Google reportedly considering on-device photo & message scan for Android 15

Scanning will soon be performed on your personal device so that the door can
be left wide open in the future to search custom content deemed marketable.

For example, if Google finds photos of children playing on the beach, Google
will alert advertisers that you may be interested in buying beach toys.

For the liberal states, if Google finds photos of guns, it will delve into a
state-specific hash file stored on your device which continually learns the
types of guns you before serving up ads just for those types of firearms.

The special hash is customized to look for the type of bullets and stocks
which Google marketing proudly has an error rate of only one in a bazillion
(mainly because marketing decided one in a million would be deemed risky).

BTW, Google is very impressed with this secret algorithm which they don't
reveal the source and, of course, Google won't ever allow any independent
analysts to inspect it as it's really all about Google marketing anyway
(so why do you care what the accuracy rate is - it's all just made up).

Google, as with Apple, reserves the right to sell your privacy to the
highest bidder so if any given regime is interested in dissidents or
transgender enthusiasts or gun nuts or even people who don't like the way
the current regime is doing things - that's who Google wants to trap!

In addition, Google marketing takes messages scanning one step better than
Apple, keying off the Apple plan for parents to spy on their badly brought
up kids, by allowing all your friends and neighbors to be alerted whenever
any questionable content is sent on your phone if _they_ opt for that data.

When questioned about the rationale Google marketing said "It's all for
peace and harmony in the neighborhood - and if you don't like that - you
must be one of those commie screeching voices of the minority."

Google & your neighbors decide what is good for you - never you.
You can't be trusted with an Android phone.

As with Apple, Google is very impressed with themselves but unlike Apple,
Google's plan is to slowly ratchet the made up error rate soon to one in
never, which Google hopes Apple doesn't figure out is as valid as theirs.

What does it matter what error rate they claim given nobody is allowed
access to the code or algorithm save for marketing interns who have a need
to tweak the algorithms as they see fit.

Oh, and in a fit to advertise something good about this new "feature",
Google has tweaked "ok google" to constantly ask "Are you being abused"
whenever you ask for health products, bandaids, or medical creams.

How about that?
Google cares all about you.

No really.
All about you.

Everything.
Yes. Everything.

Because Google care's how you're holding it.

Google wants you to know how much they care about important social issues
like gun control, gay bashing, and even incorrect grammar (it's all in the
secret database which the government has endorsed - so you're safe).

Meanwhile governments are applauding Google for everything they're doing.
--
Please wear your mask!
Bugs are everywhere. :)
!__!
(@)(@)
\.'||'./
-: :: :-
/'..''..'\

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:44:00 -0500, Bugsy posted:-

> BTW, Google is very impressed with this secret algorithm which they
> don't reveal the source and, of course, Google won't ever allow any
> independent analysts to inspect it as it's really all about Google
> marketing anyway (so why do you care what the accuracy rate is - it's
> all just made up).

Google is a marketing company that happens to employ software engineers.

But if you don't like Google, maybe use an alternative?

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:44:00 -0500, Bugsy posted:-

> Google, as with Apple, reserves the right to sell your privacy to the
> highest bidder so if any given regime is interested in dissidents or
> transgender enthusiasts or gun nuts or even people who don't like the
> way the current regime is doing things - that's who Google wants to
> trap!

BTW Fakebook has been doing this for years. Read about a T shirt
printer who wanted to sell T shirts emblazoned with "Don't Take My
Guns, Obama" on Fakebook, to US gun "lovers". Fakebook placed his ads
in gun friendly states with users who recently stated on Fakebook they
had been to gun shows.

