if it is not true that it asks for too many permissions, the title of the post (I REPEAT: «the list of exaggerated permissions that we give to Whatsapp») is, by definition, uncertain (or false, or a LIE, whatever you want to call it) .

    For more INRI, the writing of the text is based on some theories and statements more typical of an absolute neophyte in operating systems than of a "passionate about computing" (as Francisco defines himself in his wordpress profile).

    The flames can even be fine, depending on what date or occasion (or depending on what topic), but in the medium term, the effect they usually achieve is the opposite of what is desired and there is a decrease in visits (people stop trusting, they they unsubscribe their rss subscriptions, or stop clicking on the links if they come from that blog, for simple detachment).

    No serious blogger is ever going to accept flame as an acceptable article.

    1.    Francisco Ruiz said

      You are taking the question completely out of context, everything that I comment or explain here is the purest reality and without any invention. I repeat that nobody distrusts WhatsApp and its good reputation, I am the first to have it installed. But don't you think that it is a great leap of faith to give all your confidence to applications of the style just claiming their respectability and good work? Do not you think that it is an excess of confidence and that there should be no place for that and not allow an application to be able to perform those actions if it deems it appropriate without our consent?

      For the rest, I repeat that I do not consider that it is alarming anyone or harming WhatsApp, I only refer to the facts and the real permissions that it needs and we grant WhatsApp.

      1.    Rodrigo said

        this is similar to the use of keygens ... it's free and everything is fine, everyone defends them and says no, how can it be ... until one day you do an analysis of the computer and you realize that you have other viruses apart from the keygens ... that antivirus no longer give false positives, this is the same, for something the antivirus detects it as a virus, in the case of android, for something it says WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, otherwise it would not say that, for something the android antivirus warns you that Some apps put your privacy at risk, but hey, nobody wants to admit it, since they don't have their pocket for the moment, they all turn against articles like this, greetings fran

  23.   CopperFix said

    True Manuel, I meant that it asks for too many permissions compared to other applications. Indeed, it is fine if the ones you ask for are the ones you use.

    Francisco you say that you do not consider that you are alarming anyone ... Only the title already leaves a bad body.

    Without going any further, I have written many times about whatsapp on my website, it is not an application for which I have great esteem, but what it does, it does with the consent of the user who is the one who clicks who calls and who send sms (paid).

    Whatever it does internally, we will have to believe what WhatsApp inc says like the entire private universe.

    By the way, even if you have permissions to take photos, is it not illegal to take a photograph of the user without their consent? (phrase that you highlight in red)

  24.   marcossit said
  25.   Victor said

    Regarding the way of writing the article and not the content. I study audiovisual communication, where there are subjects that are journalism and how to write news and other texts. When you say for example "you have not understood the article or you only read what interests you", an editor has to make the news, report, review or whatever is as clear as possible. If a reader does not "understand" it, it is the fault of the editor. If you have wanted to put WhatsApp to attract more attention instead of other alternatives that they give you, do not complain if it has not been understood as you wanted, because I repeat, the fault is not the reader in 95% of the cases.

  26.   marcossit said

    I think the article is well written since from the point of view of Vulnerability the problem is that with so many permissions that WhatsApp has, anyone with a minimum of knowledge in Development can take advantage of this and create a back door to control the device to disestra or sinister. I think it would rather be the vulnerability that Android has by granting so many permissions to the app. And I say most do not download unknown or crazy apk whatever they see there. But if many of you like cheats in games and these Modified apk do not know who created them in what way they were created, they do not have Google certification and that is when the system begins to give problems. I bet that WhatsApp + plus its creator must have in a database the number and photo of each of those who use this app, I could even go further and have a filter for photos where before it reaches the server from WhatsApp, go through some of yours and appropriate these images. Everything is possible but we must be careful what we install on our phones or not.

