Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)

I hate to bring up crime but wrt
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/02/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-verdict
do you know if the phones involved were Android, Windows, or iOS?

Specifically, one or more of them appear to keep logs that show when the
back light turns on, when the orientation (landscape vs. portrait)
changes, when gps pings, and just about everything. Does Android show
that? Is it available to the average user?

I thought I heard the radio say that GPS continued to ping satellites
even after.... after the phone was turned off? After what?
Because the defense said that the police didn't extract the GPS ping
data right away and it gets overlaid when it fills up. That it doesn't
use the large amount of storage the phone has, but a much smaller amount
devoted only to GPS pinging, and by waiting, the locations at the time
of the crime were overlaid. Do you know more about how this works?

In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 03 Mar 2023 12:14:46 -0500, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)
>
>I hate to bring up crime but wrt
>https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/02/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-verdict
>do you know if the phones involved were Android, Windows, or iOS?
>
>Specifically, one or more of them appear to keep logs that show when the
>back light turns on, when the orientation (landscape vs. portrait)
>changes, when gps pings, and just about everything. Does Android show
>that? Is it available to the average user?
>
>I thought I heard the radio say that GPS continued to ping satellites
>even after.... after the phone was turned off? After what?
> Because the defense said that the police didn't extract the GPS ping
>data right away and it gets overlaid when it fills up. That it doesn't
>use the large amount of storage the phone has, but a much smaller amount
>devoted only to GPS pinging, and by waiting, the locations at the time
>of the crime were overlaid. Do you know more about how this works?

BTW, the police were also able to tell where the car was or cars were,
based on OnStar records! Which one of them pronounced OwnStar ;-) .

On 2023-03-03 18:14, micky wrote:
> Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)
>
> I hate to bring up crime but wrt
> https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/02/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-verdict
> do you know if the phones involved were Android, Windows, or iOS?

I can't read it, it wants me to register. Ok, I can, in "reader mode".

>
> Specifically, one or more of them appear to keep logs that show when the
> back light turns on, when the orientation (landscape vs. portrait)
> changes, when gps pings, and just about everything. Does Android show
> that? Is it available to the average user?

I don't know about those logs or how to see them.

I don't find the word "gps" or "ping" in the article, so I have no idea
what you may be talking about.

>
> I thought I heard the radio say that GPS continued to ping satellites
> even after.... after the phone was turned off? After what?
> Because the defense said that the police didn't extract the GPS ping
> data right away and it gets overlaid when it fills up. That it doesn't
> use the large amount of storage the phone has, but a much smaller amount
> devoted only to GPS pinging, and by waiting, the locations at the time
> of the crime were overlaid. Do you know more about how this works?

I have no idea what a GPS ping may be, because GPS is a passive system.
The phone sends nothing to the satellites, only data is received, from
several satellites, then a calculation is made, that yields a position.

The phone, or the chipset, does this periodically. I don't know how the
algorithm decides to do a GPS check or read or calculation.

Yes, it stands to reason that there is a limited space dedicated to
record this. A file, probably. Unless the user has activated tracking
and then data is uploaded to google or apple.

Besides this, the authorities can ask the telephone network provider to
calculate the location of a phone in their network, by doing
triangulation based on the records saved by each tower. The provider has
to keep these records for some time; I don't know for how long and it
depends on the country legislation. Can be two years. Needs a court
order, and the data exists even if the user disables location tracking.
It is not as precise as GPS, yet it is surprisingly good.

This method depends on the phone transmitting something to the network;
basically it periodically checks the signals and says I'm still working,
so that the network can send a phone call when needed. This might be
called a ping.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 12:29:59 -0500, micky wrote:

> BTW, the police were also able to tell where the car was or cars were,
> based on OnStar records! Which one of them pronounced OwnStar ;-) .

It's getting to the point that I can no longer commit a crime with impunity
when I have my cellphone turned on and in my pocket while I do that.

I can't even drive my own car anymore to commit crimes because someone said
somewhere they have cameras set up to read every license plate on the road.

Do they?
I need to know the answer before I commit my next crime so hurry up. :-->
Seriously though, do they?

And what's with this OnStar cellular?
Can't the owner of the car turn it off when they commit their crimes?

Are they putting cellphones inside of sleep apnea machines nowadays
where I have to fake that I was sleeping by putting a respirator on it?

And on top of the propane tanks (to see how much heat you're using staying
up late at night planning those crimes)? How am I going to fool that?

It's getting to the point that I can't get away with crime anymore.
Besides, the guy probably had an iPhone.
They don't know how to put the iPhone into airplane mode I guess. :-->

Am 03.03.23 um 19:18 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 2023-03-03 18:14, micky wrote:
>> I thought I heard the radio say that GPS continued to ping satellites
>> even after.... after the phone was turned off? After what?
>> Because the defense said that the police didn't extract the GPS ping
>> data right away and it gets overlaid when it fills up. That it doesn't
>> use the large amount of storage the phone has, but a much smaller amount
>> devoted only to GPS pinging, and by waiting, the locations at the time
>> of the crime were overlaid. Do you know more about how this works?
>
> I have no idea what a GPS ping may be, because GPS is a passive system.

Very much so!
This is conspiracy crap.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 3 Mar 2023 17:48:38 -0200, dan
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 12:29:59 -0500, micky wrote:
>
>
>> BTW, the police were also able to tell where the car was or cars were,
>> based on OnStar records! Which one of them pronounced OwnStar ;-) .
>
>It's getting to the point that I can no longer commit a crime with impunity
>when I have my cellphone turned on and in my pocket while I do that.
>
>I can't even drive my own car anymore to commit crimes because someone said
>somewhere they have cameras set up to read every license plate on the road.
>
>Do they?
>I need to know the answer before I commit my next crime so hurry up. :-->
>Seriously though, do they?
>
>And what's with this OnStar cellular?
>Can't the owner of the car turn it off when they commit their crimes?

I think if you found the right wire you could put a switch in it**. 3
or 4 years ago there was a story about a driver who left the road and
hit a tree and wrecked his car, and the car called the police, and by
the time the police got there a few minutes later, they found him at a
bar 200 feet away, and already drunk. That is, drunk when he was
driving .

