European Commission sober! iMessage is not to be designated a "core platform service".

[Alan Browne]

<<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>

https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

Oddly: "Meta, meanwhile, has seen two of its messaging platforms,
WhatsApp and Messenger, designated as core platform services under the
DMA, and has been working to make them interoperable with third-party
services."

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> <<< Apple?s iMessage is not being designated as a ?core platform
> service? under the European Union?s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the

> European Commission announced today. The decision means the service

> won?t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to

> offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission

> also opted against designating Microsoft?s Edge browser, Bing search

> engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
>
> https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

So *this* time Apple is happy for doing *not* so well in the EU/
Europe! :-) (Same for Microsoft.)

> Oddly: "Meta, meanwhile, has seen two of its messaging platforms,
> WhatsApp and Messenger, designated as core platform services under the
> DMA, and has been working to make them interoperable with third-party
> services."

Don't know about (Facebook) Messenger (I don't know anybody who uses
Messenger [1]), but the non-requirement for iMessage and the requirement
for WhatsApp are obvious. As has been said many, many times, iMessage is
used very little in the EU, *because* WhatsApp is the major platform
with 90+% penetration rates in most European countries.

<https://www.doofinder.com/en/statistics/who-uses-whatsapp-the-most>

[1] Somewhat funny: The Messenger page (<https://www.messenger.com>)
doesn't even have a button/link for the Android app (but at the bottom
it has a trademark notice for "Google Play"), but of course there is a
Messenger app for Android.

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-15 11:08, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> <<< Apple?s iMessage is not being designated as a ?core platform
>> service? under the European Union?s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
>> European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
>> won?t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
>> offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
>> also opted against designating Microsoft?s Edge browser, Bing search
>> engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
>>
>> https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service
>
> So *this* time Apple is happy for doing *not* so well in the EU/
> Europe! :-) (Same for Microsoft.)
>

Apple claim 101M iCloud users in Europe. How many of those use iMessage
is another issue - but it is certainly not 0 as recent messages I've
exchanged with a few people in France, Germany and Italy attest.

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-02-15 11:08, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> <<< Apple?s iMessage is not being designated as a ?core platform
> >> service? under the European Union?s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
> >> European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
> >> won?t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
> >> offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
> >> also opted against designating Microsoft?s Edge browser, Bing search
> >> engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
> >>
> >> https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service
> >
> > So *this* time Apple is happy for doing *not* so well in the EU/
> > Europe! :-) (Same for Microsoft.)
> >
> Apple claim 101M iCloud users in Europe. How many of those use iMessage
> is another issue - but it is certainly not 0

No, of course it's not zero, but it's very small compared to the
number of WhatsApp users. For example in our country, The Netherlands,
the number of WhatsApp users is 75% of the *total* population, including
anything from babies to very old people.

> as recent messages I've
> exchanged with a few people in France, Germany and Italy attest.

Of course those people will try to accomodate poor deprived USAsians.
They wouldn't want you (or themselves) need to fall back to SMS, would
they now!? :-)

But seriously, people use what they think is best in any given
situation. I for example am paying in USD when in the US, as, for some
strange reason, trying to pay in EUR is frowned upon.

[badgolferman]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> <<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
> service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
> European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
> won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
> offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
> also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
> engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
>
> https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service
>
> Oddly: "Meta, meanwhile, has seen two of its messaging platforms,
> WhatsApp and Messenger, designated as core platform services under the
> DMA, and has been working to make them interoperable with third-party
> services."
>

I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
Facebook does.

[Carlos E.R.]

No.

It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
enough.

Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
other way round.



--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 15.02.24 um 21:36 schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> For example in our country, The Netherlands,

> the number of WhatsApp users is 75% of the*total* population, including

> anything from babies to very old people.

A claim of a stupid and brain dead Dutch Troll.
No proof of the claim.

--
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 16.02.24 um 14:47 schrieb Carlos E.R.:

> On 2024-02-16 00:47, badgolferman wrote:
>> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> <<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
>>> service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
>>> European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
>>> won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
>>> offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
>>> also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
>>> engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
>>>
>>> https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service
>>>
>>> Oddly: "Meta, meanwhile, has seen two of its messaging platforms,
>>> WhatsApp and Messenger, designated as core platform services under the
>>> DMA, and has been working to make them interoperable with third-party
>>> services."
>>>
>>
>> I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
>> Facebook does.
>>
>
> No.
>
> It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
> negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
> enough.

You are exactly as stupid and brain dead as your Dutch Troll-friend:
That only serves the purpose to minimise bureaucracy and the cost
involved. The threshold is set accordingly.

You - like always - do not have an in depth understanding of the
involved legal and economic considerations of the new law. Further
discussions would have a bigot character. You are teenager-style fan-boy.

[Arno Welzel]

Jörg Lorenz, 2024-02-17 09:29:

> Am 15.02.24 um 21:36 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
>> For example in our country, The Netherlands,
>> the number of WhatsApp users is 75% of the*total* population, including
>> anything from babies to very old people.
>
> A claim of a stupid and brain dead Dutch Troll.
> No proof of the claim.

<https://www.statista.com/statistics/880842/number-of-whatsapp-users-in-the-netherlands/>

<https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/netherlands-population/>

Netherlands has a population of about 17.6 million people and a the same
time there are about 13.3 million WhatsApp users.

Just do the math: 13.3 / 17.6 * 100 = 75.57 (rounded to two decimals)




--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[Carlos E.R.]

LOL.
--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Arno Welzel]

Jörg Lorenz, 2024-02-17 09:35:

> Am 16.02.24 um 14:47 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2024-02-16 00:47, badgolferman wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> <<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
>>>> service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
>>>> European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
>>>> won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
>>>> offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
>>>> also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
>>>> engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service

[...]

>> It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
>> negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
>> enough.
>
> You are exactly as stupid and brain dead as your Dutch Troll-friend:
> That only serves the purpose to minimise bureaucracy and the cost
> involved. The threshold is set accordingly.

Well - Microsoft Edge and Bing are not considered a "core platform
service" due to their low market share.

See for yourself:

<https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share>
<https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share>

Edge has a share of about 5% and Bing is just above 3% while Google
still dominates the market.

iMessage may be important in countries with a high market share of iOS
in general. But since the market share of iPhones is just about 30% in
Europe, most people rather use other messengers which are available on
Android as well.

> You - like always - do not have an in depth understanding of the
> involved legal and economic considerations of the new law. Further
> discussions would have a bigot character. You are teenager-style fan-boy.

And you have the "in depth understanding involved legal and economic
considerations of the new law"? Enlighten us! Any links for further reading?

[Andrew]

Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 23:12:24 +0100 :

> Edge has a share of about 5% and Bing is just above 3% while Google
> still dominates the market.

I wonder if Google doesn't dominate even more of the browser market than
even that much as there are many variants of the Chromium browser code.

Personally, I use Ungoogled Chromium, but there are many variants such as
Opera or Iron or Epic or Comodo Dragon or Torch or Brave (and so on), some
of which are probably not available on Apple platforms but all of which are
on Android and Windows platforms.

> iMessage may be important in countries with a high market share of iOS
> in general. But since the market share of iPhones is just about 30% in
> Europe, most people rather use other messengers which are available on
> Android as well.

While I own Apple iPhones, Android phones and Windows PCs, overall Market
share of the iPhone is around 16% world wide and under double that in
Europe and under double that in the USA where people have lots of money.

If peopel have a lot of money to waste, then they can very easily afford to
buy into the Apple model of making customers pay for what others get free.

The problem with the iPhone market share is simply that most of the world
can't afford Apple's model of making you pay for everything that should be
free (and is free) on all the other common consumer platforms except Apple.

Apple's predatory pricing model only works when money is no object,
and when the access to the cloud is also a given almost 100% of the time.

Which is the case in the rich countries but not so in most of the world.

>> You - like always - do not have an in depth understanding of the
>> involved legal and economic considerations of the new law. Further
>> discussions would have a bigot character. You are teenager-style fan-boy.
>
> And you have the "in depth understanding involved legal and economic
> considerations of the new law"? Enlighten us! Any links for further reading?

I'm not sure of the laws but it's clear to anyone with a brain that Apple
gets away with murder in the United States because of the free market
system not infringing upon companies where in Europe they have a more hands
on system of regulating anti-consumer excesses of the large corporations.

While there are companies who are more anti-consumer than Apple (such as
Big Tobacco is) nobody sensible would ever say Apple's decisions are for
the consumer so I for one am happy that the EU uses its power to remove
part of the shaft that Apple always shoves into its customers user base.

In the USA, the only regulatory powers used against Apple are the many
state lawsuits Apple seems to keep losing - at the rate of about one a year
but it's better to regulate Apple up front rather than after the fact.

In the USA, they make Apple start to care about consumers by fining Apple.
In Europe, they make Apple start to care about consumers by refining Apple.

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-17 17:12, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-02-17 09:35:
>
>> Am 16.02.24 um 14:47 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> On 2024-02-16 00:47, badgolferman wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>> <<< Apple’s iMessage is not being designated as a “core platform
>>>>> service” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the
>>>>> European Commission announced today. The decision means the service
>>>>> won’t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to
>>>>> offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission
>>>>> also opted against designating Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search
>>>>> engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service
>
> [...]
>
>>> It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
>>> negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
>>> enough.
>>
>> You are exactly as stupid and brain dead as your Dutch Troll-friend:
>> That only serves the purpose to minimise bureaucracy and the cost
>> involved. The threshold is set accordingly.
>
> Well - Microsoft Edge and Bing are not considered a "core platform
> service" due to their low market share.

Please cite where those are the reasons the newly sober European
Commission made that decision.


