Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 5:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-16 00:47, badgolferman wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
>>>>> Facebook does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
>>>> negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
>>>> enough.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
>>>> can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
>>>> other way round.
>>>
>>> Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
>>> Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
>>> and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
>>> (much like WeChat in China).
>>>
>>> Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
>>> platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
>>> the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.
>>
>> There?s also FaceTime which is quite popular among iOS users. Does Android
>> have a way to use that?
>
> Yes, it's called 'WhatsApp'! :-)
>
> But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.
>

For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

Jolly Roger wrote on 19 Feb 2024 06:16:36 GMT :

>> That's ridiculous.
>
> Nope, it's true.

I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision
to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger.

I'm not saying people don't do it.
I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.

>
>> If a platform can only run one messaging app - it's a dumb platform.
>
> You have to be incredibly ignorant to think iPhones can only run one
> messaging app. Either that or this is your feeble attempt at erecting an
> incredibly weak straw man. Either way you should be embarrassed.

I didn't say anything of the sort - so that strawman is all yours.

What sms said, which is what I was responding to, is that "At least in the
U.S., iMessage is one of the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones
over Android devices."

If a major reason for choosing a platform is the default messenger app,
which is a dime a dozen and easily replaced with far better messenger apps,
then that's an absurd way to choose a computer (which a "smart" phone is).

badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:59:42 -0000 (UTC) :

>> But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.
>>
> For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
> personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

I've studied why people purchase each platform, partly by reading what each
platform advertises (for example, yellow iPhones are a big deal apparently)
where in general Apple advertises safety and style and not functionality.

People buy what the advertisers choose as believable selling points.
Whether or not those selling points have any merit.

Take "safety" for example, where it's many different things, right?
So how do you measure safety?

I know how advertisers do it.
Let's say there are ten things that determine safety for the most part.

Let's say one platform has 3 of those in the bag, 3 in doubt, and 3 of them
the platform loses big on, and one where it's a tie.

Which three major points does the platform that is advertising that it
provides safety at the expense of functionality going to advertise to you?

On 2/19/24 10:23 AM, Andrew wrote:
>badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:59:42 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.
>>>
>> For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
>> personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.
>
>I've studied why people purchase each platform, partly by reading what each
>platform advertises (for example, yellow iPhones are a big deal apparently)
>where in general Apple advertises safety and style and not functionality.

>People buy what the advertisers choose as believable selling points.
>Whether or not those selling points have any merit.

I buy Android stuff (phone and tablets) mainly because I'm used to the OS
and don't want to mess with a new system. I'm GUESSING many folks do the
same. Now as to WHICH Android stuff, advertising likely does play a part
with many...

>Take "safety" for example, where it's many different things, right?
>So how do you measure safety?
>
>I know how advertisers do it.
>Let's say there are ten things that determine safety for the most part.
>
>Let's say one platform has 3 of those in the bag, 3 in doubt, and 3 of them
>the platform loses big on, and one where it's a tie.
>
>Which three major points does the platform that is advertising that it
>provides safety at the expense of functionality going to advertise to you?

Andrew wrote:

>badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:59:42 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.
>>>
>> For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
>> personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.
>
>I've studied why people purchase each platform, partly by reading
>what each platform advertises (for example, yellow iPhones are a big
>deal apparently) where in general Apple advertises safety and style
>and not functionality.
>
>People buy what the advertisers choose as believable selling points.
>Whether or not those selling points have any merit.
>
>Take "safety" for example, where it's many different things, right?
>So how do you measure safety?
>
>I know how advertisers do it.
>Let's say there are ten things that determine safety for the most
>part.
>
>Let's say one platform has 3 of those in the bag, 3 in doubt, and 3
>of them the platform loses big on, and one where it's a tie.
>
>Which three major points does the platform that is advertising that it
>provides safety at the expense of functionality going to advertise to
>you?

Where did I mention safety? I was referring to what some people
consider the privacy of their personal information. It is believed
that Apple will make an effort to protect your privacy, whereas Google
and Facebook will make every effort to exploit and use your private
information. How much of that is actually true, I don't know.