<why this obsession with firearms in USA, beats me, but that is off
topic>

Bugsy <bugsy@zimage.comBUGSY> wrote:
> Google reportedly considering on-device photo & message scan for Android 15
>
> Scanning will soon be performed on your personal device so that the door can
> be left wide open in the future to search custom content deemed marketable.
>
> For example, if Google finds photos of children playing on the beach, Google
> will alert advertisers that you may be interested in buying beach toys.
>
> For the liberal states, if Google finds photos of guns, it will delve into a
> state-specific hash file stored on your device which continually learns the
> types of guns you before serving up ads just for those types of firearms.
>
> The special hash is customized to look for the type of bullets and stocks
> which Google marketing proudly has an error rate of only one in a bazillion
> (mainly because marketing decided one in a million would be deemed risky).
>
> BTW, Google is very impressed with this secret algorithm which they don't
> reveal the source and, of course, Google won't ever allow any independent
> analysts to inspect it as it's really all about Google marketing anyway
> (so why do you care what the accuracy rate is - it's all just made up).
>
> Google, as with Apple, reserves the right to sell your privacy to the
> highest bidder so if any given regime is interested in dissidents or
> transgender enthusiasts or gun nuts or even people who don't like the way
> the current regime is doing things - that's who Google wants to trap!
>
> In addition, Google marketing takes messages scanning one step better than
> Apple, keying off the Apple plan for parents to spy on their badly brought
> up kids, by allowing all your friends and neighbors to be alerted whenever
> any questionable content is sent on your phone if _they_ opt for that data.
>
> When questioned about the rationale Google marketing said "It's all for
> peace and harmony in the neighborhood - and if you don't like that - you
> must be one of those commie screeching voices of the minority."
>
> Google & your neighbors decide what is good for you - never you.
> You can't be trusted with an Android phone.
>
> As with Apple, Google is very impressed with themselves but unlike Apple,
> Google's plan is to slowly ratchet the made up error rate soon to one in
> never, which Google hopes Apple doesn't figure out is as valid as theirs.
>
> What does it matter what error rate they claim given nobody is allowed
> access to the code or algorithm save for marketing interns who have a need
> to tweak the algorithms as they see fit.
>
> Oh, and in a fit to advertise something good about this new "feature",
> Google has tweaked "ok google" to constantly ask "Are you being abused"
> whenever you ask for health products, bandaids, or medical creams.
>
> How about that?
> Google cares all about you.
>
> No really.
> All about you.
>
> Everything.
> Yes. Everything.
>
> Because Google care's how you're holding it.
>
> Google wants you to know how much they care about important social issues
> like gun control, gay bashing, and even incorrect grammar (it's all in the
> secret database which the government has endorsed - so you're safe).
>
> Meanwhile governments are applauding Google for everything they're doing.

Although this is clearly a parody, it would be defended to the death in the
iPhone newsgroup if it was Apple doing this. They are already in lock-step
regarding Apple’s latest shenanigans.

In article <news:sev8ql$9t4$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Although this is clearly a parody, it would be defended to the death in the
> iPhone newsgroup if it was Apple doing this. They are already in lock-step
> regarding Apple¢s latest shenanigans.

Wrong.

No reason why. You're just wrong.

What?
You want a reason?

Let me give you a reason.
I love Google. Therefore you are wrong.

Oh, and if you show evidence I'm wrong - then you're wrong on that too.

If you're right, then all your cites are from haters like Ming-Chi Kuo.
Every right thing Google haters say is wrong.

Google right. You wrong. Google haters wrong.

Don't even bother to respond.
We wear you down by saying "wrong" & "nope" & "no" more than you can.

Everything Google is perfect.
Ever tying else is wrong.

I use a decent, not-part-of-my-phone, camera with a proper viewfinder.
It's actually no bigger than my phone either.

So there are no pictures to scan on my phone, and precious few
mewssages as I much prefer E-Mail. If I send an SMS I send it from
my computer.

--
Chris Green
·

On 8/10/2021 5:44 PM, Bugsy wrote:

<snip>

> As with Apple, Google is very impressed with themselves but unlike Apple,
> Google's plan is to slowly ratchet the made up error rate soon to one in
> never, which Google hopes Apple doesn't figure out is as valid as theirs.

The made-up error rates have always been a source of amusement.

Remember when Apple defended FaceID after security experts all warned
that face recognition was less secure than fingerprint recognition?

