Re: As expected, Apple beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones (since they can't compete on performance)

[Arlen G. Holder]

A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!

A classic case of the imaginary privacy advertised by Apple ensued today...
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZN_5IjhNFSM/1x6tTFmxEgAJ>

Based on reliable facts showing Apple is no more private than anyone else:
o Workers hear drug deals, medical details and people having sex
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>

This situation is absolutely canonically CLASSIC for how the dynamic works!
1. Apple spends millions advertising (what is, in fact imaginary) privacy
2. Apple Apologists _believe_ (hook line & sinker) in that imaginary belief
3. Facts show privacy on Apple products is no different than anywhere else
4. Not only do the Apologists instantly (brazenly in fact) deny these facts
5. The Apologists always blame everyone but Apple for Apple's flaws!

This situation has been repeated for decades, and, as such, is classic!
First - Apple woos susceptible people with admittedly brilliant MARKETING!
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

Then, the truth comes out that Apple is no more private than anyone else
o Apple is paying contractors to personally listen to millions of private recorded Siri conversations every day which is NOT explicitly disclosed in Apple's privacy pollicy
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ia3wMAwiD74>

*Facts instantly _DESTROY_ the apologists' imaginary belief system!*

Such that the Apologists react using the _same_ half-dozen traits
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>

Where the canonical response by apologists is to blame everyone but Apple!
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com/xqZp1CKP/apple-addresses-privacy-questions-about-hey-siri>

Notice the pattern?

Essentially, Apple sold privacy to the apologists, but the fact is that
Apple is no more private than anyone else is - and when the apologists find
that out - they BLAME EVERYONE BUT APPLE for Apple being just like
everyone!
o As expected, Apple beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones (since they can't compete on performance)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EfMlrgxWkvQ/d6lR8F-kBAAJ>

Mere facts instantly destroy Apologists's imaginary belief systems:
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs/ATC1S3s4FQAJ>

In summary, it's elucidating to realize this is a classic documentation of
A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!

Do you see how hilariously comic this canonical interaction proves to be?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-07-28 8:52 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)

Nope. That is just an assertion. You should learn the difference.

<snip>

> Do you see how hilariously comic this canonical interaction proves to be?

I see how hilariously comical you are.

:-)

[Arlone G. Trolder]

Another one feeds the troll
Another one feeds the troll
And another one bites, and another one bites
Another one feeds the troll
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one feeds the troll.

[Sandman]

In article <qhkgbh$541$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a
> fact)

Let's assume for a second that this is a "fact" and not just an empty claim
from an anonymous person usenet.

What is a fact is that "everyone else" (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook) has a
direct commercial interest in mapping you and your interest. They want to sell
you something or they want to sell "you".

What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the iPhone or Mac
or whatever. If they do map your interests, your conversations to see that you
like male diapers, what next? How would they use this information?

The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have no
commercial interest in your privacy. They can be different because they're
basically not interested in knowing about your weird sexual fantasies or
whatever.

So with that in mind, how are they like "everyone else" again?

--
Sandman

[Arlen G. Holder]

On 31 Jul 2019 09:25:24 GMT, Sandman wrote:

> Let's assume for a second that this is a "fact" and not just an empty claim
> from an anonymous person usenet.
>
> What is a fact is that "everyone else" (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook) has a
> direct commercial interest in mapping you and your interest. They want to sell
> you something or they want to sell "you".
>
> What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the iPhone or Mac
> or whatever. If they do map your interests, your conversations to see that you
> like male diapers, what next? How would they use this information?
>
> The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have no
> commercial interest in your privacy. They can be different because they're
> basically not interested in knowing about your weird sexual fantasies or
> whatever.

Hi Sandman,

You bring up good questions, all of which have a single-word answer:
o FACTS.

My record on credibility is stellar - Sandman.
O Phenomenally stellar, in fact, Sandman. Nearly 100% (see footnote).

That's because my belief system is _based_ on facts.
o If the facts change, or new facts are found, I change my belief system.

> The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have
> no commercial interest in your privacy.

Fundamentally important correction:
o The difference is that Apple highly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy.

My belief system is NOT imaginary, Sandman.
o My belief system is not based on a highly marketed _illusion_ of privacy.

There are so many fully documented well-cited real-world undisputed facts
about the lack of Apple privacy in this one thread alone, that it would
keep your brain occupied for a week just to digest it.

o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs/ATC1S3s4FQAJ>

Find just one fact that I've materially mistated & not corrected.
o Find just one.

Yup. Find just one.
o That's a simple adult test of credibility, Sandman.

Find just one.
--
(1) Since I'm human and since Usenet is a casual medium, out of thousands
of posts over the decades, I must have made a factual material mistake at
least once, but since I don't easily form imaginary belief systems, my
statements of material facts are _based_ on well known easily observed
facts. If, as is sometimes necessary, the facts change over time, then I
simply adjust my belief system to fit the facts. If I'm wrong I will easily
admit I'm wrong, and I will _modify_ my belief system accordingly (it's
what distuingihes adults from children). I'm never threatened by facts like
those who form imaginary belief systems are. The fact is that nobody can
find any material fact I've ever stated on Usenet that was wrong (trust me,
they've tried), which you have to admit is pretty incredible to earn such
100% stellar credibility on Usenet.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-07-31 10:00 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2019 09:25:24 GMT, Sandman wrote:
>
>> Let's assume for a second that this is a "fact" and not just an empty claim
>> from an anonymous person usenet.
>>
>> What is a fact is that "everyone else" (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook) has a
>> direct commercial interest in mapping you and your interest. They want to sell
>> you something or they want to sell "you".
>>
>> What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the iPhone or Mac
>> or whatever. If they do map your interests, your conversations to see that you
>> like male diapers, what next? How would they use this information?
>>
>> The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have no
>> commercial interest in your privacy. They can be different because they're
>> basically not interested in knowing about your weird sexual fantasies or
>> whatever.
>
> Hi Sandman,
>
> You bring up good questions, all of which have a single-word answer:
> o FACTS.
>
> My record on credibility is stellar - Sandman.
> O Phenomenally stellar, in fact, Sandman. Nearly 100% (see footnote).

Not a fact.

>
> That's because my belief system is _based_ on facts.
> o If the facts change, or new facts are found, I change my belief system.

Not a fact.

>
>> The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have
>> no commercial interest in your privacy.
>
> Fundamentally important correction:
> o The difference is that Apple highly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy.

Not a fact.

>
> My belief system is NOT imaginary, Sandman.
> o My belief system is not based on a highly marketed _illusion_ of privacy.

Not a fact.

>
> There are so many fully documented well-cited real-world undisputed facts
> about the lack of Apple privacy in this one thread alone, that it would
> keep your brain occupied for a week just to digest it.
> o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs/ATC1S3s4FQAJ>

Not a fact.

>
> Find just one fact that I've materially mistated & not corrected.
> o Find just one.

You have consistently stated that assertions are facts.

Done.

>
> Yup. Find just one.
> o That's a simple adult test of credibility, Sandman.
>
> Find just one.
>

Done.

[nospam]

In article <qhshfk$3q2$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder

<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> My record on credibility is stellar

yep, it is but not in the way you think.

> O Phenomenally stellar, in fact, Sandman. Nearly 100% (see footnote).

yep, nearly 100% wrong.

that is indeed 'stellar'.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

>> What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the iPhone or Mac
>> or whatever. If they do map your interests, your conversations to see that you
>> like male diapers, what next? How would they use this information?

Hi Sandman,
Your post "seems" like a post from an adult, which is rare on Apple
newsgroups, so I will expend more energy summarizing the situation for you.

However, expect this summary to be from an adult - hence - you need to be
an adult to comprehend what this summary says - and you need to actually
THINK about what this summary summarizes - which is hard for many Apple
posters on this newsgroup.

The key concept here is that Apple is one of the most profitable companies
on the planet for a very (very) good reason.

That reason is NOT that Apple makes the best phone since the FUNCTIONALITY
and PERFORMANCE of Apple phones is almost never (if ever) on top (and, if
so, not for more than a few months, at absolute best).

*The reason is that Apple highly markets the _illusion_ of functionality*
o Apple markets the _illusion_ of privacy & security
o Apple markets the _illusion_ of app functionality
o Apple markets the _illusion_ of camera functionality
etc.

The problem is that this "functionality" is a marketing fabrication.
o What matters, to Apple ... is to market _imaginary_ functionality.

Actual functionality is _clearly_ (very clearly) not what they deliver.

Clearly, for example, Apple iPhone cameras are good, but almost never even
in the top five, and almost always, in fact, in the BOTTOM of the top ten
(which we've proven many (many) times - as the statistics change day to day
but the factual summaries are nearly the same year to year.

Clearly, for example, Apple iPhone app functionality is dismal compared to
that of Android - where - we've proven - time and again - that there is
ZERO app functionality on iOS outside the walled garden that isn't already
on Android (almost always even on a five-year old Android device we've
often proven) - and worse (far far worse), there is _plenty_ of app
functionality on Android that is not on iOS (and likely never will be).

If you dispute those facts - you'll have to pass a simple adult test:
o Name just one

Since I pass my own tests, here's just 1 (of many) for Android not on iOS:
o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rX-L9xbYAQAJ>

There are so many of these well documented facts, that it would be tedious
for me to describe them all - suffice to simply point to this ancient
thread which went over about a hundred of them - although that list changes
over time and that list is old - but the concept is the same then as now.
o How hard would it be to name a hundred functional things Android apps do that iOS apps just can't do?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/OAls8ZO1dCI/-VJn7nDKBQAJ>

You're welcome to act like an adult to dispute these facts but you'll need
to pass a simple adult test that the Apologists almost always fail.
o Name just one

In summary, the "problem" is that Apple markets the _mere_ illusion of
privacy and functionality.
o The gullible are like flat earthers - they _believe_ that illusion.

That's why the gullibles hate me.
o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ their entire imaginary belief system.

What's interesting is that when the Apologists make excuses for Apple
o They are only proving this point the illusion is an imaginary belief.

You, Sandman, fell for it by talking about Apple's "motives"
o Which Apple is very cleverly marketing to your brain (perfectly!)

It doesn't matter what you _think_ Apple's "motives" are, Sandman.
o The only thing that matters - are the facts.

FACT:
o Apple isn't any better on privacy than anyone else.

--
Proof supplied in the thread cited above on Privacy and in MANY (many) many
many other threads - which I can post for you if you insist - but that's
just playing your apologists' game of denying facts that are obvious & well
supported.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:09:17 -0400, nospam wrote:

> yep, nearly 100% wrong.

Hi nospam,

I realize you wish to personalize this since you _hate_ facts.
o Hence you hate me (and that's ok) simply because I speak facts.

You can't back up your claim above - as is usual for you...
o Not even with a _single_ fact.

Your belief system is _that_ wholly imaginary...
o That it's not backed up by even a _single_ reliable fact.

That's how I know you can't possibly be well educated, IMHO, nospam:
o You wouldn't last a week in grad school or in the Silicon Valley.

Me?
o I graduated from the finest universities in this country
o And I made my money in startups for decades, in the Silicon Valley.

My credibility is stellar.
o That's because my belief system is _based_ on facts.

Your belief system has been shown many (many) times...
o To be based on the mere _illusion_ of functionality.

I'll follow my own rule of at least naming just one cite:
o You claimed, multiple times iPhone X didn't have throttling software.

My credibility is so good that I ask the simple adult challenge of you
o Name just one

HINT: Apple apologists _always_ fail this simple adult challenge.