My personal feeling is if one is on the internet there is very little
expectation of privacy.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2/16/2024 5:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >>>> On 2024-02-16 00:47, badgolferman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>> I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
> >>>>> Facebook does.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
> >>>> negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
> >>>> enough.
> >>>>
> >>>> Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
> >>>> can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
> >>>> other way round.
> >>>
> >>> Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
> >>> Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
> >>> and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
> >>> (much like WeChat in China).
> >>>
> >>> Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
> >>> platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
> >>> the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.
> >>
> >> There?s also FaceTime which is quite popular among iOS users. Does Android
> >> have a way to use that?
> >
> > Yes, it's called 'WhatsApp'! :-)
> >
> > But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.
>
> For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
> personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.

For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
personal information".

On 2024-02-19 09:14, Andrew wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote on 19 Feb 2024 06:16:36 GMT :
>
>>> That's ridiculous.
>>
>> Nope, it's true.
>
> I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision
> to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
> choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger.
>
> I'm not saying people don't do it.
> I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.
>
>>
>>> If a platform can only run one messaging app - it's a dumb platform.
>>
>> You have to be incredibly ignorant to think iPhones can only run one
>> messaging app. Either that or this is your feeble attempt at erecting an
>> incredibly weak straw man. Either way you should be embarrassed.
>
> I didn't say anything of the sort - so that strawman is all yours.
>
> What sms said, which is what I was responding to, is that "At least in the
> U.S., iMessage is one of the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones
> over Android devices."
>

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the straw man you constructed.

> If a major reason for choosing a platform is the default messenger app,
> which is a dime a dozen and easily replaced with far better messenger apps,
> then that's an absurd way to choose a computer (which a "smart" phone is).

badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:23:25 -0000 (UTC) :

>>Which three major points does the platform that is advertising that it
>>provides safety at the expense of functionality going to advertise to
>>you?
>
> Where did I mention safety?

Huh? It doesn't matter. Safety. Privacy. Anonymity. Malware. You name it.

> I was referring to what some people
> consider the privacy of their personal information.

So was I.
I lumped that into safety.

We're both talking about the same thing.

> It is believed
> that Apple will make an effort to protect your privacy, whereas Google
> and Facebook will make every effort to exploit and use your private
> information.

It is believed. That depends on the believer.
The less they know, the more they rely on advertising.
Why?

Since almost nobody is an expert in iOS "privacy", and since even fewer are
experts in both iOS and Android "privacy", where do you think they get
their data from?

And if you tell me they "look it up", then you do not understand what
privacy means - because it's a lot more than the ten things I spoke about.

But let's say it is just ten things that make you private on a phone.
Everything I said applies.

Let's say the iPhone is more private in 8 out of 10 of those ways, and yet
Android is far more private in 2 out of those 10 ways (and at the same
times being well over 10 times more capable in terms of doing stuff).

Let's say you don't need ten times the capabilities, so now the Apple huge
tradeoff on loss of functionality in favor of "privacy" no longer matters.

Even then, how do you weigh those 8 things where Apple is more private,
against those 2 things where Apple is far less private than Android is?

> How much of that is actually true, I don't know.

The problem is that "privacy" is many more things than just ten, and Apple
has some of it and Android has some of it also - where the only thing you
can say is it's easier for a non-technical person to stay a bit more
private on iOS in some ways (say 8 out of 10) where it's a LOT more
"private" on Android if you're technical - since it's impossible on iOS for
some ways to stay private that are trivial on Android (say 2 out of 10).

The easiest way to summarize all that is to generalize for you the results.

For the least technical users you can pick:
1. For the least technical users, iOS is "more private" (but not private).
2. For the least technical user, the huge loss of iOS functionality is ok.

However, for the more technical users you can pick:
1. For the more technical users, iOS is NOT "more private" (it's less!).
2. For the more technical user, the Android functionality advantage rules.

> My personal feeling is if one is on the internet there is very little
> expectation of privacy.

It's a lost battle on iOS as you can't do all that much that Apple didn't
already do for you. But on Android, there are plenty of ways to stay more
private which Google did NOT do for you.

