Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> asked
> Yes. Apple lies in many areas. Apple has zero credibility anymore after
> this disaster with the CSAM-backdoor.

Both Joerg and badgolferman are correct in not trusting a word from Apple.
*If Apple puts out a "_White Paper_", it's a bunch of "_White Lies_"*

It's not only the fact that "*Nobody lies like Apple lies*."
(see proof in sig)

No.
It's more than the fact Apple frequently lies to everyone.

Apple more frequently tells "tall tales" that are easily shown to be false.
(see proof in sig)

Basically, if Apple puts out a "White Paper", it's a bunch of "White Lies".
--
Proof Apple lies is Apple admitted to the criminal offense of purposefully
and intentionally secretly throttling & then backdating the release notes
(and then lying about that too) where Apple paid the criminal fine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724
https://www.newsweek.com/apple-fined-12-million-dollars-waterproof-claim-iphone-warranty-european-penalties-1551138
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/apple-fined-41-million-for-secretly-slowing-old-iphones-20200210-p53z9n.html
https://sfist.com/2020/02/07/apple-fined-in-the-eu-for-purposely-slowing-down-older-iphones/

Proof Apple tells huge white lies is their ridiculous iPhone battery life
claims have _never_ been substantiated even once in independent tests.
*Apple significantly overstates iPhone battery life*
<https://press.which.co.uk/whichpressreleases/apple-significantly-overstates-iphone-battery-life-compared-to-which-tests/>
*Apple significantly overstates iPhone battery life*
<https://betanews.com/2019/05/03/apple-significantly-overstates-iphone-battery-life/>
*iPhone battery life is half of what Apple claims it is*
<https://tech.co/news/iphone-xr-battery-life-claims-2019-05>
*Phone battery life significantly overstated by Apple*
<https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/iphone-battery-life-significantly-overstated-14992961>
*Apple Is Vastly Exaggerating iPhone Battery Life Claims*
<https://hothardware.com/news/apple-overselling-iphone-battery-life-uk-advocacy-group>

Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
>> Yes. Apple lies in many areas.
>
> You were asked for specific examples.

I gave specific examples - but you apologists are _ignorant_ of all facts
about Apple that show what Apple really is (and not what you errantly
believed Apple to be).

See the sig for those specific example (there are plenty more).

>> Apple has zero credibility anymore after this disaster with the
>> CSAM-backdoor.
>
> Oh really? What part of that was a lie? Be specific.

Apple _never_ tells the truth, Lewis.
For example, do you really believe Apple put cheap battery components in all
the iPhones for increased battery life? Do you believe Apple _removed_ the
standard charger-in-the-box for the "environment" Lewis?

If you do believe that - then it just proves how ignorant you really are.

As with Apple's "white lies" on batteries and chargers, there's something
fishy that _all_ intelligent adults have noticed with the CSAM debacle.

In the case of CSAM, Apple's logic doesn't add up to scrutiny.
There are zero adults who believe what Apple "said" was the reason.

It's only the apologists who ignorantly believe every word from Apple.

We intelligent adults don't know what Apple is _really_ up to; but it's
clear that their failed attempt to pull the wool over our eyes has more to
the back story than what Apple claimed in their "White Lies" paper.
--
Proof Apple lies is Apple admitted to the criminal offense of purposefully
and intentionally secretly throttling & then backdating the release notes
(and then lying about that too) where Apple paid the criminal fine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724
https://www.newsweek.com/apple-fined-12-million-dollars-waterproof-claim-iphone-warranty-european-penalties-1551138
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/apple-fined-41-million-for-secretly-slowing-old-iphones-20200210-p53z9n.html
https://sfist.com/2020/02/07/apple-fined-in-the-eu-for-purposely-slowing-down-older-iphones/

