German parliament publicly accuses Tim Cook of undermining safe &
confidential communication

/9to5Mac/ "*German parliament letter to Tim Cook*"
https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/17/german-parliament-pens-letter-to-tim-cook-with-concerns-over-csam-detection-system/

Apple is going on a dangerous path while undermining safe and confidential
communication with CSAM, the largest surveillance instrument of history.

Am 18.08.21 um 06:44 schrieb NewsKrawler:
> German parliament publicly accuses Tim Cook of undermining safe &
> confidential communication
>
> /9to5Mac/ "*German parliament letter to Tim Cook*"
> https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/17/german-parliament-pens-letter-to-tim-cook-with-concerns-over-csam-detection-system/
>
> Apple is going on a dangerous path while undermining safe and confidential
> communication with CSAM, the largest surveillance instrument of history.

I do not think it will be possible for Apple to introduce this backdoor
legally in the EU anyway.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 18/08/2021 06:27, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 18.08.21 um 06:44 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>> German parliament publicly accuses Tim Cook of undermining safe &
>> confidential communication
>>
>> /9to5Mac/ "*German parliament letter to Tim Cook*"
>> https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/17/german-parliament-pens-letter-to-tim-cook-with-concerns-over-csam-detection-system/
>>
>> Apple is going on a dangerous path while undermining safe and confidential
>> communication with CSAM, the largest surveillance instrument of history.
>
> I do not think it will be possible for Apple to introduce this backdoor
> legally in the EU anyway.
>
>

They will. This is the thin end, Android and Microsoft will follow.

Am 18.08.21 um 11:31 schrieb Dex:

> On 18/08/2021 06:27, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 18.08.21 um 06:44 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>> Apple is going on a dangerous path while undermining safe and
>>> confidential
>>> communication with CSAM, the largest surveillance instrument of history.
>>
>> I do not think it will be possible for Apple to introduce this backdoor
>> legally in the EU anyway.
>
> They will. This is the thin end, Android and Microsoft will follow.

And a few years into the future, this wonderful new technology will
become required by law. With additional scan patterns provided by the
local government (politically motivated) and the entertainment industry
(fingerprints of copyrighted material).

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 18.08.21 um 06:44 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>> German parliament publicly accuses Tim Cook of undermining safe &
>> confidential communication
>>
>> /9to5Mac/ "*German parliament letter to Tim Cook*"
>> https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/17/german-parliament-pens-letter-to-tim-cook-with-concerns-over-csam-detection-system/
>>
>> Apple is going on a dangerous path while undermining safe and confidential
>> communication with CSAM, the largest surveillance instrument of history.
>
> I do not think it will be possible for Apple to introduce this backdoor
> legally in the EU anyway.

It is possible, but requires more hurdles that's all. In particular Apple
would need explicit consent and write it into their GDPR documentation.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> I do not think it will be possible for Apple to introduce this backdoor
> legally in the EU anyway.

The German Parliament knows how this works which is why they called it the
largest surveillance instrument in history (every iPhone on earth is
affected).

*Apple already introduced this backdoor into _all_ iPhones* (in iOS15).
All iPhones will have the back door on their phones - including EU iPhones.

While the scanning of images won't be "activated", the back door is there.
I don't know if iMessages scanning is also going to be on EU iPhones too.

Anyone know if the European iPhones will have iMessage scans activated?
--
Please wear your mask!
Bugs are everywhere. :)
!__!
(@)(@)
\.'||'./
-: :: :-
/'..''..'\

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I do not think it will be possible for Apple to introduce this backdoor
>> legally in the EU anyway.
>
> It is possible, but requires more hurdles that's all. In particular Apple
> would need explicit consent and write it into their GDPR documentation.

I think the Germans are upset the CSAM back door is there (open or not).
I don't know if the iMessage scanning back door is there also (is it?).
--
Please wear your mask!
Bugs are everywhere. :)
!__!
(@)(@)
\.'||'./
-: :: :-
/'..''..'\

On 2021-08-18 12:44 a.m., NewsKrawler wrote:
> German parliament publicly accuses Tim Cook of undermining safe &
> confidential communication
>
> /9to5Mac/ "*German parliament letter to Tim Cook*"
> https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/17/german-parliament-pens-letter-to-tim-cook-with-concerns-over-csam-detection-system/
>
> Apple is going on a dangerous path while undermining safe and confidential
> communication with CSAM, the largest surveillance instrument of history.

