nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> it's not any type of backdoor, which means they didn't look at reality.
>
> they *did* look at perception and that by claiming it was, they could
> gain popularity and profit from it.

For once, nospam got it right...

What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so well.
1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

Never forget Apple spends the least in R&D than all high tech companies.
Apple is all marketing (with concomitant huge profits as a direct result).

Bearing in mind Apple marketing is arguably the finest in the world, one has
to wonder why Apple didn't ask even a single privacy organization (out of
hundreds) what _they_ thought of this hare-brained idea marketing cooked up.

Likewise, one has to wonder why Apple marketing didn't ask even a _single_
privacy expert (as far as we know) what _they_ thought of this marketing
idea.

Why?

Why did the smartest marketing org on the planet do something _that_ stupid?
--
Something is fishy here as Apple marketing isn't usually this stupid.

In article <si80ok$pr9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so well.
> 1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
> 2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

i was talking about the eff.

stop lying.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so well.
>> 1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
>> 2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"
>
> i was talking about the eff.

Of all the apologists, nospam, you are the least ignorant.

What tells me you're a bullshitter is you KNOW Apple marketing perfectly!
1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

Given Apple did this purely for marketing purposes, it seems rather stupid
of them to not ask even a _single_ privacy expert what they thought of it.

Nor did, apparently, Apple marketing ask even a _single_ privacy
organization what they thought of this stupid idea concocted by marketing.

What's odd is that Apple marketing is not normally this stupid.
Which leads me to believe there's more to this story than what we know.
--
Never forget nobody in tech spends LESS than does Apple in actual R&D.

On 9/19/2021 11:50 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> it's not any type of backdoor, which means they didn't look at reality.
>>
>> they *did* look at perception and that by claiming it was, they could
>> gain popularity and profit from it.
>
> For once, nospam got it right...
>
> What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so well.
> 1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
> 2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

He got #1 right anyway, but I doubt if anyone ever believed that they
would gain popularity from their proposal. If they didn't anticipate the
negative reaction from hundreds of privacy organizations and millions of
end users, then that's something they need to look into.

On 2021-09-20, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 11:50 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>>>
>>>> The EFF doesn't look at perception, they look at reality. And to be
>>>> fair, they did at least state that it is a "narrow back door."
>>>
>>> it's not any type of backdoor, which means they didn't look at
>>> reality.
>>>
>>> they *did* look at perception and that by claiming it was, they
>>> could gain popularity and profit from it.
>>
>> For once, nospam got it right...
>>
>> What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so
>> well. 1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and, 2.
>> *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"
>
> He got #1 right anyway

He wasn't talking about Apple, and you both know that. And anyone who
can read can see he was talking about the *EFF* above. Your trolls are
just plain lame.

> but I doubt if anyone ever believed that they would gain popularity
> from their proposal. If they didn't anticipate the negative reaction

Again, as anyone who can read knows, he was talking about the *EFF* who
looked at public perception ad thought they could gain popularity. The
fact that you complete dipshit trolls think you can falsify what others
say here without anyone else noticing says way more about *you* than
nospam or anyone else. You argue in bad faith, misconstrue, and falsify
things other people say because it's the only way you can function -
rational, honest, fact-based discussions are literally beyond your
means. You are just fucking pathetic.

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

JR

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 11:50 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>>> it's not any type of backdoor, which means they didn't look at reality.
>>>
>>> they *did* look at perception and that by claiming it was, they could
>>> gain popularity and profit from it.
>>
>> For once, nospam got it right...
>>
>> What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so well.
>> 1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
>> 2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"
>
> He got #1 right anyway, but I doubt if anyone ever believed that they
> would gain popularity from their proposal. If they didn't anticipate the
> negative reaction from hundreds of privacy organizations and millions of
> end users, then that's something they need to look into.

They did. Which is why they published their white papers carefully
describing the technology. What they perhaps didn't anticipate was how many
didn't read them or didn't understand them.

On 9/20/2021 1:19 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> They did. Which is why they published their white papers carefully
> describing the technology. What they perhaps didn't anticipate was how many
> didn't read them or didn't understand them.

What they actually didn't anticipate was how many people read them,
understood them, but didn't believe the assertions that the technology
would not be expanded beyond CSAM. There are lots of governments that
would love to scan for images of various things, including some very
wealthy countries that buy a lot of iPhones.

The whole patronizing attitude of "let us explain to you why what we're
doing is wonderful," when in fact all the privacy experts, human rights
experts, and child protection organizations explained why it's _not_
wonderful, needs to change. And it did change when the "delay" was
announced. You know that they're not going to bring back on-device
scanning and will simply do what other cloud service providers already
do--scan on the server side.

You can get the facts here:
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life>.

