apple sued for deceitful privacy settings

[badgolferman]

Apple is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly harvesting iPhone user
data even when the company’s own privacy settings promise not to. The suit,
filed Thursday in California federal court, comes days after Gizmodo
exclusively reported on research into how multiple iPhone apps send Apple
analytics data, regardless of whether the iPhone Analytics privacy setting
is turned on or off.

The problem was spotted by two independent researchers at the software
company Mysk, who found that the Apple App Store sends the company
exhaustive information about nearly everything a user does in the app,
despite a privacy setting, iPhone Analytics, which claims to “disable the
sharing of Device Analytics altogether” when switched off. Gizmodo asked
the researchers to run additional tests on other iPhone apps, including
Apple Music, Apple TV, Books, and Stocks. The researchers found that the
problem persists across most of Apple’s suite of built-in iPhone apps.

The lawsuit accuses Apple of violating the California Invasion of Privacy
Act. “Privacy is one of the main issues that Apple uses to set its products
apart from competitors,” the plaintiff, Elliot Libman, said in the suit,
which can be read on Bloomberg Law. “But Apple’s privacy guarantees are
completely illusory.” The company has plastered billboards across the
country with the slogan “Privacy. That’s iPhone.”

https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-privacy-analytics-class-action-suit-1849774313

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 12.11.22 um 13:32 schrieb badgolferman:

> Apple is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly harvesting iPhone user
> data even when the company’s own privacy settings promise not to. The suit,

Super-Troll *Arlen* with multiple personalities and multiple identities
is going wild again.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[Wilf]

So the story is false?

--
Wilf

[Andy Burnelli]

badgolferman wrote:

> The lawsuit accuses Apple of violating the California Invasion of Privacy
> Act. "Privacy is one of the main issues that Apple uses to set its products
> apart from competitors," the plaintiff, Elliot Libman, said in the suit,
> which can be read on Bloomberg Law. "But Apple's privacy guarantees are
> completely illusory." The company has plastered billboards across the
> country with the slogan "Privacy. That's iPhone."

Hi badgolferman,

Thanks for informing us of yet another lawsuit for brazen Apple lies.
*Nobody lies like Apple lies.*

The Apple iKooks are already scrambling to come up with their seven excuses
for facts about Apple that they are desperate to deny & deflect away from.

Notwithstanding the legal merits of the case, the problem as I see it with
Apple is their duplicity in their brazen public lies about iOS privacy.

The amount of personal information tracked by Apple is astounding.
Particularly for an outfit that (falsely) advertises their take on privacy.

Unfortunately for us, almost everything Apple claims about iOS privacy
turns out to be a brazen public lie when you delve deeper, e.g., the
_requirement_ to be tracked by Apple just to download apps is heinous.

And yet, Apple assumes that we're all stupid just by the fact Apple emits
these brazen shockingly public lies (and often loses in court as a result).

In summary, what irks me about Apple isn't that they steal your privacy,
but that, like a salesman, they promise you they won't (and yet, they do).
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to agree with the concept of the lawsuit's merit.

[badgolferman]

Well, maybe there’s another side to the story. Let’s wait to hear from
nospam and Jolly Roger.

[badgolferman]

Why do you keep accusing me of being Arlen? Is it because I use AIOE on my
iPhone? What is your justification for this libel? And if you really
believe that then why don’t you killfile me? Just to let you know I have
several different devices, free news servers and Usenet clients I use.

[Andy Burnelli]

badgolferman wrote:

>> In summary, what irks me about Apple isn't that they steal your privacy,
>> but that, like a salesman, they promise you they won't (and yet, they do).
>
> Well, maybe there's another side to the story. Let's wait to hear from
> nospam and Jolly Roger.

Hi badgolferman,

I appreciate the humor, where what matters is the merits of the case.
"Apple's privacy settings make explicit promises about shut off
that kind of tracking. But in the tests, turning the iPhone Analytics
setting off had no evident effect on the data collection, nor did any
of the iPhone's other built-in settings meant to protect your privacy
from Apple's data collection."

One issue of import is we've seen Apple multiple times NOT respond
immediately to request for information (e.g., in their throttling and in
the Facetime hacks by a mere child, etc.), where what Apple is _actually_
doing is convening expensive detailed meetings to _create_ a rebuttal.

Often that rebuttal is a shockingly obvious betrayal, as it was with the
Siri recordings in Ireland, or even worse, shockingly deceitful lies, as it
was when Tim Cook said Apple didn't backdate release notes (for which Apple
paid over 36 million dollars in legal penalties to the attorneys general).

My point is that whenever Apple isn't responding to the allegations, it's
because Apple is desperately trying to find a way to _deflect_ blame, as
they did with the batteries where they blamed battery chemistry which only
seems to apply to Apple iPhone batteries using a certain version of iOS.

You and I know Apple history, so these are all well known facts - but what
matters, moving forward, is how _gullible_ the user base will be based on
whatever (almost always rather clever) deflection Apple can come up with.

BTW, we've discussed Apple collection of user data for many years now,
where the amount of user data Apple collects is astronomically huge.

Most of the data collection is via the enforced requirement to have a
mothership tracking account (which no other smartphone requires but iOS).

--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information

which, in this case, is to explain a bit of the history of Apple excuses.

[Rod Speed]

Anyone who says something bad about apple isnt necessarily Arlen, stupid.

[Rod Speed]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 06:16:45 +1100, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 12.11.22 um 13:32 schrieb badgolferman:
>>> Apple is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly harvesting iPhone
>>> user
>>> data even when the company’s own privacy settings promise not to. The
>>> suit,
>>
>> Super-Troll *Arlen* with multiple personalities and multiple identities
>> is going wild again.