Your credibility has been shown to be no better than a coin toss.
o Let's see how well you do on the adult "name just one" test, shall we?

Name just one cite that shows just one material fact I wrote - to be wrong.
o *Name just one*.

--
Not your words nospam - since whatever you say is worthless given your
credibility has been shown to be nor more reliable than the result of a
coin toss... name a single reliabe cite that refuts a material fact I've
made on Usenet. Name just one.

[Arlone G. Trolder]

Another one feeds the troll
Another one feeds the troll
And another one bites, and another one bites
Another one feeds the troll
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one feeds the troll.

On 31 Jul 2019 09:25:24 GMT, Sandman wrote:

[Arlone G. Trolder]

Another one feeds the troll
Another one feeds the troll
And another one bites, and another one bites
Another one feeds the troll
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one feeds the troll.

[Arlone G. Trolder]

Another one feeds the troll
Another one feeds the troll
And another one bites, and another one bites
Another one feeds the troll
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one feeds the troll.

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:09:17 -0400, nospam wrote:

[Arlen G. Holder]

You are so _afraid_ of facts about Apple that you try to drown them out.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 18:11:18 -0000 (UTC), Arlone G. Trolder wrote:

> And another one bites, and another one bites

Notice that the Apple apologists can't stand actual facts about Apple.

They're like flat earthers who own an imaginary belief system.
o This imaginary belief system is craftect by Apple Marketing

It's MARKETING's job to create the _illusion_ of functionality
o In this case, Marketing creates the _illusion_ of privacy

And yet - the facts are clear
o Apple products are no more private than any other similar products

What's different is the MARKETING
o It's brilliant

The marketing is so brilliant that the Apologists actually _believe_ it.
o Hence, they _hate_ anyone who speaks facts about Apple products

Just like with the flat earthers...
o *Facts instantly _DESTROY_ the Apologists entire belief system!*

The only way apologists can survive is to cover their ears.
o They don't want to _hear_ any facts about Apple products.

Facts scare them.

[Sandman]

In article <qhshfk$3q2$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > Let's assume for a second that this is a "fact" and not just an
> > empty claim from an anonymous person usenet.
>
> > What is a fact is that "everyone else" (i.e. Amazon, Google,
> > Facebook) has a direct commercial interest in mapping you and your
> > interest. They want to sell you something or they want to sell
> > "you".
>
> > What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the
> > iPhone or Mac or whatever. If they do map your interests, your
> > conversations to see that you like male diapers, what next? How
> > would they use this information?
>
> > The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have
> > no commercial interest in your privacy. They can be different
> > because they're basically not interested in knowing about your
> > weird sexual fantasies or whatever.
>
> Hi Sandman,

> You bring up good questions, all of which have a single-word answer:
> o FACTS.

None of which has been provided by you, of course.

> > Sandman:

> > The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have
> > no commercial interest in your privacy.
>
> Fundamentally important correction: o The difference is that Apple
> highly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy.

Which is an unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous stranger on usenet. Also not
a "correction" of any kind.

--
Sandman

[Sandman]

In article <qhsor6$hfq$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> You are so _afraid_ of facts about Apple that you try to drown them
> out.

You are responding to yourself... Good work, you played yourself.

--
Sandman

[Arlone G. Trolder]

Once a lonely troller camped by a Usenet group,
Under a topic in the Apple family tree,
And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.

Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.

Along came a poster to bite on a baited hook,
Up jumped the troller and grabbed him with glee,
And it sang as it shoved that poster in its tucker bag,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.

Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
And it sang as it shoved that poster in its tucker bag,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On 3 Aug 2019 07:55:10 GMT, Sandman wrote:

> You are responding to yourself... Good work, you played yourself.

Hi Sandman,

Apple marketing is BRILLIANT at creating the _illusion_ of privacy
o You hate me because facts instantly _DESTROY_ your imaginary beliefs.

Since this newsgroup is archived, I strive to share technical value
o For now - but also specifically for future researchers to mine value.

You live for now; while I live for now and forever.
o That's fundamental to why I continually strive to add value to Usenet

For you, Sandman, Usenet is apparently merely for your idle amusement.

Hence, we each use fundamentally _different_ Usenet models, Sandman:
a. The chit-chat amusement variety (which you apparently subscribe to)
b. The fact-based Q&A variety (of which I clearly subscribe to)

I fully understand you apologists _hate_ that my posts contain facts.
o But the fact you hate facts doesn't change the fact that they're facts.

The fact is that privacy is about the same among similar products.
o The difference is Apple is brilliant at creating the illusion of privacy.

How they do that is extremely basic, simple, and straightforward:
o Where Apple has a privacy advantage, they market the hell out of that
O Where Apple has a privacy disadvantage, they simply stay mum on that

You, Sandman, apparently, buy only the brilliant Apple marketing spiel
o That's why you hate facts - since facts are data _outside_ of marketing.

That factual data instantly _DESTROYS_ your imaginary belief system, Sandman.
o Which is why you hate me reporting those facts to this newsgroup.

I understand the psychology of you apologists rather well, Sandman.

You're almost exactly the same as flat earthers, in fact, Sandman.
o You all own the same half dozen responses to all facts you don't like

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 09:08:20 -0000 (UTC), Arlone G. Trolder wrote:

> Once a lonely troller camped by a Usenet group,

Notice how the Apple Apologists would love to drown out facts.
o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ their imaginary belief system.

Apple marketing is BRILLIANT at creating the _illusion_ of privacy.
o Whenever facts prove otherwise - the apologists call all facts trolls.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On 3 Aug 2019 07:53:49 GMT, Sandman wrote:

> None of which has been provided by you, of course.

What's shocking is that you apologists are like flat earthers.
o You're completely immune to facts - many of which were provided.

[Alan Baker]

It's no wonder you've snipped the entire conversation...

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 09:08:20 -0000 (UTC), "Arlone G. Trolder"

<trolli...@nospam.nut.invalid> wrote:

>
>Once a lonely troller camped by a Usenet group,
>Under a topic in the Apple family tree,
>And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
>You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
>Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
>You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
>And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
>You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.

(clip crappy poetry)

You do realize that your attempt at humor is also feeding the troller
don't you?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-03 10:38 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> On 3 Aug 2019 07:55:10 GMT, Sandman wrote:
>
>> You are responding to yourself... Good work, you played yourself.
>
> Hi Sandman,
>
> Apple marketing is BRILLIANT at creating the _illusion_ of privacy
> o You hate me because facts instantly _DESTROY_ your imaginary beliefs.

No one hates you.

We're amused by you. :-)

>
> Since this newsgroup is archived, I strive to share technical value
> o For now - but also specifically for future researchers to mine value.

Keep striving...

...because it hasn't happened yet.

>
> You live for now; while I live for now and forever.
> o That's fundamental to why I continually strive to add value to Usenet

Keep striving.

>
> For you, Sandman, Usenet is apparently merely for your idle amusement.
>
> Hence, we each use fundamentally _different_ Usenet models, Sandman:
> a. The chit-chat amusement variety (which you apparently subscribe to)
> b. The fact-based Q&A variety (of which I clearly subscribe to)
>
> I fully understand you apologists _hate_ that my posts contain facts.
> o But the fact you hate facts doesn't change the fact that they're facts.
>
> The fact is that privacy is about the same among similar products.
> o The difference is Apple is brilliant at creating the illusion of privacy.
>
> How they do that is extremely basic, simple, and straightforward:
> o Where Apple has a privacy advantage, they market the hell out of that
> O Where Apple has a privacy disadvantage, they simply stay mum on that
>
> You, Sandman, apparently, buy only the brilliant Apple marketing spiel
> o That's why you hate facts - since facts are data _outside_ of marketing.
>
> That factual data instantly _DESTROYS_ your imaginary belief system, Sandman.
> o Which is why you hate me reporting those facts to this newsgroup.

What factual data?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:41:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> It's no wonder you've snipped the entire conversation...

The thread is about the advertising imaginary privacy, Alan Baker.
o The facts are that Apple markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy.

What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

The facts show that privacy is about the same between the products
o Where Apple has better privacy - they brilliantly market those facts
o Where Apple has worse privacy - they simply stay mum on those facts

It's the job of _intelligent_ adults to ascertain _all_ the facts
o Not just the facts that Apple marketing brilliantly advertises

As an intelligent adult, you're welcome to dispute this obvious fact.
o The privacy between Android & Apple is, overall, about the same

Proof from _outside_ _reliable_ sources in detail is here:

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[1-25]>

And, in the news, proof was supplied just this week, Alan Baker:

o Apple is paying contractors to personally listen to millions of private recorded Siri conversations every day which is NOT explicitly disclosed in Apple's privacy pollicy

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ia3wMAwiD74/vOitxLdFEgAJ>

Do you dispute (with facts) those glaringly obvious facts, Alan Baker?
o If so, how so?

--
HINT: Apple apologists can't converse like actual adults should.
Apple apologists converse almost exactly like flat earthers do.
Their approach to facts they don't like is to brazenly deny them.
Sans a shred of reliable sources that back up their brazen claims.
They call all facts they don't like, trolls.

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>

Just watch.

[Frank Slootweg]

Arlone G. Trolder <trolli...@nospam.nut.invalid> wrote:
>

> Once a lonely troller camped by a Usenet group,
> Under a topic in the Apple family tree,
> And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
> Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
> And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
> Along came a poster to bite on a baited hook,
> Up jumped the troller and grabbed him with glee,
> And it sang as it shoved that poster in its tucker bag,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
> Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
> And it sang as it shoved that poster in its tucker bag,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.

G'day mate, nice one! Fair dinkum! Good on you! Seppos all around!
Bloody bludgers!

[...]

[Arlen G. Holder]

On 3 Aug 2019 19:48:52 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> G'day mate, nice one! Fair dinkum! Good on you! Seppos all around!
> Bloody bludgers!

You don't own the mind of an adult, Frank - your mind is that of a child.
o You prove it yourself every time you post - I just need to point to what
you write where you prove for me, Frank, you own the mind of a small child.

Adults on this newsgroup are supposed to comprehend actual facts.

The facts are clear that neither Apple nor iOS is even remotely private.
o Many facts show iOS more private than Android
o Many facts show Android more private than iOS

So - what's different?
o Apple MARKETING is brilliant at promoting the _illusion_ of privacy.

The facts clearly show...
o Apple brilliantly promotes only where they're more private
o While Apple cleverly stays mum on where they're not more private

What _adult_ response do you have to those facts, Frank?

--
I already know the answer Frank ... you have no adult response.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-03 11:34 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:41:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> It's no wonder you've snipped the entire conversation...
>
> The thread is about the advertising imaginary privacy, Alan Baker.

Sorry, but you don't get to simply snip what you want without comment.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:22:09 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Sorry, but you don't get to simply snip what you want without comment.

Hi Alan Baker,

FACTS

I've been quoting the same way for decades with thousands of people.
o It's a well known standard to quote only that you respond to

Keeping on the topic of Apple's brilliantly marketed but imaginary privacy,
the reliable news, including the Apple-centric reports, are all saying pretty
much the same thing as I've been trying to get into your thick skull.

