Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Washington Post: Apple promises privacy, but 5,400 hidden iPhone apps secretly share your data with trackers, ad companies, and research firms

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
May 29, 2019, 1:41:55 PM5/29/19
to

Washington Post: Do you know whom your phone is talking to in the middle of the night?
o Apple promises privacy, but 5400 hidden iPhone apps secretly share your data with trackers, ad companies, and research firms
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/28/its-middle-night-do-you-know-who-your-iphone-is-talking/>
"Apple says, Ą§What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone.Ą¨ Our
privacy experiment showed 5,400 hidden app trackers guzzled our data ĄX in a
single week."

"On a recent Monday night, a dozen marketing companies, research firms
and other personal data guzzlers got reports from my iPhone. At 11:43 p.m.,
a company called Amplitude learned my phone number, email and exact
location. At 3:58 a.m., another called Appboy got a digital fingerprint of
my phone. At 6:25 a.m., a tracker called Demdex received a way to identify
my phone and sent back a list of other trackers to pair up with.

And all night long, there was some startling behavior by a household name:
Yelp. It was receiving a message that included my IP address -ĄX once every
five minutes."

"IPhone apps I discovered tracking me by passing information to third
parties ĄX just while I was asleep ĄX include Microsoft OneDrive, IntuitĄŚs
Mint, Nike, Spotify, The Washington Post and IBMĄŚs the Weather Channel. One
app, the crime-alert service Citizen, shared personally identifiable
information in violation of its published privacy policy.

And your iPhone doesnĄŚt only feed data trackers while you sleep. In a
single week, I encountered over 5,400 trackers, mostly in apps, not
including the incessant Yelp traffic. According to privacy firm Disconnect,
which helped test my iPhone, those unwanted trackers would have spewed out
1.5 gigabytes of data over the span of a month. ThatĄŚs half of an entire
basic wireless service plan from AT&T."

"What disappoints me is that the data free-for-all I discovered is
happening on an iPhone. IsnĄŚt Apple supposed to be better at privacy?"

Alan Baker

unread,
May 29, 2019, 2:08:39 PM5/29/19
to
For a person who says he only relates facts, you get the details wrong...

...a lot.

The article does NOT say that 5,400 apps share your data.

The article said it encountered "5,400 TRACKERS"

I mean... ...if you'd read the article and used the "logic" you so often
tout, you might have realized that there was no way they could have
tested 5,400 apps...

...on ONE MAN'S IPHONE!


On 2019-05-29 10:41 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> Washington Post: Do you know whom your phone is talking to in the middle of the night?
> o Apple promises privacy, but 5400 hidden iPhone apps secretly share your data with trackers, ad companies, and research firms
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/28/its-middle-night-do-you-know-who-your-iphone-is-talking/>
> "Apple says, ¡§What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone.¡¨ Our
> privacy experiment showed 5,400 hidden app trackers guzzled our data ¡X in a
> single week."
>
> "On a recent Monday night, a dozen marketing companies, research firms
> and other personal data guzzlers got reports from my iPhone. At 11:43 p.m.,
> a company called Amplitude learned my phone number, email and exact
> location. At 3:58 a.m., another called Appboy got a digital fingerprint of
> my phone. At 6:25 a.m., a tracker called Demdex received a way to identify
> my phone and sent back a list of other trackers to pair up with.
>
> And all night long, there was some startling behavior by a household name:
> Yelp. It was receiving a message that included my IP address -¡X once every
> five minutes."
>
> "IPhone apps I discovered tracking me by passing information to third
> parties ¡X just while I was asleep ¡X include Microsoft OneDrive, Intuit¡¦s
> Mint, Nike, Spotify, The Washington Post and IBM¡¦s the Weather Channel. One
> app, the crime-alert service Citizen, shared personally identifiable
> information in violation of its published privacy policy.
>
> And your iPhone doesn¡¦t only feed data trackers while you sleep. In a
> single week, I encountered over 5,400 trackers, mostly in apps, not
> including the incessant Yelp traffic. According to privacy firm Disconnect,
> which helped test my iPhone, those unwanted trackers would have spewed out
> 1.5 gigabytes of data over the span of a month. That¡¦s half of an entire
> basic wireless service plan from AT&T."
>
> "What disappoints me is that the data free-for-all I discovered is
> happening on an iPhone. Isn¡¦t Apple supposed to be better at privacy?"
>

