Apple lied. Again. Yet another Apple privacy policy lie is exposed.

[Arlen Holder]

Yet another Apple privacy policy lie is exposed.
<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/apple-explains-mysterious-iphone-11-location-requests/>

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-05 5:51 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Yet another Apple privacy policy lie is exposed.
> <https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/apple-explains-mysterious-iphone-11-location-requests/>
>

Sorry, but what precisely is the lie?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-05 5:51 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> Yet another Apple privacy policy lie is exposed.
> <https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/apple-explains-mysterious-iphone-11-location-requests/>
>

That seems to back up what experts have discerned so far. Will Strafach,
chief executive at Guardian Firewall and iOS security expert, said in a
tweet that his analysis showed there was “no evidence” that any location
data is sent to a remote server.

<https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/05/apple-ultra-wideband-newer-iphones-location/>

<https://twitter.com/zackwhittaker/status/1202642958480236544>

TL;DR

No location information is being sent off the phone, ergo, no privacy
implication at all.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:32:24 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> No location information is being sent off the phone, ergo, no privacy
> implication at all.

Two _adult_ observations for this newsgroup (if any adults exist on it)...

1. If my phone shouts out (over the airwaves) my real name constantly,
everywhere I go, anywhere in the world, incessantly shouting out my name,
and, if, in most cases, nobody nefarious cares to hear it, but in other
cases, someone with nefarious intent can make use of it, is there still (in
your mind, Alan Baker), "no privacy implication at all"?

2. If my security policy clearly states "users can disable all location
services entirely with one swipe", and yet, they clearly & obviously can't,
is there still (in your mind, Alan Baker), no violation of Apple's own
security policy?

Of course, Apple "does not see any concerns here", just as Apple didn't see
any concern about secretly, drastically, & permanently throttling CPUs
(something no other phone manufacturer has _ever_ done, mind you).

And yet, Apple stated they'll add the missing switch, which will then put
Apple back in line (in this one case) with their own privacy policy (which
we've shown is a farce, in many other cases, e.g., Siri, FacePalm, etc.).

To the _adults_ (if any) on this newsgroup, the "big deal" is that Apple
claims to be "holier than thou" (paraphrased) on "privacy", so when Apple
lies (yet again) on privacy, it is a big deal to adults.

--
Bringing facts & truth to the Apple newsgroups, one fact & truth at a time.

[nospam]

In article <qsdi05$u48$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

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

> 1. If my phone shouts out (over the airwaves) my real name constantly,
> everywhere I go, anywhere in the world, incessantly shouting out my name,
> and, if, in most cases, nobody nefarious cares to hear it, but in other
> cases, someone with nefarious intent can make use of it, is there still (in
> your mind, Alan Baker), "no privacy implication at all"?

iphones do not shout out real names constantly or even sporadically.

as usual, you haven't a fucking clue what you're babbling about.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 07:42:20 -0500, nospam wrote:

> as usual, you haven't a fucking clue what you're babbling about.

It's interesting how vehement you apologists get, when you realize Apple is
caught red handed, in yet again, lie in their own highly advertised privacy
policy.

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:00:38 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Sorry, but what precisely is the lie?

Are all the Apple posters to this newsgroup utterly immune to facts?

FACTS:
o "Users can disable _all_ location services _entirely_ with one swipe"
o "The icon appears for system services that do not have a switch in
Settings"

o Apple Explains Mysterious iPhone 11 Location Requests
<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>
"Apple's initial and somewhat dismissive response
- that this was expected behavior and not a bug
- *was at odds with its own privacy policy*
and [at odds] with its recent commercials[1]
stating that customers should be in full control
over what they share via their phones and what
their phones share about them."

o [1] Privacy on iPhone - Simple as that - Apple
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py0acqg1oKc>

The good news?
o After Apple is caught, they bow to criticism (e.g., throttling, Siri, etc.)

"Apple says it plans to include the option of a dedicated toggle in System
Services to disable the UWB activity in an upcoming update of its iOS
operating system..."

--
Bear in mind the "big deal" is that Apple *loudly* proclaims to be holier
than thou on privacy, so it's a big deal because the factual evidence
clearly shows, time and again (and time and again, again) and again, and
again, that they're not.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-06 4:36 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:32:24 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> No location information is being sent off the phone, ergo, no privacy
>> implication at all.
>
> Two _adult_ observations for this newsgroup (if any adults exist on it)...
>
> 1. If my phone shouts out (over the airwaves) my real name constantly,
> everywhere I go, anywhere in the world, incessantly shouting out my name,
> and, if, in most cases, nobody nefarious cares to hear it, but in other
> cases, someone with nefarious intent can make use of it, is there still (in
> your mind, Alan Baker), "no privacy implication at all"?

Except it isn't doing that in this case.

The proper analogy is of one anonymously asking where one is.

[Alan Baker]

Funny you don't mention this later article from the same source (it's
linked at the bottom of the article you do cite):

'“Ultra Wideband technology is an industry standard technology and is
subject to international regulatory requirements that require it to be
turned off in certain locations,” the statement continues. “iOS uses
Location Services to help determine if iPhone is in these prohibited
locations in order to disable Ultra Wideband and comply with
regulations. The management of Ultrawide Band compliance and its use of
location data is done entirely on the device and Apple is not collecting
user location data.”'

<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/apple-explains-mysterious-iphone-11-location-requests/>

Get that:

"The management of Ultrawide Band compliance and its use of location
data is done entirely on the device and Apple is not collecting user
location data."

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:44:10 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Except it isn't doing that in this case.
>
> The proper analogy is of one anonymously asking where one is.

Are all the Apple posters to this newsgroup utterly immune to these facts?
o *Apple violated their own privacy policy* (again).

Luckily, Apple caved in to pressure & said they'd comply in the future.

--
The "big deal" is that Apple loudly proclaims to be holier
than thou on privacy, so it's a big deal when factual evidence
clearly shows, time and again (and again & again) that they're not.

[Arlen Holder]

Hi Alan,
*You apologists always prove to be _immune_ to the simplest facts.*

Fact 1:
o Apple's policy clearly states users can disable _all_ location settings.
Fact 2:
o And yet, they can't. There is no switch disabling UWB location settings.
Fact 3:
o Only _after_ Apple got caught did Apple say they'll add the missing switch.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-06 1:18 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:44:10 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Except it isn't doing that in this case.
>>
>> The proper analogy is of one anonymously asking where one is.
>
> Are all the Apple posters to this newsgroup utterly immune to these facts?
> o *Apple violated their own privacy policy* (again).
>
> Luckily, Apple caved in to pressure & said they'd comply in the future.
>

Is that your admission that there really is no privacy implication in
one's phone determining its location for the purpose of complying with
local laws and regulations about UWB use?

[Alan Baker]

No. There is no violation of privacy in this.

[nospam]

In article <qsegji$s19$2...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

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

> There is no switch disabling UWB location settings.

nor should there be, since location data for uwb doesn't leave the
device.

location is determined locally, and then uwb is disabled where it's
prohibited.

but at least you figured out the correct acronym.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 16:27:28 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> There is no switch disabling UWB location settings.
>
> nor should there be, since location data for uwb doesn't leave the
> device.
>
> location is determined locally, and then uwb is disabled where it's
> prohibited.
>
> but at least you figured out the correct acronym.

Hi nospam,

If you are an adult, you'll answer these simple pertinent yes/no questions:

1. Does Apple's privacy policy state the user has control over _all_ location settings?

2. Does the iPhone 11 user have control over those UWB location settings today?

3. Did Apple say they will implement that control in a future iOS release?

4. Can you even _begin_ to comprehend _why_ Apple made that decision?

--
This is important because it underscores, yet again, that Apple's claim to
be holier than thou on privacy is yet more meaningless marketing gimmickry.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:25:06 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> No. There is no violation of privacy in this.

Alan,

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:24:35 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Is that your admission that there really is no privacy implication in
> one's phone determining its location for the purpose of complying with
> local laws and regulations about UWB use?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-06 1:38 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:24:35 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Is that your admission that there really is no privacy implication in
>> one's phone determining its location for the purpose of complying with
>> local laws and regulations about UWB use?
>
> Alan,
>
> If you are an adult, you'll answer these simple pertinent yes/no questions:
>
> 1. Does Apple's privacy policy state the user has control over _all_ location settings?

I don't know, nor do I care.

>
> 2. Does the iPhone 11 user have control over those UWB location settings today?

Nope, but they don't need to control that for any reason related to privacy.

>
> 3. Did Apple say they will implement that control in a future iOS release?

Apparently, but caving to pressure doesn't mean there was actually a
privacy issue.

>
> 4. Can you even _begin_ to comprehend _why_ Apple made that decision?\

Yup. PR.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-06 1:38 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:25:06 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> No. There is no violation of privacy in this.
>
> Alan,
>
> If you are an adult, you'll answer these simple pertinent yes/no questions:
>
> 1. Does Apple's privacy policy state the user has control over _all_ location settings?
>
> 2. Does the iPhone 11 user have control over those UWB location settings today?
>
> 3. Did Apple say they will implement that control in a future iOS release?
>
> 4. Can you even _begin_ to comprehend _why_ Apple made that decision?
>

Asked and answered already, so now I get to ask one:

In what way is the user's privacy imperiled by the phone checking its
location to see whether or not UWB can be used?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:42:54 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Asked and answered already, so now I get to ask one:
>
> In what way is the user's privacy imperiled by the phone checking its
> location to see whether or not UWB can be used?

Alan,
Please think like an adult.

The _adult_ point is that Apple violated their own privacy policy (again).
o Only after Apple got caught (again), did they say they'll comply.

It's a big deal when the company that touts privacy repeatedly doesn't even
comply with its own privacy policy (again, and again, and again).

A. The privacy policy states the user has control.
B. And yet, that was a lie (they don't have control).
C. They will soon, but only because Apple got caught (again).

"Krebs came to a logical conclusion. 'It seems they are saying
their phones have some system services that query your location
regardless of whether one has disabled this setting individually
for all apps and iOS system services,' he wrote. *He wasn't wrong*."

That's from this cite:
o Apple says its ultra wideband technology is why newer iPhones appear to
share location data, even when the setting is disabled
<https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/05/apple-ultra-wideband-newer-iphones-location/>

--
When the company that touts privacy doesn't even respect its own privacy
policy (until it got caught), it's a big deal (because it proves the lie).

[Arlen Holder]

Hi Alan Baker,

These are the _adult_ answers to the four salient questions:
Q: Does Apple's privacy policy state the user has control over _all_ location settings?
A: Yes

Q: Does the iPhone 11 user have control over those UWB location settings today?
A: No

Q: Did Apple say they will implement that control in a future iOS release?
A: Yes

Q: Can you even _begin_ to comprehend _why_ Apple made that decision?
Any adult would say "yes"; it's because Apple got caught (again).

FACT:
Apple violated (again) their own privacy policy.

--
This is a big deal because Apple claims to be holier than thou on privacy,
and yet, facts prove Apple can't even ship a phone that doesn't violate
their own privacy policy (and, worse, they only comply with their own
privacy policy _after_ they get caught).

[Arlen Holder]

FACTS:

By now, it's clear Apple (yet again) clearly violated its own privacy
policy on all the iPhone 11 series phones.

