This comprehensive report examines the landscape of data storage mechanisms, cookie technologies, and Software Development Kit (SDK) practices in mobile applications, with particular attention to what information is collected, stored, and potentially shared. The analysis reveals that mobile apps employ sophisticated multi-layered data collection strategies involving traditional cookies, app-specific identifiers, device fingerprints, and third-party SDKs that collectively gather vast quantities of personally identifiable information and behavioral data. Understanding these mechanisms is critical for both developers seeking compliance with privacy regulations and users interested in protecting their personal information in an increasingly interconnected mobile ecosystem where consent management, transparency, and user control remain inconsistently implemented across the industry.
Understanding the Fundamentals of Mobile App Cookies and Data Storage Technologies
The concept of cookies in mobile applications differs significantly from their web-based counterparts, yet serves similarly foundational purposes in maintaining user sessions, storing preferences, and enabling personalization. While traditional HTTP cookies are small text files stored in web browsers, mobile applications employ analogous technologies that function within the app’s isolated ecosystem. Mobile app cookies operate within a fundamentally different architectural context than web browsers, as they are stored locally on the device within each application’s private sandbox environment rather than being accessible across multiple applications or browsers. This distinction creates unique privacy implications, as mobile apps cannot directly share cookie information with each other or with the device’s mobile web browser, establishing what is referred to as a “sandbox” environment where each application maintains complete isolation of its stored data.
The primary technical implementation of cookies in mobile applications leverages similar storage mechanisms to their web counterparts, including HTTP cookies when applications use webviews to display content. A webview is a technology that allows mobile apps to display online content such as websites or advertisements within the application interface, and cookies can be stored within these webviews comparable to how they are stored in browser settings. However, the critical distinction lies in the fact that each webview maintains its own unique cookie storage system specific to that application, preventing the cross-application tracking that characterizes web-based cookie technology. This architectural constraint has forced the evolution of alternative tracking methodologies in the mobile advertising ecosystem, creating a complex landscape of device identifiers, statistical models, and proprietary tracking solutions that partially compensate for the inability to implement traditional third-party cookie tracking across mobile applications.
Mobile applications store various categories of data beyond traditional cookies, including preferences stored as key-value pairs, structured data in local databases, and app-specific identifiers automatically generated by SDKs. Android systems provide multiple data storage options including app-specific storage in both internal and external locations, shared storage for files the app intends to share with other applications, preferences stored as key-value pairs using the Jetpack Preferences library, and databases using the Room persistence library. Similarly, iOS applications use frameworks such as Core Data and NSUserDefaults (now UserDefaults) to manage persistent data storage, with more sensitive information often stored in the system Keychain. These diverse storage mechanisms collectively enable mobile apps to maintain comprehensive user profiles that persist across application sessions and even survive device resets through cloud backup systems.
Data Storage Mechanisms in Mobile Applications: Comprehensive Overview of What Gets Stored
The data stored in mobile application cookies and related technologies encompasses an expansive range of information categories, extending far beyond simple session identifiers to include highly sensitive personal information. User personal information represents one of the most critical data categories stored through mobile app tracking systems, including name, residential address, email address, and phone number. Websites and mobile apps store this information to send customized pop-ups, personalized offers, and targeted marketing communications to users upon their visits. This personal information is particularly valuable to marketers and advertisers seeking to develop detailed user profiles for segmentation and targeting purposes.
Login and authentication information constitutes another significant category of stored data, as mobile apps commonly store login credentials and authentication tokens to provide seamless user experiences across sessions. Many users expect applications to maintain their authenticated state, eliminating the need to re-enter passwords and usernames with each app launch. While this functionality enhances user experience, it simultaneously creates security vulnerabilities if authentication tokens are improperly secured or if login information is inadvertently exposed through insecure storage mechanisms. Location data represents a particularly sensitive category, as many applications collect and store precise geographic information about users, including GPS coordinates, estimated addresses based on IP geolocation, and location history spanning extended periods. This location information enables sophisticated behavioral targeting and cross-location tracking capabilities that create profound privacy implications.
Device and hardware information is systematically collected and stored by most mobile applications, particularly those incorporating analytics or advertising SDKs. This data category includes the device operating system and version (such as iOS 17.4.1 or Android 14.0), device model information (such as iPhone XS or Samsung Galaxy S21), device manufacturer, device locale or default display language, device height and width in device-independent pixels, app version, screen size in inches, and device type classification (phone, tablet, or wearable). This device-level information enables advertisers and analytics providers to segment users based on hardware specifications, correlate app performance across different device types, and implement device-specific advertising strategies. The collection of this data occurs automatically in most cases, often without explicit user awareness or consent.