Beedle

unread,
May 29, 2019, 2:18:45 PM5/29/19
to
On May 29, 2019, Alan Baker wrote
(in article <qcmhr4$1dau$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):
This has happened before. I remember Steve Jobs saying on stage how some app
was reporting about their test iPhone and it really got under his skin. These
devs often use frameworks that do more than they claim to do. Information
brokers want this data and look for ways to get at it.

--
Beedle

Alan Baker

unread,
May 29, 2019, 2:19:23 PM5/29/19
to
And naturally, you glossed over this paragraph entirely...

'Yes, trackers are a problem on phones running Google’s Android, too.
Google won’t even let Disconnect’s tracker-protection software into its
Play Store. (Google’s rules prohibit apps that might interfere with
another app displaying ads.)'

Apple: let's you run Disconnect's software.

Google: not so much.

On 2019-05-29 10:41 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> Washington Post: Do you know whom your phone is talking to in the middle of the night?
> o Apple promises privacy, but 5400 hidden iPhone apps secretly share your data with trackers, ad companies, and research firms
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/28/its-middle-night-do-you-know-who-your-iphone-is-talking/>
> "Apple says, ¡§What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone.¡¨ Our
> privacy experiment showed 5,400 hidden app trackers guzzled our data ¡X in a
> single week."
>
> "On a recent Monday night, a dozen marketing companies, research firms
> and other personal data guzzlers got reports from my iPhone. At 11:43 p.m.,
> a company called Amplitude learned my phone number, email and exact
> location. At 3:58 a.m., another called Appboy got a digital fingerprint of
> my phone. At 6:25 a.m., a tracker called Demdex received a way to identify
> my phone and sent back a list of other trackers to pair up with.
>
> And all night long, there was some startling behavior by a household name:
> Yelp. It was receiving a message that included my IP address -¡X once every
> five minutes."
>
> "IPhone apps I discovered tracking me by passing information to third
> parties ¡X just while I was asleep ¡X include Microsoft OneDrive, Intuit¡¦s
> Mint, Nike, Spotify, The Washington Post and IBM¡¦s the Weather Channel. One
> app, the crime-alert service Citizen, shared personally identifiable
> information in violation of its published privacy policy.
>
> And your iPhone doesn¡¦t only feed data trackers while you sleep. In a
> single week, I encountered over 5,400 trackers, mostly in apps, not
> including the incessant Yelp traffic. According to privacy firm Disconnect,
> which helped test my iPhone, those unwanted trackers would have spewed out
> 1.5 gigabytes of data over the span of a month. That¡¦s half of an entire
> basic wireless service plan from AT&T."
>
> "What disappoints me is that the data free-for-all I discovered is
> happening on an iPhone. Isn¡¦t Apple supposed to be better at privacy?"
>

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
May 29, 2019, 2:23:26 PM5/29/19
to
On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:08:37 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> The article does NOT say that 5,400 apps share your data.
>
> The article said it encountered "5,400 TRACKERS"

Hi Alan Baker,

Facts first; then rational logical reasoning can ensure.

Thank you for your astute observation on the trackers!
o I refer you directly to the facts, as published in that article.
o Those two key facts are stated in the first line of the article...

1. The main point is that Apple promises imaginary privacy...
o "Apple says, "What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone.""
2. That is clearly not being delivered.
o "Our privacy experiment showed 5,400 hidden app trackers guzzled
our data — in a single week."

Hence, you are completely correct in both assumptions:
1. Apple promises a privacy that is not being delivered, and,
2. 5,400 hidden app trackers in that experiment prove that to be the case.