*It's also clear to adults, that Apple lied _twice_ this week:*
o Once on the privacy policy (which by all accounts, was violated)
o And another lie on the reason why they did it in the first place

A. Apple's privacy policy states the user has full location sensor control.
B. And yet, that was a lie (they don't have control over all location requests).
C. They will soon, but only because Apple got caught red handed (again).

"Krebs came to a logical conclusion. 'It seems they are saying
their phones have some system services that query your location
regardless of whether one has disabled this setting individually
for all apps and iOS system services,' he wrote. *He wasn't wrong*."

That's from this cite:
o Apple says its ultra wideband technology is why newer iPhones appear to
share location data, even when the setting is disabled
<https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/05/apple-ultra-wideband-newer-iphones-location/>

"Yesterday *Apple was caught red handed* and now the company has
admitted that the settings in millions of iPhones are misleading
users about their use of location data, and promised to fix it. "
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/12/05/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-upgrade-privacy-security-ios-13-update/>

"Apple's new iPhone 11 range are seeking information about their
location even when users have specifically changed the phone's
privacy settings to stop this from happening. Something that
Krebs notes *violates the company's own privacy policy*."

BTW, _adults_ on this ng, if there are any, will note this assessment:
"Having claimed it had to follow international regulatory requirements,
the company now says it will enable these background location checks
to be disabled in an upcoming iOS update. Which means they didn't
need to be done in the first place."

I realize apologists won't even catch that lie by Apple, but adults will.

--
Notice, Apple claims to be holier than thou on privacy, and yet, Apple
repeatedly violates its own privacy policy, and doesn't stop violating its
own privacy policy unless Apple is caught red handed first.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:00:38 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Sorry, but what precisely is the lie?

Hi Alan Baker,

There wasn't just one lie by Apple.
o There were _two_ easily proven lies by Apple this week!

1. By _all_ accounts, Apple clearly violated its own privacy policy.
2. Apple claimed they had to, but, they didn't (it was all a big lie).

On the first lie...

A. Apple's privacy policy states the user has full location sensor control.
B. And yet, that was a lie (they don't have control over all location
requests).
C. They will soon, but only because Apple got caught red handed (again).

"Krebs came to a logical conclusion. 'It seems they are saying
their phones have some system services that query your location
regardless of whether one has disabled this setting individually
for all apps and iOS system services,' he wrote. *He wasn't wrong*."

That's from this cite:
o Apple says its ultra wideband technology is why newer iPhones appear to
share location data, even when the setting is disabled
<https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/05/apple-ultra-wideband-newer-iphones-location/>

More on the first lie...

"Yesterday *Apple was caught red handed* and now the company has
admitted that the settings in millions of iPhones are misleading
users about their use of location data, and promised to fix it. "
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/12/05/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-upgrade-privacy-security-ios-13-update/>

"Apple's new iPhone 11 range are seeking information about their
location even when users have specifically changed the phone's
privacy settings to stop this from happening. Something that
Krebs notes *violates the company's own privacy policy*."

On the second lie...

"Having claimed it had to follow international regulatory requirements,
the company now says it will enable these background location checks
to be disabled in an upcoming iOS update. Which means they didn't
need to be done in the first place."

I realize apologists are immune to facts, but the facts easily prove:
o *Apple didn't lie once this week; Apple clearly lied _twice_!*

[nospam]

In article <qseo13$btl$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> There wasn't just one lie by me.
> o There were _two_ easily proven lies by me this week!

ftfy.

actually, there was a non-stop barrage of lies, as there are every
week, but admitting to two of them is a start.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 18:33:50 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> There wasn't just one lie by me.
>> o There were _two_ easily proven lies by me this week!
>
> ftfy.
>
> actually, there was a non-stop barrage of lies, as there are every
> week, but admitting to two of them is a start.

*The Apologists consistently prove they have no _adult_ response to facts.*

Why do apologists repeatedly and predictably turn into instant fifth
graders whenever they are confronted with facts they simply do not like?

o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ>

The apologists have only 7 responses to facts, _none_ of which are adult:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

*The Apologists consistently prove they have no _adult_ response to facts.*
--
Apologists prove, by what they write, to not own an adult brain that is
comprehensive of even the most simple of basic facts; hence they turn into
instant fifth-grade children, when confronted with facts they simply don't
like.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-06 2:15 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:42:54 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Asked and answered already, so now I get to ask one:
>>
>> In what way is the user's privacy imperiled by the phone checking its
>> location to see whether or not UWB can be used?
>
> Alan,
> Please think like an adult.

That's not an answer.

Why is you ask questions and expect me to answer when you won't answer
questions asked of you?

>
> The _adult_ point is that Apple violated their own privacy policy (again).
> o Only after Apple got caught (again), did they say they'll comply.
>
> It's a big deal when the company that touts privacy repeatedly doesn't even
> comply with its own privacy policy (again, and again, and again).
>
> A. The privacy policy states the user has control.
> B. And yet, that was a lie (they don't have control).
> C. They will soon, but only because Apple got caught (again).
>
> "Krebs came to a logical conclusion. 'It seems they are saying
> their phones have some system services that query your location
> regardless of whether one has disabled this setting individually
> for all apps and iOS system services,' he wrote. *He wasn't wrong*."

And now you have deliberately ignored what Krebs said after that.

>
> That's from this cite:
> o Apple says its ultra wideband technology is why newer iPhones appear to
> share location data, even when the setting is disabled
> <https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/05/apple-ultra-wideband-newer-iphones-location/>
>

Ignoring that it also said this:

'“The management of ultra wideband compliance and its use of location

data is done entirely on the device and Apple is not collecting user

location data,” the spokesperson said.'

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-06 2:35 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:42:03 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2019-12-06 1:38 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:24:35 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is that your admission that there really is no privacy implication in
>>>> one's phone determining its location for the purpose of complying with
>>>> local laws and regulations about UWB use?
>>>
>>> Alan,
>>>
>>> If you are an adult, you'll answer these simple pertinent yes/no questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Does Apple's privacy policy state the user has control over _all_ location settings?
>>
>> I don't know, nor do I care.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Does the iPhone 11 user have control over those UWB location settings today?
>>
>> Nope, but they don't need to control that for any reason related to privacy.
>>
>>>
>>> 3. Did Apple say they will implement that control in a future iOS release?
>>
>> Apparently, but caving to pressure doesn't mean there was actually a
>> privacy issue.
>>
>>>
>>> 4. Can you even _begin_ to comprehend _why_ Apple made that decision?\
>>
>> Yup. PR.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> These are the _adult_ answers to the four salient questions:
> Q: Does Apple's privacy policy state the user has control over _all_ location settings?
> A: Yes

Quote it precisely.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:56:33 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> '´The management of ultra wideband compliance and its use of location

> data is done entirely on the device and Apple is not collecting user
> location data,¡ the spokesperson said.'

Try as you might to play your childish games, Alan Baker,
the salient _adult_ topic (see subject line for a reminder) is...

Apple lied.
o Twice!

FACT 1:
It's a big deal when the company that loudly incessantly touts privacy
doesn't even comply with its own privacy policy (again, and again).

FACT 2:
It's a big deal when that company repeatedly resorts to brazen outright
lies, in order to cover up WHY they repeatedly don't comply with their own
privacy policy.

--
It's interesting how apologists are utterly immune to basic adult facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:57:19 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>> These are the _adult_ answers to the four salient questions:
>> Q: Does Apple's privacy policy state the user has control over _all_ location settings?
>> A: Yes
>
> Quote it precisely.

Jesus Christ, Alan Baker,
o *Apologists always prove to be fantastically _immune_ to basic facts.*

Are you apologists _that_ incomprehensibly ignorant that you didn't evenm
see the expressly quoted policy in MANY of the cites already provided?

Really?
o You're _that_ ignorant?

Who is _that_ stupid that they can't see in the cites what any adult easily
can see, and which was quoted in _many_ of the aforementioned cites?

Why must apologists prove in every post to own comprehension of a child?
o The freaking policy was in almost every cited article, Alan Baker.

If you didn't see it in almost every article, then you're _never_ gonna see
it, which is why you apologists always prove me correct when I state:
o *Apologists always prove to be fantastically _immune_ to basic facts.*

--
Only an apologist would brazenly deny that which even Apple admits!

[Alan Baker]

FACT:

You refuse to answer in what way user privacy was actually reduced by this.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-06 7:14 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:57:19 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> These are the _adult_ answers to the four salient questions:
>>> Q: Does Apple's privacy policy state the user has control over _all_ location settings?
>>> A: Yes
>>
>> Quote it precisely.
>
> Jesus Christ, Alan Baker,
> o *Apologists always prove to be fantastically _immune_ to basic facts.*

Yet you don't quote it.

>
> Are you apologists _that_ incomprehensibly ignorant that you didn't evenm
> see the expressly quoted policy in MANY of the cites already provided?

If you saw, then you can quote it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-06 3:25 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:00:38 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but what precisely is the lie?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> There wasn't just one lie by Apple.
> o There were _two_ easily proven lies by Apple this week!
>
> 1. By _all_ accounts, Apple clearly violated its own privacy policy.

Yet you refuse to quote this policy precisely.

> 2. Apple claimed they had to, but, they didn't (it was all a big lie).

And how do you know that?

>
> On the first lie...
> A. Apple's privacy policy states the user has full location sensor control.

Yet you fail to quote it.

No. It doesn't mean that.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:20:17 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You refuse to answer in what way user privacy was actually reduced by this.

What part of "it violates Apple's own privacy policy" don't you comprehend?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:20:49 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> If you saw, then you can quote it.

You saw it too, as it was in _most_ of the cites.

The fact you're _immune_ to facts is clear, Alan Baker.

[Arlen Holder]

On 7 Dec 2019 04:24:47 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Nobody's privacy has been "violated". Much ado about nothing, as usual.
> The lame-ass troll is trolling, as usual.

[Arlen Holder]

On 7 Dec 2019 04:24:47 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2019-12-07, Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz> wrote:
>>
>> Ignoring that it also said this:
>>
>> '´The management of ultra wideband compliance and its use of location
>> data is done entirely on the device and Apple is not collecting user
>> location data,¡ the spokesperson said.'
>

> <https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/05/apple-ultra-wideband-newer-iphones-location/>
>
> ---
> ´The management of ultra wideband compliance and its use of location

> data is done entirely on the device and Apple is not collecting user
> location data,¡ the spokesperson said.
>

> That seems to back up what experts have discerned so far. Will Strafach,
> chief executive at Guardian Firewall and iOS security expert, said in a
> tweet that his analysis showed there was ´no evidence¡ that any location
> data is sent to a remote server.
> ---

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:22:34 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>> 1. By _all_ accounts, Apple clearly violated its own privacy policy.
>
> Yet you refuse to quote this policy precisely.
>
>> 2. Apple claimed they had to, but, they didn't (it was all a big lie).
>
> And how do you know that?

Jesus Christ Alan Baker.
o Can't you _read_ anything?

It's in _most_ of the cites for Christs' sake.

If you missed it in print, you're never gonna get it, Alan Baker.

You apologists _always_ prove to be fantastically immune to simple facts!

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-06 9:37 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:22:34 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> 1. By _all_ accounts, Apple clearly violated its own privacy policy.
>>
>> Yet you refuse to quote this policy precisely.
>>
>>> 2. Apple claimed they had to, but, they didn't (it was all a big lie).
>>
>> And how do you know that?
>
> Jesus Christ Alan Baker.
> o Can't you _read_ anything?
>
> It's in _most_ of the cites for Christs' sake.

