In article <so5jub$5le$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> There were still a lot of mechanical cross-bar switching systems in
> rural areas when they ran out of 0/1 (second digit) area codes. There is
> no way that those systems could have accommodated an eighth digit.

that wasn't the limiting factor.

On 11/30/2021 4:41 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> On 11/29/2021 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

>>> when your [US] system is broken by design, you're faced with the
>>> consequences, news at eleven.

>> After I pay my $20/mo/phone (plus tax, fees and data) I can make
>> all the calls I want from anywhere to anywhere in the US, no time
>> limit, no extra charges. That system is just fine with me.

> Yes, for most people it's a non-issue, both in the USA and
> elsewhere.

So why is it an issue here?

> But that doesn't mean there's any merit to the US system of not
> having a specific number range for mobile phones.

What is the big advantage of a separate numbering range for mobiles?

> Anyway, all this is just another (non-)discussion triggered by
> another one of nospam's silly arguments/opinions.

Beats having a dead group IMO. YMMV.

> So proceed at your own risk! :-)

Think I just did... 8-O

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Originally, calls to directory assistance, repair service, etc., were a
> three digit number beginning with 1. Directory assistance was 113, and
> some South American countries still use that. When direct dialing of
> long distance calls began to require a 1 as the first digit, the 1xx
> numbers were changed. Directory assistance became 411. Repair service
> became 611.

Here, those numbers were 00x and at that time, like:
001 - operator (before 1950)
002 - time
003 - weather
004 - customer service
007 - repairs
008 - directory service
009 - telegram service

The international prefix was 09. 08x was an area code.
When our numbering plan was revised in 1995, introducing free numbers,
the prefixes 0800 was used for that and premium rate numbers got 090x,
probably an attempt to march along the USA habits (early premium rate
numbers used 06x). The existing 08x area codes were renumbered, and
the 09 international prefix became 00.

Now the 00x numbers had to move, and they were scattered over the
new 0800 and 0900 codes and the new 1xx numbers which were derived
from an international standard. 112 became the emergency number
(used to be 0611), and 118 was directory service (used to be 008).

Then, "competition on directory services" was introduced and the
directory service had to move again, this time to 18xx.
(with xx varying depending on the directory service provider)

Well, it is apparent that things were changed quite often here.
It appears that the USA is trying more to keep numbers the same
and introduce more complexity when required, instead of just adding
extra digits and/or changing the numbering plan.

In article <slrnsqcm0i.otm.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> It appears that the USA is trying more to keep numbers the same
> and introduce more complexity when required, instead of just adding
> extra digits and/or changing the numbering plan.

because the former has minimal impact and the latter is highly
disruptive and will break things.

On 11/30/2021 8:57 AM, Rob wrote:

<snip>

> Well, it is apparent that things were changed quite often here.
> It appears that the USA is trying more to keep numbers the same
> and introduce more complexity when required, instead of just adding
> extra digits and/or changing the numbering plan.

The current ten digit numbering system can support 6.4 billion unique
numbers (0 or 1 can't be the first digit or the fourth digit). Adding an
11th digit would bring the total to 64 billion unique numbers and is
unnecessary.

It's becoming inaccurate to even consider the first three digits as
"area codes" anymore. With the slow demise of landlines, except for
businesses and government, and number portability. People often live in
places unrelated to the area code of their phone. Seven digit dialing is
becoming less and less common, it just went away in 82 more area codes.
Once seven digit dialing goes away completely it would be possible to
use 0 or 1 for the fourth digit, raising the total available unique
numbers to 8 billion (though it's not necessary).

It seems that the whole rant against the North American Numbering Plan
is that there has never been a way to distinguish mobile numbers from
landline numbers, which hurt mobile carriers because of the inability to
implement "Caller Pays." IMVAIO, this was a good thing. The burden of
constructing and operating a mobile network is borne by the mobile
network users and not by the people that happen to be calling them.