**On my curren car and the previous one, both Toyota Solaras, if I was
going more than 10 or maybe 15 miles an hour, I couldn't put my
convertible top up or down. I didnt' do this the first 10 years but I
have done it the last 30 with no problems. The first car I found the
wire and cut it but the second car, the control box was deep in the
trunk and could barely reach it, coudlnt' really see which wire was
which, and the little trunk was too small to get in (well maybe if I had
someone to hold my legs.) so I did my best and I did cut the right wire.

Of course this is a factory installed part, but OnStar is likely
installed later and the wiring diagram would be even harder to find.
Maybe we can assume it's the red wire.

>Are they putting cellphones inside of sleep apnea machines nowadays
>where I have to fake that I was sleeping by putting a respirator on it?
>
>And on top of the propane tanks (to see how much heat you're using staying
>up late at night planning those crimes)? How am I going to fool that?
>
>It's getting to the point that I can't get away with crime anymore.
>Besides, the guy probably had an iPhone.
>They don't know how to put the iPhone into airplane mode I guess. :-->

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

| > I hate to bring up crime but wrt
| > https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/02/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-verdict
| > do you know if the phones involved were Android, Windows, or iOS?
| | I can't read it, it wants me to register. Ok, I can, in "reader mode".
|

It's hard to believe that people today don't understand their
cellphone, if powered on, is a tracking collar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/28/its-middle-night-do-you-know-who-your-iphone-is-talking/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-bounty-hunter-300-dollars-located-phone-microbilt-zumigo-tmobile

Some years ago a reporter detailed several weeks worth of location
tracking that Apple was doing on his iPhone. The article about it
showed a map of his movements for that period of time.

Google sells "geofencing" data to ID anyone who has been close to a
given point. For example, the Capitol on 1/6/21. A lot of apps sell that
data. Many apps require location data. A popular trend these days seems
to be whole families who always know where the other family members
are. People are so afraid of being alone that they keep consant contact!
It's highly likely that the services or apps providing that "Where's my
mother?" functionality are also selling the data.

In short, thousands of for-profit entities track you everywhere you
go, and there's no legislation in place to stop them. Both business
and government want it to be legal. And most cellphone users now
want to be tracked, in rorder to use Waze, dating, restaurant
suggestions, etc. I read that the Idaho murder suspect turned off his
phone for hours during the time of the murders, but not at other times.
So the cops got a record of all the times he drove by or cased out
the house. Even someone doing such careful planning never thought
to consider that he was constantly being tracked, because like
most people, he couldn't imagine going anywhere without a cellphone.

In article <ttvk25$2qgbb$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Newyana2
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> Some years ago a reporter detailed several weeks worth of location
> tracking that Apple was doing on his iPhone. The article about it
> showed a map of his movements for that period of time.

what happened with that one was someone noticed location data but
didn't know what it was for and assumed things.

it turns out it was *not* to track the user, but rather was a cache for
wifi geolocation, which apple, google, microsoft, skyhook and others
use (although not necessarily on the same device).

a cached subset of that data on the phone makes geolocation
significantly faster since there doesn't need to be a network query
(and in some cases, there can't be if there's no service).

> Google sells "geofencing" data to ID anyone who has been close to a
> given point. For example, the Capitol on 1/6/21. A lot of apps sell that
> data.

cellphone companies have that information and it requires a search
warrant to obtain, which was not difficult to obtain for jan 6.

there are also numerous femtocells inside the capitol to provide
coverage in areas that otherwise would be dead zones. this is common
for any building that has poor rf reception inside.

those femtocells have logs of the imei numbers that connect without
needing to contact the cellphone company, although that still requires
further investigation to match them to a particular individual.

> Many apps require location data. A popular trend these days seems
> to be whole families who always know where the other family members
> are.

that's not a popular trend, although parents with younger kids might
want to know. once the kids are a little older, they're not going to
want their parents tracking them.

>
> In short, thousands of for-profit entities track you everywhere you
> go, and there's no legislation in place to stop them. Both business
> and government want it to be legal. And most cellphone users now
> want to be tracked, in rorder to use Waze, dating, restaurant
> suggestions, etc.

people have the option to share location data and can decide whether
the benefit is worth it. sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

that can be done on a per-app basis or for all apps. some people don't
care and share everything while others block it all. most people fall
in between.

> I read that the Idaho murder suspect turned off his
> phone for hours during the time of the murders, but not at other times.

correct. it was off for approximately 2 hours around the time of the
murders.

> So the cops got a record of all the times he drove by or cased out
> the house. Even someone doing such careful planning never thought
> to consider that he was constantly being tracked, because like
> most people, he couldn't imagine going anywhere without a cellphone.

he knew cellphones could be tracked and thought that by turning it off
or put it in airplane mode, his movements would be hidden. that is
true.

except that having a gap looks a lot worse, especially when the start
and stop points are on opposite sides of the town in which the murders
occurred.

he also didn't realize that his car was seen on multiple surveillance
cameras, including one at the house next door to the crime scene, which
is what made him a suspect in the first place.

the cellphone stuff came later, with a search warrant.

nospam wrote:

> people have the option to share location data and can decide whether
> the benefit is worth it. sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

By default, if you're not intelligent about it, Google tracks far more
about you than Apple does - but that's only if you're not intelligent.

Interestingly, nospam is correct that on Android, people have the option of
_not_ logging into the mothership tracking server, but on iOS, that option
is denied by Apple (who maintains a huge amount of tracking data on you).

Apple tracks you even if you're intelligent because your unique identifier
is inserted into almost everything you do (including each & every app).

Google does _not_ do that on Android.

> that can be done on a per-app basis or for all apps. some people don't
> care and share everything while others block it all. most people fall
> in between.

If you're intelligent about it, you can block almost all Google tracking.

Even if you're intelligent, you can't avoid every single thing you do being
tracked by Apple (e.g., Apple uniquely identifies _every single app_ to
your iCloud accounts!) and you can ask for your treasure trove of data.

>> I read that the Idaho murder suspect turned off his
>> phone for hours during the time of the murders, but not at other times.
>
> correct. it was off for approximately 2 hours around the time of the
> murders.

There's an entire thread of his movements, where he used his phone for
everything _except_ the hours of around 4am for a couple of hours only (but
he returned to the crime scene at 9am with his phone apparently back on).

I suspect he owns an iPhone but I scoured the government documents and it
says what his last four digits of his phone number are, but not the model.

> he knew cellphones could be tracked and thought that by turning it off
> or put it in airplane mode, his movements would be hidden. that is
> true.