1. Apple yet again abused our trust with dishonest lack of transparency
2. Apple yet again only gives a shit after the shit hits the fan
3. Opt out is useless - opt in is what they should employ for privacy

See details below...
Just as they were forced to admit to secret throttling, and they were
forced to admit that they ignored egregious FaceTime security holes, Apple
yet again only gives a shit about privacy when the shit hits the fan.

o Apple suspends Siri program that allows employees to listen in on users' private conversations
<https://www.rt.com/business/465730-apple-siri-suspend-privacy/>

Cult of Mac: Siri eavesdropping controversy underlines why Apple must be more transparent
<https://www.cultofmac.com/642830/siri-eavesdropping-controversy-apple-transparenct/>

Apple Contractors Will Stop Listening to Your Siri Recordings - for now
<https://www.wired.com/story/apple-siri-recordings-facebook-facial-recognition-roundup/>

VentureBeat: Apple and Google halt human voice-data reviews over privacy backlash, but transparency is the real issue
<https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/02/apple-and-google-halt-human-voice-data-reviews-over-privacy-backlash-but-transparency-is-the-real-issue/>

Voice assistant companies abandon snooping practices after being found out
<https://www.rt.com/news/465704-apple-amazon-alexa-spying/>

Apple and Google Workers Stop Listening to What You Ask Your Voice Assistant, For Now
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/apple-and-google-pause-human-voice-recording-review-over-privacy-concerns>

You Can Now Disable Human Review of Your Alexa Recordings
<https://www.iclarified.com/71905/you-can-now-disable-human-review-of-your-alexa-recordings>

Hey Apple, Opt out is useless. Let people opt in
<https://www.wired.com/story/hey-apple-opt-out-is-useless/>

MacWorld: So Apple's going to stop listening in on your Siri requests. Now what?
<https://www.macworld.com/article/3429817/so-apples-going-to-stop-listening-in-on-your-siri-requests-now-what.html>

Apple halts contractors listening to Siri recordings, will offer opt-out
<https://www.scmagazine.com/home/security-news/privacy-compliance/apple-announced-it-will-temporarily-suspend-its-practice-of-allowing-human-contractors-to-grade-snippets-recordings-of-siri-conversations-for-accuracy/>

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 12:42:17 -0500, B...@Onramp.net wrote:

> You do realize that your attempt at humor is also feeding the troller
> don't you?

Hi BK,
When you post, I realize what I'm up against when I post reasonable
concepts, which, let's face it, only an adult could comprehend.

For example, exactly as I have been saying all along, Wired reported today
exactly the concept of this thread which is that Apple has a special
responsibility to privacy since Apple markets the hell out of their mere
illusion of it.

Here's what wired said today:

"After a report in The Guardian detailed Apple's use of contractors
to "grade" the recordings of Siri users, the company has said it
will suspend the program. Apple's not alone in the practice; Google
and Amazon use humans as well. *But Apple's self-professed roll as a*
*privacy protector has made the revelation that much more cutting.*
<https://www.wired.com/story/apple-siri-recordings-facebook-facial-recognition-roundup/>

Notice that the fact show, for the umpteenth time, Apple only cares to
market the _illusion_ of privacy, as witnessed by this fact above.

Yet again, Apple only cared about this privacy issue _after_ the shit hit
the fan (just as it did with those horrid Facetime privacy flaws).

Notice that reliable reports are backing up what I have been saying all along.
o Can you find even a single reliable news report that backs you up, BK?

If so...
o Name just one.

[Sandman]

In article <qi4gqi$nhs$3...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > None of which has been provided by you, of course.
>
> What's shocking is that you apologists are like flat earthers. o
> You're completely immune to facts - many of which were provided.

Ironic, because you sound just like a flat-earther, claiming that there are facts
but can't provide any, just mere words and claims. Go figure :)

--
Sandman

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-03 9:30 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:22:09 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but you don't get to simply snip what you want without comment.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FACTS
>

> I've been quoting...

No.

You do it to change the subject.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On 4 Aug 2019 10:07:13 GMT, Sandman wrote:

> Ironic, because you sound just like a flat-earther, claiming that there are facts
> but can't provide any, just mere words and claims. Go figure :)

Hi Sandman,

*Act like an adult for once, please*

An adult owns a belief system that is based on at least a _single_ fact, Sandman.
o Emotional children own completely imaginary belief systems (ala Santa Claus).

*Let's see if you can pass the _simplest_ of adult tests, Sandman*

Name just _one_ material fact I've stated, that I both
a. Haven't proved (with a reliable third-party cite), and,
b. Which was materially wrong.

HINT: You can't find a _single_ instance in the threads you're in.
o My credibility on material facts is 100% over decades(1)

If you can't even pass this _simplest_ of adult tests, Sandman...
o Then your credibility is clearly shown, here and now, to be bullshit.

--
(1) Since Usenet is a casual medium and not a PhD thesis or legal contract,
I must have, at least once or twice, materially mistated a fact in my
decades of Usenet postings of many posts per day - but - since my belief
systems are _based_ on facts, and _bolstered_ by facts, it's going to be
rare to nonexistent for that to happen (trust me, people have tried, and
all they can find are silly meaningless typos and temporary thinkos). The
best they can find are that they dispute facts that are reported in the
reliable media (ala Alan Baker) where I reported the facts correctly - they
just dispute them (as they dispute _all_ facts they don't like). If, on the
rare occasion facts _change_ over time (e.g., whether a product is going to
be released and then the company changes their mind), i simply _adjust_ my
belief system to fit the salient newly available facts. In contrast, many
people on Usenet (e.g., the Apple Apologists, en masse, who appear to be
extremely succeptibvle to the admittedly brilliant Apple Marketing speil),
don't have any desire to preserve their credibility - where they
incessantly dispute any and all facts they simply don't like - almost
always going to the length to claim imaginary functionality, that never
existed - simply because they hate what the facts prove.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:52:04 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You do it to change the subject.

Hi Alan Baker,

FACTS.

What's funny about you Apple Apologists is that you _hate_ facts about Apple.
o You're like children who hate that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.

My claims are that of an extremely well educated & informed adult
o Your claims, Alan, span the spectrum of childish responses to facts

Much like Flat Earthers, you dispute even the most _obvious_ of facts
o Such as the _SUBJECT_ of this thread for heaven's sake!

To _that subject_, notice reliable media backs up my claims, Alan.
o Apple highly _advertises_ the mere _illusion_ of privacy, Alan.

Since Apple highly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy, Alan,
it's even worse when the facts clearly show Apple to be no better than the
rest (which was always my point - since the privacy is an illusion).

Since I'm an adult - I back up my statements of material fact with cites.
o It's what adults do Alan Baker - Adults who are well informed anyway

******************************************************
Here's a reliable cite that fits _perfectly_ the topic of this thread:
******************************************************
GUARDIAN (who broke the story last week): [everything below is verbatim]
"Apple is not alone in employing human oversight of its automatic voice
assistants. In April, Amazon was revealed to employ staff to listen to some
Alexa recordings, and earlier this month, Google workers were found to be
doing the same with Google Assistant.

*Apple differs from those companies* in some ways, however. For one,
Amazon and Google allow users to opt out of some uses of their recordings;
*Apple offers no similar choice short of disabling Siri entirely*.
According to Counterpoint Research, Apple has 35% of the smartwatch market,
more than three times its nearest competitor Samsung, and more than its
next six biggest competitors combined.

*The company [i.e., Apple] values its reputation for user privacy highly*,
*regularly wielding it as a competitive advantage against Google* and
Amazon. In January, it bought a billboard at the Consumer Electronics Show
in Las Vegas announcing that
'*what happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone*'"
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>
(emphasis added to the salient points of this very thread)

Where is _your_ reliable cite, Alan Baker, backing up your on-topic point?
o Notice you Apologists have _zero_ on-topic facts backing up your claims

*You Apologists can _never_ find even a _single_ cite backing you up*
o It's the same reason children can't prove Santa Claus exists.

*Apologists believe in the highly marketed _illusion_ of privacy*
o As children believe in the highly marketed illusion of Santa Claus

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-04 11:46 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:52:04 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You do it to change the subject.
> Hi Alan Baker,
>

> FA...

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 12:13:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You do it to change the subject.

Hi Alan Baker,

FACTS

Whether you apologists realize it or not...
o The whole point of a Usenet thread that I author is to stay on topic

Do apologists really not comprehend the subject of this thread, Alan Baker?
1. Apple markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy
2. They do that by playing up where they are clearly more private.
3. That's all the Apple Gullibles need to _believe_ in this illusion.

It's no different than the illusion of Santa Claus, Alan Baker
o Parents play up where the Santa Claus seems to be "real" to children

However ... intelligent and well informed adults know the facts, Alan Baker
4. The fact is that there are plenty of ways Apple is NOT more private
5. Apple marketing cleverly stays mum on these ways, Alan
6. Just like parents stay mum all the ways Santa Claus is an illusion

Who believes in Santa Claus, Alan Baker?
o Children who can't comprehend facts outside what parents tell them

Who believes in privacy on iOS, Alan Baker?
o Children who can't comprehend facts outside what Apple tells them

This recent situation where Apple was sending millions of accidentally
recorded private conversations (all one had to do was lift their arm for
Christs' sake, Alan Baker!), to come-and-go poorly vetted contractors in,
of all places, Ireland, for God's sake, Alan Baker. (Where Alexa's
transient contractors were in, of all places, Romania.)

Given that Apple plays up the mere illusion of privacy, Alan Baker, it's
imperative to note that Apple wasn't fully transparent with their entire
customer base in terms of what the media has been calling a lack of
transparency in that actual _humans_ (poorly vetted and transient humans,
in fact), were listening in onto a huge number of accidental recordings
daily.

Until the shit hit the fan, that is.
o Notice they never care about privacy until the shit hits the fan.

These are all FACTS Alan Baker - which - of course, you'll dispute out of
hand sans even a _single_ third-party cite to back up your imaginary belief
system.

EVERY STATEMENT I make is bolstered by third party cites, Alan Baker.
o Every single one

Almost always, zero of the statements by you Apple Apologists is ever
backed up by reliable sources, Alan Baker.

Why?
I don't know why.

You apologists all act like children act.
o When told the Easter Bunny is an illusion - you deny it out of hand.

REFERENCES:
o Apple and Google halt human voice-data reviews over privacy backlash, but *transparency is the real issue*
<https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/02/apple-and-google-halt-human-voice-data-reviews-over-privacy-backlash-but-transparency-is-the-real-issue/>
"the new report found that recordings were accessed not only by its
internal staff, but by *contractors with high turnover rates*. And again,
*Siri could be accidentally triggered*, such as by the sound of a zipper"

o Apple Contractors Working on Siri Regularly Hear Confidential Information
<https://www.iclarified.com/71815/apple-contractors-working-on-siri-regularly-hear-confidential-information-report>
"Although not explicitly disclosed by Apple ... A whistleblower, who
works for one of these contractors, has raised concerns about
*Apple's lack of disclosure*, especially *due to the frequency* with which
*accidental activations record personal information*. 'There have been
*countless instances of recordings featuring private discussions* between
doctors and patients, business deals, seemingly criminal dealings, sexual
encounters and so on. *These recordings are accompanied by user data*
showing location, contact details, and app data.' The HomePod and the Apple
Watch are the most common sources of accidental recordings. 'The regularity
of accidental triggers on the watch is incredibly high,' they said."

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-04 1:44 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 12:13:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You do it to change the subject.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FACT

You change the subject rather than address what has been said.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 14:06:50 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You change the subject rather than address what has been said.

> You change the subject rather than address what has been said.

Do you apologists _look_ at the *SUBJECT* line of this thread, Alan Baker?

The facts are clear:
a. Apple marketing brilliantly plays up the mere _illusion_ of privacy.

