Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
As expected, Apple beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones (since they can't compete on performance)
28 views
Skip to first unread message
arlen holder
Mar 14, 2019, 11:52:28 PM3/14/19
to
*As always, I just wish they would spend that money on _actual_ privacy.*
As expected, Apple is beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones
(since iPhones can no longer compete on performance for a few years):
As predicted, Apple is trying to form imaginary belief systems in users' heads:
o MARKETING forms a completely imaginary belief system on privacy
o Devoid of actual facts.
Gullible people _want_ desperately to _believe_ Apple is "more private"
o Yet the cold hard facts clearly & obviously show that to be totally false
But the falsity of the advertising campaign will never stop Apple
o Apple, as predicted, is ALREADY gearing up the imaginary privacy
The billboards and the web sites forecast this imaginary feature push:
o Apple's latest iPhone ad promises privacy matters
<https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/14/iphone-privacy-advertisement/>
FACT + Adult Logic:
o Iphones are not any more or less private than Android phones.
FACT:
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>
LOGIC:
In some cases, Android is FAR (far far far!) more private than iPhones;
yet, and in other cases, iPhones are far more private but only by default.
REFERENCES:
o Apple Says 'Privacy Matters' in Humorous New iPhone Ad
<https://www.macrumors.com/2019/03/14/apple-privacy-matters-iphone-ad/>
o Privacy matters in Apple┬ latest iPhone ad
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/14/18266276/apple-iphone-ad-privacy-facetime-bug>
o Apple makes privacy extremely relatable in fun new iPhone ad
<https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/14/iphone-privacy-ad/>
As predicted, Apple can't play up the imaginary performance anymore.
o What they're playing up is imaginary privacy
Clearly, Apple spends millions promoting imaginary privacy!
*As always, I just wish they would spend that money on _actual_ privacy.*
As expected, Apple is beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones
(since iPhones can no longer compete on performance for a few years):
As predicted, Apple is trying to form imaginary belief systems in users' heads:
o MARKETING forms a completely imaginary belief system on privacy
o Devoid of actual facts.
Gullible people _want_ desperately to _believe_ Apple is "more private"
o Yet the cold hard facts clearly & obviously show that to be totally false
But the falsity of the advertising campaign will never stop Apple
o Apple, as predicted, is ALREADY gearing up the imaginary privacy
The billboards and the web sites forecast this imaginary feature push:
o Apple's latest iPhone ad promises privacy matters
<https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/14/iphone-privacy-advertisement/>
FACT + Adult Logic:
o Iphones are not any more or less private than Android phones.
FACT:
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>
LOGIC:
In some cases, Android is FAR (far far far!) more private than iPhones;
yet, and in other cases, iPhones are far more private but only by default.
REFERENCES:
o Apple Says 'Privacy Matters' in Humorous New iPhone Ad
<https://www.macrumors.com/2019/03/14/apple-privacy-matters-iphone-ad/>
o Privacy matters in Apple┬ latest iPhone ad
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/14/18266276/apple-iphone-ad-privacy-facetime-bug>
o Apple makes privacy extremely relatable in fun new iPhone ad
<https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/14/iphone-privacy-ad/>
As predicted, Apple can't play up the imaginary performance anymore.
o What they're playing up is imaginary privacy
Clearly, Apple spends millions promoting imaginary privacy!
*As always, I just wish they would spend that money on _actual_ privacy.*
Alan Baker
Mar 15, 2019, 12:11:51 AM3/15/19
to
On 2019-03-14 8:52 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> *As always, I just wish they would spend that money on _actual_
> privacy.*
>
> As expected, Apple is beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of
> iPhones (since iPhones can no longer compete on performance for a few
> years):
Assumes facts not presented, or supported.
> *As always, I just wish they would spend that money on _actual_
> privacy.*
>
> As expected, Apple is beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of
> iPhones (since iPhones can no longer compete on performance for a few
> years):
> As predicted, Apple is trying to form imaginary belief systems in
> users' heads: o MARKETING forms a completely imaginary belief system
> on privacy o Devoid of actual facts.
>
> Gullible people _want_ desperately to _believe_ Apple is "more
> private" o Yet the cold hard facts clearly & obviously show that to
> be totally false
>
> But the falsity of the advertising campaign will never stop Apple o
> Apple, as predicted, is ALREADY gearing up the imaginary privacy
>
> The billboards and the web sites forecast this imaginary feature
> push: o Apple's latest iPhone ad promises privacy matters
> <https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/14/iphone-privacy-advertisement/>
'Apple has earned some privacy bragging rights with progress on
security, encryption, reluctance to track users and hardened default
settings.'
>
> FACT + Adult Logic: o Iphones are not any more or less private than
> Android phones.
>
> FACT: 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>
>
> LOGIC: In some cases, Android is FAR (far far far!) more private
> than iPhones; yet, and in other cases, iPhones are far more private
> but only by default.
That, too, is just an ASSERTION.
>
> REFERENCES: o Apple Says 'Privacy Matters' in Humorous New iPhone Ad
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2019/03/14/apple-privacy-matters-iphone-ad/>
>
> o Privacy matters in Apple¢s latest iPhone ad
arlen holder
Mar 15, 2019, 1:32:43 AM3/15/19
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 21:11:47 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> Assumes facts not presented, or supported.
FACT:
> Assumes facts not presented, or supported.
o Android phones have 5G networking speeds; iPhones do not.
o *Ignoring cold hard facts creates completely imaginary belief systems*
> 'Apple has earned some privacy bragging rights with progress on
> security, encryption, reluctance to track users and hardened default
> settings.'
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>
HINT: Those are FACTS about privacy which are discussed in that thread.
In short, there are _many_ (very many) areas where Android is more private;
and there are a few ways (mostly by default) where iOS is more private.
Since there are _plenty_ of ways neither are private, the privacy, overall,
can easily be argued (by adults anyway) to be "about the same".
HINT: You can't just pick and choose, Alan Baker, which parts of privacy to
ignore and which parts of privacy to advertise.
Apple does that - where all MARKETING does that.
o *Ignoring cold hard facts creates completely imaginary belief systems*
>> FACT + Adult Logic: o Iphones are not any more or less private than
>> Android phones.
>
> No. That is not a fact. That is an ASSERTION.
o Only an idiot would say that either phone is more private.
*Cold hard facts prove that _neither_ phone is even close to private.*
>> FACT: o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or
>> similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
>
> A question is also not a fact.
o Cold hard facts, by the dozen, were provided in that thread.
Just as Ford advertised "Quality is Job One", Apple advertises an imaginary
privacy that any adult can easily see simply is an imaginary belief system.
That's a fact.
The adult logic is that Apple pushes privacy because they have to push
'something', and clearly "performance" can't be pushed for the next few
years.
Your problem, Alan Baker, is that you can't even get the facts
o So the adult logic is lost on you before you ever started.
I always shake my head in dismay when I realize people like you exist.
o However, people selling imaginary belief systems LOVE you, Alan!
Alan Baker
Mar 15, 2019, 1:39:10 AM3/15/19
to
On 2019-03-14 10:32 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 21:11:47 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Assumes facts not presented, or supported.
>
> FACT:
> o Android phones have 5G networking speeds; iPhones do not.
1. They don't because there are no 5G networks.
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 21:11:47 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Assumes facts not presented, or supported.
>
> FACT:
> o Android phones have 5G networking speeds; iPhones do not.
2. That is not germane to your claims about privacy.
> o *Ignoring cold hard facts creates completely imaginary belief systems*
>
>> 'Apple has earned some privacy bragging rights with progress on
>> security, encryption, reluctance to track users and hardened default
>> settings.'
>
> Clearly you do not understand privacy versus security, Alan Baker:
>
> 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>
>
> HINT: Those are FACTS about privacy which are discussed in that thread.
>
> In short, there are _many_ (very many) areas where Android is more private;
> and there are a few ways (mostly by default) where iOS is more private.
>
> Since there are _plenty_ of ways neither are private, the privacy, overall,
> can easily be argued (by adults anyway) to be "about the same".
>
> HINT: You can't just pick and choose, Alan Baker, which parts of privacy to
> ignore and which parts of privacy to advertise.
>
> Apple does that - where all MARKETING does that.
> o *Ignoring cold hard facts creates completely imaginary belief systems*
>
>>> FACT + Adult Logic: o Iphones are not any more or less private than
>>> Android phones.
>>
>> No. That is not a fact. That is an ASSERTION.
>
> Read the details in the thread Alan Baker.
> o Only an idiot would say that either phone is more private.
YOU chose to create a thread. YOU get to argue it here.
>
> *Cold hard facts prove that _neither_ phone is even close to private.*
>
>>> FACT: o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or
>>> similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
>>
>> A question is also not a fact.
>
> The fact you can't comprehend facts does not make facts not facts.
> o Cold hard facts, by the dozen, were provided in that thread.
>
> Just as Ford advertised "Quality is Job One", Apple advertises an imaginary
> privacy that any adult can easily see simply is an imaginary belief system.
>
> That's a fact.
You should look up what both "fact" and "assertion" mean.
>
> The adult logic is that Apple pushes privacy because they have to push
> 'something', and clearly "performance" can't be pushed for the next few
> years.
>
> Your problem, Alan Baker, is that you can't even get the facts
> o So the adult logic is lost on you before you ever started.
>
> I always shake my head in dismay when I realize people like you exist.
> o However, people selling imaginary belief systems LOVE you, Alan!
I only know you're not providing it.
:-)
arlen holder
Mar 15, 2019, 2:31:01 AM3/15/19
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:39:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> 1. They don't because there are no 5G networks.
Hi Alan Baker,
> 1. They don't because there are no 5G networks.
I expect adults to be able to comprehend basic facts.
FACT:
Intel iPhone modems are 67% slower than Qualcomm iPhone modems.
o Qualcomm has _refused_ to sell their modems to Apple.
LOGIC:
Worse, in two years, Apple modems will _still_ be hopelessly behind.
o The fact you don't comprehend fact doesn't mean it's not fact.
REFERENCES:
o Apple will most likely be unable to deliver 5G modems even for 2020 iPhones
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/R7bFy5pnOxQ>
o 5G on iPhone this year?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eHbFgfmjfL8[1-25]>
>> 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>
>
> If you have third-party sources, quote them directly.
There are _plenty_ of facts & sources quoted in that one reference.
o The fact you don't like facts doesn't make those facts not facts, Alan Baker.
The fact is that _neither_ Android nor iOS phones are even close to
"private", where in some cases, Android is far (and I mean far!) more
private than iOS, and in other cases (mostly by default), iOS is far more
private than Android, while in other cases, neither has any privacy (e.g.,
against carrier or app loss of privacy).
The fact you can't comprehend facts doesn't make fact not fact, Alan Baker.
>> In short, there are _many_ (very many) areas where Android is more private;
>> and there are a few ways (mostly by default) where iOS is more private.
>
> Yet you mention none of them...
Your statement (which is dead wrong) means only one of two things:
o You really are as dunning-kruger as what you write makes you sound, or,
o You're just pulling our leg because nobody is _that_ stupid Alan Baker.
Nobody.
There are _many_ related facts in that referenced thread, Alan Baker.
o The fact you can't comprehend fact doesn't make fact not facts, Alan Baker.
It just means your imaginary belief system doesn't have any room for fact.
These are clear & obvious facts, Alan Baker:
o Apple advertises privacy but iOS devices aren't even close to private
o I'm not saying Android devices are private either - neither is private.
This is the clear and obvious logic, Alan Baker:
Just as Ford never had quality, all Apple is doing is creating an imaginary
belief system in the gullibles, where it works, I agree.
But the fact that Apple spends millions creating an imaginary belief system
in gullible people doesn't mean that there are any facts that those
gullible people base their belief system upon.
It just means that "mommy" said the monster can't get out of the closet if
we close the closet door at night, and, interestingly, that's all the Apple
gullible needs to know (because it makes him _feel_ safe).
You are that Apple gullible, Alan Baker.
o You prove that to be the case every time you post.
The fact is that the privacy between iOS & Android is "about the same",
where that logic comes from the fact that Android is clearly far (far) more
private in many ways, while iOS is more private in some ways, and neither
has any privacy in other ways.
The topic of this reference proves that fact beyond any shadow of a doubt.
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>
between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
This thread is NOT about the clear & obvious facts in that reference thread.
o This thread is about Apple ADVERTISING imaginary functionality (again).
FACT:
o Apple is spending millions advertising imaginary privacy
LOGIC:
o Why?
Remember one thing, Alan Baker.
o Apple is NOT stupid.
*Apple owns one of the finest marketing organizations on this planet!*
If Apple spends millions creating the image of an imaginary belief system
o Then that indicates that Apple is sorely hard up for actual facts.
The question is WHY is Apple so hard up for actual facts?
o I suspect the answer is that Apple KNOWS they lack performance.
This is a "big deal" Alan Baker.
o If Apple loses their users' imaginary belief system - they lose a LOT.
Alan Baker
Mar 15, 2019, 3:55:23 AM3/15/19
to
On 2019-03-14 11:31 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:39:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> 1. They don't because there are no 5G networks.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I expect adults to be able to comprehend basic facts.
>
> FACT:
> Intel iPhone modems are 67% slower than Qualcomm iPhone modems.
> o Qualcomm has _refused_ to sell their modems to Apple.
Even if that were a fact (and as presented, it's only an assertion), how
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:39:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> 1. They don't because there are no 5G networks.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I expect adults to be able to comprehend basic facts.
>
> FACT:
> Intel iPhone modems are 67% slower than Qualcomm iPhone modems.
> o Qualcomm has _refused_ to sell their modems to Apple.
does that refute the fact that there are no 5G networks?
>
> LOGIC:
> Worse, in two years, Apple modems will _still_ be hopelessly behind.
> o The fact you don't comprehend fact doesn't mean it's not fact.
>
> REFERENCES:
> o Apple will most likely be unable to deliver 5G modems even for 2020 iPhones
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/R7bFy5pnOxQ>
>
> o 5G on iPhone this year?
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eHbFgfmjfL8[1-25]>
>
>>> 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>
>>
>> If you have third-party sources, quote them directly.
>
> FACT + LOGIC
>
> There are _plenty_ of facts & sources quoted in that one reference.
> o The fact you don't like facts doesn't make those facts not facts, Alan Baker.
...but I think you're lying.
>
> The fact is that _neither_ Android nor iOS phones are even close to
> "private", where in some cases, Android is far (and I mean far!) more
> private than iOS, and in other cases (mostly by default), iOS is far more
> private than Android, while in other cases, neither has any privacy (e.g.,
> against carrier or app loss of privacy).
>
> The fact you can't comprehend facts doesn't make fact not fact, Alan Baker.
them facts, "Arlen".
>
>>> In short, there are _many_ (very many) areas where Android is more private;
>>> and there are a few ways (mostly by default) where iOS is more private.
>>
>> Yet you mention none of them...
>
> FACT + LOGIC
>
> Your statement (which is dead wrong) means only one of two things:
where either platform is better at privacy than the other.
> o You really are as dunning-kruger as what you write makes you sound, or,
> o You're just pulling our leg because nobody is _that_ stupid Alan Baker.
>
> Nobody.
>
> There are _many_ related facts in that referenced thread, Alan Baker.
URL, you can copy and paste the reference...
> o The fact you can't comprehend fact doesn't make fact not facts, Alan Baker.
>
> It just means your imaginary belief system doesn't have any room for fact.
>
> These are clear & obvious facts, Alan Baker:
> o Apple advertises privacy but iOS devices aren't even close to private
> o I'm not saying Android devices are private either - neither is private.
>
> This is the clear and obvious logic, Alan Baker:
arlen holder
Mar 15, 2019, 11:25:53 AM3/15/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:55:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>> Intel iPhone modems are 67% slower than Qualcomm iPhone modems.
>> o Qualcomm has _refused_ to sell their modems to Apple.
> Even if that were a fact (and as presented, it's only an assertion), how
> does that refute the fact that there are no 5G networks?
Hi Alan,
>> Intel iPhone modems are 67% slower than Qualcomm iPhone modems.
>> o Qualcomm has _refused_ to sell their modems to Apple.
> Even if that were a fact (and as presented, it's only an assertion), how
> does that refute the fact that there are no 5G networks?
FACT + LOGIC:
*IMHO, It's just like how Ford tried to counter Toyota on quality.*
o What is your assessment as to why Apple is gearing up for this new campaign?
Normal adults form belief systems based on actual facts
o Hence, facts _bolster_ the belief systems of normal adults
Normal adults then form logical conclusions based on those facts
FACT:
o It's a fact that Apple iPhones are 67% slower, even today
o It's a fact that Qualcomm is refusing to sell Apple modem technology
LOGIC:
o It's well supported that Apple is woefully behind Qualcomm in modem tech
o Hence, Apple has no easy options - so they may never catch up.
An adult can handle those basic facts & their logical ramification.
> ...but I think you're lying.
o What is your assumption as to why Apple is gearing up for this new campaign?
Let me give you a similar example of how adults handle fact + logic:
FACT:
o It's a fact lemon juice does NOT hide your face from security cameras
LOGIC:
o Hence, putting lemon juice on your face before robbing banks, won't work.
Only someone with a purely imaginary belief system would think otherwise.
> My statement is completely accurate. You have not mentioned any
> areas where either platform is better at privacy than the other.
*IMHO, It's just like how Ford tried to counter Toyota on quality.*
o What is your conclusion as to why Apple is gearing up for this new campaign?
This thread is not about WHY no mobile devices are even close to private.
o I already provided _that_ cite multiple times.
Just as most adults can vet their lemon juice chemistry facts,
it's assumed that all sentient adults can read & understand the facts.
This thread is about the fact that Apple is, suddenly, ramping up, in
spades, a "At Ford, Quality is Job One" purely imaginary functionality
campaign.
*Always remember, Alan, that Apple is NOT stupid!*
o Apple is fantastic at building & fostering imaginary belief systems
We KNEW this was coming up when Apple took out the privacy domain.
o Adults can take those facts, and form logical predictive conclusions
So we already clearly _predicted_ Apple would ramp this campaign up.
o The question isn't that those are facts - the question is why
Why would Apple suddenly focus so hugely expensively on the mere illusion
of privacy, when Apple knows, more than anyone, that's not their forte?
Could it be that Apple sees the _looming_ catastrophe coming up?
o HINT: The iPhones are woefully behind in performance - that's a fact.
I realize you will never comprehend my statements, where I don't make them
for you; I make them for the actual sentient adults on this thread, now,
and in the future (since this is all saved on the Internet forever,
essentially).
My prediction?
a. Based on the fact Apple has a clever plan (they are _not_ stupid!)
b. And based on the well known fact Apple performance will be hurting
c. Apple is coming up with an imaginary counter to that performance hit
I think what may be happening is that Apple is "countering" Android
performance (which is very real, by the way), with the imaginary illusion
of privacy of iPhones over Android phones.
Ford promoted the illusion of quality
o Apple is promoting the illusion of privacy
*IMHO, It's just like how Ford tried to counter Toyota on quality.*
o What is your logic as to why Apple is gearing up for this new campaign?
Alan Baker
Mar 15, 2019, 11:43:24 AM3/15/19
to
On 2019-03-15 8:25 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:55:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> Intel iPhone modems are 67% slower than Qualcomm iPhone modems.
>>> o Qualcomm has _refused_ to sell their modems to Apple.
>> Even if that were a fact (and as presented, it's only an assertion), how
>> does that refute the fact that there are no 5G networks?
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> FACT + LOGIC:
<snip yet more bullshit>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:55:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> Intel iPhone modems are 67% slower than Qualcomm iPhone modems.
>>> o Qualcomm has _refused_ to sell their modems to Apple.
>> Even if that were a fact (and as presented, it's only an assertion), how
>> does that refute the fact that there are no 5G networks?
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> FACT + LOGIC:
You made claims about privacy.
When I challenged you, you changed the subject to 5G speeds.
When I pointed out that there are no 5G networks, you changed the
subject to modems.
I'm not playing anymore.
Here's an ACTUAL source:
'The verdict? Apple is your best bet for built-in privacy, but you
should take your own measures to prevent hacking of your devices even if
you have faith in your phone system.'