  27.   Alvaro M. said

    That is very good, but the article does not talk about that, it does not talk about the permissions in the applications, it does not talk about applications obtained by other means than the play store and the risk they entail ... the article basically says «Whatsapp He has many permits and we don't know what they do with them. ”And he wonders what he needs them for, when we've already made it clear what they need them for.

    Putting you to think that way, Android has ALL the permissions, and if tomorrow, Google decides to steal your credit card number, it will do it, just like WhatsApp will be dedicated to spreading the photos of your children by mail, or facebook will insert racist comments on your behalf on your friends' wall. For assuming and getting paranoid, let it not be.

    Reading the explanations, the intention of the article may be good, but it has remained at that, the development of it is disastrous. I read Android blogs / news / etc every day (it's my job), and at no time have I perceived more than an intention to create scaremongering (unjustified), against a specific application (without foundation)

  28.   Manuel Lathes said

    Francisco, you are still stubborn in something that has nothing to do with it.
    Android, in this case, provides clarity and detail of information that other operating systems (iOS, Windows or even Linux) do not provide. Do you know what resources on your computer (network, disk, Photoshop or Office can access? (I tell you: absolutely EVERYTHING).

    In this case Android is WARNING you. That's fine. But both we (through our contributions in the Google Play rating and comments) and Google itself (through the control of these applications) are the ones who control the intrusion of malicious applications.

    The Android permission system is there to INFORM US, not to ALERT US. It is the most normal thing in the world for WhatsApp to have permissions to access the camera without our special permission (it is assumed that we are already giving it to them when we indicate that we want to send a photo taken with the camera). The same to save a video that they send us. Imagine how annoying it would be if every time he wanted to do something, he had to explicitly ask us for permission (among other things, he couldn't even communicate).

    But we are getting out of hand. The issue of the complaints in the comments is (even by many staunch WhatsApp enemies like me), expressed in Roman Paladino, that the article speaks badly of WhatsApp due to its permissions; that these permissions are normal given the characteristics that the program offers and that if, as the author insists on repeating, the article is about security in Android, nobody understands it, the fault lies with the readers who are stupid because we do not understand it ... it must be that we cannot read between the lines and where it says "the list of exaggerated permissions that we give to WhatsApp" means "how many permissions do android applications ask for, hey", but our myopia does not allow us to see the true meaning that the author gave you. (sic!)

  29.   Davinci said

    Look that I hate WhatsApp (I deleted it more than a year ago for many reasons and I use LINE instead) but with this article you have passed. Just what was missing to stop reading this blog, I remove it from RSS.

    See you never.

  30.   chicken said

    The latest update of whattsap on android clearly states, in the camera permission: «allows the application to take photos or record videos with the camera. This permission authorizes the application to use the camera at any time without your authorization »

    This last sentence seems abusive to me. It is not that the app accesses the camera or the gallery so you can send photos. But it seems that the app, if it wants, will be able to take photos of you without you knowing. For me this app should clarify why Google allows this permission

  31.   Alvaro M. said

    Let's see, we don't understand the basis: Android permissions.

    All that is being said about "WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT" ... your consent is to give the application X permission. Once you have given that permission to the application, because it needs it, the system (Android) cannot distinguish if the application is taking a photo because you have given the button, or if it is because it is programmed to take a photo. every 15 minutes and send it to Obama's personal email.

    In android, to consent or not to consent is to give permissions or not to give them. Google warns, and if you do not agree, it is as easy as not installing the application. If consent was requested every time a permit is used, the mobile would be unusable, because we would spend our lives saying "Yes"

  32.   Manuel Lathes said

    It is not "without your permission," it is "without your permission." Which is also a mistake. You give it authorization the moment you install it. As with any application that you install on your windows, you are giving permission (even if the operating system does not tell you) to access your webcam ... you know it, or you don't know it ... it warns you, or it does not warn you.

    The administration of applications must always also be based on a trusted system (I trust that the application is trusted and it will not turn on the camera by itself and record me sitting on the toilet).

