Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Arlen G. Holder
Jul 27, 2019, 6:19:13 PM7/27/19
to
On 27 Jul 2019 20:41:23 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Meanwhile, at Amazon and others...
*It's classic that Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple's mistakes!*
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
The FACTS about PRIVACY are what matter:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ia3wMAwiD74>
"That's a particularly bad look, given that Apple has built so much of
its reputation on selling itself as the privacy company that defends your
data in ways that Google and Amazon don't. Implicitly telling customers
that, effectively, 'the only way to have peace of mind that a random
stranger won't listen in on their accidentally triggered Siri recordings is
to stop using Siri entirely' is a bit of a mixed message from the company
that supposedly puts privacy at a premium."
o Workers hear drug deals, medical details and people having sex, says whistleblower
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>
> Meanwhile, at Amazon and others...
*It's classic that Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple's mistakes!*
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
The FACTS about PRIVACY are what matter:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ia3wMAwiD74>
"That's a particularly bad look, given that Apple has built so much of
its reputation on selling itself as the privacy company that defends your
data in ways that Google and Amazon don't. Implicitly telling customers
that, effectively, 'the only way to have peace of mind that a random
stranger won't listen in on their accidentally triggered Siri recordings is
to stop using Siri entirely' is a bit of a mixed message from the company
that supposedly puts privacy at a premium."
o Workers hear drug deals, medical details and people having sex, says whistleblower
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>
Rod Speed
Jul 28, 2019, 1:29:32 AM7/28/19
to
"Jolly Roger" <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:gq3r7j...@mid.individual.net...
> <https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/11/apple-addresses-privacy-questions-about-hey-siri-and-live-photo-features/>
>
> Being able to say the phrase at any time to activate Siri is convenient,
> but raises some questions about what Apple means by 'listening' and
> whether any of that stuff is recorded.
>
> Hey Siri is an optional feature that is enabled by an opt-in step in iOS
> 9's setup. You can choose never to enable it. If you do enable it,
> nothing is ever recorded in any way before the feature is triggered.
>
> "In no case is the device recording what the user says or sending that
> information to Apple before the feature is triggered," says Apple.
>
> Instead, audio from the microphone is continuously compared against
> the model, or pattern, of your personal way of saying 'Hey Siri' that you
> recorded during setup of the feature. Hey Siri requires a match to both
> the 'general' Hey Siri model (how your iPhone thinks the words sound)
> and the 'personalized' model of how you say it. This is to prevent other
> people's voices from triggering your phone's Hey Siri feature by accident.
And that’s better than stupid Alexa. Hilarious watching a youtube
video about Alexa and having your echo stupidly responding to it.
> Until that match happens, no audio is ever sent off of your iPhone. All
> of that listening and processing happens locally.
>
> "The 'listening' audio, which will be continuously overwritten, will be
> used to improve Siri's response time in instances where the user
> activates Siri," says Apple. The keyword there being 'activates Siri.'
> Until you activate it, the patterns are matched locally, and the buffer
> of sound being monitored (from what I understand, just a few seconds) is
> being erased, un-sent and un-used -- and unable to be retrieved at any
> point in the future.
>
> Of course, as has always been the case with Siri, once a match is made
> and a Siri command is sent off to Apple, it's associated with your
> device using a random identifier, not your Apple ID or another
> personalized piece of info. That information is then 'approved' for use
> in improving the service, because you've made an explicit choice to ask
> Apple's remote servers to answer a query.
>
> "If a user chooses to turn off Siri, Apple will delete the User Data
> associated with the user's Siri identifier, and the learning process
> will start all over again," says Apple.
>
> Meanwhile, at Amazon and others...
>
> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/is-anyone-listening-to-you-on-alexa-a-global-team-reviews-audio>
> Meanwhile, at Amazon and others...
>
>
> Amazon Workers Are Listening to What You Tell Alexa
>
> A screenshot reviewed by Bloomberg shows that the recordings sent to the
> Alexa reviewers don't provide a user's full name and address but are
> associated with an account number, as well as the user's first name and
> the device's serial number.
>
> Occasionally the listeners pick up things Echo owners likely would
> rather stay private: a woman singing badly off key in the shower, say,
> or a child screaming for help. The teams use internal chat rooms to
> share files when they need help parsing a muddled word--or come across
> an amusing recording.
>
> <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6910791/Alexa-listening-conversations.html>
>
> Alexa IS listening to your conversations: Web giant ADMITS clips are
> analysed by Amazon workers - including your most intimate moments
>
> <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6956531/Amazon-employees-listening-Alexa-recordings-customers-live.html>
>
> Amazon employees listening to your Alexa recordings can also easily find
> customers' home addresses, report claims
Alan Baker
Jul 28, 2019, 1:54:13 AM7/28/19
to
On 2019-07-27 3:19 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2019 20:41:23 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, at Amazon and others...
>
> *It's classic that Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple's mistakes!*
Literally no one had done that in this thread when you replied with this.
> On 27 Jul 2019 20:41:23 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, at Amazon and others...
>
> *It's classic that Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple's mistakes!*
You're just a liar now.
Arlen G. Holder
Jul 28, 2019, 11:19:29 AM7/28/19
to
On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 22:54:12 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> Literally no one had done that in this thread when you replied with this.
Hi Alan Baker,
> Literally no one had done that in this thread when you replied with this.
