facetime privacy bug

[badgolferman]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-if-someone-doesnt-answer.html

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 02:25:43 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-if-someone-doesnt-answer.html

Update1: Apple has taken Group FaceTime offline in an attempt to address the issue in the interim).
Update2: ThereĄŚs a second part to this which can expose video too ĄK
"9to5Mac has reproduced the FaceTime bug with an iPhone X
calling an iPhone XR, but it is believed to affect any pair of iOS
devices running iOS 12.1 or later."
<https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/28/facetime-bug-hear-audio/>

Hi badgolferman,

You usually don't suffer from Apologist Politics cognitive bias, so it's
nice to know that there are some intelligent Apple adults who read and post
to this Usenet group.

Thanks for that reference, where these are representative direct quotes:
o Apple FaceTime bug lets you listen in on people you call, even if they haven't picked up their iPhone
<https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-if-someone-doesnt-answer.html>
"A bug in FaceTime lets you listen in to the audio if you try to call
someone even if they don't pick up. You first video call someone
then try to add yourself to the group call."

o Major iPhone FaceTime bug lets you hear the audio of the person you are calling ĄK before they pick up
<https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/28/facetime-bug-hear-audio/>
"The bug lets you call anyone with FaceTime, and immediately hear
the audio coming from their phone before the person on the other end
has accepted or rejected the incoming call."

o HereĄŚs how to do the iPhone FaceTime bug:
o Start a FaceTime Video call with an iPhone contact.
o Whilst the call is dialling, swipe up from the bottom of the screen
o and tap Add Person.
o Add your own phone number in the Add Person screen.
o You will then start a group FaceTime call including yourself
o and the audio of the person you originally called,
o even if they haven't accepted the call yet.

o It will look like in the UI like the other person
o has joined the group chat,
o but on their actual device
o it will still be ringing on the lockscreen.
<https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/28/facetime-bug-hear-audio/>

Without delving into Apologist Politics, it's just one more indication that
o Apple ships _untested_ releases where the sheer frequency is a "diarrhea"
o Privacy on all common consumer mobile platforms is "about the same"

It's understood that Apple Marketing Propaganda says otherwise,
but only Apple Apologists actually _believe_ in Apple make-believe.

*For actual facts on privacy, please see:*
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs>

*And, for actual facts on what I call "a diarrhea of iOS releases", please see:*
o Lockscreen exploit easilfy found only hours after iOS 12.1 released (yet again, Apple never tests anything in the real world)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/N-hQKPDI4a0/4tfgLojLAAAJ>

*And, for facts about why Apologist Politics is what it is, please see:*
o Apple Apologist suffer from left-side dunning-kruger cognitive bias
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MwtyT7BdxF4>

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 06:05:54 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Without delving into Apologist Politics, it's just one more indication that
> o Apple ships _untested_ releases where the sheer frequency is a "diarrhea"
> o Privacy on all common consumer mobile platforms is "about the same"

Facts.

Yet more proof, if any was needed, that Apple historically has not tested
_any_ release (mobile or desktop) doesn't sufficiently in the real world.

Facts.

IMHO, The user simply wants to _feel_ safe
o All they tout is the sheer _frequency_ of releases
o I posit that the sheer frequency of _untested_ releases, is a diarrhea

Facts.

*The plethora of _holes_ soon found in the "real world" is astounding!*

Facts.

Apple Bug Lets iPhone Users Listen in on Others Via FaceTime
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-29/apple-bug-lets-iphone-users-listen-in-on-others-via-facetime>
"New York Governor calls bug an _egregious breach of privacy_"

o Apple's FaceTime bug lets people listen in on you – even if you don't pick up
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/28/apple-facetime-bug-listen-calls-iphone-glitch-privacy>
"Serious glitch, which can also turn on video without people's
knowledge, comes amid increasing concerns over privacy":

FaceTime Bug Lets iPhone Users Eavesdrop, in a Stumble for Apple
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/technology/personaltech/facetime-bug-iphone-hack.html>
"The FaceTime bug could also give a caller access to a live feed
of the recipient's camera."

o Apple Bug Enables Eavesdropping on FaceTime Users
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-bug-enables-eavesdropping-on-facetime-users-11548741057>
"Apple Inc. scrambled to fix a bug in its FaceTime video-chat system
that lets callers eavesdrop on users of iPhones, iPads, and Macs,
an embarrassing setback"

o Serious FaceTime Bug Lets You Hear a Person's Audio Before They Answer [Update: And See Video]
<https://www.macrumors.com/2019/01/28/apple-major-facetime-bug/>
"There's a major bug in FaceTime right now that lets you connect
to someone and hear their audio without the person even
accepting the call. "

o Major iPhone FaceTime bug lets you hear the audio of the person you are calling … before they pick up

<https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/28/facetime-bug-hear-audio/>
"The bug lets you call anyone with FaceTime, and immediately hear the
audio coming from their phone before the person on the other end has
accepted or rejected the incoming call. "

FaceTime now unavailable after discovery of eavesdropping bug
<https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-hear-iphone-mac-audio-before-the-call-is-connected/>
"The bug affects calls to iPhones and reportedly impacts calls
to Macs, potentially turning any device into a hot mic."

Apple says it's fixing FaceTime bug that allows users to hear conversations outside of call
<https://thehill.com/policy/technology/427378-apple-says-its-fixing-facetime-bug-that-allows-users-to-hear-conversations>
"the bug occurs when a user makes a FaceTime call to another user
and then adds themselves to the call through the group call feature."

Apple to Fix Major FaceTime Bug That Lets People Covertly Hear Your Audio and See Your Video 'Later This Week' [Updated]
<https://www.macrumors.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-fix-later-this-week/>
"Apple is planning to address a major FaceTime bug that allows anyone
who FaceTimes you see the audio and video from your iPhone or iPad
even if you don't answer the call."

iPhone FaceTime bug lets you eavesdrop on other people
<https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/tech/apple-face-time-bug/index.html>
"A newly discovered bug in Apple's FaceTime software lets Apple users
listen in on the people they are calling, and even see through their
front-facing camera, without them picking-up the call."

How to disable FaceTime (so no one can eavesdrop on your iPhone or Mac)
<https://www.cnet.com/news/how-to-disable-apple-facetime-iphone-ipad-mac-bug/>
"A new Apple FaceTime bug has the potential to let callers hear
you and see you, even if you don't accept the call. Here's how to
protect yourself until there's a fix."

Apple FaceTime Bug Lets You to Hear Audio Before the Call is Answered
<https://www.news18.com/news/tech/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-to-hear-audio-before-the-call-is-answered-2017337.html>
"If you receive a FaceTime call, chances are that the person
calling could be listening, even though you haven't picked the call,
which is scary and creepy at the same time"

Apple FaceTime bug lets people eavesdrop on your iPhone or Mac without your knowledge
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-eavesdrop-your-iphone-mac/2707057002/>
"A new bug can let the people that call you to listen in to your
conversations even if you don't answer the call. "

Apple's FaceTime has a major bug that lets others listen in on you before you answer the call
<https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-facetime-privacy-vulnerability-lets-another-user-listen-in-2019-1>
"The bug affects any iPhone, iPad, or Mac that supports FaceTime."

Apple's FaceTime Is Hit With a Serious Bug That Lets You Listen in on People You Call
<https://hypebeast.com/2019/1/apple-facetime-serious-bug-privacy-issue-2019>
"a serious bug with Apple‘s FaceTime calling platform has surfaced.
The bug allows you to call somebody via FaceTime and listen to their
microphone or access their video camera even if they don't pick up."

Apple rushes to fix FaceTime 'eavesdropping' bug
<https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47037846>
"In some cases the target iPhone would send video, probably
without the receiver's knowledge."

FaceTime bug lets you listen in before a call starts
<https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/28/facetime-pre-call-audio-bug/>
"Apple's FaceTime might make it a little too convenient to
drop in on a friend."

Facts.

NOTE: The Apple Apologists will likely belittle this (once it's fixed), but
they can't reasonably deny the facts (they'll try - but that's why they're
Apologists) that Apple doesn't sufficiently test the diarhea of releases in
the real world.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 29.01.19 um 03:25 schrieb badgolferman:
>
> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-if-someone-doesnt-answer.html

Nobody needs human gateways to internet links and the bug is fixed for
quite some time.

This is very old news.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:18:00 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Nobody needs human gateways to internet links and the bug is fixed for
> quite some time.
>
> This is very old news.

Hi Joerg Lorenz,

What's amazing is how CONFIDENT you are that you assess facts.
o Just like nospam is, and Jolly Roger, and Alan Baker, et al.

And yet, you're _always_ wrong.

In fact, just like the lemon-juice bank robber was confident of his facts.
<https://timnovate.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/dunning-kruger.jpg>

And he was wrong too.

Clearly you own the metacognitive skills of a child:
<https://slideplayer.com/slide/13931215/85/images/14/Dunning+%3D+Kruger+Effect+%28Kruger+%26+Dunning%2C+1999%29.jpg>

[Alan Browne]

The purpose of a usenet newsgroup is to discuss related news and things
about the subject of the group. Links are a valuable part of that as
you've been told in the past.

>
> This is very old news.

No.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

[badgolferman]

It's fixed? That's not what is being reported. I read that Group
Facetime chat has been disabled by Apple. How do you know it's been
fixed?

[Alan Browne]

He doesn't know a thing. Just making noise. Again.

[Jolly Roger]

He’s trolling as usual.

Apple has already disabled Group FaceTime on their servers so this bug
cannot be exploited while a fix is being prepared. It’s a non-issue:

<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/28/apple-disables-group-facetime-as-it-works-on-privacy-bug-fix>

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Lewis]

It's "fixed" in that it cannot be exploited since Apple disabled the
group FaceTime. It is not old news, nor is it very old news.

It's a bug, it was discovered, it has been mitigated, it will be fixed.

Now, let the panic ensue from all the people who have never used
FaceTime.

--
'What good is a candle at noonday?' --Sourcery

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:21:47 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> He doesn't know a thing. Just making noise. Again.

The question is _always_ which of the following Joerg Lorenz is exhibiting:
o Is he really that incredibly stupid that he thinks it's "fixed already"?
o Or, is he incessantly playing silly childish games all day, every day?
o Or, does Joerg Lorenz really confidently _think_ he assesses the facts?

I used to think it was one of the first two.
o My epiphany is that, sadly, it's the third most likely.

That means Joerg Lorenz is _incapable_ of assessing even simple facts.
o The reason is that Joerg Lorenz is supremely confident in his assessment

The words of Dunning-Kruger fit Joerg Lorenz' statements *perfectly*!
<https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/lessons-from-dunning-kruger/>
"...incompetent people do not recognize - scratch that,
_cannot_ recognize - just how incompetent they are"

"...incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed,
or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an
inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to
them like knowledge"

Note that _everyone_ fits on the DK scale (somewhere)...
<https://slideplayer.com/slide/13931215/85/images/14/Dunning+%3D+Kruger+Effect+%28Kruger+%26+Dunning%2C+1999%29.jpg>

o People like Joerg Lorenz simply fit extremely far to the left.
"The Dunning-Kruger effect is not just about dumb people not
realizing how dumb they are. It is about basic human psychology
and cognitive biases. Dunning-Kruger applies to everyone"
<https://timnovate.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/dunning-kruger.jpg>

[arlen holder]

On 29 Jan 2019 15:35:10 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Apple has already disabled Group FaceTime on their servers so this bug

> cannot be exploited while a fix is being prepared. It┬ a non-issue:
> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/28/apple-disables-group-facetime-as-it-works-on-privacy-bug-fix>

Hi Jolly Roger,

I think, as usual, you completely missed the _real_ privacy issue here...
o Unfortunately, I don't think you have the cognitive skills to comprehend.

For the few adults on this ng, I'll have to explain what the "big deal" is:
o *The "big deal" is that Apple didn't find this privacy bug in internal testing.*

If this were only the first time in years, then it would be a different story.
o But people finding easy-to-find privacy bugs in _most_ Apple releases!