--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

[Frank Slootweg]

Jörg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 15.02.24 um 21:36 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> > For example in our country, The Netherlands,
> > the number of WhatsApp users is 75% of the*total* population, including
> > anything from babies to very old people.
>
> A claim of a stupid and brain dead Dutch Troll.
> No proof of the claim.

Well, this "stupid and brain dead Dutch Troll" has posted proof
several times, but, as usual, a certain Swiss denier always has his
fingers in his ears and his hands before his eyes, because he can't face
facts, especially not when it concerns WhatsApp.

But because you ask so nicely, see

From: Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
Subject: Re: New whatsapp contacts go in general contacs list, not in whatsapp's.
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Message-ID: <uomisj...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:23:49 -0000

which was a response to ... <drum roll> ...

> Jörg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.net> wrote:

And please note the "<nightmare alert!>".

[Frank Slootweg]

Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-02-17 09:35, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> > Am 16.02.24 um 14:47 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> >> On 2024-02-16 00:47, badgolferman wrote:
> >>> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>>> <<< Apple?s iMessage is not being designated as a ?core platform

> >>>> service? under the European Union?s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the

> >>>> European Commission announced today. The decision means the service

> >>>> won?t be hit with tough new obligations, including a requirement to

> >>>> offer interoperability with other messaging services. The Commission

> >>>> also opted against designating Microsoft?s Edge browser, Bing search

> >>>> engine, and advertising business as core platform services. >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/23990679/apple-imessage-european-union-digital-markets-act-core-platform-service
> >>>>
> >>>> Oddly: "Meta, meanwhile, has seen two of its messaging platforms,
> >>>> WhatsApp and Messenger, designated as core platform services under the
> >>>> DMA, and has been working to make them interoperable with third-party
> >>>> services."
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
> >>> Facebook does.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
> >> negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
> >> enough.
> >
> > You are exactly as stupid and brain dead as your Dutch Troll-friend:
> > That only serves the purpose to minimise bureaucracy and the cost
> > involved. The threshold is set accordingly.
> >
> > You - like always - do not have an in depth understanding of the
> > involved legal and economic considerations of the new law. Further
> > discussions would have a bigot character. You are teenager-style fan-boy.
> >
> >
>
> LOL.

I'm on the fence on whether Jörg's rants are funny or sad.

Have Jörg and 'Arlen' become one and the same person, i.e. no
arguments and only insults when someone posts something - like facts -
which 'they' do not like?

And if they've become one and the same person, is that bad or good?

Questions, questions, questions.

On the bright side, you and I apparently are "exactly as stupid and
brain dead", which I think is quite an accomplishment.

[Arno Welzel]

Alan Browne, 2024-02-18 02:07:

Well - that's the only logical reason. A system which is only used by
3-5% of all users can hardly be seen as "core platform service".

[badgolferman]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> I'm on the fence on whether Jörg's rants are funny or sad.

If George's rants are funny then he's just a clown. If George's rants
are sad then he's just an idiot. I'm not sure which is worse...

Personally I see him as a self-important elitist who is desperately
trying to establish himself as an authority on everything.

[Carlos E.R.]

My government did the same thing with telephone companies. They ordered
the big companies to accept interconnections from the smaller companies.
This had the funny side effect that my aunt, in small company A could
not phone her life old friend on company B, because both companies had
not an interconnection agreement and were not mandated to agree and
connect by force. They both could phone any one on the main companies,
but not one another.

Passed a few years, one company grew, and then the government added that
phone company to the list of dominant players, and ordered them to
accept connections from any other company.

Now my aunt could call her friend again :-)

And this was done following some EU directives that forced to open our
telephone market to competition.


It is how these things are done. iMessage is not a dominant player in
the European Union, just a fact. They are a minor player.


iMessage can, however, demand from WhatsApp to interconnect. The
reverse, no. Notice the wording: demand. WhatsApp is obligated to accept.

It is how politicians see these things.

IMHO, a bit silly. iMessage should be mandated to accept connections, IMHO.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Alan Browne]

IOW you don't know why, precisely, they made this decision.

[sms]

On 2/16/2024 5:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-02-16 00:47, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

>> I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
>> Facebook does.
>>
>
> No.
>
> It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
> negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
> enough.
>
> Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
> can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
> other way round.

Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
(much like WeChat in China).

Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

[Andrew]

sms wrote on Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:44:10 -0800 :

> iMessage is one of the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones
> over Android devices.

That's ridiculous.
If a platform can only run one messaging app - it's a dumb platform.

When I'm choosing a phone, the _last_ thing that matters in that decision
is what dime-a-dozen who-gives-a-shit messaging app it uses by default.

Anyone choosing the platform by what the default messaging app happens to
be at the moment doesn't understand anything about computers because the
whole point of a phone being "smart" is to run any app you want on it.

Picking a platform by app is like picking a phone by its default browser.
Or by its default mail user agent.
Or by it's default camera app.

These are computers.
Picking platforms by default app is as ridiculous as is anyone who does it.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-02-19, Andrew <and...@spam.net> wrote:
> sms wrote on Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:44:10 -0800 :
>
>> iMessage is one of the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones
>> over Android devices.
>
> That's ridiculous.

Nope, it's true.

> If a platform can only run one messaging app - it's a dumb platform.

You have to be incredibly ignorant to think iPhones can only run one
messaging app. Either that or this is your feeble attempt at erecting an
incredibly weak straw man. Either way you should be embarrassed.

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

JR

[badgolferman]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 5:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-02-16 00:47, badgolferman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
>>> Facebook does.
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
>> negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
>> enough.
>>
>> Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
>> can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
>> other way round.
>
> Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
> Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
> and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
> (much like WeChat in China).
>
> Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
> platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
> the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.
>

There’s also FaceTime which is quite popular among iOS users. Does Android
have a way to use that?

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2024-02-19 04:44, sms wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 5:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-02-16 00:47, badgolferman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
>>> Facebook does.
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
>> negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
>> enough.
>>
>> Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like
>> iMessage) can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like
>> WhatsApp). Not the other way round.
>
> Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
> Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
> and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
> (much like WeChat in China).
>
> Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
> platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
> the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.
>

Companies do not decide if a platform is core or not. Apple has no say
in this. It is the EU who decides who is core, for the purpose of
mandating to open their platform to competitors inside the EU.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Frank Slootweg]

> There?s also FaceTime which is quite popular among iOS users. Does Android

> have a way to use that?

Yes, it's called 'WhatsApp'! :-)

But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.

[badgolferman]

For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

[Andrew]

Jolly Roger wrote on 19 Feb 2024 06:16:36 GMT :

>> That's ridiculous.
>
> Nope, it's true.

I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision
to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger.

I'm not saying people don't do it.
I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.

>
>> If a platform can only run one messaging app - it's a dumb platform.
>
> You have to be incredibly ignorant to think iPhones can only run one
> messaging app. Either that or this is your feeble attempt at erecting an
> incredibly weak straw man. Either way you should be embarrassed.

I didn't say anything of the sort - so that strawman is all yours.

What sms said, which is what I was responding to, is that "At least in the
U.S., iMessage is one of the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones
over Android devices."

If a major reason for choosing a platform is the default messenger app,
which is a dime a dozen and easily replaced with far better messenger apps,
then that's an absurd way to choose a computer (which a "smart" phone is).

[Andrew]

badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:59:42 -0000 (UTC) :

>> But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.
>>
> For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
> personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

I've studied why people purchase each platform, partly by reading what each
platform advertises (for example, yellow iPhones are a big deal apparently)
where in general Apple advertises safety and style and not functionality.

People buy what the advertisers choose as believable selling points.
Whether or not those selling points have any merit.

Take "safety" for example, where it's many different things, right?
So how do you measure safety?

I know how advertisers do it.
Let's say there are ten things that determine safety for the most part.

Let's say one platform has 3 of those in the bag, 3 in doubt, and 3 of them
the platform loses big on, and one where it's a tie.

Which three major points does the platform that is advertising that it
provides safety at the expense of functionality going to advertise to you?

[AJL]

On 2/19/24 10:23 AM, Andrew wrote:
>badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:59:42 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.
>>>
>> For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
>> personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.
>
>I've studied why people purchase each platform, partly by reading what each
>platform advertises (for example, yellow iPhones are a big deal apparently)
>where in general Apple advertises safety and style and not functionality.



>People buy what the advertisers choose as believable selling points.
>Whether or not those selling points have any merit.

I buy Android stuff (phone and tablets) mainly because I'm used to the OS
and don't want to mess with a new system. I'm GUESSING many folks do the
same. Now as to WHICH Android stuff, advertising likely does play a part
with many...

[badgolferman]

Where did I mention safety? I was referring to what some people
consider the privacy of their personal information. It is believed
that Apple will make an effort to protect your privacy, whereas Google
and Facebook will make every effort to exploit and use your private
information. How much of that is actually true, I don't know.

My personal feeling is if one is on the internet there is very little
expectation of privacy.

[Frank Slootweg]

For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
personal information".

[Alan]

On 2024-02-19 09:14, Andrew wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote on 19 Feb 2024 06:16:36 GMT :
>
>>> That's ridiculous.
>>
>> Nope, it's true.
>
> I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision
> to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
> choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger.
>
> I'm not saying people don't do it.
> I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.
>
>>
>>> If a platform can only run one messaging app - it's a dumb platform.
>>
>> You have to be incredibly ignorant to think iPhones can only run one
>> messaging app. Either that or this is your feeble attempt at erecting an
>> incredibly weak straw man. Either way you should be embarrassed.
>
> I didn't say anything of the sort - so that strawman is all yours.
>
> What sms said, which is what I was responding to, is that "At least in the
> U.S., iMessage is one of the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones
> over Android devices."
>

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the straw man you constructed.

[Andrew]

badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:23:25 -0000 (UTC) :

>>Which three major points does the platform that is advertising that it
>>provides safety at the expense of functionality going to advertise to
>>you?
>
> Where did I mention safety?

