On 2021-08-08 5:23 a.m., Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> On the surface Apple’s new features sound both sensible and
> commendable – but they also open a Pandora’s box of privacy and
> surveillance issues
>
> Privacy. That’s (no longer) iPhone.
>
> Apple, which has spent big bucks on ad campaigns boasting about
> how much it values its users privacy, is about to start poking
> through all your text messages and photos. Don’t worry, the tech
> company has assured everyone, the prying is for purely
> benevolent purposes. On Thursday Apple announced a new set of
> “protection for children” features that will look through US
> iPhones for images of child abuse. One of these features is a
> tool called neuralMatch, which will scan photo libraries to see
> if they contain anything that matches a database of known child
> abuse imagery. Another feature, which parents can enable or
> disable, scans iMessage images sent or received by accounts that
> belong to a minor. It will then notify the parents when a child
> receives sexually explicit imagery.
>
> On the surface Apple’s new features sound both sensible and
> commendable. Technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation is
> an enormous problem; one that’s spiralling out of control. In
> 1998 there were more than 3,000 reports of child sex abuse
> imagery, according to a 2019 paper published in conjunction with
> the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. In 2018
> there were 18.4m. These reports included more than 45m images
> and videos that were flagged as child sexual abuse. Technology
> companies have a duty to curb the terrible abuses their
> platforms help facilitate. Apple’s new features are an attempt
> to do just that.
>
> But while Apple’s attempts to protect children may be valiant,
> they also open a Pandora’s box of privacy and surveillance
> issues. Of particular concern to security researchers and
> privacy activists is the fact that this new feature doesn’t just
> look at images stored on the cloud; it scans users’ devices
> without their consent. Essentially that means there’s now a sort
> of “backdoor” into an individual’s iPhone, one which has the
> potential to grow wider and wider. The Electronic Frontier
> Foundation (EFF), an online civil liberties advocacy group,
> warns that “all it would take to widen the narrow backdoor that
> Apple is building is an expansion of the machine learning
> parameters to look for additional types of content … That’s not
> a slippery slope; that’s a fully built system just waiting for
> external pressure to make the slightest change.” You can
> imagine, for example, how certain countries might pressure Apple
> to scan for anti-government messages or LGBTQ content.
>
> Jillian York, the author of a new book about how surveillance
> capitalism affects free speech, is also concerned that Apple’s
> new parental controls mean images shared between two minors
> could be non-consensually shared with one of their parents.
> “This strikes me as assumptive of two things,” she told me.
> “One, That adults can be trusted with these images and two, that
> every other culture has the same ideas about what constitutes
> nudity and sexuality as the US does.”
>
> Edward Snowden, who knows a thing or two about abuses of
> surveillance, has also voiced concerns about Apple’s new
> features. “No matter how well-intentioned, @Apple is rolling out
> mass surveillance to the entire world with this,” Snowden
> tweeted. “Make no mistake: if they can scan for kiddie porn
> today, they can scan for anything tomorrow. They turned a
> trillion dollars of devices into iNarcs–*without asking.*”
>
> But why would a technology company bother asking the public what
> it wants? We all know that big tech knows what’s best for us
> plebs. While mass surveillance may sound scary, I’m sure we can
> all trust Apple et al. to do the right thing. No need to worry
> about hackers or Apple contractors accessing and uploading your
> nudes! No need to worry about Apple employees exploiting the
> technology to spy on people, in the same way that Uber employees
> did with their “God View” tool! I’m sure it will all be
> perfectly fine.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-
> patriarchy-apple-privacy

To me, the only solution is a de-Googled Android device using LineageOS,
CalyxOS or GrapheneOS but that also means buying a Google Pixel phone
since those systems seem to cater to that line the most.

--
SilverSlimer
@silverslimer

SilverSlimer wrote on 08.08.2021 14:47
> To me, the only solution is a de-Googled Android device using LineageOS,
> CalyxOS or GrapheneOS but that also means buying a Google Pixel phone
> since those systems seem to cater to that line the most.