They can't market functionality, Alan Baker
o Because there is zero app functionality on iOS not already on Android

In fact, even a five-year old Android device has app functionality NOT on
any iOS platform, even those that cost $1500.

Since I pass the adult test of belief systems, Alan, I can "name just one".
o Automatic call recording

I'll name a few more, Alan Baker:
o The official Tor Browser Bundle

Want more?
o WiFi graphing of all access points visible over time

More?
o Ability to organize the home screen the way you want
etc.

The point is stated in the title, Alan, which is:
a. Apple has no functionality advantage over Android...
b. So the admittedly brilliant marketing plays up the _illusion_ of privacy

To be clear - this brilliant advertising campaign works
o On people who own the minds of children

Of which there are many
o It's like how parents play up Santa Claus to gullible children

But you're _supposed_ to be a sentient adult on this ng, Alan Baker.
o You're supposed to be able to comprehend simple facts.

You're supposed to be able to think outside of Apple Marketing speils.

[Sandman]

In article <qi786u$dp8$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > Ironic, because you sound just like a flat-earther, claiming that
> > there are facts but can't provide any, just mere words and claims.
> > Go figure :)
>
> Hi Sandman,

> *Act like an adult for once, please*

> An adult owns a belief system that is based on at least a _single_
> fact,

Ironic, given the fact that you have provided exactly zero facts. Go figure.

--
Sandman

[Arlen G. Holder]

On 4 Aug 2019 22:45:06 GMT, Sandman wrote:

> Ironic, given the fact that you have provided exactly zero facts. Go figure.

Hi Sandman,

You prove to turn into a babbling child when confronted with facts.

This is my last post to you here - since you apologists are like
Flat Earthers, who always prove to own the mind of a child.

You, Sandman, like all the apologists, have no adult response to facts.
o Your entire belief system, like that of children who believe in Santa
Claus, is based on exactly _zero_ actual facts.

You're _afraid_ of facts such that you turn into a child in the face of them.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-04 7:18 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2019 22:45:06 GMT, Sandman wrote:
>
>> Ironic, given the fact that you have provided exactly zero facts. Go figure.
>
> Hi Sandman,
>
> You prove to turn into a babbling child when confronted with facts.

How would you know?

Simply saying "Fact" (or even "FACT")...

...doesn't make something a fact.

[Sandman]

In article <qi83lp$rl7$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > Ironic, given the fact that you have provided exactly zero facts.
> > Go figure.
>
> Hi Sandman,

> You prove to turn into a babbling child when confronted with facts.

Since you've still provided exactly zero facts, you wouldn't know, now would you?

All the time you've spent claiming you've provided facts should have been spent
actually providing facts instead. You have lots of time for hot air, so not much
left for actual substantiation.

--
Sandman

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:43:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> What factual data?

FACTS

Notice that the apologists, like Flat Earthers, are immune to facts.
o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ apologists' completely imaginary belief system.

Notice that well informed adults show _facts_ backing up claims:
"The campaign is working, as evidenced by media reports depicting Apple
as hero to Facebook's villain. But that marketing coup masks an underlying
problem: The world's most valuable company - its market value crossed the
$1 trillion mark on Aug. 2 - has some of the same security problems as the
other tech giants when it comes to apps."
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero>

*Apple is _brilliant_ at marketing the mere _illusion_ of privacy.*
o Apologists are as gullible as children believing in Santa Claus.

Look at this factual article from about a year ago (verbatim):
o Is Apple Really Your Privacy Hero?
o The world's most valuable company is seen as a champion for your data.
o It should be doing more.
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero>

a. Apple Inc. has positioned itself as the champion of privacy.
b. Even as Facebook Inc. and Google track our moves around the internet for
advertisers' benefit, Apple has trumpeted its noble decision to avoid that
business model.
c. Tim Cook said he wouldn't ever be in such a situation. He framed Apple's
stance as a moral one. Privacy is a human right, he said.

Clearly, my facts show that Apple MARKETS privacy, right?
o Now what about the actual facts?
HINT: Apple fibbed in their privacy policy which all the news media caught
(they called it a lack of transparency - but it goes _deeper_ as Apple
fibbed about the location data also, which the news media reported).

Remember, this article is from a _year_ ago, and yet, it's the _same_
problem as reported last week with unreliable transients listening in on
millions of accidental Siri recordings every day!
"It [Apple] has, in effect, abdicated responsibility for possible misuse
of data, leaving it in the hands of the independent developers who create
the products available in its App Store."

But wait.. There are more facts for an _informed_ adult to ponder:
"Bloomberg News recently reported that for years iPhone app developers
have been allowed to store and sell data from users who allow access to
their contact lists, which, in addition to phone numbers, may include other
people's photos and home addresses."

More and more in fact...
"the Notes section - where people sometimes list Social Security numbers
for their spouses or children or the entry codes for their apartment
buildings - is particularly sensitive."

More and more and more facts...
"When developers get our information, and that of the acquaintances in
our contacts list, it's theirs to use and move around unseen by Apple. It
can be sold to data brokers, shared with political campaigns, or posted on
the internet."

It goes on and on, in fact...
"Apple does nothing to make it technically difficult for developers to
harvest the information."

Note an informed _adult_ can comprehend these statements...
"Apple has the ingredients for a Cambridge Analytica-type blowup, but it's
successfully convinced the public that it has its users' best interests at
heart with its existing, unenforceable policies."

Now here is where Apple marketing is brilliant!
"The company's main argument for why it's a better steward of customers'
privacy is that it has no interest in collecting personal data across its
browser or developer network. It simply doesn't need to, because it doesn't
make its money off advertising. The public wholeheartedly agrees with this
´hear no evil, see no evil¡ strategy because of popular discomfort over the
quiet surveillance of private online habits by all the other
multibillion-dollar corporations."

But there are holes in that which Apple does NOT advertise but which an
adult mind can clearly ascertain to be a fact!
"But when it comes to the app developer network, that's like a parent -
in this case, Apple - claiming the developer kids are well-supervised.
They're not. Once Apple reviews and approves independent apps, it can't see
how the data they collect is used."

In a letter to Congress, which adults can comprehend, Apple abdicated all
responsibility for privacy...
"On Aug. 7, Apple responded with a multiple-page document that included
this statement: ´Apple does not and cannot monitor what developers do with
customer data they have collected, or prevent the onward transfer of that
data, nor do we have the ability to ensure a developer's compliance with
their own privacy policies or local law. The relationship between the app
developer and the user is direct, and it is the developer's obligation to
collect and use data responsibly."

Just as Google and Amazon allow _deletion_ of your private recordings, an
adult will realize that Apple allows no such privacy for Siri users!

Even Facebook has better privacy than Apple in that regard...
"For all of Facebook's privacy problems, it was at least able to alert
people who were potentially affected by the Cambridge Analytica leak. Apple
has no such mechanism."

In short, while the Apologists are immune to such facts, and while Apple
Marketing is brilliant at marketing the mere _illusion_ of privacy, what's
important for ADULTS to realize is the following set of obvious facts:
a. Apple brilliantly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy
b. Where Apple, in some ways, is more private,
c. But where, in many other ways, Apple is no more private
d. And in some ways, Apple is far less private

All of which Apple marketing cleverly stays mum on
o But which intelligent adults can easily show to be a fact.

I realize these facts are lost on the Apologists
o Just as facts that Santa Claus is make believe is lost on children

Notice Apologists _never_ have facts backing up their imaginary claims
o They're like Flat Earthers - in that they're utterly immune to facts

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-05 10:16 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:43:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What factual data?
>
> FACTS
>

> Notice that the ...

I'm sorry, but you've become tedious.

You've yet to prove that Apple is no better than other companies at privacy.

You've yet to even try to support it.

Showing that Apple has issues where they've failed doesn't prove anything.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 19:48:01 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> How would you know?
>
> Simply saying "Fact" (or even "FACT")...
>
> ...doesn't make something a fact.

FACTS

Apologists, like Flat Earthers, are immune to facts.

o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ apologists' completely imaginary belief system.

Intelligent well informed adults show _facts_ backing up their claims:

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-05 12:12 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 19:48:01 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How would you know?
>>
>> Simply saying "Fact" (or even "FACT")...
>>
>> ...doesn't make something a fact.
>
> FACTS
>
> Apologists, like Flat Earthers, are immune to facts.

Not a fact. An assertion.

> o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ apologists' completely imaginary belief system.
>
> Intelligent well informed adults show _facts_ backing up their claims:
> "The campaign is working, as evidenced by media reports depicting Apple
> as hero to Facebook's villain. But that marketing coup masks an underlying
> problem: The world's most valuable company - its market value crossed the
> $1 trillion mark on Aug. 2 - has some of the same security problems as the
> other tech giants when it comes to apps."
> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero>

That doesn't support the claim that Apple is "play[ing] up" anything.

>
> *Apple is _brilliant_ at marketing the mere _illusion_ of privacy.*

Not a fact. An assertion.

> o Apologists are as gullible as children believing in Santa Claus.
>
> Look at this factual article from about a year ago (verbatim):

"(verbatim)" is a lie.

> o Is Apple Really Your Privacy Hero?
> o The world's most valuable company is seen as a champion for your data.
> o It should be doing more.

Why did you turn those into bullet points? That's not "verbatim", is it?

> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero>
>
> a. Apple Inc. has positioned itself as the champion of privacy.

No "a., b., c., etc." in the article.

> b. Even as Facebook Inc. and Google track our moves around the internet for
> advertisers' benefit, Apple has trumpeted its noble decision to avoid that
> business model.
> c. Tim Cook said he wouldn't ever be in such a situation. He framed Apple's
> stance as a moral one. Privacy is a human right, he said.

Not verbatim. Lots and lots omitted.

>
> Clearly, my facts show that Apple MARKETS privacy, right?

Yup. They market better privacy. So? You've yet to show that it isn't true.

> o Now what about the actual facts?

What about them?

Until you show a comparison between Apple and it's competitors they're
useless.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:44:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> I'm sorry, but you've become tedious.
>
> You've yet to prove that Apple is no better than other companies at privacy.
>
> You've yet to even try to support it.
>
> Showing that Apple has issues where they've failed doesn't prove anything.

FACTS.

What's interesting is that facts to apologists are like Santa Claus to kids
o Apple's brilliant marketing of the _illusion_ of privacy is what they believe

The proof is that the child-like apologists have provided exactly 0 facts
backing their claims, and yet, it's trivial for intelligent adults to
provide facts backing up exactly what the subject line of this thread
claims.

For example, from a while ago, well before this new privacy hole leaked:
o Talking Tech: Is Apple really better about privacy? Here's what we found out
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/04/17/apple-make-simpler-download-your-privacy-data-year/521786002/>

Point 1:
o Apple spends lots of money marketing the _illusion_ of privacy
"Apple has made a point of trying to differentiate its approach to
consumers' information. On its website, it notes that it collects less data
about us than the other big tech companies and then bumps up the security
by scrambling it so it doesn't identify who it comes from. Additionally, it
says it keeps most of the data on our devices, as opposed to Apple servers,
and it's encrypted on those devices and only accessible via your passcode."

All good things, right?
o Nobody ever said Apple wasn't brilliant at marketing mere illusions.

