On 2024-09-22 02:27, fontineau wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2024, yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> posted some
> news:878qvo589n.fsf@tilde.institute:
>
>> Yamn2 Remailer <noreply@mixmin.net> writes:
>>
>>> Apple users are usually liberals and don't care about privacy like
>>> Windows people do.
>>
>> LOL!
>
> sad but true!
>

In what manner to Apple users care less about privacy than Windows users?

On 9/23/2024 4:58 PM, Alan wrote:

> In what manner to Apple users care less about privacy than Windows users?

Apple babies their customers and tells them what they want. Their
customers, in turn, trust them, despite having no reason for
doing so. (Apple runs their own ad business, after all.)

A good example is the "feature" to back up an iPhone online just
in case yours gets lost. Few Windows users would trust their
computer's contents to Microsoft. And most are not so tech-illiterate
that they'd need to.

I think this is difficult for Mac devotees to understand. They think
they're in a club or on a team, opposed to Windows users. People on
Windows don't think that way. It's just a computer, like a Ford Focus is
just a car.

Though to be fair, in my experience at least 90% of all people
don't much care about privacy if it requires any effort. Apple
fans are just a bit more ninny-headed about it. Part of the reason
they use Apple devices is so that they won't have to think. (Most
of the people I know who switched to Macs did it for one reason:
They believed Macs were immune to malware, so they wouldn't
have to think about it. Essentially, Mac is today's AOL.)

On 2024-09-23 15:17, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 9/23/2024 4:58 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>> In what manner to Apple users care less about privacy than Windows users?
>
>   Apple babies their customers and tells them what they want. Their
> customers, in turn, trust them, despite having no reason for
> doing so. (Apple runs their own ad business, after all.)

How does that actually mean they CARE less.

They may believe Apple's claims about privacy, but that doesn't mean
they don't care.

>
>   A good example is the "feature" to back up an iPhone online just
> in case yours gets lost. Few Windows users would trust their
> computer's contents to Microsoft. And most are not so tech-illiterate
> that they'd need to.

Take a quick poll of people you know.

Ask them how they do backups.

I know that basically every client I've ever gotten except for a very
small percentage didn't do backups of any kind.

Is backing up to Apple's iCloud service perfect? No.

Is it much better than not doing any backups at all?

Do I even need to answer that one?

And how is that about PRIVACY. Apple's iCloud backups are encrypted.

>
>    I think this is difficult for Mac devotees to understand. They think
> they're in a club or on a team, opposed to Windows users. People on
> Windows don't think that way. It's just a computer, like a Ford Focus is
> just a car.

I use both and have for more than 30 years. I know they're both just tools.

>
>   Though to be fair, in my experience at least 90% of all people
> don't much care about privacy if it requires any effort. Apple
> fans are just a bit more ninny-headed about it. Part of the reason
> they use Apple devices is so that they won't have to think. (Most
> of the people I know who switched to Macs did it for one reason:
> They believed Macs were immune to malware, so they wouldn't
> have to think about it. Essentially, Mac is today's AOL.)

No, today the Mac is so reliable that all my tech support work is for my
Windows customers.

On 9/23/2024 6:55 PM, Alan wrote:

> They may believe Apple's claims about privacy, but that doesn't mean
> they don't care.
>
It's the same thing. Most people take an ostrich approach.
They care about privacy only if it requires no effort. They trust
Apple for the same reason. There's plenty of info about how
sleazy Apple is, but people don't want to know.

> And how is that about PRIVACY. Apple's iCloud backups are encrypted.

It's about privacy like Google Docs is about privacy. Once it's
on the cloud they have legal rights to it. And the default setting for
iCloud encryption is that they handle it for you, so that you don't
have to be responsible.

> No, today the Mac is so reliable that all my tech support work is for my
> Windows customers.
>

No argument there. It's the modern day AOL. They take care of
the details for you. They also have a closed system. They make the
hardware. They control the software. So it's far more stable than
the Windows "eco-system". Microsoft are selling an operating system.
Apple are selling devices. If someone with money to burn and no interest
in tech asked me for advice, I'd probably recommend Apple products...
But I certainly wouldn't recommend them for privacy. It's a walled garden.
Anyone who uses cloud, corporate webmail, online rental software,
on any computer, doesn't seriously care about privacy.

On 2024-09-23 16:52, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 9/23/2024 6:55 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>> They may believe Apple's claims about privacy, but that doesn't mean
>> they don't care.
>>
>   It's the same thing. Most people take an ostrich approach.

No. It's not the same at all, and it's not an "ostrich approach".

> They care about privacy only if it requires no effort. They trust
> Apple for the same reason. There's plenty of info about how
> sleazy Apple is, but people don't want to know.
>

Sleazy with people's data and/or privacy?

Produce one.

>> And how is that about PRIVACY. Apple's iCloud backups are encrypted.
>
>  It's about privacy like Google Docs is about privacy. Once it's
> on the cloud they have legal rights to it. And the default setting for
> iCloud encryption is that they handle it for you, so that you don't
> have to be responsible.

Really? You can produce the passage from Apple's terms and conditions
that supports that, can you?