> Why do you keep accusing me of being Arlen?

Because he actually is that stupid.

[badgolferman]

badgolferman wrote:

>Well, maybe there’s another side to the story. Let’s wait to hear from
>nospam and Jolly Roger.

I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
by Apple and it's advertising customers.

[Alan]

Or you haven't done anything but list a bunch of bare assertions with no
actual support for them...

[nospam]

In article <tkp5di$18eev$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
> by Apple and it's advertising customers.

i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
anything to say about it.

post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might
opine.

just because a lawsuit is filed doesn't mean it has merit or that it
will succeed when (or if) it's litigated.

what *is* known (and can easily be substantiated) is that apple takes
extensive measures to anonymize as much about their users as possible
so that they *can't* be tracked.

that means that the mere presence of 'web traffic' doesn't necessarily
mean much of anything.

it also important to note that apple is *not* an ad company and has no
need to monetize their users, whereas facebook and google are, and do
exactly that.

[Rod Speed]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:06:42 +1100, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> badgolferman wrote:
>
>> Well, maybe there’s another side to the story. Let’s wait to hear from
>> nospam and Jolly Roger.

> I guess there is no other side of the story.

It remains to be seen how apple defends the legal suit.

> Even nospam can't defend Apple's betrayal of privacy claims.

Or he doesnt know much about it yet.

> Or maybe they just don't care that
> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
> by Apple

No evidence of that.

> and it's advertising customers.

Or that either. I see no ads on my iphone.

[badgolferman]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <tkp5di$18eev$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
> <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
>> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
>> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
>> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
>
> i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
> anything to say about it.
>
> post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might
> opine.
>
>

Here you are:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity

Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.

[Hank Rogers]

It could be your buddy Peeler, right?

[Hank Rogers]

Indeed, apple *never* monetizes their users.

[Rod Speed]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 12:14:07 +1100, Hank Rogers <ha...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 03:32:14 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 12.11.22 um 13:32 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>> Apple is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly harvesting
>>>> iPhone user

>>>> data even when the company’s own privacy settings promise not to.

>>>> The suit,
>>>
>>> Super-Troll *Arlen* with multiple personalities and multiple identities
>>> is going wild again.
>> Anyone who says something bad about apple isnt necessarily Arlen,
>> stupid.
>
> It could be your buddy Peeler, right?

Nope, all Peeler ever does is respond to every single post of those he
stalks.

[Alan]

And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...

...not proven facts.

[badgolferman]

We shall see. What will you say then?

[Alan]

I don't know.

Because I don't know what we'll see.

But let me ask you this:

In this day and age, do you think Apple is sending whatever data that
might being sent in plain text?

And if it isn't in plain text, then how do those asserting that people's
personal information is being transmitted make that assertion, exactly?

[badgolferman]

As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
appears to harvest information about your activity in real time, including
what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you found
a given app and how long you looked at the app’s page.

[Alan]

I notice you've failed to answer my questions.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> what *is* known (and can easily be substantiated) is that apple takes
> extensive measures to anonymize as much about their users as possible
> so that they *can't* be tracked.

If you read the links that badgolferman posted, there is a _lot_ that is
known that was tested by multiple independent outfits, completely _outside_
the context of the legal case in and of itself.

Normally you and the other iKooks have a ready made set of seven excuses
which range from denial to ad hominem attacks as you run through them.

The question for you, I believe, is _which excuse_ will you be exercising
to defend Apple's behavior to the death, no matter what the facts may be?

[Alan]

You've yet to actually show that there is any actual behaviour that
needs defense.

[nospam]

In article <tkpfmr$o41$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
> >> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
> >> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
> >> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
> >
> > i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
> > anything to say about it.
> >
> > post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might
> > opine.
> >
>
> Here you are:
>
> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-trac
> king-of-mobile-app-activity

thanks.

> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.

it's filed 11/10/22, so i would expect apple's response in three weeks,
which would be 12/1/22.

as for their claims, ios users must respond to 'ask app not to track'
or 'allow' (with an optional global setting):
<https://i0.wp.com/9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/04/ask-ap
p-not-track.jpg>

note that it says *ask* app not to track, versus 'do not track', the
latter being an absolute that cannot be guaranteed.

while many apps comply with that request (by using frameworks as
designed), there are some developers who try to get around the
restrictions by using clever tricks that can pass app store review.
many times, it does not pass review. it's a never-ending cat&mouse
game.

one critical component in their case is if the ids that are supposedly
sent are actually linked to the user.

sending a unique id that is randomly generated and not linked to anyone
essentially moots any claim they might have. more on that below.

they cite a gizmodo article that 'suggests' apple is collecting data.
winning a case needs more than a 'suggestion'.

paragraph 36 states that much of apple's enormous financial success is
from tracking and collection of consumer personal information'. that is
easily shown to be false by reviewing apple's financial reports.

much of apple's success is from selling iphones (approximately half
their revenue), along with other hardware (macs, ipads, wearables and
other accessories), totaling about 80% of total revenue.

paragraph 66 states that plaintiffs have suffered harm, including loss
of money and/or property, something which is quite a stretch.

it's not clear how sending analytics data (anonymous or not) can cause
a loss of money and certainly a loss of property, but even if that were
possible, there is nothing about whether anyone actually suffered such
harm. (hint: it can't and nobody did).

apple's forthcoming response will clarify what information is collected
and what it's used for. much of that is already in their security white
paper.

for example, apple has previously stated (and has also been widely
reported) that for map routing, they generate a unique one-time code
for the request that is *not* linked to the user.

they also split the requested route into multiple segments as well as
fuzz the origin and destination, making it virtually impossible to know
the complete route and be able to determine who it is or where they're
going.

in other words, apple goes well out of their way to *not* track users.

many apps, including apple's, send *anonymous* analytics data so that
the developers have a better idea of how their apps are being used,
geographical distribution, device and ios version usage, crashlogs,
etc., which helps developers create better apps.

none of that requires knowing specifically *who* is using the app, just
general trends.

for example, knowing that most users of a given app are using ios 15 or
later means that there may be little downside to stop supporting ios
14. knowing that a substantial number of users live in france means
that a french localization would probably be worthwhile.

