XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps, comp.sys.mac.system   
   XPost: comp.mobile.ipad   
   From: REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com   
      
   arlen holder  wrote:   
   > On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 20:03:08 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:   
   >   
   >> I¢m 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 don¢t 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...   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)