You don't even need to be rooted to remove almost all Google from Android.

1. The first step is don't set up Android with a Google Account
2. Then replace all important Google apps with their FOSS alternatives
(YouTube==>NewPipe, GooglePlay==>AuroraStore, GMail==>K-9Mail, etc.)
3. Set Aurora to filter out apps which require Google Services Framework

After that, almost all Google core components can then be deleted/disabled.
[https://f-droid.org/en/packages/io.github.muntashirakon.AppManager/]

A. Your phone will have _more_ capability than it had before.
B. Simultaneously almost all connections to Google will have been severed.

All without rooting.
--
Rooting is better though as root provides for many more FOSS alternatives.

"SilverSlimer" <silver@slim.er> wrote

| To me, the only solution is a de-Googled Android device using LineageOS,
| CalyxOS or GrapheneOS but that also means buying a Google Pixel phone
| since those systems seem to cater to that line the most.
|

I have another solution. It's a phone with a wire that I
plug into the wall. The sound quality is wonderful, the
device is ergonomic, unlike slab phones. And it has a number
of great inventions that I wouldn't want to be without. For
example, it's completely immune to Uber and Lyft. It can
never be attacked by inane Twitter posts or restaurant
recommendations. Facebook can't possibly gain a foothold.
And when I go for a walk, no one can reach me via text
message. But they can leave a voice message. Best of all,
I can use my device to make phone calls. What'll they
think of next?!

On 2021-08-08 11:47 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
> "SilverSlimer" <silver@slim.er> wrote
>
> | To me, the only solution is a de-Googled Android device using LineageOS,
> | CalyxOS or GrapheneOS but that also means buying a Google Pixel phone
> | since those systems seem to cater to that line the most.
> |
>
> I have another solution. It's a phone with a wire that I
> plug into the wall. The sound quality is wonderful, the
> device is ergonomic, unlike slab phones. And it has a number
> of great inventions that I wouldn't want to be without. For
> example, it's completely immune to Uber and Lyft. It can
> never be attacked by inane Twitter posts or restaurant
> recommendations. Facebook can't possibly gain a foothold.
> And when I go for a walk, no one can reach me via text
> message. But they can leave a voice message. Best of all,
> I can use my device to make phone calls. What'll they
> think of next?!

Ha! Good post.

--
SilverSlimer
@silverslimer

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "SilverSlimer" <silver@slim.er> wrote
>
> | To me, the only solution is a de-Googled Android device using LineageOS,
> | CalyxOS or GrapheneOS but that also means buying a Google Pixel phone
> | since those systems seem to cater to that line the most.
> |
>
> I have another solution. It's a phone with a wire that I
> plug into the wall. The sound quality is wonderful, the
> device is ergonomic, unlike slab phones. And it has a number
> of great inventions that I wouldn't want to be without. For
> example, it's completely immune to Uber and Lyft. It can
> never be attacked by inane Twitter posts or restaurant
> recommendations. Facebook can't possibly gain a foothold.
> And when I go for a walk, no one can reach me via text
> message. But they can leave a voice message. Best of all,
> I can use my device to make phone calls. What'll they
> think of next?!
>
>
>

Constant spam calls to the point that you completely ignore the phone
forever.

In article <sep8tq$5uu$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > I have another solution. It's a phone with a wire that I
> > plug into the wall. The sound quality is wonderful, the
> > device is ergonomic, unlike slab phones. And it has a number
> > of great inventions that I wouldn't want to be without. For
> > example, it's completely immune to Uber and Lyft. It can
> > never be attacked by inane Twitter posts or restaurant
> > recommendations. Facebook can't possibly gain a foothold.
> > And when I go for a walk, no one can reach me via text
> > message. But they can leave a voice message. Best of all,
> > I can use my device to make phone calls. What'll they
> > think of next?!
> >
>
> Constant spam calls to the point that you completely ignore the phone
> forever.

get a spam call blocker.

