Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> Lies are all you have, loser.

Apple apologists have only 7 responses to facts they _hate_ about Apple.

Without ever having earned his high school GED, Jolly Roger boldly claims to
know far more than the entire world does about Apple's recent begging to
governments and hackers to please don't look at Apple's code base.

For sure, Apple never even _once_ tested their iOS code, as proven below...

*A very deep dive into many new iOS Exploit chains found in the wild*
<https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-very-deep-dive-into-ios-exploit.html>

*Google published details on seven more in-the-wild zero-day iOS exploits*
<https://www.itnews.com.au/news/threat-actor-went-through-11-zero-days-in-a-year-562346>

*Google Finds MORE Zero-Day Vulnerabilities in the untested iOS code base*
<https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/285505-google-finds-two-zero-day-vulnerabilities-in-ios>
--
Apple profits are huge based on a formula of low R&D and high Marketing!

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> You clearly don't know a thing about me, old fart.

I know enough to know you never earned your high school GED, Jolly Roger.

You tried, three times, and failed each time.

No wonder you became an Apple apologist.

In message <si01ja$9km$1@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnsk6n6p.22a.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
>> <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>>
>>>> do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
>>>> "back door"? TIA.
>>>
>>> A back door is a hidden feature or a flaw in software that allows unknown
>>> and unauthorized access to a computer's data. There is no hidden
>>> feature or flaw, not unknown access, no unauthorized access, no back
>>> door.
>> yep. it's the very opposite.

> It is the juiciest piece of meat ever dangled in front of hackers. Even if
> it doesn’t meet the definition of a back door in your mind now it won’t be
> long before it will become one.

And you base this nonsensical statement on what? It is utter nonsense.

--
Never age. Never die. Live for ever in that one last white-hot
moment, when the crowd screamed. When every note was a heartbeat.
Burn across the sky. You will never grow old. They will never say
you died. --Soul Music

In message <si04bc$t4q$1@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
>> On 16/09/2021 at 19:10, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <shvvpm$11i8$3@gioia.aioe.org>, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
>>>>>> "back door"? TIA.
>>>>> A back door is a hidden feature or a flaw in software that allows unknown
>>>>> and unauthorized access to a computer's data. There is no hidden
>>>>> feature or flaw, not unknown access, no unauthorized access, no back
>>>>> door.
>>>>
>>>> Might that just be semantics, though?
>>>
>>> nope. the definition is clear, except to those with agenda and the
>>> usual trolls.
>>>
>>>> Ok, so if a back door is something
>>>> hidden, then this is not a back door per se.
>>>
>>> exactly the point.
>>>
>>>> Maybe a 'Front Door'? But
>>>> it could allow governments to insist that other hashes be included in
>>>> the database used to identify offending pictures.
>>>
>>> multiple governments would need to conspire against the same images
>>> (good luck getting multiple governments to agree on anything) *and* get
>>> the manual review team to go along with it.
>>>
>>> <https://i1.wp.com/9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/08/Screen-
>>> Shot-2021-08-13-at-2.01.20-PM.jpeg>
>>>
>>
>> Thank you, that does make sense.

> Except it doesn’t when considering Islamic countries

Irrelevant.

> And it doesn’t even have to be images

Showing your complete and utter lack of understanding as to what the CSAM
check is and does and how it works.

> The iMessage scanning has the potential to be the one focused on by
> governments.

And once again, you show your total ignorance of the Messages system
which has NOTHING to do with the CSAM system at all,

You obviously not read anything by anyone who knows anything at all.

--
'Tell me, Sir Samuel, do you know the phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes?"? (...) It means "Who guards the guards themselves?"
(...) Who watches the Watch?' --Feet of Clay

In message <si0781$i3a$1@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <si04l5$v6o$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Since these are all optional services, opting out is very easy to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you opt out of malware code & government use of the new back doors?
>>>>
>>>> what part of there is no backdoor is unclear?
>>>>
>>>> did you even read the white papers? (no, you didn't).
>>>> do you know what a backdoor is? (no, you don't).
>>>> are you going to keep repeating the same bullshit? (yes, you are).
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you are saying there is no way in hell this new csam scanning proposal
>>> could ever be used nefariously by anyone?
>>
>> nothing is 100% perfect so it can't be described as 'no way in hell',
>> but the number of obstacles to overcome is extraordinarily high to be
>> able to do it.
>>

> So then why do it? No one wants it but Apple.