So quote it, for Christ's sake (note that I know where to put the
apostrophe).

>
> If you missed it in print, you're never gonna get it, Alan Baker.
>
> You apologists _always_ prove to be fantastically immune to simple facts!
>

So you can't produce it.

Understood.

[Alan Baker]

What part of answering my question don't you comprehend:

How was user privacy actually impacted by the phone checking its
location INTERNALLY and that information never leaving the phone?

[Alan Baker]

Quote...

...it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-06 9:34 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

What part of "the phone checking its location INTERNALLY doesn't
actually impact user privacy" don't YOU comprehend?

[Alan Baker]

[Andreas Rutishauser]

why is this discussed in an off topic newsgroup? It's iPhone 11 only, so
please discuss in iPhone group, but not in ipad.

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

[Lewis]

In message <andreas-03B676...@news.individual.de> Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote:
> why is this discussed in an off topic newsgroup? It's iPhone 11 only, so
> please discuss in iPhone group, but not in ipad.

Stop replying to the shitbag troll, everyone's life will be better.

--
You know, Rick, I have many a friend in Casablanca, but somehow, just
because you despise me, you are the only one I trust.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:42:13 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>> The fact you're _immune_ to facts is clear, Alan Baker.
>>
>> What part of "it violates Apple's own privacy policy" don't you comprehend?
>>
>
> Quote...
>
> ...it.

Alan,

Do you even realize what you just proved (again)?

You are repeatedly brazenly disputing a fact, and yet, that fact is in the
cites, which, clearly, you never read!

That's unbelievable.
o No adult does what you are doing.

None.

*You're proving that you didn't even _read_ the cites?*
o *And yet, you brazenly dispute them.*

It's classic for you apologists.
a. You're utterly immune to facts, and, yet,
b. You brazenly dispute these facts (that you're utterly immune to).

It's classic behavior and one of the 7 traits of Apple Apologists:

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

--
Apologists brazenly dispute facts without ever bothering to _read_ the
cites containing the facts that the apologists brazenly refute!

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-07 10:12 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:42:13 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> The fact you're _immune_ to facts is clear, Alan Baker.
>>>
>>> What part of "it violates Apple's own privacy policy" don't you comprehend?
>>>
>>
>> Quote...
>>
>> ...it.
>
> Alan,
>
> Do you even realize what you just proved (again)?

That when challenged to provide actual substance to back up your bullshit...

...you can't.

>
> You are repeatedly brazenly disputing a fact, and yet, that fact is in the
> cites, which, clearly, you never read!

If it is so easily found...

...then why not just actually quote it?

Why not answer the question I asked earlier:

In what way was user privacy actually impacted by an internal location
check by the phone where no data ever left the phone?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:41:57 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> What part of answering my question don't you comprehend:
>
> How was user privacy actually impacted by the phone checking its
> location INTERNALLY and that information never leaving the phone?

What is astounding about you apologists is you're immune to facts.

The facts are:
a. By all accounts, Apple clearly violated its own privacy policy; and,
b. Apple apparently lied as to the reason they violated the privacy policy.

Your question has NOTHING whatsoever to do with those facts.

I repeat: THIS is the salient fact:
Q: *Did Apple violate their own privacy policy, or not?*
A: *Yes.*

That's a fact.
o You don't like that fact, Alan Baker...

But the fact you hate facts doesn't change that they're still facts.

That you can't comprehend that fact, is kind of scary since any adult on
the planet would instantly comprehend that fact after reading the cites.

--
Apologists prove to be astoundingly immune to even the most basic facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:42:47 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> What part of "the phone checking its location INTERNALLY doesn't
> actually impact user privacy" don't YOU comprehend?

Hi Alan Baker,

Adults will note that the apologists are desperately attempting to deflect
the facts from the simple obvious and undisputed fact below that Apple

violated its own privacy policy.

The apologists are desperate to attempt a deflection from the salient topic
mostly by brazenly denying the well-cited facts (sans a shred of evidence
they even _read_ the articles), and by trying to build a strawman around a
non sequitur that has NOTHING to do with the fact that Apple violated its
own privacy policy (and then apparently lied to cover it up).

What you and the moronic Jolly Roger don't appear to comprehend is that
your red herring is NOT the topic of this thread.

Nobody disputes the answer to your question, Alan Baker.
o Nobody.

*The issue here is about Apple violating their own privacy policy.*

By all accounts, everyone in the cites agrees that Apple violated its own
privacy policy (and some said Apple lied in covering up why).

That's in the cites, Alan Baker - which you didn't read - but it's there.

This is the salient question of this thread, Alan Baker:
*Q: Did Apple violate its own privacy policy, yes or not?*
*A: By all accounts, yes.*

--
Adults will note that the apologists are desperately attempting to deflect
the facts from the simple obvious and undisputed fact above, by a variety
of means, mostly by brazenly denying the well-cited facts (sans a shred of
evidence they even _read_ the articles), and by trying to build a strawman
around a non sequitur that has NOTHING to do with the fact that Apple
violated its own privacy policy (and then apparently lied to cover it up).

[Arlen Holder]

On 7 Dec 2019 20:11:40 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2019-12-07, Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz> wrote:

> He comprehends it - he just refuses to acknowledge it because it doesn't
> support his lame-ass trolling.
>
> --
> 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.

What's interesting is that both Jolly Roger and Alan Baker consistently
prove to be utterly immune to facts that no adult will dispute.

The provided cites show, clearly:
a. Apple violated their own privacy policy, and,
b. Apple's coverup doesn't appear to hold water.

What these Apple apologists like Jolly Roger & Alan Baker are desperatly
attempting is to _deflect_ the topic off those facts, and onto a non
sequitur that, interestingly, NOBODY disputes (not me, not them).

Notice the child-like game Jolly Roger & Alan Baker are playing?
o They can't stand the facts; so they attempt to deflect the facts.

The facts here are simple, obvious, and well documented:
a. Apple clearly violated their own privacy policy, and,
b. Apple's excuse for violating their privacy policy doesn't hold water.

NOTE: If it was "required", then how is Apple able to add a switch to
remove it?

--
Notice how _desperate_ the apologists like Jolly Roger & Alan Baker are to
deflect the topic from the fact that Apple violated its own security
policy, and then apparently lied to cover up why they did so.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:43:16 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> What part of "the phone checking its location INTERNALLY doesn't
> actually impact user privacy" don't YOU comprehend?

Alan,

Are you an adult, or are you a child?

The topic is simple, even as you are immune to facts:
a. Apple violated its own privacy policy (by all accounts), and,
b. Apple apparently lied in explaining why they did that.

Whether or not there is a user-privacy implication is a completely
different non sequitur, where, nobody disputes that the location
information goes OUT from the phone, hits a transmitter/receiver, and then
bounces back to the phone.

Notice, clearly, a man in the middle attack is possible, but nobody yet has
suggested that is happening in the real world, where this week is the first
any of us even knew about this secret violation of Apple's own privacy
policy.

Also note that if you can't turn it off, who is to say what the person next
to you will be doing once it realizes it's close to your phone, and it has
established a connection to your phone (presuming future functionality).

But none of those security implications matter - for a few reasons - not
the least of which this is new information so the security implications of
the MITM attack are currently unknown.

You apologists are desperate to change the subject in order to deflect the
facts off of the salient facts, which you seem to be utterly immune to.

*This is a fact:*
a. *Apple violated its own privacy policy*, and Apple said they will
belatedly comply with their own privacy policy only after having been
caught red handed (as is often the case).

Nobody disputes that fact, Alan Baker.
o Nobody.

*This is also a fact:*
b. Apple "said" they had to break their own privacy policy because of the
regulations surrounding ultra wideband technology legality in certain
countries, but then Apple's solution to keep them in line with their own
privacy policy seems to be at odds with Apple's excuse for why they broke
their own privacy policy in the first place.

I realize you didn't read the cites; but both those facts are in the cites.

The fact you and Jolly Roger hate facts doesn't change the fact that
they're still facts.

--
Apologists always prove to be fantastically immune to even simple facts.

[nospam]

In article <qsh7t3$nkf$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> What is astounding about me is I'm immune to facts.

ftfy

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 11:25:53 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> That when challenged to provide actual substance to back up your bullshit...
>
> ...you can't.

Alan Baker,

Do you really think this is my first rodeo with apologists?

*You didn't even _read_ the cites!*
o *And yet, you brazenly deny the facts contained in those cites!*

This is classic apologist behavior, Alan Baker.
o All you apologists are utterly immune to facts you don't like.

*It doesn't matter how many cites I give you.*

You brazenly deny all facts you don't like
o Without even _reading_ the cites.

You have done this so many times, I can't count it.
o The fact is you're utterly immune to facts.

It wouldn't matter how many cites I provided.
o You are immune to any fact you simply don't like.

It's why you're an apologist.

--
Apologists can't read cites but they still brazenly deny the facts
contained in those cites that they didn't even bother to read.

[Arlen Holder]

What's shocking is how you, nospam, always prove by what you write, to own
the brain of a fifth grade child.

*You apologists have no _adult_ response to facts.*

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

--

Apologists have 7 responses to facts they don't like, none of them adult.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-07 2:08 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:41:57 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What part of answering my question don't you comprehend:
>>
>> How was user privacy actually impacted by the phone checking its
>> location INTERNALLY and that information never leaving the phone?
>

> What is astounding...

...is that you have no real answer to this question?

No. Utterly predictable.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-07 2:16 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:42:47 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What part of "the phone checking its location INTERNALLY doesn't
>> actually impact user privacy" don't YOU comprehend?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Adults will note that the apologists are desperately attempting to deflect
> the facts from the simple obvious and undisputed fact below that Apple
> violated its own privacy policy.

Since you will not clearly quote the part of their policy Apple is
supposed to have violated, we can ignore this.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-07 2:20 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2019 20:11:40 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> On 2019-12-07, Alan Baker<nu...@ness.biz> wrote:
>>> On 2019-12-06 9:34 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>>>> On 7 Dec 2019 04:24:47 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nobody's privacy has been "violated". Much ado about nothing, as
>>>>> usual. The lame-ass troll is trolling, as usual.
>>>> What part of "it violates Apple's own privacy policy" don't you
>>>> comprehend?
>>> What part of "the phone checking its location INTERNALLY doesn't
>>> actually impact user privacy" don't YOU comprehend?
>> He comprehends it - he just refuses to acknowledge it because it doesn't
>> support his lame-ass trolling.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
> What's interesting is that both Jolly Roger and Alan Baker consistently
> prove to be utterly immune to facts that no adult will dispute.
>
> The provided cites show, clearly:
> a. Apple violated their own privacy policy, and,

And yet you cannot quote the portion of the policy you claim they
violated...

Odd, don't you think?

Please:

<https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/>

Oh, what the news articles have quoted as Apple's "policy"?

It wasn't. It was a support article:

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056>

You lose... ...again.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-07 2:31 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:43:16 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What part of "the phone checking its location INTERNALLY doesn't
>> actually impact user privacy" don't YOU comprehend?
>
> Alan,
>
> Are you an adult, or are you a child?
>
> The topic is simple, even as you are immune to facts:
> a. Apple violated its own privacy policy (by all accounts), and,

Then "all [the] accounts" are wrong.

None of them actually quoted Apple's privacy policy.

Oops.