    If you notice, that same permission is held by Line, BBM, WeChat and Hangouts. On my Android KitKat, he refers to the permission as “Allow the app to take photos or record videos with the camera. This permission authorizes the application to use the camera at any time without your confirmation. Read well: CONFIRMATION, which is not the same as AUTHORIZATION. Look them up in the dictionary if you don't believe me. 😉

    There is no need to confirm an authorization that has already been given (at the time of installation).

    Also in some of the others it has the same permission for "Phone calls" and says "It allows the application to make calls without user intervention, which can lead to unexpected calls or charges. Please note that applications cannot use this service to make calls to emergency numbers, but malicious applications can cause you unexpected expenses by making calls without your confirmation.

    And it is that, no matter how much we give it, Android limits itself to INFORM US of these permissions that the application requires (which is already MUCH MORE than what other operating systems offer).

  33.   David said

    Do you insist that this is founded?
    Do you dare to continue defending the amount of nonsense that you have put?
    Do you insist on messing with applications instead of android?
    Does everyone take something out of context? You are one of those who say that there are two ways of seeing things, the one I see and the wrong one.
    They have given you a very clear examples.
    The photos of the IOS app instead of the android is the last straw ...

    I assure you that this blog has lost readers today.

  34.   rom3ox said

    It is always the same topic, it is the responsibility of the company or application to say what permissions it needs, which it does in this case and the responsibility of the user to read it and accept it if they agree or not. If we live in a society that signs and accepts things without reading them out of comfort or habit, the error is clearly society's. Comfort and privacy are not 2 things very compatible nowadays.

  35.   oscar c. said

    I have not read all the comments, but enough to see where the shots go. I think they all have a little or a lot of reason (of those read), also Francisco, with one caveat, the permissions that WhatsApp asks for is not an Android problem, it is the user's problem, who even asking for those permissions installs it. I think there are more bloody cases, like that of Facebook, for 2 or 3 updates I have not updated it.
    I also agree with Francisco when he indicates that these permissions give him the power to make calls whenever he wants, the truth is that he does not make that use (it would remain in the system call log) but he could.
    Those who say that there are much better applications are also right, in fact, in my opinion, WhatsApp is not by far. He's been very lucky or has a lot of sight, I don't know.
    Nor do you spend so much time with Francisco, he has not put lies, only somewhat exaggerated interpretations, it is not necessary to do blood, if you do not like his blog remove it from your RSS client.

  36.   Ivan said

    I do not know what is more sad if the article or your answers.

  37.   diegazo said

    Lately the quality of your posts is decreasing alarmingly. What a nonsense article.

  38.   place said

    I'm sorry but… Dedicate yourself to something else… .. every time I read it it's worse !!!!

  39.   ree said

    Great news Francisco. I am also "freaking out" with whatsapp permissions. I have always been able to take photos and videos from WhatsApp or access them from the same app and then send them to my contacts. I repeat, since always. Now it turns out that in the new update they add a permission that asks to take photos and videos without the user's consent. I do not see a possible justification for that since I have always been able to take photos and videos and the only thing I see that adds that is the ability to use the permissions freely and without consent. Everyone is very angry with you, as happened with those who told the truth about Google and who are now very quiet about the issue of the back door they left for espionage. I won't say anything else. Thank you for sharing this. Whether or not people agree with you, just to try to raise awareness of the dangers that these permits can have, it is already appreciated. Greetings!

  40.   Fernando said

    It has neither feet nor head and it seems like many say a total ignorance of how Android permissions work. If the article had been made as a criticism of the Android permission system, I would understand it but not against a particular application that needs those permissions to work and that does not do it without your consent since it asks you when installing it if you accept it or not - like any other application-. What whatsapp is not the safest application in the world for other reasons totally unrelated to what is explained here is one thing but what is talked about here does not make sense. Brave nonsense of article.