The FaceID statement is very cleverly worded. First, they compared 2D
TouchID to 3D FaceID, and stated the TouchID had a false positive rate
of 1 in 10,000 while FaceID had an false positive rate of 1 in
1,000,000, but provided no data to back up that statement. Obviously
they didn't take a a few hundred iPhones with FaceID out in the world
and try each one against a million people's faces. Note that Apple
earlier stated that the false positive rate for TouchID was 1 in 50,000
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/technology/fingerprint-security-smartphones-apple-google-samsung.html>
but TouchID somehow got less secure after the iPhone X with FaceID was
released.

Then the caveat was added that the 1 in 1,000,000 number was for "a
random person in the population" because it was discovered that
siblings, or parents and children, sometimes looked enough alike to fool
FaceID (and of course the people in your family have the easiest access
to your devices).

Never mentioned was the difference between the 2D capacitive TouchID
technology currently used on devices like the older iPhones, iPads (and
the SE2020) and the newer 3D ultrasonic fingerprint sensors being used
on other manufacturer's products, which are extremely secure. But you
can be sure that when the next generation of TouchID is released,
suddenly it will deemed even more secure (or just as secure) as TouchID.

The real issue with 2D capacitive fingerprint sensors has been false
negatives. The real issue with FaceID, besides family members being able
to unlock phones, has been that it's become such a hassle during Covid
(except perhaps in Florida, where Ron DeathSantis is trying to
discourage mask-wearing).

"Experts Agree: Face ID Is Not The Answer, In-Display Fingerprint
Sensors Are"
<https://www.e3displays.com/experts-agree-face-id-is-not-the-answer-in-display-fingerprint/>

"No, Apple's Face ID Is Not A 'Secure Password'"
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2017/09/18/security-apple-face-id-iphone-x/>

"I'll never use Apple's Face ID
There are a host of problems with the latest biometric technology from
Apple."
<https://mashable.com/article/apple-face-id-problems-iphone-x>

Well all that said, I have a new iPhone with FaceID arriving today. If I
keep waiting for TouchID to return (now pushed out to the iPhone 14
apparently), I'll just be too old.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> As with Apple, Google is very impressed with themselves but unlike Apple,
>> Google's plan is to slowly ratchet the made up error rate soon to one in
>> never, which Google hopes Apple doesn't figure out is as valid as theirs.
>
> The made-up error rates have always been a source of amusement.

What?
You don't believe what Google marketing says is the exact error rate?

How could you use the Lord's name in vain in such a manner as to question
such a secret undisclosed unknown unpublished vaguely mysterious algorithm?

Blasphemy it is. Your squealing heresy desecrates Google's marketing WORD.

Nonetheless, after that screeching outcry from the educated minority, Google
marketing has since published a FAQ claiming a new (improved!) error rate of
"One in a googol."

In addition, Google management resent a Google-approved internal memo from
the government that advises all three employees who have had one sleepless
night over this brouhaha to reassure others with the soothing admonition of

"Don't worry.
Your life can't be ruined.
The chance of Google ever making an error is only one in a googol."

Meanwhile, another week has passed which means another slew of security
updates to Android 15 (now up to 15.0.25) for its very many zero-day bugs.

If Google's record on zero-day bugs doesn't inspire you, marketing's
soothing but cooked-up concocted error rate white paper advertising will.
--
Please wear your mask!
Bugs are everywhere. :)
!__!
(@)(@)
\.'||'./
-: :: :-
/'..''..'\

In article <sf0n6b$tkb$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The made-up error rates have always been a source of amusement.

the error rate for apple's csam detection is not made-up. it's been
audited by numerous cryptography experts.

> Remember when Apple defended FaceID after security experts all warned
> that face recognition was less secure than fingerprint recognition?

you're being your usual disingenuous self.

you're conflating generic face recognition with apple's face id. two
very, very different things.

generic face recognition can be spoofed with a photo.
apple's face id cannot, nor can it be spoofed with a 3d head model.

samsung's face unlock was spoofed literally just minutes after it was
announced, in the demo room at the event hall, using a selfie taken on
another phone.

> The FaceID statement is very cleverly worded.

no it isn't. it's very clear and unambiguous.

> First, they compared 2D
> TouchID to 3D FaceID, and stated the TouchID had a false positive rate
> of 1 in 10,000 while FaceID had an false positive rate of 1 in
> 1,000,000, but provided no data to back up that statement.

apple has *never* claimed touch id is 1 in 10,000. stop lying.

> Obviously
> they didn't take a a few hundred iPhones with FaceID out in the world
> and try each one against a million people's faces.

what they did was far more advanced than that.

> Note that Apple
> earlier stated that the false positive rate for TouchID was 1 in 50,000
>
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/technology/fingerprint-security-smartphone
> s-apple-google-samsung.html>
> but TouchID somehow got less secure after the iPhone X with FaceID was
> released.

it didn't get worse.

touch id has always been 1 in 50,000.

> Then the caveat was added that the 1 in 1,000,000 number was for "a
> random person in the population" because it was discovered that
> siblings, or parents and children, sometimes looked enough alike to fool
> FaceID (and of course the people in your family have the easiest access
> to your devices).

that's not a significant threat model for just about everyone, and
families often share their pincodes anyway. spouses often enroll each
other's fingerprints. parents normally have access to their kids phones
to make sure they're not looking at stuff they shouldn't.

what *is* a significant threat model is if a phone is lost or stolen,
and some rando tries to access it.
> Never mentioned was the difference between the 2D capacitive TouchID
> technology currently used on devices like the older iPhones, iPads (and
> the SE2020) and the newer 3D ultrasonic fingerprint sensors being used
> on other manufacturer's products, which are extremely secure.

those didn't exist when face id was released, let alone when
development began.

your link below claims that the vivo x21 was the first phone with an
in-screen fingerprint sensor, which was released after the iphone x.

you're also trying to portray in-screen sensors as more secure by
calling them 3d versus 2d for a capacitive sensor. they're not more
secure. in-screen sensors can easily be spoofed with adhesive tape or
reflective foil, and in samsung's case, by adding a screen protector.
they're also slow and unreliable

the technology has improved since the early versions, but they're still
not as good as a capacitive sensor and much less secure than apple's
face id and google's face unlock which only existed on the pixel 4.

maybe one day in-screen sensors will improve to where they are secure
and reliable, but that day is not today nor is it this year.

> But you
> can be sure that when the next generation of TouchID is released,
> suddenly it will deemed even more secure (or just as secure) as TouchID.

no surprise there. every new generation improves on the previous
version.

nobody releases a new generation of something that's worse than what
existed before, which is what you're wanting apple to do and why they
won't do it.

> The real issue with 2D capacitive fingerprint sensors has been false
> negatives.

nope.

false negatives are only an issue if fingers are wet or dirty, which
also applies to in-screen fingerprint sensors.

face id eliminates the issue with wet or dirty fingers, as well as
gloved fingers and anyone for whom their fingerprints are not readable.

> The real issue with FaceID, besides family members being able
> to unlock phones, has been that it's become such a hassle during Covid
> (except perhaps in Florida, where Ron DeathSantis is trying to
> discourage mask-wearing).

mask wearing is a temporary issue, one which did not exist in 2017 when
the iphone x was released, or 2014 when face id development began, and
which nobody could have predicted.

apple has also resolved that issue.

> "Experts Agree: Face ID Is Not The Answer, In-Display Fingerprint
> Sensors Are"
>
> <https://www.e3displays.com/experts-agree-face-id-is-not-the-answer-in-display-
> fingerprint/>

that claims that the first in-screen fingerprint sensor was the vivo
x21, which came out *after* face id.

it also claims that apple was supposed to use in-screen fingerprint and
switched. that's false.

they also are being highly deceptive with their words, claiming
fingerprint sensors are more secure than face unlock. that's true,
because face unlock can be spoofed with a photo.

apple's face id does not use a photo and cannot be easily spoofed.

in other words, they are flat out lying.

> "No, Apple's Face ID Is Not A 'Secure Password'"
>
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2017/09/18/security-apple-face-id-ipho
> ne-x/>

the author is claiming that face id can be spoofed with photos. it
cannot.