Again, I highly doubt you, Jolly Roger, _can_ comprehend the import.
o The fact is Craig Federighi said it himself - Marketing drives the schedule

Craig Federighi's team doesn't have the _time_ to test any release!
o *That! Is the problem.*

Apple Marketing _knows_ the customer wants _frequent_ releases!
o *Frequent releases make the customer _feel_ safe!*

In summary, only someone with adult cognitive skills can comprehend.
o The problem isn't the bug itself - nor whether it's fixed or not.

The problem is that Apple doesn't test their products in the real world.
o Yet again, Apple forgot to test a release in the real world
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/AlkmHCTSUXg/K5GdwrzdCQAJ>

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 29.01.19 um 14:14 schrieb Alan Browne:

> On 2019-01-29 05:18, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 29.01.19 um 03:25 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>
>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-if-someone-doesnt-answer.html
>>>
>>
>> Nobody needs human gateways to internet links and the bug is fixed for
>> quite some time.
>
> The purpose of a usenet newsgroup is to discuss related news and things
> about the subject of the group. Links are a valuable part of that as
> you've been told in the past.

What exactely was the discussion content in the OP? Are you always
trying to outsmart yourself?

>>
>> This is very old news.
>
> No.

Certainly. Responsible useres have already updated their equipment for
about a week.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 29.01.19 um 14:14 schrieb badgolferman:

The iOS-update to 12.1.3 fixed it as well as 10.14.3 on the Macs.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 29.01.19 um 14:21 schrieb Alan Browne:

> On 2019-01-29 08:14, badgolferman wrote:
>> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>
>>> Am 29.01.19 um 03:25 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-if-someone-doesnt-answer.html
>>>
>>> Nobody needs human gateways to internet links and the bug is fixed
>>> for quite some time.
>>>
>>> This is very old news.
>>
>>
>> It's fixed? That's not what is being reported. I read that Group
>> Facetime chat has been disabled by Apple. How do you know it's been
>> fixed?
>
> He doesn't know a thing. Just making noise. Again.
>
>

Once more you have no clue of anything.
12.1.3 on iOS fixed the bug as well as 10.14.3 on the Mac.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 29.01.19 um 16:35 schrieb Jolly Roger:

> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 29.01.19 um 03:25 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>
>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-if-someone-doesnt-answer.html
>>
>> Nobody needs human gateways to internet links and the bug is fixed for
>> quite some time.
>>
>> This is very old news.
>
> He’s trolling as usual.
>
> Apple has already disabled Group FaceTime on their servers so this bug
> cannot be exploited while a fix is being prepared. It’s a non-issue:
>
> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/28/apple-disables-group-facetime-as-it-works-on-privacy-bug-fix>
>

This article is fake!
Face time works as always.

[Jolly Roger]

Nope. You just weren’t paying attention when you read it.

> Face time works as always.

Nope. *Group* FaceTime is disabled, like the article says. Read it again
slowly, and pay attention.

[Jolly Roger]

Nope, wrong. You should keep your mouth shut if you don’t know what you
are talking about. Otherwise you only make a fool of yourself:

About iOS 12 Updates

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209084>

iOS 12.1.3 includes bug fixes for your iPhone or iPad. This update:

* Fixes an issue in Messages that could impact scrolling through photos in
the Details view

* Addresses an issue where photos could have striped artifacts after being
sent from the Share Sheet

* Fixes an issue that may cause audio distortion when using external audio
input devices on iPad Pro (2018)

* Resolves an issue that could cause certain CarPlay systems to disconnect
from iPhone XR, iPhone XS, and iPhone XS Max

This release also includes bug fixes for HomePod. This update:

* Fixes an issue that could cause HomePod to restart

* Addresses an issue that could cause Siri to stop listening

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-29 05:18, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-if-someone-doesnt-answer.html
>
> Nobody needs human gateways to internet links and the bug is fixed for
> quite some time.
>
> This is very old news.

You must have a time travel machine. This bug became public today, and
there is speculation on whether Apple may have known about it a week
ago. Not "very old news".

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 29.01.19 um 18:20 schrieb Jolly Roger:

> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> This article is fake!
>
> Nope. You just weren’t paying attention when you read it.

Aha. This seems to be only an issue in US-media.
There is absolutely nothing in the serious media like Heise or others
outside North America. And nothing on Apple websites.

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-29 10:35, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Apple has already disabled Group FaceTime on their servers so this bug
> cannot be exploited while a fix is being prepared. It’s a non-issue:

Non issue eh?

You should get hired by the actor doing his shows from the studios at
1600 Pennsylvania. He likes folks like you who can spin anything to
sound good.


Caller makes call to Called-1. Called-1 does not answer, phone rings
Caller makes call to Called-2, Called-2 answers.
Called-1 starts transmitting to the group conference.

Looks to me like when Called-2 answers, the group system sends
notification to Called-1 that another party has joned and to start
transmitting audio to the group. (without checking that Called-1 is
already part of group).

There is a flaw at the server level where it treats Called-1 as being
part of group and sends it notificatiosn that others are joining the
group conference despite called-1 not being part of group.


And an obvious flaw in the client software which starts transmitting
before having answered the call.


Have never used the group thing. Does the first call get established as
a normal person to person call (old code) and then caller converts call
to group and adds people and when second person answer, the initial call
is sort of converted to group even though it is still processing the
original person-person unanswered call?

(Called-1 phone continues to ring and Caller gets to her that ringing
from the transmiutted audio).

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-29 12:08, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Once more you have no clue of anything.
> 12.1.3 on iOS fixed the bug as well as 10.14.3 on the Mac.

Word on the street is that 12.2 will include the fix.

[nospam]

In article <EJ04E.281783$JW5.1...@fx46.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> Word on the street is that 12.2 will include the fix.

no.

word on the street is a fix will be released this week. no number was
given, but it's likely 12.1.4. 12.2 *just* started seeding.

[nospam]

In article <MH04E.281782$JW5....@fx46.iad>, JF Mezei

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

>
> > Apple has already disabled Group FaceTime on their servers so this bug

> > cannot be exploited while a fix is being prepared. It零 a non-issue:

>
> Non issue eh?
>
> You should get hired by the actor doing his shows from the studios at
> 1600 Pennsylvania. He likes folks like you who can spin anything to
> sound good.
>
>
> Caller makes call to Called-1. Called-1 does not answer, phone rings
> Caller makes call to Called-2, Called-2 answers.
> Called-1 starts transmitting to the group conference.
>
> Looks to me like when Called-2 answers, the group system sends
> notification to Called-1 that another party has joned and to start
> transmitting audio to the group. (without checking that Called-1 is
> already part of group).
>
> There is a flaw at the server level where it treats Called-1 as being
> part of group and sends it notificatiosn that others are joining the
> group conference despite called-1 not being part of group.

it's been disabled at the server level, making it a non-issue.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 29.01.19 um 18:20 schrieb Jolly Roger:

> Nope. *Group* FaceTime is disabled, like the article says. Read it again
> slowly, and pay attention.

Now the first reports from the serious source like the German Federal
Agency for Security of Information Technology Infrastructures (my
translation) starts to drop in:

Art der Meldung: Warnmeldung
Risikostufe 2
Apple iOS - FaceTime: Schwachstelle ermöglicht Offenlegung von Informationen

29.01.2019____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Betroffene Systeme:
Apple iOS >= 12.1
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Empfehlung:
Aktuell ist von Apple kein Update oder Patch für diese Schwachstelle
verfügbar. Apple hat die
Gruppen-FaceTime-Funktion Serverseitig bis zur Schließung der
Schwachstelle abgeschaltet. Den
Nutzern wird dennoch empfohlen, FaceTime bis zu dem Erscheinen eines
entsprechenden Updates zu
deaktivieren.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Beschreibung:
Das Apple iOS (vormals iPhone OS) ist das Betriebssystem für das von
Apple entwickelte Smartphone
iPhone, iPad und iPod Touch.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Zusammenfassung:
Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann eine Schwachstelle in Apple iOS
in der Gruppenchat Funktion
von FaceTime ausnutzen, um den Angerufenen ohne dessen Zutun abzuhören.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quellen:
- https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/28/facetime-bug-hear-audio/
-
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/29/18201667/apple-group-facetime-disabled-server-side-major-security-flaw-fix
-
https://www.heise.de/mac-and-i/meldung/FaceTime-als-Wanze-Apple-schaltet-Gruppenfunktion-des-VoIP-Dienstes-ab-4290587.html
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Über den folgenden Link können Sie den Newsletter wieder abbestellen.
https://www.bsi.bund.de/BSIFB/DE/Service/Buerger-CERT/Newsletter/abbestellen/newsletter_abbestellen_node.html
Besuchen Sie uns auch auf:
https://www.bsi-fuer-buerger.de
https://www.facebook.com/bsi.fuer.buerger
https://www.twitter.com/BSI_Presse


Herausgeber: Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI),
Godesberger Allee 185-189, 53133 Bonn


Sorry guys! ;-)

[Chris]

Updated how exactly? Apple aren't releasing the patch until next week...

In the meantime Apple have disabled group Facetime.

[badgolferman]

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>Sorry guys! ;-)


If anything you owe me an apology for dismissing my original post.
Perhaps next time you won't be so quick to make yourself look ignorant.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:11:56 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Non issue eh?

Hi JF Mezei,

To you, the issue is a real issue, because you think as an adult.
o Jolly Roger (and nospam, et al.) do not own the mind of an adult.

To them, "it's been disabled at the server level, making it a non-issue".
o *Notice they prove they don't _comprehend_ what the _real_ problem is.*

It's sad, actually, that people like Joerg Lorenz, Jolly Roger, & nospam exist.
o Joerg Lorenz doesn't even comprehend the extremely obvious, while
o People like Jolly Roger & nospam _only_ comprehend the extremely obvious.

The fact that Apple incessantly releases such bugs is completely _lost_ on
them.

The "big deal" here is that, yet again, Apple didn't find this bug:
o This proves, yet again, that Apple doesn't test their releases in the real world

o *Every time Apple updates, lack of testing causes new problems in the REAL world*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Z6xD4HaiyjE/Jr5yYrBUCAAJ>

That's! The big deal.

[arlen holder]

On 29 Jan 2019 17:20:45 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Nope. *Group* FaceTime is disabled, like the article says. Read it again
> slowly, and pay attention.

I'm actually rather surprised Jolly Roger comprehended the situation.

Jolly Roger still doesn't comprehend why this is very important.

But at least Jolly Roger isn't as stupid as Joerg Lorenz proves to be.

That's one minor uptick for humanity.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:19:21 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Now the first reports from the serious source like the German Federal
> Agency for Security of Information Technology Infrastructures (my
> translation) starts to drop in:

Jesus Christ.

*Every single post from Joerg Lorenz is a perfect example of Left-Side Dunning-Kruger!*

Joerg Lorenz actually _believes_ he can ascertain reliable facts
o And yet, he confidently threw out a dozen already reliable cites!

OMG. These people actually exist!
o Jesus Christ. Lord help us all.

People who prove to be as incredibly _stupid_ as Joerg Lorenz is, exist!

He actually _believes_ he has the cognitive skills to "assess" a "serious report".
<https://slideplayer.com/slide/13931215/85/images/14/Dunning+%3D+Kruger+Effect+%28Kruger+%26+Dunning%2C+1999%29.jpg>

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:08:12 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Aha. This seems to be only an issue in US-media.
> There is absolutely nothing in the serious media like Heise or others
> outside North America. And nothing on Apple websites.

*What's shocking is how _PERFECTLY_ Joerg Lorenz fits Dunning-Kruger!*
o <https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/lessons-from-dunning-kruger/>

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:08:02 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Once more you have no clue of anything.
> 12.1.3 on iOS fixed the bug as well as 10.14.3 on the Mac.

Oh my goodness.
o People like Joerg Lorenz _actually_ exist!

Everyone is explaining to Joerg Lorenz that he assessed the facts wrong.
o And yet ... Joerg Lorenz is _supremely_ confident of is self assessment!