  41.   Alberto Aru said

    If WhatsApp were free and decentralized, all this would not have happened to adults. Wait! That it does exist! USE JABBER AND LEAVE SO MUCH WHAT $ APP !!

  42.   Mark said

    Well ... surfing the Internet looking for other information, I have come here. I am not a developer, nor an Android expert. I have my mobiles and my tablets "rooted", so I control the permissions with LBE security master since I have seen a few months ago that certain applications ask for permissions that until now they did not need. I understand everything that has been commented and for that reason, I use the "ask" option. Because at least, he will ask me when he needs it.
    What I don't understand is the need, to name; the "Angry Bird" variants, in terms of location permission. So I could mention a few. I do not want to argue, but as they say, "One of lime and another of sand."
    Saludos y gracias

    1.    Carlos said

      Hi marcos,
      I answer you before the editor (I hope) you are not going to misinterpret him…. : p
      Free apps often ask for this permission to improve banner ads by displaying location-based results. Greetings

  43.   Mark said

    Well ... for having subscribed, I received your message Carlos. Thanks, I had not fallen into that detail which turns out to be quite explanatory because an application has that "Location" permission. That too, in some cases, would explain why other applications have certain permissions that were not previously available; they will have a new role.

    1.    Mark said

      Hi carlos
      Amazing. I have always thought that the security that is taken for the subject of personal data; it is always little and this corroborates it. Anyway, we are already sold.
      Saludos y gracias

  44.   Flo's said

    I think the same as "ree", I ask myself the same question, why do they need these new permissions now if before we worked perfectly without them, and above all, how is it that they can access at any time? Will they access even when we are not using WhatsApp? WhatsApp developers need not worry, since there are many millions of people who will update automatically, without question, and then we are a few inquisitors with a finger (?) That we will do all the research and debate that we want before « sign 'permissions so exaggerated. I liked the article, especially because it exposes the millions of stupid people who don't even know what a permit is. Those are the ones that open the game to those who do use our data with bad intentions, although WhatsApp is not the case, at least not yet.

  45.   chicken said

    I already put the new camera permissions before
    Finally update the app. And now I understand what changes. Now within the application itself, there is an attachment option with a photo or video icon and this takes a photo or video and sends it directly.
    Before, you had to use the camera app, take the photo and share it on WS, with the desired contact. So at least this explains the need for permission. Perhaps without installing the update this new permission of the camera was very shocking but once installed it seems to me at least that it has its justification. Another thing is that they use the permission in an illicit way that I do not think

  46.   Web design said

    Good article, it is just what I was looking for, it must be taken into account for our safety.

  47.   feelings of my earth said

    I completely agree ... it is a series of unnecessary permissions that abuse the privacy of the user with the excuse of usability ...

    Permission to authenticate accounts for example? Has no sense.
    Permission to discover other applications? For what purpose? Only data mining, goodbye to privacy again ... and a long etcetera.

    Unfortunately privacy is a very sensitive issue that many of the users in general and many of those who write here seem to have forgotten or have not known, a real shame !!!

    What permits are loose? What windows and other things? HA! You can achieve security and privacy in Windows and other things ... in Android not unless you are root and even so if an application does not manage to execute the permission it does not work.

    Google should be more serious in this regard and audit the actual permissions required of the applications before allowing their publication.

    Congratulations on the article.

  48.   Javier said

    Francisco Ruiz is absolutely right. I am a programmer, and what should happen is that every time the WhatsApp like any other android app wants to do something on its own, the android operating system should intersect the action and ask the mobile user for consent. If you want me not to ask you again, the same window could have a tick to not ask again. That way, you could give the application permission when you are using it, and not permission to do things on its own at any time without your knowing what it does. But the way things are, there is no possibility of using some android apps, without lowering your pants first and trusting that they do not give you the ass. In addition, the permissions come in packages! That is, it does not let you choose this, yes, and this no. You simply either accept it or you don't use it. This changes in only one way: you have to start rejecting apps of this type and give priority to those that have a more appropriate request for permissions. Android folks should be more concerned with security… Wasn't Linux always the one to raise the security flag first and foremost when Windows made water on this?… Or was its security based on being secure because it didn't have many users? He could protect you access to certain parts even when we give permission to the app, and he is not doing it.