>
>> No, today the Mac is so reliable that all my tech support work is for
>> my Windows customers.
>>
>
>   No argument there. It's the modern day AOL. They take care of
> the details for you. They also have a closed system. They make the
> hardware. They control the software. So it's far more stable than
> the Windows "eco-system". Microsoft are selling an operating system.
> Apple are selling devices. If someone with money to burn and no interest
> in tech asked me for advice, I'd probably recommend Apple products...
> But I certainly wouldn't recommend them for privacy. It's a walled garden.
> Anyone who uses cloud, corporate webmail, online rental software,
> on any computer, doesn't seriously care about privacy.
Compared to Windows, what privacy do you sacrifice?

On 2024-09-23 22:17:42 +0000, Newyana2 said:
> On 9/23/2024 4:58 PM, Alan wrote:
>>
>> In what manner to Apple users care less about privacy than Windows users?
>
> Apple babies their customers and tells them what they want. Their
> customers, in turn, trust them, despite having no reason for
> doing so. (Apple runs their own ad business, after all.)
>
> A good example is the "feature" to back up an iPhone online just
> in case yours gets lost. Few Windows users would trust their
> computer's contents to Microsoft.

Comparing Apples and lemons doesn't really work. Very few phones run
Microsoft Windows. :-p Most non-Apple phones run Android, and they do
backup to servers at Google and/or the manufacturer if you want it to.

> And most are not so tech-illiterate that they'd need to.

The vast majority of people using any device are "tech-illiterate".
They do the basics, leave most settings on the defaults, and simply use
their device without wanting or needing all the geeky gimmickry.

It's only the geeks and nerds around the Usenet Newsgroups that believe
everybody does the same as them and their five geeky friends. :-\

Those of us doing tech support in the real world know better. And as
someone else said, most tech support is for Windows and Android,
because Apple stuff "simply works" most of the time.

> I think this is difficult for Mac devotees to understand. They think
> they're in a club or on a team, opposed to Windows users. People on
> Windows don't think that way. It's just a computer, like a Ford Focus is
> just a car.
>
> Though to be fair, in my experience at least 90% of all people
> don't much care about privacy if it requires any effort. Apple
> fans are just a bit more ninny-headed about it. Part of the reason
> they use Apple devices is so that they won't have to think. (Most
> of the people I know who switched to Macs did it for one reason:
> They believed Macs were immune to malware, so they wouldn't
> have to think about it. Essentially, Mac is today's AOL.)

There are numerous reason people use Apple devices. The fact that there
is basically no malware (despite what the scaremongering anti-malware
makers and anti-Apple trolls love to report) is only one of them.

On 9/23/24 8:24 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-09-23 16:52, Newyana2 wrote:
>> ...
>>   It's about privacy like Google Docs is about privacy. Once it's
>> on the cloud they have legal rights to it. And the default setting for
>> iCloud encryption is that they handle it for you, so that you don't
>> have to be responsible.
>
> Really? You can produce the passage from Apple's terms and conditions
> that supports that, can you?

I'd like to see that claim substantiated too.

For it sounds to me like what Newyana2 is suggesting is effectively:
"Google does this, so everyone else has to be doing the same thing too."

-hh

On 9/23/2024 9:00 PM, -hh wrote:

>>>   It's about privacy like Google Docs is about privacy. Once it's
>>> on the cloud they have legal rights to it. And the default setting for
>>> iCloud encryption is that they handle it for you, so that you don't
>>> have to be responsible.
>>
>> Really? You can produce the passage from Apple's terms and conditions
>> that supports that, can you?
>
>
> I'd like to see that claim substantiated too.
>

The two of you demonstrate my point, trying hard to find
excuses to not know the facts.

"Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.
Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in
Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and
only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."

Translation: Apple have your data.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651

> For it sounds to me like what Newyana2 is suggesting is effectively:
> "Google does this, so everyone else has to be doing the same thing too."
>
Apple is as bad as Google, but that wasn't my point. The point was
that any cloud is giving up rights to your data, whether that's Apple,
Google, MSO 365, Adobe rentals, gmail, etc.

In that you demonstrate my other point -- that Apple devotees
think they're in competition. No one's competing with you. No one cares
that you love Macs.

It's simply a fact that all of these companies are generally exploitive.
Apple is not a fairy tale company that's somehow above the fray. They
exploit virtual slave labor, run an ad business, lie about privacy...
They were
fined just last year in France for spying on iPhones. The info is out there.
It's up to you whether you want to know.

On 9/23/24 10:31 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 9/23/2024 9:00 PM, -hh wrote:
>
>>>>  It's about privacy like Google Docs is about privacy. Once it's
>>>> on the cloud they have legal rights to it. And the default setting for
>>>> iCloud encryption is that they handle it for you, so that you don't
>>>> have to be responsible.
>>>
>>> Really? You can produce the passage from Apple's terms and conditions
>>> that supports that, can you?
>>
>>
>> I'd like to see that claim substantiated too.
>>
>
> The two of you demonstrate my point, trying hard to find
> excuses to not know the facts.
>
> "Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.
> Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in
> Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and
> only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."
>
> Translation: Apple have your data.
>
> https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651

Except that it wasn't in contention that Apple has one's data.

What was in contention was your claim that Apple is like Google, in
claiming unlimited legal rights to it (e.g. "we can do whatever we damn
well please with your data").

Now the above language doesn't say that for Apple so please try again to
substantiate your assertion that Apple is free to do whatever they want.