It's like explaining that lemon juice doesn't hide his face from cameras.
o Joerg Lorenz supremely confident of his assessment skills

Jesus Christ.
o I didn't think people like Joerg Lorenz actually existed.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:23:49 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

>> Certainly. Responsible useres have already updated their equipment for
>> about a week.
>
> Updated how exactly? Apple aren't releasing the patch until next week...
>
> In the meantime Apple have disabled group Facetime.

What is utterly shocking, is that people like Joerg Lorenz actually exist!

Joerg Lorenz is so very CONFIDENT he can self assess the facts!
o Just like the lemon-juice bank robber was confident of his assessments.

And yet, Joerg Lorenz is _always_ wrong!
o He can't even comprehend that he's always wrong.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:06:46 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> The iOS-update to 12.1.3 fixed it as well as 10.14.3 on the Macs.

1. I used to think people like Joerg Lorenz were simply incredibly stupid.
2. Or, that they are incessantly pulling our leg.

But I think the problem with people like Joerg Lorenz is far worse.
3. They actually _believe_ they own the cognitive skills to assess facts.

*And yet, every post _proves_ they own the cognitive mind of a child.*

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 16:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Now, let the panic ensue from all the people who have never used
> FaceTime.

Hi Lewis,
It's not likely you can comprehend what the "real" problem is here.

The problem isn't the bug, nor the fix.
o The problem is that Apple never tests releases in the real world.

*That real problem! Is _not_ fixed.*

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:18:35 -0500, nospam wrote:

> it's been disabled at the server level, making it a non-issue.

Hi nospam,

You don't even _comprehend_ why this is indicative of a far larger problem.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:40:08 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> If anything you owe me an apology for dismissing my original post.
> Perhaps next time you won't be so quick to make yourself look ignorant.

Hi badgolferman,

The record shows that I thanked you, where it will be interesting to see
how Joerg Lorenz reacts to your request (i.e., as a child or as an adult).

What I find supremely INTERESTING is how fantastically CONFIDENT he is.
o He's an astoundingly _perfect_ example of Dunning-Kruger left-side bias!
<https://i.imgur.com/cYTXTNy.jpg>

The fact is:
*Joerg Lorenz _trusts_ his ability to vet the media for "reliable" news!*
<https://scanfoam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/adpativeDKblog3.jpg>

Hence, he discounted out of hand your reliable cite.
o And he summarily discounted the entire score of my reliable cites.
<http://www.seven-health.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dunning-Kruger-Effect1.png>

*He only believed in his ability to "trust" the German mainstream media!*

Jesus Christ.
o Joerg Lorenz is a _perfect_ example of left-side Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias!
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrQGXxKXcAAFaVt.jpg>

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-29 13:18, nospam wrote:

> it's been disabled at the server level, making it a non-issue.

It is still an issue.

There is a quality control issue of having released the group facetime
with such a big security flaw.

There is the issue that a feature that is included in the specs has been
disabled due to a problem. They still need to fix the problem.

No matter what some remote server tells it what to do, an iPhone should
never send audio/video without user's explicit "OK" (aka: answer).

[nospam]

In article <rL24E.125486$914....@fx30.iad>, JF Mezei

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

>
> > it's been disabled at the server level, making it a non-issue.
>
> It is still an issue.

no, because it can't happen anymore.

> There is a quality control issue of having released the group facetime
> with such a big security flaw.

nothing is perfect.

> There is the issue that a feature that is included in the specs has been
> disabled due to a problem. They still need to fix the problem.

the fix is expected this week. they have to be sure it doesn't cause
other problems.

> No matter what some remote server tells it what to do, an iPhone should
> never send audio/video without user's explicit "OK" (aka: answer).

don't tell google that, who calls it a feature.

[arlen holder]

On 29 Jan 2019 22:03:38 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Not that big compared to much worse things that have happened with
> several other popular competing services. You *want* it to be big,
> because of that big chip on your shoulder; but it's not.

Hehhehheh... I was waiting for the blame game from the Apologists....
o HINT: It's one of your 7 basic responses to fact!

*You Apologists _always_ blame _other companies_ for Apple's decisions!*
o Every single time.

HINT: You have absolutely no comprehension how serious this is.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:47:27 -0500, nospam wrote:

> no, because it can't happen anymore.

The really sad thing, nospam, is you actually _believe_ what you write.

1. Nobody is _that_ stupid, but you prove that you are.
2. You're not pulling our leg - you actually _believe_ what you just said.
3. Hence, the only rationale left is that you're to the left of mount stupid.
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrQGXxKXcAAFaVt.jpg>

It's not really your fault.
o It's how your brain is wired.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:32:23 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> There is a quality control issue of having released the group facetime
> with such a big security flaw.

Exactly.

That's the _real_ issue.
o It's a freaking _serious_ issue!

Big time.
o If it was only the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd time in a year, we might excuse it.

But it's a "regular thing" with Apple releases.
o Apple does NOT sufficiently test releases before shipping them.

Fact is ... Apple has a _huge_ Quality Control issue.
o I think I know why.

HINT: Craig Federighi already told us why.

[arlen holder]

On 29 Jan 2019 21:52:02 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> "News originating in North America is fake news" isn't a very cogent
> argument.

What's amazing is that Joerg Lorenz actually _believes_ he has the
skills to self assess which news is "fake news" and which is "real".
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxL91TTWwAAC6Am.jpg>

That's why Joerg Lorenz will always _remain_ incredibly stupid.
o Joerg Lorenz doesn't have the skills to assess how stupid he really is
<https://educationechochamber.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/doug-blog-29.png>

Put in Dunning-Kruger terms...

<https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/lessons-from-dunning-kruger/>

"...incompetent people do not recognize - scratch that,
_cannot_ recognize - just how incompetent they are"

"...incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed,
or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an
inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to
them like knowledge"

*Joerg Lorenz is _supremely_ confident that he has those skills!*

o And yet, the facts are that he clearly does not.
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlG0kwCXoAYC-75.jpg>

[arlen holder]

On 29 Jan 2019 21:59:04 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Yep. Nobody can exploit the bug now that Apple has disabled it. The
> response was quick and the bug is therefore no longer in effect..

Hi Jolly Roger,

The one thing that we can always say about you, Jolly Roger ... is that...
o Your ignorance knows no bounds.

You actually _believe_ the problem is "solved" by Apple "fixing" this bug.
o It's amazing, actually, how little you comprehend of any problem set.

[arlen holder]

On 29 Jan 2019 22:07:30 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> And Apple disabled the service today, which means their response was
> both timely and effective.
>
> "But it's still a problem, guys, trust me!"
>
> *YAWN*

Hi Jolly Roger,

All you see, Jolly Roger, is the "obvious" that _everyone_ sees.
o Granted, Joerg Lorenz doesn't even see _that_!

*You always completely fail to comprehend the real problem set.*

HINT: The problem set is that overall QC at Apple is, as Craig Federighi
said himself, in need of a huge overhaul, simply because they _clearly_
don't have time to adequately test the diarrhea of releases that Marketing
specs for them.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-01-29 12:05, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.01.19 um 14:14 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2019-01-29 05:18, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 29.01.19 um 03:25 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-if-someone-doesnt-answer.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nobody needs human gateways to internet links and the bug is fixed for
>>> quite some time.
>>
>> The purpose of a usenet newsgroup is to discuss related news and things
>> about the subject of the group.  Links are a valuable part of that as
>> you've been told in the past.
>
> What exactely was the discussion content in the OP? Are you always
> trying to outsmart yourself?

You're trying to outdumb yourself. And succeeding.

>
>>>
>>> This is very old news.
>>
>> No.
>

> Certainly. Responsible useres have already updated their equipment for
> about a week.

Liar. It will be updated in user equipment soon.

In the meantime Apple have blocked it at the server end.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-01-29 13:19, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.01.19 um 18:20 schrieb Jolly Roger:
>> Nope. *Group* FaceTime is disabled, like the article says. Read it again
>> slowly, and pay attention.
>
> Now the first reports from the serious source like the German Federal
> Agency for Security of Information Technology Infrastructures (my

If it's not from the Germans it's not true. Hmmm.... that went so well
in the 1930's...


> Sorry guys! ;-)

So next time someone posts something (and links!) just STFU.

[David Empson]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 29.01.19 um 14:14 schrieb badgolferman:

> > Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> >
> >> Am 29.01.19 um 03:25 schrieb badgolferman:
> >>>
> >>> <https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-
> >>> if-someone-doesnt-answer.html>
> >>
> >> Nobody needs human gateways to internet links and the bug is fixed
> >> for quite some time.
> >>

> >> This is very old news.
> >

> > It's fixed? That's not what is being reported. I read that Group
> > Facetime chat has been disabled by Apple. How do you know it's been
> > fixed?

> >
> The iOS-update to 12.1.3 fixed it as well as 10.14.3 on the Macs.

I think you are confused by a FaceTime bug that Apple fixed in iOS
12.1.3 and macOS 10.14.3, which was listed in the security release notes
for those versions, e.g. for iOS:

FaceTime
Available for: iPhone 5s and later, iPad Air and later, and iPod
touch 6th generation
Impact: A remote attacker may be able to initiate a FaceTime call
causing arbitrary code execution
Description: A buffer overflow issue was addressed with improved
memory handling.
CVE-2019-6224: Natalie Silvanovich of Google Project Zero


The Group FaceTime issue being discussed in this thread is NOT the same
one. It has different impact (privacy rather than arbitrary code
execution), a different description (there is no buffer overrun involved
in the new issue), is unlikely to be the same CVE (CVE-2019-6224 was
assigned on 2019-01-11, which is earlier than the first known report to
Apple of the new issue), and people running iOS 12.1.3 reported being
able to trigger the Group FaceTime issue before Apple disabled Group
FaceTime on the server side.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Rod Speed]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
> Jolly Roger wrote
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote

>>> This article is fake!

>> Nope. You just weren’t paying attention when you read it.

> Aha. This seems to be only an issue in US-media.
> There is absolutely nothing in the serious media like Heise or others
> outside North America.

Bullshit there isnt. Its on the BBC and the ABC in australia.

Your 'serious media' is fucked.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:29:26 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Bullshit there isnt. Its on the BBC and the ABC in australia.
>
> Your 'serious media' is fucked.

Joerg Lorenz is supremely _CONFIDENT_ of his assessment skills!

<https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/lessons-from-dunning-kruger/>

"...incompetent people do not recognize - scratch that,
_cannot_ recognize - just how incompetent they are"

<https://i0.wp.com/digitalwellbeing.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/dunning-kruger-effect.png>

"...incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed,
or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an
inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to
them like knowledge"

<https://scanfoam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/adpativeDKblog3.jpg>

I used to think people like Joerg Lorenz were just incredibly stupid.
o They _are_ unfathomably stupid - but the problem is far worse;

I used to think they were just incessantly pulling our leg.
o But I think Joerg Lorenz actually _believes_ what he writes.

I'm realizing that Joerg Lorenz' mind is wired to the left of mount stupid.
o People like Joerg Lorenz have supreme confidence in their abilities

Even though every word out of their mouth proves they have none.
<http://www.seven-health.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dunning-Kruger-Effect1.png>

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:57:22 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> If it's not from the Germans it's not true. Hmmm.... that went so well
> in the 1930's...

Notice that Joerg Lorenz is _CONFIDENT_ of his assessment skills!

<https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/lessons-from-dunning-kruger/>

"...incompetent people do not recognize - scratch that,
_cannot_ recognize - just how incompetent they are"

[arlen holder]

On 29 Jan 2019 23:55:51 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> 4. The issue is no longer an issue, except in the warped minds of
> useless trolls.

You call "useless trolls" people who see the actual problem set.

Remember the words of Craig Federighi from about a year ago?
What's that?

You don't even know who he is, Jolly Roger?
Really?

You are _that_ clueless Jolly Roger, and yet, you call facts trolls?
Really?

Why are you _always_ calling facts you don't like, trolls, Jolly Roger?
o Is it perhaps because your entire belief system is purely imaginary?