Huh? It doesn't matter. Safety. Privacy. Anonymity. Malware. You name it.

> I was referring to what some people
> consider the privacy of their personal information.

So was I.
I lumped that into safety.

We're both talking about the same thing.

> It is believed
> that Apple will make an effort to protect your privacy, whereas Google
> and Facebook will make every effort to exploit and use your private
> information.

It is believed. That depends on the believer.
The less they know, the more they rely on advertising.
Why?

Since almost nobody is an expert in iOS "privacy", and since even fewer are
experts in both iOS and Android "privacy", where do you think they get
their data from?

And if you tell me they "look it up", then you do not understand what
privacy means - because it's a lot more than the ten things I spoke about.

But let's say it is just ten things that make you private on a phone.
Everything I said applies.

Let's say the iPhone is more private in 8 out of 10 of those ways, and yet
Android is far more private in 2 out of those 10 ways (and at the same
times being well over 10 times more capable in terms of doing stuff).

Let's say you don't need ten times the capabilities, so now the Apple huge
tradeoff on loss of functionality in favor of "privacy" no longer matters.

Even then, how do you weigh those 8 things where Apple is more private,
against those 2 things where Apple is far less private than Android is?

> How much of that is actually true, I don't know.

The problem is that "privacy" is many more things than just ten, and Apple
has some of it and Android has some of it also - where the only thing you
can say is it's easier for a non-technical person to stay a bit more
private on iOS in some ways (say 8 out of 10) where it's a LOT more
"private" on Android if you're technical - since it's impossible on iOS for
some ways to stay private that are trivial on Android (say 2 out of 10).

The easiest way to summarize all that is to generalize for you the results.

For the least technical users you can pick:
1. For the least technical users, iOS is "more private" (but not private).
2. For the least technical user, the huge loss of iOS functionality is ok.

However, for the more technical users you can pick:
1. For the more technical users, iOS is NOT "more private" (it's less!).
2. For the more technical user, the Android functionality advantage rules.

> My personal feeling is if one is on the internet there is very little
> expectation of privacy.

It's a lost battle on iOS as you can't do all that much that Apple didn't
already do for you. But on Android, there are plenty of ways to stay more
private which Google did NOT do for you.

Your privacy is directly proportional to how technically competent you are.
a. If you're not technically competent, then iOS is a good choice
b. If you're technically competent, then iOS is a BAD choice
For two reasons which apply directly to the technically competent user.
A. iOS is less functional (as a result of Apple's marketing strategy)
B. iOS is less private (as a result of those 2 out of 10 problems)

[Larry Wolff]

On 2/19/2024 2:20 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
> calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
> because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
> personal information".

Wasn't Apple accused in the news of giving the government all the messages
stored in their cloud without the government even bothering with subpoenas?

[badgolferman]

Yeah, right…

You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don’t have the ability to
intercept and decode “encrypted data”?

[badgolferman]

They probably did obey the law.

[badgolferman]

Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

[Andrew]

badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:07:46 -0000 (UTC) :

> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money.

I am agreeing with you on almost everything you said. All I'm doing is
adding more information because you only looked at a small piece of it.

Since you missed the point, I'm going to summarize it in two sentences.

If you know what you're doing, Android is world's more private than iOS.
But if you don't know what you're doing, iOS is more private than Android.

> Does Apple do that?

Yes. Of course. Apple got sued for it even. So it made the news. But Apple
does it nowhere near as much as Google does, and that's where we agree.

Don't make me look it up if you don't believe it - first look it up.
Then come back and tell me Apple didn't get sued for lying about privacy.

[Alan]

On 2024-02-19 14:11, Andrew wrote:
> badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:07:46 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money.
>
> I am agreeing with you on almost everything you said. All I'm doing is
> adding more information because you only looked at a small piece of it.
>
> Since you missed the point, I'm going to summarize it in two sentences.
>
> If you know what you're doing, Android is world's more private than iOS.
> But if you don't know what you're doing, iOS is more private than Android.
>
>> Does Apple do that?
>
> Yes. Of course. Apple got sued for it even. So it made the news. But Apple
> does it nowhere near as much as Google does, and that's where we agree.

You're a liar or just stupid.

>
> Don't make me look it up if you don't believe it - first look it up.
> Then come back and tell me Apple didn't get sued for lying about privacy.

Why don't you show your support.

[Larry Wolff]

On 2/19/2024 9:02 PM, badgolferman wrote:

>> Wasn't Apple accused in the news of giving the government all the messages
>> stored in their cloud without the government even bothering with subpoenas?
>>
>
> They probably did obey the law.

Agree that Apple almost certainly obeyed the law.

The law probably says if they ask for it nicely and Apple gives it to them,
then it's legal. They don't need a subpoena to get it from Apple that way.

They only need a subpoena if Apple doesn't give it to them when they ask.

[Alan]

It's really nice when you can just make shit up...


...Arlen

[sms]

On 2/19/2024 9:14 AM, Andrew wrote:

<snip>

> I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision
> to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
> choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger.
>
> I'm not saying people don't do it.
> I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.

It is not absurd.

I have a niece who's husband's relative works for Samsung. For years she
was using Samsung phones that she could buy at a huge discount. Suddenly
she switched to iPhone. She said that the reason was that all the
parents their kids' sports teams used iMessage to communicate things
like schedules, who was responsible for bringing drinks and snacks,
carpool arrangements, etc.. She was in no position to try to convert
everyone else to use WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, or whatever. So she
capitulated for a very non-absurd reason.

These days she could use something like AirMessage but that is a system
that she would not know how to set up. They are not poor and have no
problem spending more money on iPhones.

This a very U.S.-centric issue since in other countries most people use
a cross-platform messaging app. There would be little upside for Apple
to open up iMessage to other platforms.

[Alan]

So many people seem to think "absurd" means:

"something I don't want for myself".

[Frank Slootweg]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
[...]

> >> For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
> >> personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.
> >
> > For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
> > calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
> > because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
> > personal information".
>

> Yeah, right?
>
> You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don?t have the ability to
> intercept and decode ?encrypted data??

They probably can and probably will do if demanded by law enforcement,
etc..

They can't and don't as part of their normal way of operating. That's
the point.

BTW, I don't understand why you're throwing Google in the mix, because
Google is not involved in iMessage, nor WhatsApp.

('Facebook' is involved, if you actually mean to say 'Meta' (which
WhatsApp is part of.)

[Frank Slootweg]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
> Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.

If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.

As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

[David B.]

On 20 Feb 2024 at 09:40:44 GMT, "Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid>

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2024-02-20 10:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
>> Apple do that?
>
> Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
> they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.

That's correct.

> If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
> your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
>
> As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
> and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
> yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
> from my use of Google products.
>
> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

Also there is a difference in behaviour between private data obtained
from public sources (from browsing web pages, for instance), than those
in private places (say, the address book).



--
Cheers, Carlos.

[soyon]

David B. wrote on 20.02.2024 06:31
> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/

Nice find.

I love the post with the screenshot from Apple saying essentially that
Apple's walled garden falls apart like a Potemkin village the instant
you don't constantly and repeatedly, day after day, always log into
Apple's servers (every day of your life, forever!) using the same Apple ID.

What a wealth of intensely personal information that must be for Apple.
Meanwhile, Android works perfectly fine without ever logging into Google.

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
>> Apple do that?
>
> Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
> they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
>
> If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
> your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
>
> As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
> and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
> yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
> from my use of Google products.

When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.

> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

Sad that you shared your birthday. I use a fake birthday on all
websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date:
government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).

Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of
you very accurate.

They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
data to those wishing to target you to buy something.

OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
(some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
against you.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-20 04:40, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don?t have the ability to
>> intercept and decode ?encrypted data??
>
> They probably can and probably will do if demanded by law enforcement,
> etc..
>
> They can't and don't as part of their normal way of operating. That's
> the point.

E2E encryption means exactly that. If the keys are negotiated between
two end point devices, no matter what, or how many intermediaries there
are, the data encryption key cannot be determined by those
intermediaries and thus cannot decoded by anyone in the middle - even if
the "middle" men intercept 100% of the key negotiation because they lack
private knowledge kept at each end of the negotiation.

Brute forcing such is feasible in some cases, but made ridiculously
expensive with longer keys and elliptic curve cryptography - which is
currently widely deployed.

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-20 10:07, soyon wrote:
> David B. wrote on 20.02.2024 06:31
>> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/
>
> Nice find.
>
> I love the post with the screenshot from Apple saying essentially that
> Apple's walled garden falls apart like a Potemkin village the instant
> you don't constantly and repeatedly, day after day, always log into
> Apple's servers (every day of your life, forever!) using the same Apple ID.

Your basic premise is false and misleading (that you Arlen?) - and that
you're echoing off of that idiot diminishes your very low standing even
further.

You can do everything on an iPhone communications wise that you can do
with Android. That is e-mail, SMS/MMS, other messaging platforms, surf
the web, etc. and so on, w/o being logged into Apple's system. And of
course to the extent that 10's of thousands of apps provide their own
servers, etc., those are also accessible w/o logging into Apple's servers.

The benefit of being logged into iCloud is the other Apple provided
services for communications and integration of services (as oft listed
in the past). This is the "apple eco-system" that makes using using
various Apple devices such as a Mac and iPhone so seamless and
convenient. All of this over a very strongly encrypted communications
system run by a company that sells products and services - not people's
information - like Android producer Google.

So, bleat out your nonsense attack on Apple again and again and again,
it doesn't change the reality of things.

[badgolferman]

Can you setup a new iPhone without an AppleID?

[Oliver]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:45:18 -0500, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
wrote

> Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
> (name, e-mail address, etc.)

Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.