You lose... ...again.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 08:46:24 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Then "all [the] accounts" are wrong.
>
> None of them actually quoted Apple's privacy policy.
>
> Oops.
>
> You lose... ...again.

What would be shocking if I wasn't familiar with the psychology of you
apologists, is that almost every cite explained exactly what part of
Apple's privacy policy that Apple violated.

And yet, you deny these facts, brazenly, out of hand.
o Simply because you didn't bother to _read_ the cites provided.

You do realize this is classic Apple Apologist behavior, Alan.

What I love about you Alan Baker, and which I loved about Jolly Roger, and
BK before you, is that you are an astoundingly PERFECT example of the
psychology of the typical Apple apologist.

A. You don't read the cites provided.
B. And yet, you brazenly deny the facts in those cites.

You prove, for me, that you apologists are not like normal adults.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 08:45:43 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Since you will not clearly quote the part of their policy Apple is
> supposed to have violated, we can ignore this.

Alan Baker,

Did you read _any_ of the cited articles?

Many of those articles explained EXACTLY what Apple violated.

What's amazing is that you brazenly deny that which any adult would have
known long ago.

You exhibit classic Apologist behavior.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 08:46:16 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> And yet you cannot quote the portion of the policy you claim they
> violated...
>
> Odd, don't you think?

Alan Baker,

Do you think this is my first rodeo with you?
o You apologists always brazenly deny facts without even reading the cites!

It wouldn't matter to you WHAT I quoted.
o You've proven you never even _read_ the cites anyway...
o And yet, you brazenly deny the facts contained in those cites.

You always prove to exhibit this classic Apologists' behavior.

The facts in the cites are clear, which nobody disputes:
1. Apple clearly (by all accounts) secretly violated their own privacy policy;
2. When caught red handed (again), Apple said they'd belatedly fix it;
3. Where adults will notice the "fix" directly contradicts Apple's excuse
as to "why" they secretly violated their own privacy policy in the first
place.

Apple lied. Twice.

NOTE: The Forbes article was updated yesterday with the fix date:
o Apple Issues New Warning For Millions Of iPhone Users [Updated]
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/12/07/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-upgrade-privacy-security-ios-13-update/>
"Update 12/7 - 9to5Mac has confirmed through carriers that
iOS 13.3 will be released next week. It is expected to bring
Apple's promised fix for this problem..."

--
The apologists always brazenly deny facts without even reading the cites!

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-07 2:37 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 11:25:53 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> That when challenged to provide actual substance to back up your bullshit...
>>
>> ...you can't.
>
> Alan Baker,
>
> Do you really think this is my first rodeo with apologists?
>
> *You didn't even _read_ the cites!*
> o *And yet, you brazenly deny the facts contained in those cites!*

I did read them... ...and I learned something you didn't.

Your cites don't quote Apple's Privacy Policy.

They quote an Apple support document.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-08 11:12 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 08:46:24 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Then "all [the] accounts" are wrong.
>>
>> None of them actually quoted Apple's privacy policy.
>>
>> Oops.
>>
>> You lose... ...again.
>
> What would be shocking if I wasn't familiar with the psychology of you
> apologists, is that almost every cite explained exactly what part of
> Apple's privacy policy that Apple violated.

No... ...no cite did that.

They ALL quoted an Apple SUPPORT ARTICLE, NOT the actual Privacy Policy.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-08 11:12 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 08:45:43 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Since you will not clearly quote the part of their policy Apple is
>> supposed to have violated, we can ignore this.
>
> Alan Baker,
>
> Did you read _any_ of the cited articles?

Yup.

>
> Many of those articles explained EXACTLY what Apple violated.

Nope. They quoted an Apple support article. This one:

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056>

Twist as you might, that is NOT Apple's "Privacy Policy".

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-08 11:12 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

Apple fixing a "problem" for whatever reasons Apple deems good is not
proof that their privacy policy was violated.

Here is a link to Apple's Privacy Policy:

<https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/>

Please quote the salient (you DO know what "salient" means, right?)
portion of that document to support your claim that Apple has violated it.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:51:27 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> No... ...no cite did that.
>
> They ALL quoted an Apple SUPPORT ARTICLE, NOT the actual Privacy Policy.

Hi Alan Baker,

Your behavior is _classic_ for Apple Apologists!
o So I again thank you for _proving_ Apologists are not like normal people.

Kudos to you apologists for finally (at last) _reading_ the public cites!
o However, you still didn't _comprehend_ what those cites actually said!

*What part of the privacy policy _on the phone itself_ don't you comprehend?*

Here is the verbatim quote from the original source, Krebs on Security:
<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>

"The privacy policy *available from the iPhone's Location Services screen*
says, 'If Location Services is on, your iPhone will periodically send the
geo-tagged locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers (where
supported by a device) in an anonymous and encrypted form to Apple, to be
used for augmenting this crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspot and cell
tower locations.'

*The policy explains* users can disable all location services entirely with
one swipe (by navigating to Settings > Privacy > Location Services, then
switching 'Location Services' to 'off'). When one does this, the location
services indicator ¡X a small diagonal upward arrow to the left of the
battery icon ¡X no longer appears unless Location Services is re-enabled.

*The policy continues*: 'You can also disable location-based system
services by tapping on System Services and turning off each location-based
system service.' But apparently there are some system services on this
model (and possibly other iPhone 11 models) which request location data and
cannot be disabled by users without completely turning off location
services, as the arrow icon still appears periodically even after
individually disabling all system services that use location."

--
Think of it as a "mains" circuit breaker, that has "hidden" circuits which
are not turned off even though the mains is documented, right there, in
your face, on the panel itself, to turn off _all_ circuits!

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:49:24 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>> *You didn't even _read_ the cites!*
>> o *And yet, you brazenly deny the facts contained in those cites!*
>
> I did read them... ...and I learned something you didn't.
>
> Your cites don't quote Apple's Privacy Policy.
>
> They quote an Apple support document.

Alan Baker,

Apple Apologists would do well to look up the meaning of the word "Always".

Play all the silly games you want to play...
o Even Apple has admitted they'll soon fix this obvious policy violation.

*You deny what is in EVERY Apple iPhone - which nobody _can_ deny.*

What you fail to comprehend, is the meaning of the word "Always".
o This (incomprehensible to you) word is in EVERY iPhone "Settings".

This article, dated today, explains _why_ that word is important:
o Will the new iPhone 11 track you even if you tell it not to?
<https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2019/12/09/will-the-new-iphone-11-track-you-even-if-you-tell-it-not-to/>
"Never does what it says ĄV the app can call the iOS functions
to retrieve your location, but won't get anything back;
and "_Always_ is similarly obvious*. In other words,
if you can't see the app, it canĄŚt see you."

In colloquial terms, Apple breaks their own rules on privacy time and
again, and yet, Apple touts a "holier than thou" imaginary privacy.

They likened it to a mains circuit breaker which _clearly_ is documented
(and intended) to turn off _all_ the circuits; but, which, secretly, only
turns off _some_ of the circuits (which is clearly a violation of both the
intent, and of the word "Always" right there in front of your own face!).

Before you respond, Alan Baker, with excuses for Apple's behavior...
o Please look up the meaning of the word "Always".

Given that my main point is that Apple MARKETING _thrives_ on loudly
proclaiming (what always turns out to be imaginary) safety, the article
concluded with:
"The moral of this story is that there is no room for ambiguity
or confusion in software components where users manage their privacy."

--
Apple Apologists would do well to look up the meaning of the word "Always".

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:54:58 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Nope. They quoted an Apple support article. This one:
>
> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056>
>
> Twist as you might, that is NOT Apple's "Privacy Policy".

Hi Alan Baker,

I again thank you for _proving_ Apologists are not like normal people.

1. First, you proved to not even read the cites before denying the facts.
2. Then, when _forced_ to read the cites, you failed to comprehend them!

*What part of the privacy policy _on the phone itself_ don't you comprehend?*

Here is the verbatim quote from the original source, Krebs on Security:
<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>

"*The privacy policy _available from the iPhone's Location Services screen_ says ...*"
"*_The policy explains_ users can disable all location services entirely...*"
"*_The policy continues_: 'You can also disable location-based system services...*"

Thank you for _proving_ (yet again), two very important apologists' traits:
a. Apologists repeatedly brazenly deny facts sans ever reading the cites,
b. When _forced_ to read cites, Apologists still don't comprehend simple facts.

Note that _nobody_ else denies these facts, not even Apple...
o Only you Apologists brazenly deny facts that even Apple admits to!

See also:
o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/iEHFdEXJAQAJ>

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 08:45:23 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>> What is astounding...
>
> ...is that you have no real answer to this question?
>
> No. Utterly predictable.

Alan Baker,

The difference between adults, and Apple apologists, is stark.
o Adults can comprehend facts, and,
o Adults form rational reasonable logical assessments of those facts.

You apologists can do neither.

Hence, I thank you for _proving_ (yet again) apologists are _immune_ to fact.
o Normally I allow Jolly Roger or BK or Lewis or nospam to prove that point.

But you'll do fine.

Notice that I read the original cite, and I _understood_ what it said!
o That's because I'm a normal adult, in that
a. I comprehend (basic printed valid easily verifiable) facts, and,
b. I reasonably assess those facts (in the same way as other adults did).

Notice apologists, by way of stark contrast with normal adults:
A. Cannot comprehend even the simplest of facts (you're _immune_ to facts!)
B. Hence, apologists simply brazenly deny any facts they simply don't like.

Normally Barry Margolin, Savageduck, Alan Brown, or Tim Streater prove it
o But you'll do just fine since you clearly proved it in this very thread.

Here is the "original" report on the facts, Alan Browne...
o These are facts apologists not only brazenly deny, but, worse...

When apologists are _forced_ to read the cite...
o You apologists _still_ prove to be immune to facts in that cite!

o The iPhone 11 Pro┬ Location Data Puzzler
<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>

There are _more_ facts that came out later, indicating Apple lied:

o Apple Issues New Warning For Millions Of iPhone Users [Updated]
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/12/07/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-upgrade-privacy-security-ios-13-update/>

"Having claimed it had to follow international regulatory requirements,
The company now says it will enable these background location checks
to be disabled in an upcoming iOS update. Which means they didn't
need to be done in the first place."

Note this is important because Apple loudly proclaims a "holier than thou"
(purely imaginary but brilliant marketing) stance, where, let's not forget
how iOS 13 first was shipped (with privacy secondary to schedule):
o Apple Confirms iOS 13 Location Privacy Bug Impacting Millions Of iPhone Users
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/09/23/apple-confirms-ios-13-location-privacy-bug-impacting-millions-of-iphone-users/>

--
My role on this ng is simple: Bring facts & truth to the Apple newsgroups.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:55:08 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Apple fixing a "problem" for whatever reasons Apple deems good is not
> proof that their privacy policy was violated.
>
> Here is a link to Apple's Privacy Policy:
>
> <https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/>
>
> Please quote the salient (you DO know what "salient" means, right?)
> portion of that document to support your claim that Apple has violated it.

Hi Alan Baker,

Normally, I allow apologists like Andreas Rutishauser, Beedle, Chris,
Davoud, Hawk, Your Name, et al. to prove for me my main point for the
adults (if any) on the Apple newsgroups that you Apple apologists are
utterly immune to the most basic of facts, which even Apple admits to.

But you'll do just fine for my purpose of bringing fact & truth to this ng.

