Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
The study says no such thing.
I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
newsgroup" bit!
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
The study says no such thing.
I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
newsgroup" bit!
Blueshirt wrote:
Alan wrote:https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
The study says no such thing.
I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
newsgroup" bit!
My actual problem was the "academic survey" of just 15 people!
On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
The study says no such thing.
On 2024-04-06 13:23, Blueshirt wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
The study says no such thing.
I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
newsgroup" bit!
But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-06 13:23, Blueshirt wrote:https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
The study says no such thing.
I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
newsgroup" bit!
But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
commenting.
My comment was under the line...
It was fairly easy to understand the point I was making... but
of course, some people see Usenet as a battleground!
The comment you are objecting to is actually the sub-heading of
the article btw. (Which I didn't write!)
Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
------------------------------------------------------
Copied this post from another newsgroup as reading the article
brought up this gem...
"The authors also conducted a survey of Apple users and quizzed
them on whether they really understood how privacy options
worked on iOS and macOS, and what apps were doing with their
data."
Which all sounds fine. After all, a survey of Apple users seems
a fair way to conduct investigation... every study needs some
research behind it.
BUT, it carries on...
"While the survey was very small – it covered just 15
respondents – the results indicated that Apple's privacy
settings could be hard to navigate."
15 users! 15?! That's like conducting a survey among members of
your own family. How can anyone write a serious article on a
phone that has over a billion users worldwide based on a survey
of just fifteen people? Has journalism really become this bad?
Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!
On 2024-04-06 14:22, Blueshirt wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-06 13:23, Blueshirt wrote:https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
The study says no such thing.
I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
newsgroup" bit!
But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
commenting.
And that meant you CHOSE to do that.
My comment was under the line...
It was fairly easy to understand the point I was making... but
of course, some people see Usenet as a battleground!
The comment you are objecting to is actually the sub-heading of
the article btw. (Which I didn't write!)
But which you included above the points that YOU wanted to make.
How am I to decide that you didn't mean that to be of any importance?
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2024-04-06 16:10:53 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
------------------------------------------------------
Copied this post from another newsgroup as reading the article
brought up this gem...
"The authors also conducted a survey of Apple users and quizzed
them on whether they really understood how privacy options
worked on iOS and macOS, and what apps were doing with their
data."
Which all sounds fine. After all, a survey of Apple users seems
a fair way to conduct investigation... every study needs some
research behind it.
BUT, it carries on...
"While the survey was very small – it covered just 15
respondents – the results indicated that Apple's privacy
settings could be hard to navigate."
15 users! 15?! That's like conducting a survey among members of
your own family. How can anyone write a serious article on a
phone that has over a billion users worldwide based on a survey
of just fifteen people? Has journalism really become this bad?
Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!
Almost no surveys ever have a useful number of respondents, and always
use statistical manipulation and misleading wording to make fools
believe the results are meangful for "everyone". Add to that they they
also usually have intentionally directional questions, drop any
respndents that do not fit their requirements (i.e. whatever result the
person paying for the survey wants), and that some respondents simply
lie (intentionally or unintentionally), and you'll find that almost all
surveys are completely useless for anything in reality ... and in the
case of the reporting of medical studies, it can be extremely dangerous
- some people have died due to following the results of such studies
reported by the news media.
Has Apple ever done anything which you disapprove of? You’re worse than nospam ever was!
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-06 14:22, Blueshirt wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-06 13:23, Blueshirt wrote:https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
The study says no such thing.
I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
newsgroup" bit!
But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
commenting.
And that meant you CHOSE to do that.
My comment was under the line...
It was fairly easy to understand the point I was making... but
of course, some people see Usenet as a battleground!
The comment you are objecting to is actually the sub-heading of
the article btw. (Which I didn't write!)
But which you included above the points that YOU wanted to make.
How am I to decide that you didn't mean that to be of any importance?
Defending apple is the only thing of importance. It is the sole reason
for this newsgroup, as well as you very own life.
Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused
Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
------------------------------------------------------
Copied this post from another newsgroup as reading the article
brought up this gem...
"The authors also conducted a survey of Apple users and quizzed
them on whether they really understood how privacy options
worked on iOS and macOS, and what apps were doing with their
data."
Which all sounds fine. After all, a survey of Apple users seems
a fair way to conduct investigation... every study needs some
research behind it.
BUT, it carries on...
"While the survey was very small – it covered just 15
respondents – the results indicated that Apple's privacy
settings could be hard to navigate."
15 users! 15?! That's like conducting a survey among members of
your own family. How can anyone write a serious article on a
phone that has over a billion users worldwide based on a survey
of just fifteen people? Has journalism really become this bad?
Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!
On 2024-04-06 14:22, Blueshirt wrote:
Alan wrote:
But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
commenting.
And that meant you CHOSE to do that.
But which you included above the points that YOU wanted to
make.
How am I to decide that you didn't mean that to be of any
importance?
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Has journalism really become this bad?
Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!
This is the bigger question. Why did elreg feel the need to
push this small, qualitative study?
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-06 14:22, Blueshirt wrote:
Alan wrote:
But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
commenting.
And that meant you CHOSE to do that.
Well, I thought by saying "I copied this post" at the start
would have been plain enough.
But which you included above the points that YOU wanted to
make.
No, I copied THE... WHOLE... POST... for simplicity. What part
of that do you not understand?
How am I to decide that you didn't mean that to be of any
importance?
I'm sorry, if I had known English wasn't your first language and
you was a bit slow I would have spelled it out in more simpler
terms.
Somebody with better comprehension would have understood the
point I was making was about the academic survey of just 15
people. Nothing more!
I don't do agendas.
My apologies. I will try better next time.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 91:59:31 |
| Calls: | 6,697 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,232 |
| Messages: | 5,348,658 |