[nospam]

In article <tkpoqd$1ivm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
> appears to harvest information about your activity in real time, including
> what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you found

> a given app and how long you looked at the app零 page.

the key question is if any of that is linked to *you* personally or is
it the usual normal anonymized analytics data.

from reading the brief, i did not see any evidence that it is, just a
lot of noise that it *could* happen, and that other companies have done
so.

[Andy Burnelli]

badgolferman wrote:

> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

>>> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>>>
>>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
>>
>> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
>>
>> ...not proven facts.
>>
>
> We shall see. What will you say then?

Hi badgolferman,

The problem is that nobody lies like Apple lies - but at least Apple is
forced to finally tell the truth in court - which nospam never has to do.

Due to my killfiles, I don't see Alan Baker's outright denials of all facts
he hates about Apple, where it's clear in your inclusion of his denials,
that Alan didn't read the evidence Gizmodo and Mysk clearly provided.

By denying all facts that Alan Baker hates, he is using one of the 7
excuses that the iKooks use (where even Apple hasn't denied these facts).

Since I don't have nospam plonked, I do see his response, which we can
instantly see he used two of the seven excuses number in order to deflect
the conversation away from Apple an onto Google & Facebook instead.

On 11/12/2022 10:39 PM, nospam wrote:
"it also important to note that apple is *not* an ad company
and has no need to monetize their users, whereas facebook
and google are, and do exactly that."

Notice nospam seems to be completely oblivious that we have already
discussed at length that Apple _does monetize_ their users.
*How is Apple making money off the login information they collect?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/B0IATqvuGh8/m/bJComHNFAwAJ>

Where nospam _always seems to be oblivious_ to conversations he,
himself, has many times taken part in, but which belie his position.
*How much is the Apple mothership TRACKING your map activities?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/YPnrpGSvuP8/m/5OTj1vbRCAAJ>
*Why does Apple unilaterally force periodic iCloud logins?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/DCvBNxN_AXw/m/pU_1o1y2BQAJ>
*iphone tracking settings*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/GwOYi5dFQdI/m/lkzszsfaBQAJ>
etc.

NOTE: I'm well aware Alan Baker and the other iKooks will deny every fact
in those threads, without even reading the many cites contained in them.

What's interesting is that I've noticed Apple takes a very long time to
respond to the allegations that turn out to be nasty to their extremely
carefully crafted image (Apple likely spends more on ads than on R&D).
*Does it surprise you how low Apple's R&D expenditure really is?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/STrAkx09VYk/m/hqD8CC-NAQAJ>

It's clear Apple cares more about their "pure" image, than anything else.

So we can expect Apple to craft a brilliant excuse similar to the ones that
Apple crafted for their claim that battery chemistry affects iPhones
differently depending on the version of operating system put on it.

What the Teflon company has in its favor, is an extremely gullible
clientele, where Apple users tend to believe everything Apple feeds them.

Given Apple's excuses for lack of privacy have been brilliant (IMHO)
*Guardian: There is no privacy for anyone on the iPhone after iOS15*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/HLv2DliVmtk/m/AalH3sW3BAAJ>

It will be interesting to see Apple's brilliant excuse for the facts.
*What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/wW-fu0jsvAU/m/0EqoGK1JAwAJ>

[Nil]

On 12 Nov 2022, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.privacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

> paragraph 66 states that plaintiffs have suffered harm, including loss
> of money and/or property, something which is quite a stretch.

If you paid more for an iPhone because Apple told you they weren't tracking
you and if it turned out that they were tracking you, did you suffer harm?

[Alan]

On 2022-11-12 20:22, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> badgolferman wrote:
>
>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>>>>
>>>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
>>>
>>> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
>>>
>>> ...not proven facts.
>>>
>>
>> We shall see. What will you say then?
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> The problem is that nobody lies like Apple lies - but at least Apple is
> forced to finally tell the truth in court - which nospam never has to do.

You lie more than Apple does.

>
> Due to my killfiles, I don't see Alan Baker's outright denials of all facts
> he hates about Apple, where it's clear in your inclusion of his denials,
> that Alan didn't read the evidence Gizmodo and Mysk clearly provided.

I read the ASSERTIONS that have been made.

<snip Arlen's rant>

[Wilf]

On 13/11/2022 at 01:22, Alan wrote:
>> Here you are:
>> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>>
>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...

Of course. Until a case is finished any allegations will only be
assertions. After the case has completed there will be a judgement.
--
Wilf

[badgolferman]

The organization I work for assigns iPhones to many of its employees
precisely because they think the phones are more secure and proprietary
information and communications are safe from prying eyes.