"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

Apple harvests lots of personal information, often in ways that you might
not expect if you foolishly buy into the company's empty promise that 'what
happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone.' The harsh reality is that
Apple incessantly uses your personal (and very private) identifying
information for advertising, developing new products, and much more.


"Apple Is Tracking You Even When Its Own Privacy Settings Say It's Not"
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558

For all of Apple's empty talk about how private your iPhone is, the company
increasingly vacuums up a lot of data about you even when you turn off
tracking, which is a stark and very direct contradiction of Apple's own
description of how they advertised their privacy protection to work.

"'The level of detail is shocking for a company like Apple,' Mysk told
Gizmodo... Apple harvests information about every single thing you did in
real time, including what you tapped on, which apps you search for, what
ads you saw, and how long you looked at a given app and how you found it."

[Patrick]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:54:59 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
> You can do everything on an iPhone communications wise that you can do
> with Android.

Good.

Because I want to change the default messenger app on iOS like Android
does?

Oh wait? You can't?

Then I want to automatically record my phone calls on iOS like Android
does.

Oh wait? You can't?

Well then, I want to be able to change my ringtones to be different for
every application and for each message depending on the sender like Android
does.

Oh wait? You can't?

Well then, at least I can dial directly using a WhatsApp dialer like
Android?

No? You still can't do even something that simple on iOS?

At least can I have my dialer and my WhatsApp use different contacts?
No?

What the heck.

You seem to have a very limited view of what "everything" means for
communications since to you, "everything" is only "iMessages".

Well at least you can communicate with your default messaging app on any
platform you want (including Windows and Linux too!) right?

No?

What the heck.
You can't do any communications on iOS that Android has no problem doing.

[Alan]

Fuck off, David.

[Alan]

Yup.

30 seconds of personal research could have answered that for you.

[Charlie]

On this Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:47:15 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> E2E encryption means exactly that.

Except when E2E doesn't mean anything at all, which is when everyone is not
fully inside the Apple walled garden (which requires an iCloud account).

Apple's own words are below from https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651

"With standard data protection, iCloud content that you share with other
people is not end-to-end encrypted!

Advanced Data Protection is designed to maintain end-to-end encryption for
shared content as long as all participants have Advanced Data Protection
enabled. This level of protection is supported in most iCloud sharing
features, including iCloud Shared Photo Library, iCloud Drive shared
folders, and shared Notes."

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-20 12:02, Oliver wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:45:18 -0500, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
> wrote
>> Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
>> (name, e-mail address, etc.)
>
> Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
>
> "From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
> more with your data than you might think."
> https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092

The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.

But do go on inflating the flat cushion as much as you can while
ignoring the crush of the big cushions around you.

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-20 12:43, Charlie wrote:
> On this Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:47:15 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> E2E encryption means exactly that.
>
> Except when E2E doesn't mean anything at all, which is when everyone is not
> fully inside the Apple walled garden (which requires an iCloud account).

Yes, to use services such as iMessage you have to have an iCloud account
and be logged in. Shocker. And billions do it happily because it is a
far better experience (and very secure) than to not do so.
And Apple do not charge for it - you get it gratis with you iPhone
(iPad, Mac, etc.).

>
> Apple's own words are below from https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
>
> "With standard data protection, iCloud content that you share with other

> people is not end-to-end encrypted.

Removed the "!".

This depends on the service - iMessage has been end-to-end for a long
time and messaging is the context of the present topic.

But do go on digging for the exceptions.

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
> >> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
> >> Apple do that?
> >
> > Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
> > they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
> >
> > If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
> > your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
> >
> > As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
> > and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
> > yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
> > from my use of Google products.
>
> When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
> them on her laptop within 24 hours.

Same here. Probably you two are 'behind' a NAT router and 'hence'
share the same IP, which makes it hard for the ad generation to tell you
two apart. So much for the famous 'fingerprinting'.

> > And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
> > the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
> > address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
>
> Sad that you shared your birthday.

I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.

The public info ('About me') is only my name and my Gmail address. All
other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.

> I use a fake birthday on all
> websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date:
> government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).

Same here.

> Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
> (name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
> correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
> accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of
> you very accurate.
>
> They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
> data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
> data to those wishing to target you to buy something.

Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
(other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data"
brings them exactly nothing.

> OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
> (some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
> much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
> against you.

[1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly
scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
ads. Go figure!

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-02-20 12:02, Oliver wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:45:18 -0500, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
> > wrote
> >> Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
> >> (name, e-mail address, etc.)
> >
> > Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
> >
> > "From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
> > more with your data than you might think."
> > https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092
>
> The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
> well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
> It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
> all.

No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.

> But do go on inflating the flat cushion as much as you can while
> ignoring the crush of the big cushions around you.

Ah, big cushions! Nice and fluffy!

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-20 13:23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
>>>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
>>>> Apple do that?
>>>
>>> Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
>>> they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
>>>
>>> If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
>>> your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
>>>
>>> As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
>>> and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
>>> yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
>>> from my use of Google products.
>>
>> When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
>> them on her laptop within 24 hours.
>
> Same here. Probably you two are 'behind' a NAT router and 'hence'
> share the same IP, which makes it hard for the ad generation to tell you
> two apart. So much for the famous 'fingerprinting'.

1) Yes, and 2) that's not what I was referring to by fingerprinting.

>
>>> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
>>> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
>>> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
>>
>> Sad that you shared your birthday.
>
> I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.

So you "shared" your birthday with Google. Not smart. That data has
since been sold to dozens of data brokers and onward to thousands of others.

>
> The public info ('About me') is only my name and my Gmail address. All
> other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.

You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.

The matrix proximate to you called Frank gets more data
The matric proximate to you called Slootweg gets more data
The matrix proximate to you called F...@someemail.com gets more data
The matrix proximate to you called your birthday gets more data

More matrices are created and eventually the statistics of one
correlates with the stats of another - they partially coalesce into
denser and denser matrices with a high probability of being related to
you. This is innocuous - until it isn't.

>> I use a fake birthday on all
>> websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date:
>> government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).
>
> Same here.

Not what you said earlier.

>
>> Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
>> (name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
>> correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
>> accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of
>> you very accurate.
>>
>> They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
>> data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
>> data to those wishing to target you to buy something.
>
> Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
> amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
> (other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data"
> brings them exactly nothing.

You haven't detected it doing anything harmful. Yet, the fact that
bunches of corporations and data brokers know more about you than you
realize only has potential to harm you.

>
>> OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
>> (some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
>> much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
>> against you.
>
> [1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
> the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly
> scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
> ads. Go figure!

If you make an insurance claim, esp. for a medical issue while traveling
outside your country (or coverage), you can be sure the ins. co will
comb through the data looking for the slightest excuse to not pay a claim.

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-20 13:34, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-02-20 12:02, Oliver wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:45:18 -0500, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
>>> wrote
>>>> Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
>>>> (name, e-mail address, etc.)
>>>
>>> Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
>>>
>>> "From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
>>> more with your data than you might think."
>>> https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092
>>
>> The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
>> well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
>> It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
>> all.
>
> No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
> unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
> agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
> which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
> read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.

You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them
telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to,
certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want
with your data.

>
>> But do go on inflating the flat cushion as much as you can while
>> ignoring the crush of the big cushions around you.
>
> Ah, big cushions! Nice and fluffy!

Until inflated to max capacity when they are as hard as truck tires.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2024-02-20 19:23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]

>> They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
>> data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
>> data to those wishing to target you to buy something.
>
> Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
> amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
> (other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data"
> brings them exactly nothing.
>
>> OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
>> (some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
>> much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
>> against you.
>
> [1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
> the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly
> scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
> ads. Go figure!

Same here. Waste of computer time on their part.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2024-02-20 16:45, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
>>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
>>> Apple do that?
>>
>>    Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
>> they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
>>
>>    If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
>> your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
>>
>>    As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban
>> legends,
>> and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
>> yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
>> from my use of Google products.
>
> When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
> them on her laptop within 24 hours.

You share or shared something with them. Like, once you used her
computer to buy something at Amazon. You did something that, within the
terms and conditions, allowed them to link both machines or users.

Doesn't happen to me. I use a separate FF profile for searching at
Amazon, and yet another one for purchasing.

...

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Chris]

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
>> Apple do that?
>
> Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
> they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
>
> If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
> your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.

They'd have to be caught first.

> As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
> and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
> yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
> from my use of Google products.

Of course you haven't suffered direct ill effects as that would hurt their
business model.

> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

You're naive if you think that's all the data google has on you.

They have a huge amount of behavioural data - unless you've been careful to
switch off ALL tracking - which is significantly more valuable than your
birthday.

[Frank Slootweg]

Sorry to rain on your Apple-biased parade, but Google documents in
detail what they collect and how it's used by them and their partners.

And all of the functionality can be enabled/disabled in your account.
And if anything changes - changes, additions, deletions, etc. - you get
e-mail and notifications. I've disabled anything which even smells of
'personalization', hence my postive, privacy-safe experience.

As usual, it's people who are *not* using the products/services of
company Y (Can't say 'X", can I? :-)), who spout all kinds of FUD, urban
legends, etc. on how bad company Y is.

You have been / are on the receiving end of this as they spout similar
crap about Apple, so it would be nice if you showed the same
objectivity, which you expect of others.

[Cue AJL! :-)]

> >> But do go on inflating the flat cushion as much as you can while
> >> ignoring the crush of the big cushions around you.
> >
> > Ah, big cushions! Nice and fluffy!
>
> Until inflated to max capacity when they are as hard as truck tires.

Mine are nice and soft. Just enough air to be soft, but not too much
to become dangerous. But then I've a brain and am not afraid to use it.

