If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
In article , Mayayana
wrote: I was visiting with a neice today who does web design. She uses only Apple products, do you call her an apple seed too? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | Sounds like low expectations: "I love my new | car. There are minor glitches, like the fact that | it refuses to go anywhere without first visiting | the dealership for a salespitch, but aside from | that it's great!" ...."Well, I have to give them | personal information or it won't start. But aside | from that it's great!".... "Well, it took some time | to figure out how to remove the growing number | of ads showing up on the dashboard. | | what ads? i've yet to see a single ad in win10. I rest my case. It's the slow-boiling frog approach. You don't even notice. You probably won't see 1-minute videos for cars any time soon, but look at typical Start Menu and tiles: https://www.pcmag.com/article/351216...-in-windows-10 there are no ads in my start menu. i don't remember if there were any ads when i first installed win10, but if there were, they're long gone. You're probably at more risk i'm actually *less* at risk because unlike you, i understand how things work and know how to block what i don't want. as an Apple fan because you're used to a product that's designed to keep you in their private AOL-style shopping venue. nonsense. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
In article , Mayayana
wrote: The mega-corporate ad/tech companies' only interest in your privacy is for PR purposes. For instance, Tim Cook was happy to share iPhone data with the gov't. absolutely false. apple does not give out user information to anyone unless there is a legal warrant requiring them to do so. period. full stop. absent a warrant, nothing is shared. also, apple can only give out what's backed up on their servers. if a user doesn't use apple's servers for backups or storage, or if an app doesn't connect with apple at all, there's nothing for apple to give out. some data that's on apple's servers is encrypted with keys apple does not have, so even though apple might be able to give someone 'data' in response to a warrant, that data is still encrypted and neither apple nor the recipient will be able to do anything with it. ios devices are fully encrypted by default, and without the encryption keys, which apple also does not have nor can the keys be extracted from the device, all they'll get is encrypted data, and as above, not be able to do anything with it. that leaves brute forcing the encryption, which will take many billions of years to crack. He just had to refuse once they made it a public demand. exactly what he did two years ago, with the san bernardino shooting. For the gov't's part, making it a public demand in special cases gets their foot in the door. Who's going to protest breaking the encryption on a cellphone owned by a terrorist who killled dozens, or by a cannibal who eats little girls? apple. Once they publicly win cases like that they have a precedent. which is why apple fought the fbi, to *prevent* such a precedent. in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone, despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a claim that was clearly false. had it gone to trial, the precedent would have been *opposite* to what the fbi wanted, along with the fbi caught lying under oath, neither of which was a desirable outcome for the fbi, certainly not both. Companies like MS/Apple/Google/Facebook have no reason to care about that. They only care about whether you think they care and whether it might threaten your use of their product. google and facebook, yes, because their entire business model is monetizing users by selling ads. apple definitely not. apple makes their money selling hardware, software and services. they do *not* monetize users. microsoft is somewhere in the middle. for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products are your only option. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
On 11/26/2017 2:05 PM, nospam wrote:
snip ios devices are fully encrypted by default, and without the encryption keys, which apple also does not have nor can the keys be extracted from the device, all they'll get is encrypted data, and as above, not be able to do anything with it. that leaves brute forcing the encryption, which will take many billions of years to crack. There are those who unsuccessfully relied upon the same theory regarding the Enigma code; ‎Red code; JN-25; JN-39; JN-40, etc He just had to refuse once they made it a public demand. exactly what he did two years ago, with the san bernardino shooting. For the gov't's part, making it a public demand in special cases gets their foot in the door. Who's going to protest breaking the encryption on a cellphone owned by a terrorist who killled dozens, or by a cannibal who eats little girls? apple. Once they publicly win cases like that they have a precedent. which is why apple fought the fbi, to *prevent* such a precedent. in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone, despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a claim that was clearly false. So says someone with inside knowledge of the FBI's legal strategy. had it gone to trial, the precedent would have been *opposite* to what the fbi wanted, along with the fbi caught lying under oath, neither of which was a desirable outcome for the fbi, certainly not both. You must never have red this: (We all know you would never lie.) "Now that the FBI has found a successful alternative to Apple’s intervention, the All Writs Act doesn’t work, making the original request invalid. And of course, now that the FBI has Farook’s data, there is no case in the first place. The San Bernardino investigation will follow its course." https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/justice-department-drops-lawsuit-against-apple-over-iphone-unlocking-case/ Companies like MS/Apple/Google/Facebook have no reason to care about that. They only care about whether you think they care and whether it might threaten your use of their product. google and facebook, yes, because their entire business model is monetizing users by selling ads. apple definitely not. apple makes their money selling hardware, software and services. they do *not* monetize users. microsoft is somewhere in the middle. for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products are your only option. Nope -- PeterN |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