Rest assured I appreciate your proof apologists are not like normal people.
a. *Apologists incessantly brazenly deny facts, sans _reading_ any cites!*

And, then, when literally _forced_ to actually _read_ the provided cites...
b. *Apologists constantly prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts in those cites!*

Here's a simple fact you're immune to that was clearly in the original cite!
o The iPhone 11 Pro's Location Data Puzzler
<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>

"*The privacy policy _available from the iPhone's Location Services screen_ says...

Here's a secondary fact you're immune to contained in subsequent cites:

o Apple Issues New Warning For Millions Of iPhone Users [Updated]
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/12/07/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-upgrade-privacy-security-ios-13-update/>

"Having claimed it had to follow international regulatory requirements,

the company now says it will enable these background location checks to

be disabled in an upcoming iOS update. Which means they didn't need to
be done in the first place."

Thank you for proving, yet again, just as your apologist compatriots
Eldin/Elfin/Lloyd Parsens (all one and the same), Hemidactylus, Joerg
Lorenz, Johan, joe, John McWilliams, Meanie, Wade Garrett, et al, all have
done many times before you...
a. *Apologists incessantly brazenly deny facts, sans _reading_ any cites!*
b. *Apologists constantly prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts in those cites!*

See also:
o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/e5J-nW0hBAAJ>

--
My role on this ng is clearly to bring facts & truth to Apple aficionados.

[Arlen Holder]

On 7 Dec 2019 20:14:25 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Because: troll. Get a clue. Stop feeding it.

What's funny is that Jolly Roger repeated posted zero value in this thread
o And yet, Jolly Roger, an apologist, calls everyone who did - a troll!

Bear in mind this thread clearly proved, beyond any reasonable doubt...
o *The facts I posted were correct* (& are never materially wrong)[1]

Note: Since I'm human, my facts "can" be materially wrong...
o But nobody has ever found them wrong (rest assured, they tried)

The reason is simple:
o My belief system isn't imaginary like the Apologists' belief systems are.

HINT: It's what _adults_ do.

--
[1] I realize apologists would _love_ to find even a _single on-topic fact
I've stated to be materially wrong in my decades of posting on Usenet; but
all they can do is claim that they can find "youtube" dates which are
different from the well-reported dates that Apple confirms.

[Alan Baker]

Actually, that screen says this right at the bottom:

"Information collected by Apple will be treated in accordance with
Apple's Privacy Policy, which can be found at www.apple.com/privacy."

Which not only proves that what you just cited is NOT the Apple's
Privacy Policy...

...it also shows that you will continue to get a material fact wrong
even after you've been supplied with the actual facts.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-09 10:28 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:54:58 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Nope. They quoted an Apple support article. This one:
>>
>> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056>
>>
>> Twist as you might, that is NOT Apple's "Privacy Policy".
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I again thank you for _proving_ Apologists are not like normal people.
> 1. First, you proved to not even read the cites before denying the facts.
> 2. Then, when _forced_ to read the cites, you failed to comprehend them!
>
> *What part of the privacy policy _on the phone itself_ don't you comprehend?*
>
> Here is the verbatim quote from the original source, Krebs on Security:
> <https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>
>
> "*The privacy policy _available from the iPhone's Location Services screen_ says ...*"
> "*_The policy explains_ users can disable all location services entirely...*"
> "*_The policy continues_: 'You can also disable location-based system services...*"
>
> Thank you for _proving_ (yet again), two very important apologists' traits:
> a. Apologists repeatedly brazenly deny facts sans ever reading the cites,
> b. When _forced_ to read cites, Apologists still don't comprehend simple facts

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-09 11:06 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:55:08 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Apple fixing a "problem" for whatever reasons Apple deems good is not
>> proof that their privacy policy was violated.
>>
>> Here is a link to Apple's Privacy Policy:
>>
>> <https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/>
>>
>> Please quote the salient (you DO know what "salient" means, right?)
>> portion of that document to support your claim that Apple has violated it.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Normally, I allow apologists like Andreas Rutishauser, Beedle, Chris,
> Davoud, Hawk, Your Name, et al. to prove for me my main point for the
> adults (if any) on the Apple newsgroups that you Apple apologists are
> utterly immune to the most basic of facts, which even Apple admits to.
>
> But you'll do just fine for my purpose of bringing fact & truth to this ng.
>
> Rest assured I appreciate your proof apologists are not like normal people.
> a. *Apologists incessantly brazenly deny facts, sans _reading_ any cites!*
>
> And, then, when literally _forced_ to actually _read_ the provided cites...
> b. *Apologists constantly prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts in those cites!*
>
> Here's a simple fact you're immune to that was clearly in the original cite!
> o The iPhone 11 Pro's Location Data Puzzler
> <https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>
> "*The privacy policy _available from the iPhone's Location Services screen_ says...

The Krebs and you are wrong:


Right at the bottom of that screen:

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:39:22 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> ...it also shows that you will continue to get a material fact wrong
> even after you've been supplied with the actual facts.

Um. Er. OK.
o Did I mention yet that Apologists prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts?

HINT: Remember you & SMS claimed the Qualcomm royalties went _down_?
o Same thing here: You apologists prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts.

--
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:40:23 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> ...it also shows that you will continue to get a material fact wrong
> even after you've been supplied with the actual facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:41:22 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> The Krebs and you are wrong:

Um. Er. OK.
o Did I mention yet that Apologists prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts?

HINT: Remember you & SMS claimed the Qualcomm royalties went _down_?

o Same thing here: You apologists prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts.

--
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-09 5:36 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:39:22 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> ...it also shows that you will continue to get a material fact wrong
>> even after you've been supplied with the actual facts.
>
>
> Um. Er. OK.
> o Did I mention yet that Apologists prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts?
>
> HINT: Remember you & SMS claimed the Qualcomm royalties went _down_?
> o Same thing here: You apologists prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts.
>

Um. Er. OK.

Should I mention all the text you just snipped to try and make yourself
look rational?

Let's put it back (properly quoted):

>>> The policy continues*: 'You can also disable location-based system
>>> services by tapping on System Services and turning off each location-based
>>> system service.' But apparently there are some system services on this
>>> model (and possibly other iPhone 11 models) which request location data and
>>> cannot be disabled by users without completely turning off location
>>> services, as the arrow icon still appears periodically even after
>>> individually disabling all system services that use location."
>>>
>>
>> Actually, that screen says this right at the bottom:
>>
>> "Information collected by Apple will be treated in accordance with Apple's Privacy Policy, which can be found at www.apple.com/privacy."
>>
>> Which not only proves that what you just cited is NOT the Apple's Privacy Policy...
>>

>> ...it also shows that you will continue to get a material fact wrong even after you've been supplied with the actual facts.

So, do you want to address yourself to the facts...

...or will you snip them again?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-09 5:36 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:41:22 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> The Krebs and you are wrong:
>
> Um. Er. OK.

> o Did I mention yet that Apologists prove to be utterly_immune_ to facts?

>
> HINT: Remember you & SMS claimed the Qualcomm royalties went_down_?

> o Same thing here: You apologists prove to be utterly_immune_ to facts.

Um. Er. OK.

Should I mention all the text you just snipped to try and make yourself
look rational?

Let's put it back (properly quoted):

>>> The policy continues*: 'You can also disable location-based system
>>> services by tapping on System Services and turning off each
location-based
>>> system service.' But apparently there are some system services on this
>>> model (and possibly other iPhone 11 models) which request location
data and
>>> cannot be disabled by users without completely turning off location
>>> services, as the arrow icon still appears periodically even after
>>> individually disabling all system services that use location."
>>>
>>
>> Actually, that screen says this right at the bottom:
>>

>> "Information collected by Apple will be treated in accordance with
Apple's Privacy Policy, which can be found at www.apple.com/privacy."
>>
>> Which not only proves that what you just cited is NOT the Apple's
Privacy Policy...
>>
>> ...it also shows that you will continue to get a material fact wrong
even after you've been supplied with the actual facts.

So, do you want to address yourself to the facts...
...or will you snip them again?

:-)


>

> --
> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/

You mean where they got it completely wrong and called something that
wasn't Apple's Privacy Policy?

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:23:15 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You mean where they got it completely wrong and called something that
> wasn't Apple's Privacy Policy?

Holy Mother of God, Alan Baker,

*The policy is in your face for God's sake in the SETTINGS on the phone.*
o Even Apple doesn't refute that obvious fact.

Only an apologist would prove to be _immune_ to this obvious fact.

--
It's shocking how utterly immune to facts apologists prove to be.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:22:09 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> So, do you want to address yourself to the facts...

Dear God, Alan Baker,

*The policy is in your face for God's sake in the SETTINGS on the phone.*

Only an apologist could possibly be _immune_ to this obvious fact.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-10 7:50 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:22:09 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> So, do you want to address yourself to the facts...
>
>
> Dear God, Alan Baker,
>
> *The policy is in your face for God's sake in the SETTINGS on the phone.*

No, Arlen. It is NOT. That page to which you are referring explicitly
states that it is NOT the Privacy Policy.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-10 7:50 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:23:15 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You mean where they got it completely wrong and called something that
>> wasn't Apple's Privacy Policy?
>
>
> Holy Mother of God, Alan Baker,
>
> *The policy is in your face for God's sake in the SETTINGS on the phone.*
> o Even Apple doesn't refute that obvious fact.

No, Arlen, it is NOT.

How do I know this, because the last lines of what IS in the settings on
the phone say:

"Information collected by Apple will be treated in accordance with

Apple's Privacy Policy, which can be found at www.apple.com/[country
code]/privacy"

That statement makes it impossible that what you read "in the SETTINGS
on the phone" is Apple's Privacy Policy.

>
> Only an apologist would prove to be _immune_ to this obvious fact.
>

You got a material fact wrong, Arlen.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:19:27 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You got a material fact wrong, Arlen.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:43:31 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> I read the cite, AND comprehended what Krebs got wrong.

Hi Alan,

I do appreciate when you post because my strategic goals are clear
o Expose all you Apple apologists for exactly what you are

These are the score of Apple Apologists who post to this newsgroup:
o Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Ammammata, Andreas Rutishauser, Barry Margolin,
o Beedle, B...@Onramp.net, Chris, Davoud, dpb, Elden,
o Elfin/Lloyd Parsons/Lloyd, Hawk, Hemidactylus, joe, Joerg Lorenz,
o Johan, John McWilliams, Jolly Roger, Lewis, Meanie, nospam,
o Panthera Tigris Altaica, Sandman, Savageduck, Snit, Tim Streater,
o Wade Garrett, Your Name, et al.,

*All you Apple apologists prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts.*
o You prove this fact almost every time you post!

You brazenly deny facts (facts nobody else denies... not even Apple)
(a) Without ever even _reading_ the cites containing those facts, and,
(b) When forced to read the cites, you fail to comprehend what they say!

FACT #1:
o The Krebs report (which broke the news on the ultrawideband technology
flaws) clearly stated the location of the privacy policy that was violated;
nobody disputes this save for you and Jolly Roger (not even Apple).

o The iPhone 11 Pro's Location Data Puzzler
<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>

FACT #2:
o The Bagaria Blog (which broke the news on the AirDrop flaws) clearly
stated that it took Kishan all of five minutes using published tools to
find this Apple flaw. Nobody disputes this save for you, Alan Baker. Not
even Apple disputed this (Apple simply begged him to keep it a secret).
o AirDoS: Remotely render any nearby iPhone or iPad unusable
<https://kishanbagaria.com/airdos/>

--
Proving Apologists are utterly immune to facts... one fact at a time.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-11 12:45 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:19:27 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You got a material fact wrong, Arlen.
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:43:31 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > I read the cite, AND comprehended what Krebs got wrong.
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> I do appreciate when you post because my strategic goals are clear
> o Expose all you Apple apologists for exactly what you are
>

Accurate? Correct? Smarter than you by far?