You can base your entire argument on a single word, Alan Baker, where I
base mine on the sum total of the facts in that article, where I appreciate
your clarification of "apps" to "app trackers", but that doesn't change the
material point in the least:

1. Apple promises an imaginary privacy...
2. That isn't reality.

The Washington Post is only _one_ of many proofs of that logic.

Alan Baker

unread,
May 29, 2019, 2:29:17 PM5/29/19
to
On 2019-05-29 11:23 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:08:37 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> The article does NOT say that 5,400 apps share your data.
>>
>> The article said it encountered "5,400 TRACKERS"
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Facts first; then rational logical reasoning can ensure.
>
> Thank you for your astute observation on the trackers!
> o I refer you directly to the facts, as published in that article.
> o Those two key facts are stated in the first line of the article...
>
> 1. The main point is that Apple promises imaginary privacy...
> o "Apple says, "What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone.""

Where does Apple say that? Until you support that claim, you cannot
state that that is a fact.

> 2. That is clearly not being delivered.
> o "Our privacy experiment showed 5,400 hidden app trackers guzzled
> our data ¡X in a single week."
>
> Hence, you are completely correct in both assumptions:
> 1. Apple promises a privacy that is not being delivered, and,
> 2. 5,400 hidden app trackers in that experiment prove that to be the case.

Ummmm... ...no.

>
> You can base your entire argument on a single word, Alan Baker, where I
> base mine on the sum total of the facts in that article, where I appreciate
> your clarification of "apps" to "app trackers", but that doesn't change the
> material point in the least:
>
> 1. Apple promises an imaginary privacy...
> 2. That isn't reality.
>
> The Washington Post is only _one_ of many proofs of that logic.

Apple promises more privacy than other makers of mobile phone operating
systems...

The fact that some apps find ways to violate your privacy doesn't make
Apple bad.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
May 29, 2019, 2:34:30 PM5/29/19
to
On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:19:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> And naturally, you glossed over this paragraph entirely...
>
> 'Yes, trackers are a problem on phones running Google¢s Android, too.
> Google won¢t even let Disconnect¢s tracker-protection software into its
> Play Store. (Google¢s rules prohibit apps that might interfere with
> another app displaying ads.)'
>
> Apple: let's you run Disconnect's software.
>
> Google: not so much.

Hi Alan Baker,

Facts first; then reasonable adult rational sensible logic can ensue.

I find it _interesting_ that you seem to think I've 'glossed' over the google privacy issues, where the record is patently clear that I often write about Google privacy issues on the Android newsgroup - and - in fact - I've made a concerted effort to eliminate Google from my Android cellphone.
o Is there any free FUNCTIONALITY that you need to do on Android, that you can't do WITHOUT a Google Account?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/xzaii4eUY_E>

What I find always interesting is how childish of a brain you Apple
Apologists own, where you apologists _consistently_ completely erroneously
simply _assume_ that I only tell the truth about Apple products lacking
privacy.
o Google keeps a log of all digital receipts emailed to your GMail account.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/7qqQcrg7K3I>
o Let's document the best known current free REPLACEMENTS for Google "mail" account - so all benefit from our efforts
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/YUdwh4QgoRQ>

The fact I've said many times that, while Apple "claims" iOS has privacy,
the fact is that they use cherry-picked situations, where the overall
results is clearly that NEITHER platform has any reasonable level of
privacy.
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/FCKRA_3i9CY>

What's interesting is that your brain is generally fact free, so all this
fact is completely lost on you, simply because you believe in imaginary iOS
functionality to the point that whenever someone points out that imaginary
iOS functionality, your MAIN response is to blame Android or Qalcomm or any
other entity EXCEPT Apple (it's why you're a perfect apologist).
o Qualcomm¢s practices violate antitrust laws, according to the FTC ruling today
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/UY0PrURXIk0>

It's one of the typical traits of you apologists to blame anyone but Apple
for every flaw in Apple's promises about imaginary iOS functionality:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/0em2ljU_IpQ/nVx1uettCAAJ>

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
May 29, 2019, 2:44:10 PM5/29/19
to
On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:29:16 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Apple promises more privacy than other makers of mobile phone operating
> systems...
>
> The fact that some apps find ways to violate your privacy doesn't make
> Apple bad.