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-02-20 13:23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
> >>>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
> >>>> Apple do that?
> >>>
> >>> Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
> >>> they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
> >>>
> >>> If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
> >>> your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
> >>>
> >>> As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
> >>> and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
> >>> yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
> >>> from my use of Google products.
> >>
> >> When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
> >> them on her laptop within 24 hours.
> >
> > Same here. Probably you two are 'behind' a NAT router and 'hence'
> > share the same IP, which makes it hard for the ad generation to tell you
> > two apart. So much for the famous 'fingerprinting'.
>
> 1) Yes, and 2) that's not what I was referring to by fingerprinting.

I know. Here I am saying that *browser* fingerprinting apparently
isn't working. If it was, the ad should be able to target you, instead
of your girlfriend.

> >>> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
> >>> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
> >>> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
> >>
> >> Sad that you shared your birthday.
> >
> > I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.
>
> So you "shared" your birthday with Google. Not smart. That data has
> since been sold to dozens of data brokers and onward to thousands of others.

Nope. Wrong continent. Google can't use - let alone sell - my account
data without my explicit approval, especially since I've specifically
turned off most sections of my public data. If they did, they would face
very hefty and repeated penalties. EU GDPR and all that.

> > The public info ('About me') is only my name and my Gmail address. All
> > other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.
>
> You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
> internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
>
> The matrix proximate to you called Frank gets more data

Sorry to rain on your parade, but my browser does not reveal my name
(just verified again with GRC's Shields UP!!).

> The matric proximate to you called Slootweg gets more data
> The matrix proximate to you called F...@someemail.com gets more data
> The matrix proximate to you called your birthday gets more data

Same for these three.

*If* *I* provide any of this information, I do so in creating an
account, a commercial transaction, etc. and all these websites are bound
by the same EU laws with hefty penalties.

> More matrices are created and eventually the statistics of one
> correlates with the stats of another - they partially coalesce into
> denser and denser matrices with a high probability of being related to
> you. This is innocuous - until it isn't.

That's the FUD and urban legends which are spouted. I don't dispute
that these things can/will happen to not-so-smart people or/and outside
the EU.

But they don't happen to *me*. I do get *no* personalized ads, I get
*no* 'spam' (UCE/UBE), I get *no* unsollicited phone calls/SMS, etc..

> >> I use a fake birthday on all
> >> websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date:
> >> government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).
> >
> > Same here.
>
> Not what you said earlier.

I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
assumed that's public info, but it isn't.

On websites, I do the same as you (give no birthday or a fake one if
the website insists and only use my real birthday where legally
required).

> >> Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
> >> (name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
> >> correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
> >> accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of
> >> you very accurate.
> >>
> >> They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
> >> data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
> >> data to those wishing to target you to buy something.
> >
> > Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
> > amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
> > (other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data"
> > brings them exactly nothing.
>
> You haven't detected it doing anything harmful. Yet, the fact that
> bunches of corporations and data brokers know more about you than you
> realize only has potential to harm you.

Sorry, but this is way too much FUD, urban legend and conspiracy
theory for my taste. There's no substance whatsoever. Yes, there are
dangers from being on the net, but *this* 'danger' for *me*, is much
much lower on the to-worry-about scale than most - if not all- others.

> >> OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
> >> (some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
> >> much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
> >> against you.
> >
> > [1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
> > the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly
> > scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
> > ads. Go figure!
>
> If you make an insurance claim, esp. for a medical issue while traveling
> outside your country (or coverage), you can be sure the ins. co will
> comb through the data looking for the slightest excuse to not pay a claim.

Guess I was lucky then when our EUR 50K claim - the largest parts for
the medical bills - went through without a hitch!

[Wolf Greenblatt]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:16:20 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
> internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.

You're correct that Apple knows everything you do with your unique Apple ID
as was recently described in this information technology privacy report.

Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/

The paper warned that despite Apple's insincere promise of more
transparency, ATT might gives its users a false sense of security.

"The researchers identified nine iOS apps that used server-side code to
generate a mutual user identifier that a subsidiary of the Chinese tech
company Alibaba can use for cross-app tracking. "The sharing of device
information for purposes of fingerprinting would be in violation of Apple's
policies, which do not allow developers to 'derive data from a device for
the purpose of uniquely identifying it,'" the researchers wrote.

The researchers also said that Apple isn't required to follow the policy in
many cases, making it possible for Apple to further add to the stockpile of
data it collects. They noted that Apple also exempts tracking for purposes
of "obtaining information on a consumer's creditworthiness for the specific
purpose of making a credit determination."

Representatives from Apple declined to comment. Alibaba representatives
didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Based on a comparison of 1,685 apps published before and after ATT went
into effect, the number of tracking libraries they used remained roughly
the same. The most widely used libraries-including Apple's SKAdNetwork,
Google Firebase Analytics, and Google Crashlytics-didn't change. Almost a
quarter of the studied apps claimed that they didn't collect any user data,
but the majority of them-80 percent-contained at least one tracker library.

On average, the research found, apps that claimed they didn't collect user
data nonetheless contained 1.8 tracking libraries and contacted 2.5
tracking companies. Of apps that used SKAdNetwork, Google Firebase
Analytics, and Google Crashlytics, more than half failed to disclose having
access to user data. The Facebook SDK fared slightly better with about a 47
percent failure rate."

[Frank Slootweg]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
> >> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
> >> Apple do that?
> >
> > Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
> > they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
> >
> > If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
> > your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
>
> They'd have to be caught first.

Of course, but the FUD crowd implies it's done all the time. If so,
they *will* get caught.

> > As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
> > and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
> > yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
> > from my use of Google products.
>
> Of course you haven't suffered direct ill effects as that would hurt their
> business model.

So what *is* the worry/harm/<whatever>. "Bad things can and will
happen to you! News at eleven."?

> > And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
> > the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
> > address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
>
> You're naive if you think that's all the data google has on you.

Yes, they have more data on me, but the question is, is that "private
data" and do they use it against my wishes/interests or/and do they
sell it to others? There's no actual proof of any of this, only
innuendo.

> They have a huge amount of behavioural data - unless you've been careful to
> switch off ALL tracking - which is significantly more valuable than your
> birthday.

Yes, I've been switching off all unwanted tracking, in my Google
Account, in the Google/Samsung parts of my phone, in the Microsoft parts
of my Windows laptop, etc..

[Mickey D]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 20:05:22 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> They have a huge amount of behavioural data - unless you've been careful to
> switch off ALL tracking - which is significantly more valuable than your
> birthday.

You are certainly correct that Apple has a huge amount of behavioural data
on you, specifically because everything you do is associated with a unique
Apple ID, not only on a single device, but often on all your Apple devices.

What Apple Knows About You by Default
https://www.wired.com/story/apple-privacy-data-collection/
Apple has always gathered a lot of data about you.

"When you start using Apple's products, it collects information about you.
This can include data needed to sign up to its services or buy products,
such as your name, email address, the Apple ID that you create, and your
payment details."

Apple says contextual ads within its apps are shown based on your device
information (such as keyboard language and mobile carrier), your location
data if you have shared it with the apps, the searches you make in the App
Store, or the "type of story" you read in News and Stocks apps.

The company's documentation also says that App Store "browsing activity" is
also used to help determine ads that can be shown to you. "App Store
browsing activity includes the content and apps you tap and view while
browsing the App Store. This information is aggregated across users so that
it does not identify you," the company's documents say.

This data has the potential to be extensive. "Everything is monitored and
sent to Apple almost in real time," says Tommy Mysk, an app developer and
security researcher who runs the software company Mysk with fellow
developer Talal Haj Bakry. In November, the Mysk researchers demonstrated
how taps on the screen were logged when using the App Store. Their
follow-up research demonstrated that analytics data could be used to
identify people.

"The App Store is special because there's no other option," Mysk says.
"There is no other choice. If you don't like the privacy statement of Apple
Music, fine. You can use Spotify-there are alternatives. To the App Store,
there is nothing."

Apple's privacy policy also says it can collect data on how you use your
devices. This can include the apps you use, searches within Apple's apps,
such as the App Store, and analytics and other personal data. Other
information Apple can collect about you can include your location
information, health information, and fitness information.

Apple has always collected reams of data about its customers but Apple's
increasing push into services & advertising opens the door for even more
potential data collection.

The data Apple collects about you is outlined in its privacy policy, which
runs to about 4,000 words. Apple also has multiple privacy guides for its
individual products and apps, which more specifically outline how they
collect and use data. There are around 80 of these privacy outlines,
ranging from Apple's advertising and research programs to Apple Books and
sports. The guides are linked within apps and are online. While some
information is repeated, in total they hit around 70,000 words which is
around a novel's worth of legalese.

[Andrew]

Alan wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:22:00 -0800 :

>> Don't make me look it up if you don't believe it - first look it up.
>> Then come back and tell me Apple didn't get sued for lying about privacy.
>
> Why don't you show your support.

Idiot.

The user badgolferman was smart enough to have looked it up before even
thinking of denying it - but you appear to be too stupid to look it up.

https://9to5mac.com/2023/01/09/apple-privacy-tracking-lawsuit/
Apple is facing another class action lawsuit over its practice of
collecting and sending analytics data from iPhone users,
regardless of whether or not the user gave consent.

Since you are an idiot, I realize you won't click on the link before
denying everything contained in it so I will not be reading nor responding
to more of your idiocy.

The user badgolferman was a lot smarter than you are as he apparently
looked it up since it's extremely well published information world wide.

[david]

Using <news:ur38nk...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

> I've been switching off all unwanted tracking, in my Google
> Account, in the Google/Samsung parts of my phone, in the Microsoft parts
> of my Windows laptop, etc..

I wonder if the most Apple users are using Google Maps on their iPhones?

[Alan]

On 2024-02-20 13:32, Andrew wrote:
> Alan wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:22:00 -0800 :
>
>>> Don't make me look it up if you don't believe it - first look it up.
>>> Then come back and tell me Apple didn't get sued for lying about privacy.
>>
>> Why don't you show your support.
>
> Idiot.