On 11/28/2021 2:42 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> Pixel2 using the 'phone' app that came with it.  Google is very good
> about labeling calls 'spam calls' but then it lets them go through. This
> crap has cost m4 $2.50 in the last month.  I pay $10/year for the
> prepaid plan and (obviously)  make very few calls, so you can see why
> I'm pissed.
>
> I just set it to 'Block calls from unidentified callers' but that's kind
> of ambiguous.  Does it actually connect the call, triggering a charge,
> but prevent it from ringing or leaving voicemail?  Just exactly what
> does 'block' mean here?
>
> I'm willing to trust google's judgment and reject every single one of
> these calls before it gets to me and triggers a charge.  I'm willing to
> reject any call from someone NOT in my contacts list.
>
> Is such a thing even possible?

Bev, read this
<https://www.kare11.com/article/money/how-a-minnesota-woman-is-making-thousands-off-annoying-robocallers/89-07eff40b-7c29-490b-a1ae-dea066548f62>
and turn those spam calls into cash!

I don't think that you even need to shell out for that kit.

Alas, it's unlikely to work for me. With Google Voice numbers for my
home phone and cell phones, and with call screening, I get very few
scam, spam, or robocalls anymore.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 4:41 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2021 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>>>> when your [US] system is broken by design, you're faced with the
>>>> consequences, news at eleven.
>
>>> After I pay my $20/mo/phone (plus tax, fees and data) I can make
>>> all the calls I want from anywhere to anywhere in the US, no time
>>> limit, no extra charges. That system is just fine with me.
>
>> Yes, for most people it's a non-issue, both in the USA and
>> elsewhere.
>
> So why is it an issue here?

The issue appears to be that people in the USA (with a mobile phone)
are getting scam calls and they have to pay to receive them. Whereas
people in other countries just block the number and don't worry
about it.

In article <slrnsqcq7p.uje.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> The issue appears to be that people in the USA (with a mobile phone)
> are getting scam calls and they have to pay to receive them.

only if they answer.

> Whereas
> people in other countries just block the number and don't worry
> about it.

exactly the same in the usa.

On 11/30/2021 11:10 AM, Rob wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> On 11/30/2021 4:41 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/2021 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

>>>>> when your [US] system is broken by design, you're faced with
>>>>> the consequences, news at eleven.

>>>> After I pay my $20/mo/phone (plus tax, fees and data) I can
>>>> make all the calls I want from anywhere to anywhere in the US,
>>>> no time limit, no extra charges. That system is just fine with
>>>> me.

>>> Yes, for most people it's a non-issue, both in the USA and
>>> elsewhere.

>> So why is it an issue here?

> The issue appears to be that people in the USA (with a mobile phone)
> are getting scam calls and they have to pay to receive them.

The issue Frank brought up and I was referring to was why are separate
mobile numbers needed?

But as to your issue, the USA folks who pay per call/minutes do that
voluntarily so as to get a super cheap plan. Pay a few bucks more like I
do and spam calls are all free... ;)

> Whereas people in other countries just block the number and don't
> worry about it.

Blocking numbers never worked for me. The spammer was always changing
numbers. So I subscribe to a $3/mo spam killer service that works for
about 90% of it. Then I have my phone's 'Do Not Disturb' on so only my
contacts ring. And fortunately the leftover spam never seems to wait for
Voice Mail. Legitimate calls not on my contact list still show as a
bounced call and they can also leave a Voice Mail, so I can get back to
them. Best system I've found so far...

On 11/30/2021 10:10 AM, Rob wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> On 11/30/2021 4:41 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/2021 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>>>> when your [US] system is broken by design, you're faced with the
>>>>> consequences, news at eleven.
>>
>>>> After I pay my $20/mo/phone (plus tax, fees and data) I can make
>>>> all the calls I want from anywhere to anywhere in the US, no time
>>>> limit, no extra charges. That system is just fine with me.
>>
>>> Yes, for most people it's a non-issue, both in the USA and
>>> elsewhere.
>>
>> So why is it an issue here?
>
> The issue appears to be that people in the USA (with a mobile phone)
> are getting scam calls and they have to pay to receive them. Whereas
> people in other countries just block the number and don't worry
> about it.

Very, very few U.S. residents are on a mobile plan that doesn't include
a sufficient number (or unlimited) voice minutes that they have to worry
about this.