Meanwhile, they're trying to convince their customers that they respect
their privacy and that they offer end-to-end encryption. This is despite
the fact that it is now public knowledge that they are part of the PRISM
program and allow the government to monitor all of their users.

Windows is no better, of course. However, I believe that Teams is going
to be offering end-to-end encryption going forward. Since it's used by
corporations and not just regular users, this encryption might actually
be worthwhile.

--
SilverSlimer
@silverslimer

"Bugsy" <bugsy@zimage.comBUGSY> wrote

| *Apple already introduced this backdoor into _all_ iPhones* (in iOS15).
| All iPhones will have the back door on their phones - including EU
iPhones.
|

I think that's a misleading way to look at it. Apple
have an unlimited back door already. The only "security"
is your ignorance of the details and their fear of losing
money if they get caught doing sleazy things. And spyware
apps also have some access. Spyware is the official profit
model for a lot of apps now. They sell your data because
you don't want to pay them 5 bucks for the app.

The difference here is with Apple
overtly claiming the right to rifle through your files and
call the police if they don't like what they find. That's
not a back door. It's a front door.

So what's different is the direct, unilateral claim to
own your data, and the installation of an app that *can
be* used to scan your photos.

On 2021-08-18 5:15 a.m., SilverSlimer wrote:
> On 2021-08-18 12:44 a.m., NewsKrawler wrote:
>> German parliament publicly accuses Tim Cook of undermining safe &
>> confidential communication
>>
>> /9to5Mac/ "*German parliament letter to Tim Cook*"
>> https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/17/german-parliament-pens-letter-to-tim-cook-with-concerns-over-csam-detection-system/
>>
>>
>>
>> Apple is going on a dangerous path while undermining safe and
>> confidential communication with CSAM, the largest surveillance
>> instrument of history.
>
> Meanwhile, they're trying to convince their customers that they
> respect their privacy...

Which they do.

.... and that they offer end-to-end encryption.

Which they do.

> This
> is despite the fact that it is now public knowledge that they are
> part of the PRISM program and allow the government to monitor all of
> their users.

Cite, please...

....because Apple denies it.

'Apple: "We have never heard of PRISM"[114] "We do not provide any
government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government
agency requesting customer data must get a court order."[114]'

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)>

>
> Windows is no better, of course. However, I believe that Teams is
> going to be offering end-to-end encryption going forward. Since it's
> used by corporations and not just regular users, this encryption
> might actually be worthwhile.

All-the-while denying the simple fact that Apple offers end-to-end
encryption...

On 2021-08-18 6:39 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
> "Bugsy" <bugsy@zimage.comBUGSY> wrote
>
> | *Apple already introduced this backdoor into _all_ iPhones* (in iOS15).
> | All iPhones will have the back door on their phones - including EU
> iPhones.
> |
>
> I think that's a misleading way to look at it. Apple
> have an unlimited back door already. The only "security"
> is your ignorance of the details and their fear of losing
> money if they get caught doing sleazy things. And spyware
> apps also have some access. Spyware is the official profit
> model for a lot of apps now. They sell your data because
> you don't want to pay them 5 bucks for the app.
>
> The difference here is with Apple
> overtly claiming the right to rifle through your files and
> call the police if they don't like what they find. That's
> not a back door. It's a front door.

Nope.

Apple is claiming that if you want to put CERTAIN files (pictures) onto
their iCloud servers, then they are allowed to check if those files are
objectionable.

They're doing the checking on the device to enhance your privacy over
doing it at the server end.

>
> So what's different is the direct, unilateral claim to
> own your data, and the installation of an app that *can
> be* used to scan your photos.

Apple is being open and honest about what they're doing and why.

On 18/08/2021 13:03, Bugsy wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I do not think it will be possible for Apple to introduce this backdoor
>>> legally in the EU anyway.
>>
>> It is possible, but requires more hurdles that's all. In particular Apple
>> would need explicit consent and write it into their GDPR documentation.
>
> I think the Germans are upset the CSAM back door is there (open or not).
> I don't know if the iMessage scanning back door is there also (is it?).