Please put your brain in gear - even though you (and JR) are apologists:
o HINT: Apple _advertises_ the (mere illusion of) privacy.
And yet, you dispute even the basic facts - like all apologists do.
o Sans a single logical argument - you just dispute what you don't like.
What _are_ you disputing, Alan Baker?
1. Are you disputing the private recordings are listened to by contractors?
(i.e., the news says these are recordings listened to by people)
2. Or, are you disputing that Jolly Roger's quotes were misleading?
(i.e., "continuously overwritten" is bullshit - these are recordings!)
(i.e., "random identifier" is bullshit - it has your exact location!)
3. Or, are you disputing that Jolly Roger "blamed Amazon/Google"?
(i.e., JR wrote "Amazon Workers Are Listening to What You Tell Alexa")
(i.e., JR wrote "Amazon employees... easily find...home addresses"
If you apologists can ever put your brain in gear, then tell me, which of
those statements above by JR are you attempting to dispute, Alan Baker?
1. Apple is providing these private RECORDINGS daily to contractors!
2. Apple is providing precise LOCATION & time with those recordings!
3. Apple can't blame Amazon for Apple's privacy flaws! (much as JR tries).
--
On 27 Jul 2019 20:41:23 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> <https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/11/apple-addresses-privacy-questions-about-hey-siri-and-live-photo-features/>
>
> Being able to say the phrase at any time to activate Siri is convenient,
> but raises some questions about what Apple means by 'listening' and
> whether any of that stuff is recorded.
>
> Hey Siri is an optional feature that is enabled by an opt-in step in iOS
> 9's setup. You can choose never to enable it. If you do enable it,
> nothing is ever recorded in any way before the feature is triggered.
>
> "In no case is the device recording what the user says or sending that
> information to Apple before the feature is triggered," says Apple.
>
> Instead, audio from the microphone is continuously compared against the
> model, or pattern, of your personal way of saying 'Hey Siri' that you
> recorded during setup of the feature. Hey Siri requires a match to both
> the 'general' Hey Siri model (how your iPhone thinks the words sound)
> and the 'personalized' model of how you say it. This is to prevent other
> people's voices from triggering your phone's Hey Siri feature by
> accident.
>
>
> Being able to say the phrase at any time to activate Siri is convenient,
> but raises some questions about what Apple means by 'listening' and
> whether any of that stuff is recorded.
>
> Hey Siri is an optional feature that is enabled by an opt-in step in iOS
> 9's setup. You can choose never to enable it. If you do enable it,
> nothing is ever recorded in any way before the feature is triggered.
>
> "In no case is the device recording what the user says or sending that
> information to Apple before the feature is triggered," says Apple.
>
> Instead, audio from the microphone is continuously compared against the
> model, or pattern, of your personal way of saying 'Hey Siri' that you
> recorded during setup of the feature. Hey Siri requires a match to both
> the 'general' Hey Siri model (how your iPhone thinks the words sound)
> and the 'personalized' model of how you say it. This is to prevent other
> people's voices from triggering your phone's Hey Siri feature by
> accident.
>
> Until that match happens, no audio is ever sent off of your iPhone. All
> of that listening and processing happens locally.
>
> "The 'listening' audio, which will be continuously overwritten, will be
> used to improve Siri's response time in instances where the user
> activates Siri," says Apple. The keyword there being 'activates Siri.'
> Until you activate it, the patterns are matched locally, and the buffer
> of sound being monitored (from what I understand, just a few seconds) is
> being erased, un-sent and un-used -- and unable to be retrieved at any
> point in the future.
>
> Of course, as has always been the case with Siri, once a match is made
> and a Siri command is sent off to Apple, it's associated with your
> device using a random identifier, not your Apple ID or another
> personalized piece of info. That information is then 'approved' for use
> in improving the service, because you've made an explicit choice to ask
> Apple's remote servers to answer a query.
>
> "If a user chooses to turn off Siri, Apple will delete the User Data
> associated with the user's Siri identifier, and the learning process
> will start all over again," says Apple.
>
> of that listening and processing happens locally.
>
> "The 'listening' audio, which will be continuously overwritten, will be
> used to improve Siri's response time in instances where the user
> activates Siri," says Apple. The keyword there being 'activates Siri.'
> Until you activate it, the patterns are matched locally, and the buffer
> of sound being monitored (from what I understand, just a few seconds) is
> being erased, un-sent and un-used -- and unable to be retrieved at any
> point in the future.
>
> Of course, as has always been the case with Siri, once a match is made
> and a Siri command is sent off to Apple, it's associated with your
> device using a random identifier, not your Apple ID or another
> personalized piece of info. That information is then 'approved' for use
> in improving the service, because you've made an explicit choice to ask
> Apple's remote servers to answer a query.
>
> "If a user chooses to turn off Siri, Apple will delete the User Data
> associated with the user's Siri identifier, and the learning process
> will start all over again," says Apple.
>
> Meanwhile, at Amazon and others...
>
>
Arlen G. Holder
Jul 28, 2019, 11:27:10 AM7/28/19
to
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:29:21 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
> And that┬ better than stupid Alexa. Hilarious watching a youtube
We generally ignore each other because we're in different leagues, where I
respond directly to your post - but my response is for the intelligent few
out there - if any - on these newsgroups (since I'm very well informed).