*Apple significantly overstates iPhone battery life*
<https://press.which.co.uk/whichpressreleases/apple-significantly-overstates-iphone-battery-life-compared-to-which-tests/>
*Apple significantly overstates iPhone battery life*
<https://betanews.com/2019/05/03/apple-significantly-overstates-iphone-battery-life/>
*iPhone battery life is half of what Apple claims it is*
<https://tech.co/news/iphone-xr-battery-life-claims-2019-05>
*Phone battery life significantly overstated by Apple*
<https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/iphone-battery-life-significantly-overstated-14992961>
*Apple Is Vastly Exaggerating iPhone Battery Life Claims*
<https://hothardware.com/news/apple-overselling-iphone-battery-life-uk-advocacy-group>

On 2021-09-15 12:50 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
>>> Yes. Apple lies in many areas.
>>
>> You were asked for specific examples.
>
> I gave specific examples - but you apologists are _ignorant_ of all facts
> about Apple that show what Apple really is (and not what you errantly
> believed Apple to be).
>
> See the sig for those specific example (there are plenty more).
>
>>> Apple has zero credibility anymore after this disaster with the
>>> CSAM-backdoor.
>>
>> Oh really? What part of that was a lie? Be specific.
>
> Apple _never_ tells the truth, Lewis.

That is no answer for the question he asked.

> For example, do you really believe Apple put cheap battery components in all
> the iPhones for increased battery life? Do you believe Apple _removed_ the
> standard charger-in-the-box for the "environment" Lewis?

That is no answer for the question he asked.

>
> If you do believe that - then it just proves how ignorant you really are.

That is no answer for the question he asked.

> As with Apple's "white lies" on batteries and chargers, there's something
> fishy that _all_ intelligent adults have noticed with the CSAM debacle.

That is no answer for the question he asked.

> In the case of CSAM, Apple's logic doesn't add up to scrutiny.
> There are zero adults who believe what Apple "said" was the reason.

That is no answer for the question he asked.

> It's only the apologists who ignorantly believe every word from Apple.

That is no answer for the question he asked.

> We intelligent adults don't know what Apple is _really_ up to; but it's
> clear that their failed attempt to pull the wool over our eyes has more to
> the back story than what Apple claimed in their "White Lies" paper.

That is no answer for the question he asked.

Why not actually answer his question?

On Sep 15, 2021, Lewis wrote
(in article<news:slrnsk3ro9.agm.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
> Back door: noun
> * a feature or defect of a computer system that allows
> surreptitious unauthorized access to data.

How do you opt out of hackers & governments using the back doors?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 15, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<news:150920210158598871%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,

How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

In article <16y8ioruep95q$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> > there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
>
> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?

irrelevant to apple csam, which doesn't use a backdoor, thus there
isn't one for anyone to exploit.

RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote
> Lewis wrote

>> Back door: noun
>> * a feature or defect of a computer system that
>> allows surreptitious unauthorized access to data.

> How do you opt out of hackers & governments using the back doors?

There are no backdoors for them to use.

On Sep 15, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<news:150920211801142031%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
>>
>> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
>
> irrelevant to apple csam, which doesn't use a backdoor, thus there
> isn't one for anyone to exploit.

In that case, you won't be able to understand.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 15, 2021, Rod Speed wrote
(in article<news:iqf96bFr1mbU1@mid.individual.net>):
>> How do you opt out of hackers & governments using the back doors?
>
> There are no backdoors for them to use.

In that case, I'm wasting my time as you won't understand.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

In article <1kb5bxtl4m6lc$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> >>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
> >>
> >> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
> >
> > irrelevant to apple csam, which doesn't use a backdoor, thus there
> > isn't one for anyone to exploit.
>
> In that case, you won't be able to understand.

it's you who doesn't understand, along with many others.

In article <e41c6o8vbiwz.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> >> How do you opt out of hackers & governments using the back doors?
> >
> > There are no backdoors for them to use.
>
> In that case, I'm wasting my time

because you refuse to learn how it actually works and what prevents
what you describe from happening.