All of the above?

:-)

> FACT #1:
> o The Krebs report (which broke the news on the ultrawideband technology
> flaws) clearly stated the location of the privacy policy that was violated;
> nobody disputes this save for you and Jolly Roger (not even Apple).
> o The iPhone 11 Pro's Location Data Puzzler
> <https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>

A document which references another location to be "Apple's Privacy
Policy" cannot itself be that policy.

That is straight logic.

Sad for you that you cannot simply admit your mistake.

[Richard L. Hamilton]

In article <qsm5vv$f47$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

IIRC, the point was that there are regulatory requirements IF the UWB
is enabled that require having the background location checks to
ensure it's only used where compliant. Disabling the background
location checks ALSO disables the UWB.

So they screwed up by not having that toggle all along (and not
explaining that location services aren't allowed to be totally turned
off with UWB active). But they also did sometthing about it, if not
without having it pointed out to them. No reason to go on a rant.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:02:02 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

> IIRC, the point was that there are regulatory requirements IF the UWB
> is enabled that require having the background location checks to
> ensure it's only used where compliant. Disabling the background
> location checks ALSO disables the UWB.
>
> So they screwed up by not having that toggle all along (and not
> explaining that location services aren't allowed to be totally turned
> off with UWB active). But they also did sometthing about it, if not
> without having it pointed out to them. No reason to go on a rant.

Hi Richard Hamilton,

I've studied Apple posters for years, where you seem to be _different_.

You seem to be an adult, where an entirely _different_ conversation can be
had on Apple newsgroups with the rare (half dozen?) adults, as I've said
many times.

The bulk of the posters on the Apple newsgroups are apologists (i.e., if
you ask me for a list, I'll provide it for you of who they are).

With the apologists, you can't possibly have an adult conversation.

Notice this is a problem not necessarily unique to Apple newsgroups, but it
certainly is endemic on Apple newsgroups, where the conversation on the
adult OS newsgroups are almost always quite civil.
o <http://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux>
o <http://tinurl.com/comp-mobile-android>
o <http://alt.comp.os.windows.10.narkive.com>
etc.

BTW, since we're discussing adult topics on an Apple newsgroup, bear in
mind Apple _again_ changed their privacy policy to allow scanning of all
your uploaded iCloud content for, essentially, anything they feel like
scanning for, where Apple's own reports prove they hand that data over to
anyone who asks about 85% of the time (according to the report I published
earlier this week on the iOS newsgroups).

Think about those facts, which, if you want, you can easily find here:
o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>

--
There are only two types of conversations possible on Apple newsgroups:
o Child (most of the posters)
o Adult (a rare handful of posters)

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, Liar...

You CLAIMING something doesn't make it a fact.

You state that Apple "_again_" changed it's policy when...

IN FACT

...Apple announced this change in May of 2019.

<https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/apple-scans-uploaded-content/>

>
> Think about those facts, which, if you want, you can easily find here:
> o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
>

Think even more about how few of what you call facts are actually ever
supported by you...

...by anything...

...Liar.

[гость]

Arlen Holder <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:
> I've studied Apple posters for years, where you seem to be _different_.

Get a life, loser.

--
Я гость в отеле

[Richard L. Hamilton]

In article <r0n9k2$bfn$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

I like almost all Apple products (not a huge fan of Lightning connector though,
except for being small and reversible; IMO, USB-C is both better and more
durable, and ultra-thin devices bend too easily anyway, so the slightly
smaller thickness of Lightning does't impress me).

I also like that they take design very seriously. And (see below) that they
don't significantly profit by selliing customer information (or at least highly
targeted advertising), unlike Google, Facebook, etc.

They're not perfect though; no organization is. If divine protection from
human flaws is not granted to religious organizations, I very much doubt it
would be granted to other organizations. (such protection would violate
free will, anyway)

IMO, a reasonable reaction to the "reality distortion field", esp.
noted around the late Steve Jobs, is humor (rather than either falling
for it or getting into arguments with those one supposes have fallen
for it); although from all accounts he could be quite difficult to get
along with, not unusual among very driven personalities.

In a different way, I also liked design by the late great Sun
Microsystems; I have some @home that are old (20 years for the oldest
still running; currently 217 day uptime only due to power bump) but still
reliable, although they're more help in winter (heating) than in
summer. :-) Unfortunately, Sun couldn't figure out how to be both
creative and profitable once the .COM bubble burst; and Oracle that
bought them reneged on OpenSolaris licensing and drove off most of the
star developers (or wanted to turn Joy and Gosling into little more than
marketing faces, which drove them off too).

> BTW, since we're discussing adult topics on an Apple newsgroup, bear in
> mind Apple _again_ changed their privacy policy to allow scanning of all
> your uploaded iCloud content for, essentially, anything they feel like
> scanning for, where Apple's own reports prove they hand that data over to
> anyone who asks about 85% of the time (according to the report I published
> earlier this week on the iOS newsgroups).
>
> Think about those facts, which, if you want, you can easily find here:
> o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>

Any global company that offers cloud storage or syncing will have a
lot of regulatory requirements to live with, some of which are (even)
more intrusive than in the USA, by far. While there could perhaps be
some options (or in the extreme, an outright refusal to sell in
countries with the most intrusive laws or practices), they will tend
toward a single technology, with all its limitations.

Unless you run your own cloud VMs with whole "disk" encryption and
only encrypted comms off-cloud (and preferably bound to dedicated
hardware, so they're not sharing a host with anyone else's VMs), IMO
you should never put anything you want maximum privacy for in a
commmercial cloud-based service, whether Apple's or anyone else's. IMO
Apple mostly does what they can for privacy, and more than most
others; but as I said before, they're not perfect either. At best,
they don't fight every possible battle on that front, but (IMO) only
those they think they can mostly win at a reasonable cost (either
lawyers or implementation and delivery). Given that businesses
legitimate first interest is profit (rather than some ideal of best
possible service or privacy or whatever), that limitation is likely
anywhere, unless you roll your own; and for that, while there's
certainly lots of open source code out there, the devil is in the
details, and it still takes quite a lot of doing to have something
that's highly assured to be both secure and reliable.

[nospam]

In article <cvg%F.154664$db6....@fx33.iad>, Richard L. Hamilton

<rlh...@smart.net> wrote:


> I like almost all Apple products (not a huge fan of Lightning connector
> though,
> except for being small and reversible; IMO, USB-C is both better and more
> durable,

usb-c is less durable than lightning.

> and ultra-thin devices bend too easily anyway, so the slightly
> smaller thickness of Lightning does't impress me).

that's one of the advantages of lighting. it's designed to snap thereby
preventing damage internal to the phone.

the broken tab can then easily be removed from the phone and the cable
replaced.

> I also like that they take design very seriously. And (see below) that they
> don't significantly profit by selliing customer information (or at least
> highly targeted advertising), unlike Google, Facebook, etc.

this is true, and they go well out of their way to *not* collect
information.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 11:54:39 -0500, nospam wrote:

> this is true, and they go well out of their way to *not* collect
> information.

Hi nospam,

You apologists believe _everything_ Apple feeds you to believe.
o And yet, Apple brazenly publicly lies to everyone, e.g., with Siri.

And the apps do it too, for example:
o Washington Post: Apple promises privacy, but 5,400 hidden iPhone apps
secretly share your data with trackers, ad companies, and research firms
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/J_YuCzdGTGI/XgCjxKxKBwAJ>

What distinguishes you apologists, nospam, is you have absolutely zero
adult comprehension outside of what Apple MARKETING feeds you to believe.

--
This discussion is one of facts and the adult assessment of those facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:46:00 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

> I like almost all Apple products (not a huge fan of Lightning connector though,
> except for being small and reversible; IMO, USB-C is both better and more
> durable, and ultra-thin devices bend too easily anyway, so the slightly
> smaller thickness of Lightning does't impress me).

There's an interestingly obvious published joke that goes somewhat like "If
Apple has the courage to _remove_ the headphone jack, why doesn't Apple
have the courage to switch to USB-C?".

> I also like that they take design very seriously. And (see below) that they
> don't significantly profit by selliing customer information (or at least highly
> targeted advertising), unlike Google, Facebook, etc.

You have to be careful about what Apple "says" and what Apple "does".
o They're quite different things, for adults to comprehend.

Most people just want to _feel_ safe, so, like a child who believes his
mother when she assures him that the monster can't get out of the closet if
he shuts the door at night, most Apple customers _believe_ what MARKETING
tells them about privacy.

And yet, the privacy on iOS is no different than the privacy on Android
o Which is to say _neither_ has much privacy even as we strive to gain it!

For example, we have tons of privacy-based settings on Android that simply
don't exist on iOS, where this uk.telecom.mobile thread, just today, covers
some of them:
o Does anyone know how or if Google associates your identity with
your Google Map navigation activities?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.telecom.mobile/qHy3tVLR3hg>

In the end, given privacy is a long chain of links, where any one weak link
destroys the strength of the entire chain, it's trivial to prove Apple only
touts where they're more private than Android, while remaining totally mum
on where they're far less private (and I mean _far_ less) than Android.

Sordid details here, but the point is don't believe everything Apple says,
and, more importantly, pay attention to the privacy Apple _ignores_.
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities
between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/FCKRA_3i9CY%5B1-25%5D>

> They're not perfect though; no organization is. If divine protection from
> human flaws is not granted to religious organizations, I very much doubt it
> would be granted to other organizations. (such protection would violate
> free will, anyway)

Apple has been caught _secretly_ throttling CPUs to half speed.
o And then they _blamed_ the batteries, which is a brazen lie by Apple
(given batteries are in all smartphones and nobody else has to secretly,
drastically, and permanently throttle their CPUs due to their poor design)

Apple has been caught _secretly_ listening to your conversations, whether
or not you activated Siri (a simple zipper would activate Siri, according
to the reliable reports which Apple did not refute).

Apple has been caught shipping huge security holes that they _knew_ about,
which you can drive a bus through them so many times, that you can't ever
trust an iOS release (e.g., broadcom bugs in iOS 10, facepalm bugs in iOS
11, the entire sordid release of iOS 13 where they knew in June and July
for sure of huge security holes they simply shipped "on schedule" anyway).

Apple removes functionality that is on 99.9% of current Android phones
(i.e., the headphone jack), and Apple _never_ had the functionality on most
Android phones (e.g., the sd card slot).

The list goes on and on and on and on and on that Apple is a sordid outfit.

[Richard L. Hamilton]

In article <070220201154398499%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
> In article <cvg%F.154664$db6....@fx33.iad>, Richard L. Hamilton
> <rlh...@smart.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I like almost all Apple products (not a huge fan of Lightning connector
>> though,
>> except for being small and reversible; IMO, USB-C is both better and more
>> durable,
>
> usb-c is less durable than lightning.
>

In at least one way, it isn't. Lean on a Lightning connector that's plugged
into a charger and hanging over a soft armrest with a bare arm, and by
the time you feel the electric current (could take a few minutes), the
sweat and electricity has thoroughly corroded a contact.