Am 08.08.2021 um 17:47 schrieb Mayayana:
> "SilverSlimer" <silver@slim.er> wrote
>
> | To me, the only solution is a de-Googled Android device using LineageOS,
> | CalyxOS or GrapheneOS but that also means buying a Google Pixel phone
> | since those systems seem to cater to that line the most.
> |
>
> I have another solution. It's a phone with a wire that I
> plug into the wall. The sound quality is wonderful, the
> device is ergonomic, unlike slab phones. And it has a number
> of great inventions that I wouldn't want to be without. For
> example, it's completely immune to Uber and Lyft. It can
> never be attacked by inane Twitter posts or restaurant
> recommendations. Facebook can't possibly gain a foothold.
> And when I go for a walk, no one can reach me via text
> message. But they can leave a voice message. Best of all,
> I can use my device to make phone calls. What'll they
> think of next?!
>
>

++1

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

| Constant spam calls to the point that you completely ignore the phone
| forever.
|

There is some truth to that, but I don't get many because
I don't give out the number. And I have caller ID. So I know
whether to pick up.

In article <sepeso$5pq$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | Constant spam calls to the point that you completely ignore the phone
> | forever.
> |
>
> There is some truth to that, but I don't get many because
> I don't give out the number.

that doesn't help when they autodial every number.

you also don't have to give out your number for spammers to call. it's
in many, many public databases.

> And I have caller ID. So I know
> whether to pick up.

caller id is easily spoofed. it is not reliable.

stir/shaken has helped, but it still happens.

On 8/8/2021 11:48 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> Constant spam calls to the point that you completely ignore the phone
> forever.

Yes, that's an issue with a simple POTS line. But I think that most
former POTS users have switched to some sort of VOIP service that uses
their analog phones with an ATA, be it from Comcast, Sonic, AT&T, Ooma,
or Obi. All of these have spam filtering. Obi with Google Voice is very
good at filtering spam calls, especially with call screening turned on.
I heard that Ooma is even better, avoiding that annoying single initial
ring.

In article <sepqal$j37$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Constant spam calls to the point that you completely ignore the phone
> > forever.
>
> Yes, that's an issue with a simple POTS line. But I think that most
> former POTS users have switched to some sort of VOIP service that uses
> their analog phones with an ATA,

they've overwhelmingly switched to cellular.

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 22:16:09 +0200, Rainer Zwerschke wrote:
> Am 08.08.2021 um 17:47 schrieb Mayayana:
>> "SilverSlimer" <silver@slim.er> wrote
>>
>> | To me, the only solution is a de-Googled Android device using LineageOS,
>> | CalyxOS or GrapheneOS but that also means buying a Google Pixel phone
>> | since those systems seem to cater to that line the most.
>> |
>> I have another solution. It's a phone with a wire that I
>> plug into the wall. The sound quality is wonderful, the
>> device is ergonomic, unlike slab phones. And it has a number
>> of great inventions that I wouldn't want to be without. For
>> example, it's completely immune to Uber and Lyft. It can
>> never be attacked by inane Twitter posts or restaurant
>> recommendations. Facebook can't possibly gain a foothold.
>> And when I go for a walk, no one can reach me via text
>> message. But they can leave a voice message. Best of all,
>> I can use my device to make phone calls. What'll they
>> think of next?!
>>
>
> ++1

++1!!