Web and app usage patterns represent another comprehensive data category stored through mobile app tracking mechanisms, including time spent on specific pages or screens, specific pages or screens visited in sequence, clicks and interactions with UI elements, scrolling patterns and the depth to which users scroll through content, and visibility information indicating whether content was actually viewed by the user. Many applications track search history and queries entered by users, maintaining records of everything users search for within the application or across the web through that application’s interface. This search history enables sophisticated behavioral targeting and provides insights into user interests, intent, and information-seeking behaviors.
Commercial and transactional data captured by mobile applications includes purchase history and prior purchases, items added to shopping carts, items saved for later consideration, wishlist items, product categories browsed, specific product viewing patterns, and pricing information examined. For applications with payment processing capabilities, this category extends to include payment method information, billing addresses, and transaction amounts. Browsing and advertising interaction data includes websites visited through the application, advertisement impressions and views, advertisement clicks and interactions, and advertisement conversions attributable to specific ads or campaigns. Many mobile apps also capture data about user preferences and settings including preferred language selections, theme selections (light mode versus dark mode), notification preferences, privacy settings, timezone information, and any customizable user interface elements.
The scope of data collection extends to derived and inferred information including user demographics inferred from behavioral patterns, user interests inferred from browsing and search behaviors, user lifestyle classifications, predicted future behaviors, and engagement propensity scores. Additionally, many mobile applications collect email addresses and communication data including primary email addresses, backup email addresses, phone numbers, and in some cases communication histories. Password and authentication data requires particular attention, as many applications inappropriately store passwords in accessible formats, creating significant security vulnerabilities. Some applications also store IP addresses which enable geographic location determination, device identification across network sessions, and ISP identification.
The completeness of this data collection represents one of the defining characteristics of modern mobile application ecosystems. According to research on tracking cookies and mobile data collection, the average Android application integrates 18.6 third-party SDKs, while iOS applications average 14.3 SDKs, with each SDK typically collecting multiple categories of data. This proliferation of integrated SDKs creates a compound data collection environment where individual application developers may not fully understand the comprehensive scope of data being collected from their user base through integrated third-party systems.
The Role and Impact of Software Development Kits in Mobile Data Collection
Software Development Kits represent one of the most consequential yet frequently underappreciated components of the mobile app data collection ecosystem. SDKs are collections of pre-built code, libraries, and tools that enable mobile app developers to rapidly integrate sophisticated functionalities without requiring them to build these features from scratch. Common use cases for SDKs include analytics tracking (Firebase, Mixpanel, Amplitude, Countly), advertising and monetization (Google AdMob, Facebook Audience Network, Mintegral), user authentication and management (Auth0, Firebase Authentication), payment processing (Stripe, PayPal), push notifications and in-app messaging (Pushwoosh, OneSignal), and social media integration (Facebook SDK, Twitter SDK). The convenience and efficiency provided by SDKs makes them nearly universal in modern mobile app development, with the average app including dozens of third-party SDKs.
However, this ubiquity creates significant privacy and security implications that frequently escape developer awareness and user attention. Many SDKs request excessive permissions that extend far beyond what is necessary for their advertised functionality, creating pathways for unauthorized data collection. A study by AppCensus revealed that 42% of SDKs collect sensitive user data without proper encryption, and the average Android app integrates 18.6 third-party SDKs, while iOS apps average 14.3. This fragmented ecosystem means that developers may unknowingly introduce multiple tracking systems into their applications, each with its own data collection practices, retention policies, and third-party sharing arrangements.
The hidden risks associated with third-party SDKs include security vulnerabilities and data leaks resulting from hardcoded API keys in SDK configurations, Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attacks due to weak SSL implementations, and excessive data harvesting beyond declared permissions. Many SDKs demonstrate lack of transparency regarding their source code, undocumented functionality, outdated dependencies that introduce vulnerabilities, and sudden deprecation by vendors that can break app functionality. Performance degradation and instability frequently result from poorly optimized SDKs, including increased memory usage leading to application crashes, slower startup times due to bloated SDK initialization, battery drain from background SDK processes, and conflicts between multiple integrated SDKs. An analysis by GuardSquare found that some advertising SDKs increased application package size by up to 30%, significantly impacting user experience and device performance.