Hi Alan Baker,

Facts first; only then can rational adult discourse ensue.

The fact is, Alan, privacy isn't just cherry picked examples, Alan.
o Privacy isn't ONLY what Apple cherry picks to be privacy, Alan.

Clearly, the iPhone is _NOT_ private in any sense of the word.
o The facts _prove_ that beyond any semblance of any doubts.

This thread merely provided yet more facts bolstering that adult argument.

The topic of this thread is summarized by the first two lines of that
Washington Post article, which you can _claim_ is wrong, but where that's
something Dunning-Kruger people often do, like Joerg Lorenz, who didn't
believe any media but German media to the point of denying all media other
than German media (yes, I know he's supposedly in Switzerland).

1. "Apple says, "What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone.""
2. "Our privacy experiment showed 5,400 hidden app trackers guzzled
our data - in a single week."

You can dispute those facts because you don't like those facts...
o But the fact you don't like those facts doesn't make them not facts.

Alan Baker

unread,
May 29, 2019, 2:48:49 PM5/29/19
to
On 2019-05-29 11:44 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:29:16 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Apple promises more privacy than other makers of mobile phone operating
>> systems...
>>
>> The fact that some apps find ways to violate your privacy doesn't make
>> Apple bad.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Facts first...

You snipped everything I said except for two sentences.

Try again.

Alan Baker

unread,
May 29, 2019, 3:31:33 PM5/29/19
to
On 2019-05-29 11:34 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:19:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And naturally, you glossed over this paragraph entirely...
>>
>> 'Yes, trackers are a problem on phones running Google¢s Android, too.
>> Google won¢t even let Disconnect¢s tracker-protection software into its
>> Play Store. (Google¢s rules prohibit apps that might interfere with
>> another app displaying ads.)'
>>
>> Apple: let's you run Disconnect's software.
>>
>> Google: not so much.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Facts first; then reasonable adult rational sensible logic can ensue.
>
> I find it _interesting_ that you seem to think I've 'glossed' over the google privacy issues.

There is no doubt that you utterly ignored the FACT that Google doesn't
even allow the software mentioned in the article in the Play store.

Andreas Rutishauser

unread,
May 30, 2019, 1:03:43 AM5/30/19
to
In article <qcmg92$o98$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
"Arlen G. Holder" <arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

snipped.

And why are you posting your iOS drivel in csms?

--
MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch>
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:and...@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
May 30, 2019, 2:30:15 AM5/30/19
to
On Wed, 29 May 2019 12:31:32 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> There is no doubt that you utterly ignored the FACT that Google doesn't
> even allow the software mentioned in the article in the Play store.

Hi Alan Baker,

Android is modern - not primitive like iOS clearly is.

With respect to modern functionality, it's not clear from what you wrote
that you actually realize that, unlike the primitive functionality of the
iOS ecosystem, a non-rooted user can get any app that exists out there
without ever even owning a Google Account or using the Google Play GUI.

Based on what you wrote, it may be that you're so used to the stone-age
primitive functionality of the iOS app store that you don't seem to realize
the Google Play app isn't ever needed to download any app you can get from
anywhere - even from your billion closest friends on the Internet.

Android is modern.
o They don't _lock_ a free app to a user id, for example, like Apple does.

Hence, if the app exists, you can get it.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
May 30, 2019, 2:30:16 AM5/30/19
to
On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:48:47 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You snipped everything I said except for two sentences.

Are you disputing that the news report clearly stated that Apple promises
privacy and yet, it's imaginary, since Apple clearly doesn't actually
deliver on that promise?