> as you won't understand.

that'd be you.

RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> How do you opt out of hackers & governments using the back doors?

>> There are no backdoors for them to use.

> In that case, I'm wasting my time as you won't understand.

You don’t understand what a backdoor is.

In message <8o5l3auib5ei.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2021, Lewis wrote
> (in article<news:slrnsk3ro9.agm.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
>> Back door: noun
>> * a feature or defect of a computer system that allows
>> surreptitious unauthorized access to data.

> How do you opt out of hackers & governments using the back doors?

There is no back door.

--
Beware of geeks bearing .GIF's

In message <16y8ioruep95q$.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2021, nospam wrote
> (in article<news:150920210158598871%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,

> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?

There is no back door.

--
'I'll tell you this!' shouted Rincewind. 'I'd rather trust me than
history! Oh, shit, did I just say that?'

Am 16.09.21 um 00:15 schrieb nospam:
> In article <1kb5bxtl4m6lc$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
> <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
>>>>
>>>> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
>>>
>>> irrelevant to apple csam, which doesn't use a backdoor, thus there
>>> isn't one for anyone to exploit.
>>
>> In that case, you won't be able to understand.
>
> it's you who doesn't understand, along with many others.

And you are a Wisenheimer with absolutely no credibility.
You do not understand anything of the social dimension of the issue. And
there are already proofs of concepts that the nes backdoors can be
misused and exploitet.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote
> nospam wrote
>> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote

>>>>>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
>>>>>
>>>>> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
>>>>
>>>> irrelevant to apple csam, which doesn't use a backdoor, thus there
>>>> isn't one for anyone to exploit.
>>>
>>> In that case, you won't be able to understand.
>>
>> it's you who doesn't understand, along with many others.

> And you are a Wisenheimer with absolutely no credibility.

Those that claim that there is any backdoor have no credibility.

> You do not understand anything of the social dimension of the issue.

That’s bullshit too.

> And there are already proofs of concepts that the nes backdoors

There are no new backdoors. Just fools that
don’t have a clue about what a backdoor is.

> can be misused and exploitet.

BULLSHIT.

On 16/09/2021 at 03:23, Lewis wrote:
> In message <16y8ioruep95q$.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 2021, nospam wrote
>> (in article<news:150920210158598871%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
>
>> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
>
> There is no back door.
>

I've been watching this conversation and I am really am perplexed, so
I'm hoping that one of you knowledgeable folk here can clarify for me
and for others, maybe.

Why do some people think there is or is going to be a "back door"? What
do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
"back door"? TIA.

--
Wilf

In article <shv3ci$2b5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:

> >>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
> >
> >> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
> >
> > There is no back door.
> >
>
> I've been watching this conversation and I am really am perplexed, so
> I'm hoping that one of you knowledgeable folk here can clarify for me
> and for others, maybe.
>
> Why do some people think there is or is going to be a "back door"? What
> do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
> "back door"? TIA.

because they read it on the internet, and everyone knows that
everything on the internet is guaranteed to be true.

some of them know better and are just trolling. for others it's
confirmation bias.

Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
> On 16/09/2021 at 03:23, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <16y8ioruep95q$.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 2021, nospam wrote
>>> (in article<news:150920210158598871%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
>>
>>> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
>>
>> There is no back door.
>>
>
> I've been watching this conversation and I am really am perplexed, so
> I'm hoping that one of you knowledgeable folk here can clarify for me
> and for others, maybe.
>
> Why do some people think there is or is going to be a "back door"? What
> do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
> "back door"? TIA.
>

It’s a matter of perspective. Call it a back door, side door, or full
frontal attack. What it comes down to is Apple is introducing a method
which will scan your personal device for files which someone has determined
are illegal. Who that “someone” is will be ambiguous forever.

