It never bypassed the sandbox. I don't think you can call this malware
In fact, I'd argue the information harvesting most mobile ad networks do is much more harmful than this click fraud. Do we ban all of those as malware too? Most them don't mention that they send things like unique device identifiers, connected wifi networks or Google account information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
> Some malware is used to generate money by click fraud, making it appear that the computer user has clicked an advertising link on a site, generating a payment from the advertiser. It was estimated in 2012 that about 60 to 70% of all active malware used some kind of click fraud, and 22% of all ad-clicks were fraudulent
If you want to coin a new term feel free, but malware means what it means and refers to malicious, not "more malicious than", not "malicious against the user" etc.
Eating up their battery/resources running hidden code that pretends to be them is kinda malicious. I also count hidden bitcoin miners as malicious.
Lots of malware doesn't have malicious intent against the user. Like botnets for DDoS attacks. Those things generally don't have any noticeable impact on the user, aside from increased network usage, but do immense damage to their targets.
I agree it's different than typical malware. As for considering ad tracking malware, the term "malicious" is obviously open to interpretation, so yes, you could make the argument that that is malware. You'd just have to convince others this meets the criteria for maliciousness. I've certainly heard people say that DRM software is malware.
This is not really that different than the spam "debate" - I've heard people argue that spam is no big deal because the bulk of it is caught. Tell that to people who run mail servers (but only if you brought your earplugs).
I suppose that, because many people put up with so much surveillance, they have difficulty drawing a line. I find this one a simple line to draw, but if you feel the need to place it elsewhere, the best predicate tipping point is based on intent.
That's a very odd definition you have.
Rest assured, nobody is saying this kind of apps are acceptable. But calling them malware is not right when they technically don't use more than they been given access to (network + some cpu time)?
