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

Hi badgolferman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> badgolferman wrote:
>
>> The lawsuit accuses Apple of violating the California Invasion of Privacy
>> Act. "Privacy is one of the main issues that Apple uses to set its products
>> apart from competitors," the plaintiff, Elliot Libman, said in the suit,
>> which can be read on Bloomberg Law. "But Apple's privacy guarantees are
>> completely illusory." The company has plastered billboards across the
>> country with the slogan "Privacy. That's iPhone."
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> Thanks for informing us of yet another lawsuit for brazen Apple lies.
> *Nobody lies like Apple lies.*
>
> The Apple iKooks are already scrambling to come up with their seven excuses
> for facts about Apple that they are desperate to deny & deflect away from.
>
> Notwithstanding the legal merits of the case, the problem as I see it with
> Apple is their duplicity in their brazen public lies about iOS privacy.
>
> The amount of personal information tracked by Apple is astounding.
> Particularly for an outfit that (falsely) advertises their take on privacy.
>
> Unfortunately for us, almost everything Apple claims about iOS privacy
> turns out to be a brazen public lie when you delve deeper, e.g., the
> _requirement_ to be tracked by Apple just to download apps is heinous.
>
> And yet, Apple assumes that we're all stupid just by the fact Apple emits
> these brazen shockingly public lies (and often loses in court as a result).
>
> In summary, what irks me about Apple isn't that they steal your privacy,
> but that, like a salesman, they promise you they won't (and yet, they do).

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

badgolferman wrote:

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

Hi badgolferman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most of the data collection is via the enforced requirement to have a
mothership tracking account (which no other smartphone requires but iOS).
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to explain a bit of the history of Apple excuses.

badgolferman wrote:

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

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

On 2022-11-12 14:06, badgolferman wrote:
> badgolferman wrote:
>
>> Well, maybe there’s another side to the story. Let’s wait to hear from
>> nospam and Jolly Roger.
>
> I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
> by Apple and it's advertising customers.

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

In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or he doesnt know much about it yet.

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

No evidence of that.

> and it's advertising customers.

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

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

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

Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.

On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
>>> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
>>> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
>>> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
>>
>> i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
>> anything to say about it.
>>
>> post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might
>> opine.
>>
>>
>
> Here you are:
> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>
> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.

And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...

....not proven facts.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
>>>> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
>>>> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
>>>> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
>>>
>>> i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
>>> anything to say about it.
>>>
>>> post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might
>>> opine.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Here you are:
>> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>>
>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
>
> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
>
> ...not proven facts.
>

We shall see. What will you say then?

On 2022-11-12 18:45, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>>>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
>>>>> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
>>>>> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
>>>>> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
>>>>
>>>> i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
>>>> anything to say about it.
>>>>
>>>> post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might
>>>> opine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here you are:
>>> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>>>
>>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
>>
>> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
>>
>> ...not proven facts.
>>
>
> We shall see. What will you say then?
>

I don't know.

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

But let me ask you this:

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

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

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-11-12 18:45, badgolferman wrote:
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>>>>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
>>>>>> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
>>>>>> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
>>>>>> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
>>>>>
>>>>> i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
>>>>> anything to say about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might
>>>>> opine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here you are:
>>>> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>>>>
>>>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
>>>
>>> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
>>>
>>> ...not proven facts.
>>>
>>
>> We shall see. What will you say then?
>>
>
> I don't know.
>
> Because I don't know what we'll see.
>
> But let me ask you this:
>
> In this day and age, do you think Apple is sending whatever data that
> might being sent in plain text?
>
> And if it isn't in plain text, then how do those asserting that people's
> personal information is being transmitted make that assertion, exactly?
>

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

On 2022-11-12 19:37, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-11-12 18:45, badgolferman wrote:
>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>>>>>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
>>>>>>> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
>>>>>>> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
>>>>>>> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
>>>>>> anything to say about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might
>>>>>> opine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here you are:
>>>>> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>>>>>
>>>>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
>>>>
>>>> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
>>>>
>>>> ...not proven facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We shall see. What will you say then?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know.
>>
>> Because I don't know what we'll see.
>>
>> But let me ask you this:
>>
>> In this day and age, do you think Apple is sending whatever data that
>> might being sent in plain text?
>>
>> And if it isn't in plain text, then how do those asserting that people's
>> personal information is being transmitted make that assertion, exactly?
>>
>
>
> As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
> appears to harvest information about your activity in real time, including
> what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you found
> a given app and how long you looked at the app’s page.

I notice you've failed to answer my questions.

nospam wrote:

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

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

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

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

On 2022-11-12 19:51, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> what *is* known (and can easily be substantiated) is that apple takes
>> extensive measures to anonymize as much about their users as possible
>> so that they *can't* be tracked.
>
> If you read the links that badgolferman posted, there is a _lot_ that is
> known that was tested by multiple independent outfits, completely _outside_
> the context of the legal case in and of itself.
>
> Normally you and the other iKooks have a ready made set of seven excuses
> which range from denial to ad hominem attacks as you run through them.
>
> The question for you, I believe, is _which excuse_ will you be exercising
> to defend Apple's behavior to the death, no matter what the facts may be?

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

In article <tkpfmr$o41$1@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

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

thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In article <tkpoqd$1ivm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
> appears to harvest information about your activity in real time, including
> what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you found
> a given app and how long you looked at the app¹s page.

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

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

badgolferman wrote:

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

Hi badgolferman,

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

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

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

Since I don't have nospam plonked, I do see his response, which we can
instantly see he used two of the seven excuses number in order to deflect
the conversation away from Apple an onto Google & Facebook instead.
On 11/12/2022 10:39 PM, nospam wrote:
"it also important to note that apple is *not* an ad company
and has no need to monetize their users, whereas facebook
and google are, and do exactly that."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You lie more than Apple does.

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

I read the ASSERTIONS that have been made.

<snip Arlen's rant>

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

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

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

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

In article <tkqhol$1i33$1@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

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

they are correct.

On 2022-11-13, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>>>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't
>>>>> defend Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just
>>>>> don't care that they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and
>>>>> being used for profit by Apple and it's advertising customers.
>>>>
>>>> i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
>>>> anything to say about it.
>>>>
>>>> post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i
>>>> might opine.
>>>
>>> Here you are:
>>> https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
>>>
>>> Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
>>
>> And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
>>
>> ...not proven facts.
>
> We shall see. What will you say then?

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

--
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 2022-11-13, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>> But let me ask you this:
>>
>> In this day and age, do you think Apple is sending whatever data that
>> might being sent in plain text?
>>
>> And if it isn't in plain text, then how do those asserting that
>> people's personal information is being transmitted make that
>> assertion, exactly?
>
> As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
> appears to harvest information about your activity in real time,
> including what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you
> see, how you found a given app and how long you looked at the app’s
> page.

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

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

--
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