    1.    Carlos said

      The facebook chat monitors the times you turn on the screen, web browsing and everything it can for example. When installing the applications, it asks you whether or not you want to install it with what is not a unique case of whatsapp. Nobody defends in the comments the abusive permissions of this application or others, it is only said that the article is poorly focused pointing to an application when they are all ...

  49.   marktor said

    Very good post, Francisco, almost exactly what I was looking for. And I would even say that it is way ahead of your time, which makes it difficult for the so-called "programming brains" to digest. Without detracting from the merits of this or other useful apps, I dare to predict an era in which everything, absolutely everything that transits the network will be controlled and manipulated by applications. We know that we need them to access a service that is essential to us and, in turn, give them powers to function properly. Based on this and well above the reliability or not of an operating system on which it runs: What better than to obtain the largest possible number of attributes? And I wonder where is the end of the tunnel? . Today we still find them reliable, as in this case, but I wonder what will it be and who will impose the limits? It is good and healthy to ask ourselves that question and be suspicious starting today. As you may have noticed, I am not very internalized in computing, but do not think about deleting this post, because one day you will be able to tell everyone: I told you, and you did not believe me!

  50.   Carlos said

    A few days ago whatsapp began to notify me of an essential update and a countdown of 10 days, when trying to update my surprise was the amount of requested permissions, I am not one of those who post their photos and their life on the network, nor does it allow expose your contacts.

    I have a Note2 with 4.4.2 ditto and I have installed app opps starter, which allows to block permissions.

    The new update asks for permissions to send receive sms / mms (I understand that you use it to register the first time) but it seems to me that they are happening.

    Permissions to access purchases, installed application history, browsing history, bookmarks, and device activity history. It seems to me that this is NOT necessary.

    Access to Wi-Fi data and devices connected to it.
    (It is not necessary either).

    Photos and multimedia files, also in folders and external devices.
    (In my opinion, if you need to send an image, the system should notify the user of the access, and allow it only at that moment).

    Needless to say, I DO NOT THINK TO UPDATE until this is changed, I can live without whatsapp.

    In my opinion it is a shame, and google should not allow it.

  51.   edu said

    another who runs out of wassap, they need to ask for your account number

  52.   JJMart said

    Courage Francisco, I thank you for the article. Too many "officials" of the WhatsApp disqualifying, do they charge? I believe like you and Carlos and others, that it is not necessary to access any of those permissions.
    WA Pass.

  53.   Jose said

    I also took off Wassap yesterday because as my friend Carlos says here, I can't explain these permissions "Permissions to access purchases, history of installed applications, browsing history, bookmarks and history of device activity"
    For what the hell do you want to see where I get on the internet or what I do with my device, it is not at all necessary in the operation of the program and I am going to tell you one thing, programmers friends, in your profession ethics does not matter much or nothing, that is, if Tomorrow you have to get an application that collects bank accounts to cover yourself, you are going to do it without any doubt.
    Call me a conspiratorial but I will never install an apk or a pirate application for Windows, because I do not trust myself I do not even trust Microsoft with which you already imagine all the pirate programs loose on the net.

  54.   Alice said

    I also have taken off WhatsApp, the permissions it asks you to only send a few messages, that is scary, I prefer to continue with my sms with payment than I control them =).