I know you are but what am I?

(Yes, child: that is the level of discourse you have chosen, so I choose
to respond in kind)>

>
> The user badgolferman was smart enough to have looked it up before even
> thinking of denying it - but you appear to be too stupid to look it up.
>
> https://9to5mac.com/2023/01/09/apple-privacy-tracking-lawsuit/
> Apple is facing another class action lawsuit over its practice of
> collecting and sending analytics data from iPhone users,
> regardless of whether or not the user gave consent.

You appear too stupid to understand that allegations are not proof.

>
> Since you are an idiot, I realize you won't click on the link before
> denying everything contained in it so I will not be reading nor responding
> to more of your idiocy.
>
> The user badgolferman was a lot smarter than you are as he apparently
> looked it up since it's extremely well published information world wide.

"What ultimately comes of these lawsuits remains to be seen."

Apparently, your reading comprehension level wasn't sufficient to
understand that very simple sentence.

[Gelato]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:53:50 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> iMessage has been end-to-end for a long
> time and messaging is the context of the present topic.

That "long time" was only a short time ago.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption

"While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted by
default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end encrypted as well,
Apple has yet to extend the same security to backups stored on iCloud."

[Alan]

On 2024-02-20 12:54, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:16:20 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
>> internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
>
> You're correct that Apple knows everything you do with your unique Apple ID
> as was recently described in this information technology privacy report.

You apparently don't understand...

>
> Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says
> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/
>

...that Apple is not:

"companies, particularly large ones like Google and Facebook, to work
around the protections and stockpile even more data."

> The paper warned that despite Apple's insincere promise of more
> transparency, ATT might gives its users a false sense of security.

Weird that you left that out of the paragraph you quoted above this
paragraph...

...isn't it?

>
> "The researchers identified nine iOS apps that used server-side code to
> generate a mutual user identifier that a subsidiary of the Chinese tech
> company Alibaba can use for cross-app tracking. "The sharing of device
> information for purposes of fingerprinting would be in violation of Apple's
> policies, which do not allow developers to 'derive data from a device for
> the purpose of uniquely identifying it,'" the researchers wrote.

"nine iOS apps".

How many of them were Apple's?

>
> The researchers also said that Apple isn't required to follow the policy in
> many cases, making it possible for Apple to further add to the stockpile of
> data it collects. They noted that Apple also exempts tracking for purposes
> of "obtaining information on a consumer's creditworthiness for the specific
> purpose of making a credit determination."
>
> Representatives from Apple declined to comment. Alibaba representatives
> didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
>
> Based on a comparison of 1,685 apps published before and after ATT went
> into effect, the number of tracking libraries they used remained roughly
> the same. The most widely used libraries-including Apple's SKAdNetwork,
> Google Firebase Analytics, and Google Crashlytics-didn't change. Almost a
> quarter of the studied apps claimed that they didn't collect any user data,
> but the majority of them-80 percent-contained at least one tracker library.
>
> On average, the research found, apps that claimed they didn't collect user
> data nonetheless contained 1.8 tracking libraries and contacted 2.5
> tracking companies. Of apps that used SKAdNetwork, Google Firebase
> Analytics, and Google Crashlytics, more than half failed to disclose having
> access to user data. The Facebook SDK fared slightly better with about a 47
> percent failure rate."

'6 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK

Overall, we find that Apple’s new policies largely live up to its
promises on making tracking more difficult.'

<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.03556.pdf>

Small wonder you failed to include this.

[Alan Browne]

Nothing to do with Apple.

Google is in the information bartering business. You are the product.

>
> And all of the functionality can be enabled/disabled in your account.
> And if anything changes - changes, additions, deletions, etc. - you get
> e-mail and notifications. I've disabled anything which even smells of
> 'personalization', hence my postive, privacy-safe experience.
>
> As usual, it's people who are *not* using the products/services of
> company Y (Can't say 'X", can I? :-)), who spout all kinds of FUD, urban
> legends, etc. on how bad company Y is.
>
> You have been / are on the receiving end of this as they spout similar
> crap about Apple, so it would be nice if you showed the same
> objectivity, which you expect of others.
>
> [Cue AJL! :-)]
>
>>>> But do go on inflating the flat cushion as much as you can while
>>>> ignoring the crush of the big cushions around you.
>>>
>>> Ah, big cushions! Nice and fluffy!
>>
>> Until inflated to max capacity when they are as hard as truck tires.
>
> Mine are nice and soft. Just enough air to be soft, but not too much
> to become dangerous. But then I've a brain and am not afraid to use it.

How nice. Must be lonely /s.

[Alan Browne]

You took one thing to be something that it isn't. The ad targeted at
her was due to IP address and had nothing to do with fingerprinting.

>
>>>>> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
>>>>> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
>>>>> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
>>>>
>>>> Sad that you shared your birthday.
>>>
>>> I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.
>>
>> So you "shared" your birthday with Google. Not smart. That data has
>> since been sold to dozens of data brokers and onward to thousands of others.
>
> Nope. Wrong continent. Google can't use - let alone sell - my account
> data without my explicit approval, especially since I've specifically
> turned off most sections of my public data. If they did, they would face
> very hefty and repeated penalties. EU GDPR and all that.

And they do. They don't care. The fines they pay are cost of doing
business.

>
>>> The public info ('About me') is only my name and my Gmail address. All
>>> other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.
>>
>> You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
>> internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
>>
>> The matrix proximate to you called Frank gets more data
>
> Sorry to rain on your parade, but my browser does not reveal my name
> (just verified again with GRC's Shields UP!!).
>
>> The matric proximate to you called Slootweg gets more data
>> The matrix proximate to you called F...@someemail.com gets more data
>> The matrix proximate to you called your birthday gets more data
>
> Same for these three.
>
> *If* *I* provide any of this information, I do so in creating an
> account, a commercial transaction, etc. and all these websites are bound
> by the same EU laws with hefty penalties.

See above. Profit trumps.

>
>> More matrices are created and eventually the statistics of one
>> correlates with the stats of another - they partially coalesce into
>> denser and denser matrices with a high probability of being related to
>> you. This is innocuous - until it isn't.
>
> That's the FUD and urban legends which are spouted. I don't dispute
> that these things can/will happen to not-so-smart people or/and outside
> the EU.
>
> But they don't happen to *me*. I do get *no* personalized ads, I get
> *no* 'spam' (UCE/UBE), I get *no* unsollicited phone calls/SMS, etc..

That is not the sole use of the data collected about you. It has value
in ways that are not related to advertising or selling to you.

>
>>>> I use a fake birthday on all
>>>> websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date:
>>>> government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).
>>>
>>> Same here.
>>
>> Not what you said earlier.
>
> I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
> assumed that's public info, but it isn't.

I never claimed it was public info. But it is info Amazon have (and use
and sell). You were a fool to give that up to them.

>
> On websites, I do the same as you (give no birthday or a fake one if
> the website insists and only use my real birthday where legally
> required).

Amazon doesn't use a website? Wow, I really ...

>
>>>> Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
>>>> (name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
>>>> correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
>>>> accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of
>>>> you very accurate.
>>>>
>>>> They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
>>>> data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
>>>> data to those wishing to target you to buy something.
>>>
>>> Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
>>> amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
>>> (other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data"
>>> brings them exactly nothing.
>>
>> You haven't detected it doing anything harmful. Yet, the fact that
>> bunches of corporations and data brokers know more about you than you
>> realize only has potential to harm you.
>
> Sorry, but this is way too much FUD, urban legend and conspiracy
> theory for my taste. There's no substance whatsoever. Yes, there are
> dangers from being on the net, but *this* 'danger' for *me*, is much
> much lower on the to-worry-about scale than most - if not all- others.

Sorry, but this is specifically what data aggregators and brokers do.
Unseen by you and always pervasive.

>
>>>> OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
>>>> (some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
>>>> much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
>>>> against you.
>>>
>>> [1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
>>> the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly
>>> scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
>>> ads. Go figure!
>>
>> If you make an insurance claim, esp. for a medical issue while traveling
>> outside your country (or coverage), you can be sure the ins. co will
>> comb through the data looking for the slightest excuse to not pay a claim.
>
> Guess I was lucky then when our EUR 50K claim - the largest parts for
> the medical bills - went through without a hitch!

Never claimed it would cause a denial. But depending on the
circumstances, you can be sure such data is examined.

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-20 15:54, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:16:20 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
>> internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
>
> You're correct

Yes. And what I was referring to had nothing to do with Apple.

Lame try. Do grow up.

[Alan Browne]

Locally I use Apple; on long road trips I've mostly used Google Maps
(better planning). But Apple Maps has improved in this regard, so next
long trip I'll try sticking to Apple.

That said, finding a particular kind of store is usually better done
with Google Maps no matter where I am.

[Alan Browne]

Re-read what you cite for comprehension v. what I wrote.

[Gelato]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:15:27 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

>> https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption
>>
>> "While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted by
>> default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end encrypted as well,
>> Apple has yet to extend the same security to backups stored on iCloud."
>
> Re-read what you cite for comprehension v. what I wrote.

The point was the article discussed what few people realize which is the
encryption key was known to Apple for all their iMessage data on iCloud.

End to end encryption means nothing when a company has the encryption key.

[Frank Slootweg]

Everything to do with Apple. You say that Apple documents the degree to
which they collect data in their agreements with their customers and
imply that other companies - and specifically Google - don't do that.

That's your Apple-bias, because, as I described, Google *does*
document what they collect/do.

[Frank Slootweg]

Duh! That's what I'm saying. They *should* - at least - have used
browser fingerprinting, but they didn't.