Research examining privacy-configurable SDKs (or PICO SDKs) that provide privacy configuration APIs revealed that despite enhanced privacy configurability, such systems remain far from fully compliant with privacy regulations. Among 24,844 apps integrating PICO SDKs, 7,880 apps (31.7%) contained at least one privacy-configuration compliance risk. Specifically, 31.5% of apps failed to invoke privacy APIs at all, leaving privacy configurations of SDKs in their default state. Given that over 43.1% of PICO SDKs include privacy-invading default configurations that allow collection and processing of user personal data, this represents a substantial compliance and privacy risk. Even for apps that properly configured privacy APIs, numerous privacy risks emerged due to erroneous implementations in the SDKs themselves, indicating that privacy configuration mechanisms alone prove insufficient without proper SDK implementation.
The data collection practices of SDKs vary dramatically across different types of tracking systems. Analytics SDKs automatically collect device information, visitor identification numbers, generic usage analytics including session start and end times, application foreground and background events, click events capturing user interactions with interface elements, page or screen view events, and guide analytics related to in-app tutorials or guided experiences. Mobile advertising SDKs collect extensive behavioral data to enable targeted advertising, including user devices, names or ages, website preferences, IP addresses, email addresses, passwords, time spent on webpages, browsing history, and specific webpage clicks. The scope and depth of data collection performed by advertising SDKs extends considerably beyond what users might reasonably expect from an application’s advertised functionality, creating what researchers term the “privacy compliance maze” of modern mobile application ecosystems.
Privacy-Configurable Mobile SDKs and the Compliance Challenge
The emergence of privacy-configurable SDKs reflects the growing regulatory pressure on mobile app ecosystems to implement privacy-preserving technologies and provide developers with mechanisms to comply with regulations like GDPR and CCPA. These PICO SDKs include privacy APIs that allow app developers to configure how the SDK collects and processes data, theoretically enabling compliance with specific privacy regulations. However, the practical implementation of privacy configuration through SDKs introduces new categories of complexity and potential failures. Developers must understand privacy regulations, identify which SDK functionalities create privacy implications, and properly configure privacy APIs in a manner consistent with user preferences expressed through consent mechanisms.
The USENIX security research on privacy-configurable mobile SDKs identified three fundamental privacy principles necessary for proper PICO SDK operation: Transparency and User Awareness requires that SDKs make their data practices clearly visible and understandable to users; Privacy by Default mandates that SDKs include default configurations that protect user privacy rather than enable maximum data collection; and Nonambiguous, Fulfilled Privacy Compliance requires that privacy APIs effectively fulfill all promised privacy compliance without ambiguity. The research found significant violations of these principles across the SDK ecosystem. Many developers failed to understand which SDK functionalities require privacy configuration, others hard-coded privacy API settings with data-enabling values directly, and still others set privacy APIs in conflict with user privacy preferences expressed through consent mechanisms.
Particularly concerning are scenarios where multiple SDKs interact within a single application, creating compounding privacy risks. When app developers use privacy wrapper SDKs that encapsulate other SDKs, the underlying SDKs remain exposed to potential privacy misconfiguration. The wrapper SDK must properly communicate privacy preferences to all underlying SDKs, a process that frequently fails in real-world implementations. This layered SDK architecture creates privacy compliance challenges at every level of the SDK ecosystem, from individual SDK implementation through wrapper SDKs to app-level privacy configuration.
Mobile Advertising Identifiers and Device-Level Tracking Technologies
The limitations imposed by mobile app sandboxing and the deprecation of traditional cookie-based tracking have driven the development of device-level identifier technologies that enable cross-app tracking and advertising personalization. These identifiers represent fundamentally different tracking mechanisms from cookies, operating at the device level rather than the application level, and prove considerably more persistent and difficult for users to manage.
The Google Advertising ID (GAID), also known as Android Advertising ID or AAID, operates as a unique device identifier for Android devices introduced in 2014. GAID enables app developers and marketers to measure campaign performance and user behavior across media sources while ostensibly providing privacy protection through user resettability and deletability. The Advertising ID appears as a unique alphanumeric string such as “12345678-9abc-def0-1234-56789abcdef0” and gets used for tracking ad views, app activity, and conversions through a unique device identifier similar to cookies on web browsers. Unlike the original UDID (Unique Device Identifier) that Apple discontinued, the GAID provides users with options to reset their identifier while still allowing media vendors and mobile measurement partners to view the device identifier.
Apple’s Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA), the iOS equivalent of Android’s GAID, operates under significantly more stringent privacy constraints following Apple’s introduction of the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework in iOS 14.5, iPadOS 14.5, and tvOS 14.5. The ATT framework fundamentally transformed mobile advertising by requiring apps to request explicit user permission before accessing the IDFA and tracking user activity across other companies’ apps and websites. If users select “Ask App Not to Track,” the app developer cannot access the system advertising identifier and faces prohibitions against tracking activity using other information that identifies the user or device. This represents a dramatic departure from Android’s approach, where users must actively opt out of personalized advertising, creating a significant privacy disparity between the two platforms.
