nospam wrote:

>>> recall the san bernardino shooter case, where apple was threatened with
>>> a lawsuit to make it easier.
>>
>> It's no longer shocking how you fall for every marketing trick in the book.
>
> that had absolutely nothing to do with marketing.

Hi nospam,

For the permanent record, and for the purpose of responding to your lack of
knowledge, I will treat you as if you're an adult in this message, nospam.

Actually it does. Very much so. On both sides, in fact. You're no fan of
James B. Comey (and neither am I, because of his political shenanigans).

I doubt you own the cognitive capacity to understand the details, so I will
summarize for your low-IQ brain that Comey had _hundreds_ of iPhones to
choose from, all of which had data far more important than _that_ iPhone.

There was something "special" about _that_ iPhone, nospam, and you don't
even own the cognition to realize what it was, bearing in mind it was a
_government_ owned iPhone so they _knew_ there would be almost nothing on
it that they didn't _already_ have since they had their own recent backups.

No. You won't be able to comprehend what intelligent people can, nospam.

Comey carefully chose _that_ iPhone because it had special shock value.
He chose it _specifically_ because he wanted to garner _emotions_ nospam.

If you think Comey isn't an intelligent & shrewd politician, then you'd be
wrong, nospam, because he played a game and Apple was happy to play along.

Since you iKooks never read the news, you're likely completely blissfully
unaware that they eventually did get a full dump off that phone (courtesy
of the zero-day holes which I already explained to you all iPhones have).

And there was nothing of import (which, of course, they knew ahead of time
was going to be the case since they had plenty of the phone's backups).

Because you iKooks own the brain of Alan Browne, Snit, Alan Baker, Jolly
Roger, Lewis, et al., you can't even fathom why Apple played along, nospam.

Apple was _also_ quite happy to "make a stink" about the phone, even as
Apple helped them as much as Apple could, but behind the scenes.

To their credit, Apple didn't implement a back door just for them, nospam,
but _nobody_ would have done that (not even Samsung or Huawei, who, heh
heh, point being taken when I mention Huawei that they likely already have
given it to China - but that's also too complex for your low IQ brain).

In summary, I doubt you own the adult cognitive skills to comprehend that
Comey was playing political games and Apple was happy to play along.

It suited both of them in terms of the politics & marketing they wished to
publicly achieve (even though both of them worked closely together behind
the scenes).

In the end, it doesn't change the fact that the security between iPhones
and Android phones is COMPLETLY DIFFERENT in that the iPhone is incredibly
insecure in so many ways it's hard to count, even as Android is also as
insecure in some of those many way.

One of which though, is the iPhone has the most zero-day holes (for years
on end) of any smartphone on this planet - which is a damning fact, nospam.

*To own an iPhone is to _already_ be hacked!*
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to faithfully explain to these incredibly dense
iKooks what anyone with normal adult cognition already long ago knew.

In article <u01tt2$18jch$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> >>> recall the san bernardino shooter case, where apple was threatened with
> >>> a lawsuit to make it easier.
> >>
> >> It's no longer shocking how you fall for every marketing trick in the book.
> >
> > that had absolutely nothing to do with marketing.
>
>
> Actually it does. Very much so.
....
> Comey carefully chose _that_ iPhone

comey worked for apple? in the marketing department?

did the fbi not pay him enough that he had to take on a second job?

or maybe you're full of shit.

one of those has merit. the other is ludicrous delusional idiocy.

nospam wrote:

> comey worked for apple? in the marketing department?

Jesus Christ, nospam, you are an imbecile.

That's not even an ad hominem attack. It's just a fact based on your
imaginary belief that James Comey worked for Apple (which nobody said).

> did the fbi not pay him enough that he had to take on a second job?

As I had surmised, nospam, none of you iKooks owns the adult cognition to
comprehend Comey was playing political games and Apple was happy to play
along as Apple was playing marketing games about imaginary iPhone security.

> or maybe you're full of shit.

You don't own the adult cognitive skills to comprehend that the situation
suited both Comey & Apple in terms of the politics & marketing they wished
to publicly achieve (even though both of them worked closely together
behind the scenes to get everything off the iPhone - which they did).

> one of those has merit.

In the end, the fact you iKooks never read the news doesn't change the fact
that the security between iPhones and Android phones is COMPLETLY DIFFERENT
in that *the iPhone is incredibly insecure* in so many ways it's hard to
count them, even as Android is also as insecure in some of those many way.

> the other is ludicrous delusional idiocy.

The fact remains a fact, whether you can comprehend that fact nor not...

FACT:
*The iPhone has the most zero-day holes of any smartphone on the planet*

Given you have never read the news, when you tout the imaginary security of
the iPhone, you always must completely ignore that damning fact, nospam.

ASSESSMENT:
*To own an iPhone is to _already_ be hacked!*

In article <u024bl$198uq$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> That's not even an ad hominem attack.

nobody said it was.

> It's just a fact based on your
> imaginary belief that James Comey worked for Apple (which nobody said).

you said the lawsuit was apple marketing and then said comey chose a
particular iphone for the lawsuit, which would have to be part of their
marketing effort.

your words.

nospam wrote:

> you said the lawsuit was apple marketing and then said comey chose a
> particular iphone for the lawsuit, which would have to be part of their
> marketing effort.

I tried to treat you as if you own the cognitive skills of a normal adult.

I wonder if you realize the reason you're an iKook is because you do not.

This is the epitome of an iKook, nospam... it's who you are...
<https://img.yumpu.com/6936343/1/500x640/standouts-the-beat-within.jpg>

Andy Burnelli wrote:

>> you said the lawsuit was apple marketing and then said comey chose a
>> particular iphone for the lawsuit, which would have to be part of their
>> marketing effort.
>
> I tried to treat you as if you own the cognitive skills of a normal adult.
>
> I wonder if you realize the reason you're an iKook is because you do not.
>
> This is the epitome of an iKook, nospam... it's who you are...
> <https://img.yumpu.com/6936343/1/500x640/standouts-the-beat-within.jpg>

nospam doesn't understand politics or marketing because he's proselytizing
like they used to do at airports telling us there is only one god, his god.