> >>>>> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
> >>>>> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
> >>>>> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sad that you shared your birthday.
> >>>
> >>> I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.
> >>
> >> So you "shared" your birthday with Google. Not smart. That data has
> >> since been sold to dozens of data brokers and onward to thousands of others.
> >
> > Nope. Wrong continent. Google can't use - let alone sell - my account
> > data without my explicit approval, especially since I've specifically
> > turned off most sections of my public data. If they did, they would face
> > very hefty and repeated penalties. EU GDPR and all that.
>
> And they do. They don't care. The fines they pay are cost of doing
> business.

More FUD. Where's your proof, facts, etc.? Yes, Google, Apple, the
lot, get frequent hefty fines, but not for selling data from people's
account which they specifically turned off. When doing business,
companies have to prove that they need certain data - i.e. in this
example someone's birthday - in order to be able to do business. If they
can't prove that, that's by default a violation.

> >>> other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.
> >>
> >> You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
> >> internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
> >>
> >> The matrix proximate to you called Frank gets more data
> >
> > Sorry to rain on your parade, but my browser does not reveal my name
> > (just verified again with GRC's Shields UP!!).
> >
> >> The matric proximate to you called Slootweg gets more data
> >> The matrix proximate to you called F...@someemail.com gets more data
> >> The matrix proximate to you called your birthday gets more data
> >
> > Same for these three.
> >
> > *If* *I* provide any of this information, I do so in creating an
> > account, a commercial transaction, etc. and all these websites are bound
> > by the same EU laws with hefty penalties.
>
> See above. Profit trumps.

Nope. There are limits to what they can do. Besides the hefty fines,
the lawsuits, the reputation damage, etc. they can be banned from doing
any business at all. Google, Apple, et al have been repeatedly beaten
into submission. It works. (BTW, Apple just got another 500M Euro fine
for violating EU rules for music streaming services (reported by the
Financial Times).)

> >> More matrices are created and eventually the statistics of one
> >> correlates with the stats of another - they partially coalesce into
> >> denser and denser matrices with a high probability of being related to
> >> you. This is innocuous - until it isn't.
> >
> > That's the FUD and urban legends which are spouted. I don't dispute
> > that these things can/will happen to not-so-smart people or/and outside
> > the EU.
> >
> > But they don't happen to *me*. I do get *no* personalized ads, I get
> > *no* 'spam' (UCE/UBE), I get *no* unsollicited phone calls/SMS, etc..
>
> That is not the sole use of the data collected about you. It has value
> in ways that are not related to advertising or selling to you.

Yes, I know. As I said, (with my precautions) sofar, so good. (As I
said (see quote below),) Much higher dangers than this to worry about.

> >>>> I use a fake birthday on all
> >>>> websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date:
> >>>> government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).
> >>>
> >>> Same here.
> >>
> >> Not what you said earlier.
> >
> > I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
> > assumed that's public info, but it isn't.
>
> I never claimed it was public info. But it is info Amazon have (and use
> and sell). You were a fool to give that up to them.

Huh? Amazon? What stuff are you on? I never mentioned Amazon.

> > On websites, I do the same as you (give no birthday or a fake one if
> > the website insists and only use my real birthday where legally
> > required).
>
> Amazon doesn't use a website? Wow, I really ...

Yes, they do. Your *point* being? (Clue-by-four: I don't use Amazon.
Guess why.)

[...]

Bottom line: For *me*, this is the only relevant aspect:

> > Sorry, but this is way too much FUD, urban legend and conspiracy
> > theory for my taste. There's no substance whatsoever. Yes, there are
> > dangers from being on the net, but *this* 'danger' for *me*, is much
> > much lower on the to-worry-about scale than most - if not all- others.

[...]

[Chris]

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
>>>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
>>>> Apple do that?
>>>
>>> Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
>>> they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
>>>
>>> If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
>>> your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
>>
>> They'd have to be caught first.
>
> Of course, but the FUD crowd implies it's done all the time. If so,
> they *will* get caught.
>
>>> As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
>>> and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
>>> yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
>>> from my use of Google products.
>>
>> Of course you haven't suffered direct ill effects as that would hurt their
>> business model.
>
> So what *is* the worry/harm/<whatever>. "Bad things can and will
> happen to you! News at eleven."?

Because it is "personal data" that you have rights to have control over.
How much control depends on jurisdiction.

The harm is that it can used to pre-profile you based on a bias or trend
rather than as you as an individual. I suspect you, like me, are a white
european so we will never/rarely suffer negative consequences because we
the average or default group.

People from minority backgrounds on the other hand have to constantly fight
to be treated as an individual rather than a group label: "black",
"disabled", "muslim", etc.

>>> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
>>> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
>>> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
>>
>> You're naive if you think that's all the data google has on you.
>
> Yes, they have more data on me, but the question is, is that "private
> data" and do they use it against my wishes/interests or/and do they
> sell it to others? There's no actual proof of any of this, only
> innuendo.

They may not sell your data directly, but they do make a lot of money from
it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and

[Alan Browne]

Again, in the context of iMessage (which is the context of this thread),
it has been E2EE for quite some time - ie: Apple could not read such
messages.

Unless one backs up their iMessages in iCloud, there is no message at
rest on iCloud. Personally I find no reason to do so.

Where other services have data at rest on their servers (other iCloud
services) there were (and are) some data sets where Apple do have the
keys to such data. OTOH, Apple is a trustworthy company - so why worry?

And of course, they are making such data inaccessible to themselves over
time as they continue their very structured approach to privacy. See
Advanced Data Protection - caveat: if you lose the keys, you lose the data.

[Alan Browne]

It's not Apple bias. It was a description of Google's core revenue
model: the user is the product. That you raise Apple as a deflection
from it is on you.

[Carlos E.R.]

The user is the product, but following the rules, which are published
and are binding, same as Apple.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Alan Browne]

They don't have to prove a thing. The prosecution has to prove
malfeasance. Google only needs to defend to the best they can. They do
not open their Kimono.

>
>>>>> other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
>>>> internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
>>>>
>>>> The matrix proximate to you called Frank gets more data
>>>
>>> Sorry to rain on your parade, but my browser does not reveal my name
>>> (just verified again with GRC's Shields UP!!).
>>>
>>>> The matric proximate to you called Slootweg gets more data
>>>> The matrix proximate to you called F...@someemail.com gets more data
>>>> The matrix proximate to you called your birthday gets more data
>>>
>>> Same for these three.
>>>
>>> *If* *I* provide any of this information, I do so in creating an
>>> account, a commercial transaction, etc. and all these websites are bound
>>> by the same EU laws with hefty penalties.
>>
>> See above. Profit trumps.
>
> Nope. There are limits to what they can do. Besides the hefty fines,
> the lawsuits, the reputation damage, etc. they can be banned from doing
> any business at all. Google, Apple, et al have been repeatedly beaten
> into submission. It works. (BTW, Apple just got another 500M Euro fine
> for violating EU rules for music streaming services (reported by the
> Financial Times).)

See below[AAA]

>
>>>> More matrices are created and eventually the statistics of one
>>>> correlates with the stats of another - they partially coalesce into
>>>> denser and denser matrices with a high probability of being related to
>>>> you. This is innocuous - until it isn't.
>>>
>>> That's the FUD and urban legends which are spouted. I don't dispute
>>> that these things can/will happen to not-so-smart people or/and outside
>>> the EU.
>>>
>>> But they don't happen to *me*. I do get *no* personalized ads, I get
>>> *no* 'spam' (UCE/UBE), I get *no* unsollicited phone calls/SMS, etc..
>>
>> That is not the sole use of the data collected about you. It has value
>> in ways that are not related to advertising or selling to you.
>
> Yes, I know. As I said, (with my precautions) sofar, so good. (As I
> said (see quote below),) Much higher dangers than this to worry about.

[AAA.1]
Point is: you do not know. You believe you know. But you have zero
idea of what is happening with your information that Google have
collected on you and re-sold to others. You have no idea what these
others are doing with it.

[AAA.2]
You believe you are wrapped in the protections of EU law, but you have
no idea how data above you is collected, stored, processed and used
outside of the legal confine of the EU ... but is still useful to some
co. somewhere at some time.

>
>>>>>> I use a fake birthday on all
>>>>>> websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date:
>>>>>> government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).
>>>>>
>>>>> Same here.
>>>>
>>>> Not what you said earlier.
>>>
>>> I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
>>> assumed that's public info, but it isn't.
>>
>> I never claimed it was public info. But it is info Amazon have (and use
>> and sell). You were a fool to give that up to them.
>
> Huh? Amazon? What stuff are you on? I never mentioned Amazon.

Quite right. As I'm on this thread I'm also shopping for parts on Amazon
- fuddled my message. Astounding that I can find a Chinese co. making
replacement parts for a near 30 year old American made tool - and it's
here a few days later...

>
>>> On websites, I do the same as you (give no birthday or a fake one if
>>> the website insists and only use my real birthday where legally
>>> required).
>>
>> Amazon doesn't use a website? Wow, I really ...
>
> Yes, they do. Your *point* being? (Clue-by-four: I don't use Amazon.
> Guess why.)

Substitute the word "Amazon" above for Google. Re-compute.

[Alan Browne]

On 2024-02-21 05:12, Frank Slootweg wrote:

(BTW, Apple just got another 500M Euro fine
> for violating EU rules for music streaming services (reported by the
> Financial Times).)

Nope. Apple are expected to be fined in March.

And of course Apple will fight it.

[Frank Slootweg]

Nice try, but no cigar. *You* mentioned Apple's practices *first* and
slurred "other co's". Then *you* brought up Google as an example of
these "other co's". I countered your slur with facts on what Google is
doing.

So any deflection is on you.

As to the "the user is the product", that's true for most if not all
free services and - as I explained - in the Google case, the user has
several controls on what the 'product' does and does not conprise.