The evolution of device identifier privacy policies reflects the intensifying tension between advertising industry requirements for user tracking and user privacy expectations. Google announced in 2014 that it would evaluate additional opportunities to provide users with more informed control over what persistent identifiers are provided to third parties, hinting at eventual Advertising ID deprecation. More recently, Google announced plans to replace the GAID through its Privacy Sandbox on Android initiative, which proposes introducing an SDK Runtime and privacy-preserving APIs that enable advertising without reliance on cross-app identifiers. The Privacy Sandbox on Android includes three core use cases: Topics, which infers coarse-grained interest signals based on apps on a user’s device; Protected Audience, which provides a new way to show ads based on custom audiences with locally stored information; and Attribution Reporting, which supports conversion measurement without relying on user-level tracking mechanisms.
Alternative Tracking Technologies and Device Fingerprinting
As traditional cookie-based tracking becomes increasingly restricted, the mobile advertising ecosystem has evolved sophisticated alternative tracking methodologies that achieve many of the same targeting and measurement objectives through different technical mechanisms. These alternatives include client-generated device identifiers, statistical identifiers, HTML5 local storage, universal login tracking, browser fingerprinting, and hybrid tracking approaches that leverage multiple techniques simultaneously.
Device fingerprinting has emerged as one of the most powerful and controversial alternative tracking methods, creating unique identifiers for devices based on their distinctive technical characteristics. Unlike cookies or device identifiers that can be reset or deleted, device fingerprints represent stateless tracking approaches that leverage inherent device characteristics to create persistent identifiers. Device fingerprinting collects information including screen size, supported HTML5 features, installed browser plugins, language settings, browser version, operating system, local date and time, hardware components like GPU, screen properties, IP address, TLS configuration, and countless other technical attributes. These attributes are combined and hashed into a unique device fingerprint that can be used by fraud mitigation systems and tracking networks to identify whether a device has been previously encountered or is associated with suspicious activity.
The distinction between browser fingerprinting and device fingerprinting reflects different technical approaches to the same fundamental problem of stateless tracking. Browser fingerprinting collects passive information about browser attributes, while device fingerprinting adds active JavaScript code on the client side to generate highly unique and stable fingerprints that prove more effective at tracking across diverse devices and browsing contexts. Devices with jailbroken status (iPhone) or rooted status (Android) can be detected through device fingerprinting, information that browser fingerprinting typically cannot capture. Research demonstrates that the probability of two users sharing identical browser fingerprints remains extremely low, making this technique highly effective for device-level user identification and tracking.
A particularly sophisticated tracking approach discovered through academic research is HyTrack, a hybrid technique that leverages mobile app architecture vulnerabilities to enable persistent cross-app and cross-website tracking. HyTrack exploits the shared cookie jar between the default system browser and Custom Tabs or Trusted Web Activities used by mobile apps, enabling trackers to set persistent cookies in the browser that become accessible across all apps using these features. When multiple apps perform requests using Custom Tabs to the same webpage, they inadvertently share the cookie jar, allowing the targeted webpage to set a persistent cookie that becomes accessible whenever any app opens that webpage through a Custom Tab. Particularly troubling is HyTrack’s capacity for cookie resurrection: even when users clear all app data, Google’s automatic backup functionality restores shared preferences to Google Drive, and when a Trusted Web Activity pushes a previously stored cookie back to the browser’s cookie jar, it resurrects the tracking identifier. This capability produces tracking persistence even more durable than the “evercookie” concept, as the tracking ID persists across app reinstallation and device changes through Google account synchronization.
Statistical and probabilistic identifiers represent another category of alternative tracking technology, using server-side algorithms that identify devices or users based on combinations of standard attributes passed by the device. Typical device attributes used in statistical identification include device type, operating system, user-agent string, installed fonts, and IP address, though these attributes change over time due to device updates or user modifications. This approach proves less reliable than persistent identifiers or device fingerprinting but offers the advantage of not requiring stored data on the device, potentially reducing legal and regulatory exposure.
Privacy Regulatory Landscape and Compliance Requirements
The collection, storage, and sharing of data through mobile app cookies and SDKs operates within an increasingly complex regulatory environment established by privacy laws across the globe, with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States representing the most consequential privacy regimes affecting mobile applications. These regulations impose strict requirements on mobile app developers to be transparent in their data practices, obtain valid user consent for data collection, and provide users with meaningful control over their personal information.