In article <si9hud$1lc$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > They did. Which is why they published their white papers carefully
> > describing the technology. What they perhaps didn't anticipate was how many
> > didn't read them or didn't understand them.
>
> What they actually didn't anticipate was how many people read them,
> understood them, but didn't believe the assertions that the technology
> would not be expanded beyond CSAM.

such assertions are the result of *not* reading and understanding it.

apple's system is specifically designed so that expanding it is not
realistically possible.

> There are lots of governments that
> would love to scan for images of various things, including some very
> wealthy countries that buy a lot of iPhones.

then why isn't anyone complaining about google, facebook, etc.?

it's *trivial* to force a company to search for more things on their
own servers, without anyone ever knowing.

> The whole patronizing attitude of "let us explain to you why what we're
> doing is wonderful," when in fact all the privacy experts, human rights
> experts, and child protection organizations explained why it's _not_
> wonderful, needs to change.

what needs to change is those groups need to learn how it works rather
than grift.

> And it did change when the "delay" was
> announced. You know that they're not going to bring back on-device
> scanning and will simply do what other cloud service providers already
> do--scan on the server side.

that is absolutely false.

you just said all those experts are concerned about expanding the
search, which is easy if done server-side and nearly impossible with
apple's system.
> You can get the facts here:
> <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2

no, those are not the facts.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 9/20/2021 1:19 AM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> They did. Which is why they published their white papers carefully
>> describing the technology. What they perhaps didn't anticipate was how many
>> didn't read them or didn't understand them.
>
> What they actually didn't anticipate was how many people read them,
> understood them, but didn't believe the assertions that the technology
> would not be expanded beyond CSAM. There are lots of governments that
> would love to scan for images of various things, including some very
> wealthy countries that buy a lot of iPhones.
>
> The whole patronizing attitude of "let us explain to you why what we're
> doing is wonderful," when in fact all the privacy experts, human rights
> experts, and child protection organizations explained why it's _not_
> wonderful, needs to change. And it did change when the "delay" was
> announced. You know that they're not going to bring back on-device
> scanning and will simply do what other cloud service providers already
> do--scan on the server side.
>
> You can get the facts here:
> <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life>.

Your loaded language isn't helping.

There are organisations urging Apple to implement their system. This isn't
a straightforward issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/sep/17/child-abuse-apple-urged-to-roll-out-image-scanning-tool-swiftly

Like I said upthread it's a balance between harm reduction and data
privacy.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> He wasn't talking about Apple, and you both know that. And anyone who
> can read can see he was talking about the *EFF* above. Your trolls are
> just plain lame.

The iron-clad proof that Apple doesn't give a shit about privacy is the fact
that Apple didn't ask even a _single_ privacy expert before rolling it out.

Given both Jolly Roger & nospam habitually _change_ quoted facts just so
that they stand a chance of responding to them, I think it's again prescient
that both Jolly Roger and nospam agree that Apple did it for two reasons:

1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

Apple's need to artificially differentiate themselves from the other
products makes sense, where the issue that makes no sense is why did Apple
marketing not even ask a _single_ security professional about their plan?

And why didn't Apple check in with not a _single_ privacy organization with
their plan?

Notice what this tells us:
a. Apple doesn't give a shit about privacy.
b. This isn't about privacy.

This is about exactly what both nospam and Jolly Roger are upset about:
1. Apple didn't think this through (because it's not about privacy)
2. Apple was hoping to gain product differentiation from this effort.

> Again, as anyone who can read knows, he was talking about the *EFF* who
> looked at public perception ad thought they could gain popularity.

No. It's about Apple.
You & nospam blame the EFF (and the entire world) as much as you can.

But that doesn't change this is about Apple doing two things you said:
1. Apple didn't even ask privacy experts (it's not well thought out)
2. Apple did it purely for the marketing value (product differentiation)

In fact, the proof that Apple doesn't give a shit about privacy is the fact
that Apple didn't ask even a _single_ privacy expert before rolling it out.
--
If Apple cared about privacy, they would have asked privacy experts first.

In message <si9hud$1lc$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> And it did change when the "delay" was announced. You know that
> they're not going to bring back on-device scanning and will simply do
> what other cloud service providers already do--scan on the server
> side.

Only anti-privacy morons think this is a good idea.

--
Don't be too sure I'm as crooked as I'm supposed to be. ~ Sam Spade

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> asked
> There are organisations urging Apple to implement their system.

Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly zero (0) actual facts.

Can Chris name even a _single_ privacy organization "urging Apple to
implement" this CSAM scanning on your phone & scanning of iMessages?

If not, then _everything_ Chris just claimed is another imaginary belief.
--
Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly zero (0) actual facts.

Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
> Only anti-privacy morons think this is a good idea.

Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly zero (0) actual facts.

Can Lewis name even a _single_ privacy organization who thinks this CSAM
scanning on your phone & scanning of iMessages is a "good idea?"

If not, then _everything_ Lewis just claimed is another imaginary belief.
--
Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly zero (0) actual facts.