On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
(in article<news:slrnsk8fik.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
> If you are concerned about your kiddie porn, turn off iCloud photos.

How does anything you do stop malevolent governments & malware writers?
> Because of idiots like you and irresponsible "journalists" and
> clickbait sites we may well end up with a much worse and much less
> secure system. Thanks, dumbshits. You all suck.

Why do you think everyone who cares about privacy is a dumbshit who sucks?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
(in article<news:slrnsk8f3v.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
> And once again, you show your total ignorance of the Messages system
> which has NOTHING to do with the CSAM system at all,

Why do you think Apple was planning on simultaneously releasing CSAM &
iMessage on-phone scans under the same timed Public Relations blitz?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On 2021-09-17, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
> In message <si01ja$9km$1@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>> It is the juiciest piece of meat ever dangled in front of hackers.
>> Even if it doesn’t meet the definition of a back door in your mind
>> now it won’t be long before it will become one.
>
> And you base this nonsensical statement on what? It is utter nonsense.

It's based on his feelings, because he is *driven* by fear.

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

JR

On 9/17/2021 11:22 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
> (in article<news:slrnsk8f3v.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
>> And once again, you show your total ignorance of the Messages system
>> which has NOTHING to do with the CSAM system at all,
>
> Why do you think Apple was planning on simultaneously releasing CSAM &
> iMessage on-phone scans under the same timed Public Relations blitz?

It would be truly amazing if anyone at Apple believed that this whole
mess was going to be a Public Relations win.

On 2021-09-17, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 17.09.21 um 16:08 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <si1mbn$u1i$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>>>
>>> Green also suggests that Apple should make iCloud storage end-to-end
>>> encrypted, so that it can¹t view those images even if it wanted to."
>>
>> matthew green is not very smart, nor are you.
>
> And you are the most stupid of them all.

Projection.

> End-to-end encryption of iCloud is the only way to restore confidence
> in Apple.

Doing the matching on device would allow end-to-end encryption for this
data. Doing the matching on the servers, as you and your butt buddy
trolls claim to want instead, would preclude end-to-end encryption. To
anyone with critical thinking skills, it's crystal clear who is stupid
here.

> For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail
> Apple. And they will obey immediately. They already do.
>
>> icloud is already encrypted, which prevents scanning server-side.
>> they are two incompatible concepts.
>>
>> apple's csam system is designed so that images can be checked *and*
>> still continue with icloud being fully encrypted.
>
> iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.

That's a bullshit statement, so you are projecting yet again. Encryption
is very important and is definitely not "PR bullshit".

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

JR

On 2021-09-17, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2021, Joerg Lorenz wrote
> (in article<news:si294q$qg9$1@dont-email.me>):
>>
>> For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail
>> Apple. And they will obey immediately. They already do.
>
> Wasn't it Apple's own Tim Cook who said they obey all the laws of the
> land?

You still haven't been able to show a single law that requires Apple to
report non-CSAM photos to authorities of any country.

--
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

Am 17.09.21 um 18:45 schrieb RonTheGuy:
> On Sep 17, 2021, Joerg Lorenz wrote
> (in article<news:si294q$qg9$1@dont-email.me>):
>> For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail Apple.
>> And they will obey immediately. They already do.
>
> Wasn't it Apple's own Tim Cook who said they obey all the laws of the land?

*SIC*.
Protonmail does too ...

>> iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.
>
> Does Apple give governments your encrypted files or your unencrypted files?

What would be the difference? None.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 17.09.21 um 19:57 schrieb RonTheGuy:
> Why would Apple want to become an active branch of any local government?

You are very naive.
*ROE*

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In article <si2j47$hel$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The key thing for Apple is not build features into the device or
> operating system than can be used to violate the privacy of users,
> because there are governments that will demand access to such features.

apple's csam system was designed so that it *can't* violate the privacy
of their users and so that governments *can't* demand access to such
features either.

your suggestion that apple do it the way facebook does it means they
*would* violate user privacy and *would* allow governments to demand
access.