The GDPR mandates that apps obtain explicit user consent for collecting personal information and provide users with the right to access or delete their data upon request. Consent under GDPR must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous, with apps prohibited from using pre-checked consent boxes or implied consent mechanisms. The CCPA grants California residents the right to opt out of data collection and requires companies to disclose what personal data they collect, with expanded provisions requiring organizations to respect consumer requests to opt out from the sale and sharing of personal data. Compliance failures carry severe consequences, with GDPR imposing fines up to 4% of a company’s global annual revenue and CCPA enabling similar regulatory penalties plus private rights of action allowing affected individuals to pursue litigation.
Mobile app developers face particular challenges in achieving privacy regulation compliance, as mobile platforms present unique technical and architectural complexities compared to web properties. Many organizations building compliance processes focus first on web properties, treating mobile apps as secondary concerns despite equivalent compliance obligations. This approach creates significant compliance gaps, particularly regarding consumer rights mechanisms that prove technically challenging to implement on mobile platforms. Consumer rights requests must be addressable for both data access and deletion, requiring technical processes and written procedures tested with actual users. Organizations must also respect authorized agent requests, where consumers delegate third parties to exercise their data rights on their behalf, a developing area where confusion remains common.
The CCPA’s emphasis on universal opt-out mechanisms creates additional challenges on mobile platforms where standardized global privacy controls remain under development. Unlike the desktop environment where websites have embraced Global Privacy Control standards, no fully compliant standard mechanism exists on mobile platforms for users to express privacy preferences across applications. During this transitional period, companies must stay current with evolving standards and support multistakeholder group efforts developing new opt-out mechanisms. Organizations using consent management platforms must conduct independent analyses of GDPR and CCPA requirements against their actual third-party integrations rather than relying on CMP default classifications, as many CMPs align more closely with GDPR requirements than CCPA’s broader scope.
User Consent and Privacy Control Mechanisms
Effective privacy regulation compliance requires obtaining valid user consent for data collection and processing, necessitating thoughtful consent user experience design that balances legal requirements with practical implementation challenges. Best practices for granular consent include seeking separate consent for different data types and purposes rather than bundling all consent into single permissions, requesting consent contextually at the moment data is collected rather than generically at app signup, using plain language in consent notices interpretable by general users rather than complex legal terminology, and implementing explicit action buttons or toggles rather than pre-checked boxes or implied consent.
Consent management platforms (CMPs) provide technical infrastructure for collecting, storing, and managing user consent decisions across mobile apps and websites.Leading CMP solutions like OneTrust and TrustArc offer mobile app-specific functionality including advanced app scanning to identify all SDKs and trackers collecting data, pre-categorized databases of tracking technologies, customizable consent banners aligned with company branding, support for multiple languages and geolocation-based rules, and mechanisms for synchronizing consent across devices without relying on third-party cookies.These platforms typically enable companies to collect consent receipts with metadata including timestamp, version, and scope information, providing verifiable records of consent for regulatory compliance demonstration.
Mobile app consent mechanisms differ substantively from web consent implementation due to platform-specific constraints and user interface considerations. Mobile platforms present limited screen space for consent notices, require optimization for touch-based interactions, and face technical limitations in cookie management compared to desktop browsers. App developers must balance providing adequate transparency and choice to users while maintaining acceptable user experience flows that do not impose excessive friction during app onboarding or usage. Effective mobile consent implementations should leverage platform-specific features, such as Apple’s App Tracking Transparency framework on iOS and Google’s Privacy Sandbox developments on Android, rather than attempting identical consent mechanisms across both platforms.
Apple’s App Tracking Transparency Framework and iOS Privacy Evolution
Apple’s introduction of the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework in iOS 14.5 represents one of the most significant privacy interventions in mobile operating system history, fundamentally restructuring the mobile advertising ecosystem by requiring explicit opt-in consent for cross-app tracking. Prior to ATT implementation, app developers could access users’ IDFA without explicit permission, enabling widespread cross-app tracking that users neither understood nor explicitly authorized. The ATT framework changed this paradigm by requiring apps to present an authorization request to users seeking permission to track their activity across other companies’ apps and websites for advertising or data broker purposes.