<https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-or-android-here-is-the-most-secure-phone-you-can-get-2018-10-10>
sms
Mar 15, 2019, 2:13:04 PM3/15/19
to
On 3/14/2019 8:52 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> *As always, I just wish they would spend that money on _actual_ privacy.*
>
> As expected, Apple is beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones
> (since iPhones can no longer compete on performance for a few years):
You can begin your education here:
> *As always, I just wish they would spend that money on _actual_ privacy.*
>
> As expected, Apple is beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones
> (since iPhones can no longer compete on performance for a few years):
<https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DCN-Google-Data-Collection-Paper.pdf>
arlen holder
Mar 15, 2019, 2:21:44 PM3/15/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:43:22 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> You made claims about privacy.
Hi Alan Baker,
> You made claims about privacy.
You spend _all_ your time challenging facts that everyone else knows.
o *Facts seem to _threaten_ the entire foundation of your belief system*
The facts are as clear as day to someone who actually comprehends them.
o No consumer mobile device is even close to "private".
Worse, in _many_ ways, Apple mobile devices are horrendous on privacy.
Yet, in many ways, Android devices are just as horrendous on privacy.
Those are simply well-known well-cited obvious and clear facts.
o Those who own logical belief systems appreciate those facts
It's the job of MARKETING to create _imaginary_ belief systems, Alan Baker
o Those who own imaginary belief systems _gravitate_ to Marketing messages
I repeat: Apple is NOT stupid!
o Apple MARKETING knows _exactly_ what their customers will believe
So it's very INTERESTING, as an adult, that Apple chose this "privacy" tack
o Apple is clearly creating an imaginary belief system around privacy
Those are facts just as Ford fostered an imaginary belief system
o In Ford's case, the imaginary belief system was "Quality is Job One".
It's clear why Ford needed an imaginary belief system
o HINT: Toyota didn't even need to advertise their quality
The problem with you, Alan Baker, is that you don't understand any of this
adult talk about facts and logic.
You spend _all_ your time challenging facts that everyone else knows.
o Facts seem to _threaten_ the entire foundation of your belief system
> When I challenged you, you changed the subject to 5G speeds.
o *Facts seem to _threaten_ the entire foundation of your belief system*
Hence, what you miss areboth the facts _and_ the logic.
For example, it's lost on you that Apple is in deep doo doo on performance.
o HINT: Their utter lack of 5G performance is a "big deal", Alan Baker.
Do you think Apple is _stupid_ Alan Baker?
o HINT: Apple has one of the finest marketing orgs on this planet, Alan.
Apple is NOT stupid!
If Apple is, suddenly, increasing spending on imaginary privacy..
o Then that means Apple has dedided they can't fight facts
What fact is it that Apple can't fight?
o I don't know (nobody whispers in my ear); but it's likely 5G speeds
(IMHO).
I realize Alan, that _you_ can't comprehend what I just wrote...
o But I hope adults now, and in the future _can_ comprehend that logic.
Being an adult means we can not only comprehend facts...
o But we can formulate logic that allows us to look around corners.
> When I pointed out that there are no 5G networks, you changed the
> subject to modems.
o You seem to spend all your time challenging facts
If you challenge that there is no curve, then you can never comprehend the
logic of computing the area under the curve, Alan.
An adult forms a FOUNDATION based on facts
o Each new fact bolsters or erodes that foundation
The more factual the foundation, the more it bolsters the foundation.
o There is no common consumer device which provides privacy
> 'The verdict? Apple is your best bet for built-in privacy, but you
> should take your own measures to prevent hacking of your devices even if
> you have faith in your phone system.'
> <https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-or-android-here-is-the-most-secure-phone-you-can-get-2018-10-10>
In keeping with the "name just one" mantra to prove the point...
On Android, I don't have a google id, which means all my free apps are not
registered to any google id, nor is there any "marketing id" on my device
as a result of not having a google id.
Neither the google id, nor the marketing id even _exist_.
o How are you going to accomplish that same privacy on iPhones?
In simple terms, it's trivial to NOT have a Google ID & Marketing ID.
Here's the "name just one" question for you on the iPhone, Alan Baker:
o How do you eliminate both the Apple ID & Marketing ID on iOS devices?
--
HINT: You can't.
Alan Baker
Mar 15, 2019, 4:12:55 PM3/15/19
to
On 2019-03-15 11:21 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:43:22 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You made claims about privacy.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> You...
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:43:22 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You made claims about privacy.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
You made claims about privacy.
and you have chosen to ignore it.
Done.
nospam
Mar 15, 2019, 4:45:23 PM3/15/19
to
In article <q6gqfn$5uo$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
you're using (plus quite a bit more), plus doing that prevents you from
being able to use a *lot* of apps that aren't available outside of the
play store (no way to download them otherwise) as well as using any
functionality that requires a google id.
in other words, you're gimping your phone for nothing.
> Neither the google id, nor the marketing id even _exist_.
that doesn't matter. there are many other ways to track users *without*
that, and you can be *sure* google has thought of all of them because
tracking what users do is how google makes money.
> o How are you going to accomplish that same privacy on iPhones?
by pressing the sleep/wake button.
apple's business model is *not* tracking users, and since they are very
privacy-centric, they go well out of their way to obscure anything that
could identify users, including differential privacy, fuzzing search
queries, encryption and quite a bit more.
google's business model, on the other hand, *is* tracking users, so
they bake that into android. it's not possible to avoid it other than
using a custom rom and 'clean' apps (which nearly all are not), and
even then, there's still a trail.
<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
>
> On Android, I don't have a google id, which means all my free apps are not
> registered to any google id, nor is there any "marketing id" on my device
> as a result of not having a google id.
that doesn't do what you think it does. google still knows what apps
>
> On Android, I don't have a google id, which means all my free apps are not
> registered to any google id, nor is there any "marketing id" on my device
> as a result of not having a google id.
you're using (plus quite a bit more), plus doing that prevents you from
being able to use a *lot* of apps that aren't available outside of the
play store (no way to download them otherwise) as well as using any
functionality that requires a google id.
in other words, you're gimping your phone for nothing.
> Neither the google id, nor the marketing id even _exist_.
that, and you can be *sure* google has thought of all of them because
tracking what users do is how google makes money.
> o How are you going to accomplish that same privacy on iPhones?
apple's business model is *not* tracking users, and since they are very
privacy-centric, they go well out of their way to obscure anything that
could identify users, including differential privacy, fuzzing search
queries, encryption and quite a bit more.
google's business model, on the other hand, *is* tracking users, so
they bake that into android. it's not possible to avoid it other than
using a custom rom and 'clean' apps (which nearly all are not), and
even then, there's still a trail.
arlen holder
Mar 16, 2019, 12:06:16 AM3/16/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:12:53 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> You made claims about privacy.
> You made claims about privacy.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:45:25 -0500, nospam wrote:
> that doesn't do what you think it does.
Hi nospam,
> that doesn't do what you think it does.
I realize you're _different_ than Alan Baker (very different)
o So I sometimes appreciate when you post, because you're clever.
I just wish you'd tell the truth once in a while.
o When you do, I _love_ to see "actual" facts from you.
I really do.
o I love facts because facts form the basis of my belief system.
The fact is clear, which I know you do NOT dispute:
o On Android, there is no need for a GoogleID
o And therefore, there is no Marketing ID.
On iOS, by way of huge contrast:
o Not only can't you remove the Apple ID, but EVERY app has it!
o And, you can't eliminate the Marketing ID either.
I know you don't dispute those facts since they're well known facts.
I realize you're saying that eliminating the GoogleID & MarketingID
doesn't do what I think it does, but what I can tell you is that not having
both of them is a LOT better than being forced to have them on iOS.
What you're inferring is that Google "somehow" (magically?) knows all about
the apps that I download from F-Droid, for example, right?
How?
o Are you talking about "Play Protect" scanning?
o HINT: Without Google Play, Play Protect doesn't appear to exist
Moreso, you can turn off Play Protect scanning if you do have Google Play
<http://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853>
o Scan device for security threats = on/off
"Google will regularly check your device and prevent or warn about
potential harm"
o Improve harmful app detection = on/off
"Send unknown apps to Google for better detection."
I'll cover your _other_ points separately, as this is already long.
o All I ask of you, nospam, is facts and logic based on those facts.
> google still knows what apps you're using
Trust me when I say I _love_ facts
o Facts form the entire foundation of my belief system, nospam.
Hence, if _any_ of my facts are _ever_ wrong, I want to know!
With Google Play not even installed on the phone...
o Or, with Google Play installed, but with scanning turned off...
Tell us, how does Google know about the F-Droid apps?
arlen holder
Mar 16, 2019, 12:06:17 AM3/16/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:45:25 -0500, nospam wrote:
> in other words, you're gimping your phone for nothing.
Hi nospam,
The main point is that Apple isn't stupid; so the logic is that they are up
to "something" when they spend millions promoting what turns out to be
imaginary functionality.
They know something is coming up, which they need to combat.
o But what?
I "think" I know what that is, which is that they're in deep doo do when it
comes to advertising "performance", where, even their very loyal (and
extremely gullible) customer is going to be bombarded in the next two years
with clear performance evaluations which will be stunning by way of
comparison.
*That's likely going to shock the shit out of the typical Apple customer!*
o Apple _knows_ this.
So Apple needs to pro actively combat this shock.
o But how can Apple stop the tidal wave from breaking over their heads?
One way is for Apple to get the customer to say something like
o Oh, I don't care that my phone is so slow - because it's "private"
While Apple doesn't whisper in my ear, I own an adult brain
o Which means I can see around corners such as this obvious one
If Apple is desperate to create an imaginary belief system around privacy
o Then there must be a REASON they're promoting the illusion of privacy
FACTS:
1. Apple knows iPhones are no more or less private than Android phones
2. But Apple also knows customers _desperately_ wants to believe they are
The only oddity is why doesn't Apple sow an imaginary belief system on
"performance" instead of "privacy"?
o I think the answer is that they're in deep doo doo on performance.
So they decided on "privacy" instead, which is a safe bet on their part
o Privacy is so ambiguous that it's a mecca for gullible belief systems
It's like selling snake oil to desperate cancer patients
o Everyone _wants_ to desperately _feel_ that Apple protects their privacy
I don't blame Apple for sowing an imaginary belief system around privacy
o All marketing organizations sow imaginary belief systems
My main adult logical point is that Apple clearly has decided (just like
Ford clearly decided) to spend millions creating an imaginary belief
system, for Ford around imaginary quality, and for Apple around imaginary
privacy.
Apple isn't stupid.
Apple is spending millions to sow an imaginary belief system around privacy
for a very good reason.
o For example, why not sow an imaginary belief system around performance?
My tentative logic is that Apple KNOWS that they can't tout performance.
o So they tout an imaginary belief system around privacy
Just like Ford did on the imaginary belief system around quality.
The reason Ford did it is that they didn't actually have anything else
o And they didn't have quality either (but they faked it)
In summary, the facts are simple:
1. Apple is in deep doo doo for the next few years on performance
2. Apple is clearly spending millions touting imaginary privacy
Those two facts are incontrovertible.
o The question in this thread is merely that of the logic of why.
arlen holder
Mar 16, 2019, 12:06:19 AM3/16/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:45:25 -0500, nospam wrote:
(plus quite a bit more), plus doing that prevents you from
> being able to use a *lot* of apps that aren't available outside of the
> play store (no way to download them otherwise) as well as using any
> functionality that requires a google id.
Hi nospam,
> being able to use a *lot* of apps that aren't available outside of the
> play store (no way to download them otherwise) as well as using any
> functionality that requires a google id.
As you know, I love facts...
o Facts form the basis of my belief system.
I apologize for not completely understanding your quote above.
o Are you talking about apps from Google Play or from F-Droid?
For apps on F-Droid, you don't need _any_ login credentials (AFAIK).
o For free apps on Google Play, you can get them from _anywhere_
For example, your friend Alan Baker could send you his APKs.
o Then you can install them onto your phone (in 95% of the cases, IMHO).
For example, I archived _every_ APK I ever downloaded
o I can load almost any free app from ten years ago (if I can find it).
While I may have used Google Play ten years ago to get that free app
o I can load it today, without touching Google Play (if it will still work)
I know you know this since these are all very well known basic facts.
o In that free APK situation, what are you saying Google knows about us?
For example, take this scenario:
1. Alan Baker downloaded a free Google Play camera app five years ago
2. Alan Baker emails you the APK & you install that camera app
3. You have Google Play not installed (or installed with scanning off)
In that simple and very common situation, what does Google know?
o All I ask from you, nospam, are facts.
If you're going to sow FUD, then I'm going to ask you to back it up.
o What does Google know about the app in that very common situation?
HINT: I do it all the time.
Alan Baker
Mar 16, 2019, 12:22:47 AM3/16/19
to
On 2019-03-15 9:06 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:12:53 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You made claims about privacy.
>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:45:25 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
> > that doesn't do what you think it does.
>
> Hi nospam...
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:12:53 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You made claims about privacy.
>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:45:25 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
> > that doesn't do what you think it does.
>
What you did later doesn't change what you did first.
arlen holder
Mar 16, 2019, 12:43:14 AM3/16/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:13:00 -0700, sms wrote:
> You can begin your education here:
> <https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DCN-Google-Data-Collection-Paper.pdf>
Hi Steve,
> You can begin your education here:
> <https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DCN-Google-Data-Collection-Paper.pdf>
Remember ... I seek only facts
o I love facts because facts form the basis of my belief system
For example, the fact is that you can search for, subscribe to, download,
extract, and watch YouTube videos on Android WITHOUT letting Google know
ANYTHING - but - the fact is - you just cannot do that on iOS.
Notice that's a FACT about PRIVACY that Apple isn't going to tell you.
o You get only facts from me, Steve ... because facts are how I'm wired
With those facts, come the INESCAPABLE LOGIC, Steve.
For example, notice you LOSE PRIVACY ON IOS that you have on ANDROID.
o That's a fact.
You don't have to like that fact; but it's _still_ a fact.
o I can give you _plenty_ of other similar factual PRIVACY examples, Steve.
So please bear in mind this thread is all about facts & logic.
I love facts, so I appreciate your reference titled:
o Google Data Collection
<https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DCN-Google-Data-Collection-Paper.pdf>
Where, you must be aware, "Google data collection" occurs on iPhones,
Android phones, Linux workstations, Mac desktops, Windows desktops, etc.,
where, for our purposes, we must _separate_ what is on the mobile devices
from what is on the PCs and servers.
First, I must admit in your short note that I detect a hint of sarcasm,
where I must remind you that I've _openly_ asked what the privacy
differences are between the two platforms:
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs>
The answers in that thread make it abundantly clear that...
o In many cases, iOS is more private than Android (mostly by default),
o While in many cases, Android is more private, sometimes with effort,
o And, more to the point, neither is private in many other ways.
Given the huge lack of control on iOS (e.g., you can't do many of the
things you can do on Android to protect your privacy), I'm being charitable
to iOS by summarizing the salient facts as...
o The privacy implications between the two platforms are "about the same".
Let's stick to the facts.
o Certainly _some_ things are more private on each platform.
What a MARKETING organization does, to promote privacy, is CHERRY PICK only
those situations where the privacy exists on that one platform, while
IGNORING the full picture that privacy holes exist in both platforms.
Having said that, the question in this thread is WHY would Apple spend so
much money suddenly promoting this imaginary belief system around privacy,
of all things?
I think the answer is simple, but it's a prediction, so that's why I openly
ask why Apple chose privacy, & not, for example, networking performance?
I think the answer may very well be that Apple can see what's coming up.
o In the next few years, Apple customers will be shocked by facts
o Those facts will be a tidal wave of performance disparities
Apple marketing is NOT stupid.
o They're up to "something" by promoting imaginary privacy
I suspect they're composing a belief system that goes something like this...
o *Yeah, I know my iPhone is as slow as dog poo ... but at least it's private!*
Looking now at your 55-page cite...
<https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DCN-Google-Data-Collection-Paper.pdf>
Google Data Collection, August 2018, Professor Schmidt, Vanderbilt Univ.
o Google is #1 in digital advertising
o Google is #1 in web browsers
o Google is #1 in mobile platforms
o Google is #1 in search engines
o Google has maps, email, videos
o All of which target you with paid advertising
Since this post is already long, allow me to review your cite separately.
While I do that, remember, I can give you PLENTY of facts showing Android
to be MORE PRIVATE from Google than iOS.
Another example is map scraping of accurately geolocated addresses
o You can do that on Android - but not on iOS, Steve.
Yet again, the point is that facts clearly show three things:
1. Android has privacy from Google that is NOT available on iOS
2. iOS has privacy from Google that is NOT available on Android
3. And both have privacy leaks outside of the platform
You may not like those facts; but they're still facts nonetheless.
arlen holder
Mar 16, 2019, 12:47:08 AM3/16/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:13:00 -0700, sms wrote:
> You can begin your education here:
BTW, Steve, let me give you just _one_ example where _you_ can _begin_ your
education....
HINT: If you can't "name just one", then it's YOU who needs to be edified.
Begin your education here...
o Name just one app that replaces YouTube on iOS that is private?
All you have to do is name just one. :)
HINT: If you can't "name just one", then it's YOU who needs to be edified.
Now, let's further your education here, shall we?
o Name an iOS app to scrape the Google map database privately?
Again, all you have to do is "name just one".
Do you see, Steve, that FACTS show, clearly, that iOS is not any more
private than Android?
I can list many (very many) ways that Android is far more private than iOS.
Likewise, I can list many ways that iOS is far more private than Android.
It appears that I don't need to "begin my education" so much as you do.
:)
HINT: If you can't "name just one", then it's YOU who needs to be edified.
arlen holder
Mar 16, 2019, 12:54:21 AM3/16/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:22:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> What you did later doesn't change what you did first.
Hi Alan Baker,
> What you did later doesn't change what you did first.
Here's a simple 3-word privacy test for you, Alan Baker...
On Android, on and off over the past two or three years, I've been watching
YouTube videos, subscribing to YouTube channels, searching for YouTube
content, downloading the YouTube videos and also downloading just the
audio, and playing those YouTube videos, all
a. Without encountering a _single_ inline advertisement (not a single one!)
b. More importantly, without logging into any account whatsoever
c. And even better, without informing Google of _anything_ whatsoever
That is a fact.
Now, here's the simple "privacy" test for you, Alan Baker.
o What app provides that same privacy feature on iOS?
Hint: If you can't name just one app, then you admit iOS is not private.
o You can't search/watch/subscribe/etc. YouTube privately on iOS
To prove your point, all you'd have to do is name an app that provides that
Android level of YouTube functionality & privacy, but on iOS.
Simple test right?
If you think iOS is private, then all you need to pass the 3-word test, is:
o Name just one
Alan Baker
Mar 16, 2019, 12:57:36 AM3/16/19
to
On 2019-03-15 9:54 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:22:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What you did later doesn't change what you did first.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Here's a simple 3-word privacy test for you, Alan Baker...
>
> On Android, on and off over the past two or three years, I've been watching
> YouTube videos, subscribing to YouTube channels, searching for YouTube
> content, downloading the YouTube videos and also downloading just the
> audio, and playing those YouTube videos, all
> a. Without encountering a _single_ inline advertisement (not a single one!)
> b. More importantly, without logging into any account whatsoever
> c. And even better, without informing Google of _anything_ whatsoever
>
> That is a fact.
No. That is a CLAIM you've made without support.
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:22:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What you did later doesn't change what you did first.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Here's a simple 3-word privacy test for you, Alan Baker...
>
> On Android, on and off over the past two or three years, I've been watching
> YouTube videos, subscribing to YouTube channels, searching for YouTube
> content, downloading the YouTube videos and also downloading just the
> audio, and playing those YouTube videos, all
> a. Without encountering a _single_ inline advertisement (not a single one!)
> b. More importantly, without logging into any account whatsoever
> c. And even better, without informing Google of _anything_ whatsoever
>
> That is a fact.
>
> Now, here's the simple "privacy" test for you, Alan Baker.
> o What app provides that same privacy feature on iOS?
Actually support your claim first.
>
> Hint: If you can't name just one app, then you admit iOS is not private.
> o You can't search/watch/subscribe/etc. YouTube privately on iOS
reasonably asked, I will assume you're lying.
>
> To prove your point, all you'd have to do is name an app that provides that
> Android level of YouTube functionality & privacy, but on iOS.
>
> Simple test right?
>
> If you think iOS is private, then all you need to pass the 3-word test, is:
> o Name just one
I've never claimed that iOS is PERFECTLY private, have I?
YOU on the other hand have tried to claim that Android and iOS are NO
DIFFERENT at best and at worst, that iOS is worst.
You have provided NO support for this claim.
nospam
Mar 16, 2019, 1:08:59 AM3/16/19
to
In article <q6hsnm$tn5$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
no
> Tell us, how does Google know about the F-Droid apps?
analytics
no
> Tell us, how does Google know about the F-Droid apps?
arlen holder
Mar 16, 2019, 1:38:01 AM3/16/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:57:35 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> Actually support your claim first.
Hi Alan Baker,
> Actually support your claim first.
FACTS:
On Android, you can scrape the Google Map API without giving Google ANY
information (it's completely anonymous) and yet, you can't do that on iOS.
Yet again, let's just see if your belief system can pass the 3-word test.
That is, if on iOS you can scrape the Google Map API privately with an app,
then all you have to do, Alan Baker, to show iOS is even close to as
private as Android for map data, is answer this 3-word question:
o Name just one app that gives you that kind of accuracy & privacy on iOS
HINT: You can't (it doesn't exist on iOS).
Since the facts abound, moving on, it's well known, hopefully even to you,
Alan Baker, that the Tor Browser Bundle is one of the most private ways to
anonymously browse not only the normal web, but the areas of the web that
may be outside the normal areas.
On Android, you can do that using the official open source, well tested and
well vetted Tor Browser.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/tor-project-releases-first-alpha-of-android-mobile-browser/>
On Android there is an official Tor Browser, which, even you must know, is
very important to be anonymous on the Internet, where it's super critical
that the browser be open source & tested in the world privacy community.
On iOS, this kind of privacy doesn't exist.
For example, the _closest_ thing to the official Tor Browser on Android is
o https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/onion-browser/id519296448?mt=8
Where at least Mike Tegas has, in his front page, a sensible warning:
"sensitive data does not always belong on a mobile device"
On iOS, privacy is basically one very dedicated but resource poor guy:
<https://mike.tig.as/blog/2016/12/05/onion-browser-now-free/>
Alan Baker
Mar 16, 2019, 1:59:09 AM3/16/19
to
On 2019-03-15 10:38 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:57:35 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Actually support your claim first.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FACTS:
>
> On Android, you can scrape the Google Map API without giving Google ANY
> information (it's completely anonymous) and yet, you can't do that on iOS.
That might be a fact... ...if you could have supported it.
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:57:35 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Actually support your claim first.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FACTS:
>
> On Android, you can scrape the Google Map API without giving Google ANY
> information (it's completely anonymous) and yet, you can't do that on iOS.
But what does it do with the claims you have...
ONCE AGAIN
...abandoned rather than support.
>
> Yet again, let's just see if your belief system can pass the 3-word test.
>
> That is, if on iOS you can scrape the Google Map API privately with an app,
> then all you have to do, Alan Baker, to show iOS is even close to as
> private as Android for map data, is answer this 3-word question:
> o Name just one app that gives you that kind of accuracy & privacy on iOS
>
> HINT: You can't (it doesn't exist on iOS).
>
> Since the facts abound, moving on, it's well known, hopefully even to you,
> Alan Baker, that the Tor Browser Bundle is one of the most private ways to
> anonymously browse not only the normal web, but the areas of the web that
> may be outside the normal areas.
>
> On Android, you can do that using the official open source, well tested and
> well vetted Tor Browser.
> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/tor-project-releases-first-alpha-of-android-mobile-browser/>
You actually supported something you've said.
>
> On Android there is an official Tor Browser, which, even you must know, is
> very important to be anonymous on the Internet, where it's super critical
> that the browser be open source & tested in the world privacy community.
>
> On iOS, this kind of privacy doesn't exist.
>
> For example, the _closest_ thing to the official Tor Browser on Android is
> o https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/onion-browser/id519296448?mt=8
> Where at least Mike Tegas has, in his front page, a sensible warning:
> "sensitive data does not always belong on a mobile device"
>
> On iOS, privacy is basically one very dedicated but resource poor guy:
> <https://mike.tig.as/blog/2016/12/05/onion-browser-now-free/>
'Onion Browser
Onion Browser is an open-source iOS web browser that connects to Tor.
The app has been available in the Apple App Store since 2012; it was
previously $0.99 but recently became free of charge. You can download it
in the App Store here and access the source code on GitHub.'
<https://blog.torproject.org/tor-heart-onion-browser-and-more-ios-tor>
arlen holder
Mar 16, 2019, 2:17:12 AM3/16/19
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 01:09:04 -0500, nospam wrote:
>> o Are you talking about "Play Protect" scanning?
> no
Good, because on Android, sans rooting, you can disable many privacy leaks
>> o Are you talking about "Play Protect" scanning?
> no
that are impossible to disable on iOS (as noted in the reference thread).
I can tell when you're full of shit, nospam, because you're succinct.
o When you're succinct, you're _afraid_ of the facts (that much is clear).
Facts literally _scare_ you, nospam
o that's because your belief system isn't at all based on facts
Your belief system is based purely on Apple Marketing propaganda.
>> Tell us, how does Google know about the F-Droid apps?
> analytics
o So I think I found what you're talking about in Apple marketing ITF bs
The fact is that you can't control privacy on iOS like Android can.
o You have to rely on the mother ship to control that privacy for you
Apple instituted intelligent tracking protection which Google worked around
"Google has developed a new Google Analytics cookie that will be used to
capture campaign and conversion data from Safari in a way that conforms
with ITP."
<https://searchengineland.com/google-analytics-adwords-response-apple-intelligent-tracking-prevention-282233>
The game you play, nospam, is that you _only_ cherry pick, where I simply
list the salient facts which show three basic logical assessments:
o In some ways, Apple iOS devices _are_ more private than Android,
o Yet, in _plenty_ of other ways, Android devices are far more private,
o And, worse, in other ways, _neither_ device is anywhere near private.
In the end, sans assigning an actual weight and value to each of the myriad
privacy holes in the two platforms, the only adult logic assessment is that
the privacy of the two platforms is roughly "about the same".
Certainly nobody could ever make a case that either platform is "private".
o What Apple¢s Intelligent Tracking Prevention Changes Mean for Advertisers
<https://goodwaygroup.com/blog/intelligent-tracking-prevention>
Since it's clear and obvious that neither platform is actually private
o One has to wonder why Apple is spending so much money
o Just to build a completely imaginary belief system in its users
I suspect Apple isn't stupid - where Apple is building this type of belief:
o *"My iPhone is slow - but at least Apple advertises imaginary privacy"*
o "So, my iPhone must be more private than Android, 'cuz Apple said so!"
nospam
Mar 16, 2019, 2:24:24 AM3/16/19
to
In article <q6i4d6$b6q$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
> o So I think I found what you're talking about in Apple marketing ITF bs
that's not what i'm talking about.
> Apple instituted intelligent tracking protection which Google worked around
> "Google has developed a new Google Analytics cookie that will be used to
> capture campaign and conversion data from Safari in a way that conforms
> with ITP."
that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
> I suspect Apple isn't stupid -
i suspect you are stupid. actually, i'm quite certain of it.
<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
>
> >> Tell us, how does Google know about the F-Droid apps?
> > analytics
>
> I'm realizing all you know, nospam, is what Apple Marketing fed you
apple has nothing to do with android analytics.
>
> >> Tell us, how does Google know about the F-Droid apps?
> > analytics
>
> I'm realizing all you know, nospam, is what Apple Marketing fed you
> o So I think I found what you're talking about in Apple marketing ITF bs
>
> The fact is that you can't control privacy on iOS like Android can.
> o You have to rely on the mother ship to control that privacy for you
absolutely false.
> The fact is that you can't control privacy on iOS like Android can.
> o You have to rely on the mother ship to control that privacy for you
> Apple instituted intelligent tracking protection which Google worked around
> "Google has developed a new Google Analytics cookie that will be used to
> capture campaign and conversion data from Safari in a way that conforms
> with ITP."
> I suspect Apple isn't stupid -
arlen holder
Mar 16, 2019, 2:56:04 AM3/16/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 22:59:06 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On Android, you can scrape the Google Map API without giving Google ANY
>> information (it's completely anonymous) and yet, you can't do that on iOS.
>
> That might be a fact... ...if you could have supported it.
Hi Alan Baker,
>> On Android, you can scrape the Google Map API without giving Google ANY
>> information (it's completely anonymous) and yet, you can't do that on iOS.
>
> That might be a fact... ...if you could have supported it.
The fact you don't know even the _simplest_ things about privacy, is scary.
o It's not scary that you don't know anything about Android privacy
What's scary is that you don't know anything about iOS *lack* of privacy!
o Does iOS have basic *accurate* address lookup anonymously from the stellar Google Maps DB API?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/zMyax-Exgdw/61onQ8lWBAAJ>
> You actually supported something you've said.
o What's scary is that you also know nothing about iOS lack of privacy!
A clear example of your complete & total ignorance on iOS is...
o After all these years, is there still no New Pipe or Sky Tube functionality on iOS?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/3bkestmymAA/tJXJ1m-gDAAJ>
> In what sense is that less private than the official Tor Browswer?
o The question is why isn't Tor supported on iOS?
FACT:
o *"Currently, there is no supported way of using Tor on iOS"*
<https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#Mobile>
Here is where to get the Tor Browser for all platforms EXCEPT iOS!
<https://www.torproject.org/download/download.html.en>
o Windows = <https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy#windows>
o Linux = <https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy#linux>
o Mac = <https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy#mac>
o Android = <https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy#android>
o iOS = does not appear to exist
In the case of the one-man operation for iOS, we adults have to defer to
the security community, where it has been established since 2015 that
Android Orfox had been the _only_ mobile app recommended by the Tor
Project. <https://guardianproject.info/apps/orfox/>
Since then, the Tor Project released the *official* Tor Browser for Android
which is the newly recommended app to use based on those security
professionals: <https://guardianproject.info/fdroid/>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.torproject.torbrowser_alpha>
The fact clearly is...
o *Currently, there is no supported way of using Tor on iOS*
> Tor certainly thinks his browser provides good privacy:
While I commend you for asking your _first_ intelligent question,
this is one status of privacy hurdles outlined in that very same reference:
<https://blog.torproject.org/tor-heart-onion-browser-and-more-ios-tor>
"But, unlike on Android, it doesn't have the ability to apply the VPN
in a per-app manner. Apparently, Apple in all their infinite wisdom
decided that particular feature should only apply to MDM'd iDevices,
which instantly alienates the vast majority of iOS users. Sending all
your app traffic through Tor is a Really Bad Idea. *You think the iOS
video player*leaks data? What about every logged-in account on that
device betraying your identity to anyone sniffing around an exit node?"
arlen holder
Mar 16, 2019, 3:10:36 AM3/16/19
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 02:24:26 -0500, nospam wrote:
> absolutely false.
Hi nospam,
I don't fault Apple for marketing the illusion that iPhones are private
o Marketing is in the business of creating imaginary belief systems
It's sort of like the "At Ford, Quality is Job One" advertisements of yore:
o "My car was cheap, but at least Ford makes me feel it's of high quality"
Volkswagen did the same thing marketing the "illusion" of efficiency.
o However, I do expect YOU to comprehend basic & obvious facts.
The facts are clear that neither platform is even close to private.
o Android certainly has privacy abilities completely lacking on iOS
o Likewise, iOS has privacy features completely lacking on Android
o And both have privacy flaws that are common to both platforms
Every logical adult must conclude that from the actual facts.
o There is no other assessment possible if you own an adult brain
Given that neither platform has privacy, it's supremely interesting WHY
Apple is spending so much money to advertise the mere illusion of privacy.
o For example, Apple users can't privately subscribe to YouTube
o Apple users can't remove the Advertising ID & Apple ID from their apps
o Apple users can't privately scrape the accurate Google Map database
etc.
And yet, Apple is spending millions to advertise the illusion of privacy
o Why?
I suspect the answer is pretty much _this_ simple:
o *"My iPhone is slow, but at least Apple makes me _feel_ it's private!"*
> absolutely false.
Hi nospam,
I don't fault Apple for marketing the illusion that iPhones are private
o Marketing is in the business of creating imaginary belief systems
It's sort of like the "At Ford, Quality is Job One" advertisements of yore:
o "My car was cheap, but at least Ford makes me feel it's of high quality"
Volkswagen did the same thing marketing the "illusion" of efficiency.
o However, I do expect YOU to comprehend basic & obvious facts.
The facts are clear that neither platform is even close to private.
o Android certainly has privacy abilities completely lacking on iOS
o Likewise, iOS has privacy features completely lacking on Android
o And both have privacy flaws that are common to both platforms
Every logical adult must conclude that from the actual facts.
o There is no other assessment possible if you own an adult brain
Given that neither platform has privacy, it's supremely interesting WHY
Apple is spending so much money to advertise the mere illusion of privacy.
o For example, Apple users can't privately subscribe to YouTube
o Apple users can't remove the Advertising ID & Apple ID from their apps
o Apple users can't privately scrape the accurate Google Map database
etc.
And yet, Apple is spending millions to advertise the illusion of privacy
o Why?
I suspect the answer is pretty much _this_ simple:
o *"My iPhone is slow, but at least Apple makes me _feel_ it's private!"*
arlen holder
Mar 16, 2019, 3:32:14 AM3/16/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:13:00 -0700, sms wrote:
> You can begin your education here:
> <https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DCN-Google-Data-Collection-Paper.pdf>
Hi Steve,
> <https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DCN-Google-Data-Collection-Paper.pdf>
I think you may need to actually _read_ the paper you cited.
o Just like nospam needed to look at the JPEGs he supplied in the past
For example, verbatim quotes in that very paper you cited are...
"While using an iOS device, if a user decides to forgo the use of
any Google product (i.e. no Android, no Chrome, no Google
applications), and visits only non-Google webpages, the number
of times data is communicated to Google servers still remains
surprisingly high. "
"The number of times such Google services are called from an
iOS device is similar to an Android device."
"Google has recently shifted towards using semi-permanent device
unique identifiers (e.g. GAIDs). GAID/IDFA [is a] Semi-Permanent
Alphanumeric string for Android and iOS devices to allow targeted
mobile ads"
"The number of calls to Google¢s advertising domains were similar
from both devices - an expected outcome since the usage of
3rd-party webpages and apps was similar on both devices."
The number of requests collected by Google on the iPhone was
o 50.6 requests per hour (at 5.7 MB per day)
The number of requests collected by Apple on the iPhone was
o 17.9 requests per hour (at 1.4 MB per day)
"Apple does obtain some user location data from iOS devices"
etc.
Hi Steve,
Overall, my point on privacy is based on pure facts:
o In many cases, Android is far more private than is iOS,
o Yet, in many other cases, iOS is far more private,
o And in many more cases, neither is private.
The point isn't that iOS & Android are not private
o Any sensible adult would conclude that neither is private
The question is WHY did Apple choose to spend millions promoting the mere
illusion of privacy, when they could have spent that money in more
meaningful ways.
I suspect the answer is the same as why Volkswagen spent all that money
marketing the "illusion" of efficiency, instead of actually designing the
efficiency into the vehicle.
If marketing the mere illusion of efficiency sells Volkswagons...
o Then why bother actually implementing the efficiency.
Marketing the mere _illusion_ is so very much cheaper (and faster!).
If marketing the mere illusion of privacy sells phones...
o Then why bother actually implementing the privacy.
Alan Baker
Mar 16, 2019, 4:46:53 PM3/16/19
to
On 2019-03-15 11:56 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 22:59:06 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> On Android, you can scrape the Google Map API without giving Google ANY
>>> information (it's completely anonymous) and yet, you can't do that on iOS.
>>
>> That might be a fact... ...if you could have supported it.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> The fact you don't know even the _simplest_ things about privacy, is scary.
> o It's not scary that you don't know anything about Android privacy
The absolute fact that you don't ever support your claims with actual
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 22:59:06 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> On Android, you can scrape the Google Map API without giving Google ANY
>>> information (it's completely anonymous) and yet, you can't do that on iOS.
>>
>> That might be a fact... ...if you could have supported it.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> The fact you don't know even the _simplest_ things about privacy, is scary.
> o It's not scary that you don't know anything about Android privacy
sources is pathetic. As is your ignorance of the basic rules of grammar
and punctuation; illustrated by your placement of a comma before "is scary".
>
> What's scary is that you don't know anything about iOS *lack* of privacy!
> o Does iOS have basic *accurate* address lookup anonymously from the stellar Google Maps DB API?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/zMyax-Exgdw/61onQ8lWBAAJ>
claim supports your position.
>
>> You actually supported something you've said.
>
> That you don't know anything about Android privacy isn't what's scary.
> o What's scary is that you also know nothing about iOS lack of privacy!
>
sources is pathetic. As is your ignorance of the basic rules of grammar
and punctuation; illustrated by your placement of a comma before "is scary".
Hey! I can copy and paste too!
> A clear example of your complete & total ignorance on iOS is...
> o After all these years, is there still no New Pipe or Sky Tube functionality on iOS?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/3bkestmymAA/tJXJ1m-gDAAJ>
>
Quote and original source, please, if you have something you want to
> o After all these years, is there still no New Pipe or Sky Tube functionality on iOS?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/3bkestmymAA/tJXJ1m-gDAAJ>
>
claim supports your position.
>> In what sense is that less private than the official Tor Browswer?
>
> This is the _first_ intelligent question I've _ever_ seen from you, Alan!
:-)
> o The question is why isn't Tor supported on iOS?
Is Apple actually as bad at privacy as you claim?
And it's a question you posed (implicitly) from which you've now run away
>
> FACT:
You clearly don't understand what that word means.
> o *"Currently, there is no supported way of using Tor on iOS"*
> <https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#Mobile>
>
> Here is where to get the Tor Browser for all platforms EXCEPT iOS!
> <https://www.torproject.org/download/download.html.en>
>
> o Windows = <https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy#windows>
> o Linux = <https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy#linux>
> o Mac = <https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy#mac>
> o Android = <https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy#android>
> o iOS = does not appear to exist
Why is the Tor Browser the only acceptable solution?
>
> In the case of the one-man operation for iOS, we adults have to defer to
> the security community, where it has been established since 2015 that
> Android Orfox had been the _only_ mobile app recommended by the Tor
> Project. <https://guardianproject.info/apps/orfox/>
You've yet to answer my question:
In what sense is that less private than the official Tor Browswer?
replied to.
:-)
>
> Since then, the Tor Project released the *official* Tor Browser for Android
> which is the newly recommended app to use based on those security
> professionals: <https://guardianproject.info/fdroid/>
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.torproject.torbrowser_alpha>
...the people who make something recommend using it.
Film at eleven.
>
> The fact clearly is...
> o *Currently, there is no supported way of using Tor on iOS*
>
>> Tor certainly thinks his browser provides good privacy:
>> <https://blog.torproject.org/tor-heart-onion-browser-and-more-ios-tor>
>
> While I commend you for asking your _first_ intelligent question,
> this is one status of privacy hurdles outlined in that very same reference:
> <https://blog.torproject.org/tor-heart-onion-browser-and-more-ios-tor>
>
> "But, unlike on Android, it doesn't have the ability to apply the VPN
> in a per-app manner. Apparently, Apple in all their infinite wisdom
> decided that particular feature should only apply to MDM'd iDevices,
> which instantly alienates the vast majority of iOS users. Sending all
> your app traffic through Tor is a Really Bad Idea. *You think the iOS
> video player*leaks data? What about every logged-in account on that
> device betraying your identity to anyone sniffing around an exit node?"
Using the official Tor browser (or Orfox), do you not send all the
traffic from those browsers through Tor?
Be specific:
In what way is your privacy different when using Onion Browser vs Orfox
or the offical Tor browser?
Erilar
Mar 21, 2019, 8:54:52 AM3/21/19
to
>> I suspect Apple isn't stupid -
>
> i suspect you are stupid. actually, i'm quite certain of it.
>
I can run through threads quickly by ignoring the long strings from certain
>
> i suspect you are stupid. actually, i'm quite certain of it.
>
posters.....
--
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
arlen holder
Mar 21, 2019, 11:40:52 AM3/21/19
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:54:51 -0500, Erilar wrote:
> I can run through threads quickly by ignoring the long strings from certain
> posters.....
Hi Erilar,
> I can run through threads quickly by ignoring the long strings from certain
> posters.....
Apple Marketing spends MILLIONS forming your imaginary belief system.
o What you clearly lack is the ability to comprehend FACT to form LOGIC.
FACT:
o *You, Erilar, prove to lack the ability to comprehend complex details*
LOGIC:
o Hence, you gravitate to forming a belief system based on marketing blurbs
FACT:
o In _many_ ways, Android is _far_ more private than iOS, while,
o In many ways, iOS is more private than Android (mostly by default), and
o In more ways than those, _neither_ is private in the least.
LOGIC:
Anyone who can't comprehend those facts owns an imaginary belief system.
HINT: Apple Marketing spends MILLIONS forming your imaginary belief system.
Lewis
Mar 21, 2019, 2:15:33 PM3/21/19
to
In message <q701ir$9bk$1...@dont-email.me> Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <q6i4d6$b6q$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
>>> I suspect Apple isn't stupid -
>>
>> i suspect you are stupid. actually, i'm quite certain of it.
>>
> I can run through threads quickly by ignoring the long strings from certain
> posters.....
I kill the posts from certain trolls AND all replies to those trolls.
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <q6i4d6$b6q$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
>>> I suspect Apple isn't stupid -
>>
>> i suspect you are stupid. actually, i'm quite certain of it.
>>
> I can run through threads quickly by ignoring the long strings from certain
> posters.....
These groups are really quite.
Occasionally I some some of the utter dross "Arlen" posts because some
users do not seem to do reply headers properly, but most of what I see
is hilarious in its stupidity, mostly because I don't have to see it
repeated 500 times a month.
What we need is a bot that responds to the troll posts with just the
attribution line and something like "This person is a troll" so people
don't feel the need to respond to every troll post.
The troll's get very whiny when people stop replying, and then switch
names so they can start the cycle all over again.
"Arlen" has gone through about 100 fake names so far.
--
At 20:43 the dome of St. Elvis Cathedral shattered... and the Devil
walked the earth again. He'd never really left.
arlen holder
Mar 21, 2019, 3:06:06 PM3/21/19
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:15:29 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> I kill the posts from certain trolls AND all replies to those trolls.
> These groups are really quite.
Hi Lewis,
> I kill the posts from certain trolls AND all replies to those trolls.
> These groups are really quite.
You're using the classic Apple Apologists' protection mechanism.
o It's a protective mechanism ... against facts.
BTW, I _love_ when Lewis posts, because he can't even insult anyone using a
grammatically corrected sentence with correct spelling!
What Lewis' protective mechanism does, is _suppress_ facts.
o It's why Lewis (& Jolly Roger) appear to know very little about iOS
> Occasionally I some some of the utter dross "Arlen" posts because some
> users do not seem to do reply headers properly, but most of what I see
> is hilarious in its stupidity, mostly because I don't have to see it
> repeated 500 times a month.
o Lewis hates facts so he puts his head in the sand.
By eliminating facts, Lewis maintains his imaginary belief system.
It's a protective mechanism against facts.
o It's why Lewis (& Jolly Roger) appear to know very little about iOS
Alan Baker
Mar 21, 2019, 3:10:56 PM3/21/19
to
On 2019-03-21 12:06 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:15:29 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
>> I kill the posts from certain trolls AND all replies to those trolls.
>> These groups are really quite.
>
> Hi Lewis,
>
> You're using the classic Apple Apologists' protection mechanism.
> o It's a protective mechanism ... against facts.
No.
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:15:29 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
>> I kill the posts from certain trolls AND all replies to those trolls.
>> These groups are really quite.
>
> Hi Lewis,
>
> You're using the classic Apple Apologists' protection mechanism.
> o It's a protective mechanism ... against facts.
He's using one particular method to deal with a troll; that being you.
>
> BTW, I _love_ when Lewis posts, because he can't even insult anyone using a
> grammatically corrected sentence with correct spelling!
>
> What Lewis' protective mechanism does, is _suppress_ facts.
> o It's why Lewis (& Jolly Roger) appear to know very little about iOS
>
>> Occasionally I some some of the utter dross "Arlen" posts because some
>> users do not seem to do reply headers properly, but most of what I see
>> is hilarious in its stupidity, mostly because I don't have to see it
>> repeated 500 times a month.
>
> Translation:
> o Lewis hates facts so he puts his head in the sand.
yours.
arlen holder
Mar 21, 2019, 3:11:12 PM3/21/19
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:06:05 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
> By eliminating facts, Lewis maintains his imaginary belief system.
>
> It's a protective mechanism against facts.
> o It's why Lewis (& Jolly Roger) appear to know very little about iOS
FACT + LOGIC:
> By eliminating facts, Lewis maintains his imaginary belief system.
>
> It's a protective mechanism against facts.
> o It's why Lewis (& Jolly Roger) appear to know very little about iOS
I was remiss in not adding the salient fact for this thread.
o Since they ignore facts, they believe everything Apple feeds them.
FACT:
o Privacy on iOS is no better nor worse than privacy on Android, overall.
This is Lewis' (presumed) belief system:
o Privacy on iOS exists - and - it's better than privacy on Android.
This is Jolly Roger's (presumed) belief system:
o Privacy on iOS exists - and - it's better than privacy on Android.
This is (my take on) Apple Marketing Mantra which is ramping up:
o Privacy on iOS exists - and - it's better than privacy on Android.
Notice any similarities in their belief systems?
HINT: Marketing is in the business of creating _imaginary_ belief systems.
LOGIC:
o Since they ignore facts, they believe everything Apple feeds them.
arlen holder
Mar 21, 2019, 3:19:17 PM3/21/19
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:10:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> What his method does is suppress a troll; that being you.
Hi Alan Baker,
> What his method does is suppress a troll; that being you.
*Who is the troll here, Alan Baker?*
I realize EXACTLY why you call me a troll since you hate facts
o I post many facts, Alan Baker, almost all of which you appear to hate
And yet, you stretch out any thread ad infinitum with your silly games.
Speaking of being a troll, Alan Baker, do you realize that you stretch out
a thread to many posts simply because you don't comprehend facts?
For example, nospam posted a link to a Qualcomm/Apple dispute.
1. I read that link (and I read the links that it referenced).
2. I posted those facts, which took me all of a _single_ post to
comprehend.
Given that EXACT SAME nospam post, Alan Baker...
o It took you dozens of posts just to comprehend there _was_ a link!
*Then it took you another score of posts to _comprehend_ the link!*
Hmmmm... I read & comprehend nospam's link in a SINGLE post.
It takes you dozens of posts, and you _still_ don't comprehend it.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/6DKsAbWhAwAJ>
*Who is the troll here, Alan Baker?*
o Me? Who understands nospam's link better than nospam did?
o Or you, Alan Baker? Who still can't even _find_ the link in nospam's post!
HINT: You argue that facts don't exist even when the clearly do exist!
Alan Baker
Mar 21, 2019, 3:26:03 PM3/21/19
to
On 2019-03-21 12:11 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:06:05 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>
>> By eliminating facts, Lewis maintains his imaginary belief system.
>>
>> It's a protective mechanism against facts.
>> o It's why Lewis (& Jolly Roger) appear to know very little about iOS
>
> FACT + LOGIC:
>
> I was remiss in not adding the salient fact for this thread.
> o Since they ignore facts, they believe everything Apple feeds them.
>
> FACT:
> o Privacy on iOS is no better nor worse than privacy on Android, overall.
That is an opinion which you have never actually supported.
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:06:05 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>
>> By eliminating facts, Lewis maintains his imaginary belief system.
>>
>> It's a protective mechanism against facts.
>> o It's why Lewis (& Jolly Roger) appear to know very little about iOS
>
> FACT + LOGIC:
>
> I was remiss in not adding the salient fact for this thread.
> o Since they ignore facts, they believe everything Apple feeds them.
>
> FACT:
> o Privacy on iOS is no better nor worse than privacy on Android, overall.
Alan Baker
Mar 21, 2019, 3:26:47 PM3/21/19
to
On 2019-03-21 12:19 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:10:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What his method does is suppress a troll; that being you.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> *Who is the troll here, Alan Baker?*
You. Beyond any reasonable doubt.
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:10:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What his method does is suppress a troll; that being you.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> *Who is the troll here, Alan Baker?*
>
> I realize EXACTLY why you call me a troll since you hate facts
> o I post many facts, Alan Baker, almost all of which you appear to hate
them facts.
Lewis
Mar 21, 2019, 6:00:38 PM3/21/19
to
In message <q70njt$1hmv$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz> wrote:
START
That summarizes exactly what a idiot troll "arlen" is. S/he/it *knows*
s/he/it is in my kill file, and yet he cannot stop from screaming idiocy
and lies into the void.
--
I've got Mathematica 2.2 on my Quadra
START
> On 2019-03-21 12:06 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:15:29 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
END
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:15:29 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
That summarizes exactly what a idiot troll "arlen" is. S/he/it *knows*
s/he/it is in my kill file, and yet he cannot stop from screaming idiocy
and lies into the void.
--
I've got Mathematica 2.2 on my Quadra
Alan Baker
Mar 21, 2019, 6:02:42 PM3/21/19
to
On 2019-03-21 3:00 p.m., Lewis wrote:
> In message <q70njt$1hmv$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz> wrote:
>
> START
>> On 2019-03-21 12:06 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:15:29 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> END
>
> That summarizes exactly what a idiot troll "arlen" is. S/he/it *knows*
> s/he/it is in my kill file, and yet he cannot stop from screaming idiocy
> and lies into the void.
>
>
Just remember that different people have different ways of dealing with
> In message <q70njt$1hmv$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz> wrote:
>
> START
>> On 2019-03-21 12:06 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:15:29 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> END
>
> That summarizes exactly what a idiot troll "arlen" is. S/he/it *knows*
> s/he/it is in my kill file, and yet he cannot stop from screaming idiocy
> and lies into the void.
>
>
trolls.
Personally, I like making fun of them.
:-)
arlen holder
Mar 21, 2019, 11:23:53 PM3/21/19
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:26:02 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> That is an opinion which you have never actually supported.
Hi Alan Baker,
> That is an opinion which you have never actually supported.
FACT + LOGIC:
I can give you FACT example, after FACT example, after FACT example.
o You likely don't have the mental capacity to comprehend any of them.
What's strange about you Alan Baker, is not that you don't comprehend
o What's odd is how CONFIDENT you are about your imaginary belief system!
*And yet, your _entire_ belief system on privacy is completely imaginary!*
I can destroy your imaginary belief system simply by providing facts.
o Your entire belief system is so fragile, it's _threatened_ by facts.
Let's do one example FACT at a time, shall we?
o I'll give you the absolute _simplest_ FACT example, ok?
Without root or jailbreaking... how are you going to eliminate both the
Apple ID from (a) existing, and from (b) being associated with _every_ app
(even free apps for Christs' sake!), and (c) and how are you going to
completely eliminate the Advertiser ID on iOS?
Note: This is the _simplest_ example, and iOS can't even do that!.
o The fact is that iOS can't do the simplest things when it comes to privacy.
arlen holder
Mar 21, 2019, 11:36:22 PM3/21/19
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 13:46:49 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> The absolute fact that you don't ever support your claims with actual
> sources is pathetic.
Hi Alan Baker,
> The absolute fact that you don't ever support your claims with actual
> sources is pathetic.
For you to say I don't support the facts with sources is kind of funny.
Didn't it just take you 16 posts to simply _find_ the URL in nospam's post?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/fKPqec6dAwAJ>
> As is your ignorance of the basic rules of grammar
> and punctuation; illustrated by your placement of a comma before "is scary".
I think it's funny you claim I'm ignorant of basic grammar & punctuation.
o Is that the very _best_ you can do, Alan Baker to insult my average IQ?
HINT: My IQ is about average, if that; but guess how that compares to yours!
:)
> Quote and original source, please, if you have something you want to
> claim supports your position.
I already gave you the sources where you can't find them in the text.
o HINT: They start with "httml"
Since you haven't been able to find them, I'll just give you the simplest
of facts to show how iOS lacks privacy in many ways, ok?
FACT:
o *It's abundantly clear that apps have been recording the users every*
*button press within the app _completely_ unbeknownst to Apple.*
LOGIC:
o Why didn't Apple know of this before approving the apps?
"Apple confirmed to the publication that its App Store Review
Guidelines prohibit this kind of activity without first gaining
proper consent from a user."
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18216143/apple-iphone-ios-session-replay-screen-recording-crackdown>
FACT:
o Glassbox was used to monitor, record, and save user actions.
LOGIC:
o Why wasn't Apple able to confirm what TechCrunch clearly confirmed?
"The practice, known as session replaying, involves using a
third-party company, in this case analytics firm Glassbox,
to embed code in a mobile app that records user activity"
FACT:
o This is a security & privacy vulnerability
LOGIC:
o Why is Apple (yet again) clueless about protecting users' privacy?
Alan Baker
Mar 22, 2019, 2:37:56 AM3/22/19
to
On 2019-03-21 8:36 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 13:46:49 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> The absolute fact that you don't ever support your claims with actual
>> sources is pathetic.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
> For you to say I don't support the facts with sources is kind of funny.
>
> Didn't it just take you 16 posts to simply _find_ the URL in nospam's post?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/fKPqec6dAwAJ>
No. It did not.
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 13:46:49 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> The absolute fact that you don't ever support your claims with actual
>> sources is pathetic.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
> For you to say I don't support the facts with sources is kind of funny.
>
> Didn't it just take you 16 posts to simply _find_ the URL in nospam's post?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/fKPqec6dAwAJ>
That's just another example of you making an assertion and calling it a
fact.
>
>> As is your ignorance of the basic rules of grammar
>> and punctuation; illustrated by your placement of a comma before "is scary".
>
> Hehhehhehheh...
>
> I think it's funny you claim I'm ignorant of basic grammar & punctuation.
> o Is that the very _best_ you can do, Alan Baker to insult my average IQ?
>
> HINT: My IQ is about average, if that; but guess how that compares to yours!
> :)
>
>> Quote and original source, please, if you have something you want to
>> claim supports your position.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I already gave you the sources where you can't find them in the text.
> o HINT: They start with "httml"
YOU quote that text... ...here.
YOU provide the URL from which that original text was taken.
>
> Since you haven't been able to find them, I'll just give you the simplest
> of facts to show how iOS lacks privacy in many ways, ok?
>
> FACT:
> o *It's abundantly clear that apps have been recording the users every*
> *button press within the app _completely_ unbeknownst to Apple.*
That is an assertion, not a fact.
>
>
> LOGIC:
> o Why didn't Apple know of this before approving the apps?
> "Apple confirmed to the publication that its App Store Review
> Guidelines prohibit this kind of activity without first gaining
> proper consent from a user."
> <https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18216143/apple-iphone-ios-session-replay-screen-recording-crackdown>
Sorry, but if that source supports your assertion, quote that part.
> o Why didn't Apple know of this before approving the apps?
> "Apple confirmed to the publication that its App Store Review
> Guidelines prohibit this kind of activity without first gaining
> proper consent from a user."
> <https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18216143/apple-iphone-ios-session-replay-screen-recording-crackdown>
>
> FACT:
> o Glassbox was used to monitor, record, and save user actions.
>
> LOGIC:
> o Why wasn't Apple able to confirm what TechCrunch clearly confirmed?
> "The practice, known as session replaying, involves using a
> third-party company, in this case analytics firm Glassbox,
> to embed code in a mobile app that records user activity"
>
> FACT:
> o This is a security & privacy vulnerability >
> LOGIC:
> o Why is Apple (yet again) clueless about protecting users' privacy?
privacy is with iOS is less than Android/Google's.
Alan Baker
Mar 22, 2019, 2:39:04 AM3/22/19
to
On 2019-03-21 8:23 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:26:02 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> That is an opinion which you have never actually supported.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FACT + LOGIC:
>
> I can give you FACT example, after FACT example, after FACT example.
> o You likely don't have the mental capacity to comprehend any of them.
And yet you don't actually DO that.
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:26:02 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> That is an opinion which you have never actually supported.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FACT + LOGIC:
>
> I can give you FACT example, after FACT example, after FACT example.
> o You likely don't have the mental capacity to comprehend any of them.
You provided an opinion; a value judgement you haven't even TRIED to
support.
arlen holder
Mar 30, 2019, 12:54:27 PM3/30/19
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 23:39:03 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>> I can give you FACT example, after FACT example, after FACT example.
>> o You likely don't have the mental capacity to comprehend any of them.
>
> And yet you don't actually DO that.
>
> You provided an opinion; a value judgement you haven't even TRIED to
> support.
Hi Alan Baker,
>> I can give you FACT example, after FACT example, after FACT example.
>> o You likely don't have the mental capacity to comprehend any of them.
>
> And yet you don't actually DO that.
>
> You provided an opinion; a value judgement you haven't even TRIED to
> support.
I realize you own an imaginary belief system when it comes to iOS privacy.
o Facts instantly DESTROY everything you believe _because_ it's imaginary
Me?
o My belief system is based on actual facts.
Facts _bolster_ my belief system, Alan Baker.
o Facts such as these well-known privacy-related facts shown below.
*Android*:
o Tor Browser for Android (official strong tor implementation - supercedes orfox/orbot)
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.torproject.torbrowser_alpha>
o Opera VPN-enabled browser (automatically uses a VPN service)
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.opera.browser>
o _No Epic proxy based implementation_
o _No Brave tor-based implementation_
*iOS*
o _No official Tor-based implementation_
o _No Opera vpn-based implementation_
o _No Epic proxy based implementation_
o _No Brave tor-based implementation_
NOTE: *iOS does NOT have an official tor browser implementation.*
arlen holder
Mar 30, 2019, 6:45:35 PM3/30/19
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 23:37:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>> HINT: My IQ is about average, if that; but guess how that compares to yours!
>> HINT: My IQ is about average, if that; but guess how that compares to yours!
> If that's the case, considerably below mine.
Hi Alan Baker,
Sometimes you (& Jolly Roger & Lewis) unknowingly say the funniest things.
o I find it amusing you think your IQ is so high when I think mine is just about average (if that)
Certainly nothing you've ever said has justified your rather high opinion of yourself.
o Maybe you've never actually met some of the truly intelligent people I've
worked with here at startups in the Silicon Valley over the decades.
The very fact you can't even _find_ the oft-provided cites belabors your
very high opinion of your mental capacity, Alan, particularly when you and
I were both provided the exact same posts by nospam which contained the
cites.
The fact is clear:
o I can find the cites, read them, and comprehend them, and yet...
o You repeatedly can't even _find_ them.
BTW, you keep asking for facts, and I give you more and more facts.
o When are you going to comprehend the facts provided to you?
You can deny facts, but I can provide example after example after example,
where iOS and Android both are _not_ private.
Both have privacy holes you can drive a bus through.
o The only difference is that these tunnels are in different places
For example, on an unrooted Android phone, you can plug it into a USB port
of any desktop to run the free "adb" (android debugger) utility to access
(apparently)_all_ the system files, where I've personally used it to access
the "hosts" file so I know that it works on my LG Stylo 3 Plus, Nougat 7.0.
<https://www.modmy.com/how-modify-hosts-file-your-android-device>
Similarly, it's even easier to access the entire system-protected syslog of
the iOS device by simply plugging it into Ubuntu and running the
"idevicesyslog" command <https://cubeupload.com/im/jSSQur.jpg>
The point is it's easy to find _many_ privacy holes in _both_ platforms.
o Those who think one or the other is actually private...
o Are those who own and maintain completely imaginary belief systems
HINT: It's marketing's job to create & foster imaginary belief systems
o Where susceptible individuals who can't think for themselves eat it up
The only meaningful difference between iOS and Android on privacy...
o Is that the huge privacy holes are in different places on each platform
Alan Baker
Mar 30, 2019, 9:26:33 PM3/30/19
to
On 2019-03-30 3:45 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 23:37:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> HINT: My IQ is about average, if that; but guess how that compares to yours!
>> If that's the case, considerably below mine.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Sometimes you (& Jolly Roger & Lewis) unknowingly say the funniest things.
> o I find it amusing you think your IQ is so high when I think mine is just about average (if that)
Sorry, Snowflake, but I've been tested.
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 23:37:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> HINT: My IQ is about average, if that; but guess how that compares to yours!
>> If that's the case, considerably below mine.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Sometimes you (& Jolly Roger & Lewis) unknowingly say the funniest things.
> o I find it amusing you think your IQ is so high when I think mine is just about average (if that)
:-)
Arlen G. Holder
May 6, 2019, 12:54:53 PM5/6/19
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 03:52:27 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
> *As always, I just wish they would spend that money on _actual_ privacy.*
Bear in mind that you can't get privacy using YouTube on iOS.
o Worse, there are zero private YouTube replacement clients
Luckily, on Android, you _can_ (easily) get privacy.
o Google _breaks_ it periodically - but they keep fixing it.
Here's a thread, just now, on how to get privacy on Android
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/uQqjNUSpsY8>
*This type of privacy & functionality is impossible on iOS*
Yet again proving, privacy is a zillion things
o Where Apple cherry picks only what they can do
But where _both_ platforms don't have acceptable privacy.
o Apple users simple believe in wholly imaginary privacy
Because Apple marketing resonates with them.
O They want to _feel_ safe - without actually being safe.
Here is a snippet of the privacy & functionality NOT available on iOS:
o NewPipe provide a private history that YouTube Red doesn't have:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=7029818newpipe01.jpg>
o NewPipe plays any YouTube video without ever seeing a single advertisement:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=6402065newpipe02.jpg>
o NewPipe has _more_ functionality than YouTube - but with privacy & no ads:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=7343245newpipe03.jpg>
o Everyone who cares about privacy should use NewPipe, not YouTube (IMHO):
<https://i.postimg.cc/fyxb5CpQ/newpipe04.jpg>
Periodically, Google changes their public API such that NewPipe breaks
temporarily, until NewPipe developers modify the open source code (which
Google is obviously extremely well aware of as it's all legal & public
despite nospam's claims, essentially, that the only reasons iOS can't
provide privacy is because Google won't let iOS users have privacy).
o Testing, I was able to watch, download, strip audio, etc., on YouTube again:
<https://i.postimg.cc/kXpHfCN9/newpipe09.jpg>
In short, privacy is a zillion things:
o Android is _far_ (far) more private than iOS in many ways
o While iOS is more private than Android in some ways also.
And yet, anyone who actually believes Apple MARKETING bullshit on privacy
o Is, IMHO, a fool.
Or, an apologists
o Same thing.
I speak facts and then make rational deductions based on those facts.
> *As always, I just wish they would spend that money on _actual_ privacy.*
Bear in mind that you can't get privacy using YouTube on iOS.
o Worse, there are zero private YouTube replacement clients
Luckily, on Android, you _can_ (easily) get privacy.
o Google _breaks_ it periodically - but they keep fixing it.
Here's a thread, just now, on how to get privacy on Android
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/uQqjNUSpsY8>
*This type of privacy & functionality is impossible on iOS*
Yet again proving, privacy is a zillion things
o Where Apple cherry picks only what they can do
But where _both_ platforms don't have acceptable privacy.
o Apple users simple believe in wholly imaginary privacy
Because Apple marketing resonates with them.
O They want to _feel_ safe - without actually being safe.
Here is a snippet of the privacy & functionality NOT available on iOS:
o NewPipe provide a private history that YouTube Red doesn't have:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=7029818newpipe01.jpg>
o NewPipe plays any YouTube video without ever seeing a single advertisement:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=6402065newpipe02.jpg>
o NewPipe has _more_ functionality than YouTube - but with privacy & no ads:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=7343245newpipe03.jpg>
o Everyone who cares about privacy should use NewPipe, not YouTube (IMHO):
<https://i.postimg.cc/fyxb5CpQ/newpipe04.jpg>
Periodically, Google changes their public API such that NewPipe breaks
temporarily, until NewPipe developers modify the open source code (which
Google is obviously extremely well aware of as it's all legal & public
despite nospam's claims, essentially, that the only reasons iOS can't
provide privacy is because Google won't let iOS users have privacy).
o Testing, I was able to watch, download, strip audio, etc., on YouTube again:
<https://i.postimg.cc/kXpHfCN9/newpipe09.jpg>
In short, privacy is a zillion things:
o Android is _far_ (far) more private than iOS in many ways
o While iOS is more private than Android in some ways also.
And yet, anyone who actually believes Apple MARKETING bullshit on privacy
o Is, IMHO, a fool.
Or, an apologists
o Same thing.
I speak facts and then make rational deductions based on those facts.
Alan Baker
May 6, 2019, 1:04:46 PM5/6/19
to
On 2019-05-06 9:54 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 03:52:27 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>
>> *As always, I just wish they would spend that money on _actual_ privacy.*
>
>
> Bear in mind that you can't get privacy using YouTube on iOS.
Why privacy are you forced to give up, Arlen?
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 03:52:27 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>
>> *As always, I just wish they would spend that money on _actual_ privacy.*
>
>
> Bear in mind that you can't get privacy using YouTube on iOS.
> o Worse, there are zero private YouTube replacement clients
>
> Luckily, on Android, you _can_ (easily) get privacy.
> o Google _breaks_ it periodically - but they keep fixing it.
business model is monetizing your personal information.
>
> Here's a thread, just now, on how to get privacy on Android
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/uQqjNUSpsY8>
Google is deliberately trying to prevent you from getting tools to
improve your privacy:
'The problem I'm seeing is that, while I have absolutely no problem
installing by downloading the New Pipe APK off of the F-Droid web site
from a Windows 10 PC onto the phone over USB, I'm not seeing the correct
version when I go to the same F-Droid location using just the phone.
Huh?
o Why does Windows see the latest NewPipe version, but not Android? '
>
> *This type of privacy & functionality is impossible on iOS*
>
> Yet again proving, privacy is a zillion things
> o Where Apple cherry picks only what they can do
>
> But where _both_ platforms don't have acceptable privacy.
> o Apple users simple believe in wholly imaginary privacy
>
> Because Apple marketing resonates with them.
> O They want to _feel_ safe - without actually being safe.
>
> Here is a snippet of the privacy & functionality NOT available on iOS:
>
> o NewPipe provide a private history that YouTube Red doesn't have:
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=7029818newpipe01.jpg>
>
> o NewPipe plays any YouTube video without ever seeing a single advertisement:
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=6402065newpipe02.jpg>
>
> o NewPipe has _more_ functionality than YouTube - but with privacy & no ads:
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=7343245newpipe03.jpg>
>
> o Everyone who cares about privacy should use NewPipe, not YouTube (IMHO):
> <https://i.postimg.cc/fyxb5CpQ/newpipe04.jpg>
Description:
Adds new features to YouTube:
Download videos to your device
Block Ads
Play video/audio in the background
Set video playback speed (0.5x - 2.0x)
Auto-replay videos
Disable age restrictions
Forward/Rewind controls with custom number of seconds
Default playback quality
Audio player for downloaded videos
Convert video or audio with Audio Converter & Video Converter
Much more!'
Arlen G. Holder
Jul 28, 2019, 11:52:18 AM7/28/19
to
A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!
A classic case of the imaginary privacy advertised by Apple ensued today...
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZN_5IjhNFSM/1x6tTFmxEgAJ>
Based on reliable facts showing Apple is no more private than anyone else:
o Workers hear drug deals, medical details and people having sex
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>
This situation is absolutely canonically CLASSIC for how the dynamic works!
1. Apple spends millions advertising (what is, in fact imaginary) privacy
2. Apple Apologists _believe_ (hook line & sinker) in that imaginary belief
3. Facts show privacy on Apple products is no different than anywhere else
4. Not only do the Apologists instantly (brazenly in fact) deny these facts
5. The Apologists always blame everyone but Apple for Apple's flaws!
This situation has been repeated for decades, and, as such, is classic!
First - Apple woos susceptible people with admittedly brilliant MARKETING!
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>
Then, the truth comes out that Apple is no more private than anyone else
o Apple is paying contractors to personally listen to millions of private recorded Siri conversations every day which is NOT explicitly disclosed in Apple's privacy pollicy
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ia3wMAwiD74>
*Facts instantly _DESTROY_ the apologists' imaginary belief system!*
Such that the Apologists react using the _same_ half-dozen traits
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
Where the canonical response by apologists is to blame everyone but Apple!
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com/xqZp1CKP/apple-addresses-privacy-questions-about-hey-siri>
Notice the pattern?
Essentially, Apple sold privacy to the apologists, but the fact is that
Apple is no more private than anyone else is - and when the apologists find
that out - they BLAME EVERYONE BUT APPLE for Apple being just like
everyone!
o As expected, Apple beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones (since they can't compete on performance)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EfMlrgxWkvQ/d6lR8F-kBAAJ>
Mere facts instantly destroy Apologists's imaginary belief systems:
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs/ATC1S3s4FQAJ>
In summary, it's elucidating to realize this is a classic documentation of
A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!
Do you see how hilariously comic this canonical interaction proves to be?
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!
A classic case of the imaginary privacy advertised by Apple ensued today...
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZN_5IjhNFSM/1x6tTFmxEgAJ>
Based on reliable facts showing Apple is no more private than anyone else:
o Workers hear drug deals, medical details and people having sex
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>
This situation is absolutely canonically CLASSIC for how the dynamic works!
1. Apple spends millions advertising (what is, in fact imaginary) privacy
2. Apple Apologists _believe_ (hook line & sinker) in that imaginary belief
3. Facts show privacy on Apple products is no different than anywhere else
4. Not only do the Apologists instantly (brazenly in fact) deny these facts
5. The Apologists always blame everyone but Apple for Apple's flaws!
This situation has been repeated for decades, and, as such, is classic!
First - Apple woos susceptible people with admittedly brilliant MARKETING!
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>
Then, the truth comes out that Apple is no more private than anyone else
o Apple is paying contractors to personally listen to millions of private recorded Siri conversations every day which is NOT explicitly disclosed in Apple's privacy pollicy
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ia3wMAwiD74>
*Facts instantly _DESTROY_ the apologists' imaginary belief system!*
Such that the Apologists react using the _same_ half-dozen traits
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
Where the canonical response by apologists is to blame everyone but Apple!
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com/xqZp1CKP/apple-addresses-privacy-questions-about-hey-siri>
Notice the pattern?
Essentially, Apple sold privacy to the apologists, but the fact is that
Apple is no more private than anyone else is - and when the apologists find
that out - they BLAME EVERYONE BUT APPLE for Apple being just like
everyone!
o As expected, Apple beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones (since they can't compete on performance)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EfMlrgxWkvQ/d6lR8F-kBAAJ>
Mere facts instantly destroy Apologists's imaginary belief systems:
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs/ATC1S3s4FQAJ>
In summary, it's elucidating to realize this is a classic documentation of
A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!
Do you see how hilariously comic this canonical interaction proves to be?
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2019, 12:18:08 PM7/29/19
to
On 2019-07-28 8:52 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
Nope. That is just an assertion. You should learn the difference.
> A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
<snip>
> Do you see how hilariously comic this canonical interaction proves to be?
:-)
Arlone G. Trolder
Jul 29, 2019, 2:37:28 PM7/29/19
to
Another one feeds the troll
Another one feeds the troll
And another one bites, and another one bites
Another one feeds the troll
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one feeds the troll.
Sandman
Jul 31, 2019, 5:25:26 AM7/31/19
to
In article <qhkgbh$541$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a
> fact)
Let's assume for a second that this is a "fact" and not just an empty claim
> A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a
> fact)
from an anonymous person usenet.
What is a fact is that "everyone else" (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook) has a
direct commercial interest in mapping you and your interest. They want to sell
you something or they want to sell "you".
What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the iPhone or Mac
or whatever. If they do map your interests, your conversations to see that you
like male diapers, what next? How would they use this information?
The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have no
commercial interest in your privacy. They can be different because they're
basically not interested in knowing about your weird sexual fantasies or
whatever.
So with that in mind, how are they like "everyone else" again?
--
Sandman
Arlen G. Holder
Jul 31, 2019, 1:00:37 PM7/31/19
to
On 31 Jul 2019 09:25:24 GMT, Sandman wrote:
> Let's assume for a second that this is a "fact" and not just an empty claim
> from an anonymous person usenet.
>
> What is a fact is that "everyone else" (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook) has a
> direct commercial interest in mapping you and your interest. They want to sell
> you something or they want to sell "you".
>
> What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the iPhone or Mac
> or whatever. If they do map your interests, your conversations to see that you
> like male diapers, what next? How would they use this information?
>
> The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have no
> commercial interest in your privacy. They can be different because they're
> basically not interested in knowing about your weird sexual fantasies or
> whatever.
Hi Sandman,
> Let's assume for a second that this is a "fact" and not just an empty claim
> from an anonymous person usenet.
>
> What is a fact is that "everyone else" (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook) has a
> direct commercial interest in mapping you and your interest. They want to sell
> you something or they want to sell "you".
>
> What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the iPhone or Mac
> or whatever. If they do map your interests, your conversations to see that you
> like male diapers, what next? How would they use this information?
>
> The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have no
> commercial interest in your privacy. They can be different because they're
> basically not interested in knowing about your weird sexual fantasies or
> whatever.
You bring up good questions, all of which have a single-word answer:
o FACTS.
My record on credibility is stellar - Sandman.
O Phenomenally stellar, in fact, Sandman. Nearly 100% (see footnote).
That's because my belief system is _based_ on facts.
o If the facts change, or new facts are found, I change my belief system.
> The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have
> no commercial interest in your privacy.
o The difference is that Apple highly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy.
My belief system is NOT imaginary, Sandman.
o My belief system is not based on a highly marketed _illusion_ of privacy.
There are so many fully documented well-cited real-world undisputed facts
about the lack of Apple privacy in this one thread alone, that it would
keep your brain occupied for a week just to digest it.
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs/ATC1S3s4FQAJ>
Find just one fact that I've materially mistated & not corrected.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs/ATC1S3s4FQAJ>
o Find just one.
Yup. Find just one.
o That's a simple adult test of credibility, Sandman.
Find just one.
--
(1) Since I'm human and since Usenet is a casual medium, out of thousands
of posts over the decades, I must have made a factual material mistake at
least once, but since I don't easily form imaginary belief systems, my
statements of material facts are _based_ on well known easily observed
facts. If, as is sometimes necessary, the facts change over time, then I
simply adjust my belief system to fit the facts. If I'm wrong I will easily
admit I'm wrong, and I will _modify_ my belief system accordingly (it's
what distuingihes adults from children). I'm never threatened by facts like
those who form imaginary belief systems are. The fact is that nobody can
find any material fact I've ever stated on Usenet that was wrong (trust me,
they've tried), which you have to admit is pretty incredible to earn such
100% stellar credibility on Usenet.
Alan Baker
Jul 31, 2019, 1:05:10 PM7/31/19
to
On 2019-07-31 10:00 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2019 09:25:24 GMT, Sandman wrote:
>
>> Let's assume for a second that this is a "fact" and not just an empty claim
>> from an anonymous person usenet.
>>
>> What is a fact is that "everyone else" (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook) has a
>> direct commercial interest in mapping you and your interest. They want to sell
>> you something or they want to sell "you".
>>
>> What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the iPhone or Mac
>> or whatever. If they do map your interests, your conversations to see that you
>> like male diapers, what next? How would they use this information?
>>
>> The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have no
>> commercial interest in your privacy. They can be different because they're
>> basically not interested in knowing about your weird sexual fantasies or
>> whatever.
>
> Hi Sandman,
>
> You bring up good questions, all of which have a single-word answer:
> o FACTS.
>
> My record on credibility is stellar - Sandman.
> O Phenomenally stellar, in fact, Sandman. Nearly 100% (see footnote).
Not a fact.
> On 31 Jul 2019 09:25:24 GMT, Sandman wrote:
>
>> Let's assume for a second that this is a "fact" and not just an empty claim
>> from an anonymous person usenet.
>>
>> What is a fact is that "everyone else" (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook) has a
>> direct commercial interest in mapping you and your interest. They want to sell
>> you something or they want to sell "you".
>>
>> What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the iPhone or Mac
>> or whatever. If they do map your interests, your conversations to see that you
>> like male diapers, what next? How would they use this information?
>>
>> The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have no
>> commercial interest in your privacy. They can be different because they're
>> basically not interested in knowing about your weird sexual fantasies or
>> whatever.
>
> Hi Sandman,
>
> You bring up good questions, all of which have a single-word answer:
> o FACTS.
>
> My record on credibility is stellar - Sandman.
> O Phenomenally stellar, in fact, Sandman. Nearly 100% (see footnote).
>
> That's because my belief system is _based_ on facts.
> o If the facts change, or new facts are found, I change my belief system.
>
>> The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have
>> no commercial interest in your privacy.
>
> Fundamentally important correction:
> o The difference is that Apple highly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy.
>
> My belief system is NOT imaginary, Sandman.
> o My belief system is not based on a highly marketed _illusion_ of privacy.
>
> There are so many fully documented well-cited real-world undisputed facts
> about the lack of Apple privacy in this one thread alone, that it would
> keep your brain occupied for a week just to digest it.
> o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs/ATC1S3s4FQAJ>
>
> Find just one fact that I've materially mistated & not corrected.
> o Find just one.
Done.
>
> Yup. Find just one.
> o That's a simple adult test of credibility, Sandman.
>
> Find just one.
>
nospam
Jul 31, 2019, 1:09:18 PM7/31/19
to
In article <qhshfk$3q2$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder
yep, it is but not in the way you think.
> O Phenomenally stellar, in fact, Sandman. Nearly 100% (see footnote).
yep, nearly 100% wrong.
that is indeed 'stellar'.
yep, it is but not in the way you think.
> O Phenomenally stellar, in fact, Sandman. Nearly 100% (see footnote).
that is indeed 'stellar'.
Arlen G. Holder
Jul 31, 2019, 1:21:47 PM7/31/19
to
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:
>> What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the iPhone or Mac
>> or whatever. If they do map your interests, your conversations to see that you
>> like male diapers, what next? How would they use this information?
Hi Sandman,
>> What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the iPhone or Mac
>> or whatever. If they do map your interests, your conversations to see that you
>> like male diapers, what next? How would they use this information?
Your post "seems" like a post from an adult, which is rare on Apple
newsgroups, so I will expend more energy summarizing the situation for you.
However, expect this summary to be from an adult - hence - you need to be
an adult to comprehend what this summary says - and you need to actually
THINK about what this summary summarizes - which is hard for many Apple
posters on this newsgroup.
The key concept here is that Apple is one of the most profitable companies
on the planet for a very (very) good reason.
That reason is NOT that Apple makes the best phone since the FUNCTIONALITY
and PERFORMANCE of Apple phones is almost never (if ever) on top (and, if
so, not for more than a few months, at absolute best).
*The reason is that Apple highly markets the _illusion_ of functionality*
o Apple markets the _illusion_ of privacy & security
o Apple markets the _illusion_ of app functionality
o Apple markets the _illusion_ of camera functionality
etc.
The problem is that this "functionality" is a marketing fabrication.
o What matters, to Apple ... is to market _imaginary_ functionality.
Actual functionality is _clearly_ (very clearly) not what they deliver.
Clearly, for example, Apple iPhone cameras are good, but almost never even
in the top five, and almost always, in fact, in the BOTTOM of the top ten
(which we've proven many (many) times - as the statistics change day to day
but the factual summaries are nearly the same year to year.
Clearly, for example, Apple iPhone app functionality is dismal compared to
that of Android - where - we've proven - time and again - that there is
ZERO app functionality on iOS outside the walled garden that isn't already
on Android (almost always even on a five-year old Android device we've
often proven) - and worse (far far worse), there is _plenty_ of app
functionality on Android that is not on iOS (and likely never will be).