The person that started this thread is one of those very, very few
residents. She's on a grandfathered T-Mobile plan that charges 10 cents
per minute and 10 cents per SMS, and doesn't support data at all. You
only have to add $10 per year to keep the plan active. This is one of
the least expensive plans in the U.S.. I once had a flip phone with this
plan for a backup phone, but T-Mobile coverage is so poor in my area
that I just let it expire and lost about $150 in credit.

There is a free plan, with no income qualifications, that is 25MB of
data and 10 SMS per month that would be good to use with Google Voice.
25MB of data would get you about 125 minutes of talk time. That would
cost around $162/year on the T-Mobile 10 cents per minute plan.

On 11/30/2021 10:58 AM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> Blocking numbers never worked for me. The spammer was always changing
> numbers. So I subscribe to a $3/mo spam killer service that works for
> about 90% of it. Then I have my phone's 'Do Not Disturb' on so only my
> contacts ring. And fortunately the leftover spam never seems to wait for
> Voice Mail. Legitimate calls not on my contact list still show as a
> bounced call and they can also leave a Voice Mail, so I can get back to
> them. Best system I've found so far...

Plus, you can turn those spam calls into cash
<https://www.kare11.com/article/money/how-a-minnesota-woman-is-making-thousands-off-annoying-robocallers/89-07eff40b-7c29-490b-a1ae-dea066548f62>

On 11/30/2021 12:15 PM, sms wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 10:10 AM, Rob wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2021 4:41 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/2021 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> when your [US] system is broken by design, you're faced with the
>>>>>> consequences, news at eleven.
>>>
>>>>> After I pay my $20/mo/phone (plus tax, fees and data) I can make
>>>>> all the calls I want from anywhere to anywhere in the US, no time
>>>>> limit, no extra charges. That system is just fine with me.
>>>
>>>> Yes, for most people it's a non-issue, both in the USA and
>>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>>> So why is it an issue here?
>>
>> The issue appears to be that people in the USA (with a mobile phone)
>> are getting scam calls and they have to pay to receive them. Whereas
>> people in other countries just block the number and don't worry
>> about it.
>
> Very, very few U.S. residents are on a mobile plan that doesn't include
> a sufficient number (or unlimited) voice minutes that they have to worry
> about this.
>
> The person that started this thread is one of those very, very few
> residents. She's on a grandfathered T-Mobile plan that charges 10 cents
> per minute and 10 cents per SMS, and doesn't support data at all. You
> only have to add $10 per year to keep the plan active. This is one of
> the least expensive plans in the U.S..

That's the plan my wife uses on her flip-top phone, and also what I used
to use several years ago. Coincidentally she just paid $10 to T-Mobile
today to keep the plan active.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> The person that started this thread is one of those very, very few
> residents. She's on a grandfathered T-Mobile plan that charges 10 cents
> per minute and 10 cents per SMS, and doesn't support data at all. You
> only have to add $10 per year to keep the plan active. This is one of
> the least expensive plans in the U.S..

I have something similar here. That is called pre-paid here, probably
a locally invented "English term". I get a 10-euro "recharge ticket"
at the supermarket, call some number, type the number on the ticket,
and I have 10 euro to spend on calls.

As receiving calls or SMS costs me nothing, that lasts a year for me.
No need to spend $20/month...

On 11/30/2021 12:17 PM, sms wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 10:58 AM, AJL wrote:

>> Blocking numbers never worked for me. The spammer was always
>> changing numbers. So I subscribe to a $3/mo spam killer service
>> that works for about 90% of it. Then I have my phone's 'Do Not
>> Disturb' on so only my contacts ring. And fortunately the leftover
>> spam never seems to wait for Voice Mail. Legitimate calls not on
>> my contact list still show as a bounced call and they can also
>> leave a Voice Mail, so I can get back to them. Best system I've
>> found so far...

> Plus, you can turn those spam calls into cash
> <https://www.kare11.com/article/money/how-a-minnesota-woman-is-making-thousands-off-annoying-robocallers/89-07eff40b-7c29-490b-a1ae-dea066548f62>

Interesting video. I doubt that there are enough people doing that to
actually dent the finances of the offending companies enough to slow the
calls down but who knows. In my case I have sufficient funds
for the duration and don't really need the hassle required. Not to
mention that it would cut into my fun time here...

On 11/30/2021 12:41 PM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> Interesting video. I doubt that there are enough people doing that to
> actually dent the finances of the offending companies enough to slow the
> calls down but who knows. In my case I have sufficient funds
> for the duration and don't really need the hassle required. Not to
> mention that it would cut into my fun time here...

I think that it would be pretty fun to hassle the spam callers and take
their money.

Am 29.11.21 um 18:11 schrieb nospam:
> In article <slrnsqa148.7tl.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> very early on, the usa *did* try both, and customers rejected caller
>>> pays.
>>
>> In the early days, people were hesitant to call mobile numbers, because
>> that was so expensive.
>
> exactly, which is why those who had cellphones paid for the airtime
> they used.
>
> as far as the caller was concerned, it's just another phone number.

With this completely intransparent numbering system in the US that was
not possible to do otherwise. In other areas of the world phone numbers
are always transparent what kind of connection is called.

>> But that was in the days were nobody would
>> have their main business on a mobile number. Today there are many
>> more mobile numbers in use than fixed, and it shifts more every year.
>
> there are many more, however, the way it's charged remains the same and
> there is no motivation to change anything.

For the network operators, no.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 29.11.21 um 19:56 schrieb Rob:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> The company made a splash by launching caller-pays plans years ago
>> in seven states, but now only sells the service on request. The plan
>> costs an extra $3.95 for the customer, and callers to the customer¹s
>> phone pay between 39 cents and 45 cents per minute.
>
> Well, there you have your problem!
> Typical fixed-to-mobile calling rates are between 5 and 15 cents per
> minute, if you pay anything that is. Frequent callers will usually
> have some bundle or flat-fee contract.
>
> 45 cents per minute rates were what we had 15-20 years ago.

Interconnection charges at the whole sale level is USc 0.1/minute or
less. And charges among the operators are netting out more or less anyway.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 29.11.21 um 18:53 schrieb The Real Bev:
> On 11/29/2021 02:36 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> That's my provider's job and certainly not Google this evil company.
>
> Tradeoffs. Benefit vs risk. Anything they know about me costs THEM
> money, not me.

I fear you do not understand the business model of Google. You and your
data are the raw material that Google converts into profits without
sharing with you adequately.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 11/30/2021 12:54 PM, Rob wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>> The person that started this thread is one of those very, very few
>> residents. She's on a grandfathered T-Mobile plan that charges 10
>> cents per minute and 10 cents per SMS, and doesn't support data at
>> all. You only have to add $10 per year to keep the plan active.
>> This is one of the least expensive plans in the U.S..

> I have something similar here. That is called pre-paid here,
> probably a locally invented "English term". I get a 10-euro
> "recharge ticket" at the supermarket, call some number, type the
> number on the ticket, and I have 10 euro to spend on calls.

> As receiving calls or SMS costs me nothing, that lasts a year for me.
> No need to spend $20/month...

As I said to the lady earlier, it's a good thing that that there are
many levels of phone service available for various folks wants and
needs. Translation: YMMV...

On 11/30/2021 1:47 PM, sms wrote:

> I think that it would be pretty fun to hassle the spam callers

Folks in my egroup have fun keeping the spammers on the line as long
as possible to annoy them. I always thought it was a bad idea to annoy
someone who has your phone number and likely knows your address.

> and take their money.

Go for it then. But I doubt the small amount of money (to them) they'll
have to pay you will change much.

On 30/11/2021 20:56, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.11.21 um 18:53 schrieb The Real Bev:
>> On 11/29/2021 02:36 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> That's my provider's job and certainly not Google this evil company.
>>
>> Tradeoffs. Benefit vs risk. Anything they know about me costs THEM
>> money, not me.
>
> I fear you do not understand the business model of Google. You and your
> data are the raw material that Google converts into profits without
> sharing with you adequately.

Exactly right. In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of
Surveillance Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff describes social media's
appropriation of first our on-line lives and then how they began on our
real-life spaces with Google Street View. Using, I suppose, a sort of
quasi-economics jargon, 'behavioral surplus', to describe the
money-making meta-data we give away, meaning *ALL* the meta-data from
*ALL* customer's interactions with their services, so that's not just,
say, the search terms you enter into Search, but also your GMail address
book and the contents of your GMails as well, and much more besides.

If there's sufficient interest. I'll post some excerpts.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-11-30 3:29 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 20:56, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 29.11.21 um 18:53 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>> On 11/29/2021 02:36 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> That's my provider's job and certainly not Google this evil company.
>>>
>>> Tradeoffs.  Benefit vs risk.  Anything they know about me costs THEM
>>> money, not me.
>>
>> I fear you do not understand the business model of Google. You and your
>> data are the raw material that Google converts into profits without
>> sharing with you adequately.
>
> Exactly right.  In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of
> Surveillance Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff describes social media's
> appropriation of first our on-line lives and then how they began on our
> real-life spaces with Google Street View.  Using, I suppose, a sort of
> quasi-economics jargon, 'behavioral surplus', to describe the
> money-making meta-data we give away, meaning *ALL* the meta-data from
> *ALL* customer's interactions with their services, so that's not just,
> say, the search terms you enter into Search, but also your GMail address
> book and the contents of your GMails as well, and much more besides.
>
> If there's sufficient interest.  I'll post some excerpts.
>

I'm sorry, but this is all off topic for this group, isn't it?

:-)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:29:47 -0500, nospam wrote:

> you have that backwards. the more google knows about you, the more
> money they make. you are paying with your privacy.

The only place Apple is more private than Google is in Apple advertising.
*Apple's Empty Grandstanding About Privacy*
<https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/apples-hypocritical-defense-data-privacy/581680/>

The fact is Apple also sells your data, nospam, which Apple has by virtue of
tying _everything_ it wants to tie to your unique iCloud account, nospam.

Google _can't_ do that given an Android phone works just fine without a
Google Account (which is privacy that is _impossible_ to attain on iOS).

Let's look at the facts, nospam (yes, I know you _hate_ facts about Apple).
Some hits for <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=does+apple+sell+user+data>

*Apple Sold Its Customers' iTunes Data Without Consent*
<https://www.thewrap.com/apple-lawsuit-user-data-itunes/>

*Apple Sells Customer Data*
<https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/class-action-lawsuit-claims-apple-sells-customer-data>

*Apple caught selling customer's personal information*
<https://www.rt.com/usa/apple-zip-code-lawsuit-987/>

*Apple suppliers caught selling iPhone user data*
<https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-suppliers-accused-of-selling-iphone-user-data-china/>

*I asked Apple for all my data*
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-data-collection-stored-request/>

*AccountDetails.xlsx*
contains basic information about the account holder, including name,
address, phone number, and Apple ID information. It also includes when an
account was created and IP address of the Apple server used to open the
account.

*iCloudLogs.xlsx*
keeps a note on every time one of your devices downloads data from iCloud,
including your photo library, contacts, and Safari browsing history -- but
doesn't contain the actual data.

*MailLogs.xlsx*
also keeps a record of each time something from your Apple device interacts
with your iCloud email account, but no email content is stored here.

For FaceTime and iMessage Apple saves information on all the calls and
messages that are routed through its servers.

In a separate folder, another batch of Excel documents contained information
mostly pertaining to with my interactions with Apple, like downloads and
support requests.

*AOS Orders*
contains an entire history of devices and accessories I've bought from
Apple dating back to my first purchase. It also includes the five separate
occasions I bought new earphones roughly once per year because my cat had
chewed through them.

*CRM Installed Product*
is a list of every Apple device ever bought, including highly detailed
information -- like serial numbers, a note on if a device is unlocked,
unique networking MAC addresses for Bluetooth, Ethernet and Wi-Fi
connections, and any other identifying information on a device.

*CRM AppleCare Case Contact*
contains basic contact information on the account holder, such as name,
address, and phone number -- and if the user opts into marketing emails and
phone calls.

*CRM AppleCare Case Header*
included every interaction I've had with customer support. Every time you
call, a company representatives make notes about the customer's problem, and
also describes the next steps or the outcome of the call.

*CRM Warranty*
includes all the information on a device owner's warranty, what AppleCare
coverage they have -- if any, and when warranties expire.

*DS Signons*
is a long list of every time you logged in to iTunes and from which
specific device, and contains peripheral information like if the login
failed.

*Game Center*
predictably contains information on all the gaming sessions a user has
played or interacted with -- which in my case, as you'd expect, is limited
to almost zero.

*iForgot*
keeps a log of every time you visited your Apple ID page on the web, or
reset your password.

*iTunes Match Uploads*
retains a record of every song you've ever uploaded to iTunes Match
service, which matches your music with higher quality and downloads that
copy instead. The list also includes your user agent information, which can
identify your device.

*iTunes Match Downloads*
similarly keeps a list of all matched music that's later downloaded from
iTunes Match.

*iTunes Downloads*
contains a user's entire download history since the account's creation --
from apps, songs, albums, videos, and movies -- from the iTunes Store. It
also includes information on which device the item was downloaded and its IP
address.

*Repair Transaction Details*
recounts every time you put in a repair request with Apple, and includes
information on what the issue is, any notes made by Apple staff, and any
information that identifies the device, such as a phone's IMEI number.
--
The only time Apple ever tells the truth is when forced to, in court.
*Marketing Contact*
includes the information that Apple uses to contact you for marketing
reasons, and the reason why -- such as if the user has a developer account.

On 2021-11-30 6:49 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:29:47 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> you have that backwards. the more google knows about you, the more
>> money they make. you are paying with your privacy.
>
> The only place Apple is more private than Google is in Apple advertising.
> *Apple's Empty Grandstanding About Privacy*
> <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/apples-hypocritical-defense-data-privacy/581680/>
>
> The fact is Apple also sells your data, nospam, which Apple has by virtue of
> tying _everything_ it wants to tie to your unique iCloud account, nospam.

You saying something is a fact does not make it a fact.

>
> Google _can't_ do that given an Android phone works just fine without a
> Google Account (which is privacy that is _impossible_ to attain on iOS).
>
> Let's look at the facts, nospam (yes, I know you _hate_ facts about Apple).
> Some hits for <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=does+apple+sell+user+data>
>
> *Apple Sold Its Customers' iTunes Data Without Consent*
> <https://www.thewrap.com/apple-lawsuit-user-data-itunes/>

The filing of a suit is not proof of the claims of the suit.

>
> *Apple Sells Customer Data*
> <https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/class-action-lawsuit-claims-apple-sells-customer-data>

Supra

And old enough that the suit's outcome must be known by now...

>
> *Apple caught selling customer's personal information*
> <https://www.rt.com/usa/apple-zip-code-lawsuit-987/>

Supra.

>
> *Apple suppliers caught selling iPhone user data*
> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-suppliers-accused-of-selling-iphone-user-data-china/>

That is literally not even Apple.

>
> *I asked Apple for all my data*
> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-data-collection-stored-request/>

You should read the conclusion:

"As insightful as it was, Apple's treasure trove of my personal data is
a drop in the ocean to what social networks or search giants have on me,
because Apple is primarily a hardware maker and not ad-driven, like
Facebook and Google, which use your data to pitch you ads."

Am 01.12.21 um 00:29 schrieb Java Jive:
> On 30/11/2021 20:56, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 29.11.21 um 18:53 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>> On 11/29/2021 02:36 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> That's my provider's job and certainly not Google this evil company.
>>>
>>> Tradeoffs. Benefit vs risk. Anything they know about me costs THEM
>>> money, not me.
>>
>> I fear you do not understand the business model of Google. You and your
>> data are the raw material that Google converts into profits without
>> sharing with you adequately.
>
> Exactly right. In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of
> Surveillance Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff describes social media's
> appropriation of first our on-line lives and then how they began on our
> real-life spaces with Google Street View. Using, I suppose, a sort of
> quasi-economics jargon, 'behavioral surplus', to describe the
> money-making meta-data we give away, meaning *ALL* the meta-data from
> *ALL* customer's interactions with their services, so that's not just,
> say, the search terms you enter into Search, but also your GMail address
> book and the contents of your GMails as well, and much more besides.
>
> If there's sufficient interest. I'll post some excerpts.

Yes. Please do! But please in digestable quantities.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum