NordVPN Explains Smartphones’ Background Data Sharing and Privacy Risks

• Smartphones constantly exchange data, with some transmissions necessary and others raising privacy concerns
• Excessive background activity can track behavior, location, and usage patterns without explicit user consent
• AI and complex ecosystems increase hidden data sharing, expanding cybersecurity attack surfaces
• Before regulations catch up, it’s up to users to limit exposure via permissions, background refresh, ad tracking, and VPN protection

As many of us have noticed, smartphones are never truly idle, even at night. While it rests on a bedside table, it continuously exchanges small amounts of data with servers to stay updated, responsive, and functional. These background transmissions keep the device running smoothly—but they also mean the data is constantly in motion.

Distinguishing Necessary from Excessive Activity

Seeing how Lithuanian-born NordVPN is apparently the world’s most advanced VPN service provider,ITKeyMedia asked the company’s CTO Marijus Briedis to break down the clear difference between the ‘necessary background activity’ and the excessive one and where does the borderline lie from a cybersecurity standpoint.

The CTO lists what smartphones need to transmit to servers for proper functionality: 

• Device identifiers like IMEI, hardware serials, and SIM details
• Telemetry data about system status or health
• Service checks (push notification service, operating system update checks)
• Crash logs or diagnostic analytics
• Connectivity state (Wi-Fi vs. mobile network)
• Content updates (news, social feeds, email sync) 

Additionally, the expert specifies the idle data traffic exceeds basic functionality and is transmitted without user action, raising privacy and cybersecurity concerns. 

1. Persistent identifiers. For example, device IDs or advertising IDs are not required for basic phone operation; yet, they enable companies and third parties to link activity across apps and services, build long-term behavioral profiles, and track users even when apps are not actively in use.
2. Location-related signals. Even when precise GPS is disabled, smartphones may still transmit approximate location data, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth identifiers, and nearby network information. These signals significantly expand the device’s data footprint, allowing for the reconstruction of location and movement patterns.
3. Background analytics and diagnostics. Many devices continuously send analytics and telemetry data while idle, including app usage patterns, interaction timing, system events, and behavioral signals. These transmissions are often enabled by default and can be difficult for users to audit or fully disable. The problem lies in the volume, frequency, and opacity of the data collection. 

Where the Line Is Drawn

‘There are legitimate reasons for background data transmission, such as maintaining system stability, security updates, and core functionality. The line is crossed when data collection goes beyond what is strictly required for those purposes. From a cybersecurity standpoint, background activity becomes excessive when it enables persistent tracking, profiling, or data aggregation that has no direct operational necessity,’ Mr Briedis sums up.

‘In actuality, the boundary between ‘necessary’ and ‘excessive’ background activity lies where transparency, minimization, and control disappear. The mere fact that a system performs certain actions ‘in the background’ does not automatically constitute a risk. The problem arises when these actions turn into an unmanaged, opaque infrastructure that lives its own life and goes beyond technical or business necessity,’  Olga Voloshyna of the Committee on IT and Cyber Security of the German-Ukrainian Chamber of Industry and Commerce agrees.

Complexity VS Intent: Why Background Sharing Happens

NordVPN’s CTO doesn’t believe that mobile operating systems intentionally blur transparency around background data flows. According to him the lack of transparency is largely a consequence of ecosystem complexity rather than deliberate intent. Modern operating systems have to balance usability, security, developer flexibility, and commercial interests, which often results in background processes being abstracted away from users. The problem is that many users assume default settings are safe, when in reality understanding and awareness are essential when making choices related to permissions.

Specifically, AI-driven features often appear seamless and helpful, but they prioritize convenience over transparency. While some processing happens on-device, AI systems still rely on data inputs, telemetry, and model updates that encourage continuous data sharing. This increases the risk of sensitive behavioral patterns being collected or inferred without clear user awareness.

Inefficiency and Redundancy Contributing to the Growing Attack Surface

‘In cybersecurity, there is a simple rule: anything connected can be attacked. Smartphones depend on constant network connectivity, and every background connection, service, or telemetry endpoint expands the attack surface. While these connections are protected by modern security controls, persistent background data flows may still increase exposure to sophisticated threats such as surveillance techniques or advanced malware, particularly if other vulnerabilities are present,’ Mr Briedis states.

‘Technologies have long learned to operate efficiently: collecting exactly the information needed for algorithms or analytics. If a system sends unique identifiers, detailed logs, or excessive parameters, it is a sign of inefficiency or poor architecture. Redundancy creates additional touchpoints that could be exploited in the event of a compromise,’ Ms Voloshyna comments.

Accountability and Privacy Labels

A disclaimer is necessary: Regulations such as the GDPR set clear limits on unjustified background data sharing while still allowing some data processing when it is needed for a service to work. They also give users strong rights over their data. Crucially, the responsibility for data minimization lies with service providers and device manufacturers, not users. By shifting accountability to those designing digital systems, the GDPR meaningfully constraints excessive background data sharing, even though its effectiveness depends on enforcement and interpretation in practice.

The CTO points out that, while it would be a far fetch to call out privacy labels and consent prompts as a ‘security theater,’ they rarely explain the full scope, frequency, or downstream use of data. While meaningful control without technical knowledge is difficult, users can still reduce risks by limiting permissions, disabling unnecessary background activity, and managing privacy settings instead of relying on defaults.

Practical Steps to Reduce Data Exposure

To conclude, Mr Briedis reminds about the practical measures that allow users to reduce the risks of personal data getting exposed: 

• Review unnecessary app permissions. Especially, location, background data, tracking, access to the microphone, and photos.
• Disable background app refresh (where possible). On iOS, go to Settings → General → Background App Refresh. On Android, this is done individually for each app in the Mobile Data & Wi-Fi controls.
• Restrict cloud backups. Turn off auto-sync for data you don’t need backed up.
• Turn off personalized ads. You can limit ad tracking by turning off personalized ads in your device settings, which resets or restricts the advertising ID used to track activity across apps.
• Limit Wi-Fi scanning. Disable Wi-Fi scanning and Bluetooth scanning in Android settings.
• Use a VPN with a built-in security layer. For example, NordVPN has tools that can block tracking domains and malicious connections, stop risky background connections, and reduce advertiser profiling.

‘Control is essential. The end user must be able to manage the level of background operations: limiting them through policies, applying traffic monitoring, and verifying integrity. When such processes are embedded within security frameworks, they cease to be a source of risk and become a predictable part of the infrastructure,’ Ms Voloshyna summarizes.

Looking ahead five years, Mr Briedis foresees surface-level privacy controls improving, but background data processing will continue to grow more sophisticated and less visible, driven by AI and personalization. Whether smartphones become meaningfully more private will depend less on industry self-restraint and more on regulatory pressure and a shift toward local, on-device processing by default.