> "I'll never use Apple's Face ID
> There are a host of problems with the latest biometric technology from
> Apple."
> <https://mashable.com/article/apple-face-id-problems-iphone-x>
As soon as the phone hits the scene later this fall, you can bet
security professionals will start ripping the tech apart. Time will
tell if they're able to crack it.

in other words, he's babbling, without any evidence.

he also claims that someone can easily obtain another person's face
from afar (true) but falsely makes the jump that is all that's needed
to spoof face id, which is very much not true.

he claimed that face id failed on stage, it didn't fail. it worked
exactly as designed.

as usual, your links are not credible.

> Well all that said, I have a new iPhone with FaceID arriving today. If I
> keep waiting for TouchID to return (now pushed out to the iPhone 14
> apparently), I'll just be too old.

you already are.

Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
> So there are no pictures to scan on my phone, and precious few
> mewssages as I much prefer E-Mail. If I send an SMS I send it from
> my computer.

Don't worry then if you're not using your Android phone to snap kiddie porn.

In Android 15.5 (actually 15.5.485 due to the many weekly zero-day bugs),
Google will include an Apple-like "App Tracking Transparency Feature."

Because Google cares about your privacy.
Just like Apple does.

*It's exactly the same privacy options which Apple introduced in iOS 14.5.*
Because Google cares about you.

We wouldn't lie to you.
Would we?

In fact, "Unless you give explicit permission to an app (including those
made by Google), it can't scan your data for beachwear photos, share the
location of your beach umbrella with advertisers or share your disgusting
snorting bulls swimsuit choice or any other identifiers with third parties.
This change -- first unveiled at Google's Worldwide Developers Conference in
June 2020 -- has drawn support from privacy advocates and criticism from
companies like Facebook, who say it will hurt its ad business."
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/ios-14-5-can-stop-apps-from-tracking-you-heres-how-to-get-started/

Yet, much unlike Apple customer, for those screeching few who do snap
pictures on their Android phone (or who send messages - what are they?) on
the Android phone, Google marketing claims 96% of Android users will agree
to opt in to this on device scanning of all your photos.
*After update, 96% percent of Android users in U.S. let apps track them*
"New data shows when given the choice, people would rather be tracked."
https://mashable.com/article/ios-14-5-users-opt-out-of-ad-tracking

In a surprisingly defensive response to the screeching intellectual minority
Google marketing released an explanation that they are taking message
scanning one step better than Apple, keying off the Apple plan for parents
to spy on their badly brought up kids, by allowing all your friends and
neighbors to be alerted whenever any questionable content is sent on your
phone if _they_ opt for that data.

Yeah. You have no choice. Your neighbors have the choice.
Google did it for the local kids.
Yes. Those brats. The ones who egged your house last week.

But you can use this message scanning on them too!
Yes. Them. You can catch them in the act bragging about it in messages.
You got them now.

But don't worry.

When questioned about the rationale of letting the neighbors decide what to
track on your Android phone, Google marketing said "It's all for peace and
harmony in the neighborhood - and if you don't like that - you
must be one of those commie screeching voices of the minority."

If you don't like it, then you can't be trusted with an Android phone.

How about that?
Google cares all about you and your neighbors.
Living in harmony.

Google wants you to know how much they care about important social issues
like gun control, gay bashing, social order, and neighborhood harmony.

By tracking everything you do.
On your phone.

Yes. Everything.
Because Google cares.
About you.
And your kids.
And your neighbors.
And your neighbors' kids.

Why else track these kids?
If not for the kids themselves?

While the screeching minorigy bad governments applauded Google,
even the good governments applauded Google for tracking everyone for them.

It's all beautifully thought out by our head of marketing.
And nobody else was seriously consulted.
(because everything is a classified secret hush-hush algorithm)

Now all our employees can go back to sleep after that one sleepless night.
What can possibly go wrong now?
--
Please wear your mask!
Bugs are everywhere. :)
!__!
(@)(@)
\.'||'./
-: :: :-
/'..''..'\

On 8/11/2021 8:43 AM, Bugsy wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> As with Apple, Google is very impressed with themselves but unlike Apple,
>>> Google's plan is to slowly ratchet the made up error rate soon to one in
>>> never, which Google hopes Apple doesn't figure out is as valid as theirs.
>>
>> The made-up error rates have always been a source of amusement.
>
> What?
> You don't believe what Google marketing says is the exact error rate?