  55.   Edurne said

    Exactly, I was also surprised by the permissions that WhatsApp needs when updating, (which I prefer to be only messaging, as it was at first, if that avoids accepting so many terms) and we are reaching a point where the one that, without our realizing it, with various excuses, are selling us our privacy. That is its purpose, and there is no worse blind than the one who does not want to see. The media, including the Internet, are the perfect tool to have us controlled from anywhere in the world. There is nothing more to see the espionage practices carried out by the NSA. Hackers and listening posts who work at the NSA Do you think any of this is true? What aren't they trying to spy on us? You just have to be attentive, observe and see how they manage every day to collect more information. If with the WiFi network all the information of the TV, PC and Smartphone are connected !! They know all our tastes, the most frequented pages, TV channels or most viewed programs, purchases, games, downloaded music, etc. Companies monitor us, they track us to know our consumption preferences through our browser, including Facebook, Google and Microsoft. Do you think that Google Maps or Angry Birds does not have different purposes, or a simple webcam? What do you want a front camera for? Is vision better for those who spy on you? How they manage! True? You have an application on your mobile that if you are not very observant and you deactivate it, when you speak on Facebook your exact location appears, and when I say exact it is that it goes to the street where you are! And the person in question doesn't even know it! They applied the law of giving our identity by our phone number, otherwise it would disappear. They try to collect all our information !! And do you still think it's a coincidence? Have you heard of the New World Order? Bilderberg Group? It is useless to know a lot about technologies or programming if you do not distrust them. They do nothing by chance or for a reason, everything has a reason, a purpose, and for those of us who are awake, we already know what it is. For those who criticize the article, tell them not to be so meticulous and picky, anyone would say that they belong to the company or they take commission. That awful!!

    1.    Conspiracy said

      Of course, they use our data to make targeted advertising and earn money.

      Or what do you think? That Gmail falls from the sky? That Facebook servers grow on the ground like potatoes?

      You have anonymous, encrypted mail services that do not use your data at all, paying a low price. Ah, no, that the Internet HAS to be free.

      We want it all, and all for free. What delusions xD

      1.    Carlos said

        Finally someone coherent ... all of you who criticize whatsapp for permissions, do you do the same with google services? gmail reads emails to offer you advertising according to your tastes, searches are based on your profile, previous searches etc ... Google is good and whatsapp / facebook bad? It all has to do with the fact that it should be free ...

    2.    tmp said

      That is where the thing goes but they must understand that it is not whatsapp or google, since you use a computer to communicate, whether mobile or not, your information is compromised, the only difference is that with the app you send them all that information while from another In this way, they are the ones who have to collect and organize all the information through voice records, even fingerprints, there are already security cameras in many sites that synchronize with feature detection software with which the famous EYE OF GOD Hacker is a reality that many they refuse to believe like when we saw James Bond taking a picture with a phone. It's okay? That's wrong? It depends on your way of seeing the world, the need to know everything about everyone is that knowledge is being shared quickly and also many people thanks to technology are developing little things in a year that would take our well-known geniuses centuries, these developments They will bring great changes to humanity, but due to the nature of the human being, perhaps an advance of great magnitude will be negative.
      Something similar when they tried to abolish slavery, and I mean they tried because they only exchanged the whip for a set of laws, the food for paper money and the chains for a cell phone.

  56.   cheese said

    totally agree with «Edurne» .. for example .. there are games that need access to photos and multimedia content .. if it is a game that does not require sending photos .. why do you want access from my camera and microphone ?? .. It's a game ... I don't have to make calls or take photos ... so ... there are many applications that ask for this including WhatsApp and yes ... one sends audio .. photos .. and others .. but !! .. they think that that is not Will they use it with a double meaning ?? .. come on !!! .. we are big people already .. because facebook bought whatsapp ???… because the messages were escaping from that application .. with facebook and whatsapp a lot of people communicate .. with the celualr they already know how to track you and well .. why continue !! .. there is no worse blind than the one who does not want to see! ..