This is the fundamental "good thing" about Apple, which they market:
"Apple insists that it ´doesnÿt gather your personal information to sell
to advertisers or other organizations.¡"

Notice, for example, Apple (yet again) _lied_ about what they do!
"As for Apple, our iPhones gather up a lot of information, too. The GPS
describes where we are, when we ask Siri for directions or a recipe, that
request goes to Apple. Apple says it doesn't share that info with outside
companies. It does, however, allow advertisers to target users based on
their history in the App Store and News app. "

Hmmmm... Apple doesn't share Siri data with other companies?
That's a bold lie, is it not?
HINT: Those are outside contractors in Ireland listening in on Siri.

While it's not as bad as we showed the fact that Apple can't even _delete_
your private recordings (while Google and Amazon can), yet again, Apple
makes it difficult, compared to the competition, to let YOU know what
private information Apple has gathered on you.
"What Apple wonÿt do, at least for now, is make it easy for you to get
your data so you can check out what exactly Apple has held onto. Facebook
and Google offer this service, via a download request"

This is where that request is hidden:
"Apple hides the data request deep inside the privacy section of the
website. To get there, itÿs four clicks from the main page and buried in
the 11th subhead on the page."

Even so, the request has to be accompanied by this private information:
"(I put in the data request Monday just after 11 a.m. Some 22 hours later
Tuesday, we heard back from Apple, saying we could get the report once we
replied with our full name, Apple ID, email address, street address, phone
number and serial number of an Apple product.)Wednesday morning, we
received word back that the request had been approved, and that the data
download would be forthcoming. We're still awaiting arrival."

As for ads, Apple won't let you eliminate the advertiser ID like Android
will, and Apple _does_ sell ads, which is a fact:
"Meanwhile, Apple also does sells ads as well ... By default, on the
iPhone youÿve allowed Apple to serve you ads based on what it thinks are
your interests."

While you can limit the annoying ads, you can't remove the Apple ID or the
Advertiser ID like you can on Android for privacy.

In summary, this is yet more proof of three basic obvious logical facts:
1. Apple advertises (brilliantly so) the illusion of privacy
2. Where Apple plays up where they are more private, but,
3. Apple stays cleverly mum on the myriad ways they're less private

Such that, just like with Santa Claus brilliant advertising by parents
o Only children believe in this imaginary privacy which doesn't exist

As with Flat Earthers, don't expect Apologists to comprehend these facts
o Apologists have shown themselves to be utterly immune to facts

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-05 12:50 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:44:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but you've become tedious.
>>
>> You've yet to prove that Apple is no better than other companies at privacy.
>>
>> You've yet to even try to support it.
>>
>> Showing that Apple has issues where they've failed doesn't prove anything.
>
> FACT

You've snipped out much of what I said that specifically addressed what
you quoted.

Are your arguments so weak that you must snip so much?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:20:03 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Until you show a comparison between Apple and it's competitors they're
> useless.

FACTS.

Notice it's trivial for me to back up everything I say with facts
o That's because my belief system is _based_ on facts

What's interesting is that facts to apologists are like Santa Claus to kids

o Apple brilliantly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy
o Just as parents brilliantly market the _illusion_ of Santa Claus

The children don't have the intellectual capacity to discern the facts.

The proof is that the child-like apologists have provided exactly 0 facts
backing their claims, and yet, it's trivial for intelligent adults to
provide facts backing up exactly what the subject line of this thread
claims.

For example, from a while ago, well before this new privacy hole leaked:

o Talking Tech: *Is Apple really better about privacy?* Here's what we found out
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/04/17/apple-make-simpler-download-your-privacy-data-year/521786002/>

*Apple spends lots of money marketing the _illusion_ of privacy*

"Apple has made a point of trying to differentiate its approach to
consumers' information. On its website, it notes that it collects less data
about us than the other big tech companies and then bumps up the security
by scrambling it so it doesn't identify who it comes from. Additionally, it
says it keeps most of the data on our devices, as opposed to Apple servers,
and it's encrypted on those devices and only accessible via your passcode."

*All good things, right?*

o Nobody ever said Apple wasn't brilliant at marketing mere illusions.

*This is the fundamental "good thing" about Apple, which they market*:
"Apple insists that it 'doesn┤ gather your personal information to sell
to advertisers or other organizations.'"

*Notice, for example, Apple (yet again) _lied_ about what they do*!

"As for Apple, our iPhones gather up a lot of information, too. The GPS
describes where we are, when we ask Siri for directions or a recipe, that
request goes to Apple. Apple says it doesn't share that info with outside
companies. It does, however, allow advertisers to target users based on
their history in the App Store and News app. "

*Hmmmm... Apple doesn't share Siri data with other companies?*
*That's a bold lie, is it not?*
*HINT: Those are outside contractors in Ireland listening in on Siri.*

While it's not as bad as we showed the fact that Apple can't even _delete_
your private recordings (while Google and Amazon can), yet again, Apple
makes it difficult, compared to the competition, to let YOU know what
private information Apple has gathered on you.

"What Apple won┤ do, at least for now, is make it easy for you to get

your data so you can check out what exactly Apple has held onto. Facebook
and Google offer this service, via a download request"

*This is where that request is hidden:*

"Apple hides the data request deep inside the privacy section of the

website. To get there, it┬ four clicks from the main page and buried in

the 11th subhead on the page."

*Even so, the request has to be accompanied by this private information:*

"(I put in the data request Monday just after 11 a.m. Some 22 hours later
Tuesday, we heard back from Apple, saying we could get the report once we
replied with our full name, Apple ID, email address, street address, phone
number and serial number of an Apple product.)Wednesday morning, we
received word back that the request had been approved, and that the data
download would be forthcoming. We're still awaiting arrival."

*As for ads, Apple won't let you eliminate the advertiser ID* like Android

will, and Apple _does_ sell ads, which is a fact:
"Meanwhile, Apple also does sells ads as well ... By default, on the

iPhone you▔e allowed Apple to serve you ads based on what it thinks are

your interests."

While you can limit the annoying ads, you can't remove the Apple ID or the
Advertiser ID like you can on Android for privacy.

*In summary, this is yet more proof of three basic obvious logical facts:*

1. Apple advertises (brilliantly so) the illusion of privacy
2. Where Apple plays up where they are more private, but,
3. Apple stays cleverly mum on the myriad ways they're less private

Such that, just like with Santa Claus brilliant advertising by parents

o *Only children believe in this imaginary privacy which doesn't exist*

As with Flat Earthers, don't expect Apologists to comprehend these facts

o *Apologists have shown themselves to be utterly immune to facts*

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-05 12:50 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:44:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but you've become tedious.
>>
>> You've yet to prove that Apple is no better than other companies at privacy.
>>
>> You've yet to even try to support it.
>>
>> Showing that Apple has issues where they've failed doesn't prove anything.
>
> FACTS.
>
> What's interesting is that facts to apologists are like Santa Claus to kids
> o Apple's brilliant marketing of the _illusion_ of privacy is what they believe
>
> The proof is that the child-like apologists have provided exactly 0 facts
> backing their claims, and yet, it's trivial for intelligent adults to
> provide facts backing up exactly what the subject line of this thread
> claims.
>
> For example, from a while ago, well before this new privacy hole leaked:
> o Talking Tech: Is Apple really better about privacy? Here's what we found out
> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/04/17/apple-make-simpler-download-your-privacy-data-year/521786002/>
>

"As we discovered when we downloaded our data directly back from
Facebook and Google, the social network had made copies of every photo
I'd ever posted and held onto phone numbers, addresses and names of my
friends. Google had kept copies of every search made, including ones
conducted in "Incognito" mode, which is advertised as private searching."

(Verbatim)

And you surely will never quote this from the same author, following up
on that article:

'The zip file I eventually received from Apple was tiny, only 9
megabytes, compared to 243 MB from Google and 881 MB from Facebook. And
there's not much there, because Apple says the information is primarily
kept on your device, not its servers. The one sentence highlight: a list
of my downloads, purchases and repairs, but not my search histories
through the Siri personal assistant or the Safari browser.

...

Apple makes a big deal about its different approach to privacy on the
company website, and it paints quite an effective selling proposition
for buying an iPhone vs. a Samsung Galaxy or Google Pixel phone.

Paul-Olivier Dehaye, who runs the PersonalData.IO website from
Switzerland, gives Apple generally good marks for its approach to
privacy. "By keeping everything on the device, their incentives are
better," Dehaye says.

Overall, Apple keeps less data on me than Facebook or Google. Once you
read it, it's more of a shrug.'

<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/05/04/asked-apple-everything-had-me-heres-what-got/558362002/>

Or that he wrote in another article:

'“If I were only to compare the privacy of iOS and Android as operating
systems, iOS is the clear winner," said Paul Bischoff, a privacy
advocate with Comparitech.com. "Yes, it collects personal data, but that
data is not sold to third parties. Unlike Google, Apple is not an
advertising company and does not need to share your data with third
parties to make money."'

<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2019/06/28/apple-touts-iphone-privacy-features-iphone-but-beware-apps-watch/1492715001/>"

So thank you...

...for proving yourself full of it...

...with facts.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-05 12:58 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:20:03 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Until you show a comparison between Apple and it's competitors they're
>> useless.
>

> FACTS...

...as exposed by your article:

'"As we discovered when we downloaded our data directly back from

Facebook and Google, the social network had made copies of every photo
I'd ever posted and held onto phone numbers, addresses and names of my
friends. Google had kept copies of every search made, including ones

conducted in "Incognito" mode, which is advertised as private searching." '

And from the same author:

[nospam]

In article <qia1ov$uq2$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Notice it's trivial for others to refute everything I say with facts

ftfy

[Alan Baker]

As I just did...

...from HIS OWN SOURCES!

:-)

[Lloyd Parsons]

Careful, he’ll next point to a google usenet post of some idiotic thread he
started! :)

--
Lloyd

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 16:26:48 -0400, nospam wrote:

> ftfy

Think about this fact, nospam...
o Google can find and delete your privately recorded conversations
o *Apple refuses to delete your privately recorded conversations*
(even though they contain precise time & location stamps!)

I repeat, Apple does NOT allow you to delete your privately recorded data.
o Google does.

Think about that fact nospam.
o Think.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:28:16 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> As I just did...
>
> ...from HIS OWN SOURCES!
>
> :-)

Hi Alan,

*What I _love_ when you post is that you prove my point for me*

Think again about that fact Alan Baker.
o *Google can find & delete your privately recorded conversations*

o *Apple refuses to delete your privately recorded conversations*

*(even though they contain precise time & location stamps!)*

In summary:
1. Apple is sometimes more private - which they advertise the hell out of.
2. Apple is often not more private - which they keep mum about.
3. In the end, neither platform is private since it's a sum total situation
(the recent Siri/Alexa fiasco is an example where none were private)

Both you & nospam (& Sandman) prove to be utter morons, in every post.
o I listed _plenty_ of ways that Apple is _less_ private, Alan.

But let's play your silly game and choose the _one_ way you claim, that
Apple is more private, shall we?

Just like Apple Marketind does, you ignored the many privacy related facts
in this article, Alan Baker.

o Is Apple Really Your Privacy Hero?

<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero>

Instead, much like Apple Marketing does, you cherry picked (much like
nospam does) only the parts that showed Apple in a good light - but you
ignored the parts that showed that Apple is no better than anyone else.

o Talking Tech: *Is Apple really better about privacy?* Here's what we found out
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/04/17/apple-make-simpler-download-your-privacy-data-year/521786002/>

The fact you focused on was this statement in that article, Alan:

"As we discovered when we downloaded our data directly back from
Facebook and Google, the social network had made copies of every photo
I'd ever posted and held onto phone numbers, addresses and names of my
friends. Google had kept copies of every search made, including ones
conducted in "Incognito" mode, which is advertised as private searching." '

First off, the main point was that Google made it _easy_ for you to assess
what they have on you while Apple made it nearly impossible - which means -
as you must be aware - that most people won't do it.