Just because you call all facts trolls, Jolly Roger, doesn't mean they are.
o Facts happen to be, facts Jolly Roger.

The real problem is that your belief system has no room for facts.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:09:58 +1300, David Empson wrote:

> I think you are confused by a FaceTime bug that Apple fixed in iOS
> 12.1.3 and macOS 10.14.3, which was listed in the security release notes
> for those versions, e.g. for iOS:

David Empson is likely the only well-informed adult on this newsgroup.

He earns my respect each time he posts.

His credibility is even higher than is mine, IMHO, hence I defer to what he says.

[arlen holder]

On 29 Jan 2019 23:54:15 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Clueless idiots suggest software should be free of all bugs.
> Knowledgable industry experts realize there's no such thing as bug-free
> software, and what matters more than anything else is how you respond to
> discovered issues. This issue is squashed.

Are you calling Craig Federighi a "clueless idiot"?

The problem, as _he_ stated it, is very clear, Jolly Roger
o Apple releases are driven by Marketing schedules - not engineering!

They don't have time to _test_ the release!
o The proof is in the taste of the pudding, Jolly Roger.

Almost every release from Apple has extremely embarrassing privacy bugs!
o Apple clearly doesn't sufficiently test releases before shipment.

Even the head of software engineering said so.
o *You Apologists deny even what Apple already admitted*

o What is wrong with Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
< https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0>

[arlen holder]

FACTUAL UPDATE:

*Apple was decidedly & unambiguously informed on the 20th of January.*
o Apple, inexplicably, _sat on it for a week_ (according to the NY Times)!

A 14-year old found the privacy flaw on 19th January:
o Apple Was Slow to Act on FaceTime Bug That Allows Spying on iPhones
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/technology/facetime-glitch-apple.html>

*As usual, Apple PROPAGANDA is the antithesis of the actual facts.*
"The bug, and Apple¢s slow response to patching it, have renewed
concerns about the company¢s commitment to security,
even though it regularly ... boasts about the safety of its products."

The problem isn't, as Jolly Roger & nospam think, just "this" but.
o The problem is that if this bug slipped through, what else did?

"If these kinds of bugs are slipping through," said Patrick Wardle,
the co-founder of Digital Security, which focuses on Apple-related
security, "you have to wonder if there are other problematic bugs
that other hackers are exploiting that should have been caught."

Despite nospam & Jolly Roger intimating it's "no big deal", it is:

"The FacePalm bug is a particularly egregious case, researchers say,
not just because it was discovered by a teenager simply trying to use
his phone, but because it allowed full microphone and video access."

If a 14-year old kid found it, Apple Q&A _should+_ have tested for it
o Clearly, yet again, for the umpteenth time, proving Apple doesn't test

"This is a bug that Apple¢s Q&A should have caught," Mr. Wardle said.
"And where there¢s smoke, there's almost always fire."

[*Hemidactylus*]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 29.01.19 um 16:35 schrieb Jolly Roger:

>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>> Am 29.01.19 um 03:25 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-if-someone-doesnt-answer.html
>>>>
>>>> Nobody needs human gateways to internet links and the bug is fixed for
>>>> quite some time.
>>>>
>>>> This is very old news.
>>>

>>> He’s trolling as usual.
>>>
>>> Apple has already disabled Group FaceTime on their servers so this bug
>>> cannot be exploited while a fix is being prepared. It’s a non-issue:
>>>
>>> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/28/apple-disables-group-facetime-as-it-works-on-privacy-bug-fix>

>>>
>> This article is fake!
>
> Nope. You just weren’t paying attention when you read it.
>

>> Face time works as always.

>
> Nope. *Group* FaceTime is disabled, like the article says. Read it again
> slowly, and pay attention.
>

Thanks for correcting Joerg Lorenz’s misinformation. I wouldn’t have called
the bug a nonissue. It is still an issue as Apple is working on an update,
but it has been mitigated as you show with the Group disabling.

This is a scary headline grabbing bug based on potential for invading
privacy except for the timely mitigation. It is instructive to show hidden
flaws in iOS (unknown unknowns). Comes with the territory. Being an Apple
Apologist I file it as risk that one will have with any software based
product and if the enduser considers risk acceptable and outweighed by
benefits. Another consideration is in responsiveness and transparency of
the corporation. It is an impossible standard to expect Apple to know all
potential flaws before the OS is released.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 29.01.19 um 03:25 schrieb badgolferman:
>>
>> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/apple-facetime-bug-lets-you-listen-even-if-someone-doesnt-answer.html
>
> Nobody needs human gateways to internet links and the bug is fixed for
> quite some time.
>

If just one person needs someone to post topical links about a current
relevant though mitigated threat, your dogmatic and condescending assertion
is refuted. I need it. Makes the group worth following. What I don’t need
is reflexively dismissive misinformation posted by a self-appointed
mindguard.

>
> This is very old news.
>

Not to me. Thankfully Jolly Roger has corrected you on this thread.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 05:26:16 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> I wouldn┤ have called the bug a nonissue.

Hi Hemidactylus,

I think you are completely missing the _real_ problem here...
o As explained in the NY Times, the issue is that even a child could find it.

And this isn't the 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd time in a year that's happened!
o Hence, the point is that *Apple DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY TEST RELEASES!*

That fact is painfully clear - and that fact - IS the problem.
o Nobody expects you, Hemidactylus, to comprehend that fact.

> It is an impossible standard to expect Apple to know all
> potential flaws before the OS is released.

You're joking, right?

Do you have _any_ comprehension of the _history_ of Apple releases?
o None?

Really?
o You're _that_ ignorant, Hemidactylus ... and yet ... you form an opinion?

Your entire opinion is based on _imaginary_ assumptions of fact
o Apple has a long sordid history of buggy release after buggy release

Craig Federighi said it aptly himself
o MARKETING drives the release schedule - not engineering.

Here's a question of strategy that I'm sure you'll never comprehend:
Q: Why does Apple MARKETING _continue_ to drive the schedule?

HINT: Apple doesn't sell product - they sell "image", where ...
o Apple customers desperately want to _feel_ safe.

NOTE: I realize that speaking about strategy is beyond your comprehension.

[arlen holder]

On 30 Jan 2019 16:37:19 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> My point is it's nowhere near as catastrophic as the froth-mouthed
> trolls here would have you believe. To exploit this bug, someone had to
> call you, which means the call shows up in the call log with who called,
> the time they called, and how long the call lasted. So it's not as if
> you won't know. And the Group FaceTime feature has been disabled, which
> means the bug cannot be exploited anymore.

Jolly Roger,

You completely miss the _real_ problem.
o Joerg Lorenz doesn't even see the obvious, and yet,
o You, Jolly Roger, _only_ see the obvious.

You'll never have a _strategic_ mind, Jolly Roger.
o You're just not wired to see anything _but_ the super obvious.

You prove that every single time you post, Jolly Roger
o The problem is that a _child_ could find this bug.
o And that means Apple _never tested_ the software!

*The problem is the software wasn't sufficiently tested in the real world.*
o That problem _still_ exists.

o Apple, yet again, proves they do not test releases in the real world
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Z6xD4HaiyjE/Jr5yYrBUCAAJ>

If a 14 year old kid can find this bug, and since Apple sat on it for a
week after they were wholly unambiguously informed, what makes
you think that Apple has "solved" the problem of lack of testing?

As you're aware, I've often said the privacy & security flaws in _all_
consumer grade mobile phones is "about the same".

What's interesting is that APPLE PROPAGANDA says otherwise
o And yet, as always, the facts belie Apple's PROPGANDA

The only ones who _believe_ the Apple PROPGANDA, are the Apologists.

To wit, from The Atlantic:
<https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/apple-facetime-bug-you-cant-escape/581554/>

"It's also notable because the exposure, which is real, substantiates
...fears about the inherent untrustworthiness of computer hardware"

As we _proved_ in this thread below ...
o The privacy of Android or iOS is, in the end, "about the same".
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/FCKRA_3i9CY>

Specifically:
o The defaults are better in iOS - but Apple never tests their releases
o A power user on Android has far more privacy than anyone on iOS
o Yet, bugs like this illustrate that mobile phones are inherently insecure

Like Joerg Lorenz, the Apologists _believe_ they have privacy
o But the facts are that they just don't

Nobody has it.
o Not on Android
o Not on iOS

Apple PROPAGANDA says otherwise - but the FACTS tell the truth.
o The diarrhea that is the Apple update process - relentlessly increases!

"And with every software update - arriving with increasing frequency
old problems vanish, but new ones also appear"

In short, this is a _big_ deal because a child could have found this bug.
o And a child did find it.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <q2q6ne$fe1$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> The fact that Apple incessantly releases such bugs is completely _lost_ on
> them.

Bugs are a fact of life in the software industry. EVERYONE releases
them. There's no amount of testing that will discover them all.

NASA had some of the most comprehensive software development processes,
and even they occasionally had bugs that weren't noticed until after the
devices were launched into space. Sometimes they've been able to send
patches to the devices, but not always.

--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[JF Mezei]

>> It is an impossible standard to expect Apple to know all
>> potential flaws before the OS is released.

Failure of imagination. When you do something with code that wasn't
originally designed to do that thing, you get unexpected results, and
the fact they are unexpected means you coudln't test for them.

Some history:

Apollo 1 burst into flames at the test pad during pressure checks. This
was never considered a dangerous condition with rocket idle and they
were just pressurizing the capsule to 5PSI over ambiant. Capsule had
been designed for 5PSI of pure oxygen in space, so they pressurized it
to 19.7 PSI of pure O2 at the pad so it was 5PSI above ambient 14.7PSI.

Since this was a simple test, they didn't go through sufficient analysis
to determine that 19.7PSI of pure O2 would cause stuff to ignite and
burn really really fast.



Apple added group facetime to a system that had been designed for point
to point connections. The "group" side of code likely assumed that if
it got to a point where it got a "person 2 has joined" message, it meant
that the first connection had been asnwered by the point-to-point
original code.

Apple assumed the calling pattern was call first person, wait for
answer, then call second person, wait for answer etc. And didn't test
all scenarios because they didn't think it mattered. It is easier to see
the flaw in hindsight.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:53:07 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:

> Bugs are a fact of life in the software industry. EVERYONE releases
> them. There's no amount of testing that will discover them all.

Hi Barry Margolin,
I speak facts.

The problem is far _deeper_ than a simple bug.
o Far far far deeper.

The fact that 'bugs exist' isn't the real problem here.

The real problem are the facts surrounding this bug:
1. A 14-year old child could have found _this_ bug (and did)
2. Apple _sat_ on this bug for a week (they barely blinked)
3. These kinds of easy-to-find privacy bugs happen CONSTANTLY to Apple!

You see, _those_ are the facts, Barry.

o Apple Was Slow to Act on FaceTime Bug That Allows Spying on iPhones
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/technology/facetime-glitch-apple.html>

Notice Apple _sat_ on this bug - until it hit the news.
o Only _then_ when Apple's image was at stake - did they react!

Note that not only did Apple _sit_ on this bug for a week, but the woman
who informed them literally _implored_ them to take it seriously.

The facts show that Apple only cared about PROPAGANDA value since Apple
only reacted AFTER the woman hit the airwaves in exasperation.

Also note the fact that Craig Federighi complained that MARKETING controls
his schedule such that he isn't given the time to adequately test releases.

Remember, Apple doesn't sell product - they sell IMAGE.
So Apple only reacted when their IMAGE was in danger.

It's all PROPAGANDA by Apple that they have privacy or security.
o Actual _facts_ (like testing releases) don't matter

All that matters is that the customer FEELS safe
o And what makes the customer feel safe, is frequent releases

MARKETING KNOWS THIS.
o Which is why the releases are so frequent

I call Apple releases a 'diarhea'; but that's only to underscore the point.

The point, and the danger here, is that Apple _never_ sufficiently tests
releases.

