XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps, comp.sys.mac.system
XPost: comp.mobile.ipad
From: arlen@arlen.com
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 20:03:08 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
> IĒm not entirely sure Apple _can_ test every single bit of apps on their
> App Store. It would be prohibitive to the user in most cases.
Hi badgolferman,
First, I thank you for your advice about ignoring the closed-minded
individuals in favor of spending energy with open-minded ones.
I hope to use your advice moving forward.
In doing so, I will stick, as always to adult "facts" & "logic", where
facts are rarely in dispute with open-minded adult people, and where logic
is where the depth of an adult conversation lies, since people differ on
their interpretation of the future, and the past, based on any set of
facts.
(e.g., How many MacOS root flaws in a year is "too many")
An example of that is this case where Apple has a rule, but certain apps
purposefully flaunted that rule.
FACT:
o The facts are that the rule exists, and that the apps broke the rule, as
reported to Apple by TechCrunch.
o The logic is the harder part, which is the "why" they broke the rules,
and why Apple didn't _catch_ the break in the rules.
To your point that Apple can't catch _all_ the apps, while that may be
true, what does Techcrunch have by way of resources that Apple doesn't
have?
The logic tells me that Apple has way more vested interest, way more tools,
way more people, way more expertise, etc., than TechCrunch can _ever_ have.
Hence, while the facts are crystal clear, the logic is "up for grabs" by
adults who "can" easily differ.
If you ask me, the logic is crystal clear since I've studied Apple's
behavior for quite some time - but I do recognize the logic may be
different for other open-minded individuals - who either have different
data than I do - or who think differently.
In my point of view, I'd argue:
FACTS:
o The fact exists that Apple did NOT catch these privacy holes
o The fact appears to be that these privacy holes are _easy_ to catch
LOGIC:
o The logic is that TechCrunch had a vested interest in catching this
o The logic is that Apple did not attempt to catch these holes
Notice that I recognize that TechCrunch has a vested interest in making
news; but also notice that I assert the only way Apple didn't find these
security holes (just like with all the rest) is that Apple isn't even
LOOKING for them.
If we assume that to be a fact, we have a very troubling picture:
FACT: The security holes exist
LOGIC: They appear to be easily found
FACT: Apple didn't find them
LOGIC: That likely means Apple isn't even looking
FACT: TechCrunch, who can't possibly have Apple's resources, found them
LOGIC: If true, then that means Apple doesn't care to even LOOK for them
But wait...there's more (which is the troubling part):
FACT: Apple advertises like crazy that they care about protecting privacy
LOGIC: ....... ...... .... this is the problem ..... ,..... ....
Do you see the problem?
o It's a really big problem.
What Apple _says_ is not even close to what Apple _does_ is the only
possible logic that I can see.
Sure it can be a simple "mistake" but this isn't the first, second, third,
fourth, fifth, sixth, etc., time this has happend in just a couple of
years, so, it's a "pattern" and not an isolated mistake.
I think that an open-minded person only has two options:
LOGIC: Apple cares - but Apple sucks at testing for privacy, or,
LOGIC: Apple doesn't care - until it goes viral - and then Apple cares.
Either way, I can't think of any other option.
o Can you?
> I think they take it more seriously than other big name software companies
> such as Google and Facebook. They donĒt purposely install trackers or
> locators in their own software and when they discover one from an app
> provider they take care of it.
Hi badgolferman,
You bring up a good point containing facts & logic.
Being an open-minded adult, I completely comprehend your fact & logic.
I don't disagree in the least that Google spys and Apple doesn't.
Likewise with Facebook - who spies (but I don't use Facebook).
So if you had to _list_ them in order of who is worse for privacy,
clearly, any open-minded adult would rank them as follows:
1. Google is the worst for privacy
2. Facebook is likely a close second
3. Where Apple would be a very distant third.
We agree, I'm sure, since
o It's factual
o It's logical
We agree because we're open-minded adults.
o Open minded adults are funny that way.
HOWEVER ... I'm against "duplicity".
o The facts and logic of all my posts _prove_ that.
I can't stand duplicity
o You know I accuse the apologists of that all the time, right?
Let me repeat:
o I hate duplicitious entities.
You also know I care very much about my credibility, right?
o It's the OPPOSITE of duplicity.
Having said that, if I were to rank those same outfits for what they
ADVERTISE with respect to privacy, the order would be different.
1. Apple would come out, by far, as number 1, MARKETING PRIVACY.
This! Is where I fault Apple.
o Apple is all talk.
Just like Tim Cook said the trade in was "primarily" for the environment...
o Apple is all bullshit.
(Pardon my French.)
I'm against bullshit which is why you see me come down hard on people like
nospam, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Tim Streater, Alan Browne, et al.
They bullshit every second of every day of their lives.
o I've always wondered how they survive with all that bullshit
Me?
o I never bullshit.
So what I come down HARD on Apple for is their privacy bullshit.
FACT:
o It's clear that Apple ADVERTISES their privacy aspect
LOGIC:
o It's just as clear that Apple doesn't implement even the simplest of
tests for privacy leaks (check out the multiple mac root password flaws, as
just a set of common examples).
>
>> LOGIC:
>> o Why does this huge privacy hole even exist?
>
> Because some companies sneak it in their own software.
No no no...
The question is why doesn't Apple _test_ for this common trick?
FACT:
o The holes clearly exist & clearly Apple didn't find them.
LOGIC:
o Apple clearly doesn't test sufficiently for privacy.
FACT:
o Apple ADVERTISES LIKE CRAZY that they care about privacy.
LOGIC:
o Then why do all these privacy holes constantly exist?
>> o (Why doesn't Apple simply _test_ for such spyware before approval?)
>>
>
> My guess is that itĒs cost prohibitive, time prohibitive, and they have
> agreements in place with the app developers to not do such things.
Hi badgolferman,
Since you're an open-minded adult, I don't directly disagree that
FACT: These privacy holes exist & Apple doesn't catch them
LOGIC: It costs money for Apple to catch them (same as time)
LOGIC: It takes time for Apple to catch them (same as money)
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