  57.   Rusticiano Trevere said

    Tell the borregomatrix the truth and they will be furious. The applications can use your camera, microphone, location, listen to your talks, see your photos, addresses, face friends, etc, etc etc. It is very hilarious that they get upset and do not believe it. For my part, keep it up. There is no worse blind than the one who does not want to see. They are skewered to the core and put their heads in the ground like ostriches, What idiots we changumanos sometimes are. Greetings.

  58.   Miguel said

    We should spend less time with these things and start looking at what we really have around us.

  59.   Javier said

    It is the cell phone's operating system that has to intercept and request authorization for access to certain things (be it android, mobile windows, ios, or any other linux or cell phone operating system). Something like the control of users in windows, or the request for a root password (administrator) in linux, in computer operating systems. Android does not control this security because it belongs to Google, which is the first interested in having free access to private information. I want to get the android out of my cell phone and put the Ubuntu for mobile.

  60.   dario said

    bah, there are people who do not understand the article…. The most important point is the data transfer, itself (background data) that is the interaction of the installed application ... they never fixed the data transfer that each application does or the amount of Mb that certain applications send without explanation. I analyze that and I can say that whatsapp when starting data traffic or Wi-Fi connection, sometimes sends around 30 Mb of mobile information. (without consent) and thoroughly analyzing what you send ... it turns out to be information from searches in the browser, contact book, text messages, and photos stored in memory. that's the worrying thing. Because it is not known with what purpose and with what destination it collects all that information.

    1.    Nuria Ribot said

      Comment to Dario's post: I could put a new comment but I agree with you 100 × 100. The list of permissions you give is total. You don't know what they want to do with it. Not with you especially poor human limited to a probably quite limited enclosure. Is not that. It is the Law of Large Numbers. At least the title suggests it to me, I'm not a mathematician and I don't know what it's about. But the only language is very explicit. Only we give wood. How to say it? What are you looking for? I give it to you, in my way, to keep you happy. Many of these work like this, I am an absolute fan of YouTube and I am freaked out by the playlists they propose to me. Are good.

      Whatsapp will do what comes out of the tip with all our permissions. They are good too. And they are covered legally because they are American and they take it very seriously. Like Airbnb, to say the least.

      So deep down everything is left to the conscience of each one. By whom do we let ourselves be managed? They just want money, they sure also feel like champions in the circus arena!

  61.   Sunday said

    Friends, I need help, can someone without my permission put a photo on their phone, associate it with my whatsapp profile and that when we chat, that photo appears as my profile even though I don't have any published?

  62.   Adrian vale said

    The question does not hurt! What to many people seems a very logical reasoning, to others not so much, and it is in the nature of the human being to investigate the reason for the things and the factors involved! This is the difference between those who become great Leaders and those who simply live their entire lives being followers! ... It does not surprise me that most of the comments on the subject are to disqualify it as a Logical question, because in the world only 5% of the population is made up of the great Leaders and those who are in charge of deciding how the masses should behave ...


  63.   Jesus LE said

    Francisco Ruiz, if you want to dedicate yourself to writing articles about computing, about Android, about apps, about IOS, about Java, about PL / SQL, about php, about javascript, about XML, Spring, Hibernate, or whatever you like the most Technically, you must be rigorous and if it is your personal opinion you must be able to defend it with objective criteria selected and crystal clear. Do not defend yourself by saying that we have not understood you well. If the majority of readers think that your article is not technically sound, correct it, accept the criticism, document it and improve your expression. The intrusion is frowned upon. To write valuable technical documents, you must first study. I hope your next post is brilliant. This is not.

  64.   Deurys Bernardo Zapata said

    hello Francisco Ruiz,
    I loved your post, I give you a 10.
    I regret that many do not stop to read your contribution carefully without questioning issues such as whether they were charged a salary to defend an application.
    I give classes and in each class of different groups I give you the notice, check the permissions that the application requires to function correctly and be careful with the content you have on your computer and with what you express while being next to your computer. It is just a warning, knowing caution is not the same as being ignorant of what is visible.
    Cheer up, good job.

  65.   LUIS said