iCloud backups are OT encrypted

[JF Mezei]

Exclusive: Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI
complained - sources

> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT

(This on top of the fact that Apple does does AI analysis of your photos
to detect photos of people under age of 18).

[Lewis]

WTF are you talking about?


--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Um, I think so, Brain-2, but a show about two talking lab mice? Hoo!
It'll never get on the air."

[nospam]

In article <slrnr2eiq6....@ProMini.lan>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > Exclusive: Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI
> > complained - sources
>
> >> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT
>
> > (This on top of the fact that Apple does does AI analysis of your photos
> > to detect photos of people under age of 18).
>
> WTF are you talking about?

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/01/08/apple-scans-icloud-ph
otos-check-child-abuse/>
Jane Horvath, Appleąs chief privacy officer, said at a tech
conference that the company uses screening technology to look
for the illegal images. The company says it disables accounts if
Apple finds evidence of child exploitation material, although it
does not specify how it discovers it.

other companies do it too:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA>
PhotoDNA is primarily used in the identification of child
pornography, and works by computing a unique hash that
represents the image. This hash is computed such that it is
resistant to alterations in the image, including resizing and minor
color alterations.[1] It works by converting the image to black and
white, resizing it, breaking it into a grid, and looking at intensity
gradients or edges.[2]

It is used with Microsoft's own services Bing and OneDrive,[3] as
well as by Google Gmail, Twitter,[4] Facebook,[5] Adobe Systems[6]
and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children,[7] to whom
Microsoft donated the technology.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 19:04:38 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

>> Exclusive: Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI
>> complained - sources
>
>>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT
>
>> (This on top of the fact that Apple does does AI analysis of your photos
>> to detect photos of people under age of 18).
>
> WTF are you talking about?

JF Mezei is not an apologists ... but Lewis is, where... as always
o Apologists like Lewis prove to be _ignorant_ of even the basic facts.

SIMPLE FACT:

I already reported on the fact Apple scans (even encrypted) iCloud photos:
o Apple has confirmed it's automatically scanning images backed up to iCloud
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VkODI4K1SC8>
Where it's clear Lewis' belief system is based (yet again) on ignorance.

Intelligent people (i.e., not Lewis) noted that this change came at least
as of the 9 May 2019 update to Apple's privacy policy:
"We may... use your personal information for account
and network security purposes, including in order to
protect our services for the benefit of all our users,
*and pre-screening or scanning uploaded content*"

The supposedly "new" news in JF Mezei's thread is apparently this article:
o Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT>

Where the salient data points appear to be:
1. "More than two years ago, Apple told the FBI that it planned to
offer users end-to-end encryption when storing their phone data
on iCloud"

2. "Under that plan... Apple would no longer have a key to unlock
the encrypted data, meaning it would not be able to turn material
over to authorities in a readable form even under court order."

3. "The FBI's cyber crime agents and its operational technology division
objected to the plan, arguing it would deny them the most effective
means for gaining evidence"

4. "The following year, [Apple's] end-to-end encryption plan had been
dropped...Legal killed it... the company did not want to risk being
attacked by public officials for protecting criminals...
*They decided they weren't going to poke the bear anymore...*"

"Once the decision was made, the 10 or so experts on the Apple encryption
project - variously code-named Plesio and KeyDrop - were told to stop
working on the effort"

"Instead of protecting all of iCloud with end-to-end encryption, Apple has
shifted to focus on protecting some of the most sensitive user information,
such as saved passwords and health data."

"*But backed-up contact information and texts from*
*iMessage, WhatsApp and other encrypted services*
*remain available to Apple employees and authorities*"

See also tutorials for using "encrypted file containers" on iOS:
o Best freeware for portable encrypted file containers
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/8GGgFKaW-70/WCXEXfVYBAAJ>

o Do people of technical ability store their private data on the Internet
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/E0TkTd-zLuk/fF1RRv51AwAJ>

--
Apologists like Lewis always prove by what they write to be immune to fact.

[Lewis]

In message <210120201420391688%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnr2eiq6....@ProMini.lan>, Lewis
> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> > Exclusive: Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI
>> > complained - sources
>>
>> >> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT
>>
>> > (This on top of the fact that Apple does does AI analysis of your photos
>> > to detect photos of people under age of 18).
>>
>> WTF are you talking about?

> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/01/08/apple-scans-icloud-ph
> otos-check-child-abuse/>

that is not looking for photos of anyone under 18, that is looking for
known child porn.


--
I'm from a predominately black family --Eddie Murphy

[nospam]

In article <r08bkh$hll$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> The supposedly "new" news in JF Mezei's thread is apparently this article:
> o Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained
> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT>
>
> Where the salient data points appear to be:

the only salient data is that you didn't understand the article.

quoting:
Reuters could not determine why exactly Apple dropped the plan.
...
However, a former Apple employee said it was possible the encryption
project was dropped for other reasons, such as concern that more
customers would find themselves locked out of their data more often.

the second part is very real.

a *lot* of people forget their password and would be devastated if they
lost everything on their phone. this happens *far* more often than
terrorist investigations.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 02:46:29 -0500, nospam wrote:

> the only salient data is that you didn't understand the article.

Hi nospam,

Regarding this JF Mezei thread: *iCloud backups are NOT encrypted*

If we assume you are an adult, then we can assume you can do 2 things:
1. We can assume you can comprehend the facts in that article, as did I;
2. You assess those facts any way you feel is logically sensible to you.

The facts are:
a. Apple scans all your uploaded photos for known hashes, and,
b. Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after the FBI complained.

Do you deny those facts?
o *Because if you do - it proves - yet again - you're _immune_ to fact.*

There is comprehension of fact; and then there is assessment of that fact.

Your claim I didn't "understand" is bullshit - as always are your claims.
o Yet, you're quite welcome to _assess_ the facts differently than do I.

Reuters gave their assessment, which I quoted verbatim.
o You, as an apologist, apparently don't like that assessment ... and
that's your right.

Just don't claim I didn't understand the facts - as you're well aware I've
proven time and again you apologists, particularly you, nospam, claim cites
support your facts - when anyone reading those cites as an adult - would
see clearly that you didn't comprehend the facts in your own cites.

If you deny that fact, you know I'll just dig up the cases where I proved
that, so, again, if I assume you are an adult, nospam, then I give you the
right to form your own assessment of the facts - but please act like an
adult - and not like an apologist - when it comes to your comprehension of
those facts.

*Apologists almost always prove to be utterly _immune_ to the facts*.
o *Simply because, AFAICT, you apologists don't _like_ the facts.

Why don't apologists like facts?
o I don't know why.

I think it's because your belief system is almost always wholly imaginary
o And as such, facts instantly DESTROY your entire belief system, nospam.

> a *lot* of people forget their password and would be devastated if they
> lost everything on their phone. this happens *far* more often than
> terrorist investigations.

Again, nospam, if we graciously assume you are an adult, we must then
assume you own the cognitive and comprehensive skills of an adult.

Put simply, you either comprehend or don't comprehend these two facts:
a. Apple scans all your uploaded photos for known hashes, and,
b. Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after the FBI complained.

Do you deny those facts?
o *Because if you do - it proves - yet again - you're _immune_ to fact.*
--
The apologists like nospam _hate_ that facts DESTROY their belief systems.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 06:21:19 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> that is not looking for photos of anyone under 18, that is looking for
> known child porn.