On 8/8/21 6:45 PM, sms wrote:
> On 8/8/2021 11:48 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Constant spam calls to the point that you completely ignore the phone
>> forever.
>
> Yes, that's an issue with a simple POTS line. But I think that most
> former POTS users have switched to some sort of VOIP service that uses
> their analog phones with an ATA, be it from Comcast, Sonic, AT&T, Ooma,
> or Obi. All of these have spam filtering. Obi with Google Voice is very
> good at filtering spam calls, especially with call screening turned on.
> I heard that Ooma is even better, avoiding that annoying single initial
> ring.
My phone is on cable (Suddenlink). They do have a service that
identifies junk calls by putting "Spam?" or "Robo?" before the caller ID
name. This has been getting better recently, but is still not as good as
looking at the NAME displayed. Many are identified as City, ST (like
"SAN ANTONIO TX"). I'm not sure why people call this useless, since it's
working better than anything else I have available.

BTW, I'm also not answering "TOLL FREE CALL", obvious political
organizations or charities, or meaningless generic business names (such
as "ABD INFRA CO").

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose.
Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it." -- John Adams

In article <fYaQI.8455$cd2.4716@fx02.iad>, Mark Lloyd
<not@mail.invalid> wrote:

> My phone is on cable (Suddenlink). They do have a service that
> identifies junk calls by putting "Spam?" or "Robo?" before the caller ID
> name. This has been getting better recently, but is still not as good as
> looking at the NAME displayed.

the name can be spoofed and is therefore not reliable.

> Many are identified as City, ST (like
> "SAN ANTONIO TX"). I'm not sure why people call this useless, since it's
> working better than anything else I have available.

calls that show city, state don't have a cnam entry, or one could not
be retrieved. it is not an indication of spam.

In message <090820211031527507%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <fYaQI.8455$cd2.4716@fx02.iad>, Mark Lloyd
> <not@mail.invalid> wrote:

>> My phone is on cable (Suddenlink). They do have a service that
>> identifies junk calls by putting "Spam?" or "Robo?" before the caller ID
>> name. This has been getting better recently, but is still not as good as
>> looking at the NAME displayed.

> the name can be spoofed and is therefore not reliable.

>> Many are identified as City, ST (like
>> "SAN ANTONIO TX"). I'm not sure why people call this useless, since it's
>> working better than anything else I have available.

> calls that show city, state don't have a cnam entry, or one could not
> be retrieved. it is not an indication of spam.

It is also not an indication that the call came from that city and state.

Spammers spoof the caller ID to be a location near to you, hoping you
are stupid enough to answer the phone.

Where I am (Denver) if I see calls claiming to be from Kiowa or
Elizabeth (small towns near Denver) that is a 100% indicator they are 1)
spoofed numbers and 2) spam.

--
Some books are undeservedly forgotten; none are undeservedly
remembered

"Lewis" <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote

| It is also not an indication that the call came from that city and state.
| | Spammers spoof the caller ID to be a location near to you, hoping you
| are stupid enough to answer the phone.
|

I just no longer answer anything I don't recognize.
If it's a legit call they can leave a message. If I'm here
and I hear the message, I'll pick up and apologize,
explaining that I avoid spam calls. In almost every
case they laugh and agree, saying they do it, too.

That points to another nice thing about landlines:
Answering machines, that allow you to hear a message
as it's left and don't share your messages with Verizon.

For awhile the do not call registry worked well,
both at state and Fed level. Then they just stopped
enforcing it. So I guess this is what telephoning means
today. We just have to accept it. I doubt cellphones
will go much longer without the same hassles.

In article <slrnsh2k2j.1u08.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> >> My phone is on cable (Suddenlink). They do have a service that
> >> identifies junk calls by putting "Spam?" or "Robo?" before the caller ID
> >> name. This has been getting better recently, but is still not as good as
> >> looking at the NAME displayed.
>
> > the name can be spoofed and is therefore not reliable.
>
> >> Many are identified as City, ST (like
> >> "SAN ANTONIO TX"). I'm not sure why people call this useless, since it's
> >> working better than anything else I have available.
>
> > calls that show city, state don't have a cnam entry, or one could not
> > be retrieved. it is not an indication of spam.
>
> It is also not an indication that the call came from that city and state.
>
> Spammers spoof the caller ID to be a location near to you, hoping you
> are stupid enough to answer the phone.

true, but the point is that the city, state is determined by whatever
number is sent, and only if there's no cnam.

caller id is mostly meaningless, although with stir/shaken, it's
better. unfortunately, not everyone is supporting that, especially
spammers.