What you missed, Alan, is that Google can _delete_ the recording data it
has saved on you - and yet - Apple can't even find it - let alone delete it
- even though it contains your most private of conversations, Alan Baker.

Think about that.
o Apple has precise time and location data of very private recordings of
yours that you don't even know that they have - and yet - Apple won't and
says they can't _delete_ them.

Think again about that fact Alan Baker.

o Google can find and delete your privately recorded conversations

o Apple refuses to delete your privately recorded conversations

(even though they contain precise time & location stamps!)

I repeat, Apple does NOT allow you to delete your privately recorded data.
o Google does.

Think about that fact Alan Baker.
o Think.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:13:58 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> ...for proving yourself full of it...

What I love about you Alan, is you prove my point every time you post.

This is an adult intelligent well informed logical balanced asssessment.
1. Apple is more private on some things
2. Apple is far less private on others
3. In the end, they're about the same.

What is your point, Alan Baker?
o Which of those statements above are you attempting to refute?

If you can show that Apple is more private than Google in one thing, then
congratulations - you've proven my point - which is that Apple Marketing
does the same thing.

But what about all the times Apple is _less_ private, Alan Baker?
o What's your response to that?

Privacy is not a single fact Alan Baker
o Privacy is a sum total of _all_ the facts, Alan Baker.

For example...
o *Google can find and delete your privately recorded conversations*
o *Apple _refuses_ to delete your privately recorded conversations

(even though they contain precise time & location stamps!)

I repeat, Apple does NOT allow you to delete your privately recorded data.
o Google does.

It's the sum total of _all_ the facts that matter Alan Baker.

It's as if you're trying to prove Santa Claus exists because you saw him at
the local mall. Sure .... but that's not the sum total of the facts, Alan.

What's your response to the fact that Apple refuses to delete your
privately recorded data Alan, even though they have precise time & location
stamps?

HINT: No bullshit - what's Apple's response to that fact, Alan Baker?
HINT: They don't give a shit about your privacy - that's what Apple's
response is - they have not said they will EVER delete your privately
recorded data, Alan Baker.

My position is clear:
a. Apple advertises the hell out of where they're more private
b. But Apple clearly has plenty of places where they're not
c. Overall, no cellphone OS maker is "more private".

Given the facts, what's your position, Alan Baker on this topic of privacy?

[nospam]

In article <qib37s$mts$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder

<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> I repeat, Apple does NOT allow you to delete your privately recorded data.

that's because it's not linked to you.

<https://www.cnet.com/news/theres-a-privacy-explanation-for-why-apple-do
esnt-let-you-delete-siri-recordings/>
Unlike Google and Amazon, which collect voice data and associate
it with an individual account, Apple's Siri recordings are given a
random identifier each time the voice assistant is activated. That
practice means Apple can't find your specific voice recordings. It
also means voice recordings can't be traced back to a specific
account or device. It may sound counterintuitive, but that's actually
a privacy feature.
...
"When Siri is turned on, the device creates random identifiers for
use with the voice recognition and Siri servers," the paper says.
"These identifiers are used only within Siri and are utilized to
improve the service. If Siri is subsequently turned off, the device
will generate a new random identifier to be used if Siri is turned
back on."

This is the key difference between Siri and Google Assistant or
Alexa. It's easy to delete data from Google and Amazon because
your recordings are associated with your account. Go to your account
settings to remove the recordings the tech giants have on you. Google
and Amazon tie audio recordings to people's accounts because they
can use it for personalization. 

Apple doesn't rely on ad revenue for its profits. It makes money
by selling hardware and services, Sure, it has lots of audio data.
But unless a user talks about personally identifiable information,
Apple can't know whose data it is.

note the last sentence:
Apple can't know whose data it is.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 04:37:24 -0400, nospam wrote:

> note the last sentence:
> Apple can't know whose data it is.

Hi nospam,

Please put your brain in gear for once.
o You whooshed on the main point since you didn't comprehend the facts.

You think I don't know that Apple says they can't find your data?
o You're an idiot if you think that as it's fundamental to the point (that you missed)

The fact is that this is bad news for Siri customers' privacy... because...
o Siri accidental private recordings contain precise time & location stamps!
o And yet, Apple _refuses_ to _delete_ them, en masse

Sure, Apple can't find them on a case-by-case basis...
o But they're _still_ private accidental recordings, nospam.
o And they still contain precise time & location stamps (e.g., your house)

*Apple doesn't give a shit about your privacy, nospam.*

Because Apple _refuses_ to delete them, en masse, nospam...
o That's pretty obvious case that Apple doesn't give a shit, nospam.

I realize this is adult sentient observant logic, nospam
o So there's likely zero chance you'll understand this train of thought

But, the fact is that
a. The recordings are accidental (for many of them)
b. They contain not only private accidental conversations
c. But they also contain precise time and location stamps (e.g., your home)
d. And yet, Apple _refuses_ to delete them.

Think about that fact before you respond with drivel, nospam.
o Apple only cares about your privacy when the shit hits the fan.

Otherwise, Apple is content to advertise the mere _illusion_ of privacy.
o And you apologists eat it up like kids eat up the illusion of Santa Claus

[Arlen G. Holder]

On 5 Aug 2019 21:09:47 GMT, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> Careful, he¢ll next point to a google usenet post of some idiotic thread he
> started! :)

What's interesting is that you apologists are completely immune to facts.
o You're like children immune to the fact that Santa Claus is imaginary.

1. Just like Santa Claus at the mall, Apple markets some aspects of privacy
2. But Apple stays mum on those aspects where they are WORSE in privacy
3. Where overall facts clearly show they're all about the same on privacy.

It doesn't dawn on you apologists that Apple cleverly markets the mere
_illusion_ of privacy just as it doesn't dawn on young children that their
parents cleverly market the mere illusion of Santa Claus.

Known Apple Apologistgs who are as immune to facts as are Flat Earthers:
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o Elfin <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o Lloyd <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Meanie <M...@gmail.com>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
o Sandman <m...@sandman.net> (hates any and all facts about Apple)
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-05 10:39 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:13:58 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> ...for proving yourself full of it...
>
> What I love about you Alan, is you prove my point every time you post.

Well it's not shock that you've snipped all the quotes I provided...

...from your own sources.

>
> This is an adult intelligent well informed logical balanced asssessment.
> 1. Apple is more private on some things
> 2. Apple is far less private on others
> 3. In the end, they're about the same.

Your own sources disagree:

'“If I were only to compare the privacy of iOS and Android as operating
systems, iOS is the clear winner," said Paul Bischoff, a privacy
advocate with Comparitech.com. "Yes, it collects personal data, but that
data is not sold to third parties. Unlike Google, Apple is not an
advertising company and does not need to share your data with third
parties to make money."'

Get that:

In privacy, "iOS is the clear winner,".

>
> What is your point, Alan Baker?
> o Which of those statements above are you attempting to refute?

2 and 3...

...with information from your own sources.

>
> If you can show that Apple is more private than Google in one thing, then
> congratulations - you've proven my point - which is that Apple Marketing
> does the same thing.

Nope. Proving Apple more private at something says nothing about what
Apple marketing does.

>
> But what about all the times Apple is _less_ private, Alan Baker?
> o What's your response to that?

What times would those be?

You have never produced a single example.

>
> Privacy is not a single fact Alan Baker
> o Privacy is a sum total of _all_ the facts, Alan Baker.
>
> For example...
> o *Google can find and delete your privately recorded conversations*

The can find them because they are tied to YOU.

> o *Apple _refuses_ to delete your privately recorded conversations
> (even though they contain precise time & location stamps!)

Apple's recordings aren't tied to you.

>
> I repeat, Apple does NOT allow you to delete your privately recorded data.
> o Google does.
>
> It's the sum total of _all_ the facts that matter Alan Baker.
>
> It's as if you're trying to prove Santa Claus exists because you saw him at
> the local mall. Sure .... but that's not the sum total of the facts, Alan.
>
> What's your response to the fact that Apple refuses to delete your
> privately recorded data Alan, even though they have precise time & location
> stamps?

Your source:

'Apple makes a big deal about its different approach to privacy on the

company website, and it paints quite an effective selling proposition
for buying an iPhone vs. a Samsung Galaxy or Google Pixel phone.

Paul-Olivier Dehaye, who runs the PersonalData.IO website from
Switzerland, gives Apple generally good marks for its approach to
privacy. "By keeping everything on the device, their incentives are
better," Dehaye says.

Overall, Apple keeps less data on me than Facebook or Google. Once you
read it, it's more of a shrug.'

>

> HINT: No bullshit - what's Apple's response to that fact, Alan Baker?
> HINT: They don't give a shit about your privacy - that's what Apple's
> response is - they have not said they will EVER delete your privately
> recorded data, Alan Baker.

Your source:

'Apple makes a big deal about its different approach to privacy on the

company website, and it paints quite an effective selling proposition
for buying an iPhone vs. a Samsung Galaxy or Google Pixel phone.

Paul-Olivier Dehaye, who runs the PersonalData.IO website from
Switzerland, gives Apple generally good marks for its approach to
privacy. "By keeping everything on the device, their incentives are
better," Dehaye says.

Overall, Apple keeps less data on me than Facebook or Google. Once you
read it, it's more of a shrug.'

>

> My position is clear:
> a. Apple advertises the hell out of where they're more private
> b. But Apple clearly has plenty of places where they're not
> c. Overall, no cellphone OS maker is "more private".
>
> Given the facts, what's your position, Alan Baker on this topic of privacy?

I'll accept your sources:

Your source:

'Apple makes a big deal about its different approach to privacy on the

company website, and it paints quite an effective selling proposition
for buying an iPhone vs. a Samsung Galaxy or Google Pixel phone.

Paul-Olivier Dehaye, who runs the PersonalData.IO website from
Switzerland, gives Apple generally good marks for its approach to
privacy. "By keeping everything on the device, their incentives are
better," Dehaye says.

Overall, Apple keeps less data on me than Facebook or Google. Once you
read it, it's more of a shrug.'

And:

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-06 2:16 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 04:37:24 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> note the last sentence:
>> Apple can't know whose data it is.
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> Please put your brain in gear for once.
> o You whooshed on the main point since you didn't comprehend the facts.
>
> You think I don't know that Apple says they can't find your data?
> o You're an idiot if you think that as it's fundamental to the point (that you missed)
>
> The fact is that this is bad news for Siri customers' privacy... because...
> o Siri accidental private recordings contain precise time & location stamps!
> o And yet, Apple _refuses_ to _delete_ them, en masse

Here is a precise time and location stamp:

15:30:00PDT, August 6, 2019
Corner of Yew and Cornwall, Vancouver, BC, CANADA

What use is that to you if you don't know with whom it is associated?