You really should not post your actual thoughts, Lewis.
o Seriously.

Every time you post, you prove my point about apologists' cognition.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:12:16 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> (This on top of the fact that Apple does does AI analysis of your photos
> to detect photos of people under age of 18).

JF Mezei is not an apologist, so an adult conversation is possible here.
o *iCloud backups are NOT encrypted*

I assume all the adults on this ng likely understood what JF Mezei meant
but, for the apologists who posted, e.g., Lewis, let's clarify the known
facts for all apologists, who often appear to be unable to process "facts".

According to the facts in this prior thread on rec.photo.digital:
o Apple has confirmed that it's automatically scanning images backed up to iCloud
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/dQb5mX1vZ7Y>

What Apple looks for is unknown, but what Apple "says" they look for is:
"We may ... [perform]... pre-screening or scanning uploaded
content for potentially illegal content, including child sexual
exploitation material."

I assume adults innately comprehend the wide-sweeping scope of that policy.
1. Adults have the cognitive ability to comprehend facts, and,
2. Adults own the ability to form rational assessments of those facts.

However, given we have apologists on this newsgroup who lack basic adult
cognitive skills, we apparently need to point out what the words "may" and
"including" mean, just as we may need to point out what "potentially
illegal content" means.

FACT:
o *The fact is Apple "_may_" scan your uploaded photos.*
ASSESSMENT:
o *What they scan for is what _Apple feels_ they need to scan for.*

What does Apple feel they need to scan for?
o As far as we know, it's any "potentially illegal content".

Those are the simple facts.

Adults are welcome to form their own assessment of those simple facts; but
adults should first prove to not be _immune_ to those facts when forming
their assessments of those facts.
--
Apologists always seem to be fantastically _immune_ to even simple facts.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-22 01:21, Lewis wrote:

> that is not looking for photos of anyone under 18, that is looking for
> known child porn.

Last yesr, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a case of a teacher
taking surepticious pictures of underage female students with hidden
camera on his lapel was illegal. This was not generic surveillance
pictures of any/all students, but a camera aimed to photographs down a
chest and only turned on to take pictures of well endowed underage
female students. So while students know the school has surveillance
cameras everywhere, they didn't know that a teacher would take pictures
aimed at their chest for his own sexual enjoyment.

Some of these pictures did not show skin, just shape through clothes,
but combining intent and the fact the people on pictures were unaware
they were being photographed made them illegal.

Similarly, some dude in a van took pictures of kids in a park. Someone
became suspicious of the van with covered windwos and when the police
came in, they found him masturbating to the pictures. The pictures
themselves had no nudity, but the context and what the guy was doing
when caught clearly made this sexual. So guy was guilty.

Similalry, the judge noted that parents taking pictures of their
toddler(s) naked on beach as they play in sand/water is totally normal
because the context is not sexual and more of a recording of family history.

The danger of fancy image recognition running in some California data
centre is that the software has no clue on context or intent of the
pictures and risks triggering many false positives which ends up sending
innocent parenst to Court to prove their pictures are innocusous.

This becomes even more diffult for a global company like Apple who
operates in countries with different values. Nudist beaches are common
in Eiurope but not in Victorian United States.

Remember that Apple is scanning your own private pictures, not pictures
you are making available on the web.


A pedophile that has 500 pictures of different naked kids is not the
same as a parent with a few pictures of their son/daughter playing on
beach.

There are privacy implications if the AI software flags an account for
possibly improper pictures with a human then doing an evaluation of the
account,s pictiures to spot a pedophile or judge the pictures to be
innocuous family pictures. It means someone gets to see your pictures
without your consent. (though the intent to catch pedophiles is
laudable, this has to be done properly if you are scaling this up to all
your customers).

[Hawk]

Another reason to avoid the cloud.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Put simply, you either comprehend or don't comprehend these two facts:
> a. Apple scans all your uploaded photos for known hashes, and,
> b. Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after the FBI complained.
>
> Do you deny those facts?
> o *Because if you do - it proves - yet again - you're _immune_ to fact.*

Actually, we should be clearer, given apologists play silly games.

FACT 1:
Apple changed their privacy policy which now says they "may" scan your
uploaded iCloud content for whatever they think might be "illegal"
(and for a bunch of other reasons that Apple apparently cares about).

FACT 2:
Apple _admitted_ they were scanning the uploaded content.

Those are the facts.

o Apple has confirmed it's automatically scanning images backed up to iCloud
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VkODI4K1SC8>

--
Apologists tend to call any facts they don't like, to be "lies" by "Liars".

[nospam]

In article <r0ajbt$frv$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> Apple _admitted_ they were scanning the uploaded content.

so does microsoft, who created the technology, along with google,
facebook and many others.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA>

[Lewis]

In message <fc3WF.225994$K87.1...@fx46.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> The danger of fancy image recognition running in some California data
> centre is that the software has no clue on context or intent of the
> pictures and risks triggering many false positives which ends up sending
> innocent parenst to Court to prove their pictures are innocusous.

You need to actually find out what is being done. As I said recently,
companies (not just Apple) are scanning for KNOWN images.

--
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not
explain his nudity.

[Lewis]

If you have child pornography, yes.

--
All our loves are first loves

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 22.01.20 um 23:38 schrieb Hawk:

Bullshit!

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:33:40 -0500, nospam wrote:

> so does microsoft, who created the technology, along with google,
> facebook and many others.

*Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple's iCloud design flaws.*

Why?

I don't know why.

I suspect apologists _hate_ that the iCloud is fatally compromised.

Whose fault is that?
Apple's, of course.

What's amazing is that the apologists incessantly blame everyone but Apple
for what these apologists hate about Apple ... in this case, the fact that
the iCloud is clearly and obviously fatally compromised.
o On the Microsoft newsgroups, nobody blames Apple for Microsoft flaws.
o On the Android newsgroups, nobody blames Apple for Google's flaws.
o On the Linux newsgroups, nobody blames Apple for Canonical's flaws.

*Only Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple's own design flaws!*
o The apologists _hate_ the fact that the iCloud is fatally compromised!

--
Apologists blame Microsoft for Apple's iCloud being compromised by Apple.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:56:52 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> You need to actually find out what is being done. As I said recently,
> companies (not just Apple) are scanning for KNOWN images.

Adults should listen below as this is important about apologists.
o Lewis is yet more proof that apologists don't own adult cognitive skills.

Adults should notice how apologists, like Lewis, blame everyone but Apple
for the fact that Apple's iCloud is fatally compromised by Apple.
1. On the Linux newsgroups, nobody blames Apple for Canonical flaws.
2. On the Windows newsgroups, nobody blames Apple for Microsoft flaws.
3. On the Android newsgroups, nobody blames Apple for Google's flaws.

*Yet, Lewis just blamed everyone but Apple for Apple's own design flaws.*

The apologists clearly don't comprehend they can't have it both ways:
o Either Apple is _different_ from everyone else in terms of privacy.
o Or they're not.

The apologists try to have it both ways.
o The apologists try to claim Apple is different,
o And yet, when they find out they're not - they blame everyone but Apple!

The mere fact the apologists incessantly blame everyone but Apple for what
clearly are Apple's own design choices - is an indication that the
apologists formed imaginary belief systems which are_immune_ to facts.

Apologists always prove to own a completely imaginary belief system.
o And when it's proven to be imaginary - they blame Google or Microsoft.