On USB-C, the contacts are inside, relatively protected.

[Richard L. Hamilton]

In article <r1kket$dtp$2...@news.mixmin.net>,

A lot of your rant is IMO malicious interpretation. Show me that they
were throttliing CPUs on iPhones with perfectly healthy batteries - I
doubt you can. (Nobody supports old hardware forever; they manage 4-5
years usually, which is tolerable. But that doesn't make special
handling of older hardware a conspiracy to get rid of it.) Given a
choice between full speed and greater risk of crashing that might
exist with a worn battery, I think not crashing is a better choice.
All that throwing a hissy got was disclosure and a switch so you can
choose yourself - the latter always good, but hardly obligatory, IMO.

Everyone (Apple, Google, Amazon) with voice activated AIs listens some
to improve both speech-to-text and understanding of questions. And
they all have some false activations. With Google and Alexa, if you're
paranoid, you have to clean out saved samples and queries
periodically. Heck, Tesla collects a bunch of data to refine their
auto-drive; and EZ-Pass or similar regional toll transponders could be
trivially used to track vehicles (although I've never heard of someone
getting a ticket for times between toll road entry and exit closer
than possible given the speed limit in between). Then again, you can
buy a magnetic GPS+cellular tracker and slap it on anyone's car; as
long as it's removed before next maintenance, probably nobody would
notice. And face and iris ID cameras and red-light cameras are
everywhere. Corporate will abuse and mishandle, but it takes
government to really shove a barbed object where the sun doesn't
shine; worse when they collude and there's $$ to be made (red light
cameras).

If you are crazy about privacy, you have to live in an off-grid shack
like the Unabomber did; otherwise, be careful but don't expect wonders
from anyone. Apple will CYA and sometimes release on marketing
schedule rather than on ready like anyone else; but the basic premise
remains: your data is not what they sell (unlike Google) nor used for
marketing what they do sell both directly and for 3rd parties (unlike
Amazon).

(The only 100% secure computer is in a block of concrete, but it's
also quite unusable...which is how it's 100% secure. Ok, _maybe_
something with full ECC, runniing seL4, and TEMPEST shielded and
without physical access...but formal proof of correctness or not,
there's still always "covert channels" including timing attacks like
Spectre and Meltdown, which OS changes mitigated but didn't totally
eliiminate, and which some believe are representative of an entire
class of problems unlikely to be ever entirely eliminated. Worst
though is wetware, the meathead behind the keyboard, whether malicious
or just careless.)

Everybody sucks, but Apple mostly sucks less than the other choices
(unless you're po' folk that judges strictly by price tag/price envy,
I suppose). And you don't need the dang headphone jack. I just leave
the mini phone to Lightning dongle on my (relatively) high-end wired
earbuds (which fits with them in their case, if a bit awkwardly); and
the rest of the time, when convenience matters more than limited
Bluetooth audio quality, use AirPods rather than wired ear buds. (I do
however think that the rumor of future NO connector and only wireless
access or charging would be a big mistake; there are assorted gadgets
from card (both SD and credit) readers to stereo mics to HQ audio DACs
and MIDI keyboards that can be connected to an actual Lightning or
USB-C port...not to mention that one might want to use a phone's data
connection without going over WiFi.)

Of course, you're welcome to think that Google or Amazon or M$ suck
less. You'd be wrong (like most people gullible enough to disagree with
me when they're them, aka not qualified), but that's not usually a crime.

[nospam]

In article <Wcu1G.143532$ss1....@fx42.iad>, Richard L. Hamilton

<rlh...@smart.net> wrote:

> >> I like almost all Apple products (not a huge fan of Lightning connector
> >> though,
> >> except for being small and reversible; IMO, USB-C is both better and more
> >> durable,
> >
> > usb-c is less durable than lightning.
> >
>
> In at least one way, it isn't. Lean on a Lightning connector that's plugged
> into a charger and hanging over a soft armrest with a bare arm, and by
> the time you feel the electric current (could take a few minutes), the
> sweat and electricity has thoroughly corroded a contact.

corrosion is *extremely* rare and in the unlikely chance it does
happen, it's very easy to clean, or just have apple replace it.

> On USB-C, the contacts are inside, relatively protected.

except they're not. the pins are still exposed to air, and if they do
corrode, however rare that might be, it's next to impossible to clean.

the most common failure is torquing causing physical damage.

for lightning, the connector is designed to snap to protect the device.
replacing a cable is cheap. repairing or replacing a device is not.

for usb-c, the tab is in the device and if that breaks, you need major
repairs or more likely a new device. that's *bad*.

[nospam]

In article <C5v1G.203699$ls7.1...@fx40.iad>, Richard L. Hamilton

<rlh...@smart.net> wrote:

> Given a
> choice between full speed and greater risk of crashing that might
> exist with a worn battery, I think not crashing is a better choice.
> All that throwing a hissy got was disclosure and a switch so you can
> choose yourself - the latter always good, but hardly obligatory, IMO.

correct on both.

> and EZ-Pass or similar regional toll transponders could be
> trivially used to track vehicles (although I've never heard of someone
> getting a ticket for times between toll road entry and exit closer
> than possible given the speed limit in between).

pennsylvania used to do that with paper toll tickets.

>
> Everybody sucks, but Apple mostly sucks less than the other choices
> (unless you're po' folk that judges strictly by price tag/price envy,
> I suppose).

prices are similar for similar specs.

> And you don't need the dang headphone jack. I just leave
> the mini phone to Lightning dongle on my (relatively) high-end wired
> earbuds (which fits with them in their case, if a bit awkwardly); and
> the rest of the time, when convenience matters more than limited
> Bluetooth audio quality,

bluetooth audio quality is not limited unless it's using an obsolete
profile. the physical headphones is what determines the quality.

> use AirPods rather than wired ear buds. (I do
> however think that the rumor of future NO connector and only wireless
> access or charging would be a big mistake; there are assorted gadgets
> from card (both SD and credit) readers to stereo mics to HQ audio DACs
> and MIDI keyboards that can be connected to an actual Lightning or
> USB-C port...not to mention that one might want to use a phone's data
> connection without going over WiFi.)

with 802.11ac, wifi is not a bottleneck and is much more convenient.

[Richard L. Hamilton]

In article <140220200627381424%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
> In article <C5v1G.203699$ls7.1...@fx40.iad>, Richard L. Hamilton
> <rlh...@smart.net> wrote:
>> And you don't need the dang headphone jack. I just leave
>> the mini phone to Lightning dongle on my (relatively) high-end wired
>> earbuds (which fits with them in their case, if a bit awkwardly); and
>> the rest of the time, when convenience matters more than limited
>> Bluetooth audio quality,
>
> bluetooth audio quality is not limited unless it's using an obsolete
> profile. the physical headphones is what determines the quality.

The basic Bluetooth audio profile (SBC)is horrible. But even MP3 or
AAC codecs aren't great. Qualcomm AptX HD or Sony LDAC are better
(with trade-offs in how they're better), but still not at the level of
what wired headphones can do (better than CD; up to 24 bit@48kHz on
most iDevices, I think).

>
>> use AirPods rather than wired ear buds. (I do
>> however think that the rumor of future NO connector and only wireless
>> access or charging would be a big mistake; there are assorted gadgets
>> from card (both SD and credit) readers to stereo mics to HQ audio DACs
>> and MIDI keyboards that can be connected to an actual Lightning or
>> USB-C port...not to mention that one might want to use a phone's data
>> connection without going over WiFi.)
>
> with 802.11ac, wifi is not a bottleneck and is much more convenient.

Sure, but my high quality portable DAC (iFi iDSD Nano) hooks up fine
with the camera cable...but doesn't do WiFi. Data transfer without
physical media is possible, but not useful with devices that don't do
WiFi (like many digital cameras), etc. I'd prefer the option of more
consistent latency and better security* of a wired connection over
convenience, sometimes. And not every presently supported peripheral
will have a future version that can do WiFi or Bluetooth. _Especially_
on an iPad (for which AFAIK zero connector is NOT rumored), but mostly
so also on an iPhone, one might hook up all sorts of things for which
WiFi is either less suitable or not an option. Do you know of a MIDI
keyboard that does WiFi? Or an app that will work with it, and feed
the MIDI to another app?

The usual argument for zero connector is thinner, smaller, etc. But
thinner is more fragile**, and phones have tended otherwise to larger
screens (for aging population's eyes perhaps, or in acknowledgement
that smartphones are being used more like tablets or even laptops
sometimes) lately. Wireless charging has gotten faster, but it's still behind
wired charging (and always less energy efficient). And waterproofing can
clearly be done even when both connectors and physical switches exist.

You have WiFi, Bluetooth, and on newer devices, UWB and wireless charging
already. You have all the convenience of not using a wire NOW if that's
what you want; but without a connector, you lose access to both legacy
devices and to devices that never will or should have a wireless connection.

IMO, the ONLY excuses for getting rid of all connectors are style,
cost, or the fragility of the socket; insecure chargers aren't an
excuse, since USB-C PD allows for authentication of chargers and
cables. IMO, none of the reasons for getting rid of the connector
justify the loss of functionality...except MAYBE on a low-end phone,
where every $ saved counts.

* ok, one could have an untrusted device that also tried to hack one's
phone; but there's a solution to that, and anyway I'm not talking
about plugging in to untrusted devices.

** I don't think foldable is sensible yet (if ever); rollable would be
more plausible, with no crease needed; but some folks might not want
to walk around with a cigar tube looking thing in their pants pocket
("Is that a banana in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?";
or alternatively, "How much battery life do you get with that?";
stranger remarks are possible, but I'll leave those to the
imagination)), and retraction into the case through a slot would have
dirt problems. Short of a jack in one's skull, IMO the best is AR
glasses or contacts plus wireless earbuds; but I suspect that for some
time, they'd be little more than a heads-up, hands-free peripheral of
a smartphone, not able to do much on their own. So I still don't see
an advantage to a zero-connector handheld device.

[nospam]

In article <WTw1G.192347$MX1....@fx43.iad>, Richard L. Hamilton

<rlh...@smart.net> wrote:

> >> And you don't need the dang headphone jack. I just leave
> >> the mini phone to Lightning dongle on my (relatively) high-end wired
> >> earbuds (which fits with them in their case, if a bit awkwardly); and
> >> the rest of the time, when convenience matters more than limited
> >> Bluetooth audio quality,
> >
> > bluetooth audio quality is not limited unless it's using an obsolete
> > profile. the physical headphones is what determines the quality.
>
> The basic Bluetooth audio profile (SBC)is horrible. But even MP3 or
> AAC codecs aren't great.

aac (which is what airpods use for music) and mp3 are indistinguishable
from the original source.

people *think* they can hear a difference, but they can't.

in numerous objective double-blind tests, with a wide variety of people
and music, they do no better than chance. they're *guessing*.

this does assume it's properly encoded. shitty encoding will sound like
shit because it's shitty, not because it's mp3/aac.

> Qualcomm AptX HD or Sony LDAC are better
> (with trade-offs in how they're better), but still not at the level of
> what wired headphones can do (better than CD; up to 24 bit@48kHz on
> most iDevices, I think).

except that humans can't hear any difference with 24bit/48khz (see
above) and it's even difficult to find a difference on a lab bench.