I suspect he's an iPhone owner, but I don't know that yet - but he had his
phone on for the many trips he made to the residence to case it out prior.

> except that having a gap looks a lot worse, especially when the start
> and stop points are on opposite sides of the town in which the murders
> occurred.

He's an idiot if he didn't take that phone and throw it over a bridge
_before_ committing any component of that crime. IMHO, he's likely an
iPhone owner, so he probably didn't want to waste the money. :)

> he also didn't realize that his car was seen on multiple surveillance
> cameras, including one at the house next door to the crime scene, which
> is what made him a suspect in the first place.

Not really "his" car, but likely his car but they never got a plate
according to the records I read (and they misidentified the years).
> the cellphone stuff came later, with a search warrant.

They say they got his phone number from a traffic stop back in August
(although it wouldn't have been hard to get his number by other methods).
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to wonder if this dumb criminal used an iPhone.

In article <ttvt5g$2reoh$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> > people have the option to share location data and can decide whether
> > the benefit is worth it. sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
>
> By default, if you're not intelligent about it, Google tracks far more
> about you than Apple does - but that's only if you're not intelligent.

intelligence has nothing to do with it.

i've been telling you that google tracks users far more than apple for
the longest time, but at least you finally acknowledge it.

> Interestingly, nospam is correct that on Android, people have the option of
> _not_ logging into the mothership tracking server, but on iOS, that option
> is denied by Apple (who maintains a huge amount of tracking data on you).

there is no 'mothership tracking server'.

> Apple tracks you even if you're intelligent because your unique identifier
> is inserted into almost everything you do (including each & every app).

that is very much false.

> Google does _not_ do that on Android.

yes they do.

google also tracks users when they turn off location services.

> > that can be done on a per-app basis or for all apps. some people don't
> > care and share everything while others block it all. most people fall
> > in between.
>
> If you're intelligent about it, you can block almost all Google tracking.

'almost all' is not everything, and that applies to more than just
google.

> Even if you're intelligent, you can't avoid every single thing you do being
> tracked by Apple (e.g., Apple uniquely identifies _every single app_ to
> your iCloud accounts!) and you can ask for your treasure trove of data.

so does google.

not that it matters. since apps can identify users in many *other* ways.

> >> I read that the Idaho murder suspect turned off his
> >> phone for hours during the time of the murders, but not at other times.
> >
> > correct. it was off for approximately 2 hours around the time of the
> > murders.
>
> There's an entire thread of his movements, where he used his phone for
> everything _except_ the hours of around 4am for a couple of hours only (but
> he returned to the crime scene at 9am with his phone apparently back on).
>
> I suspect he owns an iPhone but I scoured the government documents and it
> says what his last four digits of his phone number are, but not the model.

you did not scour much, because his full phone number is in at least
one public document.

not that it matters, since he's in jail and unable to answer your calls.

reportedly, calls go to voicemail (at least they did back in january).

> > he knew cellphones could be tracked and thought that by turning it off
> > or put it in airplane mode, his movements would be hidden. that is
> > true.
>
> I suspect he's an iPhone owner, but I don't know that yet - but he had his
> phone on for the many trips he made to the residence to case it out prior.

sorry to burst your trolling bubble, but reports are that he had an
android phone and an acer laptop, which makes it quite a bit easier to
extract forensic data.

> > except that having a gap looks a lot worse, especially when the start
> > and stop points are on opposite sides of the town in which the murders
> > occurred.
>
> He's an idiot if he didn't take that phone and throw it over a bridge
> _before_ committing any component of that crime. IMHO, he's likely an
> iPhone owner, so he probably didn't want to waste the money. :)

in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.

not that such an alibi would have any credibility since he was seen on
surveillance video *at* the house at the time the murders occurred, as
well as elsewhere in the area shortly before & after.

> > he also didn't realize that his car was seen on multiple surveillance
> > cameras, including one at the house next door to the crime scene, which
> > is what made him a suspect in the first place.
>
> Not really "his" car, but likely his car but they never got a plate
> according to the records I read (and they misidentified the years).

yes, really his car.

the surveillance images show a vehicle without a front plate, and at
the time, he had pennsylvania plates, which only requires a rear plate.

they also didn't misidentify the years. they had an initial range,
which was later expanded because very little in the car's exterior
changed.

they also were *very* careful in public statements so that he wasn't
spooked into thinking they were on to him (which they very definitely
were). by publicly stating a narrower range, they wanted him to think
he was 'safe'.

> > the cellphone stuff came later, with a search warrant.
>
> They say they got his phone number from a traffic stop back in August
> (although it wouldn't have been hard to get his number by other methods).

once white elantra was identified, washington state university did a
search of vehicles that had parking passes and found a match. that led
to his name, drive's license information, driving record and phone
number from a previous traffic stop.

at that point, they had probable cause for a search warrant to obtain
location data from the cellphone carrier.

nospam wrote:

>>> people have the option to share location data and can decide whether
>>> the benefit is worth it. sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
>>
>> By default, if you're not intelligent about it, Google tracks far more
>> about you than Apple does - but that's only if you're not intelligent.
>
> intelligence has nothing to do with it.

Actually intelligence has a _lot_ to do with people having the basic adult
capacity to understand that the pervasive iPhone privacy marketing is as
much bullshit as Google's do no evil mantra of the past.

An intelligent person realizes two fundamental core concepts here, nospam:
1. The iPhone by default, is more private than Android, by default, but...
2. The privacy you can get with Android is absolutely impossible with iOS.

The reasons are myriad, where _understanding_ them is where intelligence is
required since most people are idiots who believe Apple's marketing lies.
*Your privacy isn't anywhere near what Apple wants you to think it is*
<https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>

> i've been telling you that google tracks users far more than apple for
> the longest time, but at least you finally acknowledge it.

See above where I told _you_ what the difference is, which you are unaware
of, which is Android can be made by a typical user _tremendously_ more
private than iOS ever can be made - simply due to the overall design.
> there is no 'mothership tracking server'.

It's no longer shocking how little you know since you're not aware that
Apple _inserts_ a unique identification key into each app you download.

Google does not. In fact, Google can't.

>> Apple tracks you even if you're intelligent because your unique identifier
>> is inserted into almost everything you do (including each & every app).
>
> that is very much false.

It's no longer shocking that you're completely ignorant of what Apple does.
*Apple now lets you download every bit of data it ever collected from you*
<https://mashable.com/article/apple-data-and-privacy>

>
>> Google does _not_ do that on Android.
>
> yes they do.

It's no longer shocking that you don't understand the difference between an
Android phone set up with a Google Account by default, and one that's not.

You aren't even aware that you fundamentally can't use iOS as a typical
user _without_ handing all your privacy to Apple because the mothership
account is _required_ for iOS (and yes, I know all your excuses for that).

> google also tracks users when they turn off location services.

It's no longer shocking you remain ignorant that we covered how to stop
that in gory detail - which you don't comprehend because you are always
fabricating imaginary functionality for iOS that simply does not exist.

>>> that can be done on a per-app basis or for all apps. some people don't
>>> care and share everything while others block it all. most people fall
>>> in between.
>>
>> If you're intelligent about it, you can block almost all Google tracking.
>
> 'almost all' is not everything, and that applies to more than just
> google.

This is a real question but because you're so ignorant of _everything_ you
speak of, nospam, it becomes a rhetorical question for uneducated iKooks.

Tell us, oh vaunted low-IQ iKook, what tracking you can't stop on Android?
*Name just one*
>> Even if you're intelligent, you can't avoid every single thing you do being
>> tracked by Apple (e.g., Apple uniquely identifies _every single app_ to
>> your iCloud accounts!) and you can ask for your treasure trove of data.
>
> so does google.

It's no longer shocking you don't comprehend that a user can easily use
Android without a Google Account but that same user can't easily use the
iOS devices without the mothership tracking account.

And yes, I know all your lame excuses (three day apps, jailbreaking, etc.).

>
> not that it matters. since apps can identify users in many *other* ways.

The fact is you _hate_ that the advertised iPhone privacy is completely
imaginary nospam. Just the fact Apple tracks every single one of your apps,
nospam, and Google can't, is indicative of the lack of privacy with iOS.

That Apple _requires_ a mothership tracking account, and that iOS is the
_only_ operating system to do that (at least prior to Windows 11 came out),
is indicative of the fact that any privacy on an iPhone is a marketing lie.

At least Google (and Windows 10) doesn't _require_ a mothership tracking
account, nospam. It's no longer shocking you're not even aware of this.

>> I suspect he's an iPhone owner, but I don't know that yet - but he had his
>> phone on for the many trips he made to the residence to case it out prior.
>
> sorry to burst your trolling bubble, but reports are that he had an
> android phone and an acer laptop, which makes it quite a bit easier to
> extract forensic data.

While it's been my observation that the least technically qualified people
gravitate to the Apple "*I'll make you feel safe!*" predatory lies, I read
all the initially released published legal documents, and they didn't
provide the phone model that the idiot criminal used during his crimes.

It's no longer shocking you claim that the idiot owned Android but I feel
it's far more likely, given how stupid he was, that he had an iPhone.

But I'll change my mind on a dime if you show proof, and if you don't show
proof, then it's no longer shocking how much you _lie_ to protect Apple.

> in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
> night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.

Yeah, but he also took the phone with him when he cased the household.

He was _desperate_ to have his phone with him, which is another observation
which makes me think he's more likely an idiot iPhone than Android owner.

> not that such an alibi would have any credibility since he was seen on
> surveillance video *at* the house at the time the murders occurred, as
> well as elsewhere in the area shortly before & after.

It's no longer shocking that you fabricate things that you don't back up.

I'm not aware that his person was seen in any surveillance video, although
he was seen face to face by one of the surviving roommates (who,
paradoxically, didn't phone police at the time). His vehicle was seen
though, and the dog was heard barking (much as in the Alex Murdaugh case).

If you have a cite for your fabrication that his person was on a video, you
should produce that cite now as you have a history of fabricating lies.

>> Not really "his" car, but likely his car but they never got a plate
>> according to the records I read (and they misidentified the years).
>
> yes, really his car.
>
> the surveillance images show a vehicle without a front plate, and at
> the time, he had pennsylvania plates, which only requires a rear plate.

It's interesting that you are so desperate that you deny what nobody who is
an adult would ever deny, which is that simply having videos of "a car"
that "matches the description of his car" doesn't make that video, in and
of itslf, of his car.

That you can't comprehend something as simple and incontrovertible as that
basic adult comprehensive logic is how I know you have a rather low IQ
nospam.

> they also didn't misidentify the years. they had an initial range,
> which was later expanded because very little in the car's exterior
> changed.

I agree their initial range was faulty and they admitted it themselves.
So this is the _first_ thing you've said, nospam, that is logical.

> they also were *very* careful in public statements so that he wasn't
> spooked into thinking they were on to him (which they very definitely
> were). by publicly stating a narrower range, they wanted him to think
> he was 'safe'.

That may be the case, but that's not what they said when they asked the
expert to identify the vehicle make model and year, but I won't disagree
that they are being "very careful" to eliminate future objections to the
gathering of data.

I still want to know, for sure, if he was using an iPhone though.
Because he's incredibly stupid but he seems to think he's a genius.

Naq lrf, V xabj lbh pna'g erfvfg gnxvat gung onvg orpnhfr lbh'er n puvyq.

>>> the cellphone stuff came later, with a search warrant.
>>
>> They say they got his phone number from a traffic stop back in August
>> (although it wouldn't have been hard to get his number by other methods).
>
> once white elantra was identified, washington state university did a
> search of vehicles that had parking passes and found a match. that led
> to his name, drive's license information, driving record and phone
> number from a previous traffic stop.

In article <tu08q6$2sli8$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> It's no longer shocking you don't comprehend that a user can easily use
> Android without a Google Account but that same user can't easily use the
> iOS devices without the mothership tracking account.

there is no 'mothership tracking account', but regardless, that doesn't
actually matter since apps have many *other* ways to track people.

since you don't understand how, you have no way to block it.

that means you're leaving all sorts of trails.

idaho sidetrack continues:

> > in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
> > night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.
>
> Yeah, but he also took the phone with him when he cased the household.

he had his phone with him all the time, just like everyone else does.

however, there's no evidence that he *did* case the house. it's likely,
but it's not a guarantee.

it's only known that he was 'using cellular resources' in the area at
least 12 times. that's careful wording.

moscow, idaho is a rural town, and according to the fcc, there are only
*three* cell towers for at&t that serve the area, which is not enough
to pinpoint anyone at any specific location.