Your privacy is directly proportional to how technically competent you are.
a. If you're not technically competent, then iOS is a good choice
b. If you're technically competent, then iOS is a BAD choice
For two reasons which apply directly to the technically competent user.
A. iOS is less functional (as a result of Apple's marketing strategy)
B. iOS is less private (as a result of those 2 out of 10 problems)

On 2/19/2024 2:20 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
> calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
> because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
> personal information".

Wasn't Apple accused in the news of giving the government all the messages
stored in their cloud without the government even bothering with subpoenas?

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 5:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-16 00:47, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess Microsoft and Apple have more money to pass under the table than
>>>>>>> Facebook does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is simply because usage of those platforms in the European Union is
>>>>>> negligible, so they are not considered "core platforms". Not important
>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice that the decision means that the lesser platforms (like iMessage)
>>>>>> can demand connectivity to the core plaforms (like WhatsApp). Not the
>>>>>> other way round.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatsapp gained acceptance in Europe and parts of Asia because of
>>>>> Android's dominance. So everyone, including iPhone uses, use WhatsApp
>>>>> and even thought it's owned by Meta, it's considered a core platform
>>>>> (much like WeChat in China).
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
>>>>> platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
>>>>> the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.
>>>>
>>>> There?s also FaceTime which is quite popular among iOS users. Does Android
>>>> have a way to use that?
>>>
>>> Yes, it's called 'WhatsApp'! :-)
>>>
>>> But seriously, FaceTime is as closed as iMessage, Apple-only.
>>
>> For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
>> personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.
>
> For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
> calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
> because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
> personal information".
>

Yeah, right…

You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don’t have the ability to
intercept and decode “encrypted data”?

Larry Wolff <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
> On 2/19/2024 2:20 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
>> calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
>> because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
>> personal information".
>
> Wasn't Apple accused in the news of giving the government all the messages
> stored in their cloud without the government even bothering with subpoenas?
>

They probably did obey the law.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:23:25 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> Which three major points does the platform that is advertising that it
>>> provides safety at the expense of functionality going to advertise to
>>> you?
>>
>> Where did I mention safety?
>
> Huh? It doesn't matter. Safety. Privacy. Anonymity. Malware. You name it.
>
>> I was referring to what some people
>> consider the privacy of their personal information.
>
> So was I.
> I lumped that into safety.
>
> We're both talking about the same thing.
>
>> It is believed
>> that Apple will make an effort to protect your privacy, whereas Google
>> and Facebook will make every effort to exploit and use your private
>> information.
>
> It is believed. That depends on the believer.
> The less they know, the more they rely on advertising.
> Why?
>
> Since almost nobody is an expert in iOS "privacy", and since even fewer are
> experts in both iOS and Android "privacy", where do you think they get
> their data from?
>
> And if you tell me they "look it up", then you do not understand what
> privacy means - because it's a lot more than the ten things I spoke about.
>
> But let's say it is just ten things that make you private on a phone.
> Everything I said applies.
>
> Let's say the iPhone is more private in 8 out of 10 of those ways, and yet
> Android is far more private in 2 out of those 10 ways (and at the same
> times being well over 10 times more capable in terms of doing stuff).
>
> Let's say you don't need ten times the capabilities, so now the Apple huge
> tradeoff on loss of functionality in favor of "privacy" no longer matters.
>
> Even then, how do you weigh those 8 things where Apple is more private,
> against those 2 things where Apple is far less private than Android is?
>
>> How much of that is actually true, I don't know.
>
> The problem is that "privacy" is many more things than just ten, and Apple
> has some of it and Android has some of it also - where the only thing you
> can say is it's easier for a non-technical person to stay a bit more
> private on iOS in some ways (say 8 out of 10) where it's a LOT more
> "private" on Android if you're technical - since it's impossible on iOS for
> some ways to stay private that are trivial on Android (say 2 out of 10).
>
> The easiest way to summarize all that is to generalize for you the results.
>
> For the least technical users you can pick:
> 1. For the least technical users, iOS is "more private" (but not private).
> 2. For the least technical user, the huge loss of iOS functionality is ok.
>
> However, for the more technical users you can pick:
> 1. For the more technical users, iOS is NOT "more private" (it's less!).
> 2. For the more technical user, the Android functionality advantage rules.
>
>> My personal feeling is if one is on the internet there is very little
>> expectation of privacy.
>
> It's a lost battle on iOS as you can't do all that much that Apple didn't
> already do for you. But on Android, there are plenty of ways to stay more
> private which Google did NOT do for you.
>
> Your privacy is directly proportional to how technically competent you are.
> a. If you're not technically competent, then iOS is a good choice
> b. If you're technically competent, then iOS is a BAD choice
> For two reasons which apply directly to the technically competent user.
> A. iOS is less functional (as a result of Apple's marketing strategy)
> B. iOS is less private (as a result of those 2 out of 10 problems)
>

Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?

badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:07:46 -0000 (UTC) :

> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money.

I am agreeing with you on almost everything you said. All I'm doing is
adding more information because you only looked at a small piece of it.

Since you missed the point, I'm going to summarize it in two sentences.

If you know what you're doing, Android is world's more private than iOS.
But if you don't know what you're doing, iOS is more private than Android.

> Does Apple do that?

Yes. Of course. Apple got sued for it even. So it made the news. But Apple
does it nowhere near as much as Google does, and that's where we agree.

Don't make me look it up if you don't believe it - first look it up.
Then come back and tell me Apple didn't get sued for lying about privacy.

On 2024-02-19 14:11, Andrew wrote:
> badgolferman wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:07:46 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money.
>
> I am agreeing with you on almost everything you said. All I'm doing is
> adding more information because you only looked at a small piece of it.
>
> Since you missed the point, I'm going to summarize it in two sentences.
>
> If you know what you're doing, Android is world's more private than iOS.
> But if you don't know what you're doing, iOS is more private than Android.
>
>> Does Apple do that?
>
> Yes. Of course. Apple got sued for it even. So it made the news. But Apple
> does it nowhere near as much as Google does, and that's where we agree.

You're a liar or just stupid.

>
> Don't make me look it up if you don't believe it - first look it up.
> Then come back and tell me Apple didn't get sued for lying about privacy.

Why don't you show your support.

On 2/19/2024 9:02 PM, badgolferman wrote:

>> Wasn't Apple accused in the news of giving the government all the messages
>> stored in their cloud without the government even bothering with subpoenas?
>>
>
> They probably did obey the law.

Agree that Apple almost certainly obeyed the law.

The law probably says if they ask for it nicely and Apple gives it to them,
then it's legal. They don't need a subpoena to get it from Apple that way.

They only need a subpoena if Apple doesn't give it to them when they ask.

On 2024-02-19 14:27, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 2/19/2024 9:02 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>
>>> Wasn't Apple accused in the news of giving the government all the messages
>>> stored in their cloud without the government even bothering with subpoenas?
>>>
>>
>> They probably did obey the law.
>
> Agree that Apple almost certainly obeyed the law.
>
> The law probably says if they ask for it nicely and Apple gives it to them,
> then it's legal. They don't need a subpoena to get it from Apple that way.
>
> They only need a subpoena if Apple doesn't give it to them when they ask.

It's really nice when you can just make shit up...

....Arlen

On 2/19/2024 9:14 AM, Andrew wrote:

<snip>

> I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision
> to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
> choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger.
>
> I'm not saying people don't do it.
> I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.

It is not absurd.

I have a niece who's husband's relative works for Samsung. For years she
was using Samsung phones that she could buy at a huge discount. Suddenly
she switched to iPhone. She said that the reason was that all the
parents their kids' sports teams used iMessage to communicate things
like schedules, who was responsible for bringing drinks and snacks,
carpool arrangements, etc.. She was in no position to try to convert
everyone else to use WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, or whatever. So she
capitulated for a very non-absurd reason.

These days she could use something like AirMessage but that is a system
that she would not know how to set up. They are not poor and have no
problem spending more money on iPhones.

This a very U.S.-centric issue since in other countries most people use
a cross-platform messaging app. There would be little upside for Apple
to open up iMessage to other platforms.

