1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.SYS.MAC.ADVOCACY

  • Re: Apple has won a class-action over Spectre and Meltdown security fla

    From Andy Burnelli@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Sat Jun 11 19:06:32 2022
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    Jolly Roger wrote:

    A US judge is dismissing a proposed class-action lawsuit that accuses
    Apple of defrauding customers based on breach of Apple's security &
    privacy claims.

    Which is good, because nobody was "defrauded".

    *What the judge ruled is that nobody should believe Apple's safety claims.*

    Fraud requires at least five and sometimes as many as eight tenets to be
    found valid (depending on the type of fraud and the local laws on fraud).

    However, three of those tenets are _always_ what was argued in this case:
    a. The entity committing fraud makes a claim of something (e.g., "safety")
    b. The entity being defrauded has reason to _believe_ that claim
    c. The entity being defrauded is _harmed_ by having believed that claim

    What the judge essentially said is that nobody should believe Apple.
    And the judge is right.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Andy Burnelli on Sat Jun 11 11:23:22 2022
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    On 2022-06-11 11:06 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
    Jolly Roger wrote:

    A US judge is dismissing a proposed class-action lawsuit that accuses
    Apple of defrauding customers based on breach of Apple's security &
    privacy claims.

    Which is good, because nobody was "defrauded".

    *What the judge ruled is that nobody should believe Apple's safety claims.*

    Really?

    Let's see the quote.


    Fraud requires at least five and sometimes as many as eight tenets to be found valid (depending on the type of fraud and the local laws on fraud).

    Cite, please!


    However, three of those tenets are _always_ what was argued in this case:
    a. The entity committing fraud makes a claim of something (e.g., "safety")
    b. The entity being defrauded has reason to _believe_ that claim
    c. The entity being defrauded is _harmed_ by having believed that claim

    What the judge essentially said is that nobody should believe Apple.
    And the judge is right.

    And what you've done is not provide any proof of your claims.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)