> He was _desperate_ to have his phone with him, which is another observation
> which makes me think he's more likely an idiot iPhone than Android owner.

what a colossally stupid thing to say.

>
> I'm not aware that his person was seen in any surveillance video,

his vehicle was seen *at* the house at the time of the murders.

his vehicle was *also* seen the next morning at the albertson's in
clarkston (~30 mi south), with video of him getting into and out of the
vehicle.

that's is a key part of the probable cause affidavit that links him to
a white elantra without a front plate seen at the house (which is
unusual for the area since washington & idaho both require it).

it's also a virtual certainty that he was seen on surveillance video
inside alberston's and what he bought.

if he paid cash, they can pull the register receipt when he is seen
going through the checkout lane.

if he paid by credit card, they don't even need that since the
transaction is linked to his card, with an itemized list of everything
he bought.

they will also be able to see where he went in the store. was he
looking at fresh arugula or was he looking at sponges and detergents.

> although
> he was seen face to face by one of the surviving roommates (who,
> paradoxically, didn't phone police at the time).

she freaked out, which is not unusual.

> His vehicle was seen
> though, and the dog was heard barking (much as in the Alex Murdaugh case).

the dog knew something wasn't normal.

the problem for alex murdaugh was his voice on a phone video that
placed him *at* the crime scene *at* the time it occurred, which
contradicted his claim that he was not there. in other words, it's
proof he lied.

> If you have a cite for your fabrication that his person was on a video, you
> should produce that cite now as you have a history of fabricating lies.

it's not a fabrication. see above.

keep in mind that there is a reasonable chance that the surveillance
video from the house *next* *door* has him on video *that* *night*.

that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).

> I still want to know, for sure, if he was using an iPhone though.

of course you do.

> Because he's incredibly stupid but he seems to think he's a genius.

phd students often are.

he may be academically smart, but he's definitely not street smart.

this is likely his first major crime (and fortunately, his last), which
is why he made a lot of mistakes that a seasoned criminal would never
have done.

oddly enough, it's analogous to you, who *thinks* you're hiding from
google by not having a google account, while not having any idea what
*other* evidence you're leaving.

> They actually said they had MORE probable cause than they used to ask for
> teh search warrant in the search warrant itself, so as to have a readily
> available defense if the criminal's lawyers challenge the search warrant.

they only needed probable cause to make an arrest.

additional evidence will be presented at a future trial, assuming there
is one.

it's possible (and quite likely) that the evidence against him is so
overwhelming that taking a plea deal might be a wise choice.

nospam wrote:
> In article <tu08q6$2sli8$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
> <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
Bla bla bla.
>
> there is no 'mothership tracking account', but regardless,
Bla bla bla.

[A lot of pure bullshit was snipped]

Guys, there's only one way to settle this:

A duel, with swords. Unfortunately neither of you old geezers can
wield a sword any more. And neither has enough books to win by
using the scholarly genius approach, since you are both adults and
smarter than the other. It's a damn stalemate, old guys. Face it.

Why not call a perpetual truce? You can both go away, claiming you
won the battle and saved the day, for apple, or for android.

You both will be decorated and honored as true heros. Forever.

On 2023-03-04 16:57, nospam wrote:

> moscow, idaho is a rural town, and according to the fcc, there are only
> *three* cell towers for at&t that serve the area, which is not enough
> to pinpoint anyone at any specific location.

Given the location of the three towers around there, you 'could' get
position accuracies of about 10 to 100 metres. Doesn't mean they got
any position by trilateration though.

> it's possible (and quite likely) that the evidence against him is so
> overwhelming that taking a plea deal might be a wise choice.

I think the prosecution would rather he die.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

nospam wrote:

>> It's no longer shocking you don't comprehend that a user can easily use
>> Android without a Google Account but that same user can't easily use the
>> iOS devices without the mothership tracking account.
>
> there is no 'mothership tracking account', but regardless, that doesn't
> actually matter since apps have many *other* ways to track people.

Unfortunately for you nospam, you don't own the mental capacity to
comprehend that Apple bullshitted you on all its privacy marketing.

The entire setup with respect to privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in scores
of ways between Android and iOS, nospam. It's not just one privacy hole.

*Apple Is Tracking You Even When Its Own Privacy Settings Say It's Not*
<https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558>

*Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says*
<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>

> since you don't understand how, you have no way to block it.

What you show no grasp of, nospam, is Apple _inserts_ into every IPA that
you install, a unique key that Google doesn't (and that Google can't).

> that means you're leaving all sorts of trails.

I've never said there are zero trails as it's a cell phone for God's sake.

What I said was very clear, which I'll repeat in summary, since it takes an
intelligent person to understand the facts but people who get all their
information from Apple marketing literature will never understand them.

1. Neither Android nor iOS is completely private...
2. The privacy issues are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between the two platforms...
3. Hence it's BULLSHIT MARKETING to claim some but ignore others...
Given that...
A. If you added up the sum total of scores of privacy conditions...
B. The count for the default iPhone would be lower than default Android
C. But, a well set up Android will _always_ be more private than iOS can!

Intelligent people understand that Apple MARKETING ignores where they're
not private (e.g., Apple requires a mothership tracking account), while
only focusing on where Apple is private (e.g., allowing you to turn off
some tracking in some apps, for example).

An intelligent person knows that Apple is bullshitting everyone, nospam.
There's no company I can think of other than Wagner that lies like Apple.

You have to understand how Apple's MARKETING skirts the holes in iOS.

To understand all those points, nospam, takes intelligence you don't own.
*Can My Phone Be Tracked If Location Services Are Off?*
<https://www.mcafee.com/learn/can-my-phone-be-tracked-if-location-services-are-off/>

As just _one_ of those points, what you appear to not be aware of is that
the Android phone works perfectly fine without a mothership tracking
account while iOS essentially _requires_ that mothership tracking account.

That means while Apple tracks everything you do via that mothership
tracking account, Google can't (because that mothership tracking account
does not exist).

I'll respond to the iPhone/Android phone murders separately, as there was
one point in there that you said that I was previously unaware of.