*Apologists never think that Apple's design choices are Apple's alone.*

--
This is yet more proof that apologists don't own adult cognitive skills.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:25:45 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Bullshit!

Notice the child-like apologists can't comprehend that their highly touted
hugely advertised iCloud is clearly fatally compromised, by Apple.

--
Apologists can't fathom that Apple chose to fatally compromise the iCloud.

[гость]

All you do is complain. Have you nothing better to do sir?

--
Я гость в отеле

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-22 10:47 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:33:40 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> so does microsoft, who created the technology, along with google,
>> facebook and many others.
>
> *Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple's iCloud design flaws.*

Sorry, Liar, but your penchant for quoting people out of context is well
known.

So if you want to declare nospam's text an attempt to blame others for
Apple's issues, when on it's face it is nothing of the kind, you'll have
to quote the whole thing.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-22 10:59 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:56:52 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
>> You need to actually find out what is being done. As I said recently,
>> companies (not just Apple) are scanning for KNOWN images.
>
> Adults should listen below as this is important about apologists.
> o Lewis is yet more proof that apologists don't own adult cognitive skills.
>
> Adults should notice how apologists, like Lewis, blame everyone but Apple
> for the fact that Apple's iCloud is fatally compromised by Apple.
> 1. On the Linux newsgroups, nobody blames Apple for Canonical flaws.
> 2. On the Windows newsgroups, nobody blames Apple for Microsoft flaws.
> 3. On the Android newsgroups, nobody blames Apple for Google's flaws.
>
> *Yet, Lewis just blamed everyone but Apple for Apple's own design flaws.*

No, Liar.

He didn't blame Apple...

...and what's going on is not a design flaw.

>
> The apologists clearly don't comprehend they can't have it both ways:
> o Either Apple is _different_ from everyone else in terms of privacy.
> o Or they're not.

No, Liar.

It's not a binary situation.

You can be better than the alternatives at something without being
perfect. Being less than perfect doesn't necessarily make you as bad as
everyone else.

<snip repetitions of the same erroneous arguments>

[Arlen Holder]

On 23 Jan 2020 17:07:35 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> You would fall for the clickbait hype since you love spreading FUD. The
> truth is Apple has *always* encrypted iCloud data

I love when Jolly Roger posts, because we see the mind of the apologist.

The point that Jolly Roger fails to comprehend is that the overall process
Apple uses with respect to your data on the iCloud is fatally flawed.
o Specifically, Apple had _advertised_ they would use a better process.

But recent news clearly shows otherwise.
o *The fact is the overall iCloud encryption process is fatally flawed.*
--
Apple highly advertises the mere _illusion_ of privacy & security.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:43:33 -0000 (UTC), УЮбвм wrote:

> All you do is complain. Have you nothing better to do sir?

Thanks for your assessment of my actions, where it's your right to have an
opinion on why you think I have nothing better to do than to post facts.

IMHO, what you're actually saying is:
o *All I do is supply facts that you simply don't seem to like*.

Yet, you don't have to like facts; so it's your right to hate all facts.
o But you should at least _understand_ the facts, don't you think?

HINT: *The difference between adults & apologists is in factual cognition.*

Since you're new (or a new sock), allow me to explain why I'm here:
1. I noticed decades ago Apple users spouted only what Marketing fed them.
2. I wondered why these Apple users didn't own adult cognitive skills.
3. I asked _every_ iPhone owner _why_ they so very much love the iPhone

What came out of their mouths is essentially the same thing that comes out
of the mouths of a housewife filling her gas tank at Costco when I ask:
Q: What is the difference between the Premium gas & the Regular gas?

For _decades_, I've been asking people simple questions like:
Q: Why did you just purchase a case of "Techron" just now, at Costco?

The answers I receive are almost always the _illusion_ of functionality.
o People pay more for the mere _illusion_ of functionality.

Apple products, I posit, are brilliantly marketed to these same people who
clearly don't appear to own even the most basic of adult cognitive skills.

After years of studying the apologists, I can almost always predict exactly
what apology they will spew for any particular fact I inform them of.

To be fair to the _adults_ on this newsgroup, not all the posters are
apologists. In fact, there are only a score of apologists, whom I can name
easily, namely, Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Ammammata, Andreas Rutishauser,
Barry Margolin, Beedle, B...@Onramp.net, Chris, Davoud, dpb, Elden,
Elfin/Lloyd Parsons/Lloyd, Hawk, Hemidactylus, joe, Joerg Lorenz, Johan,
John McWilliams, Jolly Roger, Lewis, Meanie, nospam, Panthera Tigris
Altaica, Sandman, Savageduck, Snit, Tim Streater, Wade Garrett, Your Name,
et al.

I'm not sure yet how to categorize some of the common posters, e.g.,
recscuba_google@huntzinger, Rod Speed, Unreakable Disease, Wilf, et al.

The rest of the posters, e.g., Ant, badgolferman, David Empson, JF Mezei,
sms, & The Real Bev, are adults who, unfortunately, are in the minority.

Note the main difference between adults & apologists is in cognition.

--
Everything I say is based on facts and can easily be backed up with fact.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-23 10:33 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:43:33 -0000 (UTC), ÓÞáâì wrote:
>
>> All you do is complain. Have you nothing better to do sir?
>
> Thanks for your assessment of my actions, where it's your right to have an
> opinion on why you think I have nothing better to do than to post facts.
>
> IMHO, what you're actually saying is:
> o *All I do is supply facts that you simply don't seem to like*.

No, Liar.

You regularly supply things that are not facts, but are (in fact) only
assertions.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-23 01:47, Arlen Holder wrote:

> I suspect apologists _hate_ that the iCloud is fatally compromised.

That Apple buckled to 3 letter agency pressure to not encrypt iCloud
backups is not a "fatally compomised". It is an unfortuinate design
decision. The system isn't compromised. It works as intended. It is
simply not secure against government intrusion.

So you use use knowibgf whatever gets stored in there will be seen by
government/police.


Apple likely struck the right balance between cooperating with the 3
letter agencies without having to compromise security on the device
itself. (though if Celebrite was able to get into an iPhone11 months
after its release, that does raise questions).

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-23 12:07, Jolly Roger wrote:

> You would fall for the clickbait hype since you love spreading FUD. The

> truth is Apple has *always* encrypted iCloud data, as shown here:
>
> iCloud security overview
>
> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303>

##
iCloud secures your information by encrypting it when it's in transit,
storing it in iCloud in an encrypted format, and using secure tokens for
authentication. For certain sensitive information, Apple uses end-to-end
encryption. This means that only you can access your information, and
only on devices where you’re signed into iCloud. No one else, not even
Apple, can access end-to-end encrypted information.
##

Note the diffence between "for certain sensitice information" such as
your passwords. This means that for data that doesn't qualify as
"certain sensitive information", it is encrypted in a way where Apple
can access it. Which basically means protected against hackers stealing
data from the iCloud servers, but not protected against Apple and 3
letter agencies.

[гость]

Arlen Holder <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

Is there no such thing as balance? You don’t see anything good about Apple?

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-23 14:22, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Your shitty subject that 'iCloud backups are [N]OT encrypted" is a lie.
> They *are* encrypted.


This is where this Arlen fellow is correct, this is marketing. If Apple
or anyone else has the keys to decrypt your backups, they should not be
considered to be encrypted from your point of view.

[nospam]

In article <OGnWF.61977$tu4....@fx07.iad>, JF Mezei

false, since attackers will not be able to access it. even people
within apple cannot access it.

apple will *only* access it in response to a valid court order (not all
are valid), and it takes multiple people to sign off on it. a random
rogue employee can't, and if someone tries, they are fired on the spot,
quite possibly arrested.

[Hawk]

ANY access into my personal files/folders is an invasion. If the feds
have reason to believe someone is involved with child porn, then seek
the proper channels of a warrant, invade their home and PC then their
cloud storage. Otherwise, stay the hell out of my data. Hence, another
reason to avoid the cloud in addition to cyber attacks, server break
downs, ransomware and more.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-23 16:41, nospam wrote:

> apple will *only* access it in response to a valid court order

Or so we are told. The same logic applies here: if a backdoor exists, it
will be misued by people other than those intended for. Same logic on
why Apple doesn't want backdoors on the iPhones.


The problem with these searcgh warrants is that especially since the USA
Patriot Act that has ropped any rights for non USA citizens, it means
Apple must comply with a court order and MUST NOT tell the onwer of the
data that it has given a vopy of the data to 3 letter agency XXX.

So you don't even know that the police is snooping on you.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:12:14 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> That Apple buckled to 3 letter agency pressure to not encrypt iCloud
> backups is not a "fatally compomised". It is an unfortuinate design
> decision. The system isn't compromised. It works as intended. It is
> simply not secure against government intrusion.

Hi JF Mezei,

By now you should realize I'm against Marketing Bullshit.
o And therefore, I'm against when the apologists re-spew that Marketing BS.

It's a fact that Apple MARKETING highly touts:
o *What happens on your iPhone _stays_ on your iPhone*

And yet, it's trivial to prove that's nothing but pure Marketing bullshit.

Just like when the Siri fiasco proved you had no privacy, this new evidence
that Apple scans your private photos and doesn't end-to-end encrypt your
private data proves you have no privacy when you upload to the iCloud.

These are just facts.

The fact is Apple decided that it would allow roughly about 85% of the
requests for your private data in the first half of 2019.

That's a fact:
o Apple reveals worldwide national security requests for customer data
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apple-reveals-worldwide-national-security-requests-for-customer-data/ar-BBZ4Bzr>

The fact is that Apple can and does access your photos for whatever it
wants to access it for (e.g., whatever it considers detrimental content,
based on the newly amended privacy policy which we quoted a few times).

The fact is that Apple can, and does look through your private data.

Yet, Apple MARKETING highly touts:
o *What happens on your iPhone _stays_ on your iPhone*

Even MacWorld said that was not true when they said (only a year ago):
"people won't experience the lock-down privacy Apple alludes to"
o MacWorld: Apple's iPhone privacy billboard is a clever CES troll, but it's also inaccurate
<https://www.macworld.com/article/3331597/apple-privacy-billboard.html>

And yet, only a year ago, MacWorld said in that same article, at least:
o At least...
"iMessages are encrypted end-to-end ..."
o At least...
"Siri requests are processed locally."
o At least...
"Face ID is more secure than nearly every other...authentication scheme"

A year later, we know now all those to be a farce, is that right?
--
What I'm for are facts and sensible adult assessment of those facts.
What I'm against is marketing bullshit & child-like defense of that BS.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 20:38:50 -0000 (UTC), 핌항핸핼헌 wrote:

> Is there no such thing as balance?
> You don…t see anything good about Apple?

Hi "roctb" (aka "a guest", in Russian),
*It's interesting that you have such an _unbalanced_ view of the facts.*
(Which is trivial to prove, and I easily prove that case below.)

What you don't seem to comprehend are even the most basic of the facts.
o Yet, you formed your belief system in the almost total absence of fact.

FACT:
You, "roctb", appear to be _immune_ to the fact I post facts all the time
on a variety of newsgroups, where you seem to be unaware of these facts:
o <http://tinyurl.com/misc.phone.mobile.iphone>
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp.mobile.android>
o <http://tinyurl.com/alt.os.linux>
o <http://comp.mobile.os.windows-10.narkive.com>
*NOTE: Only on the Apple newsgroups, are posting facts considered "Lies".*

For example, I posted this fact just yesterday on the Windows newsgroups:
o *Microsoft Leaves 250M Customer Service Records Open to the Web*
<https://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com/refiaxuA/microsoft-leaves-250m-customer-service-records-open-to-the-web>
*Only on the Apple newsgroups would that simple fact be called a "lie".*

And, for example, I post Google flaws all the time on the Android ng.
o *New 0-Day Flaw Affecting Most Android Phones Being Exploited in the Wild*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/ej_kDTKNc2w/oR2DWXyVAAAJ>
*Only on Apple newsgroups is posting of an OS flaw considered a "lie".*

And, for example, I posted of this Firefox flaw in the Linux newsgroup:
o *Firefox 72.0.1 fixes a security vulnerability that is actively exploited*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/gz_Q2x9uawA>
*Only on Apple newsgroups are people posting mere facts called "Liars"*

What's interesting is that I post helpful tutorials on iOS newsgroups, and
yet, you're apparently completely _immune_ to this most basic of facts.

For example, these are facts you seem to be _immune_ to, "roctb":
o *How to easily archive your iOS device as a free USB stick*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/fWmt_WBbNao/t5PfoKEHEwAJ>
o *Upcoming $330 7th Generation 2019 iPad to retain the headphone jack!*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Kjg56ZSslWM/N88lPGJKCQAJ>
o *Save this to connect your mobile device to your home WiFi far away*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/BGpGTxxKYSI/GSnntXNXAgAJ>
etc.

You, "roctb", just proved that you are completely _immune_ to facts...

The fact is that I post facts all the time on _lots_ of newsgroups, Roctb.
o You just don't seem to _like_ facts, that's all.

You appear to consider it unbalanced for someone to post mere facts.
o Yet, you seem to only complain when the facts are about Apple.

That fact, in and of itself, tells us a lot about you, Roctb.
--
Advice for "roctb":
It's rude to quote the entire post; please employ basic snipping skills.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:16:05 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> This means that for data that doesn't qualify as
> "certain sensitive information", it is encrypted in a way where Apple
> can access it.

It's nice when there are other cognitive adults on this newsgroup who can
comprehend the basic facts. Not many, maybe only a half dozen.

But that half dozen generally comprehends the most basic of simple facts.

Specifically, this basic simple fact apologists still seem _immune_ to...
"*Backed-up contact information and texts from*
*iMessage, WhatsApp and other encrypted services*
*remain available to Apple employees and authorities*"

o Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT>

--
There are a half dozen people with proven adult cognition on this Apple ng.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:50:54 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> If Apple
> or anyone else has the keys to decrypt your backups, they should not be
> considered to be encrypted from your point of view.

Wow. Just wow.
o It's shocking to find a fellow cognitive adult on this Apple newsgroup.

There are only about a half dozen people with adult cognition on this ng:
o Ant, badgolferman, David Empson, JF Mezei, & sms (AFAICT).

*Adults always agree on the facts; facts are funny that way.*
o Where adults can _logically_ disagree is on assessment of those facts.

In this case, JF Mezei agrees with an adult _assessment_ of the facts.
o Apple loudly proclaims your data "stays" at Apple.

And yet, not only does Apple scan your private data for whatever it feels
like scanning it for, Apple also hands it out seemingly almost willy nilly
to essentially anyone who asks for it (about 85% of the time anyway).