I think that it's interesting that Android users pay little attention to
anything Google says but there is a small subset of iOS users that hangs
on every word of what Apple says.

Of course it would be a big mistake to believe that five or six
"enthusiastic" individuals posting incorrect information in a Usenet
newsgroup, are representative of hundreds of millions iOS users. Apple
would almost certainly love to have those people to stop trying to "help
them."

I know several individuals that rush out to buy the latest iPhone as
soon as it goes on sale, upgrading every year. But they are perfectly
normal people. One does so because he's a professional photographer who
always wants the latest in computational photography on his phone (and
he also moved from Nikon to Fuji professional equipment because Fuji
leads in computational photography).

In article <news:sf0n6b$tkb$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Remember when Apple defended FaceID after security experts all warned
> that face recognition was less secure than fingerprint recognition?

wrong

> The FaceID statement is very cleverly worded.

nope

You realize I can deny everything using an almost infinite list of denials
for anything you say so you know I will ALWAYS win this argument, don't you?

> First, they compared 2D TouchID to 3D FaceID, and stated the TouchID had
> a false positive rate of 1 in 10,000 while FaceID had an false positive rate of 1 in
> 1,000,000, but provided no data to back up that statement.

It's Samsung's fault.

> Then the caveat was added that the 1 in 1,000,000 number was for "a
> random person in the population" because it was discovered that
> siblings, or parents and children, sometimes looked enough alike to fool
> FaceID (and of course the people in your family have the easiest access
> to your devices).

If Apple's error rate is on in (whatever you said) it's only because of
Samsung whose error rate is ten times (whatever you said) Apple's was.

If not Samsung, Apple's error rate is due to Motorola.
If not Motorola, Microsoft is to blame for Apple's error rate of whatever.

You realize I can blame an almost infinite list of companies for what Apple
does wrong so you know I will ALWAYS win this endless argument, don't you?

> Never mentioned was the difference between the 2D capacitive TouchID
> technology currently used on devices like the older iPhones, iPads (and
> the SE2020) and the newer 3D ultrasonic fingerprint sensors being used
> on other manufacturer's products, which are extremely secure. But you
> can be sure that when the next generation of TouchID is released,
> suddenly it will deemed even more secure (or just as secure) as TouchID.

Horsepucky!
Apple is never wrong.

I will religiously defend everything Apple does to the death!

> The real issue with 2D capacitive fingerprint sensors has been false
> negatives. The real issue with FaceID, besides family members being able
> to unlock phones, has been that it's become such a hassle during Covid
> (except perhaps in Florida, where Ron DeathSantis is trying to
> discourage mask-wearing).

The real problem is people don't believe in Apple marketing pronouncements.
If Apple marketing says FaceID never makes a mistake - then that's accurate.

If FaceID then makes a mistake - then it's Samsung's fault.
If not Samsung, then it's Motorola's fault.

Remember, I can win this argument because I can blame an infinite list of
companies where you're stuck with quoting accurate cites on only Apple.

> Well all that said, I have a new iPhone with FaceID arriving today. If I
> keep waiting for TouchID to return (now pushed out to the iPhone 14
> apparently), I'll just be too old.

rubbish

On 8/11/2021 9:33 AM, allspam wrote:
> In article <news:sf0n6b$tkb$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Remember when Apple defended FaceID after security experts all warned
>> that face recognition was less secure than fingerprint recognition?
>
> wrong
>
>> The FaceID statement is very cleverly worded.
>
> nope
>
> You realize I can deny everything using an almost infinite list of denials
> for anything you say so you know I will ALWAYS win this argument, don't you?
>
>> First, they compared 2D TouchID to 3D FaceID, and stated the TouchID had
>> a false positive rate of 1 in 10,000 while FaceID had an false positive rate of 1 in
>> 1,000,000, but provided no data to back up that statement.
>
> It's Samsung's fault.
>
>> Then the caveat was added that the 1 in 1,000,000 number was for "a
>> random person in the population" because it was discovered that
>> siblings, or parents and children, sometimes looked enough alike to fool
>> FaceID (and of course the people in your family have the easiest access
>> to your devices).
>
> If Apple's error rate is on in (whatever you said) it's only because of
> Samsung whose error rate is ten times (whatever you said) Apple's was.
>
> If not Samsung, Apple's error rate is due to Motorola.
> If not Motorola, Microsoft is to blame for Apple's error rate of whatever.
>
> You realize I can blame an almost infinite list of companies for what Apple
> does wrong so you know I will ALWAYS win this endless argument, don't you?
>
>> Never mentioned was the difference between the 2D capacitive TouchID
>> technology currently used on devices like the older iPhones, iPads (and
>> the SE2020) and the newer 3D ultrasonic fingerprint sensors being used
>> on other manufacturer's products, which are extremely secure. But you
>> can be sure that when the next generation of TouchID is released,
>> suddenly it will deemed even more secure (or just as secure) as TouchID.
>
> Horsepucky!
> Apple is never wrong.
>
> I will religiously defend everything Apple does to the death!
>
>> The real issue with 2D capacitive fingerprint sensors has been false
>> negatives. The real issue with FaceID, besides family members being able
>> to unlock phones, has been that it's become such a hassle during Covid
>> (except perhaps in Florida, where Ron DeathSantis is trying to
>> discourage mask-wearing).
>
> The real problem is people don't believe in Apple marketing pronouncements.
> If Apple marketing says FaceID never makes a mistake - then that's accurate.
>
> If FaceID then makes a mistake - then it's Samsung's fault.
> If not Samsung, then it's Motorola's fault.
>
> Remember, I can win this argument because I can blame an infinite list of
> companies where you're stuck with quoting accurate cites on only Apple.
>
>> Well all that said, I have a new iPhone with FaceID arriving today. If I
>> keep waiting for TouchID to return (now pushed out to the iPhone 14
>> apparently), I'll just be too old.
>
> rubbish

LOL, well-done. You almost had me!

Since I've filtered out the people that engage in that kind of
"discussion" I've missed seeing it except when it shows up in other
people's follow-ups.

Glad to see that you didn't include any cites in your content-free
responses!

The ironic thing is that I like Apple, for multiple reasons, and I've
dealt with them far more than anyone else in the iPhone Usenet group,
and was invited to two of their product launches at Steve Jobs Theater.

But I don't think that the on-device scanning of photos is a good idea,
I share the concerns of EFF and other privacy and human rights
organizations.

In article <sf14qm$4tu$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> The ironic thing is that I like Apple, for multiple reasons,

then why do you lie and misrepresent about what they do?

> and I've
> dealt with them far more than anyone else in the iPhone Usenet group,

that's a very bold and baseless statement that is not even remotely
close to true.

In article <news:110820211457121009%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> that's a very bold and baseless statement that is not even remotely
> close to true.

nope.

Apple good. Everyone else bad.
I will defend Apple to the death by saying "nope" to everything you say!

I will wear you out with my "wrong" "nope" "false" baseless claims.
For ever news report you find, I can type a word to deny it outright.

Of course if it's something good, then ONLY Apple can do it.
But if it's something bad, then everyone else made Apple do it.

When you find something bad, I can find a company out there, somewhere,
anywhere, who I can then claim that Apple was just following them.

Even if they didn't.
It doesn't matter what the truth of the matter is.

I will put the focus on every company except Apple for what Apple does.

Because when Apple is good, Apple has free will.
But when Apple is bad, Apple was only following everyone else bad.

Besides, Apple's profits prove beyond doubt Apple only does good things.
I'm so very proud of Apple's profits. I am.

Because Apple is good.
Everyone else is bad.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:26:47 -0400, allspam posted:-

> Because Apple is good.
> Everyone else is bad.

Childish troll.

In message <inm66vFh31mU2@mid.individual.net> James Last plays in Miami <no> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:26:47 -0400, allspam posted:-

>> Because Apple is good.
>> Everyone else is bad.

> Childish troll.

Redundant.

--
Rule 1 of the Dunning-Kruger club is that you don't know you're a member of
the club.