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> It's no longer shocking you don't comprehend that a user can
>>> easily use
>>> Android without a Google Account but that same user can't easily
>>> use the
>>> iOS devices without the mothership tracking account.
>>
>> there is no 'mothership tracking account', but regardless, that
>> doesn't
>> actually matter since apps have many *other* ways to track people.
>
> Unfortunately for you nospam, you don't own the mental capacity to
> comprehend that Apple bullshitted you on all its privacy marketing.
>
> The entire setup with respect to privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in
> scores
> of ways between Android and iOS, nospam. It's not just one privacy
> hole.
>
> *Apple Is Tracking You Even When Its Own Privacy Settings Say It's
> Not*
> <https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558>
>
>
> *Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what
> Apple says*
> <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>
>
>
>> since you don't understand how, you have no way to block it.
>
> What you show no grasp of, nospam, is Apple _inserts_ into every
> IPA that
> you install, a unique key that Google doesn't (and that Google can't).
>
>> that means you're leaving all sorts of trails.
>
> I've never said there are zero trails as it's a cell phone for
> God's sake.
>
> What I said was very clear, which I'll repeat in summary, since it
> takes an
> intelligent person to understand the facts but people who get all
> their
> information from Apple marketing literature will never understand
> them.
>
> 1. Neither Android nor iOS is completely private... 2. The privacy
> issues are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between the two platforms...
> 3. Hence it's BULLSHIT MARKETING to claim some but ignore others...
> Given that... A. If you added up the sum total of scores of privacy
> conditions... B. The count for the default iPhone would be lower
> than default Android
> C. But, a well set up Android will _always_ be more private than
> iOS can!
>
> Intelligent people understand that Apple MARKETING ignores where
> they're
> not private (e.g., Apple requires a mothership tracking account),
> while
> only focusing on where Apple is private (e.g., allowing you to turn
> off
> some tracking in some apps, for example).
>
> An intelligent person knows that Apple is bullshitting everyone,
> nospam.
> There's no company I can think of other than Wagner that lies like
> Apple.
>
> You have to understand how Apple's MARKETING skirts the holes in iOS.
>
> To understand all those points, nospam, takes intelligence you
> don't own.
> *Can My Phone Be Tracked If Location Services Are Off?*
> <https://www.mcafee.com/learn/can-my-phone-be-tracked-if-location-services-are-off/>
>
>
> As just _one_ of those points, what you appear to not be aware of
> is that
> the Android phone works perfectly fine without a mothership tracking
> account while iOS essentially _requires_ that mothership tracking
> account.
>
> That means while Apple tracks everything you do via that mothership
> tracking account, Google can't (because that mothership tracking
> account
> does not exist).
>
> I'll respond to the iPhone/Android phone murders separately, as
> there was
> one point in there that you said that I was previously unaware of.

So much for being an adult.

In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 4 Mar 2023 09:19:30 -0500, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
>| > I hate to bring up crime but wrt
>| > https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/02/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-verdict
>| > do you know if the phones involved were Android, Windows, or iOS?
>|
>| I can't read it, it wants me to register. Ok, I can, in "reader mode".
>|
>
> It's hard to believe that people today don't understand their
>cellphone, if powered on, is a tracking collar.

Yes, but the phone is just near you, in your pocket or purse or hand.

OTOH, the trackers in the covid "vaccine" are inside you, so they give a
more precise location to those people who are tracking you.

>https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/28/its-middle-night-do-you-know-who-your-iphone-is-talking/
>
>https://www.vice.com/en/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-bounty-hunter-300-dollars-located-phone-microbilt-zumigo-tmobile
>
> Some years ago a reporter detailed several weeks worth of location
>tracking that Apple was doing on his iPhone. The article about it
>showed a map of his movements for that period of time.
>
> Google sells "geofencing" data to ID anyone who has been close to a
>given point. For example, the Capitol on 1/6/21. A lot of apps sell that
>data. Many apps require location data. A popular trend these days seems
>to be whole families who always know where the other family members
>are. People are so afraid of being alone that they keep consant contact!
>It's highly likely that the services or apps providing that "Where's my
>mother?" functionality are also selling the data.
>
> In short, thousands of for-profit entities track you everywhere you
>go, and there's no legislation in place to stop them. Both business
>and government want it to be legal. And most cellphone users now
>want to be tracked, in rorder to use Waze, dating, restaurant
>suggestions, etc. I read that the Idaho murder suspect turned off his
>phone for hours during the time of the murders, but not at other times.
>So the cops got a record of all the times he drove by or cased out
>the house. Even someone doing such careful planning never thought
>to consider that he was constantly being tracked, because like
>most people, he couldn't imagine going anywhere without a cellphone.

I need it.

nospam wrote:

>>> in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
>>> night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.
>>
>> Yeah, but he also took the phone with him when he cased the household.
>
> he had his phone with him all the time, just like everyone else does.

First off I must commend you as normally you're completely ignorant of
everythign you claim (you just make it all up); but you seem to have read a
newspaper or two about these murders (which is a good thing, nospam).

Most iKooks appear to have never read the news in their entire lives.
So kudos to you for keeping up on this subject for the most part.
(You even mentioned things I wasn't aware of, but, you also jumped to
brazen conclusions which, typical for you, you provided zero cites for).

I'm different than you iKooks in that I'll change my opinion on a dime if
you show evidence of that or if your arguments are logically sensible.

Therefore I'm not disagreeing that he more than likely kept the phone with
him the whole time and just turned it off during the actual murders.

My main concern with all these crimes where the phone does the person in is
what made them think that having a phone turned on wouldn't be traced back?

Even though my (free) Android phone is set up to be far more private than
even the most expensive iPhones on the planet, there's still data leakage
which isn't necessary when you don't need a phone to commit a crime.

> however, there's no evidence that he *did* case the house. it's likely,
> but it's not a guarantee.

Having read the original public PDFs, I would agree that it's logical that
he might have cased the joint, given the many nearby pings, but it's up to
the police to prove that he did (not that it matters greatly if they can
already pinpoint him at the murder scene anyway on the night of the crime).

> it's only known that he was 'using cellular resources' in the area at
> least 12 times. that's careful wording.
>
> moscow, idaho is a rural town, and according to the fcc, there are only
> *three* cell towers for at&t that serve the area, which is not enough
> to pinpoint anyone at any specific location.

I won't disagree with any of that as it's a logical sensible assessment.

>
>> He was _desperate_ to have his phone with him, which is another observation
>> which makes me think he's more likely an idiot iPhone than Android owner.
>
> what a colossally stupid thing to say.

Actually, it's not. You just don't understand that I'm trying to assess
what kind of person commits a heinous crime like that who feels the need to
bring his phone along. Was he expecting a call from his mother or was he
live streaming the whole thing?