Alan Baker

unread,
May 30, 2019, 11:28:00 AM5/30/19
to
On 2019-05-29 11:30 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 12:31:32 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> There is no doubt that you utterly ignored the FACT that Google doesn't
>> even allow the software mentioned in the article in the Play store.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Android is modern - not primitive like iOS clearly is.

That is not a statement of fact, but one of belief.

>
> With respect to modern functionality, it's not clear from what you wrote
> that you actually realize that, unlike the primitive functionality of the
> iOS ecosystem, a non-rooted user can get any app that exists out there
> without ever even owning a Google Account or using the Google Play GUI.

Which has both advantages and disadvantages.

>
> Based on what you wrote, it may be that you're so used to the stone-age
> primitive functionality of the iOS app store that you don't seem to realize
> the Google Play app isn't ever needed to download any app you can get from
> anywhere - even from your billion closest friends on the Internet.

Not being able to get any app without an AppleID doesn't make the iOS
app store primitive.

>
> Android is modern.
> o They don't _lock_ a free app to a user id, for example, like Apple does.

So?

What particular advantage is there in that for ordinary people?

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
May 30, 2019, 2:57:57 PM5/30/19
to
On Thu, 30 May 2019 08:27:58 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

>> Android is modern - not primitive like iOS clearly is.
>
> That is not a statement of fact, but one of belief.

Hi Alan Baker,

You're joking right?
o There is no doubt iOS is in the stone age in terms of functionality

*The functionality on iOS is PRIMITIVE compared to that on Android.*

Since my belief system is based on facts, I can cite clear examples
o Which you, Alan Baker, almost never can cite examples proving your case

It's SIMPLE to prove iOS is PRIMITIVE in functionality, Alan Baker.
o You just don't realize how primitive it is - because you're immune to facts

Your belief system is almost entirely imaginary, Alan Baker
o Whereas mine is based on obvious easily cited & well-known actual facts.

For example...
o Taking just ONE functionality, *I can easily prove iOS is primitive.*

For example, how do you load any desired app launcher on iOS such that you
can perhaps rename app icons so that they make sense to you, and so that
you can perhaps put those icons anywhere you want on the screen, and if
you're interested having a different dock on each screen (or no dock
whatsoever), you just do that, and if you want to have an app icon in
multiple locations, you do that, and if you want to have a separate app
draw app for hiding apps that are installed and for finding them
graphically, and for organizing them any way you like such as last in first
out or biggest, or alphabetical or whatever, you can do that, and for
changing the fonts and sizes and colors of the app descriptions
differentially whether they show up inside of apps or outside or on the
desktop or inside a folder, and for having empty placeholder folders if you
are populating a system, and for saving the EXACT location and name of this
setup from one phone to another (or the same phone after a factory reset,
all without the Internet, and for ... (this list goes on and on, Alan).

It's odd that you claim that iOS is NOT primitive in functionality
o When you KNOW that the facts above are all true for Android functionality

Is your claim that since iOS completely lacks all that (and far more)
organizational functionality, that it's NOT primitive in organizational
functionality for example?

NOTE: That's just _one_ functionality that is easily proven to be utterly
primitive on iOS. .. where I realize you're utterly immune to this fact.

That's what makes you LOVE Apple so much, Alan Baker, IMHO
o You gravitate to completely imaginary belief systems that Apple markets

*It's why I consider you (and Jolly Roger) PERFECT Apple Apologists!*

Your immunity to facts is how your brain is wired, Alan.
o Whereas mine is wired to belief in that which is a fact

Alan Baker

unread,
May 30, 2019, 4:22:34 PM5/30/19
to
On 2019-05-30 11:57 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2019 08:27:58 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> Android is modern - not primitive like iOS clearly is.
>>
>> That is not a statement of fact, but one of belief.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> You're joking right?

No. You're a zealot and you made a statement based on your belief
system, not facts.

> o There is no doubt iOS is in the stone age in terms of functionality
>
> *The functionality on iOS is PRIMITIVE compared to that on Android.*

Example?