Well, that is obviously untrue. There are many many people who are very
much in favor of flagging children-specific sexual abuse material and
getting people who traffic in such material behind bars where they will
be unable to continue their kiddie porn habits.

> Do your csam scanning on iCloud just like everyone else.

How is that better? That requires that Apple unencrypt all of your
iCloud photos. They do not want to do that, but if enough jackasses like
you are screaming and stamping their ignoarnt little feet that is what
Apple will have to do, and thet will be the end of encrypted iCloud
options.

Maybe they will add a flag "Full encrypted backups no one but you can
ever access and on-device scanning of uploaded photos for CSAM images or
unencrypted iCloud data and CSAM scanning on the server." I am sure you
are dump enough to pick the latter.

If you are concerned about your kiddie porn, turn off iCloud photos.
Simple.

> There will be a lot less outrage from the general public than scanning
> their personal devices.

Because of idiots like you and irresponsible "journalists" and
clickbait sites we may well end up with a much worse and much less
secure system. Thanks, dumbshits. You all suck.

--
'There's a kind of magic in masks. Masks conceal one face, but reveal
another. The one that only comes out in darkness. I bet you could
do just what you liked, behind a mask...?' --Maskerade

In message <si095h$101$1@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <si0781$i3a$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> So you are saying there is no way in hell this new csam scanning proposal
>>>>> could ever be used nefariously by anyone?
>>>>
>>>> nothing is 100% perfect so it can't be described as 'no way in hell',
>>>> but the number of obstacles to overcome is extraordinarily high to be
>>>> able to do it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So then why do it?
>>
>> unfortunately, there are sexual predators in this world
>>
>>> No one wants it but Apple.
>>
>> no one wants to remove sexual predators from society? really?? is that
>> your claim?

> No one wants that system on their personal devices.

That is a lie.

>> put simply, apple's system is significantly more difficult for someone
>> to use it for nefarious purposes.

> It’s basically the same thing as turning on the camera and microphone to
> look in on your private matters.

It is nothing like that unless your private matters included KNOWN and
CATALOGED Child Sexual Abuse Material.

> It’s an unauthorized scan of your personal device.

No, it is not unauthorized, and it is a scan of photos being uploaded
to iCloud.

--
'What can I do? I'm only human,' he said aloud. Someone said, Not all
of you. --Pyramids

On 9/13/2021 1:08 PM, badgolferman wrote:
> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212807 for v14.8's release notes.
>>
>> Next, v15? ;)
>
> After the csam debacle I’m suspicious of any future updates slipping that
> back door in without telling the user base.

While that is possible, it's improbable that it would not be discovered
shortly after it was included. Putting it in surreptitiously, the
backlash would be even greater than it was originally. But it does make
sense for users to be cautious and to turn off automatic updates after
14.8, and update manually until Apple confirms that they have dropped
the plan entirely.

What's more likely is that they end up doing is what Johns Hopkins
University cryptographer Matthew Green suggested in an article in Wired:
“If they feel they must scan, they should scan unencrypted files on
their servers,” which is the standard practice for other companies, like
Facebook, which regularly scan for not only CSAM but also terroristic
and other disallowed content types. Green also suggests that Apple
should make iCloud storage end-to-end encrypted, so that it can’t view
those images even if it wanted to."

Green also stated “They clearly feel this is politically challenging,
which I think shows how untenable their ‘Apple will always refuse
government pressure’ position is.”

See:
<https://www.wired.com/story/apple-icloud-photo-scan-csam-pause-backlash/>.

On 9/16/2021 2:28 PM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> You don’t seem to mind the constant insults being spewed by Jolly Roger,
> Lewis, Rod Speed. Why don’t you chastise them too?

The core issue is that you have a very small group of people that accept
anything a company says as gospel, and get very upset when anyone
challenges their beliefs with facts.

It's "Apple said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” Once they've
taken that stand, they feel that there is no need to learn anything,
hence they resort to their famous one-word responses to posts that
present factual, referenced information that they don’t want to see.

The CSAM episode is especially telling because you have people, that are
normally staunch defenders of whatever Apple does, actually conceding
that the on-device photo scanning is a terrible idea, with all kinds of
possible unintended, though not unforeseen, consequences. For Apple to
back down, after initially defending their proposal, is something that
doesn’t happen often; it’s a good thing when a company can admit that it
made a mistake, and act to correct it.

We all know what the eventual outcome of all this is going to be. They
will scan unencrypted files on their servers, which is what other
companies already do, and what Apple apparently doesn't do. In 2020
Facebook made over 20 million reports of CSAM, while Apple made less
than 300. It's possible that this whole CSAM episode resulted from NCMEC
asking Apple why they have made so few reports of CSAM, and Apple coming
up with this on-device scanning idea without running a sanity check on it.

They can still use the CSAM hash if they wish, but on their servers, not
on user's devices. That would be a good way for them to save face: “our
researchers found a new way to scan for CSAM using our servers so we
don’t have a need to scan on devices.” This would also help repair the
image of NCMEC after their ill-advised message to Apple employees
labeling those opposed to the on-device scanning as "the screeching
voices of the minority."

In article <si1mbn$u1i$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> What's more likely is that they end up doing is what Johns Hopkins
> University cryptographer Matthew Green suggested in an article in Wired:
> ³If they feel they must scan, they should scan unencrypted files on
> their servers,² which is the standard practice for other companies, like
> Facebook, which regularly scan for not only CSAM but also terroristic
> and other disallowed content types.

wanting apple to be like facebook is abhorrent.

scanning on the servers violates the user's privacy, which is what
apple wants to avoid.

> Green also suggests that Apple
> should make iCloud storage end-to-end encrypted, so that it can¹t view
> those images even if it wanted to."

matthew green is not very smart, nor are you.

icloud is already encrypted, which prevents scanning server-side. they
are two incompatible concepts.

apple's csam system is designed so that images can be checked *and*
still continue with icloud being fully encrypted.

In article <si1tmt$hjg$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The core issue is that you have a very small group of people that accept
> anything a company says as gospel, and get very upset when anyone
> challenges their beliefs with facts.

no, the core issue is that there are a small but vocal group of people
who do *not* care about facts nor do they have any interest in
learning, or they have an agenda, and then get very upset when they are
presented with easily verifiable facts that shows them to be completely
wrong.

> We all know what the eventual outcome of all this is going to be.

nope. nobody knows what the eventual outcome will be, certainly not you.

> They
> will scan unencrypted files on their servers, which is what other
> companies already do, and what Apple apparently doesn't do.

no they won't because that's a violation of the user's privacy as well
as being impossible because the images are encrypted on the servers.

you said you want facts. those are the facts.

> In 2020
> Facebook made over 20 million reports of CSAM, while Apple made less
> than 300.

exactly why apple needed to do something.

another issue is that people are worried that apple's csam system could
be expanded to more than just csam, yet you are advocating a system
that does exactly that already.

you're contradicting yourself, which means you *don't* have the facts,
something which has been quite obvious all along.

> It's possible that this whole CSAM episode resulted from NCMEC
> asking Apple why they have made so few reports of CSAM, and Apple coming
> up with this on-device scanning idea without running a sanity check on it.

it's also possible that you have no idea what you're talking about.

ncmec doesn't tell apple what to do or not do.

> They can still use the CSAM hash if they wish, but on their servers, not
> on user's devices.

no they can't, because that would violate the user's privacy and it's
also not possible with icloud encryption.

> That would be a good way for them to save face: ³our
> researchers found a new way to scan for CSAM using our servers so we
> don¹t have a need to scan on devices.²

no, because by doing so, they would have to disable encryption, which
will piss off far more people.

> This would also help repair the
> image of NCMEC after their ill-advised message to Apple employees
> labeling those opposed to the on-device scanning as "the screeching
> voices of the minority."

although they might have phrased it better, it's exactly on point.

Am 17.09.21 um 16:08 schrieb nospam:
> In article <si1mbn$u1i$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>> Green also suggests that Apple
>> should make iCloud storage end-to-end encrypted, so that it can¹t view
>> those images even if it wanted to."
>
> matthew green is not very smart, nor are you.

And you are the most stupid of them all.
End-to-end encryption of iCloud is the only way to restore confidence in
Apple.

For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail Apple.
And they will obey immediately. They already do.

> icloud is already encrypted, which prevents scanning server-side. they
> are two incompatible concepts.
>
> apple's csam system is designed so that images can be checked *and*
> still continue with icloud being fully encrypted.

iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On Sep 17, 2021, sms wrote
(in article<news:si1tmt$hjg$1@dont-email.me>):
> The core issue is that you have a very small group of people that accept
> anything a company says as gospel, and get very upset when anyone
> challenges their beliefs with facts.

Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept anything
Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset when others don't?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<news:170920211008559892%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
> no, the core issue is that there are a small but vocal group of people
> who do *not* care about facts nor do they have any interest in
> learning, or they have an agenda, and then get very upset when they are
> presented with easily verifiable facts that shows them to be completely
> wrong.

Why does that confession reveal what you have been doing all along?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 17, 2021, Joerg Lorenz wrote
(in article<news:si294q$qg9$1@dont-email.me>):
> For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail Apple.
> And they will obey immediately. They already do.

Wasn't it Apple's own Tim Cook who said they obey all the laws of the land?

> iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.

Does Apple give governments your encrypted files or your unencrypted files?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

In article <1k9gbnlyrswiz$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> > no, the core issue is that there are a small but vocal group of people
> > who do *not* care about facts nor do they have any interest in
> > learning, or they have an agenda, and then get very upset when they are
> > presented with easily verifiable facts that shows them to be completely
> > wrong.
>
> Why does that confession reveal what you have been doing all along?

it doesn't.

i've linked to actual facts. you and your troll-buddies keep babbling
about things you don't understand and get mad when called out.

In article <1pprdedpv0elm.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept anything
> Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset when others don't?

can anybody make sense of why some people accept what's demonstrably
false and then get upset when presented with actual facts?

another thing, jobs hasn't said much of anything in the past decade.

On 9/17/2021 9:31 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:si1tmt$hjg$1@dont-email.me>):
>> The core issue is that you have a very small group of people that accept
>> anything a company says as gospel, and get very upset when anyone
>> challenges their beliefs with facts.
>
> Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept anything
> Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset when others don't?

This is not that uncommon in various forums. Someone buys a specific
product or service, be it a car, a phone, a computer, a credit card, a
wireless provider etc., and feels compelled to go to fantastic fantasy
in order to defend their buying decision.

Most people can point out the pros and cons of why they made a specific
choice, and even admit when they made a mistake, rather than trying to
get others to make the same mistake that they made. I can tell other
people what I bought, and why, while at the same time explaining why it
might not be the best choice for them.

With the whole Android device and operating system, versus iOS device
and operating system discussion, there are people that get extremely
upset every time someone points out a limitation of one or the other.
This is one reason I prepared the document that explained the features
of each device and OS that many users of the other OS, wish that they
had. I have references and citations for nearly every item in the list.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 iOS Features Some of Which [many] Android Users Wish they Had
116 Android Features Some of Which [many] iOS Users Wish they Had

<https://tinyurl.com/fzje7h9e> or
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE>

46 Pages of Extensively Referenced Information with Hundreds of
Citations

✓ 100% Fact Checked ✓
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <si2i73$4rt$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> This is not that uncommon in various forums. Someone buys a specific
> product or service, be it a car, a phone, a computer, a credit card, a
> wireless provider etc., and feels compelled to go to fantastic fantasy
> in order to defend their buying decision.

like you do with verizon, along with many other products?

>
> With the whole Android device and operating system, versus iOS device
> and operating system discussion, there are people that get extremely
> upset every time someone points out a limitation of one or the other.

nope. they get upset when certain people (namely you) repeatedly *lie*
about the limitations, all of which can easily be shown to be false.

for example, you've falsely claimed that face id has the limitation of
requiring room light to function. that is a lie.

you also claimed mobile device management is limited to only corporate
users. that too is a lie.

On 9/17/2021 9:45 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2021, Joerg Lorenz wrote
> (in article<news:si294q$qg9$1@dont-email.me>):
>> For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail Apple.
>> And they will obey immediately. They already do.
>
> Wasn't it Apple's own Tim Cook who said they obey all the laws of the land?

A lot of companies tailor their products differently for different
markets. Look at cars, where safety features that are required in one
country are omitted in countries where they are not required.

The key thing for Apple is not build features into the device or
operating system than can be used to violate the privacy of users,
because there are governments that will demand access to such features.

That said, expectations of privacy vary greatly in different countries.
If you use WeChat in China you know that your communications, your
travel, and your expenditures, are not private. Read
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html>.

>> iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.
>
> Does Apple give governments your encrypted files or your unencrypted files?

Cloud storage encryption matters very much for those with an expectation
of privacy. As the New York Times investigation stated: "Apple abandoned
the encryption technology it used elsewhere after China would not allow
it. And the digital keys that unlock information on those computers are
stored in the data centers they’re meant to secure."

In any case, the CSAM on-device scanning idea is almost certainly not
coming back. Apple will end up doing the much same thing that Facebook
does when it comes to detecting and reporting CSAM.

RonTheGuy wrote:

>Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept
>anything Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset
>when others don't?

Apple is a religion, much like environmentalism and many other social
positions today.

On 9/17/2021 10:35 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> RonTheGuy wrote:
>
>> Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept
>> anything Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset
>> when others don't?
>
>
> Apple is a religion, much like environmentalism and many other social
> positions today.

Well don't exprapolate the rantings of a few Usenet trolls onto the
hundreds of millions of users of Apple devices that would be just as
amused as the kind of stuff we see in this forum!

On Sep 17, 2021, sms wrote
(in article<news:si2j47$hel$1@dont-email.me>):
> And the digital keys that unlock information on those computers are
> stored in the data centers

Is Apple's storing of your encryption keys in the same data center as Apple
stores your data a good idea? Who has the control over your data & the keys?

> In any case, the CSAM on-device scanning idea is almost certainly not
> coming back. Apple will end up doing the much same thing that Facebook
> does when it comes to detecting and reporting CSAM.

Why would Apple want to become an active branch of any local government?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<news:170920211307353025%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
> can anybody make sense of why some people accept what's demonstrably
> false and then get upset when presented with actual facts?

Isn't that a good description of you?

> another thing, jobs hasn't said much of anything in the past decade.

Did you disagree with the "holding it wrong" accusation from Steve Jobs?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On 2021-09-17, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>> You clearly don't know a thing about me, old fart.
>
> I know enough to know you never earned your high school GED, Jolly
> Roger.
>
> You tried, three times, and failed each time.

LOL... BZZZT! Wrong. : D You obviously think I am someone I am not, and
you are so confident in your ineptitude it's hilarious. Please do
continue! Go ahead and tell everyone more about who you think I am,
dipshit. This is fun! : )

> No wonder you became an Apple apologist.

You loser trolls constantly project your weaknesses onto others. You're
pathetic excuses for human beings, and the world improves a bit each day
one of you finally keels over and dies. And many of us will celebrate
right here in this newsgroup when your day comes.

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

JR

On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
(in article<news:slrnsk8fn3.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
> It is nothing like that unless your private matters included KNOWN and
> CATALOGED Child Sexual Abuse Material.

Is it only your sexual predators who signed that public letter to Tim Cook?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.