_The problem is simple & basic to what Apple & Apple Apologists always do._
APPLE MARKETING:
o *The main problem is that Apple _ADVERTISES_ privacy!*
APPLE APOLOGISTS:
o *The main problem is that Apologists always _BLAME_ anyone but Apple!*
Jolly Roger's post literally screams both those abject facts.
o It's a simple 3 step process that _always_ happens
Why does this 3 step process _always_ happen?
1. Because Apple ADVERTISES privacy - and the Apologists _believe_ it.
2. When Apple is found out to be no more private than anyone else...
3. The Apologists constantly make excuses - and blame everyone but Apple.
Fundamentally, two things are happening, which I'm pointing out:
A. The apologists own a completely imaginary belief system
B. Which, when destroyed by simple facts - they blame everyone but Apple.
It happens every time their imaginary belief system is destroyed by facts.
> And that┬ better than stupid Alexa. Hilarious watching a youtube
> video about Alexa and having your echo stupidly responding to it.
Hi Rod Speed,
We generally ignore each other because we're in different leagues, where I
respond directly to your post - but my response is for the intelligent few
out there - if any - on these newsgroups (since I'm very well informed).
_The problem is simple & basic to what Apple & Apple Apologists always do._
APPLE MARKETING:
o *The main problem is that Apple _ADVERTISES_ privacy!*
APPLE APOLOGISTS:
o *The main problem is that Apologists always _BLAME_ anyone but Apple!*
Jolly Roger's post literally screams both those abject facts.
o It's a simple 3 step process that _always_ happens
Why does this 3 step process _always_ happen?
1. Because Apple ADVERTISES privacy - and the Apologists _believe_ it.
2. When Apple is found out to be no more private than anyone else...
3. The Apologists constantly make excuses - and blame everyone but Apple.
Fundamentally, two things are happening, which I'm pointing out:
A. The apologists own a completely imaginary belief system
B. Which, when destroyed by simple facts - they blame everyone but Apple.
It happens every time their imaginary belief system is destroyed by facts.
Arlen G. Holder
Jul 28, 2019, 12:01:01 PM7/28/19
to
realizes that Apple is no different than, oh, he said "Amazon", when it
comes to privacy.
And he's right.
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!
Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
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, 1:58:42 PM7/29/19
to
On 2019-07-28 8:27 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:29:21 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> And that¢s better than stupid Alexa. Hilarious watching a youtube
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:29:21 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> video about Alexa and having your echo stupidly responding to it.
>
> Hi Rod Speed,
>
> We generally ignore each other because we're in different leagues, where I
> respond directly to your post - but my response is for the intelligent few
> out there - if any - on these newsgroups (since I'm very well informed).
>
> _The problem is simple & basic to what Apple & Apple Apologists always do._
>
> APPLE MARKETING:
> o *The main problem is that Apple _ADVERTISES_ privacy!*
The advertise BETTER privacy...
>
> Hi Rod Speed,
>
> We generally ignore each other because we're in different leagues, where I
> respond directly to your post - but my response is for the intelligent few
> out there - if any - on these newsgroups (since I'm very well informed).
>
> _The problem is simple & basic to what Apple & Apple Apologists always do._
>
> APPLE MARKETING:
> o *The main problem is that Apple _ADVERTISES_ privacy!*
...and back that up by actually delivering better privacy than Google or
Amazon.
>
> APPLE APOLOGISTS:
> o *The main problem is that Apologists always _BLAME_ anyone but Apple!*
Alan Baker
Jul 29, 2019, 2:02:29 PM7/29/19
to
On 2019-07-28 8:19 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 22:54:12 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Literally no one had done that in this thread when you replied with this.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Please put your brain in gear - even though you (and JR) are apologists:
It was and I'm right.
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 22:54:12 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Literally no one had done that in this thread when you replied with this.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Please put your brain in gear - even though you (and JR) are apologists:
> o HINT: Apple _advertises_ the (mere illusion of) privacy.
nothing to do with your claim that:
'*It's classic that Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple's
mistakes!*'
No one had done that in this thread. To my current knowledge, no one has
done it by now, either.
In fact, you have never actually shown anyone EVER doing that.
>
> And yet, you dispute even the basic facts - like all apologists do.
> o Sans a single logical argument - you just dispute what you don't like.
>
> What _are_ you disputing, Alan Baker?
>
> 1. Are you disputing the private recordings are listened to by contractors?
> (i.e., the news says these are recordings listened to by people)
>
> 2. Or, are you disputing that Jolly Roger's quotes were misleading?
> (i.e., "continuously overwritten" is bullshit - these are recordings!)
> (i.e., "random identifier" is bullshit - it has your exact location!)
>
> 3. Or, are you disputing that Jolly Roger "blamed Amazon/Google"?
> (i.e., JR wrote "Amazon Workers Are Listening to What You Tell Alexa")
> (i.e., JR wrote "Amazon employees... easily find...home addresses"
Neither of those is:
'blam[ing] everyone but Apple for Apple's mistakes!'
Pointing out that others do it to is about YOU and who YOU choose to
talk about.
>
> If you apologists can ever put your brain in gear, then tell me, which of
> those statements above by JR are you attempting to dispute, Alan Baker?
>
> 1. Apple is providing these private RECORDINGS daily to contractors!
> 2. Apple is providing precise LOCATION & time with those recordings!
> 3. Apple can't blame Amazon for Apple's privacy flaws! (much as JR tries).
It just didn't happen.
Arlen G. Holder
Jul 31, 2019, 3:19:43 AM7/31/19
to
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:58:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> The advertise BETTER privacy...