Dateline January 17, 2020
"Between Jan. 1 and June 30, 2019, Apple said governments made
31,778 requests for devices... Apple provided data including which
customers are associated with which devices, as well as purchases,
customer service and repair info, to these governments *82 percent*
of the time..."

"Apple handed over details [of iCloud & iTunes accounts] *85 percent*
of the time."

"[Apple] received ... requests for... FISA subscriber and transactional
information across between 11,000 and 11,499 users and accounts...
such as photos, emails, device backups, contacts and calendars
for up to 18,499 users and accounts."

"National Security Letters received from the FBI for things like
subscriber data affected between 2,500 and 2,999 users and accounts"

"*The letters are issued by the FBI without _any_ oversight or approval*
*by the courts*

o Apple reveals worldwide national security requests for customer data
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apple-reveals-worldwide-national-security-requests-for-customer-data/ar-BBZ4Bzr>

--
It's clear Apple highly touts completely imaginary privacy & security.


On 24 Jan 2020 01:30:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2020-01-23, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2020-01-23 14:22, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> Your shitty subject that 'iCloud backups are [N]OT encrypted" is a
>>> lie. They *are* encrypted.
>>
>> This is where this Arlen fellow is correct
>

> LOL! You truly are a fool.

>
>> If Apple or anyone else has the keys to decrypt your backups, they
>> should not be considered to be encrypted from your point of view.
>

> Bullshit. Others can't access your data. Troll on, dimwit.

--
The Jolly Roger post is in its entirety because of his no-archival bitset.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:57:44 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> On 2020-01-23 16:41, nospam wrote:
>
>> apple will *only* access it in response to a valid court order
>
> Or so we are told.

The "oversight" nospam speaks of appears to be lax in some cases:

"*The letters are issued by the FBI without _any_ oversight

*or approval by the courts* (see cite below)

The fact is Apple allows roughly about 85% of the requests.
"*Apple handed over details [of iCloud & iTunes accounts]*
*85 percent of the time*" (see cite below)

o Apple reveals worldwide national security requests for customer data
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apple-reveals-worldwide-national-security-requests-for-customer-data/ar-BBZ4Bzr>

And that Apple changed their privacy policy which now says Apple
scrutinizes your private data for whatever it wants to look for.
"*scanning uploaded content for potentially illegal content*"
<https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/>

Notice Apple scrutinizes "uploaded content" for whatever it wants to
scrutinize for, where what they're looking for, they say, is just perhaps
perchance maybe possibly content which, perchance, your city, your county,
your state, your country, or, just Apple itself, _potentially_ considers
possibly maybe perhaps perchance conceivably somewhat partially illegal.

The fact is that the subject line of this thread is essentially accurate:
o *iCloud backups are NOT encrypted*
--
Assessing sensible logical truth on Apple newsgroups, one fact at a time.

[nospam]

In article <tHvWF.265234$ek.1...@fx48.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > apple will *only* access it in response to a valid court order
>
> Or so we are told.

and should be believed.

> The same logic applies here: if a backdoor exists, it
> will be misued by people other than those intended for. Same logic on
> why Apple doesn't want backdoors on the iPhones.

there are no backdoors.

> The problem with these searcgh warrants is that especially since the USA
> Patriot Act that has ropped any rights for non USA citizens, it means
> Apple must comply with a court order and MUST NOT tell the onwer of the
> data that it has given a vopy of the data to 3 letter agency XXX.

you're thinking of an nsl, not a search warrant.

> So you don't even know that the police is snooping on you.

not through the contents of an iphone, they aren't.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 04:35:28 -0500, nospam wrote:

>>> apple will *only* access it in response to a valid court order
>>
>> Or so we are told.
>
> and should be believed.

FACTS:

"*The letters are issued by the FBI without _any_ oversight*
*or approval by the courts*

<https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apple-reveals-worldwide-national-security-requests-for-customer-data/ar-BBZ4Bzr>

>> The same logic applies here: if a backdoor exists, it
>> will be misued by people other than those intended for. Same logic on
>> why Apple doesn't want backdoors on the iPhones.
>
> there are no backdoors.

FACTS:
Depends on your specific definition of a "backdoor".
o Apple builds them in all the time, but by mistake (e.g., checkm8)

>> The problem with these searcgh warrants is that especially since the USA
>> Patriot Act that has ropped any rights for non USA citizens, it means
>> Apple must comply with a court order and MUST NOT tell the onwer of the
>> data that it has given a vopy of the data to 3 letter agency XXX.
>
> you're thinking of an nsl, not a search warrant.

On average, Apple grants roughly about 85% of all requests for your data.
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apple-reveals-worldwide-national-security-requests-for-customer-data/ar-BBZ4Bzr>

>
>> So you don't even know that the police is snooping on you.
>
> not through the contents of an iphone, they aren't.

FACTS:

o *FBI flying surveillance Cessnas over US cities. Warrant? What's that?*
<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/02/fbi_spy_planes/>

--
Usenet allows purposefully helpful adults to share useful datapoints.

[nospam]

In article <r0fcg6$orm$5...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> >>> apple will *only* access it in response to a valid court order
> >>
> >> Or so we are told.
> >
> > and should be believed.
>
> FACTS:
> "*The letters are issued by the FBI without _any_ oversight*
> *or approval by the courts*
>
> <https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apple-reveals-worldwide-national-se
> curity-requests-for-customer-data/ar-BBZ4Bzr>

that's an nsl, not a subpoena.

> >> The same logic applies here: if a backdoor exists, it
> >> will be misued by people other than those intended for. Same logic on
> >> why Apple doesn't want backdoors on the iPhones.
> >
> > there are no backdoors.
>
> FACTS:
> Depends on your specific definition of a "backdoor".

there is only one, the standard definition.

> o Apple builds them in all the time, but by mistake (e.g., checkm8)

that's an exploit, not a backdoor.

[Lewis]

Again, KNOWN child porn images.

KNOW.

So, fuck you. If you are worried about this, you are a fucking monster
and can kindly fuck off.

--
If you mixed vodka with orange juice and Milk Of Magnesia, would you
get a Philip's Screwdriver?

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 00:25:37 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Again, KNOWN child porn images.
>
> KNOW.
>
> So, fuck you. If you are worried about this, you are a fucking monster
> and can kindly fuck off.

Hi Lewis,

*You really should not post what your brain actually thinks.*
o Seriously.

Adults will note Apple changed their privacy policy which now says Apple
may scrutinize your private data for whatever it wants to consider
"*_potentially_ illegal*" (emphasis on "potentially"):

"*scanning uploaded content for potentially illegal content*"
<https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/>

Adults will note the wide sweeping scope of that new policy change.
o Uploaded content (which could mean almost anything)
o Potentially illegal content (which means it could be just a guess)

Specifically, Apple may scrutinize "uploaded content" for whatever it wants
to search for, where what they're looking for, they say, is just perhaps
perchance maybe possibly content which, perhaps your city, your county,
your state, your country, or, just any one employee at Apple itself,
_potentially_ considers possibly maybe perhaps conceivably somewhat perhaps
possibly illegal.

The point is that the privacy policy essentially says they might be
scrutinizing any of your private data for almost anything they feel like
looking for that they might guess possible perhaps could be potentially
illegal content.

That's pretty wide sweeping, don't you think?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:46:41 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> o Apple builds them in all the time, but by mistake (e.g., checkm8)
>
> that's an exploit, not a backdoor.