If you dispute those facts - you'll have to pass a simple adult test:
o Name just one
Since I pass my own tests, here's just 1 (of many) for Android not on iOS:
o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rX-L9xbYAQAJ>
There are so many of these well documented facts, that it would be tedious
for me to describe them all - suffice to simply point to this ancient
thread which went over about a hundred of them - although that list changes
over time and that list is old - but the concept is the same then as now.
o How hard would it be to name a hundred functional things Android apps do that iOS apps just can't do?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/OAls8ZO1dCI/-VJn7nDKBQAJ>
You're welcome to act like an adult to dispute these facts but you'll need
to pass a simple adult test that the Apologists almost always fail.
o Name just one
In summary, the "problem" is that Apple markets the _mere_ illusion of
privacy and functionality.
o The gullible are like flat earthers - they _believe_ that illusion.
That's why the gullibles hate me.
o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ their entire imaginary belief system.
What's interesting is that when the Apologists make excuses for Apple
o They are only proving this point the illusion is an imaginary belief.
You, Sandman, fell for it by talking about Apple's "motives"
o Which Apple is very cleverly marketing to your brain (perfectly!)
It doesn't matter what you _think_ Apple's "motives" are, Sandman.
o The only thing that matters - are the facts.
FACT:
o Apple isn't any better on privacy than anyone else.
--
Proof supplied in the thread cited above on Privacy and in MANY (many) many
many other threads - which I can post for you if you insist - but that's
just playing your apologists' game of denying facts that are obvious & well
supported.
Arlen G. Holder
Jul 31, 2019, 2:19:54 PM7/31/19
to
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:09:17 -0400, nospam wrote:
> yep, nearly 100% wrong.
Hi nospam,
I realize you wish to personalize this since you _hate_ facts.
o Hence you hate me (and that's ok) simply because I speak facts.
You can't back up your claim above - as is usual for you...
o Not even with a _single_ fact.
Your belief system is _that_ wholly imaginary...
o That it's not backed up by even a _single_ reliable fact.
That's how I know you can't possibly be well educated, IMHO, nospam:
o You wouldn't last a week in grad school or in the Silicon Valley.
Me?
o I graduated from the finest universities in this country
o And I made my money in startups for decades, in the Silicon Valley.
My credibility is stellar.
o That's because my belief system is _based_ on facts.
Your belief system has been shown many (many) times...
o To be based on the mere _illusion_ of functionality.
I'll follow my own rule of at least naming just one cite:
o You claimed, multiple times iPhone X didn't have throttling software.
My credibility is so good that I ask the simple adult challenge of you
o Name just one
HINT: Apple apologists _always_ fail this simple adult challenge.
Your credibility has been shown to be no better than a coin toss.
o Let's see how well you do on the adult "name just one" test, shall we?
Name just one cite that shows just one material fact I wrote - to be wrong.
o *Name just one*.
--
Not your words nospam - since whatever you say is worthless given your
credibility has been shown to be nor more reliable than the result of a
coin toss... name a single reliabe cite that refuts a material fact I've
made on Usenet. Name just one.
> yep, nearly 100% wrong.
Hi nospam,
I realize you wish to personalize this since you _hate_ facts.
o Hence you hate me (and that's ok) simply because I speak facts.
You can't back up your claim above - as is usual for you...
o Not even with a _single_ fact.
Your belief system is _that_ wholly imaginary...
o That it's not backed up by even a _single_ reliable fact.
That's how I know you can't possibly be well educated, IMHO, nospam:
o You wouldn't last a week in grad school or in the Silicon Valley.
Me?
o I graduated from the finest universities in this country
o And I made my money in startups for decades, in the Silicon Valley.
My credibility is stellar.
o That's because my belief system is _based_ on facts.
Your belief system has been shown many (many) times...
o To be based on the mere _illusion_ of functionality.
I'll follow my own rule of at least naming just one cite:
o You claimed, multiple times iPhone X didn't have throttling software.
My credibility is so good that I ask the simple adult challenge of you
o Name just one
HINT: Apple apologists _always_ fail this simple adult challenge.
Your credibility has been shown to be no better than a coin toss.
o Let's see how well you do on the adult "name just one" test, shall we?
Name just one cite that shows just one material fact I wrote - to be wrong.
o *Name just one*.
--
Not your words nospam - since whatever you say is worthless given your
credibility has been shown to be nor more reliable than the result of a
coin toss... name a single reliabe cite that refuts a material fact I've
made on Usenet. Name just one.
Arlone G. Trolder
Jul 31, 2019, 2:27:44 PM7/31/19
to
Another one feeds the troll
Another one feeds the troll
And another one bites, and another one bites
Another one feeds the troll
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one feeds the troll.
On 31 Jul 2019 09:25:24 GMT, Sandman wrote:
Arlone G. Trolder
Jul 31, 2019, 2:27:45 PM7/31/19
to
Another one feeds the troll
Another one feeds the troll
And another one bites, and another one bites
Another one feeds the troll
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one feeds the troll.
Arlone G. Trolder
Jul 31, 2019, 2:27:46 PM7/31/19
to
Another one feeds the troll
Another one feeds the troll
And another one bites, and another one bites
Another one feeds the troll
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one feeds the troll.
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:09:17 -0400, nospam wrote:
Arlen G. Holder
Jul 31, 2019, 3:06:15 PM7/31/19
to
You are so _afraid_ of facts about Apple that you try to drown them out.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 2, 2019, 3:20:16 AM8/2/19
to
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 18:11:18 -0000 (UTC), Arlone G. Trolder wrote:
> And another one bites, and another one bites
Notice that the Apple apologists can't stand actual facts about Apple.
> And another one bites, and another one bites
They're like flat earthers who own an imaginary belief system.
o This imaginary belief system is craftect by Apple Marketing
It's MARKETING's job to create the _illusion_ of functionality
o In this case, Marketing creates the _illusion_ of privacy
And yet - the facts are clear
o Apple products are no more private than any other similar products
What's different is the MARKETING
o It's brilliant
The marketing is so brilliant that the Apologists actually _believe_ it.
o Hence, they _hate_ anyone who speaks facts about Apple products
Just like with the flat earthers...
o *Facts instantly _DESTROY_ the Apologists entire belief system!*
The only way apologists can survive is to cover their ears.
o They don't want to _hear_ any facts about Apple products.
Facts scare them.
Sandman
Aug 3, 2019, 3:53:51 AM8/3/19
to
In article <qhshfk$3q2$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> > Sandman:
> > Sandman:
a "correction" of any kind.
--
Sandman
> > Sandman:
> > Let's assume for a second that this is a "fact" and not just an
> > empty claim from an anonymous person usenet.
>
> > What is a fact is that "everyone else" (i.e. Amazon, Google,
> > Facebook) has a direct commercial interest in mapping you and your
> > interest. They want to sell you something or they want to sell
> > "you".
>
> > What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the
> > iPhone or Mac or whatever. If they do map your interests, your
> > conversations to see that you like male diapers, what next? How
> > would they use this information?
>
> > The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have
> > no commercial interest in your privacy. They can be different
> > because they're basically not interested in knowing about your
> > weird sexual fantasies or whatever.
>
> Hi Sandman,
> You bring up good questions, all of which have a single-word answer:
> o FACTS.
None of which has been provided by you, of course.
> > empty claim from an anonymous person usenet.
>
> > What is a fact is that "everyone else" (i.e. Amazon, Google,
> > Facebook) has a direct commercial interest in mapping you and your
> > interest. They want to sell you something or they want to sell
> > "you".
>
> > What is the endgame for Apple here? They already sold "you" the
> > iPhone or Mac or whatever. If they do map your interests, your
> > conversations to see that you like male diapers, what next? How
> > would they use this information?
>
> > The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have
> > no commercial interest in your privacy. They can be different
> > because they're basically not interested in knowing about your
> > weird sexual fantasies or whatever.
>
> Hi Sandman,
> You bring up good questions, all of which have a single-word answer:
> o FACTS.
> > Sandman:
> > The difference between Apple and "everyone else" is that they have
> > no commercial interest in your privacy.
>
> Fundamentally important correction: o The difference is that Apple
> highly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy.
Which is an unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous stranger on usenet. Also not
> > no commercial interest in your privacy.
>
> Fundamentally important correction: o The difference is that Apple
> highly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy.
a "correction" of any kind.
--
Sandman
Sandman
Aug 3, 2019, 3:55:11 AM8/3/19
to
In article <qhsor6$hfq$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> You are so _afraid_ of facts about Apple that you try to drown them
> out.
You are responding to yourself... Good work, you played yourself.
> You are so _afraid_ of facts about Apple that you try to drown them
> out.
--
Sandman
Arlone G. Trolder
Aug 3, 2019, 5:08:43 AM8/3/19
to
Once a lonely troller camped by a Usenet group,
Under a topic in the Apple family tree,
And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
Along came a poster to bite on a baited hook,
Up jumped the troller and grabbed him with glee,
And it sang as it shoved that poster in its tucker bag,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
And it sang as it shoved that poster in its tucker bag,
You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 3, 2019, 1:38:25 PM8/3/19
to
On 3 Aug 2019 07:55:10 GMT, Sandman wrote:
> You are responding to yourself... Good work, you played yourself.
Hi Sandman,
> You are responding to yourself... Good work, you played yourself.
Apple marketing is BRILLIANT at creating the _illusion_ of privacy
o You hate me because facts instantly _DESTROY_ your imaginary beliefs.
Since this newsgroup is archived, I strive to share technical value
o For now - but also specifically for future researchers to mine value.
You live for now; while I live for now and forever.
o That's fundamental to why I continually strive to add value to Usenet
For you, Sandman, Usenet is apparently merely for your idle amusement.
Hence, we each use fundamentally _different_ Usenet models, Sandman:
a. The chit-chat amusement variety (which you apparently subscribe to)
b. The fact-based Q&A variety (of which I clearly subscribe to)
I fully understand you apologists _hate_ that my posts contain facts.
o But the fact you hate facts doesn't change the fact that they're facts.
The fact is that privacy is about the same among similar products.
o The difference is Apple is brilliant at creating the illusion of privacy.
How they do that is extremely basic, simple, and straightforward:
o Where Apple has a privacy advantage, they market the hell out of that
O Where Apple has a privacy disadvantage, they simply stay mum on that
You, Sandman, apparently, buy only the brilliant Apple marketing spiel
o That's why you hate facts - since facts are data _outside_ of marketing.
That factual data instantly _DESTROYS_ your imaginary belief system, Sandman.
o Which is why you hate me reporting those facts to this newsgroup.
I understand the psychology of you apologists rather well, Sandman.
You're almost exactly the same as flat earthers, in fact, Sandman.
o You all own the same half dozen responses to all facts you don't like
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 3, 2019, 1:38:26 PM8/3/19
to
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 09:08:20 -0000 (UTC), Arlone G. Trolder wrote:
> Once a lonely troller camped by a Usenet group,
Notice how the Apple Apologists would love to drown out facts.
> Once a lonely troller camped by a Usenet group,
o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ their imaginary belief system.
Apple marketing is BRILLIANT at creating the _illusion_ of privacy.
o Whenever facts prove otherwise - the apologists call all facts trolls.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 3, 2019, 1:38:27 PM8/3/19
to
On 3 Aug 2019 07:53:49 GMT, Sandman wrote:
> None of which has been provided by you, of course.
What's shocking is that you apologists are like flat earthers.
o You're completely immune to facts - many of which were provided.
Alan Baker
Aug 3, 2019, 1:41:16 PM8/3/19
to
B...@onramp.net
Aug 3, 2019, 1:42:19 PM8/3/19
to
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 09:08:20 -0000 (UTC), "Arlone G. Trolder"
<trolli...@nospam.nut.invalid> wrote:
>
>Once a lonely troller camped by a Usenet group,
>Under a topic in the Apple family tree,
>And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
>You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
>Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
>You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
>And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
>You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
(clip crappy poetry)
>
>Once a lonely troller camped by a Usenet group,
>Under a topic in the Apple family tree,
>And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
>You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
>Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
>You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
>And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
>You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
You do realize that your attempt at humor is also feeding the troller
don't you?
Alan Baker
Aug 3, 2019, 1:43:53 PM8/3/19
to
On 2019-08-03 10:38 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2019 07:55:10 GMT, Sandman wrote:
>
>> You are responding to yourself... Good work, you played yourself.
>
> Hi Sandman,
>
> Apple marketing is BRILLIANT at creating the _illusion_ of privacy
> o You hate me because facts instantly _DESTROY_ your imaginary beliefs.
No one hates you.
>
>> You are responding to yourself... Good work, you played yourself.
>
> Hi Sandman,
>
> Apple marketing is BRILLIANT at creating the _illusion_ of privacy
> o You hate me because facts instantly _DESTROY_ your imaginary beliefs.
We're amused by you. :-)
>
> Since this newsgroup is archived, I strive to share technical value
> o For now - but also specifically for future researchers to mine value.
...because it hasn't happened yet.
>
> You live for now; while I live for now and forever.
> o That's fundamental to why I continually strive to add value to Usenet
>
> For you, Sandman, Usenet is apparently merely for your idle amusement.
>
> Hence, we each use fundamentally _different_ Usenet models, Sandman:
> a. The chit-chat amusement variety (which you apparently subscribe to)
> b. The fact-based Q&A variety (of which I clearly subscribe to)
>
> I fully understand you apologists _hate_ that my posts contain facts.
> o But the fact you hate facts doesn't change the fact that they're facts.
>
> The fact is that privacy is about the same among similar products.
> o The difference is Apple is brilliant at creating the illusion of privacy.
>
> How they do that is extremely basic, simple, and straightforward:
> o Where Apple has a privacy advantage, they market the hell out of that
> O Where Apple has a privacy disadvantage, they simply stay mum on that
>
> You, Sandman, apparently, buy only the brilliant Apple marketing spiel
> o That's why you hate facts - since facts are data _outside_ of marketing.
>
> That factual data instantly _DESTROYS_ your imaginary belief system, Sandman.
> o Which is why you hate me reporting those facts to this newsgroup.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 3, 2019, 2:34:02 PM8/3/19
to
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:41:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> It's no wonder you've snipped the entire conversation...
The thread is about the advertising imaginary privacy, Alan Baker.
> It's no wonder you've snipped the entire conversation...
o The facts are that Apple markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy.
What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>
o Where Apple has better privacy - they brilliantly market those facts
o Where Apple has worse privacy - they simply stay mum on those facts
It's the job of _intelligent_ adults to ascertain _all_ the facts
o Not just the facts that Apple marketing brilliantly advertises
As an intelligent adult, you're welcome to dispute this obvious fact.
o The privacy between Android & Apple is, overall, about the same
Proof from _outside_ _reliable_ sources in detail is here:
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs[1-25]>
And, in the news, proof was supplied just this week, Alan Baker:
o Apple is paying contractors to personally listen to millions of private recorded Siri conversations every day which is NOT explicitly disclosed in Apple's privacy pollicy
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ia3wMAwiD74/vOitxLdFEgAJ>
Do you dispute (with facts) those glaringly obvious facts, Alan Baker?
o If so, how so?
--
HINT: Apple apologists can't converse like actual adults should.
Apple apologists converse almost exactly like flat earthers do.
Their approach to facts they don't like is to brazenly deny them.
Sans a shred of reliable sources that back up their brazen claims.
They call all facts they don't like, trolls.
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
Just watch.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
Frank Slootweg
Aug 3, 2019, 3:48:53 PM8/3/19
to
Arlone G. Trolder <trolli...@nospam.nut.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Once a lonely troller camped by a Usenet group,
> Under a topic in the Apple family tree,
> And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
> Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
> And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
> Along came a poster to bite on a baited hook,
> Up jumped the troller and grabbed him with glee,
> And it sang as it shoved that poster in its tucker bag,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
> Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
> And it sang as it shoved that poster in its tucker bag,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
G'day mate, nice one! Fair dinkum! Good on you! Seppos all around!
> Under a topic in the Apple family tree,
> And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
> Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
> And it sang as it watched and waited 'til its bait lines worked,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
> Along came a poster to bite on a baited hook,
> Up jumped the troller and grabbed him with glee,
> And it sang as it shoved that poster in its tucker bag,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
>
> Feeding the troller, feeding the troller,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me,
> And it sang as it shoved that poster in its tucker bag,
> You'll come a-feeding the troller with me.
Bloody bludgers!
[...]
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 3, 2019, 4:41:56 PM8/3/19
to
On 3 Aug 2019 19:48:52 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> G'day mate, nice one! Fair dinkum! Good on you! Seppos all around!
> Bloody bludgers!
You don't own the mind of an adult, Frank - your mind is that of a child.
> G'day mate, nice one! Fair dinkum! Good on you! Seppos all around!
> Bloody bludgers!
o You prove it yourself every time you post - I just need to point to what
you write where you prove for me, Frank, you own the mind of a small child.
Adults on this newsgroup are supposed to comprehend actual facts.
The facts are clear that neither Apple nor iOS is even remotely private.
o Many facts show iOS more private than Android
o Many facts show Android more private than iOS
So - what's different?
o Apple MARKETING is brilliant at promoting the _illusion_ of privacy.
The facts clearly show...
o Apple brilliantly promotes only where they're more private
o While Apple cleverly stays mum on where they're not more private
What _adult_ response do you have to those facts, Frank?
--
I already know the answer Frank ... you have no adult response.
Alan Baker
Aug 3, 2019, 10:22:12 PM8/3/19
to
On 2019-08-03 11:34 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:41:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> It's no wonder you've snipped the entire conversation...
>
> The thread is about the advertising imaginary privacy, Alan Baker.
Sorry, but you don't get to simply snip what you want without comment.
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:41:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> It's no wonder you've snipped the entire conversation...
>
> The thread is about the advertising imaginary privacy, Alan Baker.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 4, 2019, 12:30:08 AM8/4/19
to
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:22:09 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> Sorry, but you don't get to simply snip what you want without comment.
Hi Alan Baker,
> Sorry, but you don't get to simply snip what you want without comment.
FACTS
I've been quoting the same way for decades with thousands of people.
o It's a well known standard to quote only that you respond to
Keeping on the topic of Apple's brilliantly marketed but imaginary privacy,
the reliable news, including the Apple-centric reports, are all saying pretty
much the same thing as I've been trying to get into your thick skull.
1. Apple yet again abused our trust with dishonest lack of transparency
2. Apple yet again only gives a shit after the shit hits the fan
3. Opt out is useless - opt in is what they should employ for privacy
See details below...
Just as they were forced to admit to secret throttling, and they were
forced to admit that they ignored egregious FaceTime security holes, Apple
yet again only gives a shit about privacy when the shit hits the fan.
o Apple suspends Siri program that allows employees to listen in on users' private conversations
<https://www.rt.com/business/465730-apple-siri-suspend-privacy/>
Cult of Mac: Siri eavesdropping controversy underlines why Apple must be more transparent
<https://www.cultofmac.com/642830/siri-eavesdropping-controversy-apple-transparenct/>
Apple Contractors Will Stop Listening to Your Siri Recordings - for now
<https://www.wired.com/story/apple-siri-recordings-facebook-facial-recognition-roundup/>
VentureBeat: Apple and Google halt human voice-data reviews over privacy backlash, but transparency is the real issue
<https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/02/apple-and-google-halt-human-voice-data-reviews-over-privacy-backlash-but-transparency-is-the-real-issue/>
Voice assistant companies abandon snooping practices after being found out
<https://www.rt.com/news/465704-apple-amazon-alexa-spying/>
Apple and Google Workers Stop Listening to What You Ask Your Voice Assistant, For Now
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/apple-and-google-pause-human-voice-recording-review-over-privacy-concerns>
You Can Now Disable Human Review of Your Alexa Recordings
<https://www.iclarified.com/71905/you-can-now-disable-human-review-of-your-alexa-recordings>
Hey Apple, Opt out is useless. Let people opt in
<https://www.wired.com/story/hey-apple-opt-out-is-useless/>
MacWorld: So Apple's going to stop listening in on your Siri requests. Now what?
<https://www.macworld.com/article/3429817/so-apples-going-to-stop-listening-in-on-your-siri-requests-now-what.html>
Apple halts contractors listening to Siri recordings, will offer opt-out
<https://www.scmagazine.com/home/security-news/privacy-compliance/apple-announced-it-will-temporarily-suspend-its-practice-of-allowing-human-contractors-to-grade-snippets-recordings-of-siri-conversations-for-accuracy/>
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 4, 2019, 12:56:31 AM8/4/19
to
On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 12:42:17 -0500, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> You do realize that your attempt at humor is also feeding the troller
> don't you?