On 13/08/2021 02:26, allspam wrote:
> In article <news:110820211457121009%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> that's a very bold and baseless statement that is not even remotely
>> close to true.
>
> nope.
>
> Apple good. Everyone else bad.
> I will defend Apple to the death by saying "nope" to everything you say!
>
> I will wear you out with my "wrong" "nope" "false" baseless claims.
> For ever news report you find, I can type a word to deny it outright.
>
> Of course if it's something good, then ONLY Apple can do it.
> But if it's something bad, then everyone else made Apple do it.
>
> When you find something bad, I can find a company out there, somewhere,
> anywhere, who I can then claim that Apple was just following them.
>
> Even if they didn't.
> It doesn't matter what the truth of the matter is.
>
> I will put the focus on every company except Apple for what Apple does.
>
> Because when Apple is good, Apple has free will.
> But when Apple is bad, Apple was only following everyone else bad.
>
> Besides, Apple's profits prove beyond doubt Apple only does good things.
> I'm so very proud of Apple's profits. I am.
>
> Because Apple is good.
> Everyone else is bad.

I agree that Apple IS good ..... but please read here:-

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/utilities-governed-empires

I'd welcome your view.

David Brooks <DavidB@invalid.E-S> wrote
> I agree that Apple IS good ..... but please read here:-

> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/utilities-governed-empires

None of that is relevant to what is being discussed in this thread.
> I'd welcome your view.

On 14/08/2021 06:01, Rod Speed wrote:
> David Brooks <DavidB@invalid.E-S> wrote
>> I agree that Apple IS good ..... but please read here:-
>
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/utilities-governed-empires
>
> None of that is relevant to what is being discussed in this thread.

Maybe you'd think differently if you had invested in Apple products.

David Brooks <DavidB@invalid.E-S> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> David Brooks <DavidB@invalid.E-S> wrote

>>> I agree that Apple IS good ..... but please read here:-
>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/utilities-governed-empires
>> None of that is relevant to what is being discussed in this thread.
> Maybe you'd think differently if you had invested in Apple products.

Nope, because I have.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 20:26:00 +0100, Calum wrote:
> Apple have never claimed or pretended that iCloud backups were
> end-to-end encrypted.

Nobody lies like Apple lies, particularly about end to end encryption.
What's common is Apple's idiot customers _believe_ all Apple's lies.

These common public lies are a normal part of Apple's business plan:
[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303]

Here's what Apple says (bear in mind, nobody lies like Apple lies):
"iCloud is built with industry-standard security technologies, employs
strict policies to protect your information, and is leading the industry by
adopting privacy-preserving technologies like end-to-end encryption for your
data."

Sounds good, right?
Look at these lies by Apple (again, nobody lies, like Apple lies):

"iPhone users don't have to worry their private conversations, using
iMessage and Facetime, will be intercepted. We've designed these features so
that bad actors can't listen to these communications, and neither can anyone
at Apple."
[https://oleb.net/2020/icloud-end-to-end-encryption/] [December 10, 2020]

Then read further on in that article (which everyone but Savageduck, Lewis,
nospam, and Jolly Roger know and understand - but they don't understand).

"What Federighi fails to mention: if you have iCloud Backup enabled, that
last claim (emphasis mine) is not the whole truth. Apple may not be able to
listen in on your conversations, but they can decrypt the messages stored in
your backups, *because data in iCloud backups is not end-to-end encrypted*."

"And it's not just iCloud backups. Here's an incomplete list of data sources
in iCloud that are not end-to-end-encrypted:

iCloud backups
Messages (de facto when iCloud Backup is enabled because the backup contains
a decryption key for the messages)
Photos
Files in iCloud Drive
Notes
Contacts
Reminders
Calendars
Voice memos
Bookmarks (your Safari history and open tabs are end-to-end-encrypted)
Source: Apple, iCloud security overview

In other words, if you use Apple services as intended and recommended by
Apple, a large portion of your most sensitive data is in fact not securely
encrypted. Both Apple and U.S. government agencies (and possibly other
governments?) can access it."

On 2021-08-14 4:56 p.m., allspam wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 20:26:00 +0100, Calum wrote:
>> Apple have never claimed or pretended that iCloud backups were
>> end-to-end encrypted.
>
> Nobody lies like Apple lies,

Well... ...except you, Arlen.

:-)