The practical implementation of ATT through user-facing permission prompts creates dramatic consent patterns that reflect user preferences about privacy. When users encounter ATT prompts, they can either grant permission allowing app tracking or select “Ask App Not to Track,” effectively opting out of IDFA access and cross-app tracking. If users opt out, the app developer cannot access the system advertising identifier, and the app faces prohibition against tracking activity using other identifying information like email addresses. This opt-in consent model dramatically constrains the practical ability of advertisers to implement cross-app targeting and measurement compared to web-based advertising, where third-party cookie restrictions apply to third parties but first-party cookies remain available to websites themselves.
Users can manage their ATT permissions by navigating to Privacy & Security settings and reviewing the list of apps that requested tracking permission. Within the Tracking settings, users can individually enable or disable tracking permissions for specific apps, providing granular control unavailable on the Android platform. Users can also choose to disable all tracking permission requests entirely, preventing apps from displaying ATT prompts. This user-centric approach to privacy controls aligns with Apple’s broader positioning of the company as privacy-protective and stands in stark contrast to Google’s more permissive approach on Android.
Google’s Privacy Sandbox Initiative and Android Privacy Evolution
Google has taken a more measured and extended approach to privacy protection compared to Apple’s relatively abrupt ATT implementation, announcing the Privacy Sandbox on Android initiative to develop privacy-preserving advertising solutions while supporting existing advertising infrastructure during an extended transition period. Google stated that it plans to support existing ads platform features, including the Advertising ID, for at least two years from the announcement, providing substantial notice before implementing fundamental changes. This approach reflects both technical challenges inherent in redesigning advertising systems at Android’s scale and business pressures from advertising industry participants.
The Privacy Sandbox on Android proposes introducing two key solutions: an SDK Runtime and a set of privacy-preserving APIs that would eventually replace cross-app identifier-based tracking. The SDK Runtime represents a new platform capability where third-party SDKs would execute in a dedicated runtime environment with modified execution environments and well-defined permissions and data access rights, providing stronger safeguards against undisclosed user data collection and sharing. This architecture directly addresses one of the core privacy problems in current Android ecosystems: third-party SDKs currently execute within the host app’s sandbox and inherit the same privileges and permissions as the host app, providing access to the host app’s memory and storage. App developers frequently lack awareness of the full extent of third-party SDK functionality and the data they access, making it challenging to account for data collection and sharing practices.
The privacy-preserving APIs proposed for Android include Topics API, which infers coarse-grained interest signals based on the apps a user has installed, with these topics selected entirely on the device such that app usage information never shares with external parties. Users would see and control their topics in device settings, providing transparency and user control. Protected Audience API introduces a new way for apps to show ads based on custom audiences defined by app developers and tracked through user interactions within their app, with information and associated ads stored locally rather than shared with external parties. This approach enables remarketing to existing customers while limiting cross-app tracking. Attribution Reporting APIs would support measurement of conversions and machine learning optimization without reliance on user-level tracking mechanisms, allowing marketers to evaluate advertising effectiveness while protecting user privacy.
Browser and Hybrid App Authentication Challenges
The complexity of cookie handling in mobile environments becomes particularly apparent in hybrid mobile applications built with frameworks like Ionic (using Capacitor or Cordova) and React Native, which combine web technologies with native app capabilities. These hybrid apps use WebViews to display web content within the native app, but WebView cookie behavior differs significantly from standard browser behavior, creating authentication and session management challenges. On iOS, the WKWebView uses separate cookie storage from Safari, while on Android, WebView behavior varies by operating system version but generally isolates cookies from the system browser. This cookie isolation can prevent proper persistence of session cookies, disrupt token synchronization between native and web layers, and cause authentication state changes to fail synchronization with routing.
The cookie isolation problem in hybrid apps creates practical authentication failures where session tokens stored in webview cookies become inaccessible to native app code, or where authentication state changes in native code fail to communicate to webview content. Developers must implement redundant authentication mechanisms that fall back from webview cookies to native storage mechanisms, ensuring robustness across different authentication scenarios. This situation exemplifies how the fragmented mobile ecosystem creates security and functionality challenges for even technically sophisticated development teams.
Data Storage Security and Encryption Practices
The security of data storage in mobile applications requires comprehensive encryption and access control implementations, as stored data faces vulnerability to unauthorized access if security practices prove inadequate. Encryption in transit using TLS 1.2 or higher protocols should protect all sensitive data transmitted between mobile devices and servers, while encryption at rest using algorithms like AES-256 should protect stored data. This applies particularly to health information, financial data, and authentication tokens that face exceptional risk if exposed.