>
> Cloud storage encryption matters very much for those with an expectation
> of privacy. As the New York Times investigation stated: "Apple abandoned
> the encryption technology it used elsewhere after China would not allow
> it. And the digital keys that unlock information on those computers are
> stored in the data centers they¹re meant to secure."

that's a gross misrepresentation of what it stated.

> In any case, the CSAM on-device scanning idea is almost certainly not
> coming back. Apple will end up doing the much same thing that Facebook
> does when it comes to detecting and reporting CSAM.

but you just said apple should not violate people's privacy because
governments will want to demand access.

see above, for your exact words.

facebook's system is the very opposite of that.

you really need to work on your trolling so that you don't contradict
yourself in the same post.

In article <si2jlb$pvp$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apple is a religion, much like environmentalism and many other social
> positions today.

it isn't, nor are the others either.

In article <18j7qb7b6e1mg$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> > can anybody make sense of why some people accept what's demonstrably
> > false and then get upset when presented with actual facts?
>
> Isn't that a good description of you?

nope. it's a perfect description of you.

i'm the one presenting the facts to you and your troll-buddies, who
refuse to even look at any of it and continue to insist you are correct
despite extensive proof to the contrary.

even after being proven wrong, you and your ilk continue to insist
falsehoods.

you aren't interested in learning anything. maybe incapable of such.

>
> Did you disagree with the "holding it wrong" accusation from Steve Jobs?

i disagree with the claim that it's only the iphone 4 that had a
problem.

it's something that affects *any* device with a radio.

despite what some people think, not even apple can get around the laws
of physics.

placing a hand on or near an antenna will affect its performance, no
matter who makes the device.

other phone makers understand that, which is why they also said how to
properly hold their phones, some long before steve jobs did.

hypocrisy knows no bounds. a few phone makers were caught criticizing
apple about how to hold the iphone while giving similar instructions on
how to hold and not hold their own phones.

do you want to see the many, many links that show how ignorant you are?

think carefully before you answer.

but for starters, here's one of many examples:
<https://www.droid-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tumblr-m5fql0ybHB
1qcigboo1-1280.png>
Do not touch or cover the area around the antenna with your hands
or other objects while using the GPS functions.
....
Do not touch the device's internal antenna. Doing so may result in
reduced call quality or cause the device to emit unintended levels
of radio frequency (RF) energy.

there are more. many, many more.

In message <iqh9l9F84bcU1@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> * only accounts with safety vouchers that exceed a threshold of multiple
> (over 30) matches to known child sexual abuse photos are able to be
> reviewed by Apple employees — until this threshold is exceeded, the
> encrypted vouchers cannot be viewed by anyone, thanks to an encryption
> technology called private set intersection (also known as threshold
> secret sharing)

> * only vouchers that are reviewed and verified by a human being to be
> actual child abuse material are forwarded to authorities

And the images that are viewed by an Apple employee are NOT the CSAM
images, nor the user's image. They are VERY low resolution versions that
are just enough that a human can tell there is probably a match (or
not).

> * this feature is only available for accounts set up as families with
> iCloud Family Sharing

> * parent/guardian accounts must opt in to turn on the feature for their
> family group

> * parental notifications can only be enabled by parents/guardians for
> child accounts age 12 or younger

And the parent is ONLY notified if the child confirms TWICE that they
want to view the image, and then the image is sent from the child's
phone to the parents, with the knowledge of the kid. Again, this is an
opt-in feature and no one gets secret messages forward to anyone.

For children 13 and older, the blurring still happens and the warning
still occurs, bu there is no notification to the parents.

I know a lot of adults (mostly women) who would very much like to opt-in
their own accounts for this AI/ML scanning of photos, but it's only for
children's accounts.

--
I WILL NOT SCREAM FOR ICE CREAM Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF03

In message <1943ttkgn96el.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:si0081$v96$1@dont-email.me>):
>> it's a virtual certainty that they would insist.

> Governments & malware writers are probably still working on expanding the
> back doors

You have no clue what you are talking about. You have decided to cloak
yourself in ignorance and refuse to do anything but spew the same
ignorant misinformed and completely wrong information over and over.

> Apple said they always follow the law in every country they sell phones.

And as you have been asked over and over again, which law are you
talking about? An imaginary law?