"PeterN" wrote
| in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing | they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone, | despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a | claim that was clearly false. | | So says someone with inside knowledge of the FBI's legal strategy. | There are some different angles on it: https://www.thedailybeast.com/apple-...0-times-before I wouldn't be surprised if Apple agreed to do it under the table. I also wouldn't be surprised if the Feds's Israeli Stuxnet partner did actually crack it. In any case, it's not over. The Feds will keep coming back whenever they think there's a case that will give them public support. Maybe they'll need a terrorist who *also* eats babies for the next test case. Whatever it is, I'm sure they'll make a public scene once they have a good test case. The problem for the public is that both gov't and tech companies have a common vested interest in the public having no rights when it comes to the Internet and devices. They also both have a vested interest in making you believe that you can trust them to be generally honest and decent. They want to spy and they don't want you to know. Not a good scenario for us. And not a scenario that makes trust a rational option. | for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products | are your only option. | | Nope Indeed. What's the difference between Apple and Google? Google spies on everything and sells it to advertisers. Apple spies on everything and then use it themselves while shouting about how much they respect their customers. Google want to own you. Apple think they do own you. And they both ship data to the NSA through PRISM. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
In article , PeterN
wrote: ios devices are fully encrypted by default, and without the encryption keys, which apple also does not have nor can the keys be extracted from the device, all they'll get is encrypted data, and as above, not be able to do anything with it. that leaves brute forcing the encryption, which will take many billions of years to crack. There are those who unsuccessfully relied upon the same theory regarding the Enigma code; ?Red code; JN-25; JN-39; JN-40, etc you clearly have very little understanding of modern encryption or how ios devices work. He just had to refuse once they made it a public demand. exactly what he did two years ago, with the san bernardino shooting. For the gov't's part, making it a public demand in special cases gets their foot in the door. Who's going to protest breaking the encryption on a cellphone owned by a terrorist who killled dozens, or by a cannibal who eats little girls? apple. Once they publicly win cases like that they have a precedent. which is why apple fought the fbi, to *prevent* such a precedent. in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone, despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a claim that was clearly false. So says someone with inside knowledge of the FBI's legal strategy. i read apple's and the fbi's briefs and responses as well as numerous amicus briefs, watched the entire congressional testimony, where the fbi made *numerous* false statements (all under oath), listened and watched numerous podcasts discussing the case, including podcasts hosted by attorneys, as well as having a very solid understanding of ios device security and encryption and how the fbi actually got into the phone (via a third party) using a well known technique which the fbi should have known about. the fact that they did not means their either incompetent or lying (or both), none of which is good. what knowledge do you bring to the table? (hint: none). had it gone to trial, the precedent would have been *opposite* to what the fbi wanted, along with the fbi caught lying under oath, neither of which was a desirable outcome for the fbi, certainly not both. You must never have red this: (We all know you would never lie.) i did 'red' it, but unlike you, i understood it, along with quite a bit more that's going on. "Now that the FBI has found a successful alternative to Apple¹s intervention, the All Writs Act doesn¹t work, making the original request invalid. And of course, now that the FBI has Farook¹s data, there is no case in the first place. The San Bernardino investigation will follow its course." https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/ju...uit-against-ap ple-over-iphone-unlocking-case/ that doesn't contradict what i've said. in fact, it confirms *exactly* what i said. you're desperately trying to argue and failing rather hard. in other words, you haven't any clue. Companies like MS/Apple/Google/Facebook have no reason to care about that. They only care about whether you think they care and whether it might threaten your use of their product. google and facebook, yes, because their entire business model is monetizing users by selling ads. apple definitely not. apple makes their money selling hardware, software and services. they do *not* monetize users. microsoft is somewhere in the middle. for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products are your only option. Nope there is nothing 'nope' about what i said. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing | they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone, | despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a | claim that was clearly false. | | So says someone with inside knowledge of the FBI's legal strategy. There are some different angles on it: https://www.thedailybeast.com/apple-...s-70-times-bef ore that article is misleading. apple could unlock older ios devices, which were not as secure as newer ones. ios security has evolved and continues to evolve. it is no longer possible for apple (or anyone else) to unlock an iphone without the correct passcode, unless they get *very* *very* lucky. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple agreed to do it under the table. they absolutely did not, nor would they even consider such a thing. I also wouldn't be surprised if the Feds's Israeli Stuxnet partner did actually crack it. the company is believed to be cellebrite, who used a well known exploit, one that the fbi *should* have known about without even needing to hire a third party company, one which the fbi should have been able to do on their own with readily available equipment. the fbi clearly did not 'try everything'. they simply latched onto the case to attempt to set a precedent and it backfired big time. In any case, it's not over. The Feds will keep coming back whenever they think there's a case that will give them public support. they can try all they want, but that doesn't mean they'll prevail. Maybe they'll need a terrorist who *also* eats babies for the next test case. Whatever it is, I'm sure they'll make a public scene once they have a good test case. that's exactly what they're waiting for. that doesn't mean it will work. The problem for the public is that both gov't and tech companies have a common vested interest in the public having no rights when it comes to the Internet and devices. They also both have a vested interest in making you believe that you can trust them to be generally honest and decent. They want to spy and they don't want you to know. Not a good scenario for us. And not a scenario that makes trust a rational option. some tech companies. not all of them. apple goes well out of their way to *not* collect user data, which means they *can't* share it because they *don't* *have* *it*. simple example; scene recognition with google photos and apple photos with google photos, the user uploads images to google, which does scene recognition on google's very powerful servers. that also lets google collect all sorts of data about users, including locations where the photos were taken, face recognition and identification of people in the photos, any pets and what kind, etc. it's a gold mine of data. with apple photos, it's the *opposite*. scene recognition is done entirely *on* *the* *device* itself. nothing is sent to apple and there is no data for apple to collect. another example: apple maps. when a user requests a route in apple maps, it's split into two halves and they are processed separately, using a randomly generated session id that is *not* tied to the user. anyone at apple who is working on routing algorithms can't see entire routes. furthermore, the precise origin and destination locations are fuzzed so that identification by street address cannot be done. | for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products | are your only option. | | Nope Indeed. What's the difference between Apple and Google? apple makes money by selling hardware, software and services. google makes money by selling ads. the *user* is the product. Google spies on everything and sells it to advertisers. other than calling it spying (it's not), that is true. google collects and sells data. Apple spies on everything and then use it themselves while shouting about how much they respect their customers. absolutely false. apple does not spy on anything. they do not collect user data and do not share anything they might have that users have provided. Google want to own you. Apple think they do own you. And they both ship data to the NSA through PRISM. prism is something else entirely, and since apple uses end to end encryption, there's not a lot that the nsa is going to get. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
On 11/26/2017 10:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: ios devices are fully encrypted by default, and without the encryption keys, which apple also does not have nor can the keys be extracted from the device, all they'll get is encrypted data, and as above, not be able to do anything with it. that leaves brute forcing the encryption, which will take many billions of years to crack. There are those who unsuccessfully relied upon the same theory regarding the Enigma code; ?Red code; JN-25; JN-39; JN-40, etc you clearly have very little understanding of modern encryption or how ios devices work. He just had to refuse once they made it a public demand. exactly what he did two years ago, with the san bernardino shooting. For the gov't's part, making it a public demand in special cases gets their foot in the door. Who's going to protest breaking the encryption on a cellphone owned by a terrorist who killled dozens, or by a cannibal who eats little girls? apple. Once they publicly win cases like that they have a precedent. which is why apple fought the fbi, to *prevent* such a precedent. in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone, despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a claim that was clearly false. So says someone with inside knowledge of the FBI's legal strategy. i read apple's and the fbi's briefs and responses as well as numerous amicus briefs, watched the entire congressional testimony, where the fbi made *numerous* false statements (all under oath), listened and watched numerous podcasts discussing the case, including podcasts hosted by attorneys, as well as having a very solid understanding of ios device security and encryption and how the fbi actually got into the phone (via a third party) using a well known technique which the fbi should have known about. the fact that they did not means their either incompetent or lying (or both), none of which is good. what knowledge do you bring to the table? (hint: none). had it gone to trial, the precedent would have been *opposite* to what the fbi wanted, along with the fbi caught lying under oath, neither of which was a desirable outcome for the fbi, certainly not both. You must never have red