Android’s data storage options include app-specific storage for files intended exclusively for the app’s use, stored in dedicated directories within internal storage or external storage with sensitivity considerations determining placement. Internal storage remains more secure for sensitive information as it is never accessible to other apps, while external storage can be accessed by other apps on the device. Shared storage accommodates files the app intends to share with other apps, including media files and documents, accessed through APIs like MediaStore or Storage Access Framework. Shared Preferences stores private key-value pairs and has evolved toward EncryptedSharedPreferences for sensitive data requiring encryption. Databases using the Room persistence library store structured data within private databases inaccessible to other apps.
iOS security for sensitive data relies heavily on the Keychain, which provides secure storage for passwords, authentication tokens, and other sensitive information with cryptographic protection and access controls. The evolution toward EncryptedSharedPreferences on Android and Keychain storage on iOS reflects growing recognition that default storage mechanisms provide insufficient security for sensitive data. Developers implementing KMP (Kotlin Multiplatform) applications must bridge the gap between Android’s EncryptedSharedPreferences and iOS’s Keychain, typically using wrapper libraries that present unified interfaces while leveraging platform-specific secure storage mechanisms.
Understanding the Privacy and Security Implications of Comprehensive Data Collection
The aggregation of diverse data collection mechanisms—traditional cookies, app-specific identifiers, device fingerprints, analytics SDKs, advertising SDKs, and alternative tracking technologies—creates a comprehensive user surveillance infrastructure that extends far beyond what most users comprehend or intend to permit. The data stored through these mechanisms enables sophisticated behavioral targeting, individual user identification across applications and platforms, manipulation of user preferences through algorithmic curation, and monetization of personal information through data sales and ad tech markets.
The privacy implications prove particularly severe for users in contexts where data collection combines with other surveillance systems, as demonstrated through real-world examples of data breaches and misuse. The Gravy Analytics breach (2024) revealed that popular apps including Grindr, Tinder, and Muslim Pro inadvertently enabled collection of sensitive location data, even where apps claimed not to share geolocation information with ad partners. The breach exposed how data flows through complex ad tech supply chains frequently unknown to app developers, with location data monetized and accessed without user knowledge or consent. The Pushwoosh incident (2023) demonstrated how customer engagement SDKs could embed malicious code linked to geopolitical actors, raising concerns about supply chain vulnerabilities and espionage. The Mintegral vulnerability (2020) revealed remote code execution flaws in advertising SDKs, potentially enabling complete device compromise and data theft. The Vungle vulnerability (2017) exposed arbitrary file write and remote code execution capabilities through advertising SDKs, demonstrating how SDKs can become attack vectors threatening the entire device and user data.
These examples illustrate that the privacy risks inherent in mobile app data collection extend beyond unauthorized data access to encompass security vulnerabilities that threaten user device security and data integrity. The ability of app developers and users to verify SDK security requires sophisticated technical analysis capabilities beyond the reach of most organizations and individuals, creating an asymmetry where security experts can identify vulnerabilities months or years after exposure, by which point millions of users may have downloaded vulnerable applications.
Best Practices for Mobile App Developers and Privacy Compliance
Mobile app developers seeking to balance functionality requirements with privacy and security obligations should implement comprehensive strategies for SDK evaluation, user consent management, and data minimization. Before integrating any SDK, developers should carefully evaluate what permissions the SDK uses, what data it collects, and why such data collection proves necessary. This information should be documented and included in Data Safety forms required by app stores, with developers responsible for the SDK’s data collection behavior even if they do not use particular SDK functions. Developers should review all applicable platform policies to ensure SDKs do not cause compliance violations, particularly regarding device location sharing, persistent identifiers, and user data handling.
Developers should stay current with platform policy updates to ensure integrated SDKs continue complying with evolving requirements, particularly for policies regarding device and network abuse, advertising practices, and persistent identifier usage. The Google Play SDK Index provides insights and usage data for commercial SDKs including reliability, safety signals, version adoption, and app permissions, enabling developers to make informed SDK selection decisions. Before publishing apps, developers should review the Data Safety form section to accurately describe what data their app collects, why collection occurs, and what security practices protect that data.
For SDK providers, best practices include understanding and continuously updating awareness of platform policies, ensuring that SDKs do not inadvertently cause app violations, avoiding sale or sharing of personal and sensitive user information without explicit authorization, supporting the latest API security and data minimization features, and providing clear documentation about what user data SDKs collect and why. SDK providers should help developers understand data collection through easily accessible public information in standardized formats, enabling app developers to properly disclose data practices to end users and implement appropriate consent mechanisms.