The reason is abundantly clear, but it's deeper than most can comprehend.
o The reason is that Apple only cares about their IMAGE
o Apple _knows_ that the user just wants to _feel_ safe
o Actual safety doesn't exist - which we proved in the privacy thread

Apple KNOWS all this.

It's why Apple goes to great lengths to create PROPAGANDA.
o That propaganda makes the users _feel_ safe.

The concept isn't obvious, except to the intelligent few:
o What is it about the sheer frequency of iOS releases that makes Apple users feel safe?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/uxj50hk6nxI/BAYk_7CDBwAJ>

The reason this is a "big deal" is that it's OUTSIDE of Apple PROPAGANDA
o Outside of Apple PROPAGANDA, the user is actually _not_ safe

And in fact, in the hands of an experienced user,
o It's a fact the Android experienced user is _far safer_ than the iOS user

NOTE: In the hands of the default user, iOS is far safer (in privacy).
However, NEITHER is safe in common ways (e.g., carrier privacy).

The point is that only the PROPAGANDA from Apple touts "safety".
o In the real world, the safety of iOS & Android are 'about the same'
(I'm sure it's the same with Mac & Linux - but we didn't address that.)

Here's just one example (see many more below). These are facts.
o Lockscreen exploit easilfy found only hours after iOS 12.1 released (yet again, Apple never tests anything in the real world)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/N-hQKPDI4a0/4tfgLojLAAAJ>

> NASA had some of the most comprehensive software development processes,
> and even they occasionally had bugs that weren't noticed until after the
> devices were launched into space. Sometimes they've been able to send
> patches to the devices, but not always.

It's a very common trait of Apple Apologists to blame everyone but Apple.
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

But the facts are that Apple only seems to care when their IMAGE is at stake.

Certainly, there are many of these easy-to-find bugs in Apple releases!
o Apple Macs Have Yet Another Password-Bypassing Bug
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/4rM5ZPCgThI/X8HEf0BvCAAJ>

o A massive security hole has been found in iOS 11
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/xGV0X_Qfqc4/VqqWWwMXBAAJ>

o Lockscreen exploit easilfy found only hours after iOS 12.1 released (yet again, Apple never tests anything in the real world)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/N-hQKPDI4a0/4tfgLojLAAAJ>

o It is yet another shoddy example of Apple rushing to fix a critical issue but never taking the time to test it properly
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/mqTrBBlvGCU/jrJWtF8DBAAJ>

o Every time iOS updates, Apple causes new problems in the REAL world...
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Z6xD4HaiyjE/Jr5yYrBUCAAJ>

o Yet again, Apple forgot to test iOS 11.2.6 in the real world (significant problems reported)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/AlkmHCTSUXg/K5GdwrzdCQAJ>

o iOS 12.1 Beta Includes Fix for iOS 12 iPhone and iPad Charging Issue
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/pdlKvBUmrj0/8jnSieURAwAJ>

o Forbes reports that Apple finally confirmed the new iPhones have a serious design flaw
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyXNjaNgS50/fjZt5KTtAgAJ>

The only ones who do NOT comprehend facts, are the Apple Apologists.
o We've already proven they can't comprehend anything that doesn't fit into
their imaginary belief system (promulgated by Apple PROPAGANDA).

The list of such easy-to-find bugs goes on and on and on for Apple!
o That's proof that Apple doesn't care to do sufficient testing

IMHO, all Apple cares about spending money on is the PROPAGANDA
o And, as an adult - I would say it works PERFECTLY for them.

It only matters to their customer that they _feel_ safe.
o Actual safety is beyond their comprehension.

[arlen holder]

On 30 Jan 2019 17:57:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> What matters most is how you handle defects
> once they are discovered.

Hi Jolly Roger,
As always, you only see what's obvious - but not what's important.

*What matters is _testing_ the release sufficiently _before_ shipping it!*

The real problem is that Apple cares more about PROPAGANDA than safety.

1. A 14-year old child could have found _this_ bug (and did)
2. Apple _sat_ on this bug for a week (they barely blinked)
3. These kinds of easy-to-find privacy bugs happen CONSTANTLY to Apple!

o Apple Was Slow to Act on FaceTime Bug That Allows Spying on iPhones
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/technology/facetime-glitch-apple.html>

o What is it about the sheer frequency of iOS releases that makes Apple users feel safe?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/uxj50hk6nxI/BAYk_7CDBwAJ>

o Lockscreen exploit easilfy found only hours after iOS 12.1 released (yet again, Apple never tests anything in the real world)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/N-hQKPDI4a0/4tfgLojLAAAJ>

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

o Apple Macs Have Yet Another Password-Bypassing Bug
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/4rM5ZPCgThI/X8HEf0BvCAAJ>

o A massive security hole has been found in iOS 11
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/xGV0X_Qfqc4/VqqWWwMXBAAJ>

o Lockscreen exploit easilfy found only hours after iOS 12.1 released (yet again, Apple never tests anything in the real world)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/N-hQKPDI4a0/4tfgLojLAAAJ>

o It is yet another shoddy example of Apple rushing to fix a critical issue but never taking the time to test it properly
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/mqTrBBlvGCU/jrJWtF8DBAAJ>

o Every time iOS updates, Apple causes new problems in the REAL world...
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Z6xD4HaiyjE/Jr5yYrBUCAAJ>

o Yet again, Apple forgot to test iOS 11.2.6 in the real world (significant problems reported)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/AlkmHCTSUXg/K5GdwrzdCQAJ>

o iOS 12.1 Beta Includes Fix for iOS 12 iPhone and iPad Charging Issue
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/pdlKvBUmrj0/8jnSieURAwAJ>

o Forbes reports that Apple finally confirmed the new iPhones have a serious design flaw
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyXNjaNgS50/fjZt5KTtAgAJ>

etc.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:01:43 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Failure of imagination. When you do something with code that wasn't
> originally designed to do that thing, you get unexpected results, and
> the fact they are unexpected means you coudln't test for them.

Hi JF Mezei,

You are generally not an Apple Apologist, which means you speak as an
adult.

As an adult, I read and comprehend what you wrote above, but I'm not
talking just about _this_ bug (which, we must agree, was found by a
14-year-old who was simply using FaceTime in the real world).

I'm talking about the _real_ issue here.

The _real_ issue is that Apple has a long sordid history of very many very
easy to find simple shockingly easy to catch bugs.

> Some history:

Do I need to _remind_ you of all the APPLE History on lack of testing?
o A simple search finds _plenty_ in just ten seconds in just the last year!

o Apple Was Slow to Act on FaceTime Bug That Allows Spying on iPhones
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/technology/facetime-glitch-apple.html>

o Lockscreen exploit easilfy found only hours after iOS 12.1 released

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/N-hQKPDI4a0/4tfgLojLAAAJ>

o Apple Macs Have Yet Another Password-Bypassing Bug
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/4rM5ZPCgThI/X8HEf0BvCAAJ>

o A massive security hole has been found in iOS 11
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/xGV0X_Qfqc4/VqqWWwMXBAAJ>

o It is yet another shoddy example of Apple rushing to fix a critical issue

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/mqTrBBlvGCU/jrJWtF8DBAAJ>

o Every time iOS updates, Apple causes new problems in the REAL world...
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Z6xD4HaiyjE/Jr5yYrBUCAAJ>

o Yet again, Apple forgot to test iOS 11.2.6 in the real world

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/AlkmHCTSUXg/K5GdwrzdCQAJ>

o iOS 12.1 Beta Includes Fix for iOS 12 iPhone and iPad Charging Issue
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/pdlKvBUmrj0/8jnSieURAwAJ>

o Forbes reports that Apple finally confirmed the new iPhones have a
serious design flaw
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyXNjaNgS50/fjZt5KTtAgAJ>
etc.

HINT: That's just from a single quick search - there are _plenty_ more!

> Apollo 1 burst into flames

Hi JF Mezei,
I realize you don't comprehend what I wrote above, which is simply that:
o The proof is ample that Apple doesn't sufficiently test releases

Remember, these flaws are found by people in just *hours* after release.
They're found by 14-year old boys, for Christs' sake.

To compare that with the complexity of Apollo 11 reeks of Apologism.

It's like the kid caught stealing who tells his parents
o Well all the other kids steal all the time

It's APOLOGISM for you to equate Apple's historic lack of testing...
o To the Apollo space program.

> Apple assumed the calling pattern was call first person, wait for
> answer, then call second person, wait for answer etc. And didn't test
> all scenarios because they didn't think it mattered. It is easier to see
> the flaw in hindsight.

Hi JF Mezei,
You normally post as an adult would post (which I appreciate).
o Like you, I also have the comprehension of an adult.

That means I comprehend both the obvious & the less than obvious.
o What that means is that I can see what is _really_ going on

My post below contains a mixture of history, fact, & assumptions:
o That means what I write below won't be understood by a child.

The obvious is only what Jolly Roger, Lewis, & nospam comprehend:
o Apple had a bug. Apple disabled the bug. Apple will fix the bug.

That's obvious.
o But that is _not_ the real problem here.

*The real problem is worse (far far far worse) than a simple bug.*

Since I'm an adult, I have that comprehension that they don't have.
o First off, this bug was found by a 14-year old kid
o He was simply _using_ the app as it was designed to be used
o His mom reported Apple ignored her pleas to take it seriously
o Apple only cared AFTER the mom went to Twitter in exasperation
o It's only after 9-to-5 REPORTED it, did Apple even _start_ to care

The point is clear to adults
o Apple doesn't take these bugs seriously
o It's why they exist
o Apple doesn't take _testing_ seriously
o It's why these bugs _constantly_ exist.

Even Craig Federighi said it clearly himself
o MARKETING drives the schedule - not engineering!

Now when we start talking strategy, only adults can comprehend.

IMHO, there is a very good reason Apple doesn't care for testing,
but you have to own the mind of an adult to comprehend what I say as it's
based on facts, but it's an assumption that only adults can fathom because
it contains complexities in thought.

IMHO, Apple cares greatly that the customer _feel_ safe!
o That's because Apple _knows_ their customer inside & out

It's only the _feeling_ of safety that matters to the Apple customer!

o What is it about the sheer frequency of iOS releases that makes Apple users feel safe?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/uxj50hk6nxI/BAYk_7CDBwAJ>

Actual safety (e.g., sufficient testing of releases) _clearly_ isn't important
o That! Is the big deal here. (IMHO)

The real problem is that safety isn't a concern to Apple.
o The only thing that matters to Apple is the IMAGE of safety.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-30 11:03 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:53:07 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
>> Bugs are a fact of life in the software industry. EVERYONE releases
>> them. There's no amount of testing that will discover them all.
>
> Hi Barry Margolin,
> I speak facts.
>

Do you really?

Let's look at that.

> The problem is far _deeper_ than a simple bug.
> o Far far far deeper.
>
> The fact that 'bugs exist' isn't the real problem here.
>
> The real problem are the facts surrounding this bug:
> 1. A 14-year old child could have found _this_ bug (and did)

That appears to be true. One for you.

> 2. Apple _sat_ on this bug for a week (they barely blinked)

You have no idea:

a. When Apple first learned of this bug.

b. What they did when they learned about it.

> 3. These kinds of easy-to-find privacy bugs happen CONSTANTLY to Apple!

That is also not a fact, but rather an assertion.

>
> You see, _those_ are the facts, Barry.

Only one of the four things you stated was actually a fact.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:29:40 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Only one of the four things you stated was actually a fact.

Hi Alan Baker,

Please re-read the article in the NY Times before you pull a Joerg Lorenz.

o Apple Was Slow to Act on FaceTime Bug That Allows Spying on iPhones
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/technology/facetime-glitch-apple.html>

When you respond, please indicate that you _comprehended_ the facts.
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlG0kwCXoAYC-75.jpg>

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 05:37:49 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Thankfully Jolly Roger has corrected you on this thread.

The very sad fact is that Joerg Lorenz _still_ believes he's correct.
o To wit: He _thinks_ he can assess "fake news" by the metric he uses.