None of that has been enabled in the EU, yet. It's USA-only currently
because of the laxer data privacy laws there.

On 2021-08-18 9:39 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
> "Bugsy" <bugsy@zimage.comBUGSY> wrote
>
> | *Apple already introduced this backdoor into _all_ iPhones* (in iOS15).
> | All iPhones will have the back door on their phones - including EU
> iPhones.
> |
>
> I think that's a misleading way to look at it. Apple
> have an unlimited back door already. The only "security"
> is your ignorance of the details and their fear of losing
> money if they get caught doing sleazy things. And spyware
> apps also have some access. Spyware is the official profit
> model for a lot of apps now. They sell your data because
> you don't want to pay them 5 bucks for the app.

Absolutely correct. It's one of the reasons I make sure to actually pay
for the software that I use, even if it's open-source and it doesn't
immediately benefit me to do so. In a time where the use of "app stores"
increases as does the power of the corporations attached to them, it
makes sense to make an attempt to decentralize that power.

> The difference here is with Apple
> overtly claiming the right to rifle through your files and
> call the police if they don't like what they find. That's
> not a back door. It's a front door.
>
> So what's different is the direct, unilateral claim to
> own your data, and the installation of an app that *can
> be* used to scan your photos.

People really need to resist the urge to put things on a cloud drive. If
they absolutely insist on it, they need to consider making their own
using OwnCloud.

--
SilverSlimer
@silverslimer

On 2021-08-18 10:33 a.m., Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-08-18 5:15 a.m., SilverSlimer wrote:
>> On 2021-08-18 12:44 a.m., NewsKrawler wrote:
>>> German parliament publicly accuses Tim Cook of undermining safe &
>>> confidential communication
>>>
>>> /9to5Mac/ "*German parliament letter to Tim Cook*"
>>> https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/17/german-parliament-pens-letter-to-tim-cook-with-concerns-over-csam-detection-system/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Apple is going on a dangerous path while undermining safe and
>>> confidential communication with CSAM, the largest surveillance
>>> instrument of history.
>>
>> Meanwhile, they're trying to convince their customers that they
>> respect their privacy...
>
> Which they do.
>
> ... and that they offer end-to-end encryption.
>
> Which they do.

It has already been discussed how and why this is inaccurate.

>> This
>> is despite the fact that it is now public knowledge that they are
>> part of the PRISM program and allow the government to monitor all of
>> their users.
>
> Cite, please...
>
> ...because Apple denies it.
>
> 'Apple: "We have never heard of PRISM"[114] "We do not provide any
> government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government
> agency requesting customer data must get a court order."[114]'
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)>

<https://search.brave.com/search?q=apple+prism&source=desktop>

Take your pick of source since I'm not interested in playing your game.
It should be noted that you're using _Wikipedia_ as a source which is
known to be inaccurate and far-left. Additionally, even Wikipedia admits:

"The documents identified several technology companies as participants
in the PRISM program, including Microsoft in 2007, Yahoo! in 2008,
Google in 2009, Facebook in 2009, Paltalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010, AOL
in 2011, Skype in 2011 and Apple in 2012.[22] The speaker's notes in the
briefing document reviewed by The Washington Post indicated that "98
percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft".[1]"

>> Windows is no better, of course. However, I believe that Teams is
>> going to be offering end-to-end encryption going forward. Since it's
>> used by corporations and not just regular users, this encryption
>> might actually be worthwhile.
>
> All-the-while denying the simple fact that Apple offers end-to-end
> encryption...

Already discussed, not interested.

--
SilverSlimer
@silverslimer

On 2021-08-18 7:57 a.m., SilverSlimer wrote:
> On 2021-08-18 10:33 a.m., Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-08-18 5:15 a.m., SilverSlimer wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-18 12:44 a.m., NewsKrawler wrote:
>>>> German parliament publicly accuses Tim Cook of undermining safe &
>>>> confidential communication
>>>>
>>>> /9to5Mac/ "*German parliament letter to Tim Cook*"
>>>> https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/17/german-parliament-pens-letter-to-tim-cook-with-concerns-over-csam-detection-system/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apple is going on a dangerous path while undermining safe and
>>>> confidential communication with CSAM, the largest surveillance
>>>> instrument of history.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, they're trying to convince their customers that they
>>> respect their privacy...
>>
>> Which they do.
>>
>> ... and that they offer end-to-end encryption.
>>
>> Which they do.
>
> It has already been discussed how and why this is inaccurate.