But don't let that stop your unsubstantiated contentless rants.

AFAIC. EOD.

[Frank Slootweg]

As I meantioned, the jurisdiction is the EU and local law if that can
and does diverge from EU legislation.

> The harm is that it can used to pre-profile you based on a bias or trend
> rather than as you as an individual. I suspect you, like me, are a white
> european so we will never/rarely suffer negative consequences because we
> the average or default group.
>
> People from minority backgrounds on the other hand have to constantly fight
> to be treated as an individual rather than a group label: "black",
> "disabled", "muslim", etc.

True, but I don't see what that has to do with Google. Only gender is
in your Google profile. (You can set it to 'Rather not say', but that's
hardly relevant with a clear first name like mine.)

> >>> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
> >>> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
> >>> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
> >>
> >> You're naive if you think that's all the data google has on you.
> >
> > Yes, they have more data on me, but the question is, is that "private
> > data" and do they use it against my wishes/interests or/and do they
> > sell it to others? There's no actual proof of any of this, only
> > innuendo.
>
> They may not sell your data directly, but they do make a lot of money from
> it.
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and

Thanks. I'll have a closer look, but a quick scan shows a US
(California) - i.e. non-EU - setting and users not using the
data-limiting controls which are available to them.

[Alan Browne]

Completely de-coupled, actually, and deliberately so.

>
> So any deflection is on you.
>
> As to the "the user is the product", that's true for most if not all
> free services and - as I explained - in the Google case, the user has
> several controls on what the 'product' does and does not conprise.
>
> But don't let that stop your unsubstantiated contentless rants.
>
> AFAIC. EOD.

Yes, I was coming to that too.

[Frank Slootweg]

Yes, they *do* have to *prove* they're not violating the what is (not)
not needed rule. So in the example, they have to prove that the
customer's birthday is needed in order to be able to perform the
transaction. As the birthday is not needed in most cases, it's a by
default violation, unless they can prove otherwise.

It's not a normal court case. The organization judges the alleged
violation. If they find it's a violation, they can take action, which
can of often does include a fine. *Then* the accused party can object
and try to dispute the case/fine. Same with the country-local
equivalents, they judge, they decide, they issue a fine.

Moral: Don't pretend to know how the EU/country-local legislation on
use of personal data works.

[...]

The point you keep ignoring that in order to be able to do anything
with "your information", 'they' first have to *have* such information.

*My* *point* is that 'they' have very, very limited information,
because I provide only minimal information and 'they' can 'trace' only
very minimal information, because I'm not providing more to anyone.

> [AAA.2]
> You believe you are wrapped in the protections of EU law, but you have
> no idea how data above you is collected, stored, processed and used
> outside of the legal confine of the EU ... but is still useful to some
> co. somewhere at some time.

See [AAA.1]. No data in, no data out.

[Rewind/repeat:]

> > Yes, I know. As I said, (with my precautions) sofar, so good. (As I
> > said (see quote below),) Much higher dangers than this to worry about.

Dangers like data breaches, phishing, fraud attempts, ransomware
attacks, etc., etc..

[...]

I'm done. I hope so are you. There's just no point.

[Frank Slootweg]

[Disclaimer: Yes, I said EOD, but it took a while for this mind-boggler
to sink in.]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-02-21 05:12, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> On 2024-02-20 15:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:

[...]

> >>> I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
> >>> assumed that's public info, but it isn't.
> >>
> >> I never claimed it was public info. But it is info Amazon have (and use
> >> and sell). You were a fool to give that up to them.
> >
> > Huh? Amazon? What stuff are you on? I never mentioned Amazon.
>
> Quite right. As I'm on this thread I'm also shopping for parts on Amazon
> - fuddled my message. Astounding that I can find a Chinese co. making
> replacement parts for a near 30 year old American made tool - and it's
> here a few days later...

You're not serious, are you!?

Here you are lecturing someone, who is using a tightly controlled
Google Account, on the alleged severe privacy risks of such use, while
you are shopping at *Amazon*!

So Amazon having, using and selling your personal information is
perfectly fine in your book, but if (you say) Google does so, it's the
end of the world as we know it!?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

And you say you use *Google* *Maps*! Bad boy, bad boy, bad bad boy!

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-02-20, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-02-20 08:43, badgolferman wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-20 10:07, soyon wrote:
>>>> David B. wrote on 20.02.2024 06:31
>>>>> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/
>>>>
>>>> Nice find.
>>>>
>>>> I love the post with the screenshot from Apple saying essentially
>>>> that Apple's walled garden falls apart like a Potemkin village the
>>>> instant you don't constantly and repeatedly, day after day, always
>>>> log into Apple's servers (every day of your life, forever!) using
>>>> the same Apple ID.
>>>
>>> Your basic premise is false and misleading (that you Arlen?) - and
>>> that you're echoing off of that idiot diminishes your very low
>>> standing even further.
>>>
>>> You can do everything on an iPhone communications wise that you can
>>> do with Android. That is e-mail, SMS/MMS, other messaging
>>> platforms, surf the web, etc. and so on, w/o being logged into
>>> Apple's system. And of course to the extent that 10's of thousands
>>> of apps provide their own servers, etc., those are also accessible
>>> w/o logging into Apple's servers.
>>>
>>> The benefit of being logged into iCloud is the other Apple provided
>>> services for communications and integration of services (as oft
>>> listed in the past). This is the "apple eco-system" that makes
>>> using using various Apple devices such as a Mac and iPhone so
>>> seamless and convenient. All of this over a very strongly encrypted
>>> communications system run by a company that sells products and
>>> services - not people's information - like Android producer Google.
>>>
>>> So, bleat out your nonsense attack on Apple again and again and
>>> again, it doesn't change the reality of things.
>>
>> Can you setup a new iPhone without an AppleID?
>
> Yup.
>
> 30 seconds of personal research could have answered that for you.

He was told by Arlen that wasn't possible! And like a good little
trollboi he swallowed it up and regurgitated it in the form of a
question as if he thought it was some witty "gotcha". Gullible rube is
the phrase of the day! 😉

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

JR

[Jolly Roger]

Tell me you aren't this dumb. iCloud Backups are not messages.

iMessage has indeed been end-to-end encrypted for a long, long time.

Backups are also end-to-end encrypted when you enable Advanced Data
Protection which was introduced with iOS 16.2, iPadOS 16.2 and macOS
13.1.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-02-21, Gelato <gelato@> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:15:27 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption
>>>
>>> "While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted
>>> by default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end
>>> encrypted as well, Apple has yet to extend the same security to
>>> backups stored on iCloud."
>>
>> Re-read what you cite for comprehension v. what I wrote.
>
> The point was the article discussed what few people realize which is
> the encryption key was known to Apple for all their iMessage data on
> iCloud.

Nope. Wrong again. IF you use the OPTIONAL iCloud Backups feature - as
opposed to backing up to your own computer, and you don't enabled
Advanced Data Protection, your backup contains a copy of your iMessage
encryption key. Nuance is hard, y'all! 🤣

> End to end encryption means nothing when a company has the encryption
> key.

Don't back up to iCloud, or enable Advanced Data Protection. "Problem"
solved, like magic!

[Jolly Roger]

On 2024-02-20, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2024-02-20 12:54, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:16:20 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
>>> internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with
>>> you.
>>
>> You're correct that Apple knows everything you do with your unique
>> Apple ID as was recently described in this information technology
>> privacy report.
>
> You apparently don't understand...
>
>> Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple
>> says
>

> ...that Apple is not:
>
> "companies, particularly large ones like Google and Facebook, to work
> around the protections and stockpile even more data."
>
>> The paper warned that despite Apple's insincere promise of more
>> transparency, ATT might gives its users a false sense of security.
>
> Weird that you left that out of the paragraph you quoted above this
> paragraph...
>
> ...isn't it?
>
>>
>> "The researchers identified nine iOS apps that used server-side code
>> to generate a mutual user identifier that a subsidiary of the Chinese
>> tech company Alibaba can use for cross-app tracking. "The sharing of
>> device information for purposes of fingerprinting would be in
>> violation of Apple's policies, which do not allow developers to
>> 'derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying
>> it,'" the researchers wrote.
>
> "nine iOS apps".
>
> How many of them were Apple's?

I'll hazard a guess: Zero.

>> blah blah blah

>
> '6 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK
>
> Overall, we find that Apple’s new policies largely live up to its
> promises on making tracking more difficult.'
>
><https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.03556.pdf>
>
> Small wonder you failed to include this.

Weak troll's gonna troll.

[Chris]

Not everyone here is in the EU. Including me unfortunately.

>> The harm is that it can used to pre-profile you based on a bias or trend
>> rather than as you as an individual. I suspect you, like me, are a white
>> european so we will never/rarely suffer negative consequences because we
>> the average or default group.
>>
>> People from minority backgrounds on the other hand have to constantly fight
>> to be treated as an individual rather than a group label: "black",
>> "disabled", "muslim", etc.
>
> True, but I don't see what that has to do with Google. Only gender is
> in your Google profile. (You can set it to 'Rather not say', but that's
> hardly relevant with a clear first name like mine.)

You can identify a lot of information about someone just by observing them.

>>>>> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
>>>>> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
>>>>> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
>>>>
>>>> You're naive if you think that's all the data google has on you.
>>>
>>> Yes, they have more data on me, but the question is, is that "private
>>> data" and do they use it against my wishes/interests or/and do they
>>> sell it to others? There's no actual proof of any of this, only
>>> innuendo.
>>
>> They may not sell your data directly, but they do make a lot of money from
>> it.
>>
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and
>
> Thanks. I'll have a closer look, but a quick scan shows a US
> (California) - i.e. non-EU - setting and users not using the
> data-limiting controls which are available to them.

Agree that most of the issues are relevant to the US. GDPR has been great
for data protection.