If it's an unplanned spur-of-the-moment crime of passion, for example, then
sure, the phone would be with you most likely - but if it's a carefully
planned murder - then the phone has no business being anywhere near you.

Best to tape the phone to the bottom of a Greyhound bus or something, so
you can plausibly say you were somewhere else the entire time.

The reason I associate iPhone owners with stupidity like this, nospam, is
that I can give you plenty of situations where iPhone owners are bamboozled
by their imaginary belief systems. Do I need to back that up or do you
understand that iPhone owners fall for the dumbest marketing gimmicks.

>> I'm not aware that his person was seen in any surveillance video,
>
> his vehicle was seen *at* the house at the time of the murders.

I haven't read anything on it since the early days of his arrest, so I
wasn't aware there was "visual" (either in person or via cameras) evidence
of the white Elantra _at_ the house - but I wouldn't doubt he'd park it a
block away or so as the white Elantra was seen going down the road and
turning around at the culdesac as I recall.

> his vehicle was *also* seen the next morning at the albertson's in
> clarkston (~30 mi south), with video of him getting into and out of the
> vehicle.

This I wasn't aware of, where what might matter could be what he bought. If
he bought, for example, cleaning supplies that he then used on his car,
that would be different than if he bought a grill cheese sandwich instead.

> that's is a key part of the probable cause affidavit that links him to
> a white elantra without a front plate seen at the house (which is
> unusual for the area since washington & idaho both require it).

I don't know how well you know west coast law enforcement, but I haven't
had a front license plate on a few of my cars for many years. Only once did
I get a ticket (a parking officer gave me a fixit ticket years ago).

I still don't have a front plate on that car, my point being some states
don't enforce their laws (but where I came from, back in NY, they do).

> it's also a virtual certainty that he was seen on surveillance video
> inside alberston's and what he bought.

As I said, I wasn't aware of this but I'm sure he went shopping in the days
between the crime and when he and his father drove across the country.

They're even in the police bodycam video having been pulled over multiple
times on that trip (the guys is apparently a horrible driver.

You'd think a guy who just committed a few murders would drive below the
speed limit, stop at stop signs, not cross over the white lines, etc.

> if he paid cash, they can pull the register receipt when he is seen
> going through the checkout lane.

I'm agreeing that whatever items he bought before and after the murders can
be important, e.g., they found "a knife" and "a mask" at his parent's home.

> if he paid by credit card, they don't even need that since the
> transaction is linked to his card, with an itemized list of everything
> he bought.

The fact he cleaned his car multiple times rather thoroughly will be
certain to be brought up to jurors, where the timing of the purchase of
those supplies will also be of interest (if he did buy them, of course).

>
> they will also be able to see where he went in the store. was he
> looking at fresh arugula or was he looking at sponges and detergents.
>
>> although
>> he was seen face to face by one of the surviving roommates (who,
>> paradoxically, didn't phone police at the time).
>
> she freaked out, which is not unusual.

He was probably looking for lemon juice to hide from the surveillance
cameras. I heard that works for bank robbers anyway...

>> His vehicle was seen
>> though, and the dog was heard barking (much as in the Alex Murdaugh case).
>
> the dog knew something wasn't normal.

What was really creepy was him apparently telling the girls who were crying
that he was going to make it better (or something to that creepy effect).

> the problem for alex murdaugh was his voice on a phone video that
> placed him *at* the crime scene *at* the time it occurred, which
> contradicted his claim that he was not there. in other words, it's
> proof he lied.

It would be interesting to compare how many times Alex Murdaugh lied versus
how many times Apple lied in the same time frame as those murders took.

I think Apple will easily be shown to lie more than Murdaugh did though.
Apple has billion-dollar lies while Murdaugh's are only in the millions.

BTW, on that note, Apple is a horrible company because they perpetrate so
many brazen lies which they have no sense of shame for doing, mostly
because Apple gets rich as a predator of people who can't understand
Apple's marketing lies. Your predatory personality mirrors that of Apple.
>> If you have a cite for your fabrication that his person was on a video, you
>> should produce that cite now as you have a history of fabricating lies.
>
> it's not a fabrication. see above.

I must have misunderstood because I was talking about AT THE TIME of the
crime, and at that time, the only video is of a similar (probably his)
vehicle but not of a _person_ (again, during the time of the crime).

If there _is_ surveillance video _at the time_ of the crime that shows his
person, I wouldn't be surprised though - I just haven't seen a cite saying
that it exists.

> keep in mind that there is a reasonable chance that the surveillance
> video from the house *next* *door* has him on video *that* *night*.

Certainly the camera recorded sounds so it was certainly on and running but
it was supposedly pointed at the side of the house as I recall from the
police reports I read long ago.

This issue seems to be classic for how your strange brain works, nospam,
where I don't jump to the unwarranted conclusion that surveillance video of
his person exists - while you apparently do (but you lack the evidence).

It's classic for people like you who can't handle processing of detail.

> that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
> disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).

In article <tu0u55$33c7v$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

> *Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says*
>
> <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enf
> orces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>

that's the *app* doing the tracking, not ios.

apple has *nothing* to do with what app developers choose to do or not
do.

unfortunately, app tracking is self-reported, and although many app
developers are honest about it, some are not. that's just reality.

nothing new about that and it's not specific to apple either. lots of
companies aren't completely honest, in every industry.

> 2. The privacy issues are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between the two platforms...

no they aren't.

> That means while Apple tracks everything you do via that mothership
> tracking account,

no they don't, nor is there a 'mothership tracking account' that could
even be used for that purpose.

> Google can't (because that mothership tracking account
> does not exist).

almost every android user has an active google id, what you call a
'mothership tracking account'.

what *you* do is not typical. it is also counterproductive, except you
don't realize that.

the only 'tracking' is that apple, google and microsoft keep a record
of which apps someone downloads from their respective app stores, but
that's the extent of it. they don't monitor usage of said apps, nor can
they.

In article <tu10ph$33l5a$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

> > his vehicle was *also* seen the next morning at the albertson's in
> > clarkston (~30 mi south), with video of him getting into and out of the
> > vehicle.
>
> This I wasn't aware of, where what might matter could be what he bought. If
> he bought, for example, cleaning supplies that he then used on his car,
> that would be different than if he bought a grill cheese sandwich instead.

he's vegan, so he didn't buy anything with cheese in it, that day or
any other day.