Really? Quote and link, please!

>
>>> This
>>> is despite the fact that it is now public knowledge that they are
>>> part of the PRISM program and allow the government to monitor all of
>>> their users.
>>
>> Cite, please...
>>
>> ...because Apple denies it.
>>
>> 'Apple: "We have never heard of PRISM"[114] "We do not provide any
>> government agency with direct access to our servers, and any
>> government agency requesting customer data must get a court order."[114]'
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)>
>
> <https://search.brave.com/search?q=apple+prism&source=desktop>
>
> Take your pick of source since I'm not interested in playing your game.
> It should be noted that you're using _Wikipedia_ as a source which is
> known to be inaccurate and far-left. Additionally, even Wikipedia admits:

I love your use of "known to be". It's a tell for when you're actually
giving your personal opinion.

>
> "The documents identified several technology companies as participants
> in the PRISM program, including Microsoft in 2007, Yahoo! in 2008,
> Google in 2009, Facebook in 2009, Paltalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010, AOL
> in 2011, Skype in 2011 and Apple in 2012.[22] The speaker's notes in the
> briefing document reviewed by The Washington Post indicated that "98
> percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft".[1]"

The document identifying companies is not the same as the document being
true.

>
>>> Windows is no better, of course. However, I believe that Teams is
>>> going to be offering end-to-end encryption going forward. Since it's
>>> used by corporations and not just regular users, this encryption
>>> might actually be worthwhile.
>>
>> All-the-while denying the simple fact that Apple offers end-to-end
>> encryption...
>
> Already discussed, not interested.

Your lack of interest in facts has been noted.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I do not think it will be possible for Apple to introduce this backdoor
>>>> legally in the EU anyway.
>>>
>>> It is possible, but requires more hurdles that's all. In particular Apple
>>> would need explicit consent and write it into their GDPR documentation.
>>
>> I think the Germans are upset the CSAM back door is there (open or not).
>> I don't know if the iMessage scanning back door is there also (is it?).
>
> None of that has been enabled in the EU, yet. It's USA-only currently
> because of the laxer data privacy laws there.

I maybe wasn't clear enough what the Germans were saying.
The Germans were clear though, so maybe you didn't read what they said?

The back door is there.
I repeat, enabled or not by Apple, the back door is there.

The Germans understood that.
You don't seem to understand what the Germans understood.

It doesn't matter what Apple says. It matters what Apple did.

Apple will be adding one (and maybe two) back doors to the EU iPhones.
The Germans understand that (even if you seem to not understand it).

Apple will add a back door (maybe two if you count iMessages) in iOS 15.
The Germans understand that.

Which is why they penned the letter to Tim Cook saying this is the largest
surveillance tool ever built - and it _will_ be abused like you can't
believe - such that safe & confidential communication is undermined by
Apple.

That's what the German Parliament said (they _understood_ what Apple did).
If you can't understand that then you won't be able to understand anything.
--
Please wear your mask!
Bugs are everywhere. :)
!__!
(@)(@)
\.'||'./
-: :: :-
/'..''..'\

In article <ed9TI.359$iw5.304@fx02.iad>, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er>
wrote:

> >> is despite the fact that it is now public knowledge that they are
> >> part of the PRISM program and allow the government to monitor all of
> >> their users.
> >
> > Cite, please...
> >
> > ...because Apple denies it.
> >
> > 'Apple: "We have never heard of PRISM"[114] "We do not provide any
> > government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government
> > agency requesting customer data must get a court order."[114]'
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)>
>
> <https://search.brave.com/search?q=apple+prism&source=desktop>
>
> Take your pick of source since I'm not interested in playing your game.

of course not, because you know you'd lose.

a web search means nothing.