You are aware that CSAM scanning is already being done by all hosts,
right? Apple has been the outlier because they wanted a system that
preserves privacy, but we have these anti-privacy cunts screaming about
how bad Apple's system is.

It's very simple, if you think scanning photos on the server is "better"
you are an advocate for no-privacy.

--
'If you sow dragons' teeth, you should get dragons. Not fighting
skeletons. What did it say on the packet?' 'I don't know! The
myth never said anything about them coming in a packet!' 'Should
have said "Comes up Dragons" on the packet.'

On 2021-09-17, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <si2j47$hel$1@dont-email.me>, sms
><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The key thing for Apple is not build features into the device or
>> operating system than can be used to violate the privacy of users,
>> because there are governments that will demand access to such
>> features.
>
> apple's csam system was designed so that it *can't* violate the
> privacy of their users and so that governments *can't* demand access
> to such features either.
>
> your suggestion that apple do it the way facebook does it means they
> *would* violate user privacy and *would* allow governments to demand
> access.

sms and his troll butt buddies are so hell-bent on disparaging
everything Apple they are completely unwilling to acknowledge that Apple
might be inclined to design a system that protects the privacy of its
customers, which is why you see them preferring the systems in use by
Microsoft, Google, and other companies that brazenly violates the
privacy of their customers by decrypting and examining all of their data
on company servers.

>> Cloud storage encryption matters very much for those with an expectation
>> of privacy. As the New York Times investigation stated: "Apple abandoned
>> the encryption technology it used elsewhere after China would not allow
>> it. And the digital keys that unlock information on those computers are
>> stored in the data centers they¹re meant to secure."
>
> that's a gross misrepresentation of what it stated.

Yep.

---
The main point in the article comes down to where the encryption keys to
unlock that data are held. Initially, Apple has reportedly demanded it
keep the keys in the United States. When the law went into effect in
2017, the location of the keys “was left intentionally vague,” and eight
months later, the keys were being stored in China.

But the iCloud data in China is vulnerable to the Chinese government
because Apple made a series of compromises to meet the authorities’
demands, according to dozens of pages of internal Apple documents on the
planned design and security of the Chinese iCloud system, which were
reviewed for The Times by an Apple engineer and four independent
security researchers.

The digital keys that can decrypt iCloud data are usually stored on
specialized devices, called hardware security modules, that are made by
Thales, a French technology company. But China would not approve the use
of the Thales devices, according to two employees. So Apple created new
devices to store the keys in China.

As the report explains, this means that the keys to unlock the user data
in China are stored “in the data centers they’re meant to secure.” With
that being said, however, there is no evidence that the data has been
accessed by the Chinese government.
---

But nuance and facts are for rational people interested in an honest
discussion, and these trolls aren't interested in either one.

>> In any case, the CSAM on-device scanning idea is almost certainly not
>> coming back. Apple will end up doing the much same thing that
>> Facebook does when it comes to detecting and reporting CSAM.
>
> but you just said apple should not violate people's privacy because
> governments will want to demand access.
>
> see above, for your exact words.
>
> facebook's system is the very opposite of that.
>
> you really need to work on your trolling so that you don't contradict
> yourself in the same post.

The conservative mindset on display by these trolls is completely
emotionally-driven and impervious to recognizing or acknowledging its
blatant hypocrisy, in preference to primitive reactionary instinct.

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

JR

On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
(in article<news:slrnska16n.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
>> Governments & malware writers are probably still working on expanding the
>> back doors
>
> You have no clue what you are talking about.

How can you still be unaware of everything the security experts have said?

> You have decided to cloak
> yourself in ignorance and refuse to do anything but spew the same
> ignorant misinformed and completely wrong information over and over.

How can you still be unaware what a hundred privacy organizations have said?

>> Apple said they always follow the law in every country they sell phones.
>
> And as you have been asked over and over again, which law are you
> talking about? An imaginary law?

How can you still be unaware Tim Cook said Apple follows all local laws?

> You are aware that CSAM scanning is already being done by all hosts,
> right? Apple has been the outlier because they wanted a system that
> preserves privacy, but we have these anti-privacy cunts screaming about
> how bad Apple's system is.