> > that's is a key part of the probable cause affidavit that links him to
> > a white elantra without a front plate seen at the house (which is
> > unusual for the area since washington & idaho both require it).
>
> I don't know how well you know west coast law enforcement, but I haven't
> had a front license plate on a few of my cars for many years. Only once did
> I get a ticket (a parking officer gave me a fixit ticket years ago).

this may come to you as a surprise, but idaho is not a 'west coast'
state. in fact, it is not a coastal state of any sort. moscow/pullman
is many hours from the west coast, on the *other* side of the cascades.

he also wasn't cited for no front plate.

what you fail to understand is that not having a front plate in an area
where it's required makes the vehicle more distinctive than it
otherwise would have been.

what you also fail to understand is your practice of not having a
google id makes you more distinctive for tracking, because it's *very*
rare anyone does that.

> They're even in the police bodycam video having been pulled over multiple
> times on that trip (the guys is apparently a horrible driver.

the stops in indiana were very likely pretext stops.

two stops within ten minutes is extremely unusual, especially for
something minor such as tailgating, one of which was by a sheriff who
normally does not patrol the interstates.

> You'd think a guy who just committed a few murders would drive below the
> speed limit, stop at stop signs, not cross over the white lines, etc.

he may have done that driving home the night of the murders, but the
cross-country drive was a month later across multiple states nowhere
near the crime.

>
> It would be interesting to compare how many times Alex Murdaugh lied versus
> how many times Apple lied in the same time frame as those murders took.

you've gone off the deep end. seek help.

>
> > that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
> > disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).
>
> I will agree with any logical statement you (or anyone) makes, nospam,
> where I am not a lawyer, but I "think" they have to give the defense _all_
> that they have at "some point" in time. I don't know when that point in
> time is, but certainly it must be before the trial starts I would think.

it's called discovery and it's happening *now*, ahead of the
preliminary hearing in june. his lawyers need time to review it and
build a defense.

don't expect much to be made public, as the only requirement is
probable cause to continue with the real trial.

> > this is likely his first major crime (and fortunately, his last), which
> > is why he made a lot of mistakes that a seasoned criminal would never
> > have done.
>
> I'm going to agree with you that this appears to be his first major crime,
> as leaving the knife sheath and using the phone were simply dumb actions.

it's also possible that leaving the sheath was intentional, thinking
that it might throw off investigators to search for the 'wrong' type of
knife, a seemingly smart move in his warped mind.

unfortunately for him, that isn't going to be particularly effective.

or it could have been a mistake.

>
> > oddly enough, it's analogous to you, who *thinks* you're hiding from
> > google by not having a google account, while not having any idea what
> > *other* evidence you're leaving.
>
> What you show no evidence of comprehending, nospam, is that the privacy
> between Android and iOS is *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT* in myriad ways.

actually, it isn't.

> For example, in Android I randomize my Wi-Fi MAC address per connection.
> Can you do that with iOS by a simple toggle like you can with Android?

ios does that automatically without needing to toggle anything (it's
the default), and has done it long before android did.

ios also can detect trackers and hide your ip address from them.

either or both can be disabled if desired on a per-network basis.

> > additional evidence will be presented at a future trial, assuming there
> > is one.
>
> His lawyer isn't in any rush to be tried it seems, which makes sense.

the wheels of justice turn slowly, however, they do turn.

lawsuits take time. that's just how it is.

> What I'll be looking for is which phone did he own. iPhone or Android.

of course you will, because that's obviously the most important thing
in the entire case.

the more you keep babbling, the more you outdo yourself in saying
incredibly stupid shit.

meanwhile, everyone else wants to know relevant facts, such as did they
find dna evidence linking him to the crime, have they found the knife,
is this really his first crime and most importantly (but not needed for
a conviction), why the hell did a random person break into a house and
kill four students for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

>
> My bet is he's an iPhone owner.

my bet is you're an idiot.

Am 04.03.23 um 15:19 schrieb Newyana2:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
> | > I hate to bring up crime but wrt
> | > https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/02/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-verdict
> | > do you know if the phones involved were Android, Windows, or iOS?
> |
> | I can't read it, it wants me to register. Ok, I can, in "reader mode".
> |
>
> It's hard to believe that people today don't understand their
> cellphone, if powered on, is a tracking collar.
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/28/its-middle-night-do-you-know-who-your-iphone-is-talking/
>
> https://www.vice.com/en/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-bounty-hunter-300-dollars-located-phone-microbilt-zumigo-tmobile
>
> Some years ago a reporter detailed several weeks worth of location
> tracking that Apple was doing on his iPhone. The article about it
> showed a map of his movements for that period of time.

Once more you are spreading *FUD* with very old articles you do not
understand Mayayana. All these geolocation stuff can be turned off on an
iPhone quite easily. It is always a good idea to turn off unused
communication sockets like BT or wifi if not needed. It also saves
energy and extends the range of the battery.

I do not know whether ist is true that service providers can sell
location data of their customers they obtain from their infrastructure
to third parties without consent in the USA. I have difficulties to
believe that.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 05/03/2023 02:31, micky wrote:
>
> OTOH, the trackers in the covid "vaccine" are inside you, so they give a
> more precise location to those people who are tracking you.

Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive wrote:

> Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
>     a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l

Why do you make a prick of yourself "reporting" this, and making a point
of saying you've "reported" it, you know they just go straight into the
circular filing cabinet ...

On 05/03/2023 13:49, Andy Burns wrote:
> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
>>      a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l
>
> Why do you make a prick of yourself "reporting" this, and making a point
> of saying you've "reported" it, you know they just go straight into the
> circular filing cabinet ...

Why make a prick of yourself by appearing to condone someone else making
a prick of themselves by circulating brainless anti-vax shit?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 2023-03-05 15:19, Java Jive wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 13:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
>>>      a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l
>>
>> Why do you make a prick of yourself "reporting" this, and making a
>> point of saying you've "reported" it, you know they just go straight
>> into the circular filing cabinet ...
>
> Why make a prick of yourself by appearing to condone someone else making
> a prick of themselves by circulating brainless anti-vax shit?
>

It is you who is making a fool of himself. Your report will be garbaged
and ignored. Even if you report an assassination complot on your president.

And telling here about such a report is also naive and foolish.

Grow up.

--
Cheers, Carlos.