You gotta be kidding Alan Baker?
o Do you have any idea of the root password bugs, for example, in the Mac?
o Do you have any idea of video eavesdropping bugs, for example, on iOS?
> ...and back that up by actually delivering better privacy than Google or
> Amazon.
The fact is that the privacy is "about the same".
o It's only the vast MARKETING by Apple that is different.
Apologists prove this themselves - since they blame everyone but Apple.
Example of the brilliant marketing of imaginary privacy here:
> You have literally never shown an actual case of that.
Factual proof of the many Apple vulnerabilities are in this thread:
> The advertise BETTER privacy...
You gotta be kidding Alan Baker?
o Do you have any idea of the root password bugs, for example, in the Mac?
o Do you have any idea of video eavesdropping bugs, for example, on iOS?
> ...and back that up by actually delivering better privacy than Google or
> Amazon.
o It's only the vast MARKETING by Apple that is different.
Apologists prove this themselves - since they blame everyone but Apple.
Example of the brilliant marketing of imaginary privacy here:
o As expected, Apple beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EfMlrgxWkvQ/d6lR8F-kBAAJ>
> You have literally never shown an actual case of that.
Alan Baker
Jul 31, 2019, 3:25:19 AM7/31/19
to
On 2019-07-31 12:19 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:58:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> The advertise BETTER privacy...
>
> You gotta be kidding Alan Baker?
> o Do you have any idea of the root password bugs, for example, in the Mac?
I'm aware of it.
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:58:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> The advertise BETTER privacy...
>
> You gotta be kidding Alan Baker?
> o Do you have any idea of the root password bugs, for example, in the Mac?
> o Do you have any idea of video eavesdropping bugs, for example, on iOS?
Do you have any factual basis of comparison that shows that Apple's
offerings have more bugs than other companies' offerings?
>
>> ...and back that up by actually delivering better privacy than Google or
>> Amazon.
>
> The fact is that the privacy is "about the same".
> o It's only the vast MARKETING by Apple that is different.
Arlen G. Holder
Jul 31, 2019, 3:09:18 PM7/31/19
to
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:25:18 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> Do you have any factual basis of comparison that shows that Apple's
> offerings have more bugs than other companies' offerings?
Hehhehheh...
> Do you have any factual basis of comparison that shows that Apple's
> offerings have more bugs than other companies' offerings?
Do you realize you apologists _always_ prove my point for me?
The _only_ difference with Apple on the topic of privacy....
o *Is the marketing*
Your own blame excuse above proves you actually _know_ this.
Alan Baker
Jul 31, 2019, 3:36:16 PM7/31/19
to
On 2019-07-31 12:09 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:25:18 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Do you have any factual basis of comparison that shows that Apple's
>> offerings have more bugs than other companies' offerings?
>
> Hehhehheh...
>
> Do you realize you apologists _always_ prove my point for me?
Do you realize that asking a question doesn't prove anything?
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:25:18 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Do you have any factual basis of comparison that shows that Apple's
>> offerings have more bugs than other companies' offerings?
>
> Hehhehheh...
>
> Do you realize you apologists _always_ prove my point for me?
>
> The _only_ difference with Apple on the topic of privacy....
> o *Is the marketing*
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 1, 2019, 3:08:58 AM8/1/19
to
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:36:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> You've literally never shown any evidence for that.
Apple advertises that they have privacy over Android...
> You've literally never shown any evidence for that.
o But the fact is that they don't.
It's imaginary.
o Apple cherry picks what to advertise - but the overall picture is horrid
You just said it yourself, Alan Baker.
o Apple has huge and constant privacy and security holes
o Android has huge and constant privacy and security holes
The only thing different between them ... is the marketing.
o Admittedly, Apple has _brilliant_ marketing.
Alan Baker
Aug 1, 2019, 11:54:42 AM8/1/19
to
On 2019-08-01 12:08 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:36:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You've literally never shown any evidence for that.
>
> Apple advertises that they have privacy over Android...
> o But the fact is that they don't.
You calling it a fact doesn't make it a fact.
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:36:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You've literally never shown any evidence for that.
>
> Apple advertises that they have privacy over Android...
> o But the fact is that they don't.
>
> It's imaginary.
> o Apple cherry picks what to advertise - but the overall picture is horrid
>
> You just said it yourself, Alan Baker.
> o Apple has huge and constant privacy and security holes
> o Android has huge and constant privacy and security holes
Show something.
Barry Margolin
Aug 1, 2019, 12:14:29 PM8/1/19
to
In article <qhv1vu$1j2a$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
wrote:
> On 2019-08-01 12:08 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:36:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> >> You've literally never shown any evidence for that.
> >
> > Apple advertises that they have privacy over Android...
> > o But the fact is that they don't.
>
> You calling it a fact doesn't make it a fact.
>
> >
> > It's imaginary.
> > o Apple cherry picks what to advertise - but the overall picture is horrid
>
> Proof.
And even if true, so what? EVERY business cherry picks what to
advertise. And they don't talk about their flaws unless they're forced
to, such as when performing a recall or apoligizing for a breach that
has become public.
> > You just said it yourself, Alan Baker.
> > o Apple has huge and constant privacy and security holes
> > o Android has huge and constant privacy and security holes
>
> Those are general statements.
>
> Show something.