*And checkm8 is one hell of an exploit at that!*
o We published evidence checkm8 compromises all iPhones from 5 to X!

Which is why it's instructive to note that apologists claimed checkm8
wasn't a big deal (just as apologists claimed Apple "wasn't worried" about
5G).

Incessantly...
1. You apologists fail to comprehend even the _simplest_ of facts;
2. Hence, you form unwarranted assessments that are faulty from the start.

It's literally why apologist credibility is no better than a coin toss.

--
Apologists credibility is no better than the result of a coin toss.

[nospam]

In article <r0gkk0$1qo$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> >> o Apple builds them in all the time, but by mistake (e.g., checkm8)
> >
> > that's an exploit, not a backdoor.
>
> *And checkm8 is one hell of an exploit at that!*

not really.

yet another thing you don't understand.

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-01-21 12:12, JF Mezei wrote:
> Exclusive: Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI
> complained - sources
>
>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT

I backup company data in the cloud (and offline disks).

First encrypted AES-256 with 160 bit entropy key - which is not written
down anywhere.

G'luck with that.

[Hawk]

LMFAO! You're funny. Not as bright as you think you are, but funny.

[Lewis]

Go away, pedo.

--
These go to 11

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-01-23 20:30, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2020-01-23, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>> On 2020-01-23 14:22, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> Your shitty subject that 'iCloud backups are [N]OT encrypted" is a
>>> lie. They *are* encrypted.
>>

>> This is where this Arlen fellow is correct
>
> LOL! You truly are a fool.
>

>> If Apple or anyone else has the keys to decrypt your backups, they
>> should not be considered to be encrypted from your point of view.
>

> Bullshit. Others can't access your data. Troll on, dimwit.

What he said is logically correct. So it comes down to trusting Apple.

[Hawk]

On 1/25/2020 1:32 PM, Lewis wrote:

>>>
>>> So, fuck you. If you are worried about this, you are a fucking monster
>>> and can kindly fuck off.
>>>
>
>> LMFAO! You're funny. Not as bright as you think you are, but funny.
>
> Go away, pedo.
>

LMFAO! Point proven. Thanks

[Lewis]

Go away, pedo.

--
"Two years from now, spam will be solved," -- Bill Gates, January,
2004

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 25.01.20 um 22:11 schrieb Jolly Roger:

> Nope. The data *is* encrypted. He claimed it's *[N]OT* encrypted. That's
> a lie.

You are an arrogant Troll.
They are encrypted but it is of no value because Apple has the key and
can give this key to anybody they want.

[nospam]

In article <r0ipr1$cf0$2...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> >>>
> >>>> If Apple or anyone else has the keys to decrypt your backups, they
> >>>> should not be considered to be encrypted from your point of view.
> >>>
> >>> Bullshit. Others can't access your data. Troll on, dimwit.
> >>
> >> What he said is logically correct.
> >
> > Nope. The data *is* encrypted. He claimed it's *[N]OT* encrypted. That's
> > a lie.
>
> You are an arrogant Troll.
> They are encrypted but it is of no value because Apple has the key and
> can give this key to anybody they want.

nope. they'll only provide it to law enforcement in response to a court
order.

random hackers do not have the keys and apple will not provide them
under any circumstances.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-25 16:11, Jolly Roger wrote:

>>>> If Apple or anyone else has the keys to decrypt your backups, they
>>>> should not be considered to be encrypted from your point of view.

> Nope. The data *is* encrypted. He claimed it's *[N]OT* encrypted. That's
> a lie.
>

I said "should not be _considered_ to be encrypted".

This is like locking your luggage with a lock for which you know the TSA
has a key. Technically locked, but you know the TSA will open your
luggage and rummage through your underwear.


AThe fact that Apple can pass your photos through software to detect
pictures someone doens like also points to whatever encryption that
exists not preveting Apple from accessing your data.


In the past, ISPs and servers would initiate measures against child porn
upon being warned opf a user potentially having some. But now, this is
spreading to widespread spying on everyone's total photo collection
whether there is any suspicion or not. And that has huge ethical
implications.


Consider if the very same thing were about copyright infringement.
Scanning everyone's storage without warrant to spot any movies, images,
songs that are copyrighted but not DRM proected with a sign that you
paid for it.

You can't defend pedophiles. And there are special international
treaties that make pedophilia one of the rare extra territorial crimes (
Canada can arrent a Canadaian in Canada because he had sex with underage
kid in Asia for instance - crime actually committed in Asia, but tried
in Canada).

However, there needs to be limits on the precedent that this sets in
terms of privacy because once Apple gets to snoop all your pictures for
a "good cause", nothing stops another group from using the same
precedent to compell Appoe and others to do the same for another cause.

[Arlen Holder]

On 26 Jan 2020 04:05:36 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Nope. The data *is* encrypted. He claimed it's *[N]OT* encrypted.
> That's a lie.

*This is why I _love_ when Jolly Roger posts!*
o *He's the perfectly quintessential role model of the Apple Apologist!*

Adults will notice that Jolly Roger proved (multiple times in this thread
alone), that he's utterly incapable of basic adult cognition skills.

Jolly Roger can't assess the facts like an adult should be capable of doing
(where both JF Mezei & even Alan Browne reasonably assessed those facts).

Jolly Roger only sees the words "iCloud backups are NOT encrypted", and he
thinks, as the example was shown, that having a fifty cent lock on your
luggage is encryption.

Jolly Roger is incapable of comprehending that if Apple has the key, and,
furthermore, if Apple almost willy nilly gives that key to the feds about
85% of the time (sometimes even with zero court oversight), then the fact
it's encrypted is almost completely meaningless in terms of your privacy.

Add the fact that Apple "may" scrutinize all your uploaded content (and
most likely does), then it's even worse, in terms of implications to your
iCloud privacy.

Kudos to the _adults_ on this newsgroup, for standing up to the apologists!

--
Given Jolly Roger employs a non-archival bitset, the entire post is below.

On 26 Jan 2020 04:05:36 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2020-01-26, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2020-01-25 16:11, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>>>>> If Apple or anyone else has the keys to decrypt your backups, they
>>>>>> should not be considered to be encrypted from your point of view.
>>
>>
>>> Nope. The data *is* encrypted. He claimed it's *[N]OT* encrypted.
>>> That's a lie.
>>
>> I said "should not be _considered_ to be encrypted".
>

> Another lie.
>
> We're done here.

On 25 Jan 2020 21:11:23 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2020-01-25, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

>> On 2020-01-23 20:30, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2020-01-23, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2020-01-23 14:22, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Your shitty subject that 'iCloud backups are [N]OT encrypted" is a
>>>>> lie. They *are* encrypted.
>>>>
>>>> This is where this Arlen fellow is correct
>>>
>>> LOL! You truly are a fool.
>>>

>>>> If Apple or anyone else has the keys to decrypt your backups, they
>>>> should not be considered to be encrypted from your point of view.
>>>

>>> Bullshit. Others can't access your data. Troll on, dimwit.
>>
>> What he said is logically correct.
>

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 13:56:57 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

>> Bullshit. Others can't access your data. Troll on, dimwit.
>
> What he said is logically correct. So it comes down to trusting Apple.

Wow.

Apologists prove to not be capable of independent adult thought processes.