Why is it that it's only you who is unaware of Apple's broken promises?

> It's very simple, if you think scanning photos on the server is "better"
> you are an advocate for no-privacy.

Are you still unaware Apple acted as an active branch of local authorities?

On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
(in article<news:slrnska0fu.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
> And the parent is ONLY notified if the child confirms TWICE that they
> want to view the image, and then the image is sent from the child's
> phone to the parents, with the knowledge of the kid. Again, this is an
> opt-in feature and no one gets secret messages forward to anyone.

How can you still be so unaware of the real issue here with bad parents?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On 2021-09-17, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
> (in article<news:slrnska16n.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
>>> Governments & malware writers are probably still working on expanding the
>>> back doors
>>
>> You have no clue what you are talking about.
>
> How can you still be unaware

Projection from a willfully ignorant fool.

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

JR

On Sep 17, 2021, sms wrote
(in article<news:si2n5i$a11$2@dont-email.me>):
>> On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
>> (in article<news:slrnsk8f3v.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
>>> And once again, you show your total ignorance of the Messages system
>>> which has NOTHING to do with the CSAM system at all,
>>
>> Why do you think Apple was planning on simultaneously releasing CSAM &
>> iMessage on-phone scans under the same timed Public Relations blitz?
>
> It would be truly amazing if anyone at Apple believed that this whole
> mess was going to be a Public Relations win.

How can Lewis still be unaware of almost everything he has spoken about?

Is it only Lewis who is still unaware both types of on the phone scanning
were to be released by Apple under the same public relations blitz campaign?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<news:170920211604401543%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>> can anybody make sense of why some people accept what's demonstrably
>>> false and then get upset when presented with actual facts?
>>
>> Isn't that a good description of you?
>
> nope. it's a perfect description of you.

You gave a great description of yourself in the past few message articles.

>> Did you disagree with the "holding it wrong" accusation from Steve Jobs?
>
> i disagree with the claim that it's only the iphone 4 that had a
> problem.

How did I know you would agree with everything about Apple Jobs ever said?
Have you ever disagreed with anything about Apple that Tim Cook has said?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 17, 2021, badgolferman wrote
(in article<news:si2jlb$pvp$1@dont-email.me>):
>>Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept
>>anything Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset
>>when others don't?
>
> Apple is a religion, much like environmentalism and many other social
> positions today.

Don't most religious accept that others should be allowed to have privacy?

What is it about their religion that makes people like Lewis call us "cunts"
for caring about our privacy?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<news:170920211604371367%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
> apple's csam system was designed so that it *can't* violate the privacy
> of their users and so that governments *can't* demand access to such
> features either.

Once these new back doors are in billions of devices they can't be closed.
Then how does Apple prevent a government from passing laws like China did?
And how does Apple prevent malware actors from exploiting these back doors?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 17, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article<news:iqk5v6Forn9U7@mid.individual.net>):
>>> For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail
>>> Apple. And they will obey immediately. They already do.
>>
>> Wasn't it Apple's own Tim Cook who said they obey all the laws of the
>> land?
>
> You still haven't been able to show a single law that requires Apple to
> report non-CSAM photos to authorities of any country.

How can you still be unaware that the laws will be made in the future
once Apple has put these two back doors on billions of iPhones world wide?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 17, 2021, Joerg Lorenz wrote
(in article<news:si2qpf$fit$1@dont-email.me>):
>>> iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.
>>
>> Does Apple give governments your encrypted files or your unencrypted files?
>
> What would be the difference? None.

It was a statement agreeing that iCloud end to end encryption is only PR.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 17, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article<news:iqkloeFrq8pU2@mid.individual.net>):
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>> How can you still be unaware
>
> Projection from a willfully ignorant fool.

Why is it all my responses are based on awareness and yours are all not?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On 2021-09-17, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article<news:iqkloeFrq8pU2@mid.individual.net>):
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>>>
>>> How can you still be unaware
>>
>> Projection from a willfully ignorant fool.
>
> all my responses are based on awareness

False. All of your responses are based on fearful imagination.

> Ron, the most fearful guy in town.

Indeed.

--
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