>
> Since my belief system is based on facts, I can cite clear examples
> o Which you, Alan Baker, almost never can cite examples proving your case
>
> It's SIMPLE to prove iOS is PRIMITIVE in functionality, Alan Baker.
> o You just don't realize how primitive it is - because you're immune to facts

And yet you don't take moment to provide this simple "proof"...

>
> Your belief system is almost entirely imaginary, Alan Baker
> o Whereas mine is based on obvious easily cited & well-known actual facts.
>
> For example...
> o Taking just ONE functionality, *I can easily prove iOS is primitive.*
>
> For example, how do you load any desired app launcher on iOS such that you
> can perhaps rename app icons so that they make sense to you, and so that
> you can perhaps put those icons anywhere you want on the screen, and if
> you're interested having a different dock on each screen (or no dock
> whatsoever), you just do that, and if you want to have an app icon in
> multiple locations, you do that, and if you want to have a separate app
> draw app for hiding apps that are installed and for finding them
> graphically, and for organizing them any way you like such as last in first
> out or biggest, or alphabetical or whatever, you can do that, and for
> changing the fonts and sizes and colors of the app descriptions
> differentially whether they show up inside of apps or outside or on the
> desktop or inside a folder, and for having empty placeholder folders if you
> are populating a system, and for saving the EXACT location and name of this
> setup from one phone to another (or the same phone after a factory reset,
> all without the Internet, and for ... (this list goes on and on, Alan).

Making choices you disagree with has nothing to do with whether an OS is
primitive or not.

>
> It's odd that you claim that iOS is NOT primitive in functionality
> o When you KNOW that the facts above are all true for Android functionality

I've made no claim either way. Too bad your zeal prevented you from
seeing that.

>
> Is your claim that since iOS completely lacks all that (and far more)
> organizational functionality, that it's NOT primitive in organizational
> functionality for example?

My claim would be that Apple made different choices than Google as far
as what constitutes an efficient UI.

>
> NOTE: That's just _one_ functionality that is easily proven to be utterly
> primitive on iOS. .. where I realize you're utterly immune to this fact.

Lack of a particular functionality doesn't make a thing primitive.

>
> That's what makes you LOVE Apple so much, Alan Baker, IMHO
> o You gravitate to completely imaginary belief systems that Apple markets
>
> *It's why I consider you (and Jolly Roger) PERFECT Apple Apologists!*
>
> Your immunity to facts is how your brain is wired, Alan.
> o Whereas mine is wired to belief in that which is a fact

BTW, you DO realize that you can turn off the background app refresh
that is the method by which those problematic apps can track you when
you're not using them...

...right?

Settings:General:Background App Refresh: turn off all the apps you don't
want.

How do you do that on Android. It's going to take you a lot more taps.

I guess that's "primitive functionality"... ...right?

:-)

>

Alan Baker

unread,
May 30, 2019, 8:55:56 PM5/30/19
to
On 2019-05-29 11:30 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
You snipped everything I said.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
May 31, 2019, 4:05:20 AM5/31/19
to
On Thu, 30 May 2019 13:22:30 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> My claim would be that Apple made different choices than Google as far
> as what constitutes an efficient UI.

Hi Alan Baker,

What you're saying is akin to saying that Apple makes the choice of
providing its users with butter knife to cut and trim a tree, while Google
provides a chain saw to do that task.

The obvious and easily proven fact that the Apple butter knife
functionality can't possibly do the desired task, is lost on you.

Your inability to comprehend such basic facts is what defines you.

Alan Baker

unread,
May 31, 2019, 12:07:55 PM5/31/19
to
On 2019-05-31 1:05 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2019 13:22:30 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> My claim would be that Apple made different choices than Google as far
>> as what constitutes an efficient UI.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> What you're say...

...is that you keep snipping almost everything I say?