FYI, the above Apple language says that their use is functionally
restricted to just helping the customer in data recovery.

>> For it sounds to me like what Newyana2 is suggesting is effectively:
>> "Google does this, so everyone else has to be doing the same thing too."
>
> Apple is as bad as Google, but that wasn't my point. The point was
> that any cloud is giving up rights to your data, whether that's Apple,
> Google, MSO 365, Adobe rentals, gmail, etc.

Depends entirely on the contract, and your claim that one has given up
significant rights to Apple for their services remains unsubstantiated:

the above Apple language functionally says that they've taken on the
obligation of encrypting it, and that their use rights are to help the
customer for data recovery. If they're asserting other use rights as
you've suggested, they're not listed here ... so where are these listed?
Cite, please.

-hh

On 9/24/2024 9:13 AM, -hh wrote:

>> "Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.
>> Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in
>> Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and
>> only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."
>>
>> Translation: Apple have your data.
>>
>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
>
>
> Except that it wasn't in contention that Apple has one's data.
>

Actually this started with me using the example of online iPhone
backup as an example of how people trust Apple and don't care
about their privacy. Alan then said the data is encrypted. This
blurb and link are simply to show that Apple does, indeed, have
access to the data by default.

> What was in contention was your claim that Apple is like Google, in
> claiming unlimited legal rights to it  (e.g. "we can do whatever we damn
> well please with your data").
>

They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent. There have
been cases where courts demanded all email from a gmail customer,
for example. But they don't demand it from the person. They demand
it from Google. For you to put your files on their server gives them a
degree of legal co-ownership. It's similar with Microsoft's online
data storage or Adobe's Photoshop rental. You data is no longer
completely yours once you let them hold it.

Of course, Google claims the right to rifle through your email.
Interestingly, attempts by non-gmailers to sue them over that have
failed. Google's basic argument is, "Hey, everyone knows we're sleazeballs.
Anyone writing an email to a gmail account can reasonably be expected
to know that we're going to treat it as our property." And Google won!
I suppose it comes down to the idea that "possession is 9/10ths of
ownership". It's also convenient for governments. Law enforcement demands
that these companies hand over whatever they want. The companies
pretend to resist. But in the end, only the customer has an interest
in their own rights.

> Now the above language doesn't say that for Apple so please try again to
> substantiate your assertion that Apple is free to do whatever they want.
>

:) I'm not going to substantiate anything. You're clearly a
starry eyed AppleSeed who will argue all day, despite any
amount of evidence. For people who actually want to know
the facts, there's plenty of info online, starting with the fine
by the French gov't last year because Apple was spying on
iPhone users without permission, for the purpose of targetted
ads... But of course, you didn't look that one up. If I were
using Apple devices, trusting their intentions, and someone
told me they'd been caught spying, I'd want to know the facts.

It's not my intention to argue with you or try to convert you. I
only post these things because if it were me, I'd want people
to tell me. And this is a public forum where people might come
across this info. And some people are not ostriches.

On 2024-09-24 08:45, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 9/24/2024 9:13 AM, -hh wrote:
>
>>> "Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.
>>> Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in
>>> Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and
>>> only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."
>>>
>>> Translation: Apple have your data.
>>>
>>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
>>
>>
>> Except that it wasn't in contention that Apple has one's data.
>>
>
>   Actually this started with me using the example of online iPhone
> backup as an example of how people trust Apple and don't care
> about their privacy. Alan then said the data is encrypted. This
> blurb and link are simply to show that Apple does, indeed, have
> access to the data by default.

HAVING access is not the same thing as USING it.

>
>> What was in contention was your claim that Apple is like Google, in
>> claiming unlimited legal rights to it  (e.g. "we can do whatever we
>> damn well please with your data").
>>
>
>   They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent. There have
> been cases where courts demanded all email from a gmail customer,
> for example. But they don't demand it from the person. They demand
> it from Google. For you to put your files on their server gives them a
> degree of legal co-ownership. It's similar with Microsoft's online
> data storage or Adobe's Photoshop rental. You data is no longer
> completely yours once you let them hold it.

You are entirely wrong. Putting my files on someone else's server does
not grant them any sort of ownership of my data.

But you go ahead and cite the legal precedent.

>
>   Of course, Google claims the right to rifle through your email.
> Interestingly, attempts by non-gmailers to sue them over that have
> failed. Google's basic argument is, "Hey, everyone knows we're sleazeballs.
> Anyone writing an email to a gmail account can reasonably be expected
> to know that we're going to treat it as our property." And Google won!
> I suppose it comes down to the idea that "possession is 9/10ths of
> ownership". It's also convenient for governments. Law enforcement demands
> that these companies hand over whatever they want. The companies
> pretend to resist. But in the end, only the customer has an interest
> in their own rights.
>
>> Now the above language doesn't say that for Apple so please try again
>> to substantiate your assertion that Apple is free to do whatever they
>> want.
>>
>
>   :) I'm not going to substantiate anything. You're clearly a

Shocker!