"huge" is an exaggeration. There's practically no software that doesn't
have bugs and security holes, they're inevitable. Vendors do their best
to minimize them, but nothing is perfect. Security professionals never
talk about whether something is secure or insecure, there's just more or
less secure, and weighing cost of mitigation (which includes both
development costs, inconvenience to users, and impact on features)
versus benefit.
Of course, advertising isn't so nuanced. That's hardly unique to Apple,
or even the software industry.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
wrote:
> On 2019-08-01 12:08 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:36:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> >> You've literally never shown any evidence for that.
> >
> > Apple advertises that they have privacy over Android...
> > o But the fact is that they don't.
>
> You calling it a fact doesn't make it a fact.
>
> >
> > It's imaginary.
> > o Apple cherry picks what to advertise - but the overall picture is horrid
>
> Proof.
advertise. And they don't talk about their flaws unless they're forced
to, such as when performing a recall or apoligizing for a breach that
has become public.
> > You just said it yourself, Alan Baker.
> > o Apple has huge and constant privacy and security holes
> > o Android has huge and constant privacy and security holes
>
> Those are general statements.
>
> Show something.
have bugs and security holes, they're inevitable. Vendors do their best
to minimize them, but nothing is perfect. Security professionals never
talk about whether something is secure or insecure, there's just more or
less secure, and weighing cost of mitigation (which includes both
development costs, inconvenience to users, and impact on features)
versus benefit.
Of course, advertising isn't so nuanced. That's hardly unique to Apple,
or even the software industry.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 1, 2019, 2:53:57 PM8/1/19
to
On Thu, 01 Aug 2019 12:14:18 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
> And even if true, so what? EVERY business cherry picks what to
> advertise. And they don't talk about their flaws unless they're forced
> to, such as when performing a recall or apoligizing for a breach that
> has become public.
Hi Barry Margolin,
> And even if true, so what? EVERY business cherry picks what to
> advertise. And they don't talk about their flaws unless they're forced
> to, such as when performing a recall or apoligizing for a breach that
> has become public.
Wow. There _are_ intelligent adults on this newsgroup!
Thank you for existing!
You aren't known to be an apologist, so I can more intelligently respond to
you as an adult would, where I would expect you, as an adult, to comprehend
the main point, and the nuance involved - without playing the silly
childish games Apple Apologists always play.
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>
To your point, Barry,
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
1. EVERY business would LOVE to have Apple's MARKETING brilliance!
2. It's the job of marketing to _create_ imaginary belief systems.
3. Apple is the best (IMHO) at that sort of product differentiation.
We've all taken plenty of marketing classes in college where we know the
basics that product differentiation creates the path to increased profits.
This product differentiation doesn't have to be real
o It can be imagined
Why?
Because people pay for what they _perceive_ the product to be
o Not for what the product actually is.
Take as a simple well known example the product differentiation in the real
world of, oh, say, high-octane gasoline versus regular. As you are aware if
you're on the iOS newsgroups, at the pump, for the past 40 years, ever
since I took Organic Chemistry, I've been asking the person next to me,
innocently so, what's the difference.
As you can imagine, the few people who are honest with themselves & others
simply admit they don't know, and some who are intelligent actually know
the difference - but most - by far - hand me the bullshit that they were
fed by the marketing organizations.
After I tell them the difference, what's interesting is that, just like
here, some people are so childish that they brazenly retort that the
chemistry of 2,2,4-trimethylpentane versus hexane is "wrong" (much like the
Apple Apologists brazenly & consistently claim any and all facts about
Apple are wrong, ala nospam & Alan Baker).
Some people (very few) are inquisitive and confident enough to ask me what
the difference is between the fuels - but rarely do such people exist in
the real world - or on this newsgroup.
It's the same here, and everywhere - but with a twist since the Apple
apologists here not only hand us all the pure imaginary product
differentiation bullshit from Apple Marketing, but then those same Apple
apologists make _excuses_ when they are told almost _any_ fact about Apple,
such that _those very excuses_ prove the point for me that they actually
realize that Apple is no different than any other company in the end
analysis.
What's different is that Apple MARKETING is brilliant.
o Many people think Apple products are somehow (magically?) more functional.
>>> You just said it yourself, Alan Baker.
>>> o Apple has huge and constant privacy and security holes
>>> o Android has huge and constant privacy and security holes
>>
>> Those are general statements.
>>
>> Show something.
>
> "huge" is an exaggeration. There's practically no software that doesn't
> have bugs and security holes, they're inevitable.
> Vendors do their best
> to minimize them, but nothing is perfect.
o Those who think Apple products are somehow (magically?) more private, are
the ones most deluded by the (admittedly brilliant) Apple MARKETING spiel.
> Security professionals never
> talk about whether something is secure or insecure, there's just more or
> less secure, and weighing cost of mitigation (which includes both
> development costs, inconvenience to users, and impact on features)
> versus benefit.
o It's MARKETING's job to make you "think" the product is "more private"
Yet, the facts show that it's not.
> Of course, advertising isn't so nuanced. That's hardly unique to Apple,
> or even the software industry.
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>
Basically, there are hoards of gullibles _thinking_ Apple is "more private"
o And yet, it's not.
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]>
In summary, this is an adult conversation where we start with FACTS, and
then we put a weighting on those facts to come to a reasonable conclusion
where our belief system is _based_ on the facts - and not based purely on
the imaginary belief system that the (admittedly brilliant) MARKETING
organization feeds us.