Yes.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
May 31, 2019, 1:09:45 PM5/31/19
to
On Fri, 31 May 2019 09:07:54 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> ...is that you keep snipping almost everything I say?

Hi Alan Baker,

Let me hint at the super obvious for you to comprehend, if possible...

I respond to the _relevant_ points from anyone (not just from you)
o Which, you've surmised accurately, is not all that much from you.

Standard Usenet quoting etiquette I follow and have followed
in all my responses to every individual - where only you apologists seem to
be upset when irrelevant content isn't responded to.

Standard practice is to quote _only_ that which is minimally required for
_direct_ context to move the ball forward to the next interaction.

<http://www.rvelthuis.de/articles/articles-quoting.html>
"Do not overquote. "

<http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/#quotes>
"quote only those portions of the original message that are
relevant to the topic we're addressing."

"There is almost never any need to quote someone else's post in full.
As a matter of fact, full-quoting is usually considered quite rude."

Alan Baker

unread,
May 31, 2019, 1:30:27 PM5/31/19
to
On 2019-05-31 10:09 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2019 09:07:54 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> ...is that you keep snipping almost everything I say?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Let me...

...snip everything I say?

No. I will not let that pass unnoted.

nospam

unread,
May 31, 2019, 1:51:41 PM5/31/19
to
In article <qcrn4o$btu$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Standard practice is to quote _only_ that which is minimally required for
> _direct_ context to move the ball forward to the next interaction.

standard practice is *not* to quote to alter context.

what you do violates standard practice.

AG Holder

unread,
Aug 30, 2019, 10:48:07 AM8/30/19
to
Yet again, Apple proves to promise the mere _illusion_ of privacy.

Today, Java Jive reported over on the Android ng today that, yet again, for
30 months in the wild, given the diarrhea of the iOS releases from iOS 10
to iOS 12, hackers exploited a dozen security flaws to access "an enormous
amount of data" including
o contacts
o images
o geolocation
o email
o texts
o chats
etc.
o SOT: Google finds 'indiscriminate iPhone attack lasting years'
<https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49520355>

While Apple refused to comment, it's notable that, yet again, clearly,
Apple didn't test their release sufficiently, such that Google caught the
huge security flaw in the wild - not Apple.

o Google finds 'indiscriminate iPhone attack lasting years'
<https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/world/2019-08-30-google-finds-indiscriminate-iphone-attack-lasting-years/>

"The implant also was able to scoop up data from apps a person was
using, such as Instagram, WhatsApp and Telegram. Mr Beer's list of examples
also included Google products such as Gmail and Hangouts, the firm's group
video chat app."

IMHO, this is yet more proof that Apple advertises the mere _illusion_ of security
o Where, it seems Apple users love the frequency of the diarrhea of iOS
releases because the sheer frequency of releases makes them _feel_ safe.

And that's all that matters to the average Apple users, apparently.

The well proven fact Apple never tests iOS releases sufficiently is lost on
them, since what they seem to care most about, is the MARKETING, much like
a child cares that his mommy tells him that if he closes the closet door at
night, the monsters can't get out.

Apple marketing makes the users _feel_ safe
o And, apparently, that's all that matters to them.

Arlen Holder

unread,
Jul 18, 2020, 5:58:58 PM7/18/20
to
Dateline today, all verbatim, as apologists will deny anything about Apple
they simply don't like, even if it's a well-cited well-publicized fact.

"Apple is... giving customers total control with the latest
operating system to... fully block requests to be tracked"

o iOS 14: How to allow or block iPhone apps from tracking you
<https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/17/allow-block-iphone-app-tracking-ios-14/>

"In a report from the Washington Post last year, 5,400 iPhone apps were
found to be using trackers and, in some examples, were sending personal
data like phone numbers and users' locations to third-party research
and marketing firms."

See also:
o In iOS 14 Apple finally gives users control to fully block requests to be tracked by apps
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/9Kk4qV8tj9A>
--
Bringing necessary factual truths to otherwise fact-free Apple newsgroups.
0 new messages