> starry eyed AppleSeed who will argue all day, despite any
> amount of evidence. For people who actually want to know
> the facts, there's plenty of info online, starting with the fine
> by the French gov't last year because Apple was spying on
> iPhone users without permission, for the purpose of targetted
> ads... But of course, you didn't look that one up. If I were
> using Apple devices, trusting their intentions, and someone
> told me they'd been caught spying, I'd want to know the facts.
>
> It's not my intention to argue with you or try to convert you. I
> only post these things because if it were me, I'd want people
> to tell me. And this is a public forum where people might come
> across this info. And some people are not ostriches.

Yet you won't substantiate it for them either...

On 2024-09-24, Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 9/23/2024 9:00 PM, -hh wrote:
>
>>>>   It's about privacy like Google Docs is about privacy. Once it's
>>>> on the cloud they have legal rights to it. And the default setting for
>>>> iCloud encryption is that they handle it for you, so that you don't
>>>> have to be responsible.
>>>
>>> Really? You can produce the passage from Apple's terms and conditions
>>> that supports that, can you?
>>
>> I'd like to see that claim substantiated too.
>
> The two of you demonstrate my point, trying hard to find
> excuses to not know the facts.
>
> "Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.
> Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in
> Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and
> only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."
>
> Translation: Apple have your data.

Nice try, but that's not what you said. You said "they have legal rights
to it", which is complete bullshit.

>> For it sounds to me like what Newyana2 is suggesting is effectively:
>> "Google does this, so everyone else has to be doing the same thing too."
>>
> Apple is as bad as Google

Nope. No evidence of that.

--
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

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 9/23/2024 4:58 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>> In what manner to Apple users care less about privacy than Windows users?
>
> Apple babies their customers and tells them what they want. Their
> customers, in turn, trust them, despite having no reason for
> doing so. (Apple runs their own ad business, after all.)
>
> A good example is the "feature" to back up an iPhone online just
> in case yours gets lost. Few Windows users would trust their
> computer's contents to Microsoft. And most are not so tech-illiterate
> that they'd need to.

Why are you comparing a mobile platform with a desktop computer?

Most things on your phone are likely to be on the cloud somewhere anyway.
Saving a few extra settings makes little difference.

Comparing macOS with Windows would be more appropriate and you'd find
things to be more similar. Although, Time machine is so much easier to use
than any windows equivalent.

> I think this is difficult for Mac devotees to understand. They think
> they're in a club or on a team, opposed to Windows users.

That's just projection.

> People on
> Windows don't think that way. It's just a computer, like a Ford Focus is
> just a car.

Macs are simply an Audi compared to your Ford. Better equipped, more
powerful and more reliable.

> Though to be fair, in my experience at least 90% of all people
> don't much care about privacy if it requires any effort.

True.

> Apple
> fans are just a bit more ninny-headed about it. Part of the reason
> they use Apple devices is so that they won't have to think. (Most
> of the people I know who switched to Macs did it for one reason:
> They believed Macs were immune to malware, so they wouldn't
> have to think about it. Essentially, Mac is today's AOL.)

Most people I know use Macs for professional reasons.

On 2024-09-24 15:45:31 +0000, Newyana2 said:
> On 9/24/2024 9:13 AM, -hh wrote:
>
>>> "Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.
>>> Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in
>>> Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and
>>> only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."
>>>
>>> Translation: Apple have your data.
>>>
>>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
>>
>>
>> Except that it wasn't in contention that Apple has one's data.
>>
>
> Actually this started with me using the example of online iPhone
> backup as an example of how people trust Apple and don't care
> about their privacy. Alan then said the data is encrypted. This
> blurb and link are simply to show that Apple does, indeed, have
> access to the data by default.
>
>> What was in contention was your claim that Apple is like Google, in
>> claiming unlimited legal rights to it  (e.g. "we can do whatever we
>> damn well please with your data").
>>
>
> They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent. There have
> been cases where courts demanded all email from a gmail customer,
> for example. But they don't demand it from the person. They demand
> it from Google. For you to put your files on their server gives them a
> degree of legal co-ownership. It's similar with Microsoft's online
> data storage or Adobe's Photoshop rental. You data is no longer
> completely yours once you let them hold it.

And that's no different to decades ago when you filled out a form and
gave it to your insurance porvider, bank, doctor, etc., etc.

If you're one of the tin-foil hat wearing loonies, then the only way to
get real "privacy" is to live alone and completely self-sufficient in a
cave in the ass-end of nowhere, hundreds of miles from the nearest
other person, and not use any public utilities or services.

> Of course, Google claims the right to rifle through your email.
> Interestingly, attempts by non-gmailers to sue them over that have
> failed. Google's basic argument is, "Hey, everyone knows we're sleazeballs.
> Anyone writing an email to a gmail account can reasonably be expected
> to know that we're going to treat it as our property." And Google won!
> I suppose it comes down to the idea that "possession is 9/10ths of
> ownership". It's also convenient for governments. Law enforcement demands
> that these companies hand over whatever they want. The companies
> pretend to resist. But in the end, only the customer has an interest
> in their own rights.
>
>> Now the above language doesn't say that for Apple so please try again
>> to substantiate your assertion that Apple is free to do whatever they
>> want.
>>
>
> :) I'm not going to substantiate anything. You're clearly a
> starry eyed AppleSeed who will argue all day, despite any
> amount of evidence. For people who actually want to know
> the facts, there's plenty of info online, starting with the fine
> by the French gov't last year because Apple was spying on
> iPhone users without permission, for the purpose of targetted
> ads... But of course, you didn't look that one up. If I were
> using Apple devices, trusting their intentions, and someone
> told me they'd been caught spying, I'd want to know the facts.
>
> It's not my intention to argue with you or try to convert you. I
> only post these things because if it were me, I'd want people
> to tell me. And this is a public forum where people might come
> across this info. And some people are not ostriches.