this: (We all know you would never lie.) i did 'red' it, but unlike you, i understood it, along with quite a bit more that's going on. "Now that the FBI has found a successful alternative to Apple¹s intervention, the All Writs Act doesn¹t work, making the original request invalid. And of course, now that the FBI has Farook¹s data, there is no case in the first place. The San Bernardino investigation will follow its course." https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/ju...uit-against-ap ple-over-iphone-unlocking-case/ that doesn't contradict what i've said. in fact, it confirms *exactly* what i said. you're desperately trying to argue and failing rather hard. in other words, you haven't any clue. The extent of my knowledge of cipher is irrelevant to the fact that the iOS encryption was broken, and you won't admit being wrong. Companies like MS/Apple/Google/Facebook have no reason to care about that. They only care about whether you think they care and whether it might threaten your use of their product. google and facebook, yes, because their entire business model is monetizing users by selling ads. apple definitely not. apple makes their money selling hardware, software and services. they do *not* monetize users. microsoft is somewhere in the middle. for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products are your only option. Nope there is nothing 'nope' about what i said. The subject is Your claim about why the case was dropped. Your avoidance tactics do not change one iota that your claim is false. The Apple cipher was broken, the FBI had the unencrypted message. Therefore, the case was moot. -- PeterN |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
In article , PeterN
wrote: had it gone to trial, the precedent would have been *opposite* to what the fbi wanted, along with the fbi caught lying under oath, neither of which was a desirable outcome for the fbi, certainly not both. You must never have red this: (We all know you would never lie.) i did 'red' it, but unlike you, i understood it, along with quite a bit more that's going on. "Now that the FBI has found a successful alternative to Apple1s intervention, the All Writs Act doesn1t work, making the original request invalid. And of course, now that the FBI has Farook1s data, there is no case in the first place. The San Bernardino investigation will follow its course." https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/ju...wsuit-against- apple-over-iphone-unlocking-case/ that doesn't contradict what i've said. in fact, it confirms *exactly* what i said. you're desperately trying to argue and failing rather hard. in other words, you haven't any clue. The extent of my knowledge of cipher is irrelevant to the fact that the iOS encryption was broken, and you won't admit being wrong. it wasn't, and i'm not wrong. i know *far* more about ios security along with the details of this particular case than you do. what the fbi did was *guess* the correct 4 digit pin code by trying each of the 10,000 possibilities until they found the correct one. that is *very* different than cracking the actual encryption keys, something which, as i said, would have taken billions of years. the problem the fbi had was being able to do that without the phone locking up and potentially erasing itself. as you probably know (although others might not), ios devices only allow 10 failed guesses before locking up, disallowing *any* additional guesses, with increasing delays between guesses starting after the 5th failed attempt, extending to as long as 24 hours by the 10th attempt. this is intentional, so that guessing a passcode is not possible unless someone gets *very* lucky in the first several tries. further complicating things, is that each attempt at guessing the passcode *must* be manually be tapped in on the iphone's display. it is *not* possible to copy the encrypted contents and use a supercomputer to run through all 10,000 pin codes in a fraction of a second. it simply won't work. it is also *not* possible to copy the encrypted contents to other iphones, so that multiple people can work in parallel. the actual encryption key is unique per device, even if the same pin code is used on each of them. as it turns out, the iphone in question was an older iphone 5c, which lacks a secure enclave. that means it was possible to reset the failed attempt counter using a fairly well known technique, which uses additional hardware and partial disassembly of the phone. it is *not* simply writing a 0 to a specific spot in memory, nor is the pin code stored anywhere in memory to be extracted. in fact, this technique is so well known, that during the congressional testimony, one of the congressmen asked the fbi if that had been tried, which it obviously had not. in other words, the fbi stated under oath that they 'tried everything' and 'needed apple to unlock it' (thus the lawsuit), but then also under oath, stated that they had *not* tried a well known method, one which was *suggested* *by* *congress*, of all things. to say that the fbi's case was weak is an understatement. this technique will *not* work on newer iphones which have a secure enclave (5s & later), thereby preventing the counter from being reset. after 10 failed attempts, game over. that means with a recent iphone, the only option is brute forcing the actual encryption keys, something which will take billions of years. i can go into *far* more detail, but suffice it to say, you haven't *any* clue about how it all works, what was done to circumvent the counter or how the fbi perjured themselves multiple times. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10. Horrible!
On 11/27/2017 11:08 PM, nospam wrote:
Rant sniped I didn't realize you knew the extent of my knowledge. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Windows 10. Horrible! | philo | Digital Photography | 125 | November 20th 17 07:03 AM |
A HORRIBLE MISTAKE | Ed Conrad | Digital Photography | 2 | June 14th 07 06:32 PM |
A HORRIBLE MISTAKE. | Ed Conrad | Digital Photography | 3 | June 4th 07 12:55 PM |