In article <serk0m$ba3$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> For awhile the do not call registry worked well,
> both at state and Fed level. Then they just stopped
> enforcing it.

it never worked.

it actually made you more of a target because the numbers in that list
are known to be valid.

> So I guess this is what telephoning means
> today. We just have to accept it. I doubt cellphones
> will go much longer without the same hassles.

cellphones have a variety of options for spam blocking.

Mayayana wrote:

> I just no longer answer anything I don't recognize.

My phone is set to only ring for those in my contact list so I never
even hear the spam calls.

> If it's a legit call they can leave a message.

While I can see the daily bounced spam calls listed, surprisingly
only 1 or 2 a month leave a message.

> That points to another nice thing about landlines: Answering
> machines, that allow you to hear a message as it's left and don't
> share your messages with Verizon.

You talk as if Verizon is a person. That voice mail message is just bits
and bytes in a server somewhere. When your landline answering machine
was recording its message, your landline server was just passing bit and
bytes along from its server. Maybe your landline provider had its ear to
the line?? Paranoia comes in various levels I suppose...

"AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

| You talk as if Verizon is a person. That voice mail message is just bits
| and bytes in a server somewhere. When your landline answering machine
| was recording its message, your landline server was just passing bit and
| bytes along from its server. Maybe your landline provider had its ear to
| the line?? Paranoia comes in various levels I suppose...
|

You're certainly accurate and correct in saying that.
Nevertheless, I prefer to store the messages myself. In
the same way, I don't use freebie webmail. They actually
do monitor the content, with the excuse that it's on
their servers so they have a right or duty. Does the phone
company listen to messages? That seems very unlikely.
But it may only be because processing audio is too
difficult. If you were able to use Google for a phone
service, what would discourage them from rifling through
your phone messages as well as your email? Only
diminished returns for the expense.

That's also related to the iCloud issue. People are
complaining because Apple plans to inspect images on
your device. That's new. Any remote storage you use
should also be viewed as your private property, but
that definition has been somewhat murky. (I remember
back in the early days of hotmail, MS came out with terms
that gave them commercial use rights to any media you
might send via email.)

Mayayana wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

>> You talk as if Verizon is a person. That voice mail message is just
>> bits and bytes in a server somewhere. When your landline answering
>> machine was recording its message, your landline server was just
>> passing bit and bytes along from its server. Maybe your landline
>> provider had its ear to the line?? Paranoia comes in various levels
>> I suppose...

> You're certainly accurate and correct in saying that. Nevertheless, I
> prefer to store the messages myself. In the same way,

Your personal preferences are legitimate.

> If you were able to use Google for a phone service, what would
> discourage them from rifling through your phone messages as well as
> your email? Only diminished returns for the expense.

I use many Google services. Just like Verizon I'm bits and bytes on
their servers...

In article <sermss$6hi$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | You talk as if Verizon is a person. That voice mail message is just bits
> | and bytes in a server somewhere. When your landline answering machine
> | was recording its message, your landline server was just passing bit and
> | bytes along from its server. Maybe your landline provider had its ear to
> | the line?? Paranoia comes in various levels I suppose...
> |
>
> You're certainly accurate and correct in saying that.
> Nevertheless, I prefer to store the messages myself. In
> the same way, I don't use freebie webmail. They actually
> do monitor the content, with the excuse that it's on
> their servers so they have a right or duty.

webmail is just another way to access the mail store versus an email
app.

both can be used, depending on which is more convenient.

> Does the phone
> company listen to messages? That seems very unlikely.

only with a warrant.