Thank you for being one of the rare adult thinkers on this newsgroup.
Alan Baker
Aug 1, 2019, 3:15:26 PM8/1/19
to
company does something better than another?
>
>> Security professionals never
>> talk about whether something is secure or insecure, there's just more or
>> less secure, and weighing cost of mitigation (which includes both
>> development costs, inconvenience to users, and impact on features)
>> versus benefit.
>
> I agree fully with your assessment.
> o It's MARKETING's job to make you "think" the product is "more private"
>
> Yet, the facts show that it's not.
> Basically, there are hoards of gullibles _thinking_ Apple is "more private"
> o And yet, it's not.
> 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]>
but a single link to anything that might support your assertion...
...and that points to but a single point of privacy that is outside of
Apple's control.
>
> In summary, this is an adult conversation where we start with FACTS,
<snip>
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 1, 2019, 3:27:17 PM8/1/19
to
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 12:15:23 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> That is an entire Usenet thread, and in your initial post, you provide
> but a single link to anything that might support your assertion...
The difference between you, Alan Baker, and Barry Margolin, is astounding.
> That is an entire Usenet thread, and in your initial post, you provide
> but a single link to anything that might support your assertion...
o You're one of the score of Apple Apologists ... he's an actual adult.
Alan Baker
Aug 1, 2019, 3:37:25 PM8/1/19
to
On 2019-08-01 12:27 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 12:15:23 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> That is an entire Usenet thread, and in your initial post, you provide
>> but a single link to anything that might support your assertion...
>
> The difference between you, Alan Baker, and Barry Margolin, is astounding.
I pointed out that what you cited doesn't deal with Apple's privacy
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 12:15:23 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> That is an entire Usenet thread, and in your initial post, you provide
>> but a single link to anything that might support your assertion...
>
> The difference between you, Alan Baker, and Barry Margolin, is astounding.
issues at all, "Arlen".
It is effectively a constant which can be taken out of any discussion of
the relative merits of Apple's privacy vs that of its competitors.
How's that? Adult enough for you?
You'll snip it out of your reply...
...just as you did the text I included that said essentially the same
thing in my previous post.
Barry Margolin
Aug 2, 2019, 12:13:39 PM8/2/19
to
In article <qhvcg4$u9g$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
people that a disgusting carcinogen was actually a healthy product, and
they went along with it?
"Arlen G. Holder" <arling...@nospam.net> wrote:
> To your point, Barry,
> 1. EVERY business would LOVE to have Apple's MARKETING brilliance!
> 2. It's the job of marketing to _create_ imaginary belief systems.
> 3. Apple is the best (IMHO) at that sort of product differentiation.
How about the tobacco industry, which for decades convinced millions of
> To your point, Barry,
> 1. EVERY business would LOVE to have Apple's MARKETING brilliance!
> 2. It's the job of marketing to _create_ imaginary belief systems.
> 3. Apple is the best (IMHO) at that sort of product differentiation.
people that a disgusting carcinogen was actually a healthy product, and
they went along with it?
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 2, 2019, 6:05:47 PM8/2/19
to
On Fri, 02 Aug 2019 12:13:33 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
>> To your point, Barry,
>> 1. EVERY business would LOVE to have Apple's MARKETING brilliance!
>> 2. It's the job of marketing to _create_ imaginary belief systems.
>> 3. Apple is the best (IMHO) at that sort of product differentiation.
>
> How about the tobacco industry, which for decades convinced millions of
> people that a disgusting carcinogen was actually a healthy product, and
> they went along with it?
Hi Barry,
>> To your point, Barry,
>> 1. EVERY business would LOVE to have Apple's MARKETING brilliance!
>> 2. It's the job of marketing to _create_ imaginary belief systems.
>> 3. Apple is the best (IMHO) at that sort of product differentiation.
>
> How about the tobacco industry, which for decades convinced millions of
> people that a disgusting carcinogen was actually a healthy product, and
> they went along with it?
You asked whether every business doesn't market what turns out to be
bullshit, and I agreed that it's marketing's job to create an imaginary
belief system such that customers are willing to pay more for less.
But on Usenet, we aren't playing that marketing bullshit game.
o We are supposed to be adults who can comprehend facts, Barry.
Not children who pine for whatever is advertised on TV (or in the media).
We can agree that Apple Marketing is GREAT at making customers pay more for
what the customers "think" is privacy - of that there is no doubt.
Barry Margolin
Aug 2, 2019, 7:20:36 PM8/2/19
to
In article <qi2c3q$2rp$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
I never said I take Apple's marketing as gospel. But I don't demonize a
company for doing it -- it's what I expect of a successful business.
Apple is at worst exaggerating their security, not out-and-out lying
like the tobacco industry did.
company for doing it -- it's what I expect of a successful business.
Apple is at worst exaggerating their security, not out-and-out lying
like the tobacco industry did.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 3, 2019, 12:27:27 AM8/3/19
to
On Fri, 02 Aug 2019 19:20:31 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
> I never said I take Apple's marketing as gospel. But I don't demonize a
> company for doing it -- it's what I expect of a successful business.
>
> Apple is at worst exaggerating their security, not out-and-out lying
> like the tobacco industry did.
Hi Barry,
> I never said I take Apple's marketing as gospel. But I don't demonize a
> company for doing it -- it's what I expect of a successful business.
>
> Apple is at worst exaggerating their security, not out-and-out lying
> like the tobacco industry did.