On 9/24/2024 4:29 PM, Your Name wrote:

> If you're one of the tin-foil hat wearing loonies, then the only way to
> get real "privacy" is to live alone and completely self-sufficient in a
> cave in the ass-end of nowhere, hundreds of miles from the nearest other
> person, and not use any public utilities or services.
>

Well put. That's exactly the logic of the ostrich. "Gee, it's
impossible anyway, so why bother?" Then to really reassure
yourself you can decide that anyone who cares about privacy
is a tinfoil hat wearing loony who lives in the wilderness.

There is a grain of truth in that. I protect privacy. I don't
normally carry a cellphone. I block domains from Google and
trackers in my HOSTS file. But I also give up some convenience.
I'm not calling doordash to bring me a cup of coffee. I'm
not using Ubers. I'm not using Venmo because I'm not afraid
of cash. I don't get the BS discounts at Whole Foods that I could
get if I tell Bezos my shopping list. I know how to read a map,
so I don't need Waze. I don't use social media...

For the average cellphone addict these days, surveillance
and ads are inseparable from normal daily life. So to think of
someone not diddling a cellphone through-out the day probably
does feel like loony-land to you.

Interestingly, 2 of the 5 groups on this thread are privacy
groups.

On 2024-09-24 16:41, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 9/24/2024 4:29 PM, Your Name wrote:
>
>> If you're one of the tin-foil hat wearing loonies, then the only way
>> to get real "privacy" is to live alone and completely self-sufficient
>> in a cave in the ass-end of nowhere, hundreds of miles from the
>> nearest other person, and not use any public utilities or services.
>>
>
>   Well put. That's exactly the logic of the ostrich. "Gee, it's
> impossible anyway, so why bother?" Then to really reassure
> yourself you can decide that anyone who cares about privacy
> is a tinfoil hat wearing loony who lives in the wilderness.
>
>   There is a grain of truth in that. I protect privacy. I don't
> normally carry a cellphone. I block domains from Google and
> trackers in my HOSTS file. But I also give up some convenience.
> I'm not calling doordash to bring me a cup of coffee. I'm
> not using Ubers. I'm not using Venmo because I'm not afraid
> of cash. I don't get the BS discounts at Whole Foods that I could
> get if I tell Bezos my shopping list. I know how to read a map,
> so I don't need Waze. I don't use social media...
>
>    For the average cellphone addict these days, surveillance
> and ads are inseparable from normal daily life. So to think of
> someone not diddling a cellphone through-out the day probably
> does feel like loony-land to you.
>
>   Interestingly, 2 of the 5 groups on this thread are privacy
> groups.
>
>

Oh... ...I get it now!

You're a loon!

On 2024-09-24 23:41:45 +0000, Newyana2 said:
> On 9/24/2024 4:29 PM, Your Name wrote:
>
>> If you're one of the tin-foil hat wearing loonies, then the only way to
>> get real "privacy" is to live alone and completely self-sufficient in a
>> cave in the ass-end of nowhere, hundreds of miles from the nearest
>> other person, and not use any public utilities or services.
>
> Well put. That's exactly the logic of the ostrich. "Gee, it's
> impossible anyway, so why bother?" Then to really reassure
> yourself you can decide that anyone who cares about privacy
> is a tinfoil hat wearing loony who lives in the wilderness.

Another braindead moron meets the killfile. :-\

On 9/24/24 11:45 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 9/24/2024 9:13 AM, -hh wrote:
>
>>> "Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.
>>> Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in
>>> Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and
>>> only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."
>>>
>>> Translation: Apple have your data.
>>>
>>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
>>
>>
>> Except that it wasn't in contention that Apple has one's data.
>>
>
>   Actually this started with me using the example of online iPhone
> backup as an example of how people trust Apple and don't care
> about their privacy. Alan then said the data is encrypted. This
> blurb and link are simply to show that Apple does, indeed, have
> access to the data by default.
>

Access to .. an encrypted file without the encryption key:
what's the commercial value of that?

>> What was in contention was your claim that Apple is like Google, in
>> claiming unlimited legal rights to it  (e.g. "we can do whatever we
>> damn well please with your data").
>>
>
>   They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent.

Except that lawyers have been very astute in making sure that such uses
are clearly detailed in the ELUA agreement with the customer, so that if
it does go to court, they slam-dunk win. You've not provided the
substantiation of any such legal language being present.

> There have
> been cases where courts demanded all email from a gmail customer,
> for example. But they don't demand it from the person. They demand
> it from Google. For you to put your files on their server gives them a
> degree of legal co-ownership.

Once again:
Access is to .. an encrypted file without the encryption key.

> It's similar with Microsoft's online
> data storage or Adobe's Photoshop rental. You data is no longer
> completely yours once you let them hold it.

Do they only hold data encrypted so that they can't access it?
Because that's what's required for you to claim similarity.

>   Of course, Google claims the right to rifle through your email.

Whereas Apple does not, plus due to the encryption, they made it so that
they also cannot do so even if they wanted to.

> Interestingly, attempts by non-gmailers to sue them over that have
> failed. Google's basic argument is, "Hey, everyone knows we're sleazeballs.
> Anyone writing an email to a gmail account can reasonably be expected
> to know that we're going to treat it as our property." And Google won!
> I suppose it comes down to the idea that "possession is 9/10ths of
> ownership".

No, its because they wrote it in for themselves in their EULA, and the
customer agreed to those service terms.

> It's also convenient for governments. Law enforcement demands
> that these companies hand over whatever they want. The companies
> pretend to resist. But in the end, only the customer has an interest
> in their own rights.

There's inevitably multiple interests from multiple parties. Another one
that's cropped up in small players has been "we will never..." privacy
promise, but then when the company gets bought up by a
Microsoft/whoever, that prior promise disappears. IIRC, there's been
some instances where the buyer has gone on to sell that 'private'
customer data. The question here for customers is how to address this
as a risk factor; one potential approach is to limit service use to a
corporate entity that's large enough to make buyouts unlikely.

>> Now the above language doesn't say that for Apple so please try again
>> to substantiate your assertion that Apple is free to do whatever they
>> want.
>>
>
>   :) I'm not going to substantiate anything.

That was probable from the start; now that you've positively confirmed
that you're no better than a troll making baseless accusations, that's
all that the public needs to know about your utter lack of credibility.

-hh

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 9/24/2024 9:13 AM, -hh wrote:
>
>>> "Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.
>>> Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in
>>> Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and
>>> only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."
>>>
>>> Translation: Apple have your data.
>>>
>>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
>>
>>
>> Except that it wasn't in contention that Apple has one's data.
>>
>
> Actually this started with me using the example of online iPhone
> backup as an example of how people trust Apple and don't care
> about their privacy. Alan then said the data is encrypted. This
> blurb and link are simply to show that Apple does, indeed, have
> access to the data by default.
>
>> What was in contention was your claim that Apple is like Google, in
>> claiming unlimited legal rights to it  (e.g. "we can do whatever we damn
>> well please with your data").
>>
>
> They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent.

Only in the US. Fortunately in Europe we have data privacy laws that
actually mean something.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/22/tech/meta-facebook-data-privacy-eu-fine/index.html

> :) I'm not going to substantiate anything. You're clearly a
> starry eyed AppleSeed who will argue all day, despite any
> amount of evidence. For people who actually want to know
> the facts, there's plenty of info online, starting with the fine
> by the French gov't last year because Apple was spying on
> iPhone users without permission, for the purpose of targetted
> ads...

That was technical error about informing users appropriately; not that they
were caught spying. It was also historical and had already been corrected.

This sort of thing would never be litigated in the US as users' rights
don't really matter.

On 9/26/2024 5:33 AM, Chris wrote:

>> They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent.
>
> Only in the US. Fortunately in Europe we have data privacy laws that
> actually mean something.

Indeed. Civilized law serving the public is not on the horizon
in our plutocratic US system.

>> starting with the fine
>> by the French gov't last year because Apple was spying on
>> iPhone users without permission, for the purpose of targetted
>> ads...
>
> That was technical error about informing users appropriately; not that they
> were caught spying. It was also historical and had already been corrected.
>
"for illegally harvesting iPhone owners’ data for targeted ads without
proper consent."

Collecting data from iPhones is spyware. Consent implies that
people had a choice and could have said no....

What surprises me
more than the brazen tactics of these companies is the passivity of
the public in accepting that their computers, cellphones, cars, TVs,
doorbells and appliances are spying on them. It's turning into "Life as
a Service". (LaaS) A tech-addicted public no longer see themselves
as having rights. You imply that Apple has every right to rifle through
private data and that their only crime was in not filling out the proper
paperwork. This started out talking about Apple devotees not caring
about privacy. Well... :)

But it's not just Apple. Apple and Google are arguably the worst,
but MS are playing catch-up, turning Windows into a kiosk system
and introducing ads. It seems that MS are forever trying to figure out
how to fleece their customers as successfully as Apple, but they just
don't have the necessary charm.

I see Windows support questions like, "What's this icon on my taskbar
that showed up with the last update?" From people who have
already ceded control of their computer to Microsoft and passively
accept whatever MS forces on them. Yesterday I saw someone
trying to find PowerShell. It's on the Start Menu, but who can find
the Start Menu under all that crap? He had decided to use MS Search,
which basically puts Bing on the taskbar. He typed "shell" and it suggested
that he might want to look up Shelley Winters. At no point did this poor
soul ask himself: "What the hell am I doing using Bing to find a program
on Windows?!"

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 9/26/2024 5:33 AM, Chris wrote:
>
>>> They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent.
>>
>> Only in the US. Fortunately in Europe we have data privacy laws that
>> actually mean something.
>
> Indeed. Civilized law serving the public is not on the horizon
> in our plutocratic US system.

Exactly. You get what you voted for: small government. Which means less
oversight and more profits.

>>> starting with the fine
>>> by the French gov't last year because Apple was spying on
>>> iPhone users without permission, for the purpose of targetted
>>> ads...
>>
>> That was technical error about informing users appropriately; not that they
>> were caught spying. It was also historical and had already been corrected.
>>
> "for illegally harvesting iPhone owners’ data for targeted ads without
> proper consent."

