It just looked like that because that statement wasn't in quotes, and the title of that article is fearmongering and inaccurate click bait.

But anyway, I don't think you are understanding me.

If I were to "hack" your phone, all I would have access to is your camera and microphone, maybe your gallery, maybe your texts, and maybe your contact list. Now tell me, what am I, a "hacker", going to do with a bunch of pictures of your family and some texts to your wife? What am I going to gain by activating your camera? A video of you playing flappybird while you poop?

You (not you as an individual, you as the average user) provide me no useful information. I'm not going to take the time to intiate an attack, nor will I take the time to sit there and sift through the data. (Untargeted)

If you are a competitor of mine who I suspect is developing a new product. Yes I have something to gain from attempting to hear or see what you are doing. Maybe activate the mic during board meetings, activate the camera periodically to catch a glimpse of something, sift through photos and texts to catch a hint of what's going on. (Targeted)

As the government I have a vested interest in catching you do something illegal. If I suspect you of crime I'll hack your phone to gain as much data as possible. Chances are if your phone provides any incriminating evidence, you are probably involved with cybercrime, so your phone will be setup differently than the average user, and will provide much more useful information. (Targeted)

The only untargeted attack would most likely be that of government data farming. Plain and simple.

John Doe who is a stand up citizen with 3 kids, a wife, a dog, and is a manager at Wal-Mart simply doesn't provide any useful information to anyone to warrant an attack. You might find that offensive, but it is the reality.

__________________
03 3.0i mt
89 325is