> But it may only be because processing audio is too
> difficult. If you were able to use Google for a phone
> service, what would discourage them from rifling through
> your phone messages as well as your email? Only
> diminished returns for the expense.

it's not worth the trouble.

however, if you optionally enable voice transcription, they will use
that to improve their voice recognition, something which is clearly
disclosed. if you don't want that to happen, do not enable voice
transcription.

and as with any phone provider, they collate metadata, such as who you
called and when, which is completely legal.

> That's also related to the iCloud issue. People are
> complaining because Apple plans to inspect images on
> your device. That's new. Any remote storage you use
> should also be viewed as your private property, but
> that definition has been somewhat murky.

it's never been murky. the cloud is unquestionably *not* your private
property. it is 'someone else's computer' and they get to decide how
it's used, the terms of which you agree when setting up an account.

> (I remember
> back in the early days of hotmail, MS came out with terms
> that gave them commercial use rights to any media you
> might send via email.)

cite required.

nospam wrote:

>> Does the phone
>> company listen to messages? That seems very unlikely.
>
>only with a warrant.

But no warrant required to scan files on your personal device!

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 9 Aug 2021 12:08:59 -0400, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Lewis" <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote
>
>| It is also not an indication that the call came from that city and state.
>|
>| Spammers spoof the caller ID to be a location near to you, hoping you
>| are stupid enough to answer the phone.
>|
>
> I just no longer answer anything I don't recognize.
>If it's a legit call they can leave a message. If I'm here
>and I hear the message, I'll pick up and apologize,
>explaining that I avoid spam calls. In almost every
>case they laugh and agree, saying they do it, too.
>
> That points to another nice thing about landlines:
>Answering machines, that allow you to hear a message
>as it's left and don't share your messages with Verizon.

I really dislike Verizon voice mail (and probably that of all the other
internet providers) because there is no indication I have a message
until I pick up the handset, and I only do that every day or 2 or 3.

So messages would sit there for days, unanswered. So I set my outgoing
message to tell callers NOT to leave a message, but some still do for
good reason (like my machine doesn't answer) or because they ignore my
wishes.

Even when I pick up the phone to make a call and I hear beep beep beep
beep, by the time I've made my phone call, I've forgotten that there is
a message. A few more days go by.

There were devices that flashed a light or something when a message was
pending, but I don't think they worked well and, regardless, they are
not for sale anymore. I think they were fairly expensive for something
that answering machines do for free.

HOWEVER, UNLIKE YOU, it doesn't bother me that that Verizon can listen
to my messages. No one who calls has anything important to say anyhow,
except my contacts at MI6 and the Mossad, and they always talk about
gardening, flowers, rakes, seeds, water, rain, frost, etc. It's a code
we use.

OTOH, you may be surprised that when I put my home address in Google
Maps, I didn't use my address. I used and still use the house two doors
away. For travel purposes it takes about 3 extra seconds to get to my
house but this way, the Google bigwigs won't know where I am going from
or to.
(At the time I was mad at the people there, who would walk their ugly
pit bulls without a leash, even though several people and the HOA
complained to them and to Animal Control. I had to go right past their
sidewalk to get to my car. It took 3 or 4 years before they stopped.
Once I saw the 70-year old mother letting the dog roam free in the wild
area behind our houses, where people would not see except I was in the
back yard.)
Do you use your own address when soliciting directions in Google
Maps?

> For awhile the do not call registry worked well,
>both at state and Fed level. Then they just stopped
>enforcing it. So I guess this is what telephoning means
>today. We just have to accept it. I doubt cellphones
>will go much longer without the same hassles.

You know about nomorobo, of course? Free for landlines, charges for
cells. On my home phone, I get about 5 calls a week that ring once and
disappear because of nomorobo, and I get between 0 and 3 spam calls a
day, maybe 5 total a week, that ring through.

On the cell I don't have it and I get a spam call aobut once every 4
hours when the phone is on. It's on about 12 hours a week.