On 2024-02-19 15:07, sms wrote:
> On 2/19/2024 9:14 AM, Andrew wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the
>> decision
>> to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
>> choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or
>> messenger.
>>
>> I'm not saying people don't do it.
>> I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.
>
> It is not absurd.
>
> I have a niece who's husband's relative works for Samsung. For years she
> was using Samsung phones that she could buy at a huge discount. Suddenly
> she switched to iPhone. She said that the reason was that all the
> parents their kids' sports teams used iMessage to communicate things
> like schedules, who was responsible for bringing drinks and snacks,
> carpool arrangements, etc.. She was in no position to try to convert
> everyone else to use WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, or whatever. So she
> capitulated for a very non-absurd reason.
>
> These days she could use something like AirMessage but that is a system
> that she would not know how to set up. They are not poor and have no
> problem spending more money on iPhones.
>
> This a very U.S.-centric issue since in other countries most people use
> a cross-platform messaging app. There would be little upside for Apple
> to open up iMessage to other platforms.

So many people seem to think "absurd" means:

"something I don't want for myself".

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> >> For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
> >> personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.
> >
> > For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
> > calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
> > because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
> > personal information".
>
> Yeah, right?
>
> You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don?t have the ability to
> intercept and decode ?encrypted data??

They probably can and probably will do if demanded by law enforcement,
etc..

They can't and don't as part of their normal way of operating. That's
the point.

BTW, I don't understand why you're throwing Google in the mix, because
Google is not involved in iMessage, nor WhatsApp.

('Facebook' is involved, if you actually mean to say 'Meta' (which
WhatsApp is part of.)

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
> Apple do that?

Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.

If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.

As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.

And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

On 20 Feb 2024 at 09:40:44 GMT, "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
>>>> personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.
>>>
>>> For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video
>>> calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant,
>>> because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their
>>> personal information".
>>
>> Yeah, right?
>>
>> You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don?t have the ability to
>> intercept and decode ?encrypted data??
>
> They probably can and probably will do if demanded by law enforcement,
> etc..
>
> They can't and don't as part of their normal way of operating. That's
> the point.
>
> BTW, I don't understand why you're throwing Google in the mix, because
> Google is not involved in iMessage, nor WhatsApp.
>
> ('Facebook' is involved, if you actually mean to say 'Meta' (which
> WhatsApp is part of.)

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/

On 2024-02-20 10:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
>> Apple do that?
>
> Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
> they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.

That's correct.

> If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
> your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
>
> As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
> and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
> yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
> from my use of Google products.
>
> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

Also there is a difference in behaviour between private data obtained
from public sources (from browsing web pages, for instance), than those
in private places (say, the address book).

--
Cheers, Carlos.

David B. wrote on 20.02.2024 06:31
> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/

Nice find.

I love the post with the screenshot from Apple saying essentially that
Apple's walled garden falls apart like a Potemkin village the instant
you don't constantly and repeatedly, day after day, always log into
Apple's servers (every day of your life, forever!) using the same Apple ID.

What a wealth of intensely personal information that must be for Apple.
Meanwhile, Android works perfectly fine without ever logging into Google.

On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
>> Apple do that?
>
> Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
> they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
>
> If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
> your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
>
> As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
> and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
> yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
> from my use of Google products.

When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.

> And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.

Sad that you shared your birthday. I use a fake birthday on all
websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date:
government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).

Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of
you very accurate.

They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
data to those wishing to target you to buy something.

OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
(some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
against you.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-02-20 04:40, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don?t have the ability to
>> intercept and decode ?encrypted data??
>
> They probably can and probably will do if demanded by law enforcement,
> etc..
>
> They can't and don't as part of their normal way of operating. That's
> the point.

E2E encryption means exactly that. If the keys are negotiated between
two end point devices, no matter what, or how many intermediaries there
are, the data encryption key cannot be determined by those
intermediaries and thus cannot decoded by anyone in the middle - even if
the "middle" men intercept 100% of the key negotiation because they lack
private knowledge kept at each end of the negotiation.

Brute forcing such is feasible in some cases, but made ridiculously
expensive with longer keys and elliptic curve cryptography - which is
currently widely deployed.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.