> >> use AirPods rather than wired ear buds. (I do
> >> however think that the rumor of future NO connector and only wireless
> >> access or charging would be a big mistake; there are assorted gadgets
> >> from card (both SD and credit) readers to stereo mics to HQ audio DACs
> >> and MIDI keyboards that can be connected to an actual Lightning or
> >> USB-C port...not to mention that one might want to use a phone's data
> >> connection without going over WiFi.)
> >
> > with 802.11ac, wifi is not a bottleneck and is much more convenient.
>
> Sure, but my high quality portable DAC (iFi iDSD Nano) hooks up fine
> with the camera cable...but doesn't do WiFi. Data transfer without
> physical media is possible, but not useful with devices that don't do
> WiFi (like many digital cameras), etc.

easy solution: get devices with wifi. a lot of cameras have wifi now,
but the most popular cameras are phones.

the future is wireless.

> I'd prefer the option of more
> consistent latency and better security* of a wired connection over
> convenience, sometimes. And not every presently supported peripheral
> will have a future version that can do WiFi or Bluetooth. _Especially_
> on an iPad (for which AFAIK zero connector is NOT rumored),

ipads are not space constrained as much as iphones and intended for
very different use cases.

> but mostly
> so also on an iPhone, one might hook up all sorts of things for which
> WiFi is either less suitable or not an option.

most people don't hook up anything to their iphones other than a
charger, and those who want to do midi will likely be using an ipad.

> Do you know of a MIDI
> keyboard that does WiFi? Or an app that will work with it, and feed
> the MIDI to another app?

i don't do midi, but these came up in a quick search:

<https://www.cme-pro.com>
We have been working on wireless MIDI solutions for over 15 years
(read the story here.)

<https://www.akaipro.com/lpk25-wireless>
Battery-Operated/Wireless Bluetooth® MIDI Keyboard Controller

> The usual argument for zero connector is thinner, smaller, etc.

no, the usual argument is for convenience and one less point of failure.

> But
> thinner is more fragile**, and phones have tended otherwise to larger
> screens (for aging population's eyes perhaps, or in acknowledgement
> that smartphones are being used more like tablets or even laptops
> sometimes) lately. Wireless charging has gotten faster, but it's still behind
> wired charging (and always less energy efficient). And waterproofing can
> clearly be done even when both connectors and physical switches exist.

the difference in time and energy efficiency is negligible.

turn your heater down a degree and you'll save a lot more energy than
wireless charging.

any difference in time is not an issue. normally, people charge their
device at night, while they sleep, so they'll never notice any
difference in how long it takes, and that's for a full charge, not a
quick top off.

> You have WiFi, Bluetooth, and on newer devices, UWB and wireless charging
> already. You have all the convenience of not using a wire NOW if that's
> what you want; but without a connector, you lose access to both legacy
> devices and to devices that never will or should have a wireless connection.

they're called legacy devices for a reason.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:00:50 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

> A lot of your rant is IMO malicious interpretation.

Facts are the weakness of all you apologists (proven below with facts).

I _love_ facts so if you can provide facts backing up your claims, that
would be the adult thing to do, and which would be very much appreciated.

You'll note that adults provide cites and in those cites are facts.

You've shown facts are your weakness, as they are for all apologists.
o You gravitate to MARKETING messages because you don't comprehend facts.

Proof below.

> Show me that they
> were throttliing CPUs on iPhones with perfectly healthy batteries - I
> doubt you can.

Please do not fabricate a strawman just so that you can shoot it down.
o If you can't address facts, then simply do not post imagined objections.

I don't think ANYONE said Apple was throttling brand new phones whose
batteries were working fine (certainly not me).

Remember, I'm the guy who first broke this news to this newsgroup (on
12/20/2017); they _found_ the throttling because benchmarks plummeted the
instant people installed the iOS release that implemented the _secret_
throttling.
o Report says Apple 'Powerd' code secretly slows your iOS device down to trick you into buying a new device
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/GdEtzzrc9F0/z57KTsmWAQAJ>

Not only did benchmarks plummet drastically, but that CPU drop was
permanent (i.e., batteries never get better).

Not only was that benchmark plummet permanent, but when people did put new
batteries in, the benchmarks _doubled_ instantly.

> (Nobody supports old hardware forever; they manage 4-5
> years usually, which is tolerable.

Again, please do not fabricate a strawman just so you can shoot it down.

These iPhones were secretly throttled after about a year.

If the only way you can deal with facts is to fabricate imaginary windmills
for you to then swing at, then all you're really doing is telling us you
have no adult response to the facts (which means you agree with them).

> But that doesn't make special
> handling of older hardware a conspiracy to get rid of it.)

Apple was convicted of the crime of intentionally shortening the life of
the affected iPhones.

Apple likely has some of the best lawyers on the planet, and _they_ had to
write up the public note which is on Apple's web page today saying they
admit to committing the crime.

For you to call a crime "special handling" is, indeed, paradoxical.
o Apple committed the crime of deceptive commercial practice
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ>

> Given a
> choice between full speed and greater risk of crashing that might
> exist with a worn battery, I think not crashing is a better choice.

This statement shows that you're just fine with the choice of:
a. Unacceptable performance, or,
b. Unacceptable stability.
(You MUST pick one!)

And remember, it was _secret_, so your only choice was:
a. Unacceptable performance, or,
B. Buy a new phone.
(Even the Apple Genius bar was telling customers to do this.)

We already proved no other smartphone OEM does what Apple does!
o Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery & display lockout stunts that Apple secretly added to the iPhones recently?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/_VmelACbiHo/tRna3gtzDwAJ>

HINT: It's not the batteries; it's clearly crappy overall power design.

> All that throwing a hissy got was disclosure and a switch so you can
> choose yourself - the latter always good, but hardly obligatory, IMO.

You actually think it's good that your only iPhone choices are now:
a. Unacceptable performance, or
b. Unacceptable stability, or,
c. Unacceptable repeated expensive battery replacements.
(You MUST choose one, and repeatedly, for the life of the iPhone!)

> Everyone (Apple, Google, Amazon) with voice activated AIs listens some
> to improve both speech-to-text and understanding of questions.

This is a classic response of blaming everyone but Apple for Apple flaws.

Even Apple does it!
o Apple constantly & consistently blames everyone else but Apple for Apple bugs & Apple design flaws!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nMY1C9cdCyA/5wkxJwp7AgAJ>

It's always you apologists who blame everyone for Apple's flaws.

What you apologists forget is that old adage of having your cake and eating
it also.

The _adult_ response should be, IMHO, along the lines of Apple shouldn't
throw stones at Google when Apple's privacy is as bad, or worse.

You apologists _never_ seem to own the adult comprehensive skills that can
comprehend that Apple is the one advertising privacy.

And, you apologists never seem to comprehend that Apple is the one
violating your privacy (and their own privacy policies).

Don't blame Apple's actions on Google or Amazon please.
o Children don't take responsibility for their actions.

Apple is responsible for violating your privacy, and for violating their
own policies on privacy.

Deal with that fact like an adult instead of playing the classic apologist
child-like game of blaming everyone else but Apple for Apple's flaws.
o Why do both Apple & the apologists habitually blame everyone but Apple for Apple's poor design choices?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Iee15bZl49I/i8xeBobOAAAJ>

> If you are crazy about privacy, you have to live in an off-grid shack
> like the Unabomber did; otherwise, be careful but don't expect wonders
> from anyone.

This is the first sensible statement showing that you are capable of adult
cognitive skills.

There is no privacy on any consumer phone, where privacy is a long chaing
of links, and Apple only touts the very few very strong ones.

o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/FCKRA_3i9CY/Bm40liKdEQAJ>

> Apple will CYA and sometimes release on marketing
> schedule rather than on ready like anyone else; but the basic premise
> remains: your data is not what they sell (unlike Google) nor used for
> marketing what they do sell both directly and for 3rd parties (unlike
> Amazon).

That's only _one_ of the hundreds of links of privacy.
o You skipped very many links that Apple is _less_ private!

Factual proof by the scores is in this thread:

o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/FCKRA_3i9CY/Bm40liKdEQAJ>

Although, I can tell you're an apologist so you're _immune_ to facts.
o All you seem to comprehend is bullshit MARKETING messages, IMHO.

HINT: You can't even delete the Apple ID on an iPhone, as one of the
_simplest_ examples that you might be able to comprehend, and still have
_full_ native functionality of the phone (e.g., app store apps).

If you want to deny that Apple has scores of privacy holes, then first show
you're an adult who has at least read the aforementioned thread which
contains more facts than your brain will be able to comprehend (AFAICT).

You've shown facts are your weakness, as they are for all apologists.
o You gravitate to MARKETING messages because you don't gravitate to facts.

> Everybody sucks, but Apple mostly sucks less than the other choices
> (unless you're po' folk that judges strictly by price tag/price envy,
> I suppose).

Apple sucks in very different ways though, where, for example, IMHO
o iPhones suck when you don't have an sdcard
o iPhones suck when you don't have a headphone jack
o iPhones suck when you can't even organize your home screen like an adult
o iPhones suck when you can't extract any IPA at any time any way you want
o iPhones suck when your RAM is atrociously small compared to competition
o iPhones suck when your CPU is throttled to half speed in about a year
etc.

Android sucks for different reasons though, so I don't disagree with any
rational comment that both platforms have foibles.

I have _both_ platforms for years where most of you apologists seem to not
understand the first thing about Android (you basically only know MARKETING
bullshit).

Parroting Apple MARKETING bullshit is part of what makes you apologists.

Remember, most of you apologists have proven to know almost NOTHING about
Android, e.g., nospam claimed that "some phones" don't have app drawer
apps, which is just ridiculous because it's just an app, and badgolferman,
although he's not an apologist, said in response to my thread asking what's
on iOS that's not on Android all stuff that was trivial on Android, etc.
o What functionality you do on iOS you wish you could do on Android?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/poG62SEefqk/6_b0ero7BAAJ>

Notice I speak facts where all I've heard from you apologists is mindless
parroting of Apple MARKETING bullshit.

> And you don't need the dang headphone jack.

Why do 99.9% of Android phones have it?
o How many of the existing Android phones lack headphone jack basic hardware functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/ZjnD2kAf-mI/I3i2jT-mCAAJ>

Notice you parrot Apple MARKTING; I speak facts (and I provide facts!).

> Of course, you're welcome to think that Google or Amazon or M$ suck
> less. You'd be wrong (like most people gullible enough to disagree with
> me when they're them, aka not qualified), but that's not usually a crime.

You don't understand me, which is fine, as I'm just learning about you.

Bear in mind I _own_ both iOS & Android devices, and have owned them for
years.

Also bear in mind that I've been on Usenet for decades (as have most of
you), where it always astounded me how dumb Apple Apologists appear to be.

I am interested in apologists, much like Dunning & Kruger were interested
in that bank robber, where I've _studied_ the apologists over the years.

The apologist only has seven responses to fact, most of which you exhibit:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

My role here is to bring TRUTH to the Apple newsgroups...
o I do that by exposing the apologists for what they are.

And, I do that with one simple tool.
o Facts.

Facts are the weakness of all you apologists.
--
Apologists always prove to be fantastically immune to even basic facts.

[Snit]

Do you have bet manage to make a video like what I showed with iOS and
macOS (OS X at the time)?

I suspect not.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

[Snit]

Ever manage. Sorry — autocarrot strikes again.