Hi BK,
> You do realize that your attempt at humor is also feeding the troller
> don't you?
When you post, I realize what I'm up against when I post reasonable
concepts, which, let's face it, only an adult could comprehend.
For example, exactly as I have been saying all along, Wired reported today
exactly the concept of this thread which is that Apple has a special
responsibility to privacy since Apple markets the hell out of their mere
illusion of it.
Here's what wired said today:
"After a report in The Guardian detailed Apple's use of contractors
to "grade" the recordings of Siri users, the company has said it
will suspend the program. Apple's not alone in the practice; Google
and Amazon use humans as well. *But Apple's self-professed roll as a*
*privacy protector has made the revelation that much more cutting.*
<https://www.wired.com/story/apple-siri-recordings-facebook-facial-recognition-roundup/>
Notice that the fact show, for the umpteenth time, Apple only cares to
market the _illusion_ of privacy, as witnessed by this fact above.
Yet again, Apple only cared about this privacy issue _after_ the shit hit
the fan (just as it did with those horrid Facetime privacy flaws).
Notice that reliable reports are backing up what I have been saying all along.
o Can you find even a single reliable news report that backs you up, BK?
If so...
o Name just one.
Sandman
Aug 4, 2019, 6:07:14 AM8/4/19
to
> > None of which has been provided by you, of course.
>
> What's shocking is that you apologists are like flat earthers. o
> You're completely immune to facts - many of which were provided.
Ironic, because you sound just like a flat-earther, claiming that there are facts
>
> What's shocking is that you apologists are like flat earthers. o
> You're completely immune to facts - many of which were provided.
but can't provide any, just mere words and claims. Go figure :)
--
Sandman
Alan Baker
Aug 4, 2019, 11:52:06 AM8/4/19
to
On 2019-08-03 9:30 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:22:09 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but you don't get to simply snip what you want without comment.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FACTS
>
> I've been quoting...
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:22:09 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but you don't get to simply snip what you want without comment.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FACTS
>
No.
You do it to change the subject.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 4, 2019, 2:29:50 PM8/4/19
to
On 4 Aug 2019 10:07:13 GMT, Sandman wrote:
> Ironic, because you sound just like a flat-earther, claiming that there are facts
> but can't provide any, just mere words and claims. Go figure :)
Hi Sandman,
> Ironic, because you sound just like a flat-earther, claiming that there are facts
> but can't provide any, just mere words and claims. Go figure :)
*Act like an adult for once, please*
An adult owns a belief system that is based on at least a _single_ fact, Sandman.
o Emotional children own completely imaginary belief systems (ala Santa Claus).
*Let's see if you can pass the _simplest_ of adult tests, Sandman*
Name just _one_ material fact I've stated, that I both
a. Haven't proved (with a reliable third-party cite), and,
b. Which was materially wrong.
HINT: You can't find a _single_ instance in the threads you're in.
o My credibility on material facts is 100% over decades(1)
If you can't even pass this _simplest_ of adult tests, Sandman...
o Then your credibility is clearly shown, here and now, to be bullshit.
--
(1) Since Usenet is a casual medium and not a PhD thesis or legal contract,
I must have, at least once or twice, materially mistated a fact in my
decades of Usenet postings of many posts per day - but - since my belief
systems are _based_ on facts, and _bolstered_ by facts, it's going to be
rare to nonexistent for that to happen (trust me, people have tried, and
all they can find are silly meaningless typos and temporary thinkos). The
best they can find are that they dispute facts that are reported in the
reliable media (ala Alan Baker) where I reported the facts correctly - they
just dispute them (as they dispute _all_ facts they don't like). If, on the
rare occasion facts _change_ over time (e.g., whether a product is going to
be released and then the company changes their mind), i simply _adjust_ my
belief system to fit the salient newly available facts. In contrast, many
people on Usenet (e.g., the Apple Apologists, en masse, who appear to be
extremely succeptibvle to the admittedly brilliant Apple Marketing speil),
don't have any desire to preserve their credibility - where they
incessantly dispute any and all facts they simply don't like - almost
always going to the length to claim imaginary functionality, that never
existed - simply because they hate what the facts prove.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 4, 2019, 2:46:23 PM8/4/19
to
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:52:04 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> You do it to change the subject.
Hi Alan Baker,
> You do it to change the subject.
FACTS.
What's funny about you Apple Apologists is that you _hate_ facts about Apple.
o You're like children who hate that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
My claims are that of an extremely well educated & informed adult
o Your claims, Alan, span the spectrum of childish responses to facts
Much like Flat Earthers, you dispute even the most _obvious_ of facts
o Such as the _SUBJECT_ of this thread for heaven's sake!
To _that subject_, notice reliable media backs up my claims, Alan.
o Apple highly _advertises_ the mere _illusion_ of privacy, Alan.
Since Apple highly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy, Alan,
it's even worse when the facts clearly show Apple to be no better than the
rest (which was always my point - since the privacy is an illusion).
Since I'm an adult - I back up my statements of material fact with cites.
o It's what adults do Alan Baker - Adults who are well informed anyway
******************************************************
Here's a reliable cite that fits _perfectly_ the topic of this thread:
******************************************************
GUARDIAN (who broke the story last week): [everything below is verbatim]
"Apple is not alone in employing human oversight of its automatic voice
assistants. In April, Amazon was revealed to employ staff to listen to some
Alexa recordings, and earlier this month, Google workers were found to be
doing the same with Google Assistant.
*Apple differs from those companies* in some ways, however. For one,
Amazon and Google allow users to opt out of some uses of their recordings;
*Apple offers no similar choice short of disabling Siri entirely*.
According to Counterpoint Research, Apple has 35% of the smartwatch market,
more than three times its nearest competitor Samsung, and more than its
next six biggest competitors combined.
*The company [i.e., Apple] values its reputation for user privacy highly*,
*regularly wielding it as a competitive advantage against Google* and
Amazon. In January, it bought a billboard at the Consumer Electronics Show
in Las Vegas announcing that
'*what happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone*'"
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>
(emphasis added to the salient points of this very thread)
Where is _your_ reliable cite, Alan Baker, backing up your on-topic point?
o Notice you Apologists have _zero_ on-topic facts backing up your claims
*You Apologists can _never_ find even a _single_ cite backing you up*
o It's the same reason children can't prove Santa Claus exists.
*Apologists believe in the highly marketed _illusion_ of privacy*
o As children believe in the highly marketed illusion of Santa Claus
Alan Baker
Aug 4, 2019, 3:13:58 PM8/4/19
to
On 2019-08-04 11:46 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:52:04 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You do it to change the subject.
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FA...
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:52:04 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You do it to change the subject.
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 4, 2019, 4:44:58 PM8/4/19
to
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 12:13:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> You do it to change the subject.
Hi Alan Baker,
FACTS
> You do it to change the subject.
Hi Alan Baker,
Whether you apologists realize it or not...
o The whole point of a Usenet thread that I author is to stay on topic
Do apologists really not comprehend the subject of this thread, Alan Baker?
1. Apple markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy
2. They do that by playing up where they are clearly more private.
3. That's all the Apple Gullibles need to _believe_ in this illusion.
It's no different than the illusion of Santa Claus, Alan Baker
o Parents play up where the Santa Claus seems to be "real" to children
However ... intelligent and well informed adults know the facts, Alan Baker
4. The fact is that there are plenty of ways Apple is NOT more private
5. Apple marketing cleverly stays mum on these ways, Alan
6. Just like parents stay mum all the ways Santa Claus is an illusion
Who believes in Santa Claus, Alan Baker?
o Children who can't comprehend facts outside what parents tell them
Who believes in privacy on iOS, Alan Baker?
o Children who can't comprehend facts outside what Apple tells them
This recent situation where Apple was sending millions of accidentally
recorded private conversations (all one had to do was lift their arm for
Christs' sake, Alan Baker!), to come-and-go poorly vetted contractors in,
of all places, Ireland, for God's sake, Alan Baker. (Where Alexa's
transient contractors were in, of all places, Romania.)
Given that Apple plays up the mere illusion of privacy, Alan Baker, it's
imperative to note that Apple wasn't fully transparent with their entire
customer base in terms of what the media has been calling a lack of
transparency in that actual _humans_ (poorly vetted and transient humans,
in fact), were listening in onto a huge number of accidental recordings
daily.
Until the shit hit the fan, that is.
o Notice they never care about privacy until the shit hits the fan.
These are all FACTS Alan Baker - which - of course, you'll dispute out of
hand sans even a _single_ third-party cite to back up your imaginary belief
system.
EVERY STATEMENT I make is bolstered by third party cites, Alan Baker.
o Every single one
Almost always, zero of the statements by you Apple Apologists is ever
backed up by reliable sources, Alan Baker.
Why?
I don't know why.
You apologists all act like children act.
o When told the Easter Bunny is an illusion - you deny it out of hand.
REFERENCES:
o Apple and Google halt human voice-data reviews over privacy backlash, but *transparency is the real issue*
<https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/02/apple-and-google-halt-human-voice-data-reviews-over-privacy-backlash-but-transparency-is-the-real-issue/>
"the new report found that recordings were accessed not only by its
internal staff, but by *contractors with high turnover rates*. And again,
*Siri could be accidentally triggered*, such as by the sound of a zipper"
o Apple Contractors Working on Siri Regularly Hear Confidential Information
<https://www.iclarified.com/71815/apple-contractors-working-on-siri-regularly-hear-confidential-information-report>
"Although not explicitly disclosed by Apple ... A whistleblower, who
works for one of these contractors, has raised concerns about
*Apple's lack of disclosure*, especially *due to the frequency* with which
*accidental activations record personal information*. 'There have been
*countless instances of recordings featuring private discussions* between
doctors and patients, business deals, seemingly criminal dealings, sexual
encounters and so on. *These recordings are accompanied by user data*
showing location, contact details, and app data.' The HomePod and the Apple
Watch are the most common sources of accidental recordings. 'The regularity
of accidental triggers on the watch is incredibly high,' they said."
Alan Baker
Aug 4, 2019, 5:06:51 PM8/4/19
to
On 2019-08-04 1:44 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 12:13:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You do it to change the subject.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FACT
You change the subject rather than address what has been said.
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 12:13:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You do it to change the subject.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> FACT
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 4, 2019, 6:10:45 PM8/4/19
to
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 14:06:50 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> You change the subject rather than address what has been said.
> You change the subject rather than address what has been said.
Do you apologists _look_ at the *SUBJECT* line of this thread, Alan Baker?
> You change the subject rather than address what has been said.
> You change the subject rather than address what has been said.
The facts are clear:
a. Apple marketing brilliantly plays up the mere _illusion_ of privacy.
They can't market functionality, Alan Baker
o Because there is zero app functionality on iOS not already on Android
In fact, even a five-year old Android device has app functionality NOT on
any iOS platform, even those that cost $1500.
Since I pass the adult test of belief systems, Alan, I can "name just one".
o Automatic call recording
I'll name a few more, Alan Baker:
o The official Tor Browser Bundle
Want more?
o WiFi graphing of all access points visible over time
More?
o Ability to organize the home screen the way you want
etc.
The point is stated in the title, Alan, which is:
a. Apple has no functionality advantage over Android...
b. So the admittedly brilliant marketing plays up the _illusion_ of privacy
To be clear - this brilliant advertising campaign works
o On people who own the minds of children
Of which there are many
o It's like how parents play up Santa Claus to gullible children
But you're _supposed_ to be a sentient adult on this ng, Alan Baker.
o You're supposed to be able to comprehend simple facts.
You're supposed to be able to think outside of Apple Marketing speils.
Sandman
Aug 4, 2019, 6:45:08 PM8/4/19
to
> > Ironic, because you sound just like a flat-earther, claiming that
> > there are facts but can't provide any, just mere words and claims.
> > Go figure :)
>
> Hi Sandman,
> *Act like an adult for once, please*
> An adult owns a belief system that is based on at least a _single_
> fact,
Ironic, given the fact that you have provided exactly zero facts. Go figure.
> > there are facts but can't provide any, just mere words and claims.
> > Go figure :)
>
> Hi Sandman,
> *Act like an adult for once, please*
> An adult owns a belief system that is based on at least a _single_
> fact,
--
Sandman
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 4, 2019, 10:18:34 PM8/4/19
to
On 4 Aug 2019 22:45:06 GMT, Sandman wrote:
> Ironic, given the fact that you have provided exactly zero facts. Go figure.
Hi Sandman,
> Ironic, given the fact that you have provided exactly zero facts. Go figure.
You prove to turn into a babbling child when confronted with facts.
This is my last post to you here - since you apologists are like
Flat Earthers, who always prove to own the mind of a child.
You, Sandman, like all the apologists, have no adult response to facts.
o Your entire belief system, like that of children who believe in Santa
Claus, is based on exactly _zero_ actual facts.
You're _afraid_ of facts such that you turn into a child in the face of them.
Alan Baker
Aug 4, 2019, 10:48:04 PM8/4/19
to
On 2019-08-04 7:18 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2019 22:45:06 GMT, Sandman wrote:
>
>> Ironic, given the fact that you have provided exactly zero facts. Go figure.
>
> Hi Sandman,
>
> You prove to turn into a babbling child when confronted with facts.
How would you know?
> On 4 Aug 2019 22:45:06 GMT, Sandman wrote:
>
>> Ironic, given the fact that you have provided exactly zero facts. Go figure.
>
> Hi Sandman,
>
> You prove to turn into a babbling child when confronted with facts.
Simply saying "Fact" (or even "FACT")...
...doesn't make something a fact.
Sandman
Aug 5, 2019, 2:24:27 AM8/5/19
to
> > Ironic, given the fact that you have provided exactly zero facts.
> > Go figure.
>
> Hi Sandman,
> You prove to turn into a babbling child when confronted with facts.
Since you've still provided exactly zero facts, you wouldn't know, now would you?
> > Go figure.
>
> Hi Sandman,
> You prove to turn into a babbling child when confronted with facts.
All the time you've spent claiming you've provided facts should have been spent
actually providing facts instead. You have lots of time for hot air, so not much
left for actual substantiation.
--
Sandman
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 5, 2019, 1:16:33 PM8/5/19
to
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:43:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> What factual data?
FACTS
Notice that the apologists, like Flat Earthers, are immune to facts.
o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ apologists' completely imaginary belief system.
Notice that well informed adults show _facts_ backing up claims:
"The campaign is working, as evidenced by media reports depicting Apple
as hero to Facebook's villain. But that marketing coup masks an underlying
problem: The world's most valuable company - its market value crossed the
$1 trillion mark on Aug. 2 - has some of the same security problems as the
other tech giants when it comes to apps."
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero>
*Apple is _brilliant_ at marketing the mere _illusion_ of privacy.*
o Apologists are as gullible as children believing in Santa Claus.
Look at this factual article from about a year ago (verbatim):
o Is Apple Really Your Privacy Hero?
o The world's most valuable company is seen as a champion for your data.
o It should be doing more.
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero>
a. Apple Inc. has positioned itself as the champion of privacy.
b. Even as Facebook Inc. and Google track our moves around the internet for
advertisers' benefit, Apple has trumpeted its noble decision to avoid that
business model.
c. Tim Cook said he wouldn't ever be in such a situation. He framed Apple's
stance as a moral one. Privacy is a human right, he said.
Clearly, my facts show that Apple MARKETS privacy, right?
o Now what about the actual facts?
HINT: Apple fibbed in their privacy policy which all the news media caught
(they called it a lack of transparency - but it goes _deeper_ as Apple
fibbed about the location data also, which the news media reported).
Remember, this article is from a _year_ ago, and yet, it's the _same_
problem as reported last week with unreliable transients listening in on
millions of accidental Siri recordings every day!
"It [Apple] has, in effect, abdicated responsibility for possible misuse
of data, leaving it in the hands of the independent developers who create
the products available in its App Store."
But wait.. There are more facts for an _informed_ adult to ponder:
"Bloomberg News recently reported that for years iPhone app developers
have been allowed to store and sell data from users who allow access to
their contact lists, which, in addition to phone numbers, may include other
people's photos and home addresses."
More and more in fact...
"the Notes section - where people sometimes list Social Security numbers
for their spouses or children or the entry codes for their apartment
buildings - is particularly sensitive."
More and more and more facts...
"When developers get our information, and that of the acquaintances in
our contacts list, it's theirs to use and move around unseen by Apple. It
can be sold to data brokers, shared with political campaigns, or posted on
the internet."
It goes on and on, in fact...
"Apple does nothing to make it technically difficult for developers to
harvest the information."
Note an informed _adult_ can comprehend these statements...
"Apple has the ingredients for a Cambridge Analytica-type blowup, but it's
successfully convinced the public that it has its users' best interests at
heart with its existing, unenforceable policies."
Now here is where Apple marketing is brilliant!
"The company's main argument for why it's a better steward of customers'
privacy is that it has no interest in collecting personal data across its
browser or developer network. It simply doesn't need to, because it doesn't
make its money off advertising. The public wholeheartedly agrees with this
´hear no evil, see no evil¡ strategy because of popular discomfort over the
quiet surveillance of private online habits by all the other
multibillion-dollar corporations."
But there are holes in that which Apple does NOT advertise but which an
adult mind can clearly ascertain to be a fact!
"But when it comes to the app developer network, that's like a parent -
in this case, Apple - claiming the developer kids are well-supervised.
They're not. Once Apple reviews and approves independent apps, it can't see
how the data they collect is used."
In a letter to Congress, which adults can comprehend, Apple abdicated all
responsibility for privacy...
"On Aug. 7, Apple responded with a multiple-page document that included
this statement: ´Apple does not and cannot monitor what developers do with
customer data they have collected, or prevent the onward transfer of that
data, nor do we have the ability to ensure a developer's compliance with
their own privacy policies or local law. The relationship between the app
developer and the user is direct, and it is the developer's obligation to
collect and use data responsibly."
Just as Google and Amazon allow _deletion_ of your private recordings, an
adult will realize that Apple allows no such privacy for Siri users!
Even Facebook has better privacy than Apple in that regard...
"For all of Facebook's privacy problems, it was at least able to alert
people who were potentially affected by the Cambridge Analytica leak. Apple
has no such mechanism."
In short, while the Apologists are immune to such facts, and while Apple
Marketing is brilliant at marketing the mere _illusion_ of privacy, what's
important for ADULTS to realize is the following set of obvious facts:
a. Apple brilliantly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy
b. Where Apple, in some ways, is more private,
c. But where, in many other ways, Apple is no more private
d. And in some ways, Apple is far less private
All of which Apple marketing cleverly stays mum on
o But which intelligent adults can easily show to be a fact.
I realize these facts are lost on the Apologists
o Just as facts that Santa Claus is make believe is lost on children
Notice Apologists _never_ have facts backing up their imaginary claims
o They're like Flat Earthers - in that they're utterly immune to facts
> What factual data?
FACTS
Notice that the apologists, like Flat Earthers, are immune to facts.
o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ apologists' completely imaginary belief system.
Notice that well informed adults show _facts_ backing up claims:
"The campaign is working, as evidenced by media reports depicting Apple
as hero to Facebook's villain. But that marketing coup masks an underlying
problem: The world's most valuable company - its market value crossed the
$1 trillion mark on Aug. 2 - has some of the same security problems as the
other tech giants when it comes to apps."
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero>
*Apple is _brilliant_ at marketing the mere _illusion_ of privacy.*
o Apologists are as gullible as children believing in Santa Claus.
Look at this factual article from about a year ago (verbatim):
o Is Apple Really Your Privacy Hero?
o The world's most valuable company is seen as a champion for your data.
o It should be doing more.
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero>
a. Apple Inc. has positioned itself as the champion of privacy.
b. Even as Facebook Inc. and Google track our moves around the internet for
advertisers' benefit, Apple has trumpeted its noble decision to avoid that
business model.
c. Tim Cook said he wouldn't ever be in such a situation. He framed Apple's
stance as a moral one. Privacy is a human right, he said.