<https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+is+flat>

760 million hits, therefore the earth must be flat.

> It should be noted that you're using _Wikipedia_ as a source which is
> known to be inaccurate

wikipedia is not perfect (nothing is), but overall, it's very accurate.

> and far-left.

nonsense, nor is that even relevant. you obviously don't understand how
wikipedia even works.

the bigger question is whether you actually believe that only far-right
sources are correct and everything else is wrong. that would explain a
lot.

> Additionally, even Wikipedia admits:
>
> "The documents identified several technology companies as participants
> in the PRISM program, including Microsoft in 2007, Yahoo! in 2008,
> Google in 2009, Facebook in 2009, Paltalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010, AOL
> in 2011, Skype in 2011 and Apple in 2012.[22] The speaker's notes in the
> briefing document reviewed by The Washington Post indicated that "98
> percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft".[1]"

first you claim that wikipedia is inaccurate and far-left, but then you
cite it as proof?

and you expect to be taken seriously?

SilverSlimer wrote:
> Windows is no better, of course.

There is one huge difference with Windows & Android versus Apple posters.
The typical Windows & Android customer isn't snowed by the advertising.

That's what you see different here on Usenet in these newsgroups.
The typical Apple customer _is_ completely snowed by the advertising.

It's _why_ the bought Apple products.
And it's why they are zealots who defend Apple products to the death.

Because they are desperate to believe the promise in Apple advertising.

Apple promises privacy and safety and style and ease of use.
Apple promises security and care and compassion for these people.

Apple _knows_ exactly what their desperate customer wants to hear.
People who buy Apple products are _desperate_ for what Apple promises them.

Apple owners are not the same type of person who buys Windows or Android.

On 2021-08-18, Bugsy <bugsy@zimage.comBUGSY> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I do not think it will be possible for Apple to introduce this backdoor
>>> legally in the EU anyway.
>>
>> It is possible, but requires more hurdles that's all. In particular Apple
>> would need explicit consent and write it into their GDPR documentation.
>
> I think the Germans are upset the CSAM back door is there (open or not).
> I don't know if the iMessage scanning back door is there also (is it?).

"If we call it a 'back door' enough times, it will magically become
one."

--
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 2021-08-18, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> the bigger question is whether you actually believe that only
> far-right sources are correct and everything else is wrong. that would
> explain a lot.

BINGO

--
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 2021-08-18 11:02 a.m., Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-08-18 7:57 a.m., SilverSlimer wrote:
>> On 2021-08-18 10:33 a.m., Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-18 5:15 a.m., SilverSlimer wrote:
>>>> On 2021-08-18 12:44 a.m., NewsKrawler wrote:
>>>>> German parliament publicly accuses Tim Cook of undermining safe &
>>>>> confidential communication
>>>>>
>>>>> /9to5Mac/ "*German parliament letter to Tim Cook*"
>>>>> https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/17/german-parliament-pens-letter-to-tim-cook-with-concerns-over-csam-detection-system/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple is going on a dangerous path while undermining safe and
>>>>> confidential communication with CSAM, the largest surveillance
>>>>> instrument of history.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, they're trying to convince their customers that they
>>>> respect their privacy...
>>>
>>> Which they do.
>>>
>>> ... and that they offer end-to-end encryption.
>>>
>>> Which they do.
>>
>> It has already been discussed how and why this is inaccurate.
>
> Really? Quote and link, please!

Read the previous days and weeks in this newsgroup or, better yet, go
join the other zealots in comp.sys.mac.advocacy.

>>>> This
>>>> is despite the fact that it is now public knowledge that they are
>>>> part of the PRISM program and allow the government to monitor all of
>>>> their users.
>>>
>>> Cite, please...
>>>
>>> ...because Apple denies it.
>>>
>>> 'Apple: "We have never heard of PRISM"[114] "We do not provide any
>>> government agency with direct access to our servers, and any
>>> government agency requesting customer data must get a court
>>> order."[114]'
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)>
>>
>> <https://search.brave.com/search?q=apple+prism&source=desktop>
>>
>> Take your pick of source since I'm not interested in playing your
>> game. It should be noted that you're using _Wikipedia_ as a source
>> which is known to be inaccurate and far-left. Additionally, even
>> Wikipedia admits:
>
> I love your use of "known to be". It's a tell for when you're actually
> giving your personal opinion.