It's not surprising Lewis & Jolly Roger & Joerg Lorenz believe only what
Apple marketing feeds them to believe, but I'm impressed that you, Alan
Browne, are proving you're capable of independent adult thought processes.

Kudos to you for that adult comprehension & assessment of the facts.

--
Apologists prove to not be capable of independent adult thought processes.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 07:18:46 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> *And checkm8 is one hell of an exploit at that!*
>
> not really.
>
> yet another thing you don't understand.

Hi nospam,

*Apologists hate the fact that 85% of iOS devices are fatally compromised.*

The main difference between you apologists & adults is in two key areas:
a. fact
b. assessment

You apologists hate the fact that iPhones from 4s to X are fatally
compromised, which is something Apple marketing is quite mum about.
o Hence, your pure hatred of facts skews your assessments of them.

Yet...
o The fact apologists hate facts doesn't change they're still facts.

Here are facts from way back when checkm8 was _first_ discovered...
o *Checkm8 is a bootrom-level security exploit*
*that can be used against every iPhone from the 4S to the X*
<https://www.imore.com/understanding-checkm8-iphone-4s-iphone-x-bootrom-exploit>
*It's "bad for Apple and a black eye for iOS security"
"so far, every device with a bootrom that's exploited stays exploited.
And checkmate exploits every device with an A5 to A11 chipset"

And here are facts from now...

o *iOS Breakthrough Enables Lawful Access for Full File System Extraction*
<https://www.cellebrite.com/en/blog/ios-breakthrough-enables-lawful-access-for-full-file-system-extraction/>

"Every now and then, there is an iOS forensic breakthrough that is truly
impactful. This happened recently when an access point was discovered that
will help examiners handle the complex challenge of full file system
extraction. *Using the new checkm8 access point*, forensic examiners will
now be able to gain lawful access to iOS devices to extract more digital
evidence."

In summary...
o *The fact apologists hate facts doesn't change they're still facts.*

--
Apologists hate the fact that 85% of iOS devices are fatally compromised.

[Arlen Holder]

With respect to this permanent canonically archived thread topic:
o Yet again, apologists Jolly Roger (& Lloyd Parsons & nospam & Your Name
& Lewis) prove to not own adult cognitive skills
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/10dBShPJK9s>

*What's different about apologists is their utter lack of adult cognition.*

Factual evidence that Jolly Roger (clearly) lacks adult cognitive skills:
o *iCloud backups are [N]OT encrypted*, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk>

Specifically, just as Lewis proved to not own adult cognitive skills
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk/Y6iHg38yDQAJ>

Jolly Roger proved to not own even the most basic adult cognitive skills:
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com/K86GGSn6/icloud-backups-are-ot-encrypted#post54>

For example, even Joerg Lorenz had to help Jolly Roger with cognition:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk/JgF-YjUXAQAJ>

As did JF Mezei try to help Jolly Roger with his lack of adult cognition:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk/EDRrPc8aAQAJ>

And even Alan Browne of all people, tried to help Jolly Roger on cognition:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk/QhqCUv0BAQAJ>

"What he said is logically correct. So it comes down to trusting Apple."

And, of course, as did I:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk/8cao-a0wAQAJ>

Multiple times:
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com/K86GGSn6/icloud-backups-are-ot-encrypted#post38>

Yet, Jolly Roger clearly proved, repeatedly, to lack adult cognition:
o Here's the evidence.

*Jolly Roger*:
"You would fall for the clickbait hype since you love spreading FUD.
The truth is Apple has *always* encrypted iCloud data"
JF Mezei:

"it is encrypted in a way where Apple can access it."

*Jolly Roger*:

"Your shitty subject that 'iCloud backups are [N]OT encrypted" is a lie."

JF Mezei:
"This is where this Arlen fellow is correct, this is marketing.

If Apple or anyone else has the keys to decrypt your backups,
they should not be considered to be encrypted from your point of view."

*Jolly Roger*:

"LOL! You truly are a fool."

"Troll on, dimwit."
Alan Browne:

"What he said is logically correct."
"So it comes down to trusting Apple."

*Jolly Roger*:

"Nope. The data *is* encrypted. He claimed it's *[N]OT* encrypted.

That's a lie.":
Joerg Lorenz:

"You are an arrogant Troll.
They are encrypted but it is of no value because Apple has the key
and can give this key to anybody they want."

*Jolly Roger*:
"Projection. We're done here."
JF Mezei:

"I said "should not be _considered_ to be encrypted""

*Jolly Roger*:

"Another lie. We're done here."

Note I omitted the equally astounding claims by nospam in that thread.

--
What's different about apologists is their lack of adult cognition.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 21:11:17 -0500, nospam wrote:

> apple will not provide them
> under any circumstances.

And yet, Apple's own report shows Apple throws you under the bus about 85%
of the time that they are asked, even when the request is _not_ accompanied
by _any_ court oversight.

Bear in mind, that all your _contacts_ are also (apparently) handed over
(when asked), which means innocent people can easily be implicated and then
LE will (perhaps likely) ask for _their_ data, which, just steamrolls,
where, the facts remain that about 85% of the time, Apple willingly hands
your data over when asked.

Even Apple says they gladly hand over your data 85% of the time when asked.

--
Apologists like nospam hate facts; but that doesn't change the facts.

[nospam]

In article <r0jsdt$mbg$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> > apple will not provide them
> > under any circumstances.
>
> And yet, Apple's own report shows Apple throws you under the bus about 85%
> of the time that they are asked, even when the request is _not_ accompanied
> by _any_ court oversight.

false, and you snipped to alter context yet again.

apple will provide the data to *law* *enforcement* in response to a
court order.

they won't provide data to others, no matter how nicely they ask.

> Bear in mind, that all your _contacts_ are also (apparently) handed over
> (when asked), which means innocent people can easily be implicated and then
> LE will (perhaps likely) ask for _their_ data, which, just steamrolls,
> where, the facts remain that about 85% of the time, Apple willingly hands
> your data over when asked.

false.

> Even Apple says they gladly hand over your data 85% of the time when asked.

no, they don't say that at all.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 07:33:55 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Even Apple says they gladly hand over your data 85% of the time when asked.
>
> no, they don't say that at all.

And yet, the fact remains, they did.

[nospam]

In article <r0m238$b9u$2...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> >> Even Apple says they gladly hand over your data 85% of the time when asked.
> >
> > no, they don't say that at all.
>
> And yet, the fact remains, they did.

nope

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 02:17:33 -0500, nospam wrote:

>>>> Even Apple says they gladly hand over your data 85% of the time when asked.
>>>
>>> no, they don't say that at all.
>>
>> And yet, the fact remains, they did.
>
> nope

And yet, 85% of the time, Apple gladly handed over your data.

[Arlen Holder]

Dateline today...

o WhatsApp messages that are backed up in iCloud are not protected
by the app's end-to-end encryption
<https://www.retailnews.asia/whatsapp-update-will-close-vulnerability-that-leaves-messages-unencrypted/>

"If WhatsApp decides to go ahead and include the feature in an upcoming
update to its public iOS app, authorities, hackers, and even Apple will
be shut out from reading your unencrypted text messages."
--
The great thing about Apple MARKETING is they don't need any testing!

[Arlen Holder]

Not only is the iCloud NOT encrypted, but it's vulnerable too!

The FACTS below are on how they did it, where everything below, as usual,
is verbatim because apologists love to play silly childish semantic games
with facts because *apologists _hate_ all facts about Apple* which don't
fit into their imaginary belief system (cleverly fed to them by MARKETING).