A quote without a cite is not a quote.

> Collecting data from iPhones is spyware. Consent implies that
> people had a choice and could have said no....

They did. See the official source (note: no mention of spying):
https://www.cnil.fr/en/advertising-id-apple-distribution-international-fined-8-million-euros

It was simply a setting that was on by default when it should have been
off. And had been fixed in ios 15.

> You imply that Apple has every right to rifle through
> private data and that their only crime was in not filling out the proper
> paperwork.

No I don't. You're saying that. The evidence doesn't support your claims.

> It seems that MS are forever trying to figure out
> how to fleece their customers as successfully as Apple, but they just
> don't have the necessary charm.

No-one in tech can match Apple's ability to drive up profit margins ;)

On 2024-09-26 04:53, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 9/26/2024 5:33 AM, Chris wrote:
>
>>>    They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent.
>>
>> Only in the US. Fortunately in Europe we have data privacy laws that
>> actually mean something.
>
>   Indeed. Civilized law serving the public is not on the horizon
> in our plutocratic US system.
>
>>> starting with the fine
>>> by the French gov't last year because Apple was spying on
>>> iPhone users without permission, for the purpose of targetted
>>> ads...
>>
>> That was technical error about informing users appropriately; not that
>> they
>> were caught spying. It was also historical and had already been
>> corrected.
>>
>   "for illegally harvesting iPhone owners’ data for targeted ads without
> proper consent."

So that means your claim that Apple's terms and conditions ALLOW them to
use your data is false...

....right?

>
>   Collecting data from iPhones is spyware. Consent implies that
> people had a choice and could have said no....

They could have said no.

The default setting was set to allow collection accidentally.

On 9/24/2024 11:45 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 9/24/2024 9:13 AM, -hh wrote:
>
>>> "Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.
>>> Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in
>>> Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and
>>> only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."
>>>
>>> Translation: Apple have your data.
>>>
>>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
>>
>>
>> Except that it wasn't in contention that Apple has one's data.
>>
>
>   Actually this started with me using the example of online iPhone
> backup as an example of how people trust Apple and don't care
> about their privacy. Alan then said the data is encrypted. This
> blurb and link are simply to show that Apple does, indeed, have
> access to the data by default.
>
>> What was in contention was your claim that Apple is like Google, in
>> claiming unlimited legal rights to it  (e.g. "we can do whatever we
>> damn well please with your data").
>>
>
>   They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent. There have
> been cases where courts demanded all email from a gmail customer,
> for example. But they don't demand it from the person. They demand
> it from Google. For you to put your files on their server gives them a
> degree of legal co-ownership. It's similar with Microsoft's online
> data storage or Adobe's Photoshop rental. You data is no longer
> completely yours once you let them hold it.
>
>   Of course, Google claims the right to rifle through your email.
> Interestingly, attempts by non-gmailers to sue them over that have
> failed. Google's basic argument is, "Hey, everyone knows we're sleazeballs.
> Anyone writing an email to a gmail account can reasonably be expected
> to know that we're going to treat it as our property." And Google won!
> I suppose it comes down to the idea that "possession is 9/10ths of
> ownership". It's also convenient for governments. Law enforcement demands
> that these companies hand over whatever they want. The companies
> pretend to resist. But in the end, only the customer has an interest
> in their own rights.
>
>> Now the above language doesn't say that for Apple so please try again
>> to substantiate your assertion that Apple is free to do whatever they
>> want.
>>
>
>   :) I'm not going to substantiate anything. You're clearly a
> starry eyed AppleSeed who will argue all day, despite any
> amount of evidence. For people who actually want to know
> the facts, there's plenty of info online, starting with the fine
> by the French gov't last year because Apple was spying on
> iPhone users without permission, for the purpose of targetted
> ads... But of course, you didn't look that one up. If I were
> using Apple devices, trusting their intentions, and someone
> told me they'd been caught spying, I'd want to know the facts.
>
> It's not my intention to argue with you or try to convert you. I
> only post these things because if it were me, I'd want people
> to tell me. And this is a public forum where people might come
> across this info. And some people are not ostriches.

I seem to remember an instance from some years back where a couple who
had shot up some folks were turned into mincemeat by law enforcement. An
iPhone of theirs survived the hail of bullets. Apple would not give the
cops the encryption key. Cops had to turn to a hacker to get into the phone.