<https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/>

"Their study found that Wikipedia articles are more politically biased
than those in Encyclopaedia Britannica, as well as being slanted towards
Democratic (as opposed to Republican) points of view."

>> "The documents identified several technology companies as participants
>> in the PRISM program, including Microsoft in 2007, Yahoo! in 2008,
>> Google in 2009, Facebook in 2009, Paltalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010,
>> AOL in 2011, Skype in 2011 and Apple in 2012.[22] The speaker's notes
>> in the briefing document reviewed by The Washington Post indicated
>> that "98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and
>> Microsoft".[1]"
>
> The document identifying companies is not the same as the document being
> true.

In other words: I am an Apple zealot and I refuse to listen to reason.
Now what me put my hands over my ears and sing "LA LA LA" at the highest
possible volume.
>>>> Windows is no better, of course. However, I believe that Teams is
>>>> going to be offering end-to-end encryption going forward. Since it's
>>>> used by corporations and not just regular users, this encryption
>>>> might actually be worthwhile.
>>>
>>> All-the-while denying the simple fact that Apple offers end-to-end
>>> encryption...
>>
>> Already discussed, not interested.
>
> Your lack of interest in facts has been noted.

I have no interest in _you_.

--
SilverSlimer
@silverslimer

On 2021-08-18 12:13 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <ed9TI.359$iw5.304@fx02.iad>, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er>
> wrote:
>
>>>> is despite the fact that it is now public knowledge that they are
>>>> part of the PRISM program and allow the government to monitor all of
>>>> their users.
>>>
>>> Cite, please...
>>>
>>> ...because Apple denies it.
>>>
>>> 'Apple: "We have never heard of PRISM"[114] "We do not provide any
>>> government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government
>>> agency requesting customer data must get a court order."[114]'
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)>
>>
>> <https://search.brave.com/search?q=apple+prism&source=desktop>
>>
>> Take your pick of source since I'm not interested in playing your game.
>
> of course not, because you know you'd lose.
>
> a web search means nothing.
>
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+is+flat>
>
> 760 million hits, therefore the earth must be flat.

Dodge.

>> It should be noted that you're using _Wikipedia_ as a source which is
>> known to be inaccurate
>
> wikipedia is not perfect (nothing is), but overall, it's very accurate.

ROFL. Wrong.

>> and far-left.
>
> nonsense, nor is that even relevant. you obviously don't understand how
> wikipedia even works.
>
> the bigger question is whether you actually believe that only far-right
> sources are correct and everything else is wrong. that would explain a
> lot.

Yeah, because the sources I presented in the past like Business Insider
and the Wall Street Journal are clearly "far right."

>> Additionally, even Wikipedia admits:
>>
>> "The documents identified several technology companies as participants
>> in the PRISM program, including Microsoft in 2007, Yahoo! in 2008,
>> Google in 2009, Facebook in 2009, Paltalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010, AOL
>> in 2011, Skype in 2011 and Apple in 2012.[22] The speaker's notes in the
>> briefing document reviewed by The Washington Post indicated that "98
>> percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft".[1]"
>
> first you claim that wikipedia is inaccurate and far-left, but then you
> cite it as proof?
>
> and you expect to be taken seriously

As always, you purposefully misinterpret what is written to suit your
needs. Notice the use of the word "even" above.

Anyways, there is truly no difference between you and the Prescott Parasite.

--
SilverSlimer
@silverslimer

On 2021-08-18 9:44 a.m., Gronk wrote:
> SilverSlimer wrote:
>> Windows is no better, of course.
>
> There is one huge difference with Windows & Android versus Apple posters.
> The typical Windows & Android customer isn't snowed by the advertising.
>
> That's what you see different here on Usenet in these newsgroups.
> The typical Apple customer _is_ completely snowed by the advertising.
>
> It's _why_ the bought Apple products.
> And it's why they are zealots who defend Apple products to the death.
>
> Because they are desperate to believe the promise in Apple advertising.
>
> Apple promises privacy and safety and style and ease of use.
> Apple promises security and care and compassion for these people.
>
> Apple _knows_ exactly what their desperate customer wants to hear.
> People who buy Apple products are _desperate_ for what Apple promises them.
>
> Apple owners are not the same type of person who buys Windows or Android.