Recommendations for Users Seeking to Protect Mobile Privacy
Individual users seeking to protect their privacy while using mobile applications should implement layered privacy protection strategies leveraging device settings, privacy-focused applications, and behavioral practices. On Android devices, users can manage advertising preferences by navigating to Settings > Privacy > Ads, where they can reset or delete their Advertising ID. Resetting the Advertising ID generates a new identifier but does not delete user-level data previously associated with the old identifier, while deleting the ID removes the advertising ID and does not assign a new one, potentially reducing ad relevance. Users should also review and customize app permissions, disabling unnecessary permissions that apps request through the Android permissions system.
On iOS devices, users should review and respond to App Tracking Transparency prompts, selecting “Ask App Not to Track” for applications where cross-app tracking seems unnecessary. Users can navigate to Settings > Privacy & Security > Tracking to review all apps that requested tracking permission and disable tracking for specific applications. Users can also choose to disable all tracking permission requests entirely through device settings, preventing apps from displaying ATT prompts.
Both Android and iOS users can implement browser-level privacy protections to limit tracking cookies in mobile web browsing. Chrome on Android users should navigate to Settings > Privacy and Security > Cookies and Other Site Data to block third-party cookies, while Safari users should access Preferences > Privacy > Manage Website Data to review and remove websites with stored tracking data. Firefox on both platforms blocks third-party tracking cookies by default. Users can also switch to privacy-focused browsers like DuckDuckGo, Brave, or Firefox that implement stronger default protections against tracking and cross-site tracking.
At the behavioral level, users should minimize the personal information they provide to apps, avoiding connecting apps to social media accounts where possible, declining to grant unnecessary permissions, and regularly reviewing and revoking permissions from apps that no longer require them. Users should read privacy policies before downloading apps, though the complexity and technical nature of these documents limits their utility for most users. Users interested in technical monitoring can enable Charles Proxy or similar network monitoring tools to observe data requests their apps make, though this requires significant technical expertise. Ultimately, users face structural limitations in achieving meaningful privacy protection within the current mobile ecosystem, where comprehensive data collection remains the default and privacy protection requires constant vigilance and technical knowledge beyond typical user capabilities.
The Final Word on What’s Stored
Mobile app cookies and SDKs represent one of the most consequential yet underappreciated surveillance infrastructures in contemporary digital life, enabling comprehensive collection, analysis, and monetization of user behavioral data at scales and depths that exceed most users’ understanding or intentions. The traditional cookie-based tracking mechanisms that achieved ubiquity on the web have evolved in mobile contexts into sophisticated multi-layered identification systems employing device identifiers, analytics SDKs, advertising SDKs, device fingerprints, and alternative tracking technologies that collectively create persistent user tracking across applications and platforms.
The regulatory landscape is gradually tightening around mobile data collection through GDPR, CCPA, and emerging privacy laws in other jurisdictions, creating pressure for enhanced transparency, user consent, and privacy protection mechanisms. However, regulatory implementation remains inconsistent, with significant compliance gaps persisting even as enforcement actions proliferate. Apple’s aggressive privacy interventions through the App Tracking Transparency framework have dramatically altered the mobile advertising ecosystem, while Google’s more gradual Privacy Sandbox initiative reflects both technical complexity and business pressures requiring extended transition periods.
The future evolution of mobile privacy protection will likely involve continued tension between advertising industry requirements for user identification and targeting capabilities, user privacy expectations and regulatory requirements, and technical constraints inherent in mobile app architecture. The proposed privacy-preserving APIs on Android, including Topics, Protected Audience, and Attribution Reporting, may eventually provide viable alternatives to cross-app identifier-based tracking, though their effectiveness at protecting privacy while supporting advertising remains untested at scale. The discovery of sophisticated tracking techniques like HyTrack demonstrates that as traditional tracking methods face restriction, more sophisticated and resilient tracking approaches will emerge, requiring continuous evolution of privacy protection measures.
Mobile app developers, privacy regulators, platform providers, and users must collectively navigate the challenge of preserving legitimate app functionality and advertising ecosystem value while implementing meaningful privacy protections and user control mechanisms. This requires enhanced SDK transparency and security vetting, more effective privacy configuration mechanisms with better developer understanding, stronger default privacy protections with meaningful user control, and robust regulatory enforcement against privacy violations. Without such comprehensive approaches, the current trajectory toward ever-more sophisticated user surveillance in mobile environments will likely continue, incrementally eroding privacy protections and user autonomy in digital spaces that have become fundamental to contemporary life.
Protect Your Digital Life with Activate Security
Get 14 powerful security tools in one comprehensive suite. VPN, antivirus, password manager, dark web monitoring, and more.
Get Protected Now