[Arlone G. Trolder]

Feed, feed me do
You know I troll you
I've no-one to talk to
So please, feed me do
Whoa, feed me do

Someone to bait
Somebody new
Someone who'll bite
Someone like you

Feed, feed me do
You know I troll you
I've no-one to talk to
So please, feed me do
Whoa, feed me do

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:28:26 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2019-08-05 10:39 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:13:58 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> ...for proving yourself full of it...
>>
>> What I love about you Alan, is you prove my point every time you post.
>
> Well it's not shock that you've snipped all the quotes I provided...
>
> ...from your own sources.
>
>>
>> This is an adult intelligent well informed logical balanced asssessment.
>> 1. Apple is more private on some things
>> 2. Apple is far less private on others
>> 3. In the end, they're about the same.
>
> Your own sources disagree:
>

> '的f I were only to compare the privacy of iOS and Android as operating

> '的f I were only to compare the privacy of iOS and Android as operating

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:28:26 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> '´If I were only to compare the privacy of iOS and Android as operating

> systems, iOS is the clear winner," said Paul Bischoff, a privacy
> advocate with Comparitech.com. "Yes, it collects personal data, but that
> data is not sold to third parties.

Hi Alan Baker,

Notice that intelligent well-informed adults can see through the lies.
o Just as kids, when they grow up, see through the Santa Clause lie

The facts clearly show Apple _lied_ three times this week:
a. *Apple lied in their security policy* (call it "lack of transparency")
b. *Apple lied about identifiable information* (time & location & voice)
c. *Apple lied about not being able to delete* (they can delete, en masse)

You can play semantic games and call those lies "fibs", or "obfuscations",
or even, "lack of transparency" - just as they did with the secret,
drastic, and permanent throttling lies, but in the end, they're still lies.

Since I'm an intelligent well-informed adult, I'm not saying Google is
worse than Apple - but I am saying they're the same.

The main difference is thus:
o *Apple advertises the hell out of the mere _illusion_ of privacy.*

You ill-informed unintelligent people _believe_ only what Apple says.
o You Apologists are as immune to facts as are Flat Earthers.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:30:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Here is a precise time and location stamp:
>
> 15:30:00PDT, August 6, 2019
> Corner of Yew and Cornwall, Vancouver, BC, CANADA
>
> What use is that to you if you don't know with whom it is associated?

Hi Alan Baker,

My argument is based on being an intelligent informed adult
o What is _your_ argument based upon, Alan Baker?

*You apologists own the same minds as do the Flat Earthers.*

Are you _really_ so ill informed that you don't even realize that the
person's exact spoken words are not only recorded accidentally by Siri
(simply by raising their arm or by using a zipper), but that they were
_listened_ to by poorly vetted transients in Ireland for Christs' sake?

*And, that everyone but Apple will _delete_ those private recordings?*

Apple _refuses_ to delete these extremely personal recordings which contain
your actual words, and the exact time and place you said them.

Google and Amazon _will_ delete them if you ask; Apple "says" they can't
(but, of course, that's yet another lie - since they can).

The point isn't that Apple lies all the time - the point is simply
1. Apple touts the mere _illusion_ of privacy
2. By cleverly marketing where Apple has an edge on privacy
3. But privacy isn't just what Apple cherry picks to market

Privacy is a _lot_ of things which informed adults can comprehend.
o In the end, none of the common consumer platforms are private.

My argument is based on being an intelligent informed adult
o What is _your_ argument based upon, Alan Baker?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:30:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Here is a precise time and location stamp:
>
> 15:30:00PDT, August 6, 2019
> Corner of Yew and Cornwall, Vancouver, BC, CANADA
>
> What use is that to you if you don't know with whom it is associated?

Hi Alan Baker,

FACTS

They _also_ have your exact accidentally recorded private conversation at
that time and location.

Fact is:
o Google lets you choose to delete those private recorded conversations
o *Apple _refuses_ to delete any of those private recorded conversations*

You don't have to like those facts - but they're still facts nonetheless.

[nospam]

In article <qieuah$d8$2...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder

<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Notice that intelligent well-informed adults can see through the lies.

they do that with every post you make

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-07 9:30 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:28:26 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> '´If I were only to compare the privacy of iOS and Android as operating
>> systems, iOS is the clear winner," said Paul Bischoff, a privacy
>> advocate with Comparitech.com. "Yes, it collects personal data, but that
>> data is not sold to third parties.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Notice that intelligent well-informed adults can see through the lies.
> o Just as kids, when they grow up, see through the Santa Clause lie
>
> The facts clearly show Apple _lied_ three times this week:
> a. *Apple lied in their security policy* (call it "lack of transparency")

No. They didn't.

> b. *Apple lied about identifiable information* (time & location & voice)

No. They didn't.

> c. *Apple lied about not being able to delete* (they can delete, en masse)

No. They didn't.

>
> You can play semantic games and call those lies "fibs", or "obfuscations",
> or even, "lack of transparency" - just as they did with the secret,
> drastic, and permanent throttling lies, but in the end, they're still lies.
>
> Since I'm an intelligent well-informed adult, I'm not saying Google is
> worse than Apple - but I am saying they're the same.

Too bad your own source says different.

Why should I believe you over them?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-07 9:30 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:30:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Here is a precise time and location stamp:
>>
>> 15:30:00PDT, August 6, 2019
>> Corner of Yew and Cornwall, Vancouver, BC, CANADA
>>
>> What use is that to you if you don't know with whom it is associated?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> My argument is based on being an intelligent informed adult
> o What is _your_ argument based upon, Alan Baker?

I notice you didn't answer my question.

>
> *You apologists own the same minds as do the Flat Earthers.*
>
> Are you _really_ so ill informed that you don't even realize that the
> person's exact spoken words are not only recorded accidentally by Siri
> (simply by raising their arm or by using a zipper), but that they were
> _listened_ to by poorly vetted transients in Ireland for Christs' sake?

"poorly vetted transients in Ireland"?

Can you provide support for any of that? And no: a Usenet reference is
not adequate support.

>
> *And, that everyone but Apple will _delete_ those private recordings?*
>
> Apple _refuses_ to delete these extremely personal recordings which contain
> your actual words, and the exact time and place you said them.

Except those words are not associated with the person who said them.

>
> Google and Amazon _will_ delete them if you ask; Apple "says" they can't
> (but, of course, that's yet another lie - since they can).

Quote and link.

>
> The point isn't that Apple lies all the time - the point is simply
> 1. Apple touts the mere _illusion_ of privacy
> 2. By cleverly marketing where Apple has an edge on privacy
> 3. But privacy isn't just what Apple cherry picks to market

Your own sources clearly state that Apple provides the most privacy:

'“If I were only to compare the privacy of iOS and Android as operating

systems, iOS is the clear winner," said Paul Bischoff, a privacy
advocate with Comparitech.com. "Yes, it collects personal data, but that

data is not sold to third parties. Unlike Google, Apple is not an
advertising company and does not need to share your data with third
parties to make money."'



>

> Privacy is a _lot_ of things which informed adults can comprehend.
> o In the end, none of the common consumer platforms are private.

None of the consumer platforms are PERFECTLY private. Does that mean one
shouldn't pick the one with the best privacy one can get.

No car is perfectly safe in a crash. Does that mean you shouldn't strive
to buy a car that is safer?

>
> My argument is based on being an intelligent informed adult
> o What is _your_ argument based upon, Alan Baker?

Your own source.
>

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:11:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Can you provide support for any of that? And no: a Usenet reference is
> not adequate support.

Alan,

*You brazenly deny any & all facts about Apple that you simply don't like*

Did you not even read the _original_ Siri article from the Guardian?
o Really?

Did you not even read the seminal Siri article from the Washington Post?
O Really?

You didn't even comprehend a _single_ fact on this Siri fiasco Alan?
o Such that you don't even know the most basic of the reported facts!

Those links have been posted _many_ times already, Alan Baker.
o Like Flat Earthers, you apologists are always utterly immune to facts*?

*You brazenly deny any & all facts about Apple that you simply don't like*
o Yes. Poorly vetted transient employees in Ireland.

o As with the Flat Earthers...
You apologists always prove to be utterly _immune_ to even simple facts!

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 09:56:05 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Too bad your own source says different.

Hi Alan,

FACTS
*Let's see if you apologists have any adult capabilities Alan, shall we?*
o Since you brazenly deny facts, why don't you tell us what Apple said?

a. *Apple lied in their security policy* (call it "lack of transparency")

o Did Apple's security policy tell the consumer that people, non Apple
people, and in fact, third-party contractors not even in the USA, but
people nonetheless - were listening to millions of accidental recordings
daily?

Yes, or no, Alan Baker?

b. *Apple lied about identifiable information* (time & location & voice)

o Do those millions of accidental recordings (many recorded simply by
moving your arm upward, even down to zipping a zipper, but most of which
were recorded when something remotely similar to the word "Siri" was used)
come stamped with precise location and time data, or not? And, if they do,
what exactly did Apple _say_ about this fact, Alan Baker?

What are Apple's exact words, Alan Baker (which Jolly Roger himself
reported, in fact)?

c. *Apple lied about not being able to delete* (they can delete, en masse)

o While both Google and Amazon allow deletion at will, and, even more
importantly, since the data is under Apple's control that Apple can delete
the recordings any time Apple wants to delete them (en masse), what is
Apple's statement when people _ask_ for Apple to delete their private
accidental recordings?

What are Apple's exact words, Alan - where - again - even Jolly Roger,
admittedly one of the dumbest of all Apple Apologists - even JR already
posted Apple's exact words, Alan Baker.

In short, Alan Baker, you deny these three facts where all an adult can ask
of you is for you to provide the answer to the _simplest_ of questions
above, of:
A. What is the truth of what happened, versus
B. What is the excuse that Apple provides for why it happened?

FACTS.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 12:36:52 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> Notice that intelligent well-informed adults can see through the lies.
>
> they do that with every post you make

Hi nospam,
Notice I present well-informed always backed up facts
o You apologists _hate_ facts; so you play silly games when you see facts.

Why do you apologists always hate facts about Apple products?
o I don't know why.

I think it's because your entire belief system is imaginary
o Your belief system is crafted by (admittedly clever) Apple Marketing

Just as Flat Earthers are immune to facts...
o And just as children are immune to the fact Santa Claus is imaginary

You apologists prove to own the same brain as Flat Earthers & children.
o You're utterly _immune_ to facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-07 9:30 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:30:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Here is a precise time and location stamp:
>>
>> 15:30:00PDT, August 6, 2019
>> Corner of Yew and Cornwall, Vancouver, BC, CANADA
>>
>> What use is that to you if you don't know with whom it is associated?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FACTS

Fact: you failed to answer my question.

>
> They _also_ have your exact accidentally recorded private conversation at
> that time and location.

But they don't know WHO said it, twit-boy.

>
> Fact is:
> o Google lets you choose to delete those private recorded conversations

If you figure that out...

...and until you figure it out they DO know who said those things and
they DO use that to sell you out.

> o *Apple _refuses_ to delete any of those private recorded conversations*

Because they're not tied to anyone.

>
> You don't have to like those facts - but they're still facts nonetheless.
>

Here's a fact:

'“If I were only to compare the privacy of iOS and Android as operating
systems, iOS is the clear winner," said Paul Bischoff, a privacy
advocate with Comparitech.com. "Yes, it collects personal data, but that
data is not sold to third parties. Unlike Google, Apple is not an
advertising company and does not need to share your data with third
parties to make money."'

At least, it's as much a fact as anything you've ever claimed...