I'm very (very) well educated & well informed so I know what Apple does
o And I know what the tobacco industry did
Likewise, I own Apple & Android devices
o And I've owned them all for many years, Barry.
So I know what they do and what they don't do, Barry.
o I can handle facts that would make apologists' heads explode, Barry.
One thing that _neither_ of them does ...
o Is provide privacy.
Anyone who thinks otherwise...
o Needs to contend with the facts
I agree with you that it's MARKETING's job to create the _illusion_ of
privacy - and I don't disagree that creating the illusion of privacy is
what Apple does extremely well.
But the facts clearly show that this is indeed, an illusion.
o The privacy of both Android & Apple are about the same.
I realize you (and most people reading this) don't believe that
o But what YOU don't realize is that Apple cherry picks what to advertise
For example, on Android, you can wipe out the Google account.
o On iOS - you can't.
On Android, for example, there is no advertiser ID if you don't want it
o On iOS - it's always there
On Android - your free APKs are not tagged to your user id
o On iOS - they are
On Android - you can use the official sanctioned Tor browser
o It doesn't even exist on iOS
These are facts Barry.
o Those facts go on and on and on and on and on and on and on, Barry.
Those who _think_ Apple is somehow (magically?) more private, Barry
o Are immune to these obvious and well known facts.
All they see are the facts that Apple MARKETING cherry picks
o But Apple doesn't mention the myriad cases where they're _not_ private.
An _adult_ brain is needed to sift through what Apple marketing "says"
o And what Apple marketing doesn't say (because they cherry pick)
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 3, 2019, 12:31:48 AM8/3/19
to
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 04:27:26 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> For example, on Android, you can wipe out the Google account.
> o On iOS - you can't.
Oops. Before childish apologists jump on this faux pas, I had meant...
> For example, on Android, you can wipe out the Google account.
> o On iOS - you can't.
For example, on Android, you can wipe out the Google account.
In fact, you can _easily_ set up an Android phone and _never_ once use any
Google account whatsoever. I do it all the time, Barry.
There are so many privacy holes in Apple products that don't exist in the
other products (and vice versa) that the only intelligent adult analysis is
that they're all not private.
Anyone who thinks Apple products are somehow (magically?) more private
o Is simply falling for the Apple marketing of the _illusion_ of privacy.
This siri situation is just one of so many examples that it's not funny.
nospam
Aug 3, 2019, 12:35:55 AM8/3/19
to
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 3, 2019, 12:38:13 AM8/3/19
to
On 3 Aug 2019 02:58:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> That doesn't support the delusion "Arlen" is selling though. So clearly
> it's not ""factual"".
Hi Jolly Roger,
I _love_ when you post because you own the mind of the average iOS user
o Hence I learn how the average iOS user thinks - from what you post
I provided in the reference _many_ facts that proved
o Apple products are no more private than anyone else's products
I realize this is a balanced view which you don't hold, Jolly Roger
o I realize full well that you believe in the mere _illusion_ of privacy.
Notice though, that this Siri issue proves that illusion is imaginary.
o And yet you, the epitome of the average iOS user - can't comprehend that.
> That doesn't support the delusion "Arlen" is selling though. So clearly
> it's not ""factual"".
Hi Jolly Roger,
I _love_ when you post because you own the mind of the average iOS user
o Hence I learn how the average iOS user thinks - from what you post
I provided in the reference _many_ facts that proved
o Apple products are no more private than anyone else's products
I realize this is a balanced view which you don't hold, Jolly Roger
o I realize full well that you believe in the mere _illusion_ of privacy.
Notice though, that this Siri issue proves that illusion is imaginary.
o And yet you, the epitome of the average iOS user - can't comprehend that.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 3, 2019, 12:44:20 AM8/3/19
to
On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 00:35:54 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> I'm very (very) well educated & well informed
>
> definitely not.
Hi nospam,
>> I'm very (very) well educated & well informed
>
> definitely not.
You brazenly claim anything you like - sans a shred of supporting evidence
o Where are your independent cites backing up your brazen claims, nospam?
The fact is that never once have you been able to provide an independent
reliable cite showing my stated facts to be material wrong.
Not even once.
I realize you'll claim that you did - to which I will simply respond with
the 3-word adult response of asking you to provide that independent
respected cite that proves your claim (which, you know, you _never_ do).
All you have to do to prove your point is name a single reliable cite:
o Name just one
It's what an adult would do when they state the claims you make.
--
(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 nearly 100% stellar
credibility on Usenet over decades and many thousands of posts.
~BD~
Aug 3, 2019, 12:45:49 AM8/3/19
to
'Diesel' (Dustin Cook)
His name is even stamped on the early version of this product!
https://i.imgur.com/ZMUBWIm.png
--
David B.
Devon
nospam
Aug 3, 2019, 1:32:58 AM8/3/19
to
In article <qi33f3$b91$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:
> The fact is that never once have you been able to provide an independent
> reliable cite showing my stated facts to be material wrong.
false. i've done it many, many times. too many to count.
> The fact is that never once have you been able to provide an independent
> reliable cite showing my stated facts to be material wrong.
nospam
Aug 3, 2019, 1:33:00 AM8/3/19
to
In article <_j81F.23395$RW3....@fx24.fr7>, ~BD~ <d...@nomail.invalid>
better yet, stop participating in them.
wrote:
> >> I'm very (very) well educated & well informed
> >
> > definitely not.
>
> I'm looking forward to reading your answers to the questions posed by
> 'Diesel' (Dustin Cook)
stop hijacking threads.
> >> I'm very (very) well educated & well informed
> >
> > definitely not.
>
> I'm looking forward to reading your answers to the questions posed by
> 'Diesel' (Dustin Cook)
better yet, stop participating in them.
~BD~
Aug 3, 2019, 1:40:24 AM8/3/19
to
On 03/08/2019 06:32, nospam wrote:
> In article <_j81F.23395$RW3....@fx24.fr7>, ~BD~ <d...@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I'm very (very) well educated & well informed
>>>
>>> definitely not.
>>
>> I'm looking forward to reading your answers to the questions posed by
>> 'Diesel' (Dustin Cook)
>
> stop hijacking threads.
OK :-)
> In article <_j81F.23395$RW3....@fx24.fr7>, ~BD~ <d...@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I'm very (very) well educated & well informed
>>>
>>> definitely not.
>>
>> I'm looking forward to reading your answers to the questions posed by
>> 'Diesel' (Dustin Cook)
>
> stop hijacking threads.
> better yet, stop participating in them.
man with many skills.
--
David B.
Devon
nospam
Aug 3, 2019, 7:21:30 AM8/3/19
to
In article <9791F.56198$fv7....@fx08.fr7>, ~BD~ <d...@nomail.invalid>
> He a clever young
> man with many skills.
not that many, and none of which are apple related.
wrote:
> >>>> I'm very (very) well educated & well informed
> >>>
> >>> definitely not.
> >>
> >> I'm looking forward to reading your answers to the questions posed by
> >> 'Diesel' (Dustin Cook)
> >
> > stop hijacking threads.
>
> OK :-)
>
> > better yet, stop participating in them.
>
> Young Dustin Cook has got you on the ropes, 'nospam'.
he does not.
> >>>> I'm very (very) well educated & well informed
> >>>
> >>> definitely not.
> >>
> >> I'm looking forward to reading your answers to the questions posed by
> >> 'Diesel' (Dustin Cook)
> >
> > stop hijacking threads.
>
> OK :-)
>
> > better yet, stop participating in them.
>
> Young Dustin Cook has got you on the ropes, 'nospam'.
> He a clever young
> man with many skills.
Arlen G. Holder
Aug 3, 2019, 10:33:36 AM8/3/19
to
On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 01:32:56 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> The fact is that never once have you been able to provide an independent
>> reliable cite showing my stated facts to be material wrong.
>
> false. i've done it many, many times. too many to count.
Hi nospam,
>> The fact is that never once have you been able to provide an independent
>> reliable cite showing my stated facts to be material wrong.
>
> false. i've done it many, many times. too many to count.
The saddest realization is that you're the _smartest_ of the apologists.
And yet, you consistently make brazen claims just like flat earthers do.
o You can't back up your claim with a _single_ reliable cite - not one.
If your claim wasn't imaginary - you could pass the simplest of fact tests.
o Name just one
Back on topic - the fact is this sordid Siri situation is simply yet
another of many facts that, together, prove beyond any reasonable doubt,
that Apple products are no more private than other similar products.
What's different is the brilliant marketing of the _illusion_ of privacy.
nospam
Aug 3, 2019, 11:04:21 AM8/3/19
to
In article <qi45vv$4p9$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder
whenever you're caught bullshitting, you go off on a rant.
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> The fact is that never once have you been able to provide an independent
> >> reliable cite showing my stated facts to be material wrong.
> >
> > false. i've done it many, many times. too many to count.
>
>
>
> >> The fact is that never once have you been able to provide an independent
> >> reliable cite showing my stated facts to be material wrong.
> >
> > false. i've done it many, many times. too many to count.
>
>
> And yet, you consistently make brazen claims just like flat earthers do.
> o You can't back up your claim with a _single_ reliable cite - not one.
as i said
> o You can't back up your claim with a _single_ reliable cite - not one.
> > false. i've done it many, many times. too many to count.
and i'll add that others have as well, also many times.
whenever you're caught bullshitting, you go off on a rant.
Lewis
Aug 3, 2019, 12:18:50 PM8/3/19
to
--
These budget numbers are not just estimates, these are the actual
results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th. - GWB
Alan Baker
Aug 3, 2019, 1:16:53 PM8/3/19
to
On 2019-08-02 9:31 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 04:27:26 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:
>
>> For example, on Android, you can wipe out the Google account.
>> o On iOS - you can't.
>
> Oops. Before childish apologists jump on this faux pas, I had meant...
>
> For example, on Android, you can wipe out the Google account.
> o On iOS, you can't wipe out the _Apple_ account.
>
> In fact, you can _easily_ set up an Android phone and _never_ once use any
> Google account whatsoever. I do it all the time, Barry.
>
The real question is:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 04:27:26 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:
>
>> For example, on Android, you can wipe out the Google account.
>> o On iOS - you can't.
>
> Oops. Before childish apologists jump on this faux pas, I had meant...
>
> For example, on Android, you can wipe out the Google account.
> o On iOS, you can't wipe out the _Apple_ account.
>
> In fact, you can _easily_ set up an Android phone and _never_ once use any
> Google account whatsoever. I do it all the time, Barry.
>
So what?
Create an AppleID just for that phone. Never put any personal
information in it.
0 new messages