On 9/16/2021 2:39 AM, Wilf wrote:
> On 16/09/2021 at 03:23, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <16y8ioruep95q$.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy
>> <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 2021, nospam wrote
>>> (in article<news:150920210158598871%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
>>
>>> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
>>
>> There is no back door.
>>
>
> I've been watching this conversation and I am really am perplexed, so
> I'm hoping that one of you knowledgeable folk here can clarify for me
> and for others, maybe.
>
> Why do some people think there is or is going to be a "back door"?  What
> do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
> "back door"?   TIA.

Trust what the Electronic Frontier Foundations said. "Apple is planning
to build a backdoor into its data storage system and its messaging
system," See
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life>.

In article <shvjb0$3tj$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
> >>
> >>> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
> >>
> >> There is no back door.
> >>
> >
> > I've been watching this conversation and I am really am perplexed, so
> > I'm hoping that one of you knowledgeable folk here can clarify for me
> > and for others, maybe.
> >
> > Why do some people think there is or is going to be a "back door"? What
> > do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
> > "back door"? TIA.
> >
>
> It¹s a matter of perspective. Call it a back door, side door, or full
> frontal attack.

all of which are wrong.

> What it comes down to is Apple is introducing a method
> which will scan your personal device for files which someone has determined
> are illegal. Who that ³someone² is will be ambiguous forever.

nothing is ambiguous. that 'someone' is ncmec and only for photos sent
to apple's servers.

photos on the phone not uploaded are not scanned.

In article <shvkfn$bq8$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Trust what the Electronic Frontier Foundations said. "Apple is planning
> to build a backdoor into its data storage system and its messaging
> system,"

their claim is easily shown to be false because apple's csam does not
meet the definition of a backdoor.

repeating false claims does not make them true.

In message <shvjb0$3tj$1@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
>> On 16/09/2021 at 03:23, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <16y8ioruep95q$.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 15, 2021, nospam wrote
>>>> (in article<news:150920210158598871%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>>>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
>>>
>>>> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
>>>
>>> There is no back door.
>>>
>>
>> I've been watching this conversation and I am really am perplexed, so
>> I'm hoping that one of you knowledgeable folk here can clarify for me
>> and for others, maybe.
>>
>> Why do some people think there is or is going to be a "back door"? What
>> do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
>> "back door"? TIA.
>>

> It’s a matter of perspective. Call it a back door, side door, or full
> frontal attack. What it comes down to is Apple is introducing a method
> which will scan your personal device

This is false.

Apple will scan files BEING UPLOADED TO iCloud.

> Who that “someone” is will be ambiguous forever.

And that is a lie. It is not ambiguous at all.

--
Margo: Three months on Fillory. Of Emo Quentin. Not my favorite Quentin.
Quentin: I didn't know that you liked any of the Quentins.

In message <shv3ci$2b5$1@gioia.aioe.org> Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
> On 16/09/2021 at 03:23, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <16y8ioruep95q$.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 2021, nospam wrote
>>> (in article<news:150920210158598871%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
>>
>>> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
>>
>> There is no back door.
>>

> I've been watching this conversation and I am really am perplexed, so
> I'm hoping that one of you knowledgeable folk here can clarify for me
> and for others, maybe.

> Why do some people think there is or is going to be a "back door"?

A few possible reasons:

o They are Androol trolls
o They only read headlines
o They only read posts form Androol trolls
o They din't know what a back door is.

> do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
> "back door"? TIA.

A back door is a hidden feature or a flaw in software that allows unknown
and unauthorized access to a computer's data. There is no hidden
feature or flaw, not unknown access, no unauthorized access, no back
door.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Um, no, Cranky Mouseykin, not even in the story you made up."

In article <slrnsk6n6p.22a.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> > do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
> > "back door"? TIA.
>
> A back door is a hidden feature or a flaw in software that allows unknown
> and unauthorized access to a computer's data. There is no hidden
> feature or flaw, not unknown access, no unauthorized access, no back
> door.

yep. it's the very opposite.