Joerg Lorenz _thinks_ he knows more than he can possibly even comprehend:
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlG0kwCXoAYC-75.jpg>

IMHO, very few people on this newsgroup can see past the obvious.
o Where there are some, like Joerg Lorenz, who can't even see that.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-30 11:43 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:29:40 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Only one of the four things you stated was actually a fact.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Please re-read the article in the NY Times before you pull a Joerg Lorenz.

Why?

Will reading that article make an absolute statement ("facts!") by you
that you cannot actually know is true into something other than an
assertion?

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:28:52 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> The real problem is that safety isn't a concern to Apple.
> o The only thing that matters to Apple is the IMAGE of safety.

BTW, JF Mezei,
I realize these arguments require a complexity of thought processes.

Here's an example, that I posit backs up that complex thought process.

Remember the Chinese charger that electrocuted a woman?
Remember that?

Do you remember Apple's response?

HINT: Apple's response literally reeked of what I am talking about.
o Apple mainly cares about the IMAGE of safety (not actual safety).

That's not Apple's fault - since Apple _knows_ their customer best
o It's the customer who only cares about _feeling_ safe.

*The Apple-charger response literally reeked of that observation!*

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-30 12:42 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:28:52 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>
>> The real problem is that safety isn't a concern to Apple.
>> o The only thing that matters to Apple is the IMAGE of safety.
>
> BTW, JF Mezei,
> I realize these arguments require a complexity of thought processes.
>
> Here's an example, that I posit backs up that complex thought process.
>
> Remember the Chinese charger that electrocuted a woman?
> Remember that?

You mean this woman:

'A woman killed by an electric shock while using her iPhone may have
been using a non-Apple-made battery charger at the time of her death,
Chinese state media reported.'

<https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1283818/woman-electrocuted-while-answering-iphone-may-have-been-using-fake>

'[UPDATE: Follow-up stories in Chinese media report that it was an
iPhone 4, not 5, and that Ms. Ma was using a third-party charger, not an
original Apple part.]'

<http://fortune.com/2013/07/15/was-this-chinese-stewardess-killed-by-her-apple-iphone-5/>

>
> Do you remember Apple's response?

Why don't you quote it?

Because here's what I found:

'“We are deeply saddened to learn of this tragic incident and offer our
condolences to the Ma family,” Apple said in a statement. “We will fully
investigate and cooperate with authorities in this matter.”'

<https://www.cultofmac.com/235737/apple-investigating-why-a-woman-was-electrocuted-to-death-by-her-iphone-5/>

>
> HINT: Apple's response literally reeked of what I am talking about.
> o Apple mainly cares about the IMAGE of safety (not actual safety).

Quote this "reeking" response.

My bet: you never do.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:13:59 +0100, FredW <fr...@ninmule.invalid>
wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:57:22 -0500, Alan Browne

><bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>On 2019-01-29 13:19, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 29.01.19 um 18:20 schrieb Jolly Roger:
>>>> Nope. *Group* FaceTime is disabled, like the article says. Read it again
>>>> slowly, and pay attention.
>>>
>>> Now the first reports from the serious source like the German Federal
>>> Agency for Security of Information Technology Infrastructures (my
>>
>>If it's not from the Germans it's not true. Hmmm.... that went so well
>>in the 1930's...
>

>You lost.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

>
>As a European I hate it when someone only to call names misuses this
>dark period in Europe.
No names were called in this post.
>
>You act stupid and have no idea of modern history.

You missed the point. No reference to Hitler or Nazis
just that the OP insinuated that the German Federal
Agency for Security of Information Technology was a more "serious"
reporting of the privacy bug than others.

That was a lot of searching for you to find Godwin's Law implied.

You lose.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:15:25 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Will reading that article make an absolute statement ("facts!") by you
> that you cannot actually know is true into something other than an
> assertion?

Hi Alan Baker,

You got _all_ your facts wrong, and yet you won't read the facts?
o Because you _think_ you comprehended them correctly.

Notice two things:
a. You got all your facts dead wrong, and yet,
b. You're not only convinced they're right - but you won't even read the
reference proving you're wrong.

You realize that this is a classic left-side Dunning-Kruger trait, do you not?
<https://understandinginnovation.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/dunning-kruger-0011.jpg>

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:47:26 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> '´We are deeply saddened to learn of this tragic incident and offer our

> condolences to the Ma family,¡ Apple said in a statement. ´We will fully

> investigate and cooperate with authorities in this matter.¡'

Hi Alan Baker,

It was heartening that you responded as I would expect an adult.

Moving forward in the sheer beauty of Apple Marketing tricks...

Do you _remember_ the marketing gimmick that Apple came up with?

It was the _finest_ example of propaganda I've seen in my entire life.

Sheer unadulterated pure Apple Marketing.

It reeked of propaganda (for those with a brain).

What's more ... it worked!
Fantastically!

The Apple customer _ate_ it up like you can't believe.
(And, remember, Apple sells IMAGE - so that's extremely important.)

I had never seen such wondrous propaganda in my life as then.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-30 6:00 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:47:26 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> '´We are deeply saddened to learn of this tragic incident and offer our
>> condolences to the Ma family,¡ Apple said in a statement. ´We will fully
>> investigate and cooperate with authorities in this matter.¡'
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> It was heartening that you responded as I would expect an adult.

What a pity you didn't respond in kind.

>
> Moving forward in the sheer beauty of Apple Marketing tricks...
>
> Do you _remember_ the marketing gimmick that Apple came up with?
>
> It was the _finest_ example of propaganda I've seen in my entire life.
>
> Sheer unadulterated pure Apple Marketing.
>
> It reeked of propaganda (for those with a brain).
>
> What's more ... it worked!
> Fantastically!
>
> The Apple customer _ate_ it up like you can't believe.
> (And, remember, Apple sells IMAGE - so that's extremely important.)
>
> I had never seen such wondrous propaganda in my life as then.
>

This is all deflection from you not wanting to address the majority of
what I wrote...

...which included the conclusion by many that it wasn't an Apple charger
at all.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-30 6:00 p.m., arlen holder wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:15:25 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Will reading that article make an absolute statement ("facts!") by you
>> that you cannot actually know is true into something other than an
>> assertion?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> You got _all_ your facts wrong, and yet you won't read the facts

You're the one who has now snipped what I wrote with actually refuting
any of the points I made.

?
> o Because you _think_ you comprehended them correctly.
>
> Notice two things:
> a. You got all your facts dead wrong, and yet,

No. I did not.

> b. You're not only convinced they're right - but you won't even read the
> reference proving you're wrong.

If the reference COULD prove I was wrong, a quote or two would have been
great put next to what I said.

But you didn't do that, did you?

:-)

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:06:49 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> a pity you didn't respond in kind.

Ah, but I did.

*Apple turned a dead lady into sheer Marketing brilliance!*

An adult would gain a _lot_ from comprehending what I said.

I noted the SHEER BEAUTY of Apple's Marketing response to the dead lady.
o Apple turned a dead lady into sheer MARKETING GENIUS!

Apple's move with the dead lady was TEXTBOOK CLASSIC!
o Sheer image propaganda.

*It was the FINEST marketing I've ever seen in my entire life!

The sheer beauty of Apple's response to the dead lady was MARKETING.

Of course, few Apple users COMPREHENDED that they were being fooled.
o Of course, _I_ noticed what Apple was doing, and said so at the time

But Apple users just _ate_ it up.

You know why?
HINT: Apple users love to _feel_ safe!

They ate it up like you can't believe a human can eat up PROPAGANDA.

If there's one thing Apple MARKETING knows, it's how to sell IMAGE!
o I repeat Apple responded with the finest image propaganda I've ever seen

What Apple did made users _feel_ safe.
o And that, my dear, is all that matters (to an Apple user).

> This is all deflection from you not wanting to address the majority of
> what I wrote...

Hi Alan Baker,
1. I posted well verified facts.
2. You refuted them.

I said you refuted them.
I told you to re-read the article.

What more can you ask for?

> ...which included the conclusion by many that it wasn't an Apple charger
> at all.

What's humorous is you have NO IDEA what I'm talking about.
o And yet, anyone with a brain would _know_ exactly what I'm talking about.

HINT: Apple offered to _replace_ all non-Apple chargers, remember that?

What Apple did when they offered to replace the chargers, is sheer
brilliance.

Apple KNOWS the user just wants to _feel_ safe.
o Actually _being_ safe is not even remotely part of the equation

I realize, Alan Baker, you comprehend not - but this is an adult
conversation - which contains - for adults -a slight level of complexity
where an adult is expected to transcend from the obvious to understanding
the sheer beauty of how Apple turned a dead Chinese lady into sheer
Marketing brilliance.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-30 6:55 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:06:49 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> a pity you didn't respond in kind.
>
> Ah, but I did.

No... ...if you had, you would have addressed all of this:

> Remember the Chinese charger that electrocuted a woman?
> Remember that?

You mean this woman:

'A woman killed by an electric shock while using her iPhone may have
been using a non-Apple-made battery charger at the time of her death,
Chinese state media reported.'

<https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1283818/woman-electrocuted-while-answering-iphone-may-have-been-using-fake>

'[UPDATE: Follow-up stories in Chinese media report that it was an
iPhone 4, not 5, and that Ms. Ma was using a third-party charger, not an
original Apple part.]'

<http://fortune.com/2013/07/15/was-this-chinese-stewardess-killed-by-her-apple-iphone-5/>

>
> Do you remember Apple's response?

Why don't you quote it?

So...

...why don't you quote this terrible response you claim Apple made?

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:57:00 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> ...why don't you quote this terrible response you claim Apple made?

Hi Alan Baker,

Ah, but you have to own an adult mind to comprehend what I said.

The response from Apple wasn't "terrible".
o It was brilliant!

I posted at the time what I thought of Apple's brilliant response.
o We'd have to dig it up in the Usenet record.

Until then, here's a _new_ thread, asserting Apple's sheer brilliance!
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>

*Apple brilliantly turned a dead Chinese lady into Marketing PROPAGANDA!*

HINT: What did Apple offer to do for all 'fake' chargers (aka "non
authorized chargers" .... where clever wording is part of the brilliance!)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-30 7:06 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:57:00 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> ...why don't you quote this terrible response you claim Apple made?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Ah, but you have to own an adult mind to comprehend what I said.
>
> The response from Apple wasn't "terrible".
> o It was brilliant!
>

So now it's "brilliant"...

So post it.

> I posted at the time what I thought of Apple's brilliant response.
> o We'd have to dig it up in the Usenet record.

No. YOU would have to dig it up.

>
> Until then, here's a _new_ thread, asserting Apple's sheer brilliance!
> o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>
>
> *Apple brilliantly turned a dead Chinese lady into Marketing PROPAGANDA!*

An assertion; unsupported by a single fact.

>
> HINT: What did Apple offer to do for all 'fake' chargers (aka "non
> authorized chargers" .... where clever wording is part of the brilliance!)

So don't hint: tell us.

Provide actual sources.

:-)

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:09:59 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Provide actual sources.

You don't _remember_ the "offer" from Apple Marketing?
o Do you really have such a short selective memory (just like nospam)?

HINT: They'd "replace" "non authorized" "fake" chargers (for a fee).

You don't _remember_ that?
o Do you think I'm making it up?

DOUBLEHINT: I had one replaced ... for a fee.

It was sheer brilliance on the part of Apple Marketing
o They turned a dead lady into brilliant marketing propaganda!

TRIPLEHINT: Note the keywords
o non authorized
o fake

Note the final results:
o Apple made users _feel_ safe .... for a fee!
(Without actually making them any safer than they were prior.)

Now that's sheer Marketing brilliance!
o Any adult would agree what Apple did was sheer marketing brilliance!

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:08:49 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You're the one who has now snipped what I wrote with actually refuting
> any of the points I made.

Hi Alan Baker,

You think this is my first rodeo with you Alan Baker?
o It's hard to reason with you since your brain is that of a child.

The fact is...
1. I stated facts which were backed up by the NY Times article.
2. You flatly refuted them (backed up by exactly nothing).