"During our engagement, we found a variety of vulnerabilities in core
portions of their infrastructure that would've allowed an attacker to
fully compromise both customer and employee applications, launch a worm
capable of automatically taking over a victim's iCloud account,
retrieve source code for internal Apple projects, fully compromise an
industrial control warehouse software used by Apple, and take over the
sessions of Apple employees with the capability of accessing management
tools and sensitive resources."

o Security Researchers Spent Three Months Hacking Apple
<https://www.iphonehacks.com/2020/10/security-researcher-three-months-hacking-apple-earned-51500.html>

"another vulnerability
*showed how hackers could access user iCloud data via email*.
--
The only place Apple has "security" is in the glossy MARKETING broshures.

[Arlen Holder]

The only place "privacy" exists anywhere at Apple is only in its MARKETING.

o *Wormable Apple iCloud Bug Allows Automatic Photo Theft*
<https://threatpost.com/3-month-apple-hack-vulnerabilities-critical/159988/>

"Among the flaws found in core portions of Apple's infrastructure
includes ones that would have allowed an attacker to:
- fully compromise both customer and employee applications;
- launch a worm capable of automatically taking over a victim's iCloud account;
- retrieve source code for internal Apple projects;
- fully compromise an industrial control warehouse software used by Apple;
- and take over the sessions of Apple employees

with the capability of accessing management tools and sensitive resources"

--
Basically, all your iCloud photos easily could have been stolen
(and, since these are the good guys, they probably already have been).

[badgolferman]

Well, at least they invited the hacking and rewarded the people who found
them. It could have been worse if hackers just exploited them and didn’t
tell anyone.

I agree it would have been better if the code was done properly the first
time, but there are always bugs and that’s one reason why there are always
revisions to software especially if it’s connected to the internet.

Obviously your purpose is to point out the obvious and I have no issue with
that. If people think they are safe, private or invincible on the internet
then they are fools.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 21:33:14 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Well, at least they invited the hacking and rewarded the people who found

> them. It could have been worse if hackers just exploited them and didn┤
> tell anyone.

Hi badgolferman,

If I got paid for all the facts about Apple I've posted - I'd be rich.

You're not an apologist so nuances of detail are possible with you.
o That means specifically I don't have to overly caveat the message

I agree with you that Apple paying a bounty for things _outside_ the
express words of the bounty program is a very "good thing" indeed.

It encourages white hats to inform Apple of their iCloud vulnerabilities.

> I agree it would have been better if the code was done properly the first
> time, but there are always bugs and that's one reason why there are always
> revisions to software especially if it's connected to the internet.

What irks me about Apple isn't that they have bugs, but that they advertise
that they don't (essentially) - and while I expect that of any sleazy
MARKETING organization - what bothers me most is that the cultist morons
out there _believe_ only in what Apple advertises.

The fact is that if Apple paints an entire building wall saying they're
better at privacy, it doesn't prove anything but that they know how to
paint a building with bullshit.

The real fact of privacy is that it's just not there.
o Neither is Android - but Google doesn't paint buildings saying it is

Fundamentally, what irks me is Apple users are completely clueless.
o They're desperate for safety where Apple MARKETING is glad to claim it.

> Obviously your purpose is to point out the obvious and I have no issue with
> that. If people think they are safe, private or invincible on the internet
> then they are fools.

<soap box pedestal>

Notice that you said "your purpose", which I am very clear & upfront about:
o I don't make any money pointing out facts about Apple products here. :)
(I wish I did - I'd be rich!)

What irks me is NOT that MARKETING claims all sorts of privacy bullshit
o What irks me is the morons who populate this newsgroup _believe_ that BS.

Take Alan Baker, or Lewis or Jolly Roger or BK, for example...
o They actually _believe_ everything that Apple MARKETING fed them!

Then take nospam, who doesn't believe a single word of what he says
o He doesn't bother me because he's just a bullshitter himself

But the Type III apologists actually _believe_ everything they claim
o Whereas TYPE II apologists (like Steve) simply don't check their facts

I point out FACTS about all operating systems on many newsgroups
o But only on the Apple newsgroup are the majority immune to those facts.
</soap box pedestal>
--
If I got paid for all the facts about Apple I've posted - I'd be rich.

[Arlen Holder]

> UPDATE (dated today):
> o Search warrant shows how Apple tackles [scanning] images on iCloud and email
> <https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/11/child-abuse-images/>
>
> This article has additional details as to what Apple's process might be.

On 12 Nov 2020 19:59:21 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>>> *Everything put to the iCloud is read _and_ analyzed by Apple*
>>> o Some of that is _automatically_ sent to law enforcement, unencrypted.
>>
>> Cite, please!
>
> You'll get no objective evidence to back up this asinine assertion,
> because: troll.

o Apple has confirmed it's automatically scanning images backed up to
iCloud
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VkODI4K1SC8>

Adults on this newsgroup will note that all these Type III Apple
Apologists, e.g., Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, etc.,
literally _hate_ what Apple does so much they deny all facts about Apple.

o Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT>

Like flat earth cultists, Type III apologists simply deny the facts exist.

o Apple scans photos to check for child abuse
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/01/08/apple-scans-icloud-photos-check-child-abuse/>

And yet, the facts exist to all but the apologists (as usual).
o Apple doesn't even dispute those facts.

It's only the Apple Apologists (who didn't even read the thread) who
dispute the facts were indisputable in the cites (Apple said they do it).

Details here (which the Type III apologists deny sans even reading):
o iCloud backups are NOT encrypted, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk>

Note: That thread contains the cites to reliable sources that the
apologists are clueless about because these Type III apologists are in
Quadrant I Dunning Kruger (they don't need any facts to form their belief
system which they're so very sure of, and yet, they're always dead wrong).
--
The Apple apologists simply deny all facts about Apple they don't like.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect they _hate_ what Apple is so by denying facts, they can maintain
their purely imaginary belief systems intact (like flat earth cultists).

[paul]

Question about iCloud encryption (who holds the keys)?
Is our iCloud uploaded content securely encrypted or not?
Who holds the encryption keys?
Why is Apple handing over completely unencrypted iCloud data to the Feds?

I was reading up on all the news about how they caught the Capitol rioters
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/02/capitol-siege-arrests-technology-fbi-privacy/>
when the cross link trail brought me to this much older (unrelated to the
riots) article which said Apple routinely hands over iCloud photos.
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2020/09/16/apple-helps-fbi-track-down-george-floyd-protester-accused-of-firebombing-cop-cars/>

"Apple has been happy to hand over iCloud data...
in the vast majority of cases"

"It appears that if Apple is asked by the government to provide account
data from its servers, rather than break the security of its iPhone,
the tech titan will often comply."

Isn't this stuff we upload to our iCloud supposed to be encrypted?

Previously I thought Apple only looked at the resulting hashes.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/-EA9TYUeVhk/m/bjVHazaYAQAJ>

But this report indicates Apple decrypted everything wholly on their own.
Does Apple have complete absolute access to everything uploaded to iCloud?

If so, what good is the so-called encryption if they hand over everything?
The fact they hand over everything indicates nothing is really encrypted.

Is our iCloud uploaded content securely encrypted or not?
Who holds the keys anyway?
Why is Apple handing over unencrypted iCloud data to the Feds?