Who is accountable for privacy when apps collect unnecessary data?

Why This Matters for Security Teams

Unnecessary data collection is not just a product design issue. It becomes a privacy, access, and accountability problem the moment broad telemetry, over-permissive APIs, or unused user fields are introduced into production. The security and IAM function is accountable for challenging whether the app truly needs the data it is asking for, and whether access to that data is justified, logged, and constrained. That aligns with the governance emphasis in the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and with NHIMG guidance on NHI exposure and privilege creep.

NHIMG research shows how quickly overcollection becomes an operational risk: 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, and 79% of organisations have experienced secrets leaks, with 77% causing tangible damage, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs — Key Research and Survey Results. The same pattern appears when apps ingest personal data they do not need: wider retention, more internal access paths, and more downstream exposure. In practice, many security teams encounter privacy failures only after unnecessary data has already been copied into analytics, support tools, and shared integrations, rather than through intentional minimisation.

How It Works in Practice

Accountability is shared, but the control points differ. The service owner is responsible for designing the data flow so only required fields are collected, retained, and transmitted. Security, IAM, and privacy governance are responsible for verifying that access to any collected data is tightly bound to a legitimate purpose, a defined role, and a reviewable lifecycle. The question is not only “who owns the app,” but also “who approves the scope of data the app can see and keep.”

In practical terms, teams should treat unnecessary data as an access expansion issue. That means reviewing API scopes, app permissions, event payloads, logs, and backup sets for hidden personal data. It also means enforcing least privilege on downstream systems so customer support, analytics, and automation tools do not inherit more data than they need. NHIMG’s IOS app secrets leakage report is a useful reminder that overcollection and weak handling often travel together: once sensitive data enters the estate, it tends to propagate across code, configs, and third-party tooling.

• Require a data-minimisation review before new fields, logs, or telemetry are enabled.
• Map each data element to a business purpose and an explicit owner.
• Limit access with role-based controls and time-bound approvals for sensitive records.
• Review secrets, tokens, and service accounts that can reach collected data stores.
• Validate retention and deletion so unused data does not remain discoverable indefinitely.

These controls tend to break down when product teams add analytics or support integrations without a privacy gate because the data starts moving faster than governance can review it.

Common Variations and Edge Cases

Tighter data collection often increases product friction, so organisations must balance user experience, observability, and compliance against the cost of storing and protecting extra information. Best practice is evolving, but current guidance suggests that “collect it now, justify it later” is no longer acceptable when personal data can be excluded up front.

Edge cases usually appear in shared platforms and embedded workflows. For example, an app owner may claim that the platform team owns privacy because the data sits in a central service, while the platform team argues that the product team chose the fields and prompts. In reality, both are accountable in different ways: the product or service owner defines need, while the platform, security, and IAM functions enforce guardrails. That is especially important where NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are mapped to data handling, and where NHIMG’s broader research on excessive privileges and secret exposure shows how quickly unnecessary access becomes systemic.

When apps are integrated with third-party processors, the accountability chain extends further. There is no universal standard for this yet, but strong practice is to require documented purpose limitation, explicit approval for each data class, and periodic access recertification. That is the difference between a service that merely stores data and a service that can defend why it stores it at all.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• Who is accountable when a compromised non-human identity causes major outage or data loss?
• Who is accountable when patient access is shared across third-party apps?
• Who should be accountable when a leaked service account exposes production data?
• Who is accountable for how device fingerprinting data is collected and used?