LOL!

Given that Apple's market share for Macs has climbed from the low single
digits to more than 15% world wide, a great many Apple owners are former
Windows users, Arlen.

On 2021-08-18 8:51 a.m., Bugsy wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I do not think it will be possible for Apple to introduce this backdoor
>>>>> legally in the EU anyway.
>>>>
>>>> It is possible, but requires more hurdles that's all. In particular Apple
>>>> would need explicit consent and write it into their GDPR documentation.
>>>
>>> I think the Germans are upset the CSAM back door is there (open or not).
>>> I don't know if the iMessage scanning back door is there also (is it?).
>>
>> None of that has been enabled in the EU, yet. It's USA-only currently
>> because of the laxer data privacy laws there.
>
> I maybe wasn't clear enough what the Germans were saying.
> The Germans were clear though, so maybe you didn't read what they said?
>
> The back door is there.
> I repeat, enabled or not by Apple, the back door is there.

By that standard there is ALWAYS a back door in every device with an OS.

>
> The Germans understood that.
> You don't seem to understand what the Germans understood.
>
> It doesn't matter what Apple says. It matters what Apple did.
>
> Apple will be adding one (and maybe two) back doors to the EU iPhones.
> The Germans understand that (even if you seem to not understand it).
>
> Apple will add a back door (maybe two if you count iMessages) in iOS 15.
> The Germans understand that.
>
> Which is why they penned the letter to Tim Cook saying this is the largest
> surveillance tool ever built - and it _will_ be abused like you can't
> believe - such that safe & confidential communication is undermined by
> Apple.
>
> That's what the German Parliament said (they _understood_ what Apple did).
> If you can't understand that then you won't be able to understand anything.
>

On 2021-08-18 12:44 p.m., Gronk wrote:
> SilverSlimer wrote:
>> Windows is no better, of course.
>
> There is one huge difference with Windows & Android versus Apple posters.
> The typical Windows & Android customer isn't snowed by the advertising.
>
> That's what you see different here on Usenet in these newsgroups.
> The typical Apple customer _is_ completely snowed by the advertising.
>
> It's _why_ the bought Apple products.
> And it's why they are zealots who defend Apple products to the death.
>
> Because they are desperate to believe the promise in Apple advertising.
>
> Apple promises privacy and safety and style and ease of use.
> Apple promises security and care and compassion for these people.
>
> Apple _knows_ exactly what their desperate customer wants to hear.
> People who buy Apple products are _desperate_ for what Apple promises them.
>
> Apple owners are not the same type of person who buys Windows or Android.

You're not wrong. Even in the early 2000s when I got my first iBook G3,
a lot of it had to do with curiosity as a result of those Mac vs. PC
commercials. I was also convinced by "the Mac guy" at work that G3, G4
and the eventual G5 processors were _way_ faster than anything Intel or
AMD could make.

It might have been true, to a degree. However, they also evolved much
slower than Intel and AMD's offerings and were used with an operating
system which was much slower than Windows was. Add to that the fact that
at the time, you couldn't even get a decent browser on Mac OS, and your
experience was, in a word: excrement.

Let's not forget that until around 2005, Macs were shipped with
Microsoft Internet Explorer and that alternative browsers had to be
researched and then found on obscure sites. Those alternative browsers
had their own issues and therefore Apple had no choice but to eventually
develop Safari which, at that point, was the first taste of decency Mac
users got. Of course, business users still preferred Windows because of
the speed, the fact that Internet Explorer was necessary for the sites
they used for work and because of Microsoft Office (which existed for
the Mac but wasn't as good as the PC iteration) so they made iWork which
addressed the issue but seemed like a joke.

I'm sure that the Apple zealots here are going to reply to this and
attempt to rewrite history but all I can say is that once I got a
Windows laptop in 2006 or so, I was relieved to be out of the Mac world.
I had forgotten how much faster it was.

--
SilverSlimer
@silverslimer