On 2024-09-30 11:07, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 9/24/2024 11:45 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
>> On 9/24/2024 9:13 AM, -hh wrote:
>>
>>>> "Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.
>>>> Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in
>>>> Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and
>>>> only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."
>>>>
>>>> Translation: Apple have your data.
>>>>
>>>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that it wasn't in contention that Apple has one's data.
>>>
>>
>>    Actually this started with me using the example of online iPhone
>> backup as an example of how people trust Apple and don't care
>> about their privacy. Alan then said the data is encrypted. This
>> blurb and link are simply to show that Apple does, indeed, have
>> access to the data by default.
>>
>>> What was in contention was your claim that Apple is like Google, in
>>> claiming unlimited legal rights to it  (e.g. "we can do whatever we
>>> damn well please with your data").
>>>
>>
>>    They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent. There have
>> been cases where courts demanded all email from a gmail customer,
>> for example. But they don't demand it from the person. They demand
>> it from Google. For you to put your files on their server gives them a
>> degree of legal co-ownership. It's similar with Microsoft's online
>> data storage or Adobe's Photoshop rental. You data is no longer
>> completely yours once you let them hold it.
>>
>>    Of course, Google claims the right to rifle through your email.
>> Interestingly, attempts by non-gmailers to sue them over that have
>> failed. Google's basic argument is, "Hey, everyone knows we're
>> sleazeballs.
>> Anyone writing an email to a gmail account can reasonably be expected
>> to know that we're going to treat it as our property." And Google won!
>> I suppose it comes down to the idea that "possession is 9/10ths of
>> ownership". It's also convenient for governments. Law enforcement demands
>> that these companies hand over whatever they want. The companies
>> pretend to resist. But in the end, only the customer has an interest
>> in their own rights.
>>
>>> Now the above language doesn't say that for Apple so please try again
>>> to substantiate your assertion that Apple is free to do whatever they
>>> want.
>>>
>>
>>    :) I'm not going to substantiate anything. You're clearly a
>> starry eyed AppleSeed who will argue all day, despite any
>> amount of evidence. For people who actually want to know
>> the facts, there's plenty of info online, starting with the fine
>> by the French gov't last year because Apple was spying on
>> iPhone users without permission, for the purpose of targetted
>> ads... But of course, you didn't look that one up. If I were
>> using Apple devices, trusting their intentions, and someone
>> told me they'd been caught spying, I'd want to know the facts.
>>
>> It's not my intention to argue with you or try to convert you. I
>> only post these things because if it were me, I'd want people
>> to tell me. And this is a public forum where people might come
>> across this info. And some people are not ostriches.
>
> I seem to remember an instance from some years back where a couple who
> had shot up some folks were turned into mincemeat by law enforcement. An
> iPhone of theirs survived the hail of bullets. Apple would not give the
> cops the encryption key. Cops had to turn to a hacker to get into the
> phone.

Almost like they respected their customers' privacy...

On 2024-09-30 18:07:45 +0000, Tom Elam said:
> On 9/24/2024 11:45 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
>> On 9/24/2024 9:13 AM, -hh wrote:
>>
>>>> "Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.
>>>> Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in
>>>> Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and
>>>> only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."
>>>>
>>>> Translation: Apple have your data.
>>>>
>>>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that it wasn't in contention that Apple has one's data.
>>>
>>
>>   Actually this started with me using the example of online iPhone
>> backup as an example of how people trust Apple and don't care
>> about their privacy. Alan then said the data is encrypted. This
>> blurb and link are simply to show that Apple does, indeed, have
>> access to the data by default.
>>
>>> What was in contention was your claim that Apple is like Google, in
>>> claiming unlimited legal rights to it  (e.g. "we can do whatever we
>>> damn well please with your data").
>>>
>>
>>   They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent. There have
>> been cases where courts demanded all email from a gmail customer,
>> for example. But they don't demand it from the person. They demand
>> it from Google. For you to put your files on their server gives them a
>> degree of legal co-ownership. It's similar with Microsoft's online
>> data storage or Adobe's Photoshop rental. You data is no longer
>> completely yours once you let them hold it.
>>
>>   Of course, Google claims the right to rifle through your email.
>> Interestingly, attempts by non-gmailers to sue them over that have
>> failed. Google's basic argument is, "Hey, everyone knows we're sleazeballs.
>> Anyone writing an email to a gmail account can reasonably be expected
>> to know that we're going to treat it as our property." And Google won!
>> I suppose it comes down to the idea that "possession is 9/10ths of
>> ownership". It's also convenient for governments. Law enforcement demands
>> that these companies hand over whatever they want. The companies
>> pretend to resist. But in the end, only the customer has an interest
>> in their own rights.
>>
>>> Now the above language doesn't say that for Apple so please try again
>>> to substantiate your assertion that Apple is free to do whatever they
>>> want.
>>
>>   :) I'm not going to substantiate anything. You're clearly a
>> starry eyed AppleSeed who will argue all day, despite any
>> amount of evidence. For people who actually want to know
>> the facts, there's plenty of info online, starting with the fine
>> by the French gov't last year because Apple was spying on
>> iPhone users without permission, for the purpose of targetted
>> ads... But of course, you didn't look that one up. If I were
>> using Apple devices, trusting their intentions, and someone
>> told me they'd been caught spying, I'd want to know the facts.
>>
>> It's not my intention to argue with you or try to convert you. I
>> only post these things because if it were me, I'd want people
>> to tell me. And this is a public forum where people might come
>> across this info. And some people are not ostriches.
>
> I seem to remember an instance from some years back where a couple who
> had shot up some folks were turned into mincemeat by law enforcement.
> An iPhone of theirs survived the hail of bullets. Apple would not give
> the cops the encryption key. Cops had to turn to a hacker to get into
> the phone.

Apple can not give anyone access to someone else's device. Apple stores
the user's *public key* on their servers, but the user *private key* is
stored on the device itself. There's no way for Apple to access that
private key, even if they wanted to ... despite what the brainless
numbnut trolls and conspiracy nutters like "Newyana2" want to
idiotically believe.