[nospam]

In article <tkqhol$1i33$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The organization I work for assigns iPhones to many of its employees
> precisely because they think the phones are more secure and proprietary
> information and communications are safe from prying eyes.

they are correct.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-12, badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Apple is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly harvesting iPhone

> user data even when the company’s own privacy settings promise not to.
> The suit, filed Thursday in California federal court, comes days after
> Gizmodo exclusively reported on research into how multiple iPhone apps
> send Apple analytics data, regardless of whether the iPhone Analytics
> privacy setting is turned on or off.
>
> The problem was spotted by two independent researchers at the software
> company Mysk, who found that the Apple App Store sends the company
> exhaustive information about nearly everything a user does in the app,

Those two researchers apparently can't tell the difference between
anonymized app analytics (something all apps do) that are used
internally for app and service improvement and actual user tracking that
is used to sell ads to users. And apparently you can't either. This
lawsuit will naturally go nowhere, much to the chagrin of little
trollbois with Apple hate boners. : )

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

JR

[Jolly Roger]

The most likely thing we will see is a quick settlement where Apple
admits no wrongdoing, and potentially some improvement in the way
Apple's App Store and other apps track usage to further anonymize the
data that is sent and perhaps reduce the amount of data that is sent
when Share Analytics is disabled on devices. And by then your little
trollboi gang will have moved on to the next Gate-Gate. ; )

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-13, badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>

>> But let me ask you this:
>>
>> In this day and age, do you think Apple is sending whatever data that
>> might being sent in plain text?
>>
>> And if it isn't in plain text, then how do those asserting that
>> people's personal information is being transmitted make that
>> assertion, exactly?
>
> As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
> appears to harvest information about your activity in real time,
> including what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you
> see, how you found a given app and how long you looked at the app’s
> page.

Are you under the laughable impression that most apps *don't* track what
you do inside of them?

What do you think Apple does with this information that others don't do
with it?

[Jolly Roger]

Unless there's a settlement. : )

[Jolly Roger]

Nope. And anonymized app analytics used for app improvement aren't you
being tracked for the purposes of selling you shit.

[Alan]

How is that in any way relevant?

I watched the video and it fails to prove the things it asserts.

[Nil]

On 13 Nov 2022, badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.privacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

> As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
> appears to harvest information about your activity in real time, including
> what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you found

> a given app and how long you looked at the app┬ page.

What do you think about the unique header Apple inserts into all your apps?

[Alan]

Got any proof of that or that if it is, it is in any way relevant to
your privacy?

[Andy Burnelli]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Are you under the laughable impression that most apps *don't* track what
> you do inside of them?
>
> What do you think Apple does with this information that others don't do
> with it?

Given the iKooks only have seven excuses for facts they hate about Apple,
it's interesting that Jolly Roger is using the excuse that Apple is just as
bad or worse as everyone else is to excuse Apple's reprehensible behavior.

[Bob Campbell]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:>
> As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
> appears to harvest information about your activity in real time, including
> what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you found
> a given app and how long you looked at the app’s page.

Seriously? A youtube video that shows that the app store “appears to
harvest information about your activity in real time”?

Courts and judges do not deal with youtube videos that “appear to show
something.” Allegations need to be proven. A youtube video is not proof
of anything.

This is nothing but the usual Apple Troll Boys in a tizzy about
allegations. Anyone can file a suit about anything.

As with most of these “hey let’s make Big Headlines and see if we can get a
Big Payday by filing a nuisance suit against a Big Company”, this will go
nowhere.

[JAB]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:24:11 +0000, Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk> wrote:

>>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
>> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
>
> Of course. Until a case is finished any allegations will only be
> assertions. After the case has completed there will be a judgement.

Even as the party with the deepest pockets rarely has to admit guilt,
a lot of the facts of the case are unearthed during the depositions.

[Calum]

On 13/11/2022 12:41, nospam wrote:

>> The organization I work for assigns iPhones to many of its employees
>> precisely because they think the phones are more secure and proprietary
>> information and communications are safe from prying eyes.
>
> they are correct.

If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are more
private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then harmed?

[dan]

Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations then?

[nospam]

In article <tkrd7t$1ch1$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, dan <nos...@nospam.com>

where did you get the ludicrous idea they're afraid to respond?

do you have even the slightest clue how lawsuits work?

[Bob Campbell]

dan <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations then?

Why do you assume that Apple is “so afraid to respond publicly to the
public allegations”? This thing was just filed a couple days ago. Do you
think that Apple is “scared” of a youtube video?

I would expect to hear something in the next few days, with a much more
detailed response coming later. Will you then assume that Apple is lying
when they deny/disprove these allegations?

What if - like many of these types of suits - this gets dismissed for lack
of evidence? Will that be “proof” that Apple had the judge in their
pocket?

[Alan]

Are they actually "much less private"?

Assertions that they're not perfectly private don't support "much less
private" than the alternative even if they're true; which we do not know
at this point.

[Alan]

Who says they're afraid?

[Alan]

"Dan" is the kind of guy who would have claimed that, had Apple
responded by now, the response was clearly "just spin"...

...because it was too soon for it to be substantive.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-13, Bob Campbell <nu...@none.none> wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>> As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
>> appears to harvest information about your activity in real time,
>> including what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you
>> see, how you found a given app and how long you looked at the app’s
>> page.
>
> Seriously? A youtube video that shows that the app store “appears to
> harvest information about your activity in real time”?
>
> Courts and judges do not deal with youtube videos that “appear to show
> something.” Allegations need to be proven. A youtube video is not
> proof of anything.

Yes, but gullible idiots and little trollbois with Apple hate boners eat
the shit up. : )

> This is nothing but the usual Apple Troll Boys in a tizzy about
> allegations. Anyone can file a suit about anything.
>
> As with most of these “hey let’s make Big Headlines and see if we can
> get a Big Payday by filing a nuisance suit against a Big Company”,
> this will go nowhere.

It'll definitely increase ad sales on the websites writing these
clickbait articles though. "WINNING!!!" ; )

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-13, dan <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations
> then?

Why is Arlen (danny boy here) so afraid of using less than ten thousand
nyms, trying to fool others into thinking he's someone else?

[Jolly Roger]

Arlen and his little trollboi club. : )

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-13, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

NARRATOR: He doesn't.

[Jolly Roger]

There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.