Since you refuted them sans any grounds, I told you to read the article
o You flatly refused to read the facts; saying in essence facts don't matter.

I then said that's a _perfect_ left-side dunning-kruger attitude.
o These are all valid facts, Alan Baker.

What facts above do you refute - using what reference as your cite?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-30 7:23 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:08:49 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You're the one who has now snipped what I wrote with actually refuting
>> any of the points I made.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> You think this is my first rodeo with you Alan Baker?

Nope.

And you've stilled learned nothing.

> o It's hard to reason with you since your brain is that of a child.
>
> The fact is...
> 1. I stated facts which were backed up by the NY Times article.

No. If you had stated facts, you could have supported them from somewhere.

You didn't do that.

> 2. You flatly refuted them (backed up by exactly nothing).

Nope. I pointed out things that were logically true.

You stated:

"Apple _sat_ on this bug for a week (they barely blinked)"

But you have no idea:

a. When Apple first learned of this bug.

b. What they did when they learned about it.

Now all you have to do is provide the quotes from the NY Times article
that refute my statements and you'll look so brilliant!

>
> Since you refuted them sans any grounds, I told you to read the article
> o You flatly refused to read the facts; saying in essence facts don't matter.

Nope. Saying that what you present as "facts" are most often not facts
at all.

It's not my job to read your article to support your claims.

An adult would understand that.

>
> I then said that's a _perfect_ left-side dunning-kruger attitude.
> o These are all valid facts, Alan Baker.
>
> What facts above do you refute - using what reference as your cite?

You're now saying that I have to back up my claims...

...when you never ever back up yours?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-30 7:14 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:09:59 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Provide actual sources.
>
> You don't _remember_ the "offer" from Apple Marketing?
> o Do you really have such a short selective memory (just like nospam)?

I remember that you've made a claim...

...but have yet to support it in any way.

>
> HINT: They'd "replace" "non authorized" "fake" chargers (for a fee).

Unsupported assertion.

>
> You don't _remember_ that?
> o Do you think I'm making it up?

Misrepresenting it at the very least.

>
> DOUBLEHINT: I had one replaced ... for a fee.

Prove it.

>
> It was sheer brilliance on the part of Apple Marketing
> o They turned a dead lady into brilliant marketing propaganda!

Repeating an assertion doesn't turn it into a fact.

Adults understand that.

>
> TRIPLEHINT: Note the keywords
> o non authorized
> o fake

1. Provide the source where Apple used those terms.

2. Tell us what you think that means.

>
> Note the final results:
> o Apple made users _feel_ safe .... for a fee!
> (Without actually making them any safer than they were prior.)

More unsupported assertions.

>
> Now that's sheer Marketing brilliance!
> o Any adult would agree what Apple did was sheer marketing brilliance!

Any actual adult would agree that you've presented precisely zero facts.

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 03:14:49 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Now that's sheer Marketing brilliance!
> o Any adult would agree what Apple did was sheer marketing brilliance!

I just took this shot of a bunch of my authorized & non-authorized adapters:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8169717charger01.jpg>

In that photo you can see real world real life actual real devices:
o Both authorized & non-authorized chargers (aka adapters)
o Both authorized & non-authorized cables
o One of my spare iPads & one of my spare iPhones

Note the key distinction that these devices are _real_.
o They are not marketing gimmicks - or exploded diagrams of cherry picked
devices chosen expressly for marketing purposes.

Those happen to be real-life devices - which is critical to comprehend.
o Those are the very devices I use every single day.

So I want them to be "safe", right?

In that picture above, you see both authorized & unauthorized chargers
o Where's your evidence that my unauthorized chargers are less safe?
o Where's your evidence that my authorized chargers above are safer?

Do you see the sheer brilliance of Apple's marketing campaign?
o They made the consumer _feel_ safe
o By trading in about $20 in value for a $20 Apple "authorized" charger
o Which, as far as was tested, is no safer than my other chargers are.

*What makes my "unauthorized" charger less safe than my "authorized" one?*
o That! Is the sheer brilliance of the time-limited Apple marketing campaign!

Apple pulled off the coup of all coups by BRANDING their chargers as safe!
o Hence, by DEFINITION, the unsafe chargers below, are the non-Apple chargers!
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8169717charger01.jpg>

You have to admit the sheer brilliance of that BRANDING coup!
* Apple turned a dead woman into a brazen marketing BRANDING coup!*

That's! Marketing! Brilliance!

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-30 8:42 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 03:14:49 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>
>> Now that's sheer Marketing brilliance!
>> o Any adult would agree what Apple did was sheer marketing brilliance!
>
> I just took this shot of a bunch of my authorized & non-authorized adapters:
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8169717charger01.jpg>

Really? You just took it... ...or just found it?

>
> In that photo you can see real world real life actual real devices:
> o Both authorized & non-authorized chargers (aka adapters)
> o Both authorized & non-authorized cables
> o One of my spare iPads & one of my spare iPhones

Where is the proof that any of those are any of that?

>
> Note the key distinction that these devices are _real_.
> o They are not marketing gimmicks - or exploded diagrams of cherry picked
> devices chosen expressly for marketing purposes.
>
> Those happen to be real-life devices - which is critical to comprehend.
> o Those are the very devices I use every single day.
>
> So I want them to be "safe", right?
>
> In that picture above, you see both authorized & unauthorized chargers
> o Where's your evidence that my unauthorized chargers are less safe?
> o Where's your evidence that my authorized chargers above are safer?

I don't need any.

You've pivoted from claiming an Apple charge electrocuted someone, and
now you're telling me (implicitly) that you didn't believe that was true...

...because you're now claiming you use Apple chargers yourself.

>
> Do you see the sheer brilliance of Apple's marketing campaign?
> o They made the consumer _feel_ safe
> o By trading in about $20 in value for a $20 Apple "authorized" charger
> o Which, as far as was tested, is no safer than my other chargers are.

That is an assertion. Not a fact.

>
> *What makes my "unauthorized" charger less safe than my "authorized" one?*
> o That! Is the sheer brilliance of the time-limited Apple marketing campaign!
>
> Apple pulled off the coup of all coups by BRANDING their chargers as safe!
> o Hence, by DEFINITION, the unsafe chargers below, are the non-Apple chargers!
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8169717charger01.jpg>

Nope. That's not what Apple did.

>
> You have to admit the sheer brilliance of that BRANDING coup!
> * Apple turned a dead woman into a brazen marketing BRANDING coup!*

I thought your claim was that an Apple product killed her...

...or did you never really believe that in the first place?

>
> That's! Marketing! Brilliance!
>

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 20:49:41 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Really? You just took it... ...or just found it?

Hi Alan Baker,

Jesus Christ.
o You actually believe I _found_ that picture?

Really?
o You're _that_ stupid, Alan Baker?

HINT: I don't make shit up, Alan Baker.
o I just don't.

DOUBLEHINT: My credibility is stellar, Alan Baker.
o Tell me ... how do you want me to _arrange_ those devices?

CHALLENGE: Tell me Alan Baker.
o Tell me how to arrange those devices for the _next_ picture.

Jesus Christ.
o You're so freaking stupid that you _question_ my facts?

When I've _never_ been wrong (see note 1) in _thsousands_ of posts?
o Tell me Alan Baker - what do you want me to take a picture of next?

Do you want all my spare iPads next to those chargers for example?
o Or, do you challenge my facts only like a cowardly bully does?

--
Note 1: I'm only human, so, out of thousands of posts, some facts must be
wrong, but nobody has ever found any (except when playing silly games).

Do you recognize _any_ of these devices Alan Baker?

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:34:47 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> But you have no idea:
> a. When Apple first learned of this bug.
> b. What they did when they learned about it.

Hi Alan Baker,

Are you _really_ that incredibly stupid as to challenge the facts
on something that is so patently trivial to prove you dead wrong?

Nobody is that stupid, Alan Baker.
o Nobody.

Well, nobody but you.

*The fact is that the NY Times reported that Apple sat on the bug.*

o Apple Was Slow to Act on FaceTime Bug That Allows Spying on iPhones
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/technology/facetime-glitch-apple.html>

You can flatly deny that, just as you might flatly deny the earth is round.
o But nobody is _that_ stupid Alan Baker. Nobody.

Well, nobody but you. (And Joerg Lorenz.)
o *It seems that you (and other Apologists), simply _deny everything_!*

o Why do the Apple Apologists simply deny everything sans any facts?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY/fDk0k8KAAwAJ>

What's interesting, Alan baker is
o When I say Apple did badly - you flatly deny it (sans facts).
o When I say Apple did great - you flatly deny it (sans facts).

I realize when I say Apple fucks up, you flatly refute that fact.
o Yet, when I say Apple is brilliant, you flatly refute that fact also.

Proof:

o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>

Notice that, you flatly refute _everything_ ... sans a shred of fact!
o You even refuted that I snapped that picture for you of my real devices!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/NFW7nz6FELw/4CjrtXL8BwAJ>

Jesus Christ Alan Baker.
o You flatly refute _everything_ sans a single shred of fact to back you up.

*For example, your argument rests on the assertion that I _found_ that picture!*

Do you realize how stupid it makes you look to challenge my facts?
o I've _never_ once been wrong - in thousands upon thousands of facts.

And yet ... you ... Alan Baker ... intimate that I _found_ that picture?
o Jesus Christ. Nobody is _that_ stupid, Alan Baker.

Nobody but you.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-01-30 13:13, FredW wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:57:22 -0500, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-01-29 13:19, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 29.01.19 um 18:20 schrieb Jolly Roger:
>>>> Nope. *Group* FaceTime is disabled, like the article says. Read it again
>>>> slowly, and pay attention.
>>>
>>> Now the first reports from the serious source like the German Federal
>>> Agency for Security of Information Technology Infrastructures (my
>>
>> If it's not from the Germans it's not true. Hmmm.... that went so well
>> in the 1930's...
>
> You lost.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

No. I did not.

>
> As a European I hate it when someone only to call names misuses this
> dark period in Europe.
>

> You act stupid and have no idea of modern history.

Better than most by a long shot.

You can wander off now "FredW".


--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

[nospam]

In article <q2tub9$nut$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> *What makes my "unauthorized" charger less safe than my "authorized" one?*

they pose a significant safety hazard and/or have poorly regulated
output.


<https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/803-apple-5w-adapter-knock-of
fs-colorful-a1265-tear-down.html#s5>
What do we find on the board's back? Decent soldering, no
surface-mount components, almost no separation between the primary
and low-voltage sides, and no anti-tracking slots to prevent a
permanent path from forming where static discharges are most likely
to occur across the isolation boundary.

With a layout like this, it is painfully obvious why folks keep
getting shocked by aftermarket łA1265˛ adapters.

<https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/803-apple-5w-adapter-knock-of
fs-colorful-a1265-tear-down.html#s11>
If separation between mains and low voltage on the AC board made you
cringe, it gets much worse on the DC board. Less than 0.5mm separate
one of the AC-side optoisolator traces from the USB connector
shieldąs tab, while the innermost vertical trace corresponding to USB
negative is a mere 0.6mm away from the isolatorąs mains-referenced
voltages.

This trace routing likely violates every credible safety standard in
existence. Assuming the transformer and EMI capacitor donąt fail
first, these traces are where I expect arcs to occur.

<https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/803-apple-5w-adapter-knock-of
fs-colorful-a1265-tear-down.html#s43>
Regardless of how convenient sub-$2 adapters might be, I cannot think
of any good reason to recommend these death traps. If you do use one,
treat whatever you plug into it as bare wire mains voltage.
...
No isolation slots to keep low voltage and high voltage separate
Isolation failure at the USB shield at merely 1kVAC
Non-Y-class EMI suppression capacitor failed at 1875V
MULTIPLE TRIVIAL YET POTENTIALLY LETHAL TRANSFORMER MANUFACTURING
FLAWS




<https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/821-a1265-usb-charger-tear-do
wn.html#s7>
If there were any hopes that this adapter would fare better than the
Colorful ones, consider them thoroughly crushed: creepage between the
primary and low-voltage sides in the circled area is under 0.5mm.
That's woefully inadequate, and guaranteed to fail my isolation test.
Other areas highlighted in red don't fare much better.