Clearly, my facts show that Apple MARKETS privacy, right?
o Now what about the actual facts?
HINT: Apple fibbed in their privacy policy which all the news media caught
(they called it a lack of transparency - but it goes _deeper_ as Apple
fibbed about the location data also, which the news media reported).
Remember, this article is from a _year_ ago, and yet, it's the _same_
problem as reported last week with unreliable transients listening in on
millions of accidental Siri recordings every day!
"It [Apple] has, in effect, abdicated responsibility for possible misuse
of data, leaving it in the hands of the independent developers who create
the products available in its App Store."
But wait.. There are more facts for an _informed_ adult to ponder:
"Bloomberg News recently reported that for years iPhone app developers
have been allowed to store and sell data from users who allow access to
their contact lists, which, in addition to phone numbers, may include other
people's photos and home addresses."
More and more in fact...
"the Notes section - where people sometimes list Social Security numbers
for their spouses or children or the entry codes for their apartment
buildings - is particularly sensitive."
More and more and more facts...
"When developers get our information, and that of the acquaintances in
our contacts list, it's theirs to use and move around unseen by Apple. It
can be sold to data brokers, shared with political campaigns, or posted on
the internet."
It goes on and on, in fact...
"Apple does nothing to make it technically difficult for developers to
harvest the information."
Note an informed _adult_ can comprehend these statements...
"Apple has the ingredients for a Cambridge Analytica-type blowup, but it's
successfully convinced the public that it has its users' best interests at
heart with its existing, unenforceable policies."
Now here is where Apple marketing is brilliant!
"The company's main argument for why it's a better steward of customers'
privacy is that it has no interest in collecting personal data across its
browser or developer network. It simply doesn't need to, because it doesn't
make its money off advertising. The public wholeheartedly agrees with this
´hear no evil, see no evil¡ strategy because of popular discomfort over the
quiet surveillance of private online habits by all the other
multibillion-dollar corporations."
But there are holes in that which Apple does NOT advertise but which an
adult mind can clearly ascertain to be a fact!
"But when it comes to the app developer network, that's like a parent -
in this case, Apple - claiming the developer kids are well-supervised.
They're not. Once Apple reviews and approves independent apps, it can't see
how the data they collect is used."
In a letter to Congress, which adults can comprehend, Apple abdicated all
responsibility for privacy...
"On Aug. 7, Apple responded with a multiple-page document that included
this statement: ´Apple does not and cannot monitor what developers do with
customer data they have collected, or prevent the onward transfer of that
data, nor do we have the ability to ensure a developer's compliance with
their own privacy policies or local law. The relationship between the app
developer and the user is direct, and it is the developer's obligation to
collect and use data responsibly."
Just as Google and Amazon allow _deletion_ of your private recordings, an
adult will realize that Apple allows no such privacy for Siri users!
Even Facebook has better privacy than Apple in that regard...
"For all of Facebook's privacy problems, it was at least able to alert
people who were potentially affected by the Cambridge Analytica leak. Apple
has no such mechanism."
In short, while the Apologists are immune to such facts, and while Apple
Marketing is brilliant at marketing the mere _illusion_ of privacy, what's
important for ADULTS to realize is the following set of obvious facts:
a. Apple brilliantly markets the mere _illusion_ of privacy
b. Where Apple, in some ways, is more private,
c. But where, in many other ways, Apple is no more private
d. And in some ways, Apple is far less private
All of which Apple marketing cleverly stays mum on
o But which intelligent adults can easily show to be a fact.
I realize these facts are lost on the Apologists
o Just as facts that Santa Claus is make believe is lost on children
Notice Apologists _never_ have facts backing up their imaginary claims
o They're like Flat Earthers - in that they're utterly immune to facts
Alan Baker
Aug 5, 2019, 2:44:32 PM8/5/19
to
On 2019-08-05 10:16 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:43:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What factual data?
>
> FACTS
>
> Notice that the ...
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:43:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What factual data?
>
> FACTS
>
I'm sorry, but you've become tedious.
You've yet to prove that Apple is no better than other companies at privacy.
You've yet to even try to support it.
Showing that Apple has issues where they've failed doesn't prove anything.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 5, 2019, 3:12:55 PM8/5/19
to
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 19:48:01 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> How would you know?
>
> Simply saying "Fact" (or even "FACT")...
>
> ...doesn't make something a fact.
FACTS
> How would you know?
>
> Simply saying "Fact" (or even "FACT")...
>
> ...doesn't make something a fact.
Apologists, like Flat Earthers, are immune to facts.
o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ apologists' completely imaginary belief system.
Intelligent well informed adults show _facts_ backing up their claims:
Alan Baker
Aug 5, 2019, 3:20:06 PM8/5/19
to
On 2019-08-05 12:12 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 19:48:01 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How would you know?
>>
>> Simply saying "Fact" (or even "FACT")...
>>
>> ...doesn't make something a fact.
>
> FACTS
>
> Apologists, like Flat Earthers, are immune to facts.
Not a fact. An assertion.
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 19:48:01 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How would you know?
>>
>> Simply saying "Fact" (or even "FACT")...
>>
>> ...doesn't make something a fact.
>
> FACTS
>
> Apologists, like Flat Earthers, are immune to facts.
> o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ apologists' completely imaginary belief system.
>
> Intelligent well informed adults show _facts_ backing up their claims:
> "The campaign is working, as evidenced by media reports depicting Apple
> as hero to Facebook's villain. But that marketing coup masks an underlying
> problem: The world's most valuable company - its market value crossed the
> $1 trillion mark on Aug. 2 - has some of the same security problems as the
> other tech giants when it comes to apps."
> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero>
>
> *Apple is _brilliant_ at marketing the mere _illusion_ of privacy.*
> o Apologists are as gullible as children believing in Santa Claus.
>
> Look at this factual article from about a year ago (verbatim):
> o Is Apple Really Your Privacy Hero?
> o The world's most valuable company is seen as a champion for your data.
> o It should be doing more.
> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-really-your-privacy-hero>
>
> a. Apple Inc. has positioned itself as the champion of privacy.
> b. Even as Facebook Inc. and Google track our moves around the internet for
> advertisers' benefit, Apple has trumpeted its noble decision to avoid that
> business model.
> c. Tim Cook said he wouldn't ever be in such a situation. He framed Apple's
> stance as a moral one. Privacy is a human right, he said.
>
> Clearly, my facts show that Apple MARKETS privacy, right?
> o Now what about the actual facts?
Until you show a comparison between Apple and it's competitors they're
useless.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 5, 2019, 3:50:21 PM8/5/19
to
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:44:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> I'm sorry, but you've become tedious.
>
> You've yet to prove that Apple is no better than other companies at privacy.
>
> You've yet to even try to support it.
>
> Showing that Apple has issues where they've failed doesn't prove anything.
FACTS.
> I'm sorry, but you've become tedious.
>
> You've yet to prove that Apple is no better than other companies at privacy.
>
> You've yet to even try to support it.
>
> Showing that Apple has issues where they've failed doesn't prove anything.
What's interesting is that facts to apologists are like Santa Claus to kids
o Apple's brilliant marketing of the _illusion_ of privacy is what they believe
The proof is that the child-like apologists have provided exactly 0 facts
backing their claims, and yet, it's trivial for intelligent adults to
provide facts backing up exactly what the subject line of this thread
claims.
For example, from a while ago, well before this new privacy hole leaked:
o Talking Tech: Is Apple really better about privacy? Here's what we found out
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/04/17/apple-make-simpler-download-your-privacy-data-year/521786002/>
Point 1:
o Apple spends lots of money marketing the _illusion_ of privacy
"Apple has made a point of trying to differentiate its approach to
consumers' information. On its website, it notes that it collects less data
about us than the other big tech companies and then bumps up the security
by scrambling it so it doesn't identify who it comes from. Additionally, it
says it keeps most of the data on our devices, as opposed to Apple servers,
and it's encrypted on those devices and only accessible via your passcode."
All good things, right?
o Nobody ever said Apple wasn't brilliant at marketing mere illusions.
This is the fundamental "good thing" about Apple, which they market:
"Apple insists that it ´doesnÿt gather your personal information to sell
to advertisers or other organizations.¡"
Notice, for example, Apple (yet again) _lied_ about what they do!
"As for Apple, our iPhones gather up a lot of information, too. The GPS
describes where we are, when we ask Siri for directions or a recipe, that
request goes to Apple. Apple says it doesn't share that info with outside
companies. It does, however, allow advertisers to target users based on
their history in the App Store and News app. "
Hmmmm... Apple doesn't share Siri data with other companies?
That's a bold lie, is it not?
HINT: Those are outside contractors in Ireland listening in on Siri.
While it's not as bad as we showed the fact that Apple can't even _delete_
your private recordings (while Google and Amazon can), yet again, Apple
makes it difficult, compared to the competition, to let YOU know what
private information Apple has gathered on you.
"What Apple wonÿt do, at least for now, is make it easy for you to get
your data so you can check out what exactly Apple has held onto. Facebook
and Google offer this service, via a download request"
This is where that request is hidden:
"Apple hides the data request deep inside the privacy section of the
website. To get there, itÿs four clicks from the main page and buried in
the 11th subhead on the page."
Even so, the request has to be accompanied by this private information:
"(I put in the data request Monday just after 11 a.m. Some 22 hours later
Tuesday, we heard back from Apple, saying we could get the report once we
replied with our full name, Apple ID, email address, street address, phone
number and serial number of an Apple product.)Wednesday morning, we
received word back that the request had been approved, and that the data
download would be forthcoming. We're still awaiting arrival."
As for ads, Apple won't let you eliminate the advertiser ID like Android
will, and Apple _does_ sell ads, which is a fact:
"Meanwhile, Apple also does sells ads as well ... By default, on the
iPhone youÿve allowed Apple to serve you ads based on what it thinks are
your interests."
While you can limit the annoying ads, you can't remove the Apple ID or the
Advertiser ID like you can on Android for privacy.
In summary, this is yet more proof of three basic obvious logical facts:
1. Apple advertises (brilliantly so) the illusion of privacy
2. Where Apple plays up where they are more private, but,
3. Apple stays cleverly mum on the myriad ways they're less private
Such that, just like with Santa Claus brilliant advertising by parents
o Only children believe in this imaginary privacy which doesn't exist
As with Flat Earthers, don't expect Apologists to comprehend these facts
o Apologists have shown themselves to be utterly immune to facts
Alan Baker
Aug 5, 2019, 3:54:49 PM8/5/19
to
On 2019-08-05 12:50 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:44:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but you've become tedious.
>>
>> You've yet to prove that Apple is no better than other companies at privacy.
>>
>> You've yet to even try to support it.
>>
>> Showing that Apple has issues where they've failed doesn't prove anything.
>
> FACT
You've snipped out much of what I said that specifically addressed what
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:44:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but you've become tedious.
>>
>> You've yet to prove that Apple is no better than other companies at privacy.
>>
>> You've yet to even try to support it.
>>
>> Showing that Apple has issues where they've failed doesn't prove anything.
>
> FACT
you quoted.
Are your arguments so weak that you must snip so much?
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 5, 2019, 3:58:24 PM8/5/19
to
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:20:03 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> Until you show a comparison between Apple and it's competitors they're
> useless.
FACTS.
> Until you show a comparison between Apple and it's competitors they're
> useless.
Notice it's trivial for me to back up everything I say with facts
o That's because my belief system is _based_ on facts
What's interesting is that facts to apologists are like Santa Claus to kids
o Just as parents brilliantly market the _illusion_ of Santa Claus
The children don't have the intellectual capacity to discern the facts.
The proof is that the child-like apologists have provided exactly 0 facts
backing their claims, and yet, it's trivial for intelligent adults to
provide facts backing up exactly what the subject line of this thread
claims.
For example, from a while ago, well before this new privacy hole leaked:
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/04/17/apple-make-simpler-download-your-privacy-data-year/521786002/>
*Apple spends lots of money marketing the _illusion_ of privacy*
"Apple has made a point of trying to differentiate its approach to
consumers' information. On its website, it notes that it collects less data
about us than the other big tech companies and then bumps up the security
by scrambling it so it doesn't identify who it comes from. Additionally, it
says it keeps most of the data on our devices, as opposed to Apple servers,
and it's encrypted on those devices and only accessible via your passcode."
*All good things, right?*
consumers' information. On its website, it notes that it collects less data
about us than the other big tech companies and then bumps up the security
by scrambling it so it doesn't identify who it comes from. Additionally, it
says it keeps most of the data on our devices, as opposed to Apple servers,
and it's encrypted on those devices and only accessible via your passcode."
o Nobody ever said Apple wasn't brilliant at marketing mere illusions.
*This is the fundamental "good thing" about Apple, which they market*:
"Apple insists that it 'doesn┤ gather your personal information to sell
to advertisers or other organizations.'"
*Notice, for example, Apple (yet again) _lied_ about what they do*!
"As for Apple, our iPhones gather up a lot of information, too. The GPS
describes where we are, when we ask Siri for directions or a recipe, that
request goes to Apple. Apple says it doesn't share that info with outside
companies. It does, however, allow advertisers to target users based on
their history in the App Store and News app. "
*Hmmmm... Apple doesn't share Siri data with other companies?*
describes where we are, when we ask Siri for directions or a recipe, that
request goes to Apple. Apple says it doesn't share that info with outside
companies. It does, however, allow advertisers to target users based on
their history in the App Store and News app. "
*That's a bold lie, is it not?*
*HINT: Those are outside contractors in Ireland listening in on Siri.*
While it's not as bad as we showed the fact that Apple can't even _delete_
your private recordings (while Google and Amazon can), yet again, Apple
makes it difficult, compared to the competition, to let YOU know what
private information Apple has gathered on you.
your data so you can check out what exactly Apple has held onto. Facebook
and Google offer this service, via a download request"
*This is where that request is hidden:*
and Google offer this service, via a download request"
"Apple hides the data request deep inside the privacy section of the
website. To get there, it┬ four clicks from the main page and buried in
the 11th subhead on the page."
*Even so, the request has to be accompanied by this private information:*
"(I put in the data request Monday just after 11 a.m. Some 22 hours later
Tuesday, we heard back from Apple, saying we could get the report once we
replied with our full name, Apple ID, email address, street address, phone
number and serial number of an Apple product.)Wednesday morning, we
received word back that the request had been approved, and that the data
download would be forthcoming. We're still awaiting arrival."
*As for ads, Apple won't let you eliminate the advertiser ID* like Android
Tuesday, we heard back from Apple, saying we could get the report once we
replied with our full name, Apple ID, email address, street address, phone
number and serial number of an Apple product.)Wednesday morning, we
received word back that the request had been approved, and that the data
download would be forthcoming. We're still awaiting arrival."
will, and Apple _does_ sell ads, which is a fact:
"Meanwhile, Apple also does sells ads as well ... By default, on the
iPhone you▔e allowed Apple to serve you ads based on what it thinks are
"Meanwhile, Apple also does sells ads as well ... By default, on the
your interests."
While you can limit the annoying ads, you can't remove the Apple ID or the
Advertiser ID like you can on Android for privacy.
*In summary, this is yet more proof of three basic obvious logical facts:*
While you can limit the annoying ads, you can't remove the Apple ID or the
Advertiser ID like you can on Android for privacy.
1. Apple advertises (brilliantly so) the illusion of privacy
2. Where Apple plays up where they are more private, but,
3. Apple stays cleverly mum on the myriad ways they're less private
Such that, just like with Santa Claus brilliant advertising by parents
o *Only children believe in this imaginary privacy which doesn't exist*
2. Where Apple plays up where they are more private, but,
3. Apple stays cleverly mum on the myriad ways they're less private
Such that, just like with Santa Claus brilliant advertising by parents
As with Flat Earthers, don't expect Apologists to comprehend these facts
Alan Baker
Aug 5, 2019, 4:14:01 PM8/5/19
to
On 2019-08-05 12:50 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:44:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but you've become tedious.
>>
>> You've yet to prove that Apple is no better than other companies at privacy.
>>
>> You've yet to even try to support it.
>>
>> Showing that Apple has issues where they've failed doesn't prove anything.
>
> FACTS.
>
> What's interesting is that facts to apologists are like Santa Claus to kids
> o Apple's brilliant marketing of the _illusion_ of privacy is what they believe
>
> The proof is that the child-like apologists have provided exactly 0 facts
> backing their claims, and yet, it's trivial for intelligent adults to
> provide facts backing up exactly what the subject line of this thread
> claims.
>
> For example, from a while ago, well before this new privacy hole leaked:
> o Talking Tech: Is Apple really better about privacy? Here's what we found out
> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/04/17/apple-make-simpler-download-your-privacy-data-year/521786002/>
>
"As we discovered when we downloaded our data directly back from
>
>> I'm sorry, but you've become tedious.
>>
>> You've yet to prove that Apple is no better than other companies at privacy.
>>
>> You've yet to even try to support it.
>>
>> Showing that Apple has issues where they've failed doesn't prove anything.
>
> FACTS.
>
> What's interesting is that facts to apologists are like Santa Claus to kids
> o Apple's brilliant marketing of the _illusion_ of privacy is what they believe
>
> The proof is that the child-like apologists have provided exactly 0 facts
> backing their claims, and yet, it's trivial for intelligent adults to
> provide facts backing up exactly what the subject line of this thread
> claims.
>
> For example, from a while ago, well before this new privacy hole leaked:
> o Talking Tech: Is Apple really better about privacy? Here's what we found out
> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/04/17/apple-make-simpler-download-your-privacy-data-year/521786002/>
>
Facebook and Google, the social network had made copies of every photo
I'd ever posted and held onto phone numbers, addresses and names of my
friends. Google had kept copies of every search made, including ones
conducted in "Incognito" mode, which is advertised as private searching."
(Verbatim)
And you surely will never quote this from the same author, following up
on that article:
'The zip file I eventually received from Apple was tiny, only 9
megabytes, compared to 243 MB from Google and 881 MB from Facebook. And
there's not much there, because Apple says the information is primarily
kept on your device, not its servers. The one sentence highlight: a list
of my downloads, purchases and repairs, but not my search histories
through the Siri personal assistant or the Safari browser.
...
Apple makes a big deal about its different approach to privacy on the
company website, and it paints quite an effective selling proposition
for buying an iPhone vs. a Samsung Galaxy or Google Pixel phone.
Paul-Olivier Dehaye, who runs the PersonalData.IO website from
Switzerland, gives Apple generally good marks for its approach to
privacy. "By keeping everything on the device, their incentives are
better," Dehaye says.
Overall, Apple keeps less data on me than Facebook or Google. Once you
read it, it's more of a shrug.'
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/05/04/asked-apple-everything-had-me-heres-what-got/558362002/>
Or that he wrote in another article:
'“If I were only to compare the privacy of iOS and Android as operating
systems, iOS is the clear winner," said Paul Bischoff, a privacy
advocate with Comparitech.com. "Yes, it collects personal data, but that
data is not sold to third parties. Unlike Google, Apple is not an
advertising company and does not need to share your data with third
parties to make money."'
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2019/06/28/apple-touts-iphone-privacy-features-iphone-but-beware-apps-watch/1492715001/>"
So thank you...
...for proving yourself full of it...
...with facts.
:-)
Alan Baker
Aug 5, 2019, 4:17:09 PM8/5/19
to
On 2019-08-05 12:58 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:20:03 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Until you show a comparison between Apple and it's competitors they're
>> useless.
>
> FACTS...
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:20:03 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Until you show a comparison between Apple and it's competitors they're
>> useless.
>
...as exposed by your article:
'"As we discovered when we downloaded our data directly back from
Facebook and Google, the social network had made copies of every photo
I'd ever posted and held onto phone numbers, addresses and names of my
friends. Google had kept copies of every search made, including ones
conducted in "Incognito" mode, which is advertised as private searching." '
I'd ever posted and held onto phone numbers, addresses and names of my
friends. Google had kept copies of every search made, including ones
And from the same author:
nospam
Aug 5, 2019, 4:26:47 PM8/5/19
to
In article <qia1ov$uq2$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Notice it's trivial for others to refute everything I say with facts
ftfy
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Notice it's trivial for others to refute everything I say with facts
ftfy
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages