On 2022-11-13, 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.

Unless there's a settlement. : )

--
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 02:43, badgolferman wrote:
> 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.
>

How is that in any way relevant?

I watched the video and it fails to prove the things it asserts.

On 13 Nov 2022, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.privacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

> 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.

What do you think about the unique header Apple inserts into all your apps?

On 2022-11-13 09:08, Nil wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2022, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in
> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.privacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
>> 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┬ page.
>
> What do you think about the unique header Apple inserts into all your apps?

Got any proof of that or that if it is, it is in any way relevant to
your privacy?

Jolly Roger wrote:

> 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?

Given the iKooks only have seven excuses for facts they hate about Apple,
it's interesting that Jolly Roger is using the excuse that Apple is just as
bad or worse as everyone else is to excuse Apple's reprehensible behavior.

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 app’s page.

Seriously? A youtube video that shows that the app store “appears to
harvest information about your activity in real time”?

Courts and judges do not deal with youtube videos that “appear to show
something.” Allegations need to be proven. A youtube video is not proof
of anything.

This is nothing but the usual Apple Troll Boys in a tizzy about
allegations. Anyone can file a suit about anything.

As with most of these “hey let’s make Big Headlines and see if we can get a
Big Payday by filing a nuisance suit against a Big Company”, this will go
nowhere.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:24:11 +0000, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:

>>> 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.

Even as the party with the deepest pockets rarely has to admit guilt,
a lot of the facts of the case are unearthed during the depositions.

On 13/11/2022 12:41, nospam 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.

If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are more
private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then harmed?

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:14:52 +0000, Bob Campbell 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 app's page.
>
> Seriously? A youtube video that shows that the app store "appears to
> harvest information about your activity in real time"?
>
> Courts and judges do not deal with youtube videos that "appear to show
> something." Allegations need to be proven. A youtube video is not proof
> of anything.
>
> This is nothing but the usual Apple Troll Boys in a tizzy about
> allegations. Anyone can file a suit about anything.
>
> As with most of these "hey let's make Big Headlines and see if we can get a
> Big Payday by filing a nuisance suit against a Big Company", this will go
> nowhere.

Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations then?

In article <tkrd7t$1ch1$1@gioia.aioe.org>, dan <nospam@nospam.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 app's page.
> >
> > Seriously? A youtube video that shows that the app store "appears to
> > harvest information about your activity in real time"?
> >
> > Courts and judges do not deal with youtube videos that "appear to show
> > something." Allegations need to be proven. A youtube video is not proof
> > of anything.
> >
> > This is nothing but the usual Apple Troll Boys in a tizzy about
> > allegations. Anyone can file a suit about anything.
> >
> > As with most of these "hey let's make Big Headlines and see if we can get a
> > Big Payday by filing a nuisance suit against a Big Company", this will go
> > nowhere.
>
>
> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations then?

where did you get the ludicrous idea they're afraid to respond?

do you have even the slightest clue how lawsuits work?

dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations then?

Why do you assume that Apple is “so afraid to respond publicly to the
public allegations”? This thing was just filed a couple days ago. Do you
think that Apple is “scared” of a youtube video?

I would expect to hear something in the next few days, with a much more
detailed response coming later. Will you then assume that Apple is lying
when they deny/disprove these allegations?

What if - like many of these types of suits - this gets dismissed for lack
of evidence? Will that be “proof” that Apple had the judge in their
pocket?

On 2022-11-13 10:28, Calum wrote:
> On 13/11/2022 12:41, nospam 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.
>
> If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are more
> private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then harmed?

Are they actually "much less private"?

Assertions that they're not perfectly private don't support "much less
private" than the alternative even if they're true; which we do not know
at this point.

On 2022-11-13 10:32, dan wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:14:52 +0000, Bob Campbell 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 app's page.
>>
>> Seriously? A youtube video that shows that the app store "appears to
>> harvest information about your activity in real time"?
>>
>> Courts and judges do not deal with youtube videos that "appear to show
>> something." Allegations need to be proven. A youtube video is not proof
>> of anything.
>>
>> This is nothing but the usual Apple Troll Boys in a tizzy about
>> allegations. Anyone can file a suit about anything.
>>
>> As with most of these "hey let's make Big Headlines and see if we can get a
>> Big Payday by filing a nuisance suit against a Big Company", this will go
>> nowhere.
>
>
> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations then?

Who says they're afraid?

On 2022-11-13 10:51, Bob Campbell wrote:
> dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations then?
>
> Why do you assume that Apple is “so afraid to respond publicly to the
> public allegations”? This thing was just filed a couple days ago. Do you
> think that Apple is “scared” of a youtube video?
>
> I would expect to hear something in the next few days, with a much more
> detailed response coming later. Will you then assume that Apple is lying
> when they deny/disprove these allegations?
>
> What if - like many of these types of suits - this gets dismissed for lack
> of evidence? Will that be “proof” that Apple had the judge in their
> pocket?
>

"Dan" is the kind of guy who would have claimed that, had Apple
responded by now, the response was clearly "just spin"...

....because it was too soon for it to be substantive.

On 2022-11-13, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
> 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 app’s
>> page.
>
> Seriously? A youtube video that shows that the app store “appears to
> harvest information about your activity in real time”?
>
> Courts and judges do not deal with youtube videos that “appear to show
> something.” Allegations need to be proven. A youtube video is not
> proof of anything.

Yes, but gullible idiots and little trollbois with Apple hate boners eat
the shit up. : )

> This is nothing but the usual Apple Troll Boys in a tizzy about
> allegations. Anyone can file a suit about anything.
>
> As with most of these “hey let’s make Big Headlines and see if we can
> get a Big Payday by filing a nuisance suit against a Big Company”,
> this will go nowhere.

It'll definitely increase ad sales on the websites writing these
clickbait articles though. "WINNING!!!" ; )

--
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, dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations
> then?

Why is Arlen (danny boy here) so afraid of using less than ten thousand
nyms, trying to fool others into thinking he's someone else?

--
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, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-11-13 10:32, dan wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:14:52 +0000, Bob Campbell 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 app's page.
>>>
>>> Seriously? A youtube video that shows that the app store "appears to
>>> harvest information about your activity in real time"?
>>>
>>> Courts and judges do not deal with youtube videos that "appear to show
>>> something." Allegations need to be proven. A youtube video is not proof
>>> of anything.
>>>
>>> This is nothing but the usual Apple Troll Boys in a tizzy about
>>> allegations. Anyone can file a suit about anything.
>>>
>>> As with most of these "hey let's make Big Headlines and see if we can get a
>>> Big Payday by filing a nuisance suit against a Big Company", this will go
>>> nowhere.
>>
>> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations then?
>
> Who says they're afraid?

Arlen and his little trollboi club. : )

--
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, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-11-13 09:08, Nil wrote:
>> On 13 Nov 2022, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in
>> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.privacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>>
>>> 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┬ page.
>>
>> What do you think about the unique header Apple inserts into all your apps?
>
> Got any proof of that or that if it is, it is in any way relevant to
> your privacy?

NARRATOR: He doesn't.

--
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, Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
> On 13/11/2022 12:41, nospam 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.
>
> If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are more
> private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then harmed?

There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.

--
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 Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:37:49 +1100, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> 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.

But there is no evidence that apple is passing on that data to anyone.

And if you are paranoid about what apple knows about how you
use the app store, it makes no sense to use the app store at all.

I bet the reality is that apple does not hand any data about what
you do in the app store to anyone so there is nothing misleading
about what apple says about your privacy given that it is obvious
that apple knows about what you have looked at and downloaded
from the app store.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 15:29:55 +1100, Nil <rednoise9@removethiscomcast.net>
wrote:

> 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?

You don't in fact pay more for iphones than the other top end alternatives.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:24:11 +1100, 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.

But given how many judgements have been stupid, what matters
is actually the evidence presented, not the judgement.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 21:43:33 +1100, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

And there is no evidence that that isn't accurate.

Even if apple does keep track of how the app store is used to
enhance how well it is designed, that isnt evidence that there is
any evidence of 'prying eyes', let alone any grounds for damages.

Apple obviously has to keep track of what you have bought or
downloaded so it can offload the apps you hardly ever use if you
get your iphone to free up more space on the phone and only
dowload the infrequently used app again if you use it again later/

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 06:27:49 +1100, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:

> On 2022-11-13, dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why is Apple so afraid to respond publicly to the public allegations
>> then?
>
> Why is Arlen (danny boy here)

It is completely silly claiming that anyone who says
anything bad about apple is actually Arlen.

> so afraid of using less than ten thousand
> nyms, trying to fool others into thinking he's someone else?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 05:28:50 +1100, Calum
<com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:

> On 13/11/2022 12:41, nospam 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.
>
> If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are more
> private and yet they were actually much less private,

No evidence that they are in fact much less private.

> are they then harmed?