[Rod Speed]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:37:49 +1100, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

>> On 2022-11-12 18:45, badgolferman wrote:
>>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <tkp5di$18eev$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>>>>>> <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't
>>>>>>> defend
>>>>>>> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for
>>>>>>> profit
>>>>>>> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
>>>>>> anything to say about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> opine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> Here you are:
>>>>> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>>>>>

>>>>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
>>>>
>>>> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
>>>>

>>>> ...not proven facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We shall see. What will you say then?
>>>
>>

>> I don't know.
>>
>> Because I don't know what we'll see.

>>
>> But let me ask you this:
>>
>> In this day and age, do you think Apple is sending whatever data that
>> might being sent in plain text?
>>
>> And if it isn't in plain text, then how do those asserting that people's
>> personal information is being transmitted make that assertion, exactly?
>>
>
>

> As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
> appears to harvest information about your activity in real time,
> including
> what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you
> found

> a given app and how long you looked at the app’s page.

But there is no evidence that apple is passing on that data to anyone.

And if you are paranoid about what apple knows about how you
use the app store, it makes no sense to use the app store at all.

I bet the reality is that apple does not hand any data about what
you do in the app store to anyone so there is nothing misleading
about what apple says about your privacy given that it is obvious
that apple knows about what you have looked at and downloaded
from the app store.

[Rod Speed]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 15:29:55 +1100, Nil <redn...@removethiscomcast.net>

wrote:

> On 12 Nov 2022, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.privacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
>> paragraph 66 states that plaintiffs have suffered harm, including loss
>> of money and/or property, something which is quite a stretch.
>
> If you paid more for an iPhone because Apple told you they weren't
> tracking
> you and if it turned out that they were tracking you, did you suffer
> harm?

You don't in fact pay more for iphones than the other top end alternatives.

[Rod Speed]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:24:11 +1100, Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk> wrote:

> On 13/11/2022 at 01:22, Alan wrote:

>>> Here you are:
>>> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>>>
>>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
>> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
>
>

> Of course. Until a case is finished any allegations will only be
> assertions. After the case has completed there will be a judgement.

But given how many judgements have been stupid, what matters
is actually the evidence presented, not the judgement.

[Rod Speed]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 21:43:33 +1100, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk> wrote:
>> On 13/11/2022 at 01:22, Alan wrote:
>>>> Here you are:
>>>> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>>>>
>>>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
>>> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
>>
>>
>> Of course. Until a case is finished any allegations will only be
>> assertions. After the case has completed there will be a judgement.
>

> The organization I work for assigns iPhones to many of its employees
> precisely because they think the phones are more secure and proprietary
> information and communications are safe from prying eyes.

And there is no evidence that that isn't accurate.

Even if apple does keep track of how the app store is used to
enhance how well it is designed, that isnt evidence that there is
any evidence of 'prying eyes', let alone any grounds for damages.

Apple obviously has to keep track of what you have bought or
downloaded so it can offload the apps you hardly ever use if you
get your iphone to free up more space on the phone and only
dowload the infrequently used app again if you use it again later/

[Rod Speed]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 06:27:49 +1100, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
wrote:

> On 2022-11-13, dan <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations
>> then?
>
> Why is Arlen (danny boy here)

It is completely silly claiming that anyone who says
anything bad about apple is actually Arlen.

[Rod Speed]

No evidence that they are in fact much less private.

> are they then harmed?

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-13, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 06:27:49 +1100, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2022-11-13, dan <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations
>>> then?
>>
>> Why is Arlen (danny boy here)
>
> It is completely silly claiming that anyone who says anything bad
> about apple is actually Arlen.

I never claimed that anyone who says anything bad about Apple is
actually Arlen - maybe you have me confused with someone else here. I'm
speaking specifically of the "dan" nym I quoted above. And if you are
gullible enough to fall for Arlen's silly shenanigans, that's something
you'll have to resolve on your own.

[Rod Speed]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 10:13:25 +1100, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>

wrote:

> On 2022-11-13, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 06:27:49 +1100, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-13, dan <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations
>>>> then?
>>>
>>> Why is Arlen (danny boy here)
>>
>> It is completely silly claiming that anyone who says anything bad
>> about apple is actually Arlen.
>
> I never claimed that anyone who says anything bad about Apple is
> actually Arlen - maybe you have me confused with someone else here. I'm
> speaking specifically of the "dan" nym I quoted above.

But there isnt a shred of evidence that dan is arlen and the styles
are completely different and arlen has a very characteristic style.

> And if you are
> gullible enough to fall for Arlen's silly shenanigans,

I don't.

[Calum]

On 13/11/2022 13:30, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are more
>> private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then harmed?
>
> There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.

The evidence is in Apple's web site and in the published reports.
https://www.apple.com/privacy/
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-14, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 10:13:25 +1100, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2022-11-13, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 06:27:49 +1100, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-13, dan <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public
>>>>> allegations then?
>>>>
>>>> Why is Arlen (danny boy here)
>>>
>>> It is completely silly claiming that anyone who says anything bad
>>> about apple is actually Arlen.
>>
>> I never claimed that anyone who says anything bad about Apple is
>> actually Arlen - maybe you have me confused with someone else here.
>> I'm speaking specifically of the "dan" nym I quoted above.
>
> But there isnt a shred of evidence that dan is arlen and the styles
> are completely different and arlen has a very characteristic style.

The lady doth protest too much, me thinks. Probably because "dan" is
"Rod Speed", another nym-switching coward. At any rate, what "dan" says
is complete bullshit as usual, and will be rightfully ignored, just like
your response to this post will be rightfully ignored. By now. : )

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-14, Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
> On 13/11/2022 13:30, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are
>>> more private and yet they were actually much less private, are they
>>> then harmed?
>>
>> There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.
>
> The evidence is in Apple's web site and in the published reports.

Nope, that's not evidence that Apple devices are supposedly less private
or that anyone was supposedly harmed. You guys are having a *really*
hard time backing up your own words. "Trolling is hard, y'all!!1!" ; )

[Alan]

You realize that the word "less" requires a comparison, right?

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-12, badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apple is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly harvesting iPhone
> user data even when the company’s own privacy settings promise not to.
> The suit, filed Thursday in California federal court, comes days after
> Gizmodo exclusively reported on research into how multiple iPhone apps
> send Apple analytics data, regardless of whether the iPhone Analytics
> privacy setting is turned on or off.
>
> The problem was spotted by two independent researchers at the software
> company Mysk, who found that the Apple App Store sends the company
> exhaustive information about nearly everything a user does in the app,
> despite a privacy setting, iPhone Analytics, which claims to “disable
> the sharing of Device Analytics altogether” when switched off. Gizmodo
> asked the researchers to run additional tests on other iPhone apps,
> including Apple Music, Apple TV, Books, and Stocks. The researchers
> found that the problem persists across most of Apple’s suite of
> built-in iPhone apps.
>
> The lawsuit accuses Apple of violating the California Invasion of
> Privacy Act. “Privacy is one of the main issues that Apple uses to set
> its products apart from competitors,” the plaintiff, Elliot Libman,
> said in the suit, which can be read on Bloomberg Law. “But Apple’s
> privacy guarantees are completely illusory.” The company has plastered
> billboards across the country with the slogan “Privacy. That’s
> iPhone.”

For those of us who are actually interested in honest discussion about
this, here are some excellent breakdowns of this weak lawsuit:

---
Apple is collecting data exactly how it says it is, while Mysk is using
clever wording to mislead and file a lawsuit.

Edit- “Ask not to track” means Apple isn't gonna share data with other
developers about other apps you use, etc. This cuts down on targeted ads
and helps prevent a company from building a profile on you.

Any app you log into can track you, Meaning the Facebook app can still
see everything you do on the app, they just can’t get data from Apple
about other apps and services you use.

It should also be noted that Google can totally break this, as when you
sign in on and use their apps and services they can track you and store
data on their servers, this allows them to build a profile on you.

This is also the difference in Google and Apple, Apple shares data in a
way that’s usually useless outside of app development, and developers
generally can’t track back.

Google however has a hand in the data collection at all levels so
regardless of Google shares that data or how it’s shared with them, they
can easily establish users. Which allows them to with or without your
permission build a user profile which Google uses to make money.

From the App Store terms of service,

b. Consent to Use of Data: You agree that Licensor may collect and use
technical data and related information including but not limited to
technical information about your device, system and application
software, and peripherals--that is gathered periodically to facilitate
the provision of software updates, product support, and other services
to you (if any) related to the Licensed Application. Licensor may use
this information, as long as it is in a form that does not personally
identify you, to improve its products or to provide services or
technologies to you.

Apple has always collected data, and has always been open about it.
Their privacy is in most cases they don’t know who you are or sell data
to 3rd parties or allow cross app tracking.

But let’s break it down even more,

From the article

The data being collected is quite detailed, too. As Gizmodo points out,
a user looking at the App Store app on their iPhone would have their
search data, what they tapped on, and how long they were checking out an
app all sent to Apple in real-time.

Yup. It’s fairly normal to track App Store usage. See above quote.

Using Apple's Stocks app? Apple will receive a list of the user's
watched stocks, any articles they read in-app, and the names of any
stocks they searched for. The timestamps for which a user viewed stock
information will be sent over too.

Yes, they are open about it also
<https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/stocks/>. Even going as far
as telling you how to reset the identifier.

Some of Apple's apps even collect detailed information about the user's
iPhone such as the model, screen resolution, and keyboard language.

Yup. As does any app such as Facebook or Google if you are signed in on
them.

According to the developers, attempts to turn this data collection off,
such as selecting the Settings option "disable the sharing of Device
Analytics altogether" did not affect the data from being sent.

And it won’t, Device Analytics shares ALL the data about the device with
Apple and not just Apple use you, it also doesn't prevent a 3rd party
app that uses a log in from collecting data.

Apple is collecting this data regardless of a user's settings where they
are given the option to turn data collection off, possibly giving them a
false sense of privacy.

No they aren't. Apple is collecting data in accordance with your
settings. It’s not their fault you didn't read TOS or the privacy
policy.
---

Another from a lawyer specializing in constitutional law:
---
I was one too in a former, more stressful, life, and the curiosity got
the better of me so I ended up reading the initial filing.

At best it seems to consist of a severe misunderstanding of the matters
at hand, at worst a conscious attempt to mislead. In either case I
expect it to be pointed out as soon as Apple files for summary
dismissal.

There are a bunch of issues with this case, not in the least that it’s
predicated on research done by Mysk on iOS 14.6. Mysk themselves remains
vague when asked if this also occurs on iOS 16.

More specifically they state:
<https://twitter.com/mysk_co/status/1588308360897576960?s=46&t=ruYqGnu4s6HfkXxrUlE65Q>

It’s unclear if Apple Still collects analytics data in iOS 16, even when
sharing analytics and personalized recommendations are switched off.
Regardless, the App Store already knows a lot about our behavior and how
we explore apps.

Which in and of itself is a rather weird statement when you've
already set everything up for 14.6.

Edit: someone in the thread suggested they used a jailbroken iPhone. I
can’t find any statements by Mysk that this is the case and it seems
they they simply used a packet analyzer, but nevertheless, it might
still be brought up whether trivial or not.

When further pressed on this Mysk acts rather skittish and avoidant. If
it ever comes to it that they’ll be flown in to testify, this will one
of the first things that will be brought up spring cross examination.

Then there’s the matter of misrepresenting what the toggle promises. The
toggle is called “Share iPhone & Watch Analytics”, has a small explainer
that states:

Help Apple improve its products and services by automatically sending
daily diagnostic and usage data. Data may include location information.
Analytics uses wireless data. About Analytics & Privacy...

The link in that explainer leads to a section called “Device Analytics &
Privacy”, the text of which can be found here and states the following:
<https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/device-analytics/>

Device Analytics & Privacy Analytics is designed to protect your
information and enable you to choose what you share.

iOS Device Analytics

iPhone Analytics may include details about hardware and operating
system specifications, performance statistics, and data about how you
use your devices and applications. None of the collected information
identifies you personally. Personal data is either not logged at all,
is subject to privacy preserving techniques such as differential
privacy, or is removed from any reports before they’re sent to Apple.
You can review this information on your iOS device by going to
Settings > Privacy & Security > Analytics & Improvements and tapping
Analytics Data.

If you have consented to provide Apple with this information, and you
have Location Services turned on, the location of your devices may
also be sent to help Apple analyze performance issues (for example,
the strength or weakness of a mobile or Wi-Fi signal in a particular
location). This analytics location data may include locations such as
the location of your devices once per day, the location where a call
ends, or the location of a failed in-store transaction. You may choose
to disable Location Services for Analytics at any time. To do so, go
to Settings > Privacy & Security > Location Services > System Services
and tap to turn off iPhone Analytics.

If you agree to send Analytics information to Apple from multiple
devices that use the same iCloud account, we may correlate some usage
data about Apple apps across those devices by syncing using end-to-end
encryption. We do this in a manner that does not identify you to
Apple.

You may also choose to disable the sharing of Device Analytics
altogether. To do so, go to Settings > Privacy & Security > Analytics
& Improvements, and turn off Share iPhone Analytics. If you have an
Apple Watch paired with your iPhone, then tap to turn off Share iPhone
& Watch Analytics.

By using these features, you agree and consent to Apple’s and its
subsidiaries’ and agents’ transmission, collection, maintenance,
processing, and use of this information as described above.

At all times, information collected by Apple will be treated in
accordance with Apple’s Privacy Policy, which can be found at
www.apple.com/privacy

Published Date: September 12, 2022

A good lawyer might point out this is quite bit hidden away from the
toggle in question. But these champs decided to selectively quote from
this piece of text to give their claims some meat, so that option is out
the window.

They've also made the case for inference “[…]consumers reviewing Apple’s
privacy controls are left with the reasonable impression that […]”.

By introducing the text above and the notion of inference it’s easy to
argue that consumers can infer what is or isn't governed by the toggle
by simply looking at what data can be found under Settings > Privacy &
Security > Analytics & Improvements and tapping Analytics Data.

Hell, it’s not so much inference as the text telling you as much: “You
can review this information on your iOS device by going to Settings >
Privacy & Security > Analytics & Improvements and tapping Analytics
Data”.

It won’t surprise you that the offending data in question doesn't end up
in Settings > Privacy & Security > Analytics & Improvements > Analytics
Data.

Then there’s the matter that the toggle in question and the text
explaining what it does clearly gives the impression that this is about
analytical data of the device, as opposed to analytical data pertaining
ti specific apps.

It also doesn't help that “Device Analytics” is capitalized. I think you
know why.

There’s also the claim that this is about personally identifiable
private data, despite the research by Myst showing that it isn't and the
text explicitly stating as much: “None of the collected information
identifies you personally”.

They go on to suggest that their understanding is that it is private
identifiable data but that it is anonymized on Apple’s end, and thus too
late because the privacy has been breached. Whereas in actuality it is
not identifiable the moment it leaves the device.

In fact they go so far in their claim that it is personally identifiable
private data, that one of their causes of action (2nd count of 3) is a
violation of California’s eavesdropping law. Which has as element that
one eavesdrops on confidential communication, created for using spy gear
to listen in on private communications mind you.

While you’re catching your breath from laughing your ass of, give some
thought on how one would be eavesdropping on a communication to which
they themselves are the recipient.

Their first count is unjust enrichment based on the data Apple has
collected, but they've pretty much capped themselves there by
quantifying the value of personal information based on a study that
asked people to put a price on their personal information. Stating:

For example, in a study authored by Tim Morey, as early as 2011,
researchers studied the value that 180 internet consumers placed on
keeping personal data secure.6 Contact information was valued by the
study participants at approximately $4.20 per year. Demographic
information was valued at approximately $3.00 per year. But web
browsing histories were valued at a much higher rate: $52.00 per year.

Even if we ignore the issues with this unjust enrichment claim and the
study used to quantify the value and assume that they’re going to be
successful in this class action, those settlement check are going to be
worth little more than the paper they’re printed on.

They also drag in stuff like wiretapping laws, the complaint is honestly
good comedy if you have some time to kill.

The only thing that sort of sounds reasonable is California privacy
laws. Problem however is that privacy isn't defined as widely as say in
the EU, where unidentifiable information that leads to data
re-identification if it can be combined with other data is also
considered private data.

They’ll also have a hard time dealing with the fact that the App Store
can and does (via a separate stream, but nevertheless) collect private
data for legitimate business purposes such as processing transactions
and fraud prevention.

In any case, it’s a highly amusing piece of prose that I’d definitely
recommend reading if you have time to kill. I expect Apple’s GC to asses
what it would cost to litigate (if they don’t get a summary dismissal)
and settle if that turns out to be cheaper.
---

[Rod Speed]

That provides NO evidence that they are less private, JUST
that apple does keep track of how you use the app store so
that they can make it more useful to app store users.

[%%]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 04:32:06 +1100, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>

wrote:

> On 2022-11-14, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 10:13:25 +1100, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-13, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 06:27:49 +1100, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-11-13, dan <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public
>>>>>> allegations then?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is Arlen (danny boy here)
>>>>
>>>> It is completely silly claiming that anyone who says anything bad
>>>> about apple is actually Arlen.
>>>
>>> I never claimed that anyone who says anything bad about Apple is
>>> actually Arlen - maybe you have me confused with someone else here.
>>> I'm speaking specifically of the "dan" nym I quoted above.
>>
>> But there isnt a shred of evidence that dan is arlen and the styles
>> are completely different and arlen has a very characteristic style.

> The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> Probably because "dan" is "Rod Speed",

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> At any rate, what "dan" says
> is complete bullshit as usual, and will be rightfully ignored, just like
> your response to this post will be rightfully ignored. By now. : )

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

[Alan]

Like the rather obvious information that the keyboard layout you're
using probably let's them know what language to respond to your requests in.

[Andy Burnelli]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> This is also the difference in Google and Apple, Apple shares data in a
> way that¢s usually useless outside of app development, and developers
> generally can¢t track back.

Why is it the iKooks always use the excuse that Apple is as bad or worse
than Google whenever iKooks feel the need to defend iOS' lack of privacy?

Doesn't Apple own free will?
If you listen to the iKooks, Apple has no free will.

The iKooks constantly tell us Apple sucks at privacy as much as Google.

And yet, isn't it a well known obvious fact that only Apple mobile devices
_force_ you to log into their servers every day just so that Apple _can_
(and does) track you in innumerable ways? (some even worse than Google)

*Only Apple iOS requires you to be tracked by the mothership EVERY DAY!*

Cites?
Try this.

*Apple Still Has a Privacy Problem*
<https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>

While the iKooks never have cites for their claims, I have more.
Just ask.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to point out that Apple has free will on privacy.

[Bob Campbell]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Cites?
> Try this.
>
> *Apple Still Has a Privacy Problem*
> <https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>
>
> While the iKooks never have cites for their claims, I have more.
> Just ask.

Oh boy. Arlen is posting more links. This should be interesting.

AGAIN, did you even read this? This is ANOTHER OPINION piece. The only
facts presented are that Apple complies with roughly 50% of law enforcement
requests for data from the iPhones of criminals. You think THIS means
“Apple is bad”?

“In its most recent transparency report, which covers January to June of
2020, Apple said it handed over user data to US law enforcement 2,590
times. Apple says this could include (but is not limited to) photos,
emails, contacts, calendars, and iOS device backups. Impressively, there
were 9,872 requests for data in that period, with the US being responsible
for 5,861 of those requests”

This is NOT about Apple sharing personal information with advertisers. Or
any company. This is about complying with law enforcement requests.

Maybe you should read the links you post BEFORE you post them. AGAIN, this
link does NOT support your latest bogus claim.

Remember the links you posted about iOS being the most insecure OS on the
planet? You immediately abandoned that topic when I showed that the links
you posted in that topic DID NOT SUPPORT your bogus claim in that topic.

AGAIN, you are such a pathetic troll.

[Alan]

On 2022-11-14 16:47, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> This is also the difference in Google and Apple, Apple shares data in a
>> way that�s usually useless outside of app development, and developers
>> generally can�t track back.
>
> Why is it the iKooks always use the excuse that Apple is as bad or worse
> than Google whenever iKooks feel the need to defend iOS' lack of privacy?

No one has said that.

>
> Doesn't Apple own free will?
> If you listen to the iKooks, Apple has no free will.

Or that.

>
> The iKooks constantly tell us Apple sucks at privacy as much as Google.

Nope. That literally has never been said.

>
> And yet, isn't it a well known obvious fact that only Apple mobile devices
> _force_ you to log into their servers every day just so that Apple _can_
> (and does) track you in innumerable ways? (some even worse than Google)

This is false.

>
> *Only Apple iOS requires you to be tracked by the mothership EVERY DAY!*

And this is false.

>
> Cites?
> Try this.

Try what?

>
> *Apple Still Has a Privacy Problem*
> <https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>
>
> While the iKooks never have cites for their claims, I have more.
> Just ask.

Your cite doesn't even talk about the things you assert.

[Bob Campbell]

They never do. Troll boy just looks up headlines that LOOK like they
support his claims. But he never reads them.

Apparently he is dumb enough to think that no one else will read them
either. Like we will just take his word.

As if.

[Jolly Roger]

That's exactly it: he actually thinks everyone else is just as gullible
as he is.

[Bob Campbell]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2022-11-15, Bob Campbell <nu...@none.none> wrote:
>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-14 16:47, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>> *Apple Still Has a Privacy Problem*
>>>> <https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>
>>>>
>>>> While the iKooks never have cites for their claims, I have more.
>>>> Just ask.
>>>
>>> Your cite doesn't even talk about the things you assert.
>>
>> They never do. Troll boy just looks up headlines that LOOK like they
>> support his claims. But he never reads them.
>>
>> Apparently he is dumb enough to think that no one else will read them
>> either. Like we will just take his word.
>>
>> As if.
>
> That's exactly it: he actually thinks everyone else is just as gullible
> as he is.

It goes way beyond mere gullibility.

It takes a special kind of stupid to post links that - at best - don’t
support your claim. Many links that troll boy “cites” actually refute his
claims.

Not only that, but it takes extra special stupidity to post links to
opinion pieces as if they are statements of fact. That Troll Boy doesn’t
know the difference between opinions and facts - even when the word
“opinions” is actually in the link (see above) - is further proof (as if
any more is needed 🙄) that Troll Boy is in fact a clueless kiddie.