...and the source is one you insist is authoritative.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-07 1:10 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:11:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Can you provide support for any of that? And no: a Usenet reference is
>> not adequate support.
>
> Alan,
>
> *You brazenly deny any & all facts about Apple that you simply don't like*

You brazenly call things facts that you do not support.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-07 8:30 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 09:56:05 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Too bad your own source says different.
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> FACTS
> *Let's see if you apologists have any adult capabilities Alan, shall we?*
> o Since you brazenly deny facts, why don't you tell us what Apple said?
>
> a. *Apple lied in their security policy* (call it "lack of transparency")
> o Did Apple's security policy tell the consumer that people, non Apple
> people, and in fact, third-party contractors not even in the USA, but
> people nonetheless - were listening to millions of accidental recordings
> daily?
>
> Yes, or no, Alan Baker?

Apple's policy ("Privacy", not "security") tells people that, yes.

>
> b. *Apple lied about identifiable information* (time & location & voice)

Nope.

> o Do those millions of accidental recordings (many recorded simply by
> moving your arm upward, even down to zipping a zipper, but most of which
> were recorded when something remotely similar to the word "Siri" was used)
> come stamped with precise location and time data, or not? And, if they do,
> what exactly did Apple _say_ about this fact, Alan Baker?
>
> What are Apple's exact words, Alan Baker (which Jolly Roger himself
> reported, in fact)?

Why should I provide Apple's words when you never provide any actual quotes?

>
> c. *Apple lied about not being able to delete* (they can delete, en masse)

Nope. They did not:

> o While both Google and Amazon allow deletion at will, and, even more
> importantly, since the data is under Apple's control that Apple can delete
> the recordings any time Apple wants to delete them (en masse), what is
> Apple's statement when people _ask_ for Apple to delete their private
> accidental recordings?

'After the “clear, unambiguous audio trigger” has been recognized by the
iPhone, processing specific voice commands to Siri is generally done on
Apple servers. Recordings are saved, but not under the user’s Apple ID
but under a random device identifier. All it takes to erase these
recordings is to toggle Siri Dictation off then on again.'

<https://www.cultofmac.com/568469/iphone-privacy-house-representative-questions/>

>
> What are Apple's exact words, Alan - where - again - even Jolly Roger,
> admittedly one of the dumbest of all Apple Apologists - even JR already
> posted Apple's exact words, Alan Baker.
>
> In short, Alan Baker, you deny these three facts where all an adult can ask
> of you is for you to provide the answer to the _simplest_ of questions
> above, of:
> A. What is the truth of what happened, versus
> B. What is the excuse that Apple provides for why it happened?
>
> FACTS.
>

When you finally present some, let us know.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:16:57 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Apple's policy ("Privacy", not "security") tells people that, yes.

Hi Alan Baker,

You Apologists brazenly deny facts that absolutely NOBODY reliable denies!

All those facts are reported in reliable media (cites given many times)
o Washington Post <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/02/apple-says-its-contractors-will-stop-listening-users-through-siri/>
o Guardian <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>
o Venture Beat <https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/02/apple-and-google-halt-human-voice-data-reviews-over-privacy-backlash-but-transparency-is-the-real-issue/>

Like a Flat Earther, you probably actually _believe_ what you write, even
though the FACTS show it's all over the news that Apple did NOT tell anyone
on this planet that humans (particularly non-Apple humans in Ireland, for
example) were listening to millions of accidentally recorded conversations
daily.

HINT: HINT: Before making those brazen denials of fact... Alan Baker...
o Did you even _read_ the Washington Post article for heaven's sake?

>> b. *Apple lied about identifiable information* (time & location & voice)
>
> Nope.

Again, like a Flat Earther, you apologists likely _believe_ what you write,
yet the FACTS show that the reliable media has reported quite clearly that
_both_ precise location information and time are provided with the
accidentally recorded conversations that non-Apple contractors listened to
by the millions daily.

HINT: Before making those brazen denials of fact... Alan Baker...
o Did you even _read_ the original Guardian article for Christs' sake?

>> What are Apple's exact words, Alan Baker (which Jolly Roger himself
>> reported, in fact)?
>
> Why should I provide Apple's words when you never provide any actual quotes?

Jesus Christ, Alan Baker.
Even Jolly Roger - the dumbest of the dumb - already provided the quotes!


HINT: Before asking us to repeat already well-known facts.. Alan Baker...
o Did you even _read_ the VentureBeat article for God's sake?

You Apologists are like Flat Earthers - you're wholly _immune_ to facts.

> 'After the ⤽clear, unambiguous audio trigger has been recognized by the
> iPhone, processing specific voice commands to Siri is generally done on
> Apple servers. Recordings are saved, but not under the user's Apple ID
> but under a random device identifier. All it takes to erase these
> recordings is to toggle Siri Dictation off then on again.'
> <https://www.cultofmac.com/568469/iphone-privacy-house-representative-questions/>

You are an idiot, Alan Baker.
o Just like _all_ the Apple Apologists always prove to be.

You believe _only_ what Apple Marketing decides to cherry pick.
o And yet, you ignore any and all facts that Apple didn't state
(for very good reason, Alan - because Apple's response was cleverly
worded).

It's amazing how utterly incapable you apologists are at discerning facts.

The reliable media has already widely reported that, with that recording...
o Comes precise date stamps, and,
o Precise location stamps!

What's more _private_ than that, Alan Baker?
a. They have your exact words stated in the most private of moments
b. In your own bedroom in your own home (or wherever you are)
c. At all hours of the day and night (recorded & time stamped).

> When you finally present some, let us know.

Jesus Christ - you apologists are like Flat Earthers
o You own a belief system that NOBODY reliable has ever supported

The _only_ people who own the same wholly imaginary belief system
o Are the other apologists

You can't find a _single_ site on this planet that backs up your belief
o And yet, I've already provided plenty

You Apologists _always_ prove to own imaginary belief systems
o You're all like children who believe that Santa Claus exists

REFERENCES:
o Washington Post <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/02/apple-says-its-contractors-will-stop-listening-users-through-siri/>
o Guardian <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>
o Venture Beat <https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/02/apple-and-google-halt-human-voice-data-reviews-over-privacy-backlash-but-transparency-is-the-real-issue/>

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-08 1:39 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:16:57 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Apple's policy ("Privacy", not "security") tells people that, yes.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> You Apologists brazenly deny facts that absolutely NOBODY reliable denies!
>
> All those facts are reported in reliable media (cites given many times)
> o Washington Post <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/02/apple-says-its-contractors-will-stop-listening-users-through-siri/>
> o Guardian <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>
> o Venture Beat <https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/02/apple-and-google-halt-human-voice-data-reviews-over-privacy-backlash-but-transparency-is-the-real-issue/>

No quotes supporting your claim.

>
> Like a Flat Earther, you probably actually _believe_ what you write, even
> though the FACTS show it's all over the news that Apple did NOT tell anyone
> on this planet that humans (particularly non-Apple humans in Ireland, for
> example) were listening to millions of accidentally recorded conversations
> daily.
>
> HINT: HINT: Before making those brazen denials of fact... Alan Baker...
> o Did you even _read_ the Washington Post article for heaven's sake?

It's your job to present your support.

Not mine to go find it.

>
>>> b. *Apple lied about identifiable information* (time & location & voice)
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Again, like a Flat Earther, you apologists likely _believe_ what you write,
> yet the FACTS show that the reliable media has reported quite clearly that
> _both_ precise location information and time are provided with the
> accidentally recorded conversations that non-Apple contractors listened to
> by the millions daily.

Except those locations and times are NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY PERSON.

>
> HINT: Before making those brazen denials of fact... Alan Baker...
> o Did you even _read_ the original Guardian article for Christs' sake?

It's your job to present your support.

Not mine to go find it.

>
>
>>> What are Apple's exact words, Alan Baker (which Jolly Roger himself
>>> reported, in fact)?
>>
>> Why should I provide Apple's words when you never provide any actual quotes?
>
> Jesus Christ, Alan Baker.
> Even Jolly Roger - the dumbest of the dumb - already provided the quotes!

The quote them.

Make sure you provide a source.

>
>
> HINT: Before asking us to repeat already well-known facts.. Alan Baker...
> o Did you even _read_ the VentureBeat article for God's sake?
>
> You Apologists are like Flat Earthers - you're wholly _immune_ to facts.
>

>> 'After the ⤽clear, unambiguous audio trigger has been recognized by the

>> iPhone, processing specific voice commands to Siri is generally done on
>> Apple servers. Recordings are saved, but not under the user's Apple ID
>> but under a random device identifier. All it takes to erase these
>> recordings is to toggle Siri Dictation off then on again.'
>> <https://www.cultofmac.com/568469/iphone-privacy-house-representative-questions/>
>
> You are an idiot, Alan Baker.
> o Just like _all_ the Apple Apologists always prove to be.

None of that refutes a single part of what I just quoted...

...and referenced...

...as you never do.

>
> You believe _only_ what Apple Marketing decides to cherry pick.

That didn't come from Apple Marketing.

> o And yet, you ignore any and all facts that Apple didn't state
> (for very good reason, Alan - because Apple's response was cleverly
> worded).

And yet you do not produce those facts, nor the link to where they
supposedly come from.

>
> It's amazing how utterly incapable you apologists are at discerning facts.
>
> The reliable media has already widely reported that, with that recording...
> o Comes precise date stamps, and,

But not associated with any particular person.

> o Precise location stamps!

But not associated with any particular person.

> What's more _private_ than that, Alan Baker?

It's only private if people know it is connected to YOU.

> a. They have your exact words stated in the most private of moments

Except they don't have the "YOUR".

> b. In your own bedroom in your own home (or wherever you are)
> c. At all hours of the day and night (recorded & time stamped).

Except they don't know WHO said them.

>
>> When you finally present some, let us know.
>
> Jesus Christ - you apologists are like Flat Earthers
> o You own a belief system that NOBODY reliable has ever supported

Not a fact.

>
> The _only_ people who own the same wholly imaginary belief system
> o Are the other apologists

Not a fact.

>
> You can't find a _single_ site on this planet that backs up your belief
> o And yet, I've already provided plenty

It's "cite" and I provided quotes from the very source you implied we
should accept as authoritative.

>
> You Apologists _always_ prove to own imaginary belief systems
> o You're all like children who believe that Santa Claus exists
>
> REFERENCES:
> o Washington Post <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/02/apple-says-its-contractors-will-stop-listening-users-through-siri/>

But no quote.

> o Guardian <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>

But no quote.

> o Venture Beat <https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/02/apple-and-google-halt-human-voice-data-reviews-over-privacy-backlash-but-transparency-is-the-real-issue/>

But no quote.

[Arlen George Holder]

> Notice Apologists _never_ have facts backing up their imaginary claims
> o They're like Flat Earthers - in that they're utterly immune to facts

Yet more positive proof Apple doesn't test security/privacy sufficiently.
<https://threatpost.com/researchers-bypass-apple-faceid-using-biometrics-achilles-heel>

The reputable hackers, in a reputable forum, clearly identified untested
flaws that Apple, themselves, never finds (Apple relies on others to find
their flaws, where it was already shown Google projects find many).

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2019/08/10/apples-iphone-faceid-hacked-in-less-than-120-seconds/>
"*The researchers found a flaw* in the liveness detection function of the
biometric authentication system that is *used by Apple* for unlocking an
iPhone using FaceID."


See also the Usenet potluck discussion on the topic on the Apple ngs...
o Face ID hacked
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/0R6YbNRpO7c>

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-08-12 2:11 p.m., Arlen George Holder wrote:
>> Notice Apologists _never_ have facts backing up their imaginary claims
>> o They're like Flat Earthers - in that they're utterly immune to facts
>

> Yet more positive proof...

That the only person with whom you'll actually engage...

...is yourself?

:-)