<https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/821-a1265-usb-charger-tear-do
wn.html#s8>
In case you missed it, a tiny solder bead says hello. It isnąt stuck
into flux or anything else, which means it is poised to break free
and rattle around at any time. Iąm really surprised it didnąt come
loose during shipping. Since it is bigger than the clearance between
some of the solder pads/traces, it could cause nasty, shocking, and
potentially deadly surprises.



<http://www.righto.com/2014/05/a-look-inside-ipad-chargers-pricey.html>
... You can't see the safety risks from the outside, but by taking
the chargers apart, I can show you the dangers of the counterfeit.
...
...The regulations are complex, but in general there should be at
least 4mm between high-voltage circuitry and low-voltage circuitry.
...
The creepage distance on the counterfeit charger board below is scary
- only 0.6 mm separation between low and high voltage
...
The wires look similar at first glance, but the the genuine charger
(left) has triple-insulated wire while the counterfeit (right) is
uninsulated except for a thin varnish. The triple-insulated wire is
an important safety feature that keeps the high voltage out even if
there is a flaw in the insulating tape and in the wire's insulation.
Also note the additional black and white insulation on the wires
where they leave the transformer. In the counterfeit charger, the
only thing separating the secondary winding from high voltage is the
insulating tape. If there is a flaw in the tape or the wires shift
too far, then zap!
...
The counterfeit also doesn't use the more expensive split,
multi-stranded windings that the genuine charger uses. As discussed
earlier, the secondary winding is plain copper wire, not
triple-insulated wire, which is a significant safety flaw.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:50:24 +0100, FredW <fr...@ninmule.invalid>
wrote:

>Reference to 1930's is typical for reference to dark period.
>
>Also no sense of history?

>
>
>>That was a lot of searching for you to find Godwin's Law implied.
>

>That was no problem, had it bookmarked.

Whooooosh!
>
>Why does everybody wants to interfere with my answer to Alan Browne ???

Because you didn't understand his post.

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:15:25 -0500, nospam wrote:

> they pose a significant safety hazard and/or have poorly regulated
> output.

Hi nospam,

*This is a very important post which _only_ adults will comprehend.*
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3344225charger03.jpg>

What's interesting, nospam, is that you _agree_ wholeheartedly with me!
o Your very words, unbeknownst to you, _prove_ you agree.
o I'll wager that you, yourself, don't even _comprehend_ that you agreed!

The fact is:
o *Apple turned a dead woman into a brilliant marketing branding coup!*

Let's see if _you_ can realize what you & I just said, nospam.
You just said, verbatim:
"they pose a significant hazard"
And, you said:
"they may have poorly regulated output".

Right?

Now, let's see, as an adult, what I said:
I said it was a "brilliant marketing coup"
And:
"Because it made people _feel_ safe"
By trading in "unauthorized" chargers...
for "authorized" chargers (hehhehheh).

My point is _clearly_ that there is absolutely nothing unsafe
about _my_ clearly unauthorized chargers!

In fact, for all _you_ know, nospam, they could be safer!

Clearly, I said "here's a picture of _my_ real-world chargers"
I then I clearly implied:
If I traded in the two non-authorized chargers,
Would an authorized charger be _any_ safer?

Where _every_ rational adult would _know_ the answer.
o Remember, my chargers are very real
o The point is they are NOT a cherry picked 1 out of a million
o That means my chargers are _not_ a marketing gimmick

My chargers happen to exist in the real world in droves.
o Not a cherry-picked bad charger - which is _all_ you know, nospam

Since that's _all_ you know, nospam, I realize you actually agree
o Because even you, nospam, know _my_ real chargers are safe!

To back that up, since I always speak reliable facts,
here's a picture of the certification seals of _my_ very real chargers...
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9611828charger02.jpg>

What you see there are four random chargers in my house:
1. Apple branded 5 Vdc, 1 Amp (small cube, "Made in India")
2. Apple branded 5.2 Vdc, 2.4 Amp (larger, "Made in China")
3. LG branded 9 Vdc, 1.8 Amp + 5Vdc, 1.8 Amp ("Made in Vietnam")
4. Volt branded 5-port 5 Vdc, 2.4 Amp ("Made in China")

*Are you going to go full DK on us & _dispute_ those facts?*
(Or can we _not_ waste our time disputing those are facts?)

Here's what one adult would say to another adult, nospam,
when we're discussing the "brilliance" of Apple MARKETING.

*ADULTS WILL NOTE THE LOGIC IN THE ARGUMENT BELOW*

Dear nospam,

Tell me _how_ you come to the conclusion that _my_
very real very real world actual real in my hands pile of
"unauthorized" chargers, are _any_ less safe than those
authorized chargers in my hand that happen to be
"Designed by Apple in California"?

*NOTE TO ADULTS:*
I posit the _only_ way nospam can make that claim is to
actually use the _same_ brilliant argument that Apple did
when Apple turned a dead woman into a brilliant branding coup!

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:09:59 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> So now it's "brilliant"...
> So post it.

Hi Alan Baker,

I posted it yesterday - with pictures - with explanations - with references, etc.

o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>

What's amazing is how fantastically left-side Dunning-Kruger you prove to be!
<https://slideplayer.com/slide/13931215/85/images/14/Dunning+%3D+Kruger+Effect+%28Kruger+%26+Dunning%2C+1999%29.jpg>

I suspect you're not used to conversing with actual adults.
o Hence, I will have to drop down to a very low level to get through to you.
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3344225charger03.jpg>

On "Apple sitting on the bug"...
1. You, like Joerg Lorenz, flatly deny what is reliably reported (in the NY Times).
2. That means, as did Joerg, you _think_ you can vet "fake news" from real.
3. And yet, every single word you type proves you can't.
3. The problem isn't that you're stupid, Alan Baker; no, it's far worse.
4. The problem is you can't comprehend that you can't comprehend facts.

On "quoting" style...
1. You, like many idiots on Usenet, want me to quote your _entire_ post.
2. You, like many idiots on Usenet, want me to respond to _all_ your idiocy.
3. You, like many idiots on Usenet, play silly childish games all day, every day.
4. I will quote what I respond to; no more and no less - it's what adults do.

On "fabrication of facts" (e.g., my photo)...
1. There is nothing more DK than flatly denying my facts, Alan Baker.
2. The _reason_ I confidently say that is that I'm _never_ wrong on facts (1).
3. Any _adult_ knows what I say is always valid veritable verifiable fact.
4. You're _welcome_ to query me on my facts - but you can't just do it on childish premises.

I posit that it's clear that you, Alan Baker, are a poster child for the
left-side DK cognitive bias.
<https://timnovate.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/dunning-kruger.jpg>

"...incompetent people do not recognize - scratch that,
_cannot_ recognize - just how incompetent they are"

"...incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed,
or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an
inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to
them like knowledge"

Hence, it will not only be difficult to converse with you as one would with
an adult, but it may very well be impossible.

--
Note 1: Since I'm human, out of my thousands of posts, I must have at least
once got a meaningfully important fact wrong - but _nobody_ has ever found
it (and trust me, i _know_ you've tried. The best you can do is play silly
childish wordsmithing games of immaterial meaning.)

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 04:57:15 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Jesus Christ.
> o You actually believe I _found_ that picture?
>
> Really?
> o You're _that_ stupid, Alan Baker?
>
> HINT: I don't make shit up, Alan Baker.
> o I just don't.

Hi Alan Baker,

This is the _first_ time you've _surprised_ me, Alan Baker.
o Do you even know why?

Here's why:
1. You're left side DK Alan Baker
2. That means you can't comprehend that you don't comprehend
3. The reason you don't comprehend is you can't assess facts

The fact is that you can't assess facts such as these facts are facts:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9611828charger02.jpg>

Given that...
1. It's no surprise to me that you intimate I "found" that photo
2. But it _is_ a surprise to me that you were adult enough to stop when I said to stop

So, kudos to you, Alan Baker, for _realizing_ I don't make shit up.
o I do very much realize _you_ just make shit up.
o But I do not.

BTW, here is a picture with your name written all over it, Alan Baker:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3344225charger03.jpg>

Want more?

HINT: I've always said I buy _plenty_ of iPhones & iPads.

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:46:33 +0100, FredW wrote:

> You better go trolling to arlen holden,

Hi FredW,

You just proved, by what you wrote, that you're an utter moron.
o I don't have to even prove it since what you write proves it for us.

I don't know you, so I haven't responded to you, but I see what you write.
o What you wrote, FredW, _proves_ you're an utter idiot.

Note to any _adults_ read this ... notice FredW has _always_ been wrong.
o Nothing FredW says is correct - not even the comment above.

Want proof that FredW proved he is an idiot?
o "Name just one"

It only takes those 3 words to prove that FredW is an utter moron:
o Show us just _once_ that Jolly Roger has _responded_ in this thread
to any of _my_ posts!

The 3 scariest words to morons like FredW prove to be:
o Name just one

HINT: I've been _successful_ at alienating Jolly Roger, Thank God!

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-30 8:57 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 20:49:41 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Really? You just took it... ...or just found it?

> H...

"Arlen", "Arlen", "Arlen", "Arlen", "Arlen", "Arlen", "Arlen"...

...we've discussed this.

If you want to discuss this like an adult:

Stopping nearly everything I've replied and actually address yourself to
the points I've made.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-01-30 13:13, FredW wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:57:22 -0500, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-01-29 13:19, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 29.01.19 um 18:20 schrieb Jolly Roger:
>>>> Nope. *Group* FaceTime is disabled, like the article says. Read it again
>>>> slowly, and pay attention.
>>>
>>> Now the first reports from the serious source like the German Federal
>>> Agency for Security of Information Technology Infrastructures (my
>>
>> If it's not from the Germans it's not true. Hmmm.... that went so well
>> in the 1930's...
>
> You lost.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

No. I did not.

>
> As a European I hate it when someone only to call names misuses this
> dark period in Europe.
>

> You act stupid and have no idea of modern history.

Not at all. My understanding is far better than most by a long shot.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-01-29 17:07, Jolly Roger wrote:

> And Apple disabled the service today, which means their response was
> both timely and effective.

Not really. It took them a week to respond to initial reports.

First reported to Apple Jan 19 by Grant Thompson (Arizona).

Apple were slow to respond.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/technology/facetime-glitch-apple.html

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:33:53 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You've pivoted from claiming an Apple charge electrocuted someone, and
> now you're telling me (implicitly) that you didn't believe that was true...

Jesus Christ Alan Baker
o People like you (& the lemon-juice bank robber) do actually exist!

People like you exist who _think_ they comprehend the simplest things.
o And yet, you prove, in every post, that you don't comprehend anything

Not even the _simplest_ of the simplest of the simplest of statements!
o OMG. You actually _believe_ I said what you claim I said.

*And yet, it takes only 3 words & less than 10 seconds to prove you wrong.*

The three words that are the scariest to you Apple Apologsts, are:
o Name just one

To wit, Alan Baker, name just once where I said what you claimed!
o Name just once

HINT: You don't even realize that you don't comprehend even the _simplest_
of statements by other people, so I believe that you actually believe that
I said what you claim I said - but since I never said it - I know you will
_always_ fail this simple 3-word test:
o Name just one

DOUBLEHINT:
1. I used to think people like you, Alan Baker, were just incredibly stupid
2. Or, that people like you, Alan Baker, incessantly are pulling our leg

But .... unfortunately ... it's far worse...
3. You actually _believe_ I said what you claim above that I said.

OMG. There is absolutely no way to communicate with people like you
o You and the lemon-juice bank robber own the exact same mind

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-31 10:22 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:33:53 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You've pivoted from claiming an Apple charge electrocuted someone, and
>> now you're telling me (implicitly) that you didn't believe that was true...
>

> Je...

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-31 8:46 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:09:59 